Micros Where Traditionals Could Hide...

1.3k · February 1, 2004

What are your thoughts on micros being placed in places where a traditional or multicache could be hidden? Do you think it's a waste of space or are you just happy to log another find? :mad:

9.4k · February 1, 2004

The size of the container should fit with the surroundings. An ammo box downtown would be hard to do (without being seen by Muggles), so a micro works best there. A micro in the woods (where no one is around for miles) would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. It could cause finders to "tear up" the area looking for something that has hundreds of possible hiding places.

7.3k · February 1, 2004

The size of the container should fit with the surroundings. An ammo box downtown would be hard to do (without being seen by Muggles), so a micro works best there. A micro in the woods (where no one is around for miles) would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. It could cause finders to "tear up" the area looking for something that has hundreds of possible hiding places.

I agree!

Back in the good ole' days, everything was out of town in nice big containers. And then last winter, everyone got stir crazy and started placing micros in the city limits, because that is all you can do in the winter. But now I think that people have forgotton how to do regular caches. It seems more and more we are finding micros out in nature where three or four ammo cans could hide side by side. What's with that?

Micros should only be used when you have a small area to hide something in, or you are doing a theme cache that is supposed to be clever or sneaky. :mad:

We want more caches where we can hide bigger items like TBs! Poor Ish-n-Isha had to place a specific cache with an ammo can near town, just for travel bugs, because all of our friends were starting to collect them and have nowhere to put them. Flyboy kept giving me his TBs so I could place them when I went traveling. :mad:

3.5k · February 1, 2004

Bull! To the contrary, micros are less intrusive on the enviornment, less threating to accidental finders and bureaucrates, and to me, just as much if not more fun! I have found a micro on a mountain in the forest and did not tear anything up and found it a delight! To each his own.

If you don't like something, don't do it! Quit trying to regulate Geocaching to death!

February 1, 2004

i like the challenge of looking for something that is a little bit harder to find then a big ammo container.after all aint we out there for the hunt and the fun :mad:

9.4k · February 1, 2004

Don't get me wrong, Eraseek, I like micros. However, there are locations where they can do more harm than a regular-sized cache.

With an ammo can, they're usually hidden under some rocks or bark. Experienced cachers can spot "unnatural rock piles" quite easily, and thus not impact the surrounding area by walking in circles.

With a cleverly-hidden micro, it could take even an experienced cacher several hours (or several trips) to figure out where the container is. The longer the visit to the cache site, the more plants can be trampled, and the longer it would take for the area to recover on its own.

February 1, 2004

The size of the container should fit with the surroundings. An ammo box downtown would be hard to do (without being seen by Muggles), so a micro works best there. A micro in the woods (where no one is around for miles) would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. It could cause finders to "tear up" the area looking for something that has hundreds of possible hiding places.

I agree. There is, or should be, a logical progression when placing caches. First try for a traditional. If a traditional won't fit, make it a micro, or the start of a multi that goes to where a traditional will fit. If it's a particularly good spot and a micro won't work, then think about making it a virtual.

There was a cache that I went to that was an Altoids tin in an area with a lot of downed trees and brush. It looked like that is where the park dumped the debris from storm cleanup. Lots of places to hide a traditional container, and hundreds of places for a micro. Add to that the fact that it was right next to a tennis court and the cache hider is notorious for having bad coordinates. His hint: You don't need this. Look harder!

But I may be biased. I like traditional caches more than micros. I like micros more than virtuals. I like virtuals. Add up all these likes and you get: I love geocaching. I just like some parts better than others.

And, Eraseek, you were the only one who mentioned regulating anything. I think the rest of us are just talking about our preferences.

RichardMoore

3.1k · February 1, 2004

If you don't like something, don't do it! Quit trying to regulate Geocaching to death!

There ya go.

New geocaching rules, don't run with scissors and look both ways before crossing the street too.

1.3k · February 1, 2004

Good Lord, calm down. I'm not suggesting any rule changes. I was just starting a conversation. I think are too many rules now.

February 1, 2004

Good Lord, calm down. I'm not suggesting any rule changes. I was just starting a conversation. I think are too many rules now.

Hi,

I don't think anyone is suggesting changes to the current rules. In all fairness to EraSeek, it seems some of the changes in rules started in the forums, with people pointing out that "locationless caches suck", "cache density', and etc. I'm not saying this to take away from the discussion you started- I think it's a good one to have, given the number of threads complaining about virtuals because of the .1 mile rule. It's refreshing to hear the "place a micro instead of a virt" argument turned on it's ear.

