SF Bay Area geocachers

[+bullit]

Since people are placing 10 caches at a time instead of 1 or 2 these days, 300 isn't what it used to be.

So, I'm kinda curious about this comment, Boulter...Do you think that the standards for hiding a cache ought to be more difficult to obtain? If so, how? I'd be curious as to what anyone else thinks, too.

I think his point is that you only need to do about 15 hikes on the right trails to get 300 finds now( to simplify: we now have a cache saturation issue ) hence when coupled with some urban caching it is much easier to get to 500 finds than it used to be.

[+budd-rdc]

Since people are placing 10 caches at a time instead of 1 or 2 these days, 300 isn't what it used to be.

So, I'm kinda curious about this comment, Boulter...Do you think that the standards for hiding a cache ought to be more difficult to obtain? If so, how? I'd be curious as to what anyone else thinks, too.

I hope we don't have to rely on further written/enforced standards to avoid cache saturation. As with many things in life, common sense and self-regulation means more freedom and less rules in the end. For now, the 528' rule and ability to maintain one's own caches should be enough as guidelines.

 

Personally, I've kept the potential cache saturation in mind and have fought the temptation in placing too many caches.

[+Marky]

Personally, I've kept the potential cache saturation in mind

Me too, but probably not in the same way.

 

--Marky

[+KennyHannahJacobKatie]

My thoughts on this are still in their infancy stage so be nice!

 

I worry about the "power trails" forming in some parks. For me a hike in some of the rural parks rewarded by a cache at a clear destination is enough and the experience isn't aided by a dozen less interesting caches along the way. So ... I'll rarely get more than 2 or 3 caches on an outing even if I pass right by 7-8 others on the way.

 

This is my personal choice and others probably feel differently. What pushes this into a wider concern is the "risk" of overloading a park and upsetting the local authorities.

 

What if a cacher logged a cache as either Rural, Suburban or Urban and the distance restrictions were changed for each designation? Say Urban remained at 0.1 miles, Suburban at 0.25 miles and rural at 0.4?

 

Hair splitting perhaps but this could set a defacto limit on how crowded some of our nearby parks get without having anyone feel "singled out" by the rule change.

 

Bottomline, we do have to come to terms with cache saturation in some nearby parks sooner or later unless Geocaching participation starts to decline.

 

Just a thought ... don't shoot me!

 

/Lefty

[+WalruZ]

Last fall I hiked out into Grant Park to do "Fallen Monarch", a great cache which was only occasionally visited. At the RWC event that evening I mentioned it to Fisherwoman and we decided to come back and spike the trail with caches, all the way to a logical ending place that has a great view of the valley. Since having done that, Fallen Monarch is visited much more often, and the park has collected even more caches. I don't know if that's a completely good thing or not, but at least more people are getting out there.

 

I will say though, having cached around the bay area, the closer you get to the Santa Clara valley, the lower the standard for an urban micro seems to get. There are many exceptions and we all know who they belong to, but IMO, plenty of currently listed caches prove that assertion.

 

I don't see any reason for New Rules, but I'm also somewhat haunted by the profiles I see belonging to people who found 20, hid 2 and then stopped caching. What did they see that caused that to happen? A film cannister hidden by a dirty fence behind a vacant lot that used to have some memories in it? An altoids tin under a park bench in an undistingished new subdivision? A cache by the side of the road "just because"? If people give up after 20 finds, doesn't that tell us that geocaching could be better? It's hardly like we're impartial obsevers after all.

[+Marky]

For me a hike in some of the rural parks rewarded by a cache at a clear destination is enough and the experience isn't aided by a dozen less interesting caches along the way.

What makes these other caches less interesting? To me, a good cache is good regardless of density.

 

--Marky

[+KennyHannahJacobKatie]

For me a hike in some of the rural parks rewarded by a cache at a clear destination is enough and the experience isn't aided by a dozen less interesting caches along the way.

What makes these other caches less interesting? To me, a good cache is good regardless of density.

 

--Marky

Well, I tried to word that carefully to avoid saying things like "not yours of course!" to all of the great cachers on this forum. I like our game plenty as it is but recognize the small group of enthusiast I joined in 2001 has become a much larger game in 2005 that may require some "fine tuning".

 

To answer your question the "best" locations are usually grabbed first so the first 5-10 grab the good spots with later caches reduced to clustering around the unremarkable rest stop along the way unless someone gets creative.

 

Again, this is personal preference, I'm completely happy picking up 1 - 4 caches and enjoying the hike while someone else might want to pick up 20 caches along the way.

