Jump to content

Longevity in the game


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2021 at 4:21 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Except I remove her log. After asking for other proof of find, or a description of the cache, which she has never managed to provide. So it does impact my caching experience. It's so much easier when everyone signs the log and this isn't necessary.

You're trying to skew the discussion. From the standpoint of a cacher deciding on which caches he or she wants to hit on a given day, the cheater in question makes no impact. To the cache owner, whose viewpoint you're trying to introduce to this discussion, yes, you might want to remove the cheater's Found Log.  But I'll say it again - whether someone cheated logging a cache, whether it's there or not, makes not one iota of difference to anyone else looking for the cache. 

 

And you're off on a tangent about those who mark caches that aren't there as found - what about the majority of cheaters, who mark active caches as found, without finding them? The only way to discover their cheating is to compare the cache log against the online log. 

 

Stop nit-picking and trying to argue, and go find an ammo can in the woods!

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

First, this isn't something that can be anecdotally dismissed because it hasn't personally affected you. In the same way, I personally have been affected by false find logs, so....

In what way have you personally been affected? If a cache has 37 Found logs and one of them is by a cheater who didn't actually find it, how did that affect you? If a cache has a dozen DNFs, including some by people with thousands of finds, and one person with three finds to their name logs it as Found, how does that affect you?

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

Second, I'm avoiding "cheating" because this happens both intentionally and unintentionally. And it has a very negative connotation where people can easily infer that this is a competitive game, which it isn't (even though cheating can be done against yourself).  Yes, false finds can and have been posted on listings which have not been found and are actually missing.

Again - so what? Did you see that there were multiple DNFs, no indication of owner maintenance, and one newbie claims to have found it? Then you knew what you were getting into when you chose to look for that cache.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

Third, a string of DNFs followed by a false find can reset the cache health score, which sets the CO at ease so they feel no urgency in coming out to check and/or fix their geocache, and again geocachers who - whether the false finder has many or few geocaches - may feel the cache is in fact findable when it is in fact not - but only the CO would know.

Is there any one of us who hasn't failed to find a cache that actually is there? You're acting like one Found log in the midst of several DNFs guarantees that it's there and is able to be found. I own a cache or two that are not considered appropriate for newbies, and I see DNFs on them. I don't run right out and check on it with every DNF. I intended the caches to be hard to find, and they are. As for resetting the cache health score - oh, come on! You're really grasping at straws trying to prove I"m wrong. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

Fourth, of course everyone can judge the situation themselves. I think most experienced geocachers take logs from accounts with very few finds with a grain of salt. That doesn't change the fact that false logs, especially finds, can mislead followup geocachers and the cache owners.  Whether it's "cheating" or not.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

And you're off on a tangent about those who mark caches that aren't there as found - what about the majority of cheaters, who mark active caches as found, without finding them? The only way to discover their cheating is to compare the cache log against the online log. 

Yes, that's what many COs do; compare the logs. It's the usual way to discover cheats. How else! They regularly check the condition on the cache and the log. It's called cache maintenance and it's part of being a good CO.

 

26 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

But I'll say it again - whether someone cheated logging a cache, whether it's there or not, makes not one iota of difference to anyone else looking for the cache. 

It can. The cache might be missing, but someone logging a false find leads people to believe the cache is still there and wastes their time looking. It might also falsely alter the cache health score, so the  DNFs are ignored.

 

26 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

You're trying to skew the discussion. From the standpoint of a cacher deciding on which caches he or she wants to hit on a given day, the cheater in question makes no impact.

It does, on the CO, and on other geocachers who turn up expecting to find the cache, as after all, the previous finder marked the cache as there, by logging a find. (Also on the cache health score.) This wastes the following geocachers time because it is missing. I'm not the one skewing the situation at all. A cheater does make an impact, although they possibly don't see it, or won't admit it.

 

And why your aggression in your replies to people?

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 4
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 6/12/2021 at 4:58 PM, barefootjeff said:

Interesting that you mention that, particularly in the context of this thread. ...

