The *Harder* caches

[Seifer]

As I sit here thinking up more *evil* plans for caches, I am wondering what you think of the *harder* caches. I understand that we have somewhat of a reputation now for making things diffucult, but I want to know whether you like a challenge or whether you like it easy:

 

Michael aka 1/2 of Team Blitz

 

Wqablz-xqxw tdqml kwfwm twjowcl di klelqklqok ejw hepw gt dm lbw ktdl!

 

3.5 69 736.5 4106 15637.5

[+Nia]

A challenge, thats what we like, the harder the better.

 

(Michael If you like a challenge try a cache related to a famous secret agent)

 

Tech-no notice

[+SimonG]

So far the poll results are pretty evenly spread - but there are a lot of straightforward caches out there already, and not so many fiendishly difficult ones. I haven't done any of your caches yet, but they look like great fun. Keep 'em coming.

 

W ezlf fr Cnzfajnzb Omdg, mlx mnn w prf emq fjwq nrhqb abojzd.

[+Huga]

With the caches I've set so far, I've tried a mix of nice and easy and a little bit harder. My latest one (he says, desperately trying not to advertise it) will hopefully keep people busy for a bit.

 

I don't mind a lot of work leading up to a cache site, but once I'm there I hate it if I have to scrabble around for 1/2 an hour because I failed to find exactly the right tree in a huge great forest, with rubbish GPS reception, and the clue says "Look by the tree on your left". Whose left? Which tree? Argh!

 

I lov multi-caches - they give me a chance to wander around the area a bit, and I quite like ones with clues and stuff, but a nice easy/obvious hiding place makes it so less frustrating at the end, IMHO.

 

Just my two witchit beads

 

--

**Mother is the name of God on the lips of all children**

[+Rocky Balboa]

I love something cryptic. I would love to attempt a cache like either of my 2 unfounds. Sometimes I like to get out the car and pick up the cache from the roadside though so anything really. Aslong as the cache site is of interest I would be up for anything.

 

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

[Ben Pid]

I agree with Dan, as long as its of interest its cool.

 

Huga you couldnt have summed up what irritates me about caching better!! nice one. The clues that say "At the foot of a tree" LoL....your in a forest of 600000000 trees....LoL, shocking!

 

I like a challenge when we have the time, useually because of the dark though we are forced to make every cache quick, but when we have heaps of time on our hands a challenge in the daylight is the best remedy!

 

Pid

 

Ben Piddington http://www.buckscaching.co.uk

[Runemaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geo Weasel:

The clues that say "At the foot of a tree" LoL....your in a forest of 600000000 trees....LoL, shocking!

---

 

There is one down the side of Derwent Water that gives the cheat clue as "under a rock"... there are more rocks on this hill than there are blades of grass on a soccer pitch

[+Nia]

My worst ever clue said '10 yards west of the path'

after 3 trips and a total of 5 hours searching it was '35 yards west of the path'.

 

There was a lot of tree cover and my e-trex was hopeless.

 

Tech-no notice

[+Team Minim]

>My worst ever clue said '10 yards west of the path'

after 3 trips and a total of 5 hours searching it was '35 yards west of the path'.

 

ahhh, you see they only took 1 trip and 0 hours of searching, hence 10yards, you took 3 trips and 5 hours, hence 35 yards, it's a quantum theory cache....

 

Shares in Tupperware? Be a Geocacher!

[+jeremyp]

I like challenging caches where you can't just walk up to the spot and find it after a bit of thrashing about in the undergrowth.

 

Your cache where I found the highland "rabbits" was spot on as far as I was concerned except that it was a bit unfair saying "take some notes in the carpark, you'll need them later" without saying what notes you'd need. I was worried that I'd end up at a clue a mile away needing to walk all the way to the carpark and back again to progress the cache.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[Seifer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremyp:

Your cache where I found the highland "rabbits" was spot on as far as I was concerned except that it was a bit unfair saying "take some notes in the carpark, you'll need them later" without saying what notes you'd need. I was worried that I'd end up at a clue a mile away needing to walk all the way to the carpark and back again to progress the cache.

---

 

You don't ACTUALLY need the info from the notice board until the last cache

 

Besides, a techie like you, u take a pic of the notice board!!!