 

To some exent this is a side issue. What I'm MORE worried about is that Cache saturation goes beyond a personal concern when it becomes (or is thought to be) a problem for the local park authorities.

 

In the scheme I mentioned we become "self policing" and hopefully preempt the authorities stepping in with more draconian measures. So the M&J cache " Split Rock" gets listed as a rural cache and stakes that corner of Almaden Quicksilver out and we avoid a set of me-too caches like (the nonexistant) Split Rock 2, Rest Stop near Split Rock and Yet Another Split Rock. It also puts a de facto limit on the absolute number of caches in AQS. (Geesh I probably stuck my foot in my mouth here! Any resemblance to names of specific caches is TOTALLY unintentional!)

 

My thought was to recognize the different topologies (urban, rural and suburban) in a way that lets Geocaching becomes self limiting without someone trying to judge the quality of individual caches. Plus, it allows the cache hider to specify the topology himself so that if you think Almaden valley is Urban, go for it and you'll set a 0.1 mile limit. If the next guy thinks it's Suburban also fine - since his designation is stricter he'll need an 0.2 mile radius to hide his cache. With the modified rules the max carrying capacity of a region changes dramatically, a 1 mile square area can have up to 121 caches at 0.1 mile intervals but only 9 caches at 0.5 mile intervals.

 

Just a thought and I stand down from my soap box now.

 

/Lefty

[+Marky]

Good explaination. Now I seem compelled to hide an "On the way to Split Rock" cache...

 

I think it's great that you cache the way you like and realize that others find enjoyment in different ways. I also understand the concern with land managers, and I think it's something that we definitely need to keep in the back of our minds when hiding caches.

 

Thanks for the followup!

 

--Marky

[+Nurse Dave]

Personally, I've kept the potential cache saturation in mind and have fought the temptation in placing too many caches.

Thank you!

 

The other thing I think some people don't ever think about is new cachers starting up. How frustrarting can it be for folks that found a bunch of caches in their first month and would really like the experience of having their own? Sure you can say obviously there are still places because caches are still being places. But mostly you all know that main parks are all taken up all the more mello hiking trails that are close are covered too. I think it would be a good thing for more people to say "That's a great place for a cache, I hope to find one there some day."

[+bytemobile]

I don't think that cache density is the real measure of the effect caching on a park or open space. Where the cache is hidden and how much of a hint is provided have an impact on how much cachers tramp around, disturb the vegetation, and turn over rocks and logs. It is hard to guess when placing a cache how often it will be visited, whether a cacher trail will be created, and how hard it will be to find. Cachers should use their best judgement in placing a cache, but the impact takes a while to accumulate. It is probably a good idea for owners to visit their caches regularly and archive them if they see a negative impact.

[+Marky]

It is probably a good idea for owners to visit their caches regularly and archive them if they see a negative impact.

That is excellent advice and I agree with the rest of your post as well.

 

--Marky

[+Cat & Bird]

The other thing I think some people don't ever think about is new cachers starting up.  How frustrarting can it be for folks that found a bunch of caches in their first month and would really like the experience of having their own?

Bird and I being fairly new to caching, would like to place more of our own (we currently have only one) but have had a hard time finding places that we think are interesting enough to warrant a chace that do not already have one close by. I do not want to sound like I am complaining. I love geocaching, and I love the great hides that long time geocachers have left out there for us to find.

 

Maybe I have "cache envy" I don't know. It's that inate desire to create and contribute countered with that fear that I will place a cache in a "lame" place, or contribute to a "cache density" problem that has me second guess every place I think of. hrml.

 

Just one newbies opinion.

 

I will slip away into the shadows again now.

 

Cat

Edited April 16, 2005 by Cat_And_Bird

[+The Rat]

I had the privilege this week of getting a tour of some environmental mitigation land VTA acquired when it widened 101. That's land required by law to be acquired and set aside to preserve habitat when other land (environmentally sensitive) is taken and used for a project. It is a large stretch of land, hundreds of acres in fact, on Coyote Ridge of serpentine soil. Serpentine, the state rock, contains naturally occurring asbestos, and is therefore toxic. That means most plants won't grow on it, and the ones that do are quite unique. These plants serve as the hosts for the checkerspot butterfly, which, as it turns out, is an ugly little black-and-white bug that is threatened. I think it's ridiculous to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to preserve the habitat for the bug, but the land is spectacular. I have no trouble spending the money to preserve the land so that people can enjoy it. The land is being managed by the Santa Clara County Open Space District and they are thinking of creating a hiking trail that runs through it, from Anderson reservoir to Calero. I hope they do, because this spot is really worth the trip to see. If they ever do, I imagine there will a restriction against going off trail. Due to the soil, there are no big trees or even sizable bushes. It is all rolling hills covered by native grasses and tiny wildflowers (for another couple of weeks anyway), spotted by rocks. It is is ever opened up for geocaching, I ask that anyone hiding anything make it either extremely easy to find (so that people don't ruin the surrounding area looking for it), or make it clear that it is right on the trail and not to go off. Better yet - just don't try to place anything up there, but do go an hike through it in the springtime The land is on the top of the ridge between Lake Anderson and 101 (just above the land fill). Someone I was with took pictures. When I get them, I'll post one. The land is remote. It took 20 minutes of driving a Jeep up through three locked gates.