 

So I've learnt my lesson not to jump to conclusions based on someone's raw newbie status or even the incredible odds that they came along in the couple of hours of daylight after our group visit on that very day to a cache that gets so few finds.

 

"Taking with a grain of salt" doesn't mean assuming it's false. Not sure why you jumped to the extreme interpretation of my comment with your example, unless you were just demonstrating how you assumed something incorrectly.  I wouldn't have immediately thought that the log you describe was false just because of their few finds, but in similar situations to that here I do have a bit of healthy skepticism on reading a log with very few finds - which is not personal, just the effect of experience: not jumping to conclusions, just "taking with a grain of salt".  Likewise, just because someone has an inordinate number of finds doesn't automatically mean their log is 100% accurate. 

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

In what way have you personally been affected? If a cache has 37 Found logs and one of them is by a cheater who didn't actually find it, how did that affect you? If a cache has a dozen DNFs, including some by people with thousands of finds, and one person with three finds to their name logs it as Found, how does that affect you?

 

Any time the log history misleads about the state of a cache, it can affect decisions like "should I detour to visit that cache and find it?" That decision may absolutely be weighed by prior logs. If a cache that would otherwise seem to be missing is 'confirmed' with a find, that can change someone's decisions to use time and money they may not have otherwise. You're asking an extremely subjective question. The point is that incorrect logs can be misleading. To what degree, or to what effect will entirely depend on a value judgment by the geocacher.  Logs are not 100% innocuous. They present a community-sourced status. And cache owners use them to decide about how they maintain their geocaches. It's not always about "cheating", and it is a cache owner's responsibility to maintain the integrity of their listing. 

Our reviewers do crack down on cache owners who are known to allow finds on caches that are not findable; or show excessive allowance of proxy maintenance, rarely if ever maintaining their own caches.

 

4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Again - so what? Did you see that there were multiple DNFs, no indication of owner maintenance, and one newbie claims to have found it? Then you knew what you were getting into when you chose to look for that cache.

 

Why? It's as bad to "assume" the newbie's log is false as it would be to "assume" they actually did find it and it's available. The intended assumption - the intent - of the log history is provide an accurate list of activity on a geocache. The starting point should be that a Find log is accurate. It's up to the CO to ensure that's as true as possible; that's part of their responsibility as a cache owner. Obviously the vast majority of COs don't/can't live up to that ideal perfectly. And as cache finders we know there's always a chance that the recent history is not accurate. But that does not excuse people from posting false logs that can mislead geocachers and cache owners about the geocache's current state, in addition to having an effect on the cache health score which is intended to improve the ability for COs to maintain their caches.

 

A find log state: This geocache was confirmed and found, and is findable. A find log on a geocache where that's not the case is misleading, and can and does affect people's decisions about how to treat that geocache.

 

4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Is there any one of us who hasn't failed to find a cache that actually is there? You're acting like one Found log in the midst of several DNFs guarantees that it's there and is able to be found.

 

That's what the log implies. Of course we've all DNFd a cache that's there. But if I go for a cache even knowing the risk of a DNF, then can't find it, there are two possible reasons: It's there and I was outsmarted in my search, or it's not there and I never would have found it. In the latter case, it's absolutely reasonable for someone to be mad that their time/money was "wasted" if their decision to search was influenced by a find log that implied it was there.

 

 

ETA: Additionally, the more that false logs aren't removed, the more it perpetuates the notion that it's okay to "find" caches without signing, or even verifying that it's findable, let alone "finding" caches from the couch. Like I said earlier, whether or not you think false logs affect you directly, they absolutely do affect the community in the greater context.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

"Taking with a grain of salt" doesn't mean assuming it's false. Not sure why you jumped to the extreme interpretation of my comment with your example, unless you were just demonstrating how you assumed something incorrectly.  I wouldn't have immediately thought that the log you describe was false just because of their few finds, but in similar situations to that here I do have a bit of healthy skepticism on reading a log with very few finds - which is not personal, just the effect of experience: not jumping to conclusions, just "taking with a grain of salt".  Likewise, just because someone has an inordinate number of finds doesn't automatically mean their log is 100% accurate. 