 

Michael aka 1/2 of Team Blitz

 

Wqablz-xqxw tdqml kwfwm twjowcl di klelqklqok ejw hepw gt dm lbw ktdl!

 

26 27.75 34.2(recuring) 41.09275 480.048 55.027777777(carrys on!) 62.01749271

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Blitz (Michael):

 

You don't ACTUALLY need the info from the notice board until the last cache

---

Yes, but you don't know that until you get the clue for the last cache.

quote:

---

Besides, a techie like you, u take a pic of the notice board!!!

---

I did that, but the writing was illegible on the tiny LCD screen of my camera. And you know as well as I do that there is one bit of info you need from the carpark that isn't on the notice board.

 

(If you think I've said too much, let me know and I'll edit the message.)

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[Fourhalls]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Monz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geo Weasel:

The clues that say "At the foot of a tree" LoL....your in a forest of 600000000 trees....LoL, shocking!

---

 

There is one down the side of Derwent Water that gives the cheat clue as "under a rock"... there are more rocks on this hill than there are blades of grass on a soccer pitch

---

 

Well we found it.

[MCL]

Personal opinions here: I hate multicaches that don't credit you with a find for each of the boxes you unearth. Sorry, but I just do.

 

The only exception to this is when the multicaches are all within a couple of minutes walk of each other (eg Huga's "A Walk In The Park"). Others (like "A Clapper's Caper") are great in that as you do each one you get to log a find, yet they are part of a series.

 

Its the ones like "Mission Impossible" that I seem to be surrounded with. (Having said that, Mission Impossible is actually quite a fun one to do, but one is enough...) My first page seems to have a plethora of multicaches such that in order to clock up 20 finds you actually have to find about 30 boxes. I know this rather depends on where you live, and I know that I don't have to clear all the caches on my front page before going on to the rest, but I still feel that having so many multicaches so close to me has rather put me off them. (multicaches, that is)

 

I love caching, and I must say the best type of cache to me is one I can drive to, experience a bit of country I haven't been to before, maybe learn one or two things about the place (but not shedloads!) and experience an interesting sight or view or a pleasant walk.

 

Also, I believe that a cache should be meant to be found. If people want to make them so hard that no-one bothers to find them then what a waste of money and effort! I want people to *find* my cache, so I make it reasonably possible to find. I don't see any merit in placing a cache on the moon or glueing it to the underside of St Paul's cathedral dome. Yeah bloody clever but if you need a spacecraft to get to it or permission from the church to erect a 200ft scaffold then franky I don't think that is geocaching any more.

 

I get fun out of finding. I do not get fun out of not finding.

 

The other point I'd like to make is to do with seasonal changes. I did a cache a few months back in the summer which was unreachable by any normal standards because in summer, the land is thickly overgrown and the woods are dense and dark even in daylight. In winter when the cache was placed, its a nice open woodland area, plenty of light, and easy to navigate. I think the planter of the cache should always think what might happen to their cache some months after they have planted it. Its no use having a cache thats is difficulty 1 in winter, and goes up to a 4 in summer, without at least changing the difficulty rating on the cache page as the season's change. It will put people off doing others of your caches if they think you might be misleading them on your other sites.

 

I like a mix of easy and hard caches, but with the simpler ones (notice I said simpler, not necessarily quite the same as easier) in the majority. It seems every new cache popping up on my list now has to be more fiendish, more complex, more obscure, more inventive and brain-racking than all the others within 20 miles. I think the trend is getting out of hand now. Caching (to me) is about sticking numbers in your GPS and finding a plastic box. If I want an IQ test I'll join Mensa.

 

Thats just the way I feel folks. Sorry if you don't agree with it.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[MCL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huga:

 

...I hate it if I have to scrabble around for 1/2 an hour because I failed to find exactly the right tree in a huge great forest, with rubbish GPS reception, and the clue says "Look by the tree on your left". Whose left? Which tree? Argh!