[+Nazgul]

If I'm reading your description correctly.... Isn't there a cache up there already?

 

I'm thinking of GCGZDF. Granted, it may be south of where you were.

 

There is an astonishing amount of serpentine on nearly all of the hills in this area. It's just about everywhere in Anderson, Santa Teresa, Quicksilver, Sierra Azul, and many other parks.

 

If you're concerned about the area and it may not be open to cachers for years(?) your post will probably have been forgotten by most. Perhaps the approvers have a better place to store such information? Just a thought.

[+The Rat]

I was about 1 - 2 miles NNW of there. It is not an area open to the public. I did learn, though, that there are a bunch of other parcels up in the area owned for the same purpose (i.e. mitigation). The biologist who was showing us around started naming the owners, mostly corporations, and the size of the parcels, 70 acres here, 150 there, 15 over on the other side, etc. Apparently there is also some red-legged frog habitat being preserved down in the ponds. I suppose no one will remember this post if it ever becomes open, but the reviewers wouldn't either. They approve caches right next to my puzzle caches even when I give them the true coordinates only a few months before. The approvers and owners of the geocaching.com website aren't really into environmentalism, and neither are the vast majority of geocachers, either, for that matter. Just look at the find totals and compute the mileage most of these people are putting on their cars for caching and you'll see the gas usage and air pollution alone disqualify them. I regret to say that when this area does get open, someone will ruin it. If not geocachers then mountain bikers, high school kids going up to get drunk, the land fill owners, etc. The list is endless. It was beautiful to see in its pristine state, though.

[+Marky]

It was beautiful to see in its pristine state, though.

Count yourself lucky. Very few will have such an opportunity. I look forward to seeing some pictures of the area.

 

--Marky

[+KennyHannahJacobKatie]

Just look at the find totals and compute the mileage most of these people are putting on their cars for caching and you'll see the gas usage and air pollution alone disqualify them.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this one Rat.

 

If I were going to start a a search for a collection of budding environmentalists, Geocaching would be a good place to start. This is a group of people who have chosen to spend their free hours enjoying the outdoors over many competing interests. Most have explored a wide range of the area's outdoor preserves and encouraged others to do the same.

 

These values probably carry over into other life choices as well. While I haven't heard of anyone chaining themselves to a tree my guess is a good many Geocachers donate to the Sierra Club, are thoughtful in their commercial choices and look for environmental positions before going to the polls. I KNOW that a prominent reason many families give for taking up the sport is the desire for a fun way to expose children to the area's parks and open spaces. Getting young kids into the outdoors is hardly "anti-environmental"!

 

There are many possible definitions of "Environmentalist" but in my book any definition that disqualifies all/most Geocachers is much too narrow.

 

I do take your point on making wise decisions vis a vis carpooling etc. Caching in groups is a good thing for LOTS of reasons but one is certainly environmental conscienceness.

 

Respectfully, /Lefty

Edited April 16, 2005 by KennyHannahJacob

[+CC]

I am not an environmentalist; this conjurs up extreeminst images to me. I care about the environment and take the opportunity to reinforce taking care of the environment with our kids while we are geocaching. Geocaching takes us places where we can explain to our kids why it is important to take care of the native plants, stay on the trails, appreciate the beauty of the places we go and that it is OK to pick up the trash left by the knuckle wipe who were there before us.

 

it is a bit extreem to say because we find caches, we use a lot of gas so we don't care about the environment. Face it, that is the way life is here. You go somewhere, you use gas. I can't say if I use more gas because I geocache, but I can say I go to many more new places that I every did before I geocached. We have seen more places of local interest, historical interest, odd places, open space, fun, boring, weird, eerie, and have been known to traipse up and down sand dunes looking for geocaches.