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to jump to any extreme interpretation of your comment, just giving a very recent example of when a raw PM newbie who's never visited the website and only had one previous find under their belt actually did everything right on a reasonably challenging multi. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to send messages to newbies explaining how non-traditional cache types work, especially in the last couple of years when everyone seems to start off with a premium membership even before they've found their first cache. Either they've logged finds because they got to zero metres at the listed coordinates or log a DNF because there wasn't anything there.

 

When I was starting out, I found seven traditionals before plucking up the courage to try a multi and, as a well-trained engineer, made sure to read and absorb all the documentation about cache types on the website, as well as the description and previous logs on that cache, before venturing out. But that's not how most are introduced to the game now, instead a lot of them see caching as just a point-and-go phone app game, and with the official app discouraging them from looking at the description, I would have bet pounds to peanuts that there wasn't going to be a signature in the logbook when I went to check on the cache.

 

At the other extreme, perhaps, I had a couple of newbie logs on one of my traditionals over the long weekend. It's one I usually check on after a find as I'm fairly fussy about how I like it to be rehidden, and just as well I did. Not only was it poking out of its hiding place in plain sight, they'd also managed to break the zipper on the novelty container. I've just been out buying a new (and hopefully more robust) zipper and will take it off line shortly for some time in the workshop.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Likewise, just because someone has an inordinate number of finds doesn't automatically mean their log is 100% accurate.

Yep.... I've come along after a few 10-20,000 find cachers have on trails, and the lack of signatures in the log has been conspicuous....

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 6/15/2021 at 5:56 PM, lee737 said:

Yep.... I've come along after a few 10-20,000 find cachers have on trails, and the lack of signatures in the log has been conspicuous....

I have occasional noted the same thing. Not necessarily on trails; it might have been on an individual cache.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have occasional noted the same thing. Not necessarily on trails; it might have been on an individual cache.

It's only occasional for sure, the vast majority of the time I haven't checked the electronic log before, and even then would rarely pay attention anyway. Recently we did a trail, granted the 'finder' was only c.3000 finds, but they had logged every cache we found, and we didn't see one signature (12 caches across a 70 or so cache section in a large powertrail).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lee737 said:

It's only occasional for sure, the vast majority of the time I haven't checked the electronic log before, and even then would rarely pay attention anyway. Recently we did a trail, granted the 'finder' was only c.3000 finds, but they had logged every cache we found, and we didn't see one signature (12 caches across a 70 or so cache section in a large powertrail).

If I find that I sometimes photograph the log with my signature and previous signatures. I don't mention names of the cacher who didn't sign, but I have written that's it's interesting to compare the two logs, or I signed after such & such (the last signature), which makes it clear that the person who logged after them didn't sign.

However, some other people name names. Comments such as that now they know how that person has made so many finds. I've seen that.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 6/16/2021 at 7:28 AM, Goldenwattle said:

If I find that I sometimes photograph the log with my signature and previous signatures. I don't mention names of the cacher who didn't sign, but I have written that's it's interesting to compare the two logs, or I signed after such & such (the last signature), which makes it clear that the person who logged after them didn't sign.

 

Another annoyance on this level are people who sign anywhere and/or don't include a date. It makes determining who actually signed much more difficult because you can't just take a photo of the log as evidence of chronological order. You'd need to photograph every page, front and back, and even then the chronology isn't guaranteed. Part of me thinks people make use of this loophole, and the side effect is owners are less likely to feel that checking the logs is even going to be fruitful in anyway. *irk*

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Another annoyance on this level are people who sign anywhere and/or don't include a date. It makes determining who actually signed much more difficult because you can't just take a photo of the log as evidence of chronological order. You'd need to photograph every page, front and back, and even then the chronology isn't guaranteed. Part of me thinks people make use of this loophole, and the side effect is owners are less likely to feel that checking the logs is even going to be fruitful in anyway. *irk*