 

---

 

Oh I totally agree with Huga on this one. Bear in mind that some people may have come hundreds of miles to attempt a cache, and you would rather like them to do the same again for your other caches, so it probably pays not to piss them off too much. Finding a cache is money and time investment. The cache planter ought to respect that if he wants to become known as a planter of "good" caches, and gain a reputation for it.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[+Rocky Balboa]

Jeepers MCl you must be really lazy as this is the second time you have moaned about having to skip your first cache listings page because they are all yours or you aint interested (JOKE BEFORE I GET SHOUTED AT) well half a joke

I think caching would be very tedious if some caches didnt involve a little more so I would never put people off planting something inventive. As for caches that are almost impossible - well to plant a cache the cacher must have done it first so everything is possible - its up to you wether you go for it, no one is forcing you Like you said, its just about planting and finding lunchboxes so lets do just that, the more variety the merrier

 

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

[Slytherin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nia:

My worst ever clue said '10 yards west of the path'

after 3 trips and a total of 5 hours searching it was '35 yards west of the path'.

---

Our worst ever clue was probably "the cache is hidden under a big pile of stones off to the left of the main path up the hill"

There were stones everywhere and eventually we found it to the right of the path.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

The "harder" caches - they are the caches north of Birmingham, aren't they???

[+Huga]

Whilst I do agree with MCL on many points, I think he's missing the point slightly, in that Geocaching isn't about 'gettting credits for boxes found'. Yes, it's nice to have a large number of found boxes, and I sometimes compare my numbers with other people, but if you've been out and had to find 40 boxes to get 20 credits, then so be it. You still know that you've found 40 boxes, it's just that you've only got 20 credits. Sheesh, people. It's only a number.

 

I mean, I don't complain about the 451 caches I've found but not logged, do I?

 

Besides, it's not only the cacher that's losing out on 'credits', but the cache setter too. If someone sets a cache that has 5 real boxes hidden around the place (as opposed to just clues), but they're all part of the same cache, then (s)he's hidden 5 caches, but only gets 1 hiding credit.

 

It's all swings and roundabouts, and variety is the spice of life after all.

 

--

**Mother is the name of God on the lips of all children**

[+lathama]

quote:

---

I mean, I don't complain about the 451 caches I've found but not logged, do I?

---

 

Only one problem with not logging caches is that a cache owner may think that a cache has not be visited for a long time / gone missing and so achive it when actually a cache is still present on the ground with people visiting it regulary.

 

IF YOU FIND A CACHE LOG IT ON HERE BECAUSE IT HELPS CACHE OWNERS

[+Huga]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lathama:

quote:

---

I mean, I don't complain about the 451 caches I've found but not logged, do I?

---

 

IF YOU FIND A CACHE LOG IT ON HERE BECAUSE IT HELPS CACHE OWNERS

---

 

 

--

**Mother is the name of God on the lips of all children**

[+Pharisee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slytherin:

Our worst ever clue was probably "the cache is hidden under a big pile of stones off to the left of the main path up the hill"

There were stones everywhere and eventually we found it to the right of the path.

---

 

s'pect you were going along the path the "wrong" way

 

**************************************************

 

To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[Slytherin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pharisee:

s'pect you were going along the path the "wrong" way

---

How many different ways are there of going UP a hill

 

Alex.

[+Nia]

Its good to see some differences of opinion, as the forum is a bit boring at the moment.

 

We definetely need all types of cache, even just for us and MCL as we seem to like complete opersites.

 

MCL wont like one of our caches, as it takes about half a day, and is tem caches for only the one credit. It is intended as a day out more than a lot of driving to various caches.

 

We agree that season changes, do cause problem, and this being our first year of geocaching admit to planting 2 caches in spring that became very hard in the summer, It just had not occured to us. But from this year on it will.

 

Allthough we like a cache that is "fiendish, more complex, more obscure, more inventive and brain-racking than all the others within 20 miles" we do like to be able to find it, and if after an hour searching we de-code the clue, we like it to be helpful and specific. The GPS gets us close the clue only needs to help with the last 100 yards.

 

Our next cache is going to be easy and singular, probable aimed at children.

 

Tech-no notice

[Ben Pid]

OOOOOPS sorry MCL you aint gonna like me when my new cache has been planted sorry dude...but hey I got rid of all those MIDI files for ya

 

hehe

 

Pid

 

Ben Piddington http://www.buckscaching.co.uk

[MCL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huga:

Whilst I do agree with MCL on many points, I think he's missing the point slightly, in that Geocaching isn't about 'gettting credits for boxes found'.

---

 

Well, I both agree and disagree. *Some* people like to value the count highly, and some don't. To say that Geocaching is one or the other is both right and wrong in that what is right for one person might not be the way someone else does it. Since Geocaching is essentially a personal thing, I suppose it is up to each individual as to whether he/she places importance on one aspect or another. We were asked for opinions and I gave mine.

