Jump to content

Locationless Caches....your Opinion


BeDoggy

Recommended Posts

Locationless are very different and more easy to find (some) than geocaches, in my own city i can do many of them. There are two different variants, I think these don't have to score as the same.

 

For me, a founded cache has much value than reverse, locationless are devaluing the effort of gain a point of a found cache where you have to hike and locate with more precision. For a locationless you need to be a good observer in the daily life for find one.

Link to comment

I don't do locationless caches at all. Well, I've done two, but I logged them as a note, so they didn't mess my find-count. I just don't care about them. I like more searching for objects hidden by someone in a specific location. I do virtuals too, though I like hidden containers more. At least virtuals point to somewhere I must go find certain information.

Link to comment
I've done about half a dozen locationless caches. But thinking further about them I kind of feel like it's "Padding the numbers"

 

I mean, they're OK, but there's something about them that doesn't quite feel like a legitimate find.

 

How do you feel? What do you think?

Well then I've got 14 "padded" finds and you have 7. I guess I'm twice as "illegitimate" as you. :o

 

I think some are cool. I like when I just happen to come across one while hunting for another cache. As a matter of fact I've found traditional caches that were far more lame then a couple of locationless caches I've done.

Edited by JMBella
Link to comment

I don't have a problem with locationless caches. But I tend to feel they aren't "caches." At least not in the way I think about caching. I have found one, the yellow jeep, and that was on a whim while driving down the interstate and saw one in front of me when I had my GPS and camera sitting right there in the passenger seat. So, while I have never specifically tried to find one, I couldn't resist there! I know others, like my mother, who really like them. I do like the idea of a separate area for them. I also like that they are now set out with their own icon on the stats page. So, then no one is "padding numbers," if you view it that way, because anyone who bothers to look can see each type of cache found.

Link to comment

I'm not crazy about them, but some people seem to enjoy them. I don't see it as padding your find count if you actually fulfilled the requirements, any more than virtuals and dash and grabs are padding your find count.

 

Now if you're sitting in front of your PC and "Photoshopping" shots of you, or your GPS in front of yellow jeeps, that's a whole 'nother story.

Link to comment

I've browsed through the lists of them and some of them are interesting and would be ones I'd like to try. It does make you more observant. However, I also wish they were in their own categories, like benchmarks, so they wouldn't be included in our find count if we do go out and complete some.

 

I'm thinking of creating a separate username, something like LocationlessCacheolaCrew just to log those. (AFTER I get my digital camera :o )

 

J.O.

Cacheola Crew

Link to comment

Locationless are good for areas of low cache density like my area. I have done quite a few of them. I disagree with the one location, one finder rule on most of them for the same reason. As new cachers join us there are less of these for them to find in these low density areas. It's not about the numbers, it's just once you do all the local caches you can wait for new ones, place caches and/or do locationless. I plan to do all 3 :o

Link to comment

I saw absolutely no point to them until someone posted a picture that allowed them to log 3 at once.

 

That struck a chord. My goal is to be able to log 4 or more with a single picture sometime. That has a nice scavenger hunt feel to it and raises the difficulty level up to something challenging enough to catch my interest.

Link to comment

I didn't really do any of them much until recently. Then I went nuts and logged 16 in one day. I wasn't trying to pad my numbers or anything, I just happened to read the list of 'em and kept thinking to myself "I know where one of those are". It was a nice alternative to hunting an actual cache, and it allowed me to revisit some areas that I had not been to in years. Plus I like sharing my neck of the woods with everyone else out there. I agree with most in saying I enjoy them, and wish they would come back. But I do think they need their own section.

Link to comment
I've done about half a dozen locationless caches. But thinking further about them I kind of feel like it's "Padding the numbers"

 

I mean, the're OK, but there's something about them that doesn't quite feel like a legitimate find.

 

How do you feel? What do you think?

I am kind of mixed on this issue.

 

One of my Geocaching buddy's has gotten into it. I really think it depends on the theme. For example, I saw one that you had to photograph a home with a dome roof. It is pretty rare to see a home like that, so that's a legidimate find. Though I saw another one that you had to find a flag pole flying an American Flag. How are is that to find? That one is definately a "just padding your stats" type cache.

 

To date, I have not done a Locationless Cache. I will likely not do any in the future.