 

Allied with that is an increasing number of people, particularly newbies, who sign the logbook with a different name to what they use online. Often in the logbook is what appears to be their real name, as if they're taking "sign the logbook" literally in the same way they'd sign a cheque. Fortunately most of my caches get few finds so usually the dates match up, unless they get the date wrong or don't date their signature, but even then I can generally match something in the logbook with any online log I'm a bit dubious about. It'd be a different story on caches that regularly get multiple finds per day, though.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Another annoyance on this level are people who sign anywhere and/or don't include a date. It makes determining who actually signed much more difficult because you can't just take a photo of the log as evidence of chronological order. You'd need to photograph every page, front and back, and even then the chronology isn't guaranteed. Part of me thinks people make use of this loophole, and the side effect is owners are less likely to feel that checking the logs is even going to be fruitful in anyway. *irk*

I take that into account when I make a comment, and often scan the log looking elsewhere. Some logs though aren't that long (here anyway in Australia; perhaps because of a lower population), so it's not that hard to do that. After the initial lot of logs after a cache is published, anyway.

I too get annoyed with people who sign out of order. It's not so bad if they fill in a space on the last page, but bad if they go back several pages. It's also annoying when some people leave space, encouraging people to then sign out of order.

Link to comment
On 6/14/2021 at 9:07 AM, Goldenwattle said:

 

And why your aggression in your replies to people?

Because you're insisting that I do my geocaching according to your rules, not my rules. You're presenting your way of caching as the one and only "right" way to do it. You're insisting that my way is "wrong."

 

 

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

Because you're insisting that I do my geocaching according to your rules, not my rules. You're presenting your way of caching as the one and only "right" way to do it. You're insisting that my way is "wrong."

 

 

Scratching my head here :blink:. I can only think your comment means that you don't consider cache maintenance a high priority and that signing the log is optional! Otherwise I don't know what you are talking about.  They are not my rules by the way. What I did mention was basically thinking of other people and how an action can affect their enjoyment of the game, such as someone logging a find when they never found the cache, and it's actually missing, and so cause other people to think the cache is there, and waste time searching for a missing cache. Strange you have a problem with this consideration. This is part what I wrote re consideration, "It does, on the CO, and on other geocachers who turn up expecting to find the cache, as after all, the previous finder marked the cache as there, by logging a find. (Also on the cache health score.) This wastes the following geocachers time because it is missing. I'm not the one skewing the situation at all. A cheater does make an impact, although they possibly don't see it, or won't admit it." Consideration for those that follow and take notice of previous logs.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 5
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Could somebody please explain to me in small words what this discussion has to do with "Longevity in the game?"

It all started when I commented that if someone chose to sit in their living room and just log a hundred caches online as "found" that in no way affected my experience searching for caches. It ties to "longevity" when you also know I started caching in 2001 and have seen a lot of things happen, and a lot of things change, over the years. But "cheating" has been going on ever since people for whom caching is all about the numbers discovered Geocaching. Possibly even before that. There's no way to stop them. 

 

My apologies for allowing myself to be dragged off on a tangent.

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Ed_S said:

It all started when I commented that if someone chose to sit in their living room and just log a hundred caches online as "found" that in no way affected my experience searching for caches. It ties to "longevity" when you also know I started caching in 2001 and have seen a lot of things happen, and a lot of things change, over the years. But "cheating" has been going on ever since people for whom caching is all about the numbers discovered Geocaching. Possibly even before that. There's no way to stop them. 

 

My apologies for allowing myself to be dragged off on a tangent.

 

No apology required; I was just confused. If you will allow me to drag this back on topic:  I believe that an attitude that is overly concerned with "cheating" is not compatible with longevity in the activity.

 

It's not that I don't care about cheaters; I guard the logs for my old virtual caches pretty carefully. In fact, a clearly bad log by a disturbed individual who set up a bot to re-log if I deleted his log (and who HQ, for some inexplicable reason, refused to sanction) bothered me for a few months, but I successfully deleted when he lost interest.