 

I do like hard caches, but not too many of them! I just don't much like multicaches, unless (he says, grovellingly) they are like the ones Huga does..

 

And I do happen to set myself personal goals in terms of numbers (just for myself, no-one else) and so to me the numbers are quite important and a plethora of multicaches skews the numbers somewhat. For me, the goalsetting is part of the fun of the sport, and if I am the only one with this opinion then so be it. Surely I am entitled to hold it?

 

You can all think me weird if you like, but hey, its my sport as well as yours....

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[+Huga]

Yeah, fair enough, it's all opinions.

 

There's very little right or wrong in this world (except me being right, of course).

Was just slightly taken aback my MCL's 'tone' (as much as there can be in plain text), moaning about credits

 

Happy joy.

 

--

**Mother is the name of God on the lips of all children**

[+The Wombles]

GEOcaching is different to other games because of the ability to guide someone to a specific place.

 

We like Geocaching because people guide us to places of interest /beauty /the unusual, and our caches are designed to do just this.

 

The complexity of getting someone to that location should vary (we're all different and like different challenges) and providing this is clear on the cache page then it doesn't matter which - people will make their own decision before they go looking.

 

Caches which have low merit for us usually end in a forest with no redeeming features and places of interest nearby. Worse still, the litter suggests its a place you don't want to be and its taken you half a day to solve clues to get there.

 

Easier caches must have helpful hints which enable the cache to be found (the hint should narrow the search area right down without being ambiguous) but a 4* or 5* cache might have a vague hint - that's part of the appeal and challenge of a difficult cache.

 

Please remember that some of us are pushing a small child in a buggy with other small children in tow - they don't want to climb a mountain but find somewhere to park near the top!

 

I guess all this can be summarised by saying that for us it's the destination which is important, the journey to get there is of interest but not the primary objective. However, it's very important that there is space for variation - that's what make's the sport interesting.

 

Dave

[MCL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huga:

Was just slightly taken aback my MCL's 'tone' (as much as there can be in plain text), moaning about credits

---

 

Apologies if my genuine opinion came across as "moaning". It wasn't meant to.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[+Travers]

It seems like most people have agreed to disagree. Thank God for that!

 

For my 2 cents worth:

 

The numbers game-

 

I think the totals do matter on a personal basis, not necessarily in hitting a higher score than everyone else, but in setting goals. Personally I’d like to reach 100 before Christmas. After that I figure I’ll have just about run out of caches within a 50 mile radius.

 

Multi-Caches-

 

I like them. I’ve set one with 6 parts that probably takes 2-3 hours, but it takes in some interesting places and sculptures in the area and most importantly, it would be something I would be happy to do from the ‘searching’ point of view as well. The only proviso I would place is that they’re not going to get as many visitors because of the time commitment and if I had travelled 100 miles to go to a few caches, then I’d try the easier ones first simply because I may not have time to finish the multi. If they’re nearby I don’t care if they have a dozen parts or if they are pretty difficult because I can start it and come back when I have more time…like Moss Trooper’s GeoPuzzle.

 

Personally, we’re coming around to the idea that a good walk with the prospects of a great view or an interesting structure or history at the end is what makes a good cache.

 

In the end, despite everyone's preferences, it's important to have variety and not to exclude anyone who may not physically be able to climb mountains or indeed decypher complex clues.

[+Chris n Maria]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Travers:

Personally, we’re coming around to the idea that a good walk with the prospects of a great view or an interesting structure or history at the end is what makes a good cache.

---

Couldn't agree more.

 

The only thing that puts me off multi-caches is when there is no idea how long it will take on the description. I know it is subjective...but it would help. It's often very difficult to tell wether it was intended that you walk or drive btween the various points.

 

Chris

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nia:

Its good to see some differences of opinion, as the forum is a bit boring at the moment.

---

Do you still think this, Nia?

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

[+Geoffnco]

Difficult or easy, I don't mind as long as it involves a decent walk with the dogs. No town centres, no reaching out of car windows to pick up the cache. As with all of us - a purely personal thing.

 

My worst clue

*The view of the cache was taken looking down* refering to an attached digi pic. At the time I was 500 metres above sea level and 170 miles from the PC!

Geoff