 

I just solved (with relative confidence) a puzzle cache 70 miles away. We worked hard on it. There is no way we will not go find it. This will qualify as wasteful and indulgent but at least is is a area we have never been to before and have never seen.

 

-Joe

[+sammydee]

By the way - the newest Santa Clara County Park will be opening on May 15th - Harvey Bear Ranch County Park, on the same ridge The Rat was describing but farther South. Over 4000 acres on the ridge between Coyote Reservoir and San Martin. I saw a presentation about it a few days ago, and it's going to be a real jewel.

 

http://www.parkhere.org/channel/0,4770,chi...61,00.html#maps

 

Reminder: NEXT SATURDAY is the Trail Days event at AQS. Hope to see you there!

 

...Sam

[+budd-rdc]

The approvers and owners of the geocaching.com website aren't really into environmentalism, and neither are the vast majority of geocachers, either, for that matter.  Just look at the find totals and compute the mileage most of these people are putting on their cars for caching and you'll see the gas usage and air pollution alone disqualify them.

I've noticed that due to politics and the media, the word "environmentalist" has become extremist. Some Sierra Club members I've met prefer being called "naturalist" or "conservationist." It's a pity wording is that important in plain everyday conversation.

 

I'm hoping for better public transportation infrastucture and more eco-friendly vehicles in the near future, so we can keep our freedom of movement with minimal ill-effects on the environment. Right now, our choices are limited.

[+KennyHannahJacobKatie]

True Budd-RDC. The next generation (which I define as anyone younger than me! ) has negative associations with words like Feminist, Peace Activist and Environmentalist even when they share many of the values. Basically they've been tarred and feathered with the more extreme actions of those assocated with them. Interesting but not without historical parallels. There's a thesis there for somebody. /Lefty

[+KennyHannahJacobKatie]

I was reading through some old posts (bored I guess!) when I came across this post by Kablooey from March 2003 commenting on the mystical properties M&J might get as they passed certain find thresholds. They hadn't hit their first 1000 yet so little did anyone know at the time ....

 

Yeah, see, you're moving in the wrong direction. When you hit 1000, you should be able to find caches just by looking at the aerial map. When you hit 2000, you should be able to find caches just by using The Force. When you get to 3000, you'll be able to look at a set of coordinates and say "I know right where that one is. I was going to hide one there next week."

 

So enquiring minds want to know - Can you?

 

/Lefty

Edited April 18, 2005 by KennyHannahJacob

[+beckerbuns]

This morning I expressed the opinion in a note to Want Fries with that? that shared/multiple FTF claims were not okay. The Petoskey Stones and I had a couple of email exchanges about that, and we sorta thought it might be interesting to see what the thoughts were here.

MotorBug and others,

 

I know I am late on this but in my opinion, a FTF can be shared. ND and I have found several caches together and both counted them as FTF. I believe I've found a cache or two with Kablooey that was FTF for both of us as well.

 

If it's found at the same time by two people, why can't they both have FTF? How would you figure out who would get it, if not both?

 

JMHO.

[+beckerbuns]

I think his point is that you only need to do about 15 hikes on the right trails to get 300 finds now( to simplify: we now have a cache saturation issue ) hence when coupled with some urban caching it is much easier to get to 500 finds than it used to be.

This is pretty funny. We've had a cache saturation issue for a couple of years now.

[+beckerbuns]

I will say though, having cached around the bay area, the closer you get to the Santa Clara valley, the lower the standard for an urban micro seems to get. There are many exceptions and we all know who they belong to, but IMO, plenty of currently listed caches prove that assertion.

You've hit the nail on the head there. I can't even begin to describe how weary I am of light pole caches and caches stuck under picnic tables and park benches. It may have been funny or innovative the first several times I saw it, but now it's just annoying and irritating. It's also frustrating to find nothing but micros in a huge parkland that could support full-sized or at least small-sized caches.

 

Don't get me wrong, micros have their place... And I especially appreciate the micro and small caches by such people as TPS, WoW, and sometimes Marky & Joani that are innovative -- even unusual.

 

I think we really need to evaluate what's important in a geocache. Just sticking a keyholder or film can any old place is easy to do. What's harder to do is to place a cache that's challenging, innovative, and fun.

 

My $.02.

 

And PS... We have been going on weekend trips a lot lately to other areas and have found that the micro-saturation is MUCH MUCH less. There are even big caches in urban areas.

[+CC]

Sorry for the diversion in topics... We did this cache this last weekend and wanted to share...

 

I was pretty surprised to see this cache was unfound since is was placed in November 2004. The cache ByDam is approx 23 miles from the highway 1 exit to Carmel Valley.

