Too many easy caches? No such thing, imho...

[Rubbertoe]

Over the past several months, I've seen it mentioned more than once that some areas have "too many" easy caches. I'm having a hard time swallowing that theory.

 

I believe that the easy caches serve a useful purpose to the hobby. Without the easy caches for the newbies to get, there is a good chance that people wouldn't get hooked into the hobby as easily. I'm sure a lot of new geocachers set out to find several easy ones before they'd ever attempt to find a 4/4 or something. If the only caches in their area were difficult ones, they might try to find a few... and fail... and then give up.

 

My home town of Lancaster, OH had very few caches. I've done my best to hide a variety around town, in order to promote some interest in the town for outsiders that might want to come here to find them, but I've also kept them easy enough that newbies here in the town itself might discover the hobby.

 

Granted, some people might place caches at random... just "sticking them somewhere" where people can just drive into a parking lot and find it, or something - but even those have their place. Remember, some people are in it for the competition... and the more caches they can find, the better.

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[+Gimpy]

I've placed 26 caches that have been logged roughly 900 times. The caches range from 3/4s to 1/2s. I would say that the majority are in the 2/3 range. We've got a whole lot of families around here that enjoy taking their little kids caching, & the easier ones are geared towards them, & I generally state that on the cache pages. None of the easier ones are even close to being drive-bys, but are more of 1/4 - 3/4 mile hike, with no mountain climbing or really heavy bushwacking involved. I only place them in areas that have some significant aesthetic or historical value, and in areas where the grounds won't get trampled. I've had a few logs, where the cacher stated that the cache was too easy, & I couldn't care less. The overwhelming majority, probably 99%, have reflected that the cache outing was very enjoyable. That's what it's all about. Some folks like to come home with tales of near the edge adventure, & some like to come home after spending an enjoyable day with the family. I try to place caches that will benefit each group. It all comes down to, if you don't like one of my caches, don't go after it. If you do, & want to complain, try to find someone that cares to complain to. I'm sure we all know someone that has to complain about something or they're not happy.

 

"Gimpy"

[+briansnat]

I don't think the issue is too many easy caches. 1/1 caches have their place, both for those who like to find as many caches as possible, as well as for those who are physically unable to tackle more difficult caches. They are also great starting points for beginning Geocachers.

 

I think the issue is that there are too many of the "drive and dump" caches out there. Caches that don't add much to the sport. I think there should be a bit more to hiding a cache than throwing some of your broken kid's toys and some garbage from your junk drawer into Gladware container and putting it under a pile of sticks 50 yards from the parking lot.

 

Too often these kinds of caches are in areas that don't offer much from an interest standpoint. I've seen caches hidden in the weeds of a litter strewn lot, along highway rest stops and in tiny urban wooded lots frequented by homeless folk and drug users. I don't find much appeal in these kinds of caches and I think this is what many people are complaining about.

 

It's not too hard to create an easy cache and make it interesting. Just takes a little imagination and effort.

 

And some areas do have too many easy caches. It's nice to have a variety. On vacation this summer, I was in an area were most of the caches were of the "drive and dump" variety. I really had to go out of my way to find one that was interesting and a bit of a challenge.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on November 17, 2002 at 12:54 PM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

Over the past several months, I've seen it mentioned more than once that some areas have "too many" easy caches. I'm having a hard time swallowing that theory.

---

 

Well, why don't you go out and find a hundred or so of them, and let us know if you still feel the same way. Yes, I am serious. Put that theory to the test!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

I believe that the easy caches serve a useful purpose to the hobby. Without the easy caches for the newbies to get, there is a good chance that people wouldn't get hooked into the hobby as easily.

---

 

I agree with you ... but how many 'introductory caches' does an area need? I'm not suggesting people shouldn't place such caches; I am suggesting that it will eventually become obvious which of the easy caches are favored, and perhaps owners of the less interesting/successful caches should consider removing and archiving their cache. I would think this would improve the overall quality of the easy caches.

[+Planet]

For days when the weather's really bad, or the snow is too deep, or it's really cold, a short, quick cache can be a nice diversion, or just wanting to grab a quickie during the day, on the way to somewhere or at lunch. I like them sometimes, although I went to one a while back that was right out in the open in a really busy place and I would have looked suspicious looking for it because the parks guy was there cleaning up so I had to leave it alone.

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

 

[This message was edited by Planet on November 18, 2002 at 12:46 PM.]