Tracy and I did a lot of Geocaching in Iowa, Missouri and Kansas (KC area mainly). We were finding Vitrs, Micros, Multis, and "traditional" Tupperware and Ammo Can caches. Remember back before there was a SIZE option for cache pages? :mad:

3.1k · February 1, 2004

A handful of people hammering a single issue in the forum can and has led to rule changes. I suggest just enjoying the activity in it's current form. No changes are necessary.

February 1, 2004

Back in the good ole' days, everything was out of town in nice big containers. And then last winter, everyone got stir crazy and started placing micros in the city limits, because that is all you can do in the winter. But now I think that people have forgotton how to do regular caches.

Yeah, the game changes when micro-spew gets rampant. Fortunately, we do not have to worry about that here in MA. I can only think of one cacher that has hidden more than one or two micros.

-WR

3.9k · February 1, 2004

What are your thoughts on micros being placed in places where a traditional or multicache could be hidden? Do you think it's a waste of space or are you just happy to log another find?

I don't see this a trying to regulate geocaching. What the heck are you talking about? Tix&Chiggers was just trying to get peoples opinions. Here's mine. I agree with GPSax that a micro in the woods is more likely to cause some damage. But beyond that it says to me that the hider was too lazy or too cheap to hide a regular size cache. To me it's the same as trying to do a virtual where you could easily hide a micro. Either way I'm happy to log another find. It's just more fun for me to find a well hidden ammo box. Just my opinion.

3.9k · February 1, 2004

A handful of people hammering a single issue in the forum can and has led to rule changes. I suggest just enjoying the activity in it's current form. No changes are necessary.

I also agree with that statement. I think an official guideline change for this would be completely unnecessary. All I'm saying is appreciate a well thought out cache that someone has put some effort into.

3.1k · February 1, 2004

I also agree with that statement. I think an official guideline change for this would be completely unnecessary. All I'm saying is appreciate a well thought out cache that someone has put some effort into.

Yes and I didn't think anyone was trying to start a rule change with this thread. But those of us who've been around for awhile know that this is how rule changes sometimes start.

I appreciate all caches but especially those who's owner put some thought and effort into them. It's a fun thing and while I haven't been happy with some of the changes I like the game as it is and would hate to see more rules placed.

4.8k · February 1, 2004

I wouldn't want to see a rule on the matter, nor do I think one is likely to happen. With that in mind, certainly this is the type of thing that people have opinions on and I see nothing wrong with expressing them. That can be useful too. For example, a person placing a cache might want to try to please the most people and a thread like this gives them some input.

So here is my opinion: I would rather see a traditional size cache where one would be appropriate (e.g. out in the woods). I like to see the trade items in caches even though I don't always trade. It is a fun part of the experience for me. I also don't always care for the "needle in a haystack" type of cache, although occasionally I have sought one out knowing that it would be hard to find for the challenge of it. It just depends on my mood and the circumstances. One of my favorite caches was a decent hike and then a very hard find, but it was also a traditional size cache, which made the hide even more impressive to me. Of course other people have different preferences. That is fine. As Eraseek said, to each his or her own. Fortunately there often are enough caches of varying types around to keep different tastes happy. Nothing wrong with that!

Oh, and placement preferences for hiding a cache and finding preferences can differ too. For example, I don't tend to try to find evily hidden micros often, yet I have considered placing one. Although it would be urban where a traditional would not work. So even if a majority of people lean one way on the issue, that doesn't mean everyone should try to please the majority. I think the hider should do what he or she will have the most fun with in terms of hiding and watching the finds. People who like the particular type of cache will find it, people who don't likely won't. That is fine.

5.3k · February 2, 2004

I am not a big fan of micros in the woods, people just trash out the plants and so on looking for them. :mad: When they are part of a multi thats fine. :mad:

Lets get down to the real reason for micros in the wild. as I see it. People put micros in the woods because they do not want to spend the cash it takes to hide a regular cache. Lets face it with a micro you can grab a film can for free, put a log sheet in it, that might set you back ten cents, and maybe a magnet or velcro, that might set you back fifty cents. You do not even need to include a pencil. There you have a cache for sixty cents Vs. a reg cache for around ten dollars.

4.8k · February 2, 2004

People put micros in the woods because they do not want to spend the cash it takes to hide a regular cache. Lets face it with a micro you can grab a film can for free, put a log sheet in it, that might set you back ten cents, and maybe a magnet or velcro, that might set you back fifty cents. You do not even need to include a pencil. There you have a cache for sixty cents Vs. a reg cache for around ten dollars.

