Middle Of Nowhere Caches

December 14, 2003

First, please forgive me if this has already been covered. I'm an avid hiker/backpacker who is still pretty new to geocaching. My only real frustration with caching has been the fact that most caches are hidden so close to the nearest road. So, after you find it, you have three options: (1) go home (which seems anticimatic), (2) go back to the car and drive to another cache location (and I HATE driving) or (3) just put the GPS in your pack and go for a hike (which I love).

I wish there were more caches in my area that would involve a nice all-day hike or overnight backpacking trip, preferably with some bushwhacking into those empty spaces on the map where there are no roads or trails. Given this wish, I've been thinking about placing a cache of my own near the middle of a long trail that would require about four hours of hiking and then some bushwhacking (and of course another four hours of hiking to get back). The spot I have in mind is near enough to a fine backcountry campsite that someone who wanted to make an overnighter of the experience could do so.

I was all excited about this idea, but then I finally located a cache that invovled a bit more than a half hour of walking to find, and the log book had several complaints about how much walking was involved to get there!

So my questions are: (1) Is there a maximum amount of hiking past which it's considered rude or inappropriate to place a cache, and (2) if someone did place a cache that was remote enough to involve a dayhike, would hardcore geocachers want to go looking for it?

2.4k · December 14, 2003

If you hide it, they will come. However, the farther from "civilization" you hide it, the fewer will come. If it's a 4 hour hike, each way, I'd definately want it to be in an "oh wow" type location.

The remoteness allows you to make the hide "less difficult" as there will be fewer people to accidentally stumble across it, and you COULD stock it with better stuff, because with fewer visits, and probably visits from the more 'hardcore' cachers, it's probably less likely to get "trashed" as soon.

December 14, 2003

This is a pretty good example of a "middle of nowhere" cache

2.7k · December 14, 2003

Yoo are talking the real meaning of a Cache I love to put them back in and up. And from experience only a few will find them, but they will love them.

The following are some examples of some good back in the hills caches.

24.7k · December 14, 2003

There is nothing wrong with those kinds of caches. If you are one to place them more power to you.

December 14, 2003

It's my favorite kind of cache, something that will take a day (or two) to complete.

5.3k · December 15, 2003

According to the Official Guidelines, this kind of cache is not acceptable, since it is a Vacation cache. If you can't get to it to maintain it within hours of a reported problem, then you can't maintain it to the standards that this site says it requires. Thus, this kind of cache (which is the best, of course) is strongly discouranged by geocaching.com.

Edited December 15, 2003 by fizzymagic

December 15, 2003

Don't listen to fizzy, if the cach is within a couple hundred miles of your house it will be fine.

38.2k · December 15, 2003

Go for it. I wish there were more of them in my area. Actually there aren't any. The best are a 5 mile RT.

Edited December 15, 2003 by briansnat

5.3k · December 15, 2003

Go for it. I wish there were more of them in my area. Actually there aren't any. The best are a 5 mile RT.

An interesting position from a person who is so completely dead set against anything that even hints at being a "vacaction cache."

Seems to me a cache requiring an overnight backpack is, by its very definition, a vacation cache. Perhaps we're seeing a teeny bit of a double standard?

2.4k · December 15, 2003

An interesting position from a person who is so completely dead set against anything that even hints at being a "vacaction cache."

Seems to me a cache requiring an overnight backpack is, by its very definition, a vacation cache. Perhaps we're seeing a teeny bit of a double standard?

only if you're too lazy to hike in. if it's located close enough that you can get to it in a reasonable amount of time, it's not a vacation cache. i'd think someone willing to do a overnight hike lugging along cache is probably willing to do the overnight hike to do a maintanence check on it.

December 15, 2003

A good hike through a beautiful area is the best sort of cache. it doesn't need to be a wow area or a wow destination, just nice - although hilltop views are pretty popular out where I live. Go for it, and place more. Cacher's who complain about such things don't "get it". Cachers who are discovering the outdoors will love you for your trail-blazing.

A word of advice. Since the cache is more about the hike and less about the hide, feel free to give people advice that aids them in making the hike. where to park, what sort of permission to get, if any, what trail to start out on. If the hike really is overnight, even more information will be appreciated, such as locations and permits. These sorts of caches are more like tours, so don't withhold information. You can even provide background about the land being hiked through and it's flora/fauna/geology - it's all good.