[+briansnat]

I've placed a variety of caches. Nothing too extreme, but I personally prefer a decent hike to get to a cache; one that provides interesting terrain, nice views, etc..., so I place many of my caches in spots like this. I also have a few extremely easy caches because I realize the importance of making both kinds available to the Geocaching community. I do try to put a little thought into both types and even my 1/1's (I like to think) are in areas that are, at least, aesthetically nice, or of historical interest.

 

Sadly, it's the really easy ones that are found most often. The caches that I put some money, time and effort into hiding get relatively few finds.

 

Its a shame, but the fact is that most Geocachers are out for the quick and easy find (with Mr Bassoonpilot, a notable execption to this rule).If you hide it, BP will come.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[Dinoprophet]

Instead of "too many easy caches", you could think of the complaint as "too few hard caches". It's the ratio of easy-to-hard that's the problem, I think. There's not enough of a mix for some people.

 

quote:

---

Well, why don't you go out and find a hundred or so of them, and let us know if you still feel the same way. Yes, I am serious. Put that theory to the test!

---

I'm at 67 now, and the vast majority of these have been, "find the out-of-place pile of sticks or hollow tree within a quarter mile of the parking lot". I'm not complaining about those, I've had a lot of fun-filled afternoons hunting them and been to a lot of beautiful parks within miles of my house that I didn't know about. Only a handful have failed to at least bring me to an interesting location. But as BP suggests, before long, you start to crave something different in the hiding.

 

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut.

[mortonfox]

Easy caches have value. Sometimes it is raining on the weekend (this weekend was a good example) and I don't want to have to walk too far to get to a cache. Or maybe I'll see something interesting or discover a great greasy burger joint on the way to or at the easy cache. Or maybe it's yet another NJ cache log book for Sammy Sturgeon to sign into.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinoprophet:

Instead of "too many easy caches", you could think of the complaint as "too few hard caches". It's the ratio of easy-to-hard that's the problem, I think. There's not enough of a mix for some people.

---

 

I don't think that's really accurate, at least in my area. We have quite a few caches that require long, challenging hikes or substantial effort to locate ... the problem is, as Brian mentioned a couple of posts back, that few cachers are willing to make an attempt at them. And as I think Brian hinted at in his post, cache owners who make the effort to create a challenging cache may become frustrated and disappointed when their more challenging caches (always in excellent locations, it seems) are routinely ignored.

 

For example, I did a loop hike a week or two ago that included 4 challenging caches and 1 relatively easy cache, all placed within days of each other.

 

Guess which cache had received by far the most visitors?

 

Right; the one closest to parking, which also happened to be the easiest one. (To be fair, all of the caches were well done and placed in interesting locations.)

[BassoonPilot]

Good. This time I was able to edit the duplicate post.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 18, 2002 at 11:00 AM.]

[+georgeandmary]

There was a geopizza pary in the area a few weeks ago and there were some new as you can get newbies at the pizza. They had zero finds and were still learning to use the gps.

 

As I was trying to think of easy caches for them to find to build confidence, I started to have trouble. Easy caches are needed too.

 

I have fun at easy and hard caches.

 

george

 

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

[BassoonPilot]

For some reason my post appeared twice, so I tried to remove one by editing it to this text ... but that only made this new reply appear.

 

WHAT IN BLAZES IS GOING ON HERE???

 

"Server Problems," I've been informed.

[+TMAN264]

I also think the area of the world you live in makes a difference. I notice that urban areas have many more caches (at least in Michigan), and such as things may be, urban caches are easier (the drive and dump effect, or micros that easily be parked next to). I personally prefer the rural caches that have a hike involved, but realistally more people in an area means more caches , therefore more in an urban area. I'd love to spend a month cacheing in the Upper Peneinsula of Michigan, but I could have all of them done in a week, the point being, it's a huge land area, but hardly any caches. My town of 30,000 people has more caches then the entire UP.

 

Lately some of our area cachers have been doing puzzle caches, and I know that certainly has made the urban micro cache more exciting. I hope my ranting make sense.

TMAN264

 

Will cache for food.

[Rubbertoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Well, why don't you go out and find a hundred or so of them, and let us know if you still feel the same way. Yes, I am serious. Put that theory to the test!

---

 

Well, if it got to the point where I didn't enjoy them - I would just not seek them... I wouldn't complain that they were there for others to find.

