Clues are for newbies!

June 9, 2003

Just have to say I found it pretty frustrating today to go back to a cache site a second time and still not find it. I searched with two other people, up and down a line of trees; supposedly this cache is 1/1. The frustrating part is that the clue was that you shouldn't need a clue! Um, if it's hidden well enough that a pedestrian wouldn't find it, then it's hidden well enough that a beginning cacher might need a clue. How am I supposed to know if we were searching anywhere near the right place if we don't have any kind of hint?

Anyway, please cache owners, give the clue! It definitely helps a newbie figure out if they were doing it right (or if your cache coordinates are just way off, or if the cache is missing - very possible with a could-be-obviously-placed 1/1 cache...)

---Back again

After I posted this I had another question. Just how on target will my GPS be? I'm reading about other people whose GPS's are way off, and now I'm wondering if we're just not looking far enough. How far do other folks look for their cache from the center point their GPS gives them? We don't look farther than 50 or so.

[This message was edited by cheesepuppet on June 09, 2003 at 12:48 AM.]

2.1k · June 9, 2003

We found our first cache yesterday. It was a 1/1 and there was no clue either. While the terrain might of been a 1, I would of given then difficulty a 2. At least a difficulty of finding it. There was very dense tree coverage and once we got within less than a 100 ft of it we had to stop the GPS and restart it realign it with the satellites. We were on top of the cache within 10 feet several times, but didn't see it. My son finally did see it. It was hidden nicely, but not completely covered that you wouldn't see it. If you are really looking for it, you could see part of it with the naked eye. We left it that way too. Our Gecko 201 was telling us we were within 10 ft of it and we were! I was actually kicking around 3 ft from it.

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

June 9, 2003

Once you get to an indicated location, the cache should be within 30 feet or so (assuming the hider was careful in determining the cache location). Generally that is the accuracy of most GPSs. The trick is to think like the hider; where would you hide it? And there are a lot of common tricks in hiding which you begin to understand after you have found a few. It gets easier as you go along. Most caches are hidden under oddly placed rocks, in hollow fallen logs and in the base of trees, under thick brush and branches. But sometimes they get a bit trickier. With 60 finds, I'm still finding new ways to hide a cache, even on 1/1 caches. Stick with it, it get easier.

June 9, 2003

I have found there are several different type of cache hides.

First the ones where it is hidden in a spot that a geocacher will reconize as soon as they get close to the coordinates yet remain hidden from the public view.

Second ones are the needle in the haystack type of caches, these one must make someone feel special when several experienced geocachers cannot find a micro-cache hidden in a densely wooded area when GPS has error of 50 feet or more because of the tree cover. I have found these are placed by the very inexperienced cachers who may only have 1 or 2 finds to their credit.

June 9, 2003

We searched for a long while for a cache that was a 1/1. Finally decrypted the clue and it said, "Too easy for a clue." AAAARRRRGGGHHH!

Now, there are different theories as to how revealing the clue should be. Some people will say that the purpose of the clue is to tell you precisely where the cache is when you can't find it otherwise. Other say that the clue should only be a vague hint. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I want the clue to point me in the right direction, but it's no fun if the clue tells you exactly where to look.

IMHO, coming up with a nice clue is almost an art form. And, I would add, is one of the key elements of a memorable cache.

2.1k · June 9, 2003

I would have to agree. I don't think a clue should tell you where to look. That does take the fun out of it. Guess I won't decrypt the clues...heheh

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

24.7k · June 9, 2003

When I give a clue it's an exactly clue or at least I try to give one that's exact. My theory is that I try to find the cache without the clue but when the time comes that I am stumped I'd rather feel like the cache owner had a great hide and 'got me' than walk away skunked and never know.

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

June 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I would have to agree. I don't think a clue should tell you where to look. That does take the fun out of it. Guess I won't decrypt the clues...heheh

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

I disagree to a degree, I think the best way way to handle the clue is to put them in stages, not give the exact location in the first or only one.

I have seen where the clue was in 3 or 4 parts with each one giving a better "clue" with the last one giving the dead giveaway.

I usally do not decrypt the clue until I am scunked and it is pointless to decrypt a clue that simply says "it is too easy, you don't need any clues" If I hadn't needed a clue then I wouldn't have decrypted it in the first place.

June 9, 2003

Unfortunately, the ratings are pretty subjective. What one hider might rate 2 another would rate a 1, still another rate it a 3. It depends on so many factors that it will be a subjective call. Does elevation make it more difficult? (Head high vs 8 feet off the ground vs under a rock???) Sometimes it makes a big difference based on which direction you approach from.

It takes a few finds to start developing the "eye" for finding caches. Even a 1 difficulty should still be hidden enough that you won't trip over it when walking down the trail. After a few--sometimes after a few bythe same hider--you start to get a better idea where to look and what to look for.

You also start to get a feel for how not to look! I have found a couple of caches very easily because previous finders tore up the area or make very obvious tracks while looking.

Some caches take longer to find than others, and some people's idea of a 1 might seem like a 2 or 3 to to others.

Hang in there! After a very short while you will start getting the hang of it.

As for GPSr accuracy and th quality of coordinates, I expect the cache to be within 50 to 60 feet of where my GPSr zeros, and am happily surprised if it is much