 

But I have a choice:  I can get all upset over every deviation from how I cache, or I can just let those questionable practices go.  I choose the latter for the most part, although I have to admit that HQ has made Adventure Labs hard to ignore so they really annoy me.  I go out of my way to not make my caches power-trail friendly (I am happiest with caches that are only logged a few times a year) and interesting for people to do.  And I choose to do caches that I enjoy, because there are plenty out there for everybody.

 

My assertion is that unless you let some of this stuff go, you will not last.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 6/21/2021 at 4:08 PM, fizzymagic said:

  I believe that an attitude that is overly concerned with "cheating" is not compatible with longevity in the activity.

 

I agree, hence my assertion that whether someone else fakes a find has no bearing on my enjoyment of the activity.

 

On 6/21/2021 at 4:08 PM, fizzymagic said:

  I go out of my way to not make my caches power-trail friendly (I am happiest with caches that are only logged a few times a year) and interesting for people to do.  And I choose to do caches that I enjoy, because there are plenty out there for everybody.

 

You are a cacher after my own heart. Quality over quantity.

 

On 6/21/2021 at 4:08 PM, fizzymagic said:

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Ed_S said:

hence my assertion that whether someone else fakes a find has no bearing on my enjoyment of the activity.

 

Again, that's fine for you, but not necessarily for everyone. I have been affected by false logs on geocaches as have others. So who's experience is more important?  I really don't care if the owner of such a false log is actively "cheating" or not.  But it is a cache owner's responsibility to ensure the integrity of their listing. Even though not every single cache owner does it 100% perfectly. If that clause is dropped, then guaranteed the chaos on cache listings will increase and it will lose all value and meaning.

 

As a cache owner, you can choose to turn a blind eye to false logs if you want. In time, if you're known as a CO who lets false logs stand, reviewers will notice and you will be affected, such as by a ban on publishing new caches.  How do I know? Because that has happened in my region. And it's called shirking cache owner responsibilities.

 

It's not about "cheating" as you continue to insist, it's about integrity of the cache listing and log history. Sure, everyone can just ignore it and assume the listing has zero integrity and not rely on it at all so that they don't get affected by false logs, or can choose to trust past logs to some degree when they're out geocaching because it's implied that the log history is accurate. If the latter, then yes, false logs can and do affect people, even if not you. The argument isn't about self, it's about the integrity of the hobby for the community.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Again, that's fine for you, but not necessarily for everyone. I have been affected by false logs on geocaches as have others. So who's experience is more important?  I really don't care if the owner of such a false log is actively "cheating" or not.  But it is a cache owner's responsibility to ensure the integrity of their listing. Even though not every single cache owner does it 100% perfectly. If that clause is dropped, then guaranteed the chaos on cache listings will increase and it will lose all value and meaning.

 

In what way, exactly, have you been affected by someone falsely claiming a find on a cache? Did you go search for a cache that wasn't there because one Found log appeared after a dozen DNFs and no indication of Owner Maintenance? Even if you did that, isn't searching for caches what you planned to do anyway? 

 

Whose experience is more important? Please don't make this a "tinkling contest" - to me, MY experience is the most important. To you, YOURS is.

 

It's the cache owner's responsibility to "ensure the integrity of their listing" is it? Do you run right out after every single logging of all your caches, to make sure all online logs have a corresponding signature in the log book? Please.

 

Bottom line here - you cache your way, and I'll cache mine.

 

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

As a cache owner, you can choose to turn a blind eye to false logs if you want. In time, if you're known as a CO who lets false logs stand, reviewers will notice and you will be affected, such as by a ban on publishing new caches.  How do I know? Because that has happened in my region. And it's called shirking cache owner responsibilities.

 

It's not about "cheating" as you continue to insist, it's about integrity of the cache listing and log history. Sure, everyone can just ignore it and assume the listing has zero integrity and not rely on it at all so that they don't get affected by false logs, or can choose to trust past logs to some degree when they're out geocaching because it's implied that the log history is accurate. If the latter, then yes, false logs can and do affect people, even if not you. The argument isn't about self, it's about the integrity of the hobby for the community.