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

Over the past several months, I've seen it mentioned more than once that some areas have "too many" easy caches. I'm having a hard time swallowing that theory.

---

 

Well, why don't you go out and find a hundred or so of them, and let us know if you still feel the same way. Yes, I am serious. Put that theory to the test!

---

 

OK, I've found over 450 caches. The vast majority have been 3/3 or easier, with most being 2/2 or easier. I've also done several harder caches.

 

Cachers in my area: As long as they are in good locations, keep on hiding the 1/1 and 2/2 caches. Please feel free to hide more 4/4 to 5/5 caches, too. It doesn't matter if they're easy or hard, as long as they're good caches in interesting locations, and not right on top of another cache, keep hiding them!

 

It's not that there are too many easy caches. I need them to feed my addiction. It would be nice if there were more difficult caches within easy driving range, however.

 

[Rubbertoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I don't think that's really accurate, at least in my area. We have quite a few caches that require long, challenging hikes or substantial effort to locate ... the problem is, as Brian mentioned a couple of posts back, that few cachers are willing to make an attempt at them.

 

For example, I did a loop hike a week or two ago that included 4 challenging caches and 1 relatively easy cache, all placed within days of each other. Guess which cache had received by far the most visitors? Right; the one closest to parking, which also happened to be the easiest one.

---

 

Ahh - so the easy caches are now catching the blame when harder caches don't get visitors? I don't think that just because an easy cache is close to a hard cache, that the easy cache would "take away" visits from the harder cache.

 

I mean, at least for me, if I am in an area with 5 caches - there is a good chance I'm gonna try to find them all, regardless of their difficulty. And I think that if a cacher has any intention of doing a 4/4 or 5/5 cache - I don't think that snagging a 1/1 on their way there would convince them not to go after the harder one.

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

 

Ahh - so the easy caches are now catching the blame when harder caches don't get visitors? I don't think that just because an easy cache is close to a hard cache, that the easy cache would "take away" visits from the harder cache.

---

 

No, not the caches; just the banana-brain-lazy-butt cachers who won't attempt them.

[+-=(GEO)=-]

I am new to the sport, and now that I have a few caches under my belt, I have acquired a taste for the harder ones and tend to stay away from the easier ones. I will get to them eventually once I run out of the more interesting ones.

 

Overall I feel that the easy caches are what keeps GeoCaching a "game" while the harder ones introduce another level of challenge and make GeoCaching a "sport".

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

A cache a day keeps the blues away...

[+Geo-Johnson's]

We took a trip "up north" for a weekend and decided to stop at an "easy" one right off the highway. We figured it would be a quicky. The cache was maybe 50 yards from the parking lot in a city park. But the cache itself was very creatively hidden. We've found that our biggest reward when finding a cache is the creativity the owner used in hiding. The more camoflaged the better. If someone in our group says "Oh man! That is so cool!" Then it gets 4 thumbs up no matter how difficult it is.

 

Children are natural mimics who act like their parents despite every effort to teach them good manners.

[+Markwell]

Well how about this situation...

 

A local cacher hid a microcache with nothing in it (not even a log book). There was a validation code on a slip of paper. He hid four of these around the area. People found them because they were new. He took that as encouragement - even though reading between the lines on the logs indicated that these aren't the most favored caches.

 

He now has 30 - yes 30 - of these caches in my general vicinity. Some of the locations are well thought out. But 25 of them have been placed in the last month. His response: people seem to like them.

 

My problem - since Geocaching.com will check proximity to other caches, he's taking up land that would be better used by full-sized regular caches.

 

What to do?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

A local cacher hid a microcache with nothing in it (not even a log book). There was a validation code on a slip of paper. He hid four of these around the area. People found them because they were new.

---

 

We have one here doing the same thing. Film cannisters with no log book. Just some change that you have to count and send thim the amount for verification.

 

The thing is that he doesn't hide them in what would be considered a normal hiding spot, rather it seems he puts them on the ground and covers them with leaves, so you're almost literally looking for a needle in a haystack. And he's doing this in the forest, not suburban parks where a micro would be necessary. What happens though is that people are tearing up the ground looking for the things (and rarely finding them).

 

Luckily for us, it seems he's stopped. The caches haven't been well received and I think some negative comments in the cache logs caused him to rethink his caches.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

The thing is that he doesn't hide them in what would be considered a normal hiding spot, rather it seems he puts them on the ground and covers them with leaves, so you're almost literally looking for a needle in a haystack.