Link to comment
I don't have any locationless, I'm saving Yellow Jeep Fever to be my 200 milestone. :o If people want to do locationless, that's fine. Virtuals? That's fine. Traditionals, multis, etc. are all fine, too. "It's not about the numbers," it's about what you enjoy doing.

I've done one virt, and that was on the way to a traditional, an easy drive-by. I most likely will also do a locationless at some point, just to say that I did.

 

mrkablooey hit it on the head: do what you like to do!

Link to comment

Locationless are ok. There are not specific locations, so I think they should be grouped in their own area (as several have already said). Yes some are easy, but some are not, so what?

 

While we're talking about locationless, How the heck can I find the highest point the county without phyically visiting each highish point on the topo???!!! :o

Link to comment

I have done several. I like them, but some are pretty easy because you know exactly where one is. I never really thought it as padding the numbers. You still have to go find it. I just looked at it as another type of cache on my profile! They are a low percentage of the total finds though. Perhaps it should be like the benchmark. I figure though, if I found, I log it...however it gets counted. I'm just having fun! I guess that makes me kind of indifferent on the subject!

Link to comment
I've done about half a dozen locationless caches. But thinking further about them I kind of feel like it's "Padding the numbers"

 

I mean, they're OK, but there's something about them that doesn't quite feel like a legitimate find.

 

How do you feel? What do you think?

Well then I've got 14 "padded" finds and you have 7. I guess I'm twice as "illegitimate" as you. :unsure:

 

I think some are cool. I like when I just happen to come across one while hunting for another cache. As a matter of fact I've found traditional caches that were far more lame then a couple of locationless caches I've done.

I'm not saying these kinds of finds aren't legitimate, just that they didn't "feel" as legitimate as a traditional cache. The reason I brought this up was that I'm new to virtuals and to my surprise got the feeling it was all too easy. I'll probably still do a few more of this type, but I guess the traditional game is more my cup of tea.

Link to comment

Was sicked both before Christmas and during Christmas... Didn't have the strength to go hiking, and therefor doing some locationless was really nice.

But it wasn't simple - you can't just take the car and drive around around around until you find something to log.

 

We planned it for a couple of days, searching internet and so on. Then in some cases, you had to leave the car and walk a little bit to the object.

 

Here in Gothenburg, Sweden, are there many micro caches in the city along bridges. So what's the different of finding an old plank bridge and taking a photo of the GPS, or going there to find a film canister?

 

But I must admit than some of the locationless caches are not so good. But some are challenging. Some of them might be very easy to do in one country, but hard in an another country...

 

I think that they are 'worth' the same as ordinary caches. If you disagree, shall we start talking about if these two traditional caches are worth the same also:

The one inside a vulcano rated 5/5 (can't find it right now)

Or anyone rated 1/1.

 

Are they worth the same in that case? :unsure:

Link to comment
I've done about half a dozen locationless caches. But thinking further about them I kind of feel like it's "Padding the numbers"

 

I mean, they're OK, but there's something about them that doesn't quite feel like a legitimate find.

 

How do you feel? What do you think?

Well then I've got 14 "padded" finds and you have 7. I guess I'm twice as "illegitimate" as you. :unsure:

 

I think some are cool. I like when I just happen to come across one while hunting for another cache. As a matter of fact I've found traditional caches that were far more lame then a couple of locationless caches I've done.

I'm not saying these kinds of finds aren't legitimate, just that they didn't "feel" as legitimate as a traditional cache. The reason I brought this up was that I'm new to virtuals and to my surprise got the feeling it was all too easy. I'll probably still do a few more of this type, but I guess the traditional game is more my cup of tea.

I actually totally agree. I'll take a traditional cache over a locationless every time. But It's good to be aware of the locationless ones also, just in case you come across one. I'm placing a cache that will allow 4 finds in one. The traditional cache, this locationless,, this one, and this one. I think I'll leave a package to the FTF with the cache sheets for the other 3 caches. Nothing wrong with a 4 for 1 deal in my book.

Link to comment

One last thought then I'm going to bed. StayFloopy has 77 locationless finds. I don't think there's anyone here that will accuse him of padding his numbers. If there good for him, there sure as hell good enough for this n00b. :D

 

BTW: 9key. I don't don't know what it is about your avatar but it's freaking me out man. :unsure:

Edited by JMBella
Link to comment

I like challenges in any form, locationless caches included. It isn't necessary for me to compete, don't have to prove anything to anybody, well, maybe sometimes....to myself. So numbers, or padding of numbers isn't a relevant part of the sport to me. :unsure:

 

I'll take the challange - someone else can have the numbers.