 

Blah blah blah, "Integrity of the cache" blah blah blah. When I started caching, approvers would question you if you wanted to hide a micro where they thought a larger cache might fit. They wouldn't let you place a cache under any roadway bridge.. They wouldn't let you create what they considered a power trail. Now, the new and improved caching experience allows micros - nanos even - in the woods where you could hide a city bus. They approve caches that are just a piece of litter tossed along a road, along with all the other litter there. Power trails are encouraged, so much so that they've been created by people simply tossing a 35mm film can out the car window every 528 feet. Those things affect how I cache. Someone claiming a find from their recliner doesn't affect me in the least.

 

Let me set the record straight here. I said what I said about a fake "Found" not affecting my caching day, from the standpoint of finding caches. NOT being a cache owner. I'll say it again - if someone claims a find from the comfort of their recliner in their living room, it has no bearing whatever on my caching experience. I'm still going to look for it, yes, even with a bunch of DNFs, if I think I might be able to find it. I have made such finds in the past, after the locals all DNFed the cache. Am I that good? That lucky? I'd go with lucky, but if it twists your tighty whities, then yes, I'm that good. I'm also done responding to attacks that are off on a tangent from what I actually said. This has been beaten to death. You're (the Royal You, not you personally) not going to make me change how I cache. Save your noise.

 

 

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

In what way, exactly, have you been affected by someone falsely claiming a find on a cache?

34 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

Blah blah blah

 

Seriously?

Yeah I don't think this is going to be productive based on your response.

 

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 4/15/2021 at 8:46 PM, barefootjeff said:

So I'm wondering how many other long-term players have found themselves in a similar position of depleting their local supply of caches and how their involvement in the game has changed to accommodate that.

I'm bringing forward the topic statement for this thread.  We've gotten a bit off-track with a side conversation among a small number of community members.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Keystone said:

So I'm wondering how many other long-term players have found themselves in a similar position of depleting their local supply of caches and how their involvement in the game has changed to accommodate that.

There's no problem where I live. Within 10 kms there are still 472 caches I haven't found, and caches still being published. Within 15 kms 967 caches.  (Found and unfound, there are more than 1,000 caches within 8 kms of me.) In the past I have travelled a lot and I have found that is a great way to find caches. Plus often the cache takes you to something you mightn't have discovered otherwise. I am 'tethered' at present because I am a carer, but one day I plan to go travelling again. All those caches to find, as I explore new places.

Link to comment
On 6/23/2021 at 12:21 PM, CachedIronSkillet said:

 

There are under 300 caches total within 10 miles of where I live.

Wow!  I guess there is an advantage to living near GC HQ - you need to move to a denser cache area! ;):D  I just looked it up, my nearest finds to you is just over 30 miles south by Schellsburg (1806 was a good year) and Stoystown (Caterpillar tracks), found in 2018 on our way to Gettysburg.

Link to comment
On 6/25/2021 at 10:10 AM, Keystone said:

I'm bringing forward the topic statement for this thread.  We've gotten a bit off-track with a side conversation among a small number of community members.

 

Good call, Keystone. 

 

 

  • Funny 5
Link to comment

Back on topic - I recently moved to Amarillo TX, and a 10-mile radius search yields 414 caches. The vast, overwhelming majority of them are urban micros. In other words, caches I don't enjoy doing. So I search out the cemetery caches, caches in parks, and so on, and even some of those on the outskirts of town, although they are generally similar to their urban cousins. To be fair, it's the high plains - there are no forests or areas where larger caches might be hidden. "Regular" and "Large" are rare. I'm looking forward to cooler weather, because the Palo Duro Canyon is close, and there are a couple hundred caches in that area, although again many/most are tiny.

 

Link to comment
On 4/16/2021 at 2:46 AM, barefootjeff said:

So I'm wondering how many other long-term players have found themselves in a similar position of depleting their local supply of caches and how their involvement in the game has changed to accommodate that.