 

The drive from the village up to the cache gets a little twisty and winds a bit, but just take it easy and enjoy the beautiful drive. There are a couple excellent vistas on the way up. The green/golden near treeless rolling hi9lls to the southeast and the Las Padres forest to the west and south. The last 3/10 mile is sort of odd. You idle through an unexpected trailer park, then it turns into a bumpy but navigatable dirt road for a couple hundred feet, then the paved again until the parking area/trail head.

 

The trail was a well packed road that leads to the dam. The 3 rating terrain is accurate and there is some up and down. It is a lot easier than it might seem and the dam is much closer than you think. Be sure to stop and take some pictures along the approx 1 mile stroll to the cache. Also, remember the valley is much warmer than the coast. You may leave a cold foggy coast and find it in the mid 80's in the valley. Wear layers so you can stay cool. I was in jeans and a t shirt and I wish I wore shorts instead. There is no tall grass on the trail and the cache was easily reachable and a quick hustle to retrieve it has you in the bush for just a moment. Visit my post for a couple pictures.

 

The cache was kid friendly but the kids did not want to come with us

 

CC

Edited April 19, 2005 by cachecrashers

[+Marky]

A lot of people have been lamenting about cache quality lately in our area. Joani and I have been out caching and have been having a great time, so don't really know what the fuss is all about. I've always thought that the best way to show people what you like is to lead by example.

 

Also, just because there are some people that don't like a cache in a nice park hidden under a picnic table doesn't mean that everybody doesn't like them. I try really hard not to push my personal preference on others, because my personal preference is just that, mine. The only cache I would ever complain about is one that I thought was inappropriately placed. I would try not to complain about a cache if I didn't care for it because someone else might think it's great. There are a few hiders that I don't care for their hiding style and I just filter them out of my list with the easily available tools (ignore lists, GSAK). This is probably easier to do as a premium member, but not impossible to do as a non-premium member. Those hiders have no idea that I don't like their caches and there is no reason they need to know. Lots of other cachers like them and that's all that is important.

 

Recap:

• Stick to what you like.
  
• Lead by example.
  
• Don't assume everyone dislikes the same thing as you.
  

Get outside, have fun, and enjoy life.

--Marky

[+workerofwood]

Well, I was going to weigh in on this too, but I think Marky made my point.

So much talk about what people don't like... jeez, just ignore the ones that don't meet your tastes and have fun! It's just a game...

[+workerofwood]

I don't see any reason for New Rules, but I'm also somewhat haunted by the profiles I see belonging to people who found 20, hid 2 and then stopped caching.  What did they see that caused that to happen?  A film cannister hidden by a dirty fence behind a vacant lot that used to have some memories in it?  An altoids tin under a park bench in an undistingished new subdivision?  A cache by the side of the road "just because"?  If people give up after 20 finds, doesn't that tell us that geocaching could be better?  It's hardly like we're impartial obsevers after all.

I suppose it's also possible that they just found something else to do...

While I was certainly hooked after just a few caches (several of which would be considered "lame" by most), I've talked to plenty of cachers that just are not addicted.

Doubt that's really the fault of the caches.

Edited April 18, 2005 by workerofwood

[+workerofwood]

I was reading through some old posts (bored I guess!) when I came across this post by Kablooey from March 2003 commenting on the mystical properties M&J might get as they passed certain find thresholds. They hadn't hit their first 1000 yet so little did anyone know at the time ....

 

Yeah, see, you're moving in the wrong direction. When you hit 1000, you should be able to find caches just by looking at the aerial map. When you hit 2000, you should be able to find caches just by using The Force. When you get to 3000, you'll be able to look at a set of coordinates and say "I know right where that one is. I was going to hide one there next week."

 

So enquiring minds want to know - Can you?

 

/Lefty

I for one, have gotten worse at finding caches as time goes on. Must be making too many assumptions

[+workerofwood]

This morning I expressed the opinion in a note to Want Fries with that? that shared/multiple FTF claims were not okay. The Petoskey Stones and I had a couple of email exchanges about that, and we sorta thought it might be interesting to see what the thoughts were here.

MotorBug and others,

 

I know I am late on this but in my opinion, a FTF can be shared. ND and I have found several caches together and both counted them as FTF. I believe I've found a cache or two with Kablooey that was FTF for both of us as well.

 

If it's found at the same time by two people, why can't they both have FTF? How would you figure out who would get it, if not both?

 

JMHO.