---

 

I'm always afraid when I go out to look for a cache that its going to end up under a bunch of leaves, but thankfully it hasn't happened to me yet One neat micro that I found, I was almost positive that the guy had stuck it under some leaves behind this utility building, but it turned out that he had put it inside one of the metal vents on the building, attached with a magnet a nice surprise. The area did smell funny, though.

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

He now has 30 - yes 30 - of these caches in my general vicinity. Some of the locations are well thought out. But 25 of them have been placed in the last month. His response: people seem to like them.

---

 

I'm pretty sure I know who you mean. I have to agree with the hider, I like them too, even though I only found one of them so far. The one I found was a good challenge, better than some traditional caches. The lack of trade items doesn't bother me, although it might be a bit disappointing if you are caching with kids.

 

The good part, at least for me, is now I have more real caches to hunt in my area, I have depleted almost everything near me except for some virtual or webcam caches that I guess I'm saving in case I get withdrawal symptoms some day I would welcome having 30 new caches near me, it might make it easier to hit my next milestone.

 

I think the hider did a good job spreading these out all over the area, they weren't just concentrated in one spot, and it seems they were all pretty near other caches without being too close. For newcomers it gives a chance of a 2-for-1 when they are in the area, and for those who already found the earlier caches, it gives them a reason to revisit the area.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

 

Well, if it got to the point where I didn't enjoy them - I would just not seek them...

---

 

But...but ... when do you seek caches?

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

...

 

 

He now has 30 - yes 30 - of these caches in my general vicinity. Some of the locations are well thought out. But 25 of them have been placed in the last month. His response: people seem to like them.

 

...

 

---

 

That would drive me totally batty. Knowing me, i'd probably still attempt them, and hint in my log how totally and completely annoying that is. I guess placing real caches near said micros would be the passive-aggressive thing to do. Luckily, that particular situation hasn't exactly occurred in Portland yet.

One slightly annoying thing we have is the recent spike of downtown virtuals, but i can't really complain about that because i'm partially responsible.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

We have one here doing the same thing. Film cannisters with no log book. Just some change that you have to count and send him the amount for verification.

---

 

Actually, two-out-of-three of his micro-challenges were no harder, nor were hidden any better, than the first stage of your "Osio Rock Ramble" or "krap naols." I am certain of it.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

The thing is that he doesn't hide them in what would be considered a normal hiding spot, rather it seems he puts them on the ground and covers them with leaves, so you're almost literally looking for a needle in a haystack.

---

 

I presume that is why he gave them difficulty ratings of 3 and up ... the description for a 3 star difficulty is: "Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon. I think they are rated appropriately ... I wouldn't argue against an additional 1/2 star on them.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

And he's doing this in the forest, not suburban parks where a micro would be necessary. What happens though is that people are tearing up the ground looking for the things (and rarely finding them).

---

 

Way back when, the fellow who placed those caches stated that he felt that most caches were too easy to find, and he stated that he was going to place a few difficult to find microcaches of the type he would like to seek ...and that's precisely what he did; I think he accomplished his goal.

 

I don't agree, however, that moving dead leaves, tree branches and other detritus is causing any damage ... if rocks were being dislodged or plants trampled, then I would agree with you.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Luckily for us, it seems he's stopped.

---

 

Variety is good. The locations he chose for his microcaches were not terribly well-suited for full size caches, except for the "hidden in plain view" variety. It does seem that his participation has ceased. I don't think that is such a good thing; who knows how his cache placing style would have evolved?

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 19, 2002 at 10:48 AM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

 

He now has 30 - yes 30 - of these caches in my general vicinity. Some of the locations are well thought out. But 25 of them have been placed in the last month. His response: people seem to like them.

---

 

Well, if the local die-hard cachers are still logging his caches at this point, he must be right. Since you are active in a geocaching society, you must prevail upon your fellow members to boycott such caches ... if you really feel that strongly about it.

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oregone:One slightly annoying thing we have is the recent spike of downtown virtuals, but i can't really complain about that because i'm partly responsible.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

---

 

I've noticed the same thing in several other cities:

 

Dallas

Fort Worth

Austin

 

And yes, I'm at least partly responsible for the proliferation in each of these cities. I don't think it's necessarily bad, however. In most downtown areas, there are many unique features that make excellent virtuals, but are impractical for even a microcache. And on days when traditional caching isn't practical, they are a great alternative that allow you to get your "fix" without having to deal with thorns, poison ivy, mud, or snakes.

