"blind" Geocaching...

[+Andy and Robin]

Any of you ever tried geocaching using just the coordinates and not knowing anything about what you are actually looking for? I tried it today and the numbers got me to an interesting old oak tree but I couldn't find anything. So I went home and looked at the cache online then I went back and found it. It was a very good hide with a film container glued to the underside of a piece of bark and then set over a hole in a large low branch!

[CacheMonkeez]

I've done it...but not on purpose. I downloaded the waypoints to my GPS but the PQs didn't make it to my pocketPC. Doh! Caching blind.

[+Navdog]

Ammo cans and tupperware are pretty easy to do blind if you have good sat reception. Micros on the other hand...

[+Criminal]

I hid one like that.

[+Geofool]

When I first started geocaching, all I would have is the coordinates loaded in the GPSr. It was too much of a hassle to print the cache sheets, and a waste of paper and ink. Definitely made for a more challenging hunt not knowing what you're looking for. Since then, I've added a PDA to my caching gadgets. Much more convenient and has other uses too.

[+Halden]

I did it by acccident on my first hunt. Forgot the pages at home. Still found the cache but would have been much simpler with the cache page.

[+kc8hnz]

I have done all my caches 'blind'. I simply loaded a slew of data poits into my GPSr, and when I'm in the area of one go and find it. With the exceptions of multi caches that have weird math problems (which I don't like in the first place) I can usually find most caches with out a problem. If I can't find a paticular one, I go back to the site at the end of the day, reread the page, then go hunting again. Having the print outs is like having a cheat sheet, at least in my opion. But, now that I bought my brand new $600 dollar PDA for 'school' (hehe)......

[+Renegade Knight]

I've done them semi blind. In that I would not look up the cache page (in my PDA) until I got there. After driving a ways to a required trade them cache or finding better coordinates in a log I gave up the practice.

Edited December 19, 2003 by Renegade Knight

[+mtn-man]

Many many times.

 

Now that I use Spinner, I have the program convert the first letter of the waypoint to a "V" for a virtual and an "M" for a multi, etc. I still leave them all as geocache icons though. That does give me a bit of a cheat so I know whether I'm looking for a virtual or not. If not I search by coords only. If I cannot find it then I will get the PDA out for the description. If it is a virtual then I go right to the PDA of course. It make it more fun and challenging for the hunt and for the drive to the cache.

[+briansnat]

Any of you ever tried geocaching using just the coordinates and not knowing anything about what you are actually looking for? I tried it today and the numbers got me to an interesting old oak tree but I couldn't find anything. So I went home and looked at the cache online then I went back and found it. It was a very good hide with a film container glued to the underside of a piece of bark and then set over a hole in a large low branch!

 

Most of the time. I have the 500 closest waypoints loaded to my GPS and often check to see what's close by when I'm about. Sometimes I get there and don't know if I'm looking for a real cache, or virt, full size, or micro, which can be a prob. There are times I'm able to figure out its a virt when I get to GZ, but without the sheet, or my PDA along, I have a hard time figuring out what the owner is looking for as verification.

Edited December 19, 2003 by briansnat

[+JMBella]

The first few caches I did with just the coords. I didn't know how to put them in the GPS so I just walked around until the numbers on the receiver matched the ones on the paper. That's blind and stupid.

 

Most of the time. I have the 500 closest waypoints loaded to my GPS and often check to see what's close by when I'm about. Sometimes I get there and don't know if I'm looking for a real cache, or virt, which can be a prob.

 

Yep. I've done that too. It's always a nice surprise.

Edited December 19, 2003 by JMBella

[+Marky]

Now that I use Spinner, I have the program convert the first letter of the waypoint to a "V" for a virtual and an "M" for a multi, etc. 

I'm doing this more and more. When searching for a traditional cache, I go only by coords and search for about 10 minutes. Then I read the cache page on my palm (CacheMate) and search for 20 minutes. Then I'll decode the hint and search for about 30 minutes. Then I will give up and log a DNF.

 

I'm finding that I really enjoy the ones I find without looking at the page. It has slowed me down a lot though...

 

--Marky

Edited December 19, 2003 by Marky

[+9Key]

On an easy cache, I'll close my right eye, just for fun! Like this:

[+GEO.JOE]

When caching alone I like the challenge of just using the coordinates. It has taken me into caches through more difficult routes, i.e. over ridges, through valleys, and from above a bluff or water fall. I enjoy the solitude of the walk and see more wildlife on the these walks.

However, when I am caching with my wife, Fairy Flirt, and/or nephew, GEO.LOGO, I have discovered they like to have the print out with hints and maps. They do not like route finding from the top of a cliff to the base of a water fall to discover a level 1/2 mile trial along a creek waiting at the bottom, knowing they have to hike up hill the entire way back to the car. Needless to say there is no hint to decipher, requiring a longer hunt for the cache. It only took me ONE time to learn this lesson!

I have also been searching for a lot of caches in my area that others have not found or have not even searched for in many months or even a year so I have been using any available spoiler to assist in the hunt to make sure the cache is truly missing.

In park type settings or very short walks to the caches even Fairy Flirt and GEO.LOGO are willing to hunt for a cache without the cache page (as long as it is a short walk to retrieve the hint)

 

Happy Caching.

 

GEO.JOE

[BassoonPilot]

The best and most satisfying caches I've done were caches where the owner provided coordinates and nothing more. Caching "by the numbers" (by coordinates only) is the way the game was originally intended to be played.