This horse may be on death's door-step but,

 

I would gladly share FTF bragging rights with someone if we set out as a team to find some difficult cache. I've been on hunts where we divided up the search area to make it easier, and that would make the FTF kind of a matter of luck.

 

But since it's not a stat that is tracked, I prefer to keep my FTF list to myself. It's just a matter of personal satisfaction to race to a cache. No different than trying to find something without hints or descriptions, it just keeps it interesting.

[+beckerbuns]

Well, thank you, Marky & WoW... But I wasn't trying to push my opinion on everyone else. I was saying that these repetitive micros are getting tiresome TO ME...

 

And I saw that someone else brought up the fact that newbies would have trouble finding a place to place a cache, what with the cache density around here. That's still something to consider...

[+beckerbuns]

A lot of people have been lamenting about cache quality lately in our area. Joani and I have been out caching and have been having a great time, so don't really know what the fuss is all about. I've always thought that the best way to show people what you like is to lead by example.

Wait, I forgot this part.

 

I like to think that I lead by example. When I can find a decent place to put a cache around here (getting more and more difficult), I try to put a full-sized cache out, or if it's a micro, it's there for a good reason (like my Jake's Play Lot cache, which shows the finder a nice memorial playground, and has no good place to put a full-sized cache).

 

As most of you know, I was putting out micros at libraries, but I finally did archive the ones that were left because I was not interested in maintaining micros. ND and I have endeavored to put out good quality regular and large size caches, which I believe creates more excitement for new cachers and gives all finders a better sense of satisfaction in the find.

 

And I know I can filter out micros, or people who hide micros... But as I said in my original reply, I don't find ALL micros to be bad. I just wish they were more inventive around here and not so prolific "just because they can be"...

 

Also, no offense to anyone. After all if we were not all out there hiding caches, there wouldn't be any.

[+beckerbuns]

But since it's not a stat that is tracked, I prefer to keep my FTF list to myself. It's just a matter of personal satisfaction to race to a cache. No different than trying to find something without hints or descriptions, it just keeps it interesting.

Yeah, I used to keep track of my FTFs on my profile page but I got out of the practice a while back and got behind, and then finally took them off. I've found that it's exciting when it happens but after that I start to care less... And no one else much cares which FTFs I've gotten anyway.

[+boulter]

Congrats to MotorBug for reaching 2200 finds and claiming the #10 spot on the leaderboard. Workerofwood goes to Mexico for a week to build houses for poor familes without a GPSr to their name and he's rewarded by being kicked down a notch. With friends like these...

 

Hey, and no one get any funny ideas about the #9 spot.

[+Marky]

Also, no offense to anyone. After all if we were not all out there hiding caches, there wouldn't be any.

I definitely wasn't implying that you weren't already leading by example. I really just wanted to point out that stating that there are lower quality caches in Santa Clara valley, or any other location for that matter, really isn't fair to the people who hide the caches. I bet there are plenty of people who really enjoy the very caches that you are calling lower quality. Just keep doing what you are doing, hiding good caches that people enjoy. That's what it's all about.

 

--Marky

[+montythemule]

Chick-N-Rock has placed another COMMANDO BIRD! Not yet approved. A bit of work went into this one, just like the last one. Same Same only Different

(By the way, QUALITY means never having to say you're sorry)

 

MtM

[+workerofwood]

Well, thank you, Marky & WoW... But I wasn't trying to push my opinion on everyone else. I was saying that these repetitive micros are getting tiresome TO ME...

 

And I saw that someone else brought up the fact that newbies would have trouble finding a place to place a cache, what with the cache density around here. That's still something to consider...

And I wasn't aiming my comments at you either BB, and I admire your commitment to keeping up the cache quality around here... so now that we have all apologized we can go out and find some caches!

[+workerofwood]

And I saw that someone else brought up the fact that newbies would have trouble finding a place to place a cache, what with the cache density around here. That's still something to consider...

I keep a personal list of spots to hide caches, crossing them off as others discover them, but I'd be happy to share a location or two with any newbies who are having trouble finding a place. There are still plenty of spaces out there, and you can hide big caches if you get creative about it.

[+workerofwood]

On to some good news.

Think I mentioned before that REI is starting some caching courses this summer in all the bay area stores. Last week I was hired to teach these.

 

I could use some suggestions for parks to visit during our day trips. The areas I am unfamiliar with are Santa Rosa, Berkeley and SF. Parks should be scenic or otherwise interesting, have some cool caches, and not require a deathmarch.

 

We will also be doing daytrips in Concord, San Carlos, Fremont and Saratoga areas.

 

I am hoping this will lead to improved relations with many of the bay area parks commissions.