That is a good point. I don't have a lot of hides for a particular reason: I tend to put a lot of thought, time and expense into a hide. I enjoy the process of scouting out the spot, finding the perfect initial trade items, and like to well stock the cache to reward the great cachers we have around here. Even if I place that evil micro I'm thinking of, it will be well thought out. Even my possibly "lame" lightpole cache took some thought, rust proof spray paint and scouting. And I made it just simply to introduce something that would be new here. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

That made me think. OK, I think many agree that too many "rules" are bad, but how about this? When hiding a cache, think "golden rule." Place a cache that had some effort put in it. Basically one that you know people would really enjoy finding or appreciate more than the average cache! By doing so, placers raise the bar in terms of fun hides and creativity and it rewards both the hider and the finder. Of course that cache could still be a micro in the woods, but there are cheap micros in the woods and then there might be the "way cool" micro in the woods if it is well thought out.

24.7k · February 2, 2004

I have an inventory of 2 ammo cans.

12 Decon containers.

6 Altoids Tins

200 Film Canisters.

Guess what I hide more of? Even if I wanted to pony up the money and get more ammo cans, it takes time and a 100 mile trip. Free time is not something I have to burn. So I'll hide what I have handy when the idea for a cache strikes me.

3.1k · February 2, 2004

I've done a couple of micros in the woods. They were both very difficult to locate and I didn't find them on my first trip. It isn't my favorite place to look for a micro unless it's placed in a sign or someplace that's an obvious micro hideout.

I would just hate to see another thread lead to another rule. I would say that the best way to handle micros in woods is not to search for them. If few show up for it then few will be hidden any longer.

It doesn't have to be cheaper to hide a micro than a traditional. After all you can use a peanut butter jar and shove in a sheet of paper along with some shiney rock you found and call it a traditional for a cost of zero.

1.3k · February 2, 2004

The micros that I've looked for in the woods around here have all been pretty challenging. Fortunately the owners are very good with the coordinates and I usually find them. There are a couple that I can't find and I think it's simply my fault in not looking close enough.

I also had to laugh when I went to find a cache (a micro) that was about 200yards from where I had planned to hide a traditional cache. I liked micro, it was very well done, so I happily logged it and went on my way.

Thanks for the constructive comments everyone.

February 3, 2004

I guess my take on it is that it depends... I don't care for the suggestion that a cache should be as big as a particular area can support, since I can see too many exceptions.

I've hidden a micro in a wooded picnic area near town. I could have found a hiding place for an ammo can, but that's not what I wanted to hide there. While hopefully challenging, there's no need to tear up the terrain looking for it and the cache page says so.

There's another cache in northern Idaho hidden by a master of camouflage and concealment. There's more than enough space in the area to hide a 55-gallon drum if he had wanted to, but that wasn't the point of the cache. We went in knowing that it was a micro, and knowing the sort of hides he liked. We found the cache within 5 minutes, without any environmental defacement.

On the other hand, I have seen basic micros hidden in places where there seemed little reason to not hide something larger. So I appreciate the general concept, but I think that there's enough room for exceptions to keep this suggestion as just something to keep in mind.

38.2k · February 3, 2004

Micros have their place in high traffic and urban areas, but to put one deep in the woods

where a full size cache can go just strikes me as laziness. Why would someone place a micro where a full sized cache can fit? Because a micro takes no thought, or time to put together. A film canister and a few strips of paper torn from a notebook and you're good to go. No need to buy an ammo box, paint it, print out a geocaching letter, sharpen a few pencils, buy a log book, some Ziplocs and $10-$20 worth of trade items and no need to have to put serious thought into how to hide it.

I don't see Eraseek's point that a micro is less intrusive than a full sized cache. In fact I've seen quite the opposite...where people have torn apart a considerable area in their search for a needle in a haystack.

Edited February 3, 2004 by briansnat

2.3k · February 3, 2004

Because a micro takes no thought, or time to put together. A film canister and a few strips of paper torn from a notebook and you're good to go. No need to buy an ammo box, paint it, print out a geocaching letter, sharpen a few pencils, buy a log book, some Ziplocs and $10-$20 worth of trade items and no need to have to put serious thought into how to hide it.

I completely disagree with your statement that "a micro takes no thought". I have seen plenty of micros that are very well thought out, painted to match the surrounding environment, and are well-hidden. In fact, I spend quite a bit of time planning my micros for placement.

Along your same lines of thinking, any fool can go buy an ammo can, empty their trash can into it, and throw it out the car window while reading coordinates at 80 mph. A sloppy geocacher will place a sloppy geocache, regardless of the type of container used (micro, decon or full-sized). Guess what? There is nothing you or I can do about it, except to avoid future placements by that particular geocacher.

Back to the subject at hand, I have seen plenty of micros in wide open areas where a full-sized ammo can would have fit. I don't have any problems with this. The cache owner can place any type of cache they want, in any situation. There is no rule that says "You MUST place the biggest cache you can put there", and there never should be such a rule. Such a rule would eliminate all micros, because there is ALWAYS a nearby spot for a full-sized cache. Let the cache owners make that decision as to what size cache they want to place, even if it IS a micro in the woods.