 

Orion47

Link to comment

The thing that has always bugged me about locationless caches is how easily they can be faked and the number of times people have used them to "pad their counts" by "double dipping" ... by claiming one (or in some instances multiple) locationless "find(s)" on a traditional (or virtual) cache that they legitimately found. In many cases, virtual caches being claimed as locationless finds didn't even remotely resemble the target of the locationless cache. That's just plain wrong. If someone needs a "find" that badly, then they've got a serious problem.

 

The reputation of locationless caches is further damaged by "owners," who, in many cases, have been extremely lax in policing their caches. They are acting as "enablers."

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
The thing that has always bugged me about locationless caches is how easily they can be faked and the number of times people have used them to "pad their counts" by "double dipping" ... by claiming one (or in some instances multiple) locationless "find(s)" on a traditional (or virtual) cache that they legitimately found.  In many cases, virtual caches being claimed as locationless finds didn't even remotely resemble the target of the locationless cache.  That's just plain wrong.  If someone needs a "find" that badly, then they've got a serious problem.

 

The reputation of locationless caches is further damaged by "owners," who, in many cases, have been extremely lax in policing their caches.  They are acting as "enablers."

First of all... its just a game...

Second of all... its just a game...

 

Do what you like and don't do what you do not like.

 

I very seriously doubt that there is a "padding" problem...

and even if some people do that, who cares??? If they need the numbers that bad

they are going to find a way to get them...

 

Tell me that there is never padding done by people logging regular caches without ever really finding (or looking) for them. Again, if someone feels the need to get their numbers up this way, I feel sorry for them but I could care less.

It does not take away from my enjoyment of the game at all.

 

What does take away from my enjoyment is other people telling me what should be allowed and what should not be allowed!! :unsure:

Edited by Doc-Dean
Link to comment

Haven't done a locationless "yet". Just like other variants of the game, they are wanted and have their place. I do agree, that they should be in perhaps their own section. I even started a "Challenge Caches" section on my site. It's just a place on the forums where you make a challenge and others can post their findings. There are no counts or stats kept. That's up to you.

 

I may be looking at some locationless ones here soon as I'm inching up to #100.

Link to comment
I very seriously doubt that there is a "padding" problem... and even if some people do that, who cares???  If they need the numbers that bad they are going to find a way to get them...

 

Unfortunately, Locationless caches have proven to be "the method of choice" for effortlessly, quickly and painlessly (cheating is easy to do, and few owners will do anything about it) padding the find count for a few individuals. The activities of several of them have previously been mentioned in the forums. I am as baffled as you as to why anyone would feel compelled to act in such a manner.

 

Tell me that there is never padding done by people logging regular caches without ever really finding (or looking) for them.  Again, if someone feels the need to get their numbers up this way, I feel sorry for them but I could care less.

 

Of course that also occurs.

 

I do care. Not because of silly find counts, but because the "cheating," and our geocaching community's reaction to such "cheating," is nothing less than a direct reflection of how far the standards of society have fallen. It is my opinion that those who "don't care" are at least as much a part of the problem as those doing the actual "cheating." Your opinion may differ.

 

What does take away from my enjoyment is other people telling me what should be allowed and what should not be allowed!!

 

I'm not sure if you were referring to Locationless caches or the act of cheating. One is clearly worse than the other. :unsure:

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
The reason I brought this up was that I'm new to virtuals and to my surprise got the feeling it was all too easy. I'll probably still do a few more of this type, but I guess the traditional game is more my cup of tea.

 

 

One of the toughest caches I ever did was a virtual that involved a 9 mile RT hike and a very stiff climb of a mountain and some serious bushwacking. It was far more rewarding than many 1/1 roadside caches. That being said, this virtual was an exception, but my point is that there are great caches of all types.

Link to comment

The general consensus has been that LC's have been less challenging than even VC's and should be moved to their own area. I would have not trouble with that. I would also have more support for LC's if there were strict quality controls placed on setting these up.

 

I would allow caches like "What's in a Name" where the cacher has to go to a particular location based on GPS coords that derive from a name. I would not allow the "Yellow Jeep" LC, where all you had to do was find a yellow jeep. That wasn't much of a challenge.