[+The Rat]

Well, I was going to weigh in on this too, but I think Marky made my point.  So much talk about what people don't like... jeez, just ignore the ones that don't meet your tastes and have fun! It's just a game...

Well, I both agree and disagree with this comment. Yes, it is just a game and some people take it too seriously. Still, I am one of those lamenting the quality of caches in this area. I really think the emphasis on number of finds is driving it. People carry around film can micros to stick almost anywhere just to keep the numbers of available new caches replenished. I am one of those who enjoyed the first light pole micro (think Birdie) but now find them pretty lame. If you can't do something original, then at least do something trite in an interesting location - scenic or culturally interesting, or make it a puzzle that requires people to learn something new. More directly on WoW's point, I agree with you if the hider is an old hand with a lot of hides - just ignore him (or her) if you don't like the hide - but for the newbies, I think it is important to give feedback, whether negative or positive. With just a little more thought they could have put that cache in an attractive area, rather than back in the dumpster area. With just a little more care averaging or checking a photomap they could have gotten the coordinates right on, or very close, rather than 80 feet off. With a little research they could have posted some interesting facts about the location, or maybe even fixed the five typos on the cache page when they were pointed out to them. This is the kind of thing a considerate cacher should do, and newcomers don't necessarily realize they are substandard until someone tells them as much.

Edited April 19, 2005 by The Rat

[+boulter]

On to some good news.

Think I mentioned before that REI is starting some caching courses this summer in all the bay area stores. Last week I was hired to teach these.

 

I could use some suggestions for parks to visit during our day trips. The areas I am unfamiliar with are Santa Rosa, Berkeley and SF. Parks should be scenic or otherwise interesting, have some cool caches, and not require a deathmarch.

 

We will also be doing daytrips in Concord, San Carlos, Fremont and Saratoga areas.

 

I am hoping this will lead to improved relations with many of the bay area parks commissions.

Workerofwood - the first professional geocacher. No fair!

[+budd-rdc]

I could use some suggestions for parks to visit during our day trips. The areas I am unfamiliar with are Santa Rosa, Berkeley and SF. Parks should be scenic or otherwise interesting, have some cool caches, and not require a deathmarch.

 

We will also be doing daytrips in Concord, San Carlos, Fremont and Saratoga areas.

 

I am hoping this will lead to improved relations with many of the bay area parks commissions.

I really enjoyed hiking and caching in Redwood Regional Park, east of Oakland/Piedmont/San Leandro area. Chabot Space & Science Center is in in the park.

[+workerofwood]

May as well just throw this out there...

 

IF we were to organize the bay area cachers a bit more and have a website etc (and you know we will), what would you call it?

 

Bay Area Geocachers Society (BAGS)- um, BAGS?? Well, think CITO, and it is the most natural name. We could all run around carrying BAGS bags....

 

BADGES- It's already out there, we all are familiar with it, probably doesn't really matter that "dining" is not really a central focus ("3M" is well known and who cares what IT stands for). And that BADGES badge is cool...

 

Geocachers of the Bay Area (GBA)- short and sweet

Bay Area Society of Geocachers (BASG)- BASG??

 

????

 

Whatcha think?

[+The Rat]

I don't usually promote my own caches, but I know there a number of people who found Operation Futari after it had been converted from a multi cache to a regular one-stage, and who were disappointed at missing the whole story. I converted it back to a multi with almost the same set of stages, although now it has 4, not 3. If you want to relive the experience in the authentic form, you can try it again, although it still has the same ID, log sheet and final location. When I edited the cache to restore it, I found that the edit form does not let me change the type back to multi. I have e-mailed Hemlock twice to ask him to do it, but he has not responded. Does anyone know how to get that accomplished? I have had a couple of complaints from people whose pocket queries are messed up by the wrong type identification.

[+budd-rdc]

Well, thank you, Marky & WoW... But I wasn't trying to push my opinion on everyone else.  I was saying that these repetitive micros are getting tiresome TO ME...

 

And I saw that someone else brought up the fact that newbies would have trouble finding a place to place a cache, what with the cache density around here.  That's still something to consider...

I visit micro caches if they aren't too far out of the way. I actually had a lot of fun visiting some of nostrada's SC micros, since they were at interesting locations. I guess micros have become lame because some are hidden just to be micros rather than out of necessity. (exceptions - those that exist to fight caching evil )

 

Thanks to GSAK, "M" shows up on my GPSr's waypoint to help me make a snap decision on whether to visit the micro, without looking at the PDA or printed sheets.