 

But people "needed" clues. Some even insisted that "foolproof" clues were "needed," because no one should be expected to go home "disappointed" after expending time and energy on a cache hunt. When I was a cache owner, I actually received e-mails from cachers requesting "dead give away clues" for my caches (that already had plenty of clues on the pages) and other caches I had found ... the information they sought included final coordinates to several multicaches. They were planning "cache excursions," and apparently didn't want to be slowed down by having to actually look for the caches.

 

I told them to "take a hike."

[+briansnat]

Some even insisted that "foolproof" clues were "needed," because no one should be expected to go home "disappointed" after expending time and energy on a cache hunt.

 

That's me. I think the point of my caches is for them to be found (well most of them), not to stump people. I do hope that people only decrypt the clues as a last resort, but I know that probably isn't the case. In many cases my 2 star difficulty hide becomes a 1 star difficulty if someone decrypts the clue.

[BassoonPilot]

I think the point of my caches is for them to be found (well most of them), not to stump people.

And despite making your caches totally user friendly, several of your caches, including two multicaches, were on the list I was sent. No matter how easy we make the hunt; no matter how many levels of clues we provide, somebody is going to want a shortcut that eliminates as much effort as possible.

 

[Edit to bring back on topic] That's why some of the last caches I placed contained no "additional" clues or listed coordinates to only two decimal places. Should I ever decide to place another cache, it will definitely contain no clues, in any form, whatsoever.

Edited December 19, 2003 by BassoonPilot

[+Genius Loci]

'Blind' geocaching can be fun, and challenging! But for me, it only works on certain kinds of caches. Personally, I enjoy hunting just about any cache, but I find that often, the ones that add a little more spice to the hunt using the cache descriptions are even more fun. On those, I'm really glad we are able to read something more about the cache - not to help find it, but to add a whole new level of appreciation to the hunt.

 

For example, some cache descriptions list significant and/or interesting historical or geographical information about the cache location. I wouldn't want to hunt those 'blind' because I'd be missing many of the things that make the cache special. Other cache descriptions feature puzzles, riddles, themes, etc. and I find those can be loads of fun if done well. In fact, this kind of stuff in the cache description can turn a 'lame' cache into a winner- and it's all lost if you go at it 'blind'.

 

Of course, some people can't write even write clear instructions, let alone create a puzzle or riddle that makes sense, and in those cases, I'd certainly prefer to hunt their caches blind! I've also seen some caches that require you to solve a bunch of boring math problems to get the coordinates, and I don't care much for those, either, unless the math is kept to a minimum and ties in with the theme of the cache.

 

In an extreme case, 'blind' hunting can sometimes get you into big trouble, as on caches where the hider has specifically warned against dangers, listed restricted hunting hours, or asked you to avoid using certain access routes. I can imagine that some cache placers (and some cache approvers) would cringe if they knew that some caches were being hunted 'blind'.

 

As long as geocaching.com allows us to add text descriptions to our coordinates, I'm taking advantage of it on most of the caches that I place. Not to give hints, but to add depth, character, and variety to my hides. Hunt 'em blind if you want to, but you'll be missing a lot of the fun...

[+sept1c_tank]

I usually take (or at least have read) the cache pages. Sometimes, I'd be better off just going in blind.

 

The few caches I've searched for without the cache pages have been invigorating, at the very least. I think I could become addicted to searching blindly, though.

 

Puts a fresh perspective on the game.

[+sturgeongeneral]

I do all my caches blind. Coordinates only. Makes it a lot more challenging. That is what I like best is the HUNT. It gets me out in nature for longer periods too. Sometimes you win....sometimes you lose.

[lowracer]

I think the point of my caches is for them to be found (well most of them), not to stump people.

 

That's why some of the last caches I placed contained no "additional" clues or listed coordinates to only two decimal places. Should I ever decide to place another cache, it will definitely contain no clues, in any form, whatsoever.

Sometimes the whole point is to stump the finder, as in puzzle caches like "M13" GCHB5C http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=106065. I provided no clues whatsoever. I originally did not even reveal that it was a micro but later realized that was not puzzling, just cruel. Now they know it's a micro with a secondary bonus cache of normal 50 cal ammo can size. And since there is a logbook in each cache, they get 2 smileys for their trouble.

 

I've done blind caching on occasion, usually where I end up is some random parking lot or middle of a lake, circling endlessly. Look up the cache later and 9 times out of 10 it is "the posted coords are bogus, you have to figure out the puzzle to get the correct coords."

 

I hate puzzle caches...

Edited December 21, 2003 by lowracer

[+Doc-Dean]

Now that I use Spinner, I have the program convert the first letter of the waypoint to a "V" for a virtual and an "M" for a multi, etc.

I have done it several times just for the extra fun...

 

I use spinner and I did not know why some of the waypoints were changed to V or M before now...

[+wray_clan]

On an easy cache, I'll close my right eye, just for fun! Like this:

That made me close my right eye, looking at my monitor. I feel kinda stupid.

 

 

Anyways, I can only think of one cache I've done by the numbers, and that was kinda-sorta (it was a cache to do in the parking area, kind of a prelude to the "real"). I found it while my dad was getting all the stuff out of the car. Maybe there's more....

 

[+astrojr1&GGGal]

We did our first two caches completely by the numbers. Recently, we tried going back to the numbers under certain conditions. When there are a lot of hiding spots in a small area, our pointer is not reliable. So glancing at the waypoint's coords and then using the reported coords helps us directionally. I might add that when we have shifted to this mode we have never failed to find a cache when it was actually there. Thanks

[+Web-ling]

I sorta do just the opposite - I prefer to cache without the GPS at all, just the cache page, a topo map, and an aerial photo. I've done a few with only the coords and my GPS, but I really don't enjoy it as much.