Micro vs Large Caches

[+GPADAN47]

I am interested in getting young geocachers started but often the easy terrain is used up by micro caches.

 

While micros are fun for experienced  geocachers due to the difficulty of the find, they lack the bling that young geocachers like.

 

The exclusion zone (.1 mile) is apparently the same for all types of caches.

 

But this often takes up much of the easy terrain, especially in county parks near here.

 

Perhaps the exclusion zone for micros should not include large caches, therefore both could exists in closer proximity, micros for the experienced geocachers and the large for the younger ones. This would not be a hard change for the IT folks.

 

Perhaps there are other more elegant solutions. Or perhaps this topics has been covered already.

 

I'd like to hear thoughts on this subject.

 

Thanks

[Keystone]

This is not a "Getting Started" question, so I moved your thread to a more appropriate forum section.

 

From a Reviewer's perspective, your proposal would give me nightmares.  We already see people doing all sorts of creative things to get around the 528 foot proximity rule.  Enabling them to simply choose "Large" as the cache size in order to skirt the rule just means that they can switch the size post-publication to achieve their "objective."

 

How do I enforce the special rule for "Large" size caches only?  These are fairly rare, by the way.  Do I require a photo and verification that the container size meets the minimum standards?  That will add time to the review process.  What happens if I say that a 50 cal ammo box is a "Regular," not a "Large?"

 

How do you know that this would "not be a hard change for the IT folks?"  Do you have insight into the Reviewer toolbox, and specifically the Litmus Test module?  It works great now, but it would be quite a change to the UI to call out "Large" size caches only, in addition to the underlying code for the exemption.

 

What is the shorter separation distance you're advocating for?  400 feet?  200?  In my experience, "Large" caches are either hidden way out in the woods, where muggles are less likely to come across them, or as gadget type caches at someone's residence where there is less likelihood of a cache saturation issue.  Micros out in the woods, where a Large might be hidden, tend to be frowned upon.  If micros in the woods are prevalent in your area, perhaps the better path might be to hide more non-micro caches in the woods and encourage others to do the same.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

In my experience, "Large" caches are either hidden way out in the woods, where muggles are less likely to come across them, or as gadget type caches at someone's residence where there is less likelihood of a cache saturation issue. 

This was my first thought when I read the proposal. Caches in easy terrain areas are smaller mainly because that's what survives. Small caches are hard enough to keep going in easy terrain areas. Regular caches are harder still. I wouldn't want to try to keep a large cache going in such a location.

 

Remember that the cache doesn't need to avoid being seen by muggles just when it is in its hiding spot. Geocachers need to be able to search for the cache, retrieve it, and replace it without attracting undue attention to it from muggles.

 

Caches in more remote areas are smaller mainly because that's all the CO wanted to schlep to a remote cache location, but that's a different thing.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Caches in more remote areas are smaller mainly because that's all the CO wanted to schlep to a remote cache location, but that's a different thing.

 

I don't know how the CO got this large concete cache out to its bushland setting, but I suppose it's unlikely to be muggled...

 

[+dprovan]

Have you actually seen a problem? I haven't. The problem with easy terrain isn't that it's covered by micros. The problem with easy terrain is that lots and lots of people go to easy terrain, so it's much more likely that large caches will be muggled in easy terrain. But, on the other hand, I've never seen any CO that wanted to try to hide a large cache in easy terrain couldn't find a spot for it. Worst case, if someone finds a perfect, unique place for a large cache that's blocked by an existing micro, they can make the case to the micro's owner to get the area opened up for that special cache.

[+coachstahly]

22 hours ago, GPADAN47 said:

But this often takes up much of the easy terrain, especially in county parks near here.

 

As others have mentioned already, the easy terrain is also the terrain that limits the type of cache that can be hidden and still be able to "survive" without being taken.  A micro bison tube hidden in the base/trunk folds of the only tree within 100 feet is going to last much longer than even a small, regular or large, that will stick out like a sore thumb to anyone walking in the easy terrain area.