 

The ultimate revenge against lame micros is that they are forgotten.

Edited April 19, 2005 by budd-rdc

[+budd-rdc]

I was reading through some old posts (bored I guess!) when I came across this post by Kablooey from March 2003 commenting on the mystical properties M&J might get as they passed certain find thresholds.  They hadn't hit their first 1000 yet so little did anyone know at the time ....

 

Yeah, see, you're moving in the wrong direction. When you hit 1000, you should be able to find caches just by looking at the aerial map. When you hit 2000, you should be able to find caches just by using The Force. When you get to 3000, you'll be able to look at a set of coordinates and say "I know right where that one is. I was going to hide one there next week."

 

So enquiring minds want to know - Can you?

 

/Lefty

I do recall feeling The Force back in December. For details, check out this TB.

[+workerofwood]

My thoughts on this are still in their infancy stage so be nice!

 

I worry about the "power trails" forming in some parks. For me a hike in some of the rural parks rewarded by a cache at a clear destination is enough and the experience isn't aided by a dozen less interesting caches along the way. So ... I'll rarely get more than 2 or 3 caches on an outing even if I pass right by 7-8 others on the way.

 

This is my personal choice and others probably feel differently. What pushes this into a wider concern is the "risk" of overloading a park and upsetting the local authorities.

 

What if a cacher logged a cache as either Rural, Suburban or Urban and the distance restrictions were changed for each designation? Say Urban remained at 0.1 miles, Suburban at 0.25 miles and rural at 0.4?

 

Hair splitting perhaps but this could set a defacto limit on how crowded some of our nearby parks get without having anyone feel "singled out" by the rule change.

 

Bottomline, we do have to come to terms with cache saturation in some nearby parks sooner or later unless Geocaching participation starts to decline.

 

Just a thought ... don't shoot me!

 

/Lefty

Sorry for the proliferation of posts, I have all this built up posting energy after a week unplugged....

 

I have heard the concerns about power caching trails many times in the last year.

I have kind of accepted it as a given that it was something to be concerned about, but I just am not so sure now.

 

I look at the finds on my caches, and those on the power cache trails don't have a significantly higher count than those out by themselves (4 star terrain excepted). If you walk a trail to get to a cache placed 4 miles out, you inpact the trail no more by stopping at a few intermediate caches than if you had skipped them.

 

Yes Quicksilver has something like a million caches now, give or take a few (and not counting stages in insane multis). How many people has this brought to the park? 50? 60? In 12 months? Is this really a cause for concern?

 

Personal opinion follows, please ignore as required:

I like to have a few extra caches as a break in the deathmarch, keeps me from focusing on my sore feet. The fact that many of these are small or even micro doesn't bother me, there are always plenty of full size caches out there too, and I can't trade with them all. I've hiked 9 miles for a single cache, and hiked 9 miles for 20, I've enjoyed each hike. To be honest, I do intend to place more caches in Quicksilver (I have some cool spots picked out that no-one visitsyet). I think the park can handle it.

 

From the limited interaction I have had with the rangers, I think that our willingness to volunteer will be much more important in the long run than how many caches are there. I'm going to spend Sat. at Sammydee's event, and I hope there are a lot of us there.

 

ok, that's all, I'll go back to trading geocoins in the TB threads....

[+budd-rdc]

I for one, have gotten worse at finding caches as time goes on. Must be making too many assumptions 

 

I've told cachers in Japan about the "Assume Nothing" series, and many other interesting hide styles that exist in the Santa Clara Valley. Maybe the creativity is inspired by the existence of lame micros.

[+Marky]

I don't usually promote my own caches, but I know there a number of people who found Operation Futari after it had been converted from a multi cache to a regular one-stage, and who were disappointed at missing the whole story.  I converted it back to a multi with almost the same set of stages, although now it has 4, not 3.  If you want to relive the experience in the authentic form, you can try it again, although it still has the same ID, log sheet and final location.  When I edited the cache to restore it, I found that the edit form does not let me change the type back to multi.  I have e-mailed Hemlock twice to ask him to do it, but he has not responded.  Does anyone know how to get that accomplished?  I have had a couple of complaints from people whose pocket queries are messed up by the wrong type identification.

This is most excellent news, and if it's not on my top 1% list, I'm going to go add it. The cache in it's multi form was one of the most memorable caches we've done. I'm tempted to do the new first stages just for grins (no need to revisit the final unless it has changed in some way). Thanks for taking the time to restore this great multi-cache. For those who did this cache as a traditional, you owe it to yourselves to do the first stages of this great cache.

 

--Marky