Link to comment

Sometimes it's not just the challenge. Sometimes it's just noticing something that was under your nose the whole time or learning something new. I am not in in favor of LC's being moved to there own location. I think they work just fine where they are. If you don't care for them don't do them. Some LC's can be difficult so I like that they're a part of my geocaching find stats. And with that I'm of to NYC to do some geocaching. And yes I'll be doing a couple of LC's today as well. :unsure: Later folks.

Edited by JMBella
Link to comment

Some LC's are challenging, some aren't.

 

But remember, as I previous said, that some LC's might be more challenging in other countries than the US.

 

To find a totem pole are much harder in Europe than the US.

On the opposite are it much easier to find a road sign with Waterloo on in Europe than the US. (I think...)

 

But there are some really interesting LC's that we can't do, but they are interesting.

Like these:

 

GCC1F7

GCB439

GC90EB

 

Here is a list of too easy LC's:

 

GC5160

GCGHPX

 

This is just a few of each, just picked them out from the list at this website.

 

(Note that GCGHPX are a virtual but read the first words in the cache text!)

Link to comment
jmbella wrote:
BTW: 9key. I don't don't know what it is about your avatar but it's freaking me out man.
Heck, I'm only using the top part. :D

OMG!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D:unsure:

 

After reading through the thread again, I need to change my original statement. I have done a locationless, the "What's In a Name" cache. I was the seeker, though, and I would rather have been the person out finding the location for someone else. Oh, well. Now, if someone else is seeking it and asks for my help in finding it, would it be ethical to post another "Found It" on this? I wouldn't do it, but just curious to see what others think/would do. Would you claim this particular cache twice if you had someone find the other end and then you found the other end for someone else? (Poor sentence structure!)

Link to comment

I've actually done a number of LCs. I found most of them to be interesting. Since locations can only be claimed once, it can be a challenge to log one before someone else does. Once all of the obvious ones are used, it can be quite difficult to find an appropriate object. It should also be note that these are the only kind of caches that my wife has shown any interest in.

 

As for padding the numbers, I don't find that to be true (except in the few cases of cheating). Heck, if you want big numbers, just go to Nashville and do the micro-tour.

 

I do support LCs being moved to a separate area of the site much as TBs are. I suspect that once they are moved, this discussion will no longer come up every month or so.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I did the yellow jeep and I'm glad!

 

After logging all the possiable "lunch time" caches in my area I started looking for locationless caches. It got me out of the office, and gave me a chance to play with my GPS. Why the heck was a yellow jeep so hard to find when I was looking for one?

 

As far as padding the numbers, log them as notes like devine, or just don't do them. The padding argument assumes you care about the numbers,besides looking at the stats page someone couldn't do say 1000 locationless caches and hide the fact could they? If you want someones "real" score just subtract the locationless and virtual caches.

Link to comment
I am as baffled as you as to why anyone would feel compelled to act in such a manner.

 

On this, we agree!

 

I do care.  Not because of silly find counts, but because the "cheating," and our geocaching community's reaction to such "cheating," is nothing less than a direct reflection of how far the standards of society have fallen.  It is my opinion that those who "don't care" are at least as much a part of the problem as those doing the actual "cheating."  Your opinion may differ.

I don't think cheating is a reflection of how standards have fallen in society, I think you may mean that society's tolerance to cheating...

 

There will be cheating in everything....

Do you ever drive over the speed limit?? Isn't that cheating?? (besides breaking the law) Should we get rid of cars because some people will speed or drive drunk??

 

When I wrote, "I don't care", what I meant is that, there is nothing I can do about it and also I don't believe it is such a problem that it needs to be addressed right now.

 

What does take away from my enjoyment is other people telling me what should be allowed and what should not be allowed!!

 

sure if you were referring to Locationless caches or the act of cheating.  One is clearly worse than the other. :unsure:

 

I think many people enjoy hunting LCs and why should you, me or anyone take that away from them.

Link to comment

[off topic]

I don't think cheating is a reflection of how standards have fallen in society, I think you may mean that society's tolerance to cheating...

 

No; I meant what I wrote, and parts of your response reaffirm my opinion.

 

There will be cheating in everything.... 

Do you ever drive over the speed limit??  Isn't that cheating?? (besides breaking the law)  Should we get rid of cars because some people will speed or drive drunk??

 

No, of course not. The car did not violate the law; it's operator did. (Gee, I'm beginning to sound like an NRA member.)