The problem you are describing is one of the reasons that I suggest that revisiting caches should be a thing.

 

In my area, most caches that I havn't logged are either trivial and uninteresting (1.5/1.5 petling behind a sign), challenges that would take 2-3 years or more to complete (why are these even allowed?) or impossible mysteries. So in order to keep the hobby alive (especially now when we can't travel) I have been revisiting, with my own rules for what counts. And all caches either feel like new or are so good that they are worth revisiting anyway. Not to mention that good locations are always worth it.

 

So yes, I have found myself in your position and found a way to deal with it. But it is not an official thing.

 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

The problem you are describing is one of the reasons that I suggest that revisiting caches should be a thing.

 

Yes, revisiting previous finds is one way to stay involved in the game even if the ready supply of unfound caches is exhausted. I've been doing that a fair bit lately, such as last weekend when I joined a small group of caching friends in a day-long trek along Brokenback Range near Newcastle, visiting two high-terrain caches they hadn't found but I had. It was an enjoyable caching day even though those caches didn't increase my find count, and I wouldn't want them to since revisiting a previous find isn't finding something new. The good company of my caching friends and being able to share that experience through a WN log is reward enough for me.

 

18 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

challenges that would take 2-3 years or more to complete (why are these even allowed?)

 

The challenge cache I enjoyed the most was one that took me a year to complete (it required 24 finds with a D/T rating of 2/4), and there's another I've had half an eye on ever since it was published in 2015 but I'm still not even half way towards qualifying. It requires 40 finds each having the cliffs/falling rocks, scenic view and difficult climb attributes as well as being terrain 4 or higher, and for me it's almost the epitome of challenges. Sometimes the best things are those that take the longest time to achieve and where it's more about the journey than the destination.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The challenge cache I enjoyed the most was one that took me a year to complete (it required 24 finds with a D/T rating of 2/4), and there's another I've had half an eye on ever since it was published in 2015 but I'm still not even half way towards qualifying. It requires 40 finds each having the cliffs/falling rocks, scenic view and difficult climb attributes as well as being terrain 4 or higher, and for me it's almost the epitome of challenges. Sometimes the best things are those that take the longest time to achieve and where it's more about the journey than the destination.

Only one year. :)

 

The kinds that bother me are things like "full calendar" challenges and similar, not least with not so common types like multis. They take forever to fulfill and feel more like show-offs from the most experienced cachers than "challenges". Anyway, that was not what the thread was about, just a reason why I have trouble logging many new caches.

Link to comment

We have quite a few extreme challenges, but I've never seen them as "show off" challenges, though I know the COs and that's not their intent. The issue I have with extreme challenges is only that only a handful of cachers in the region may be able to log them even over a long period of time. Sometimes they get archived to be replaced by other caches (maybe even another challenge). But I see those as goals to work towards, even if long term. Heck I may still work towards that goal after such a cache gets archived. In my mind, if one person placed that challenge, chances are it also exists somewhere else, or will very soon. So if I qualify, it's another cache I'll be able to find right away. 

IMO, it'll only feel (to me) like "showing off" if I'm in a competitive frame of mind. I avoid that as much as possible to have the best time geocaching and achieving accomplishments.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

We have quite a few extreme challenges, but I've never seen them as "show off" challenges, though I know the COs and that's not their intent. The issue I have with extreme challenges is only that only a handful of cachers in the region may be able to log them even over a long period of time. Sometimes they get archived to be replaced by other caches (maybe even another challenge). But I see those as goals to work towards, even if long term. Heck I may still work towards that goal after such a cache gets archived. In my mind, if one person placed that challenge, chances are it also exists somewhere else, or will very soon. So if I qualify, it's another cache I'll be able to find right away. 

IMO, it'll only feel (to me) like "showing off" if I'm in a competitive frame of mind. I avoid that as much as possible to have the best time geocaching and achieving accomplishments.