 

The issue with hiding large caches isn't that there isn't space for them.  The issue is that they're larges and caches that big are difficult to find places to hide them where they won't get taken or destroyed.  I had one large that I thought was "safe" due to the fact of it being out in a field with only one access point, away from parking, and away from established trails.  It got taken twice, which is the limit for me (initial hide and one replacement) most of the time.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

As others have mentioned already, the easy terrain is also the terrain that limits the type of cache that can be hidden and still be able to "survive" without being taken.  A micro bison tube hidden in the base/trunk folds of the only tree within 100 feet is going to last much longer than even a small, regular or large, that will stick out like a sore thumb to anyone walking in the easy terrain area.

 

The issue with hiding large caches isn't that there isn't space for them.  The issue is that they're larges and caches that big are difficult to find places to hide them where they won't get taken or destroyed.  I had one large that I thought was "safe" due to the fact of it being out in a field with only one access point, away from parking, and away from established trails.  It got taken twice, which is the limit for me (initial hide and one replacement) most of the time.

 

That's what I've seen as well.  A cache spot is available in an easy place because nobody could keep a cache there.

 

I've placed Micros in county parks. The cache size is designed for the spot. There were ammo box caches, but they were too much work for Cache Owners to replace over the years, so the spot remained vacant. The issue was not that big caches were too far apart, but that if there was not now a Micro that's a little hard to find, there would be no cache there at all.

 

I also place a lot of bigger caches. It must be invisible to non-cachers even when cachers are opening it, and not get raided all the time. Yet easy to find? That means it's a specially designed container in a special place. You don't find such a place every hundred feet. 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by kunarion

[+Goldenwattle]

I start by trying to place a largish sized small cache, and then work down. I have no nanos and won't have one of those horrid things. Logs fill too quickly and the signatures are hard to read for checking the log. Only if I can't find a place for a small sized cache will I put a micro. Sometimes it needs to be a micro cache, but I find many micros where a small cache could easily be hidden. I think it's often laziness when a micro is placed. Too easy to stick a nano to a sign or similar, rather than look around and use a bit of imagination as to where a small sized cache (or bigger), could be hidden.

[+colleda]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I don't know how the CO got this large concete cache out to its bushland setting, but I suppose it's unlikely to be muggled...

 

If that's the one I'm thinking of he,  the CO, is not called Big Matt for nothing.

[+fuzziebear3]

I bet the kiddos wouldn't mind a nice hike (higher terrain), when they find a nice reward at the end of it.   Take them out for an adventure, I think they will like the game much better than finding micros on lampposts and guardrails.

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm pretty sure any proposal to reduce or relax the current proximity rules in any way for any reason is DOA.

[+niraD]

11 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I'm pretty sure any proposal to reduce or relax the current proximity rules in any way for any reason is DOA.

On the other hand, there are some geocachers who would really like to see the distance for the saturation guideline increased, from one cache every 0.1 mile to one cache every 0.25 mile or every 0.5 mile.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

On the other hand, there are some geocachers who would really like to see the distance for the saturation guideline increased, from one cache every 0.1 mile to one cache every 0.25 mile or every 0.5 mile.

 

I hope not, as these two of mine are only 210 metres apart (0.13 miles) but I haven't heard any complaints about this area being saturated out yet. For what it's worth, they're both smalls, as that size was dictated by the hiding places under a rock ledge and in a honeycombed cave, while the one next to the road that isn't mine is a regular.

 

 

After those three, the next nearest cache is 3.6km away.

 

I try to use a regular size for my caches (usually something between 1 and 2 litres) unless the hiding place requires something smaller. On one of my caches, the hiding place would have swallowed one of those whole so I went for a 6 litre plastic ammo box which was a good fit. That's still a regular, though, being well short of the 20 litres needed for a large, so I doubt I'll ever place one of those even though a couple of my friends have.

 

For me, the location is always the starting point and dictates everything else about the cache.

[+GPADAN47]

Thank you for your insight. I did not consider the problem of muggles. Perhaps in a more perfect world, they would not be a problem but as your comments suggest we are not dealing with rational people when it comes to tampering with geocaches. I guess I will try to find a good hide in an easily accessible place to satisfy my wanting to engage young geocachers. Wish me luck.