In that situation, if I can't find the micro, I don't "tear up anything". I move onto the next one. The issue here should be RESPONSIBLE GEOCACHING as well. Is it the cache owners fault if the area gets "torn up"? NO. NOT ONE BIT. It falls on the cache hunter. Instead of rampaging the environment for one more cache find, and saying "Well, they made me do it, hiding a micro out here in the forest. I HAD to strip mine the entire area to find it", the cacher should know "when to say when".

Edited February 3, 2004 by TEAM 360

3.1k · February 3, 2004

I love em all

38.2k · February 3, 2004

I completely disagree with your statement that "a micro takes no thought". I have seen plenty of micros that are very well thought out, painted to match the surrounding environment, and are well-hidden. In fact, I spend quite a bit of time planning my micros for placement.

Along your same lines of thinking, any fool can go buy an ammo can, empty their trash can into it, and throw it out the car window while reading coordinates at 80 mph. A sloppy geocacher will place a sloppy geocache, regardless of the type of container used (micro, decon or full-sized). Guess what? There is nothing you or I can do about it, except to avoid future placements by that particular geocacher.

I agree that there are well thought out micros out there, but the ease of placing one seems to draw the sloppy cache placers. From my experience, the vast majority of the micros I've found were pretty lame, where much smaller percentage of full size caches have been lame. If an ammo box is used, it seems to reduce the percentage even further. I guess that the person who makes the extra effort to purchase an ammo box (rather than grabbing a film canister from their junk drawer, or a Gladware container from the cabinet), is the type of person who will put some thought into their cache placement.

The issue here should be RESPONSIBLE GEOCACHING as well. Is it the cache owners fault if the area gets "torn up"? NO. NOT ONE BIT.

Unfortunately not all geocachers are responsible and I've seen some make a real mess of the area around a cache. As a cache owner I am responsible for the area around the cache. If I hide it in a manner that causes some moron to turn over every rock and tear out every stump, it is my responsibility to re-think the cache placement. In the end, if some ranger stops by to check on the area and sees the damage, he won't care if its a single irresponsible finder, or not. It will give the enitire geocaching community a black eye.

Edited February 3, 2004 by briansnat

1.3k · February 4, 2004

Discussing the faults or shortcomings of a small segment of cachers, caches, or locations does nothing to validate an argument. There are always some anomalous bad placements. Some are bad because they violate guidelines. Others are "bad" as a matter of opinion. That said, caches are as different as snowflakes and each presents a different challenge to potential finders. There are thousands of caches to choose from. We have all found caches we enjoyed, otherwise we wouldn't continue looking for them. The fact is, if you do enough caches, you will find (or not find) some that you like less than others. Free will allows us to make choices about which caches we look for. If you dislike micros in the woods, choose not to look for them.

Some days, I like to be challenged. I'll take on a difficult hide for the feeling of accomplishment I get after finding it. Other days, I just want to go find a quick, easy cache that doesn't require much thought or effort on my part. Fortunately for people like me, there is an abundance of variety in the types of caches people have placed.

If I were going to go out right now to find a cache, I'd like to visit one that could be found quickly and didn't require me to search in an area where I could be observed by muggles. Micros tend to be a good bit more difficult to find than full size caches. A micro in the woods far from observers would allow me to search in relative privacy.

Finally, I would rather see full size caches whenever the conditions permit. That doesn't mean I think people should be forced to place them that way by some new rules. Right now there are almost 20 new caches I haven't looked for in my immediate area. They are all micros. I'll get to them eventually, but I'm not compelled to rush out and find them right away. If a really neat "tangible" puzzle cache popped up, I'd be in the car before the dust settled on my keyboard. Find the ones you like, save the others for when you're really bored.

3.5k · February 4, 2004

A great cache has nothing to do with size, or expense put into it. It has to do with creativity and how well it flows. Limiting options, limits creativity, and the possiblity of a great cache.

To say that a cache placed in this or that type of enviornment must or should be of some certain type limits what is possible. Why would you want to do that?

I have never been an admirer of the "Garage Sale on a Hill" approach, wherein you place as big a cache as possible and fill it with as much junk as you can. What joy is there in that?

What I look for is "Place", and/ or that "Uh-Huh!" moment. Beauty and enlightment. These are not dependant on size or expense. It has nothing to do with it. It does however have much to do with the free ability to be creative.

What is a geocache in its primal form? A coordinate found by the technology of a GPS, and a logsheet to record your visit. How that is done makes a cache either trash, or a pleasure and a challenge. I have seen both in many forms.

Micros Where Traditionals Could Hide...

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

Join the conversation