 

[Rubbertoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

Well, if it got to the point where I didn't enjoy them - I would just not seek them...

---

But...but ... when do you seek caches?

---

I seek caches when I'm in an area that has caches that I haven't found yet. I rarely go out of my way to go looking for them. If I am there, and they are there - I'll probably go after them. Besides, I'm more of a hider than a seeker.

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oregone:

That would drive me totally batty. Knowing me, i'd probably still attempt them, and hint in my log how totally and completely annoying that is.

---

 

Some people are oblivious to the subtle hints you might leave. They may not understand that the cache they placed in another cacher's area may be annoying to that cacher, especially if the cacher in the area does not like that particular hider's style.

 

I personally am not fond of the large number of virtuals in touristy areas in my town, but I can see why others would like them, and I even placed one myself, although it is seasonal.

 

With no other way to get them off your nearest list, I guess you either have to just come out and say what's on your mind, or just go find them. I don't know of any other choices.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I do a fair amount of travel for both business and pleasure (not just for geocaching). I like to be able to look for a cache on the way to my destination. If it takes less than an hour (from leaving the freeway) to get to the cache and back, I'll stop by. "Easy" caches are great for this type of caching. There are a few of these around Colorado Springs that I can look for on my trips to Denver (from Albuquerque, NM).

 

Now, if I am going out on a geocaching trip (not on my way to somewhere else), I look for harder caches. I don't mind taking an hour or two on each cache.

 

Both "easy" and "hard" caches have their places. It just depends on how much time I have to spare on each trip. I'll be driving to San Diego for Christmas. If I see any easy caches along I-40 or I-15, I'll take a look. Once in San Diego, I can take a couple of hours each day to look for the more difficult ones.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

 

I seek caches when I'm in an area that has caches that I haven't found yet. I rarely go out of my way to go looking for them.

---

 

Yes, I understand; that makes good sense, Rubbertoe ... but that brings up another question ... Do you go out of your way to place caches?

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

I personally am not fond of the large number of virtuals in touristy areas in my town ...

---

 

Man, wouldn't it be GREAT if we had some kind of IGNORE feature. (In the very least so we wouldn't have to keep placing SUBTLE HINTS like this one.)

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Man, wouldn't it be __GREAT__ if we had some kind of _IGNORE_ feature. (In the very least so we wouldn't have to keep placing _SUBTLE HINTS_ like this one.)

---

 

If it was up to me, and I realize that it's not, this is what I would do. I would use this to drive the sport. For example, if you clear your "nearest" list, you get the option to use the "ignore" feature. Or something similar.

 

What something like this would do is set up some small rewards that would encourage folks to go out and geocache. While not everyone is going to hit the high numbers of the most experienced cachers, they still will have achieved some sort of milestone along the way.

 

It might even keep some folks from leaving the sport. It doesn't necessarily have to be competition (not that there's anything wrong with that), but it could be some sort of achievement or reward for sticking with it.

[Rubbertoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Yes, I understand; that makes good sense, Rubbertoe ... but that brings up another question ... Do you go out of your way to place caches?

---

 

Most of the time I do go out of the way to place a cache. I've spread a few around town here, which aren't too much of a hassle for me to get to - but my "better" ones are further away, and took quite a hike to find a good place and hide.

 

I'm pretty secure in my status in the game here... sure, I only have a couple dozen finds - but I've hidden some pretty nice caches in some pretty nice places, not to mention scooping up the remains of a dead cache and placing a new one near that spot - as well as "trash out"-ing on most of my hunts. So, if anyone in the forums judges my comments by the number of caches I've found - well, they just aren't getting the whole picture.

 

I plan on hiding a couple more 1/1s within the next few days, too. As soon as my business takes me to a nice location, that is. :

 

The NEW Toe Pages

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Way back when, the fellow who placed those caches stated that he felt that most caches were too easy to find, and he stated that he was going to place a few difficult to find microcaches of the type he would like to seek ...and that's precisely what he did; I think he accomplished his goal.

---

 

Anybody can make a cache that's nearly impossible to find. That doesn't make it interesting. Give me some film cannisters and I can put dozens of them out there. They won't take much effort or thought to place, but I can drive the searchers crazy. To me that's not a heck of a lot of fun though. I like to give the finders a chance...even if they have to go to the cheater.

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on November 19, 2002 at 06:18 PM.]