Like I already said in another topic I am personnaly not a fan of the difficulty level of challenge caches in Ontario because even with almost 15K finds I don't qualify for a lot of them. For example I haven't found a cache in Portugal (I consider those kind of country specific challenge ''show off'') and I didn't found enough virtual on a Wednesday...

 

Back on topic :

 

I am lucky to live in a cache dense area with new caches appear from times to times. Also I moved twice in the past. But yeah I slowed down a bit now because those remaining are getting harder to get.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Like I already said in another topic I am personnaly not a fan of the difficulty level of challenge caches in Ontario because even with almost 15K finds I don't qualify for a lot of them. For example I haven't found a cache in Portugal (I consider those kind of country specific challenge ''show off'') and I didn't found enough virtual on a Wednesday...

Challenge difficulties will almost certainly be more relevant to the local region.

When I was in Nevada we came across some challenges and the "easy/bronze" requirement was something like 20,000 finds. Yeah, right.  But no, it may hard, but not "showing off". In Ontario our challenge are absolutely shaped around our local geocaching landscape, so quite a few are more "well rounded" statistically, because a lot of COs try to place caches that are fewer, more rare in the area.  We have many high terrain because of tree climbs and paddling series, and high difficulty because of the abundance of challenges. Other regions may have a high number of a certain type of experience that makes a challenge there "easy" compared to here, and on it goes.

 

We need to realize that localized geocaching communities are going to have very different makeups compared to other regions, and not compare our own directly with others. If anything, I'd see a hard (to me) challenge in some distant US state that would be easy there either as a real challenge to complete here, or something to look forward to completing more easily over there.

 

To be on topic:

I think challenges are a great way to boost the longevity in the hobby because it can encourage geocachers to travel, to get out of their comfort zone, to basically try new things where their usual geocaching habits have grown perhaps somewhat stale, or "cached out".

Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To be on topic:

I think challenges are a great way to boost the longevity in the hobby because it can encourage geocachers to travel, to get out of their comfort zone, to basically try new things where their usual geocaching habits have grown perhaps somewhat stale, or "cached out".

 

Yes, that was certainly the case for me during the year I was working towards that challenge requiring 24 finds with a 2/4 D/T rating. It took me to some pretty amazing caches, both locally and further afield, that I probably wouldn't have otherwise come across. Here's a montage of a few of those experiences:

 

DutchmansSternHighlights.jpg.8b8146f15be600b466f02bc6a0b114ba.jpg

 

So yes, working towards challenges like these is a good way to maintain an interest in the game once the pool of local caches has been exhausted. As I mentioned earlier, I have the Scenic Adventurer Challenge (GC5KEY1) in the back of my mind as something I'd like to gradually work towards. So far I have 15 qualifying finds from the 40 needed so still a long way to go, but once the COVID restrictions have eased a bit here I'd like to make a bit more of an effort towards that.

 

Speaking of which...

 

4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Like I already said in another topic I am personnaly not a fan of the difficulty level of challenge caches in Ontario because even with almost 15K finds I don't qualify for a lot of them.

 

I see that even from your 15k finds, you still only have 8 qualifying finds for the Scenic Adventurer. Not all challenge caches are for all cachers, but that doesn't make them bad.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Speaking of which...

 

 

I see that even from your 15k finds, you still only have 8 qualifying finds for the Scenic Adventurer. Not all challenge caches are for all cachers, but that doesn't make them bad.

Well this challenge is oddly specific requiring 3 Attributes and T4 or above. I am surprised I have that many at 8. Too bad my others 445 finds T4 or above doesn't count.

 

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To be on topic:

I think challenges are a great way to boost the longevity in the hobby because it can encourage geocachers to travel, to get out of their comfort zone, to basically try new things where their usual geocaching habits have grown perhaps somewhat stale, or "cached out".

Yeah my favorite challenge is the Nova Scotia Backroad Challenge GC2EXB0 that made me discover a bunch of place I wouldn't have if not for that challenge. Too bad Delorme Challenge are now banned....

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...