Simple example, a cache I'm going for this month is in a regional wilderness area. It's a few miles round trip, the first parts uphill. The hider writes, "park at the .72 mile marker on xxx road. You need to get a $4 permit from the park office to do this. Then take yyy trail" - he didn't make it too easy, but smoothed the initial access. Also, state distance and elevation changes if any. You'll get fewer complains from tenderfoots that way.

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

Technically an overnight hike would not be a vacation cache since you could do it over a weekend and not have to take any vacation time. Of course, technically, if you were unemployed [WalruZ raises his hand] you could place a cache anywhere, since you would not be doing it on 'vacation'.

It would be possible to win the lottery (happens to me every night after I fall asleep) and just travel the country placing caches. If you can afford to fly cross

country to maintain a cache, why should you be prevented from doing so?

I've seen plenty of caches go unmaintained for reasons other than distance. It's a pretty blunt guideline, even though I understand it.

Edited December 15, 2003 by WalruZ

4k · December 15, 2003

I'd love to have a cache like this near me. In Kansas, it's pretty hard to hike 4 hours in any direction and not come across a road or farm, or ranch or some other civilized distraction. More power to ya!

1.3k · December 15, 2003

I dont think its a vacation cache by any means. Just because it takes you a little while to actually get to the cache doesnt make it a "vacation". I understood from vacation caches that if you are on vacation, and not in a position to go there very often or ever again, then you cant place a cache. If I for example, lived at the bottom of a huge mountain, and was only a few miles from where the cache actually was, but it would take me many hours to hike to the cache, it would still be in the 25 mile (give or take) from your house "rule". I think those caches are great. It "forces" people to enjoy the journey and not just go from cache to cache to say that they did 100 caches in a day. Anyways, i think those caches are great. I probably wont ever go find one, but i think they are a great addition.

December 15, 2003

I wish there were more caches in my area that would involve a nice all-day hike or overnight backpacking trip,---Given this wish, I've been thinking about placing a cache of my own near the middle of a long trail that would require about four hours of hiking and then some bushwhacking (and of course another four hours of hiking to get back). The spot I have in mind is near enough to a fine backcountry campsite that someone who wanted to make an overnighter of the experience could do so.

I believe that he said twice that it could be a one day in and out.

Or if you didn't want to feel rushed that you could continue to the campsite and relax to return the next day.

38.2k · December 15, 2003

An interesting position from a person who is so completely dead set against anything that even hints at being a "vacaction cache."

How does a cache that requires a long hike equate to one that is left behind by a vacationer who places a cache 2,000 miles from home, with no intent on returning? Please, give me a clue.

f you can't get to it to maintain it within hours of a reported problem, then you can't maintain it to the standards that this site says it requires.

Where do the guidelines state this? Kindly post the link.

Edited December 15, 2003 by briansnat

December 15, 2003

Ditto!

December 15, 2003

Out of the few caches that I have done, the 'middle of nowhere' type have been the most enjoyable and rewarding for me, because they make for a whole day or afternoon of adventure. Of course everyone has his own preference. Personally I am going to hit the rest of the remote caches in this area next, rather than the 100 feet from the road ones, even though it will result in a lower found stat. I'll get only 1 or 2 caches per excursion, but man will it be fun. To me, driving around getting all the easy caches seems to be just a way to get a quick fix to get your numbers up. I did it one night and it seemed kind of lame. Quality over quantity for me.

The only 1 cache I have placed takes at least an hour hiking each way (typically more), and is all about the hike and the very unique view from the cache location. The cache itself is more of a novelty, and I didn't even hide it very well just for that reason. The real fun is in getting to it, and then coming back. When you get to a cache like this, you realize you are only halfway done, because now you have to get back safely!

I would also think: yes, remote caches are hard to get to for maintenance, but I would imagine that they would need less maintenance to begin with. They should be much less likely to be plundered or muggled than your urban park cache. They might also contain better swag because only people who are serious about getting such a cache would go for one.

Go for it - I love middle of nowhere caches, and think it's more in line with the theme of the game (I think an urban park cache can often be more appropriately made into a letterbox, given address and clues). But I am almost a newbie and that's just my opinion.