 

When I wrote, "I don't care", what I meant is that, there is nothing I can do about it and also I don't believe it is such a problem that it needs to be addressed right now.

 

There is "nothing you (or I, for that matter) can personally do about many of the problems both on a small scale on this website and on a larger scale in our community/world. "Not caring" because "there is nothing I can do" only allows situations/conditions to worsen. It refers back to my earlier statement. [/off topic]

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

I don't usually post, and after this I don't think I ever will again. I come to the forums to gather information, of which there has been very little lately, and to see if there are any new ideas that might interest me. I've done a lot of LC'S lately and I love them. I'll bet I spent a way more time and effort (weeks) looking for a yellow jeep than most have on any "regular cache". Most would give up on a regular cache after looking for 15 minutes or less and then register a DNF. What I do, I do for personal reasons and I don't give a rat's a** what somebody else does or does not do, let alone their "COUNT". It's like watching TV, if you don't like it, don't watch. BTW - Well said Doc-Dean.

Link to comment

While I haven't done any I've seen some that look pretty cool and would like to do some.

 

I hope that they do come back. I'm also one of the people that don't care about other people's stats or padding the numbers.

 

I think locationless caches are just like regular caches in the sense that some people prefer to do 1/1 caches while others like the challenge of a 5/5 cache.

 

It's all about having fun. If you think a cache or locationless is 'lame' in your opinion than just don't do it.

Link to comment
...After logging all the possiable "lunch time" caches in my area I started looking for locationless caches. It got me out of the office, and gave me a chance to play with my GPS...

Thanks for the reminder. I tend to forget that you can actually find them at lunch. There is this certain mailbox that will snag me a LC. Too bad the snow is blowing horizontally outside my office window just now.

Link to comment
my office window

You get a window? :unsure:

 

I just came back from an errand, we have snain (snow/rain) blowing horizontaly right now. With the temp dropping it should change to full up snow anytime.

 

I had a lot of fun with LC's at lunch even found a steam locomotive I hadn't noticed before. Sparks is called Rail City for a reason, really never knew much about the railroading history until I stopped to take a picture and mark a waypoint. I geuss it's like anything else, you get out what you put in. If all I was interested in was another "notch" I would have snapped the picture and run rather than take the time to read about how and why the locomotive got there.

Link to comment

Locationless caches consitute a missed opportunity for a pastime that could be as popular as Geocaching itself. Most of the problems with LCs stem from them being a bad fit with Geocaching, which is the sport of finding hidden items or specific locations via GPS navigation (although other skills often come into play).

 

LCs, done right, would be about _photography_ (and observation, quick thinking, preparedness, etc.). The GPS is usually a distraction, since the location is often ephemeral (yellow jeep going 75mph on I-10 isn't at those coords anymore) or irrelevant. And the verification requirement to put the GPSr in the picture is a distraction at best.

 

It's pretty easy to see how an LC spinoff site would be different from Geocaching. Let's say the spinoff were called Snapshot Challenge. Members would post challenges (maybe with a time limit) similar to LC cache descriptions. Honor-system rules might exclude stock/vacation pix (or not, depending on subject). After a challenge closed out, participants and the challenge owner could rate the submissions on various criteria, with the end tally of points accruing to members' accounts.

 

That's my half-baked idea. Maybe something like this exists out on the net--there are photo-exchange sites. But my point is that LCs are such a flashpoint because--love em or hate em--they're a poor fit for the Geocaching concept. Benchmarks are a more worthy candidate for inclusion in the 'find' count of a GPS-navigation game than are snapshots spoiled by the presence of a hand clutching a GPSr :unsure:

Link to comment

Geocache counts and why they are important.

 

1. When you have a CLEAN data set, you can compare your numbers against other players numbers, not to compete, but to determine if you are finding them at a normal rate. Also, if you track friends in the area and see that you are way ahead of them, you might be better off stopping finding caches and starting to place some for your friends to find.

 

2. When your data set is not clean, it could be that player 1 has 100 finds that he did from his PC and 20 that he did for real. Your 80 real ones are a much more impressive accomplishment.

 

3. When you are having problems, or you are considering new equipment to buy, you want advice, if you don't know a lot of the cachers in your area, looking at the numbers can help you find some one that has more experience and can give you better advice. Again, reflect on #2, and this value to the data set is limited.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...