38.2k · December 15, 2003

Out of the few caches that I have done, the 'middle of nowhere' type have been the most enjoyable and rewarding for me, because they make for a whole day or afternoon of adventure. Of course everyone has his own preference. Personally I am going to hit the rest of the remote caches in this area next, rather than the 100 feet from the road ones, even though it will result in a lower found stat. I'll get only 1 or 2 caches per excursion, but man will it be fun. To me, driving around getting all the easy caches seems to be just a way to get a quick fix to get your numbers up. I did it one night and it seemed kind of lame. Quality over quantity for me.

I wish there were more geocachers like you. Many of the caches I place take a little work to get to and are in interesting areas, but they can go several months between finds. Yet my stupid little micros attached to guardrails get hit frequently. And I'm talking New Jersey, where the longest hikes to a cache may involve a 2-3 hour round trip walk. People on this website repeat the mantra "its not about the numbers", but in practice it appears that cranking up the numbers is the goal for the majority. The sad fact is that most geocachers would rather spend 3 hours bagging five or six lame 1/1 caches than taking the same amount of time looking for a single interesting one.

Edited December 15, 2003 by briansnat

December 15, 2003

You might want to use this cache as a comparison for what you're planning.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-1b4c6aad04f0

This guy is from California and, like yourself, he would rather hike than eat. His selection of this cache site establishes that fact.

December 15, 2003

a cache that invovled a bit more than a half hour of walking to find, and the log book had several complaints about how much walking was involved to get there!

I have ran across the same problem in Western KY and Southern IL. Any walk past 6/10 of a mile and the log is full of complaints. There are many caches in my area that require 1 mile hikes in beautiful areas that are only visited 1 to 4 times per year. One cache requiring a 2 hour hike was placed at the first of September and no one has visited it yet. Two caches placed over a year ago on the Cache river Cache Cache and Cache Cash Cache (both requiring a boat) have only been visited or attempted by the owner of the other cache.

I began Geocaching in October and thought I would be placing caches all over the place, but I have postponed some of my more adventurous locations until geocaching becomes more popular in the area, or until I resolve some of my Ego issues of wanting my caches to be popular and liked by every cacher.

I have enjoyed getting out to new areas I have never been and taking my wife Fairy Flirt and nephew GEO.LOGO to areas they have never been. GEO.LOGO has taught us that the importance of Geocaching is not how many caches you can log in a day, by asking “Are there any rocks I can climb on there?” Quality and enjoyment of the experience is the most important thing for many people. Therefore, as others have said provide information up front about what to expect from the hike and what the individuals will gain from the hike. If an area is worth a short hike to have a secluded camping experience I would make the trip for that reason alone, and the cache would just be a bonus.

I am planning a road trip the last 3 weeks of January to Salt Lake City, Northern CA and Oregon and hope to see examples of caches in other areas.

Happy caching.

GEO.JOE

5.3k · December 15, 2003

How does a cache that requires a long hike equate to one that is left behind by a vacationer who places a cache 2,000 miles from home, with no intent on returning? Please, give me a clue.

Gee, I guess I missed the part of the guidelines that says that a cache has to be 2000 miles from your house and that you have to have no intent to return in order to be a vacation cache. Could you please point me to the section of the guidelines in which that definition is made?

And, while you're at it, could you explain how your prior position that any cache that can't easily be maintained is unacceptable is consistent with your current claim that such a cache is just fine as long as it happens to be near your home?

On second thought, don't bother. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing the issue with somebody who can't be bothered to consider any point of view different from the official one of geocaching.com.

This post has been edited by an anonymous donor on June 20, 2005, 5:15 PM

Edited December 15, 2003 by fizzymagic

December 15, 2003

I would say feel free to place a cache at the end of whatever hike length you like! Maybe mention on the info page what the finder can expect. We've moaned about caches in the past, but only when we haven't done enough research, and didn't know what we were getting into. If the information is there, and people moan, well they're being slightly unreasonable, really.

As for it being a 'vacation' cache, that's ridiculous. If you have the intention to go again and check it's there after a couple of DNFs, then it's not a vacation cache.

Go for it! There's no way we'd come and get it, but it's all a matter of perspective. We currently like a 1 mile walk to our cache (or more if it's level). Not keen at all on less than .5 miles, unless we're on a numbers mission.

Cheers,

Stu

3k · December 15, 2003

Fizzy, dear Fizzy. I have caches that are placed in other states. I return often and the farthest one has my sister's family to be keepers of the cache. Granted, New England states are small, it's not like hiding one in east Texas and living in west New Mexico. As long as I maintain my travel habits they know these are not vacation caches for me, I can get to my caches in a 10 minute drive or a 2 hour drive, the farthest being the one behind my sister's house which is a 4 hour ride. But her kids have the responsibility of checking on that cache when I ask them to. I prefer the caches that are deeper into the woods. Those are the hikes I can get the mann to join me on. He doesn't like the short park and grab caches at all, there's no walk in it for him. So the farther in the better it is for me to spend time with him. Otherwise he stays home and I go with others. If it involved camping, even winter camping, he would jump on the chance to go in a heartbeat. Plant those caches deeper! Please! Race Brook Ravine was a hike! Mt Monadnock was a climb. If you don't want to drive to my Some Gave All, you can hike in 9 or 11 miles. So as much as I dislike disagreeing with you fizzy, I do on this count. I a cacher can prove they do the travelling, and often then it's not really a vacation cache. Suppose they have a cabin out that way, or family, or work takes them travelling. There are many sides to a story. There are a few in Vermont that are way out there. I may try to hit them on a snowmobile this year!

38.2k · December 15, 2003

There are a few in Vermont that are way out there. I may try to hit them on a snowmobile this year!

I hear Its High, Its Far, Its Orange is a good one. It's high on my 2do list.

I own two caches in Vt. They really aren't vacation caches, because I go there about 10-12 weekends a year. Most of those are in winter for skiing, but my brother moved there last year, so I visit during the summer now too. I placed the caches along my travel route so they are easy to check on.

Edited December 15, 2003 by briansnat

December 15, 2003

..then I finally located a cache that invovled a bit more than a half hour of walking to find, and the log book had several complaints about how much walking was involved to get there!

Most complaints in logs aren't really complaints at all--they are a peculiar sort of statement of pride meaning, "this was really hard for me, but I stuck with it."

I think a lot of cache placers fall into a role as shopkeeper and view cache seekers as customers. Bosh! If anything, you're their guide, coach or tormentor--and they are your followers, players or victims. As long as you play fair and describe the diffculty and terrain accurately, you must regard their squeals and complaints as compliments and indicators of success.

Imagine yourself as a personal trainer and your client is grunting and hollering under some hideous exercise you've assigned. Do you say, "awfully sorry; here, try a few gentle stretching movements instead. Want a pillow?" Heck no! They want you to make 'em work for it!

Finally, if the above leaves you unconvinced, consider this: Good storytelling is always about adversity. A cache log that says, "Found easily after uneventful stroll. TNLNSL." is not interesting. As a result, a lot of cachers accentuate the negative in what they hope is a playful way in order to add drama and self-deprecating humor to routine logs. I do it all the time. 'Course it's easy for me, because I have the natural cache-finding ability of Mr. Magoo. There was this one time...

9.4k · December 15, 2003

Fizzy, if you place a cache on a one-time trip to Hawaii, when would you be able to maintain it? That's a vacation cache, one that you are unable to maintain within a reasonable amount of time.

Now, if you travel to Hawaii once a month on business, you are in a position to maintain it and thus, it would not be a vacation cache.

If I hike into the mountains 10 miles from my house and place a cache, I would be able to repeat that hike if there was a reported problem with the cache. I could do it on my next day off, where a trip to Hawaii would take weeks of planning and saving money. See the difference?

38.2k · December 15, 2003

Fizzy, if you place a cache on a one-time trip to Hawaii, when would you be able to maintain it? That's a vacation cache, one that you are unable to maintain within a reasonable amount of time...

I don't think he wants to waste any more time discussing the issue with somebody who can't be bothered to consider any point of view different from the official one of geocaching.com.

21.9k · December 15, 2003

A gentle reminder to those veteran geocachers who are discussing the rule regarding caches placed while on vacation or "beyond your maintainable distance": This topic is currently being discussed in Renegade Knight's Thread in the Geocaching Topics Forum. Please continue the debate about the meaning of that rule over there. This is the "Getting Started" forum. PM Thumper asked for basic advice about placing caches in areas requiring a long hike. They are two different issues, although there's clearly some overlap. Please try to focus on the question asked at the beginning of this thread. Each of you is very well-qualified to assist PM Thumper with his question. Thank you.

2k · December 15, 2003

Maybe there are no remote caches in your area because somebody needs to break the ice? You might start a trend. Hey what have you got to lose, $20 -$30 for a cache?

December 16, 2003

I agree with GEO JOE, Southern illinois needs some longer hike caches. There are several that have WOW locations, at least for me coming from Ohio. Southern Illinois is rich with history for virtual caches, and definetely has some WOW terrain. I did see a new one pop up near Garden of the Gods that requires a 4 hour hike in....I will be checking it out soon as no one has logged it yet.

December 16, 2003

Lately I have been looking for more caches like yours. Now just need to find the time to hunt some!

dadgum the "silly season"

Scott

December 16, 2003

I wish there were more geocachers like you. Many of the caches I place take a little work to get to and are in interesting areas, but they can go several months between finds. Yet my stupid little micros attached to guardrails get hit frequently. And I'm talking New Jersey, where the longest hikes to a cache may involve a 2-3 hour round trip walk. People on this website repeat the mantra "its not about the numbers", but in practice it appears that cranking up the numbers is the goal for the majority. The sad fact is that most geocachers would rather spend 3 hours bagging five or six lame 1/1 caches than taking the same amount of time looking for a single interesting one.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd prefer to 'bag the lame 1/1 caches' during the week after work, and hunt the ones requiring longer hikes on the weekends.

Unfortunately, the situation locally is one where I don't get that option. Having found all of the closer ones already, I either drive several hours to where I can 'bag' several caches, some interesting puzzles or unique camouflage jobs, some inevitably lame, or I can hike several hours to find a single cache, which can still turn out to be lame despite the nice walk.

So sometimes I do one, and sometimes the other...

3.8k · December 16, 2003

I wish there were more caches like that near me I love the walk. Dont think there are many here in the UK that NEED 20 mile around trip

December 17, 2003

I have only started geocaching, but I'm not in it for the hike, I'm in it for my bike! I have a Hog and Gwyn and I love to have an excuse to hit the road. Geocaching is that excuse. Finding a micro on a guard rail is just fine by me, if I've spent a happy two or three hours on back roads motoring over to it. Leaving Ghwyenn parked by the side of the road while I take a four hour hike into the wilderness isn't the agenda for the day.

But the question was about caches that are a significant distance off the road. Go ahead! Sometimes I feel like hiking. But I know I won't do more than a day trip. My camping equipment is for historical reenactment and includes things like cast iron pots and canvas tents. Backpack? What's that?

Jean

December 18, 2003

Thanks very much to everyone who has responded to this thread! Enough people have weighed in on both sides of the question that I think I have a good gauge of opinion.

3.5k · December 19, 2003

One more thing ~

If you plan on placing a cache in a remote area be absoluetly sure the container will last. Use an ammo can or something tested to withstand the elements! If your area experiences deep freezes, stay away from plastic containers as they can become brittle and crack in the cold.

I think there's there's nothing more deflating, geocaching-wise, than hiking a whole day with one specific cache in mind, only to find a soggy, moldy, plastic box of ick.

Edit ~ spelling errors

Edited December 19, 2003 by 9Key

December 19, 2003

Man, I would LOVE it if there were more caches like that near me. Of course you can't get too remote in a little state like CT :mad: . More power to you - don't be discouraged by the whining. If you rated the cache appropriately then they have no grounds for complaint. Sure, a 1/1 is going to get more hits, because a lot of people don't have the time to devote to an all-day cache, or they don't enjoy a long hike. Different strokes and all that.

Cheers!

December 19, 2003

I have a couple of caches like that. Wild! 9 Mile Loop and When the Going Gets Rough. They require a little extra care and planning than regular caches. For one thing, you want to go with ammo boxes. And you want the contents to be kind of special, not your average dollar store stuff. In When the Going Gets Rough, I placed all outdoors stuff. A first aid kit, a pocket tool, a compass, flashlight, survival book, can of sardines, bug spray- stuff like that.

I also made it more than one cache. When you come to the first meadow up top on the way to When the Going Gets Rough, there is the McToys geocache. On the Wild! 9 Mile Loop, you first get 4 other caches along the loop before you finally score the fifth.

Only the most adventurous visit these caches, but they all seem to enjoy it with the extra effort that goes into finding the cache. Look at the comments I've recieved from When the Going Gets Rough.

December 20, 2003

Team Waterboy with Wife has a reputation in my area for putting out caches that involve a long hike, most if not all of them require 2 miles in and then 2 miles back out.

I also have a cache that involves a few miles of hiking.

I say go for it. The caches I have been on that involved the long hikes, have been the most memorable.

Middle Of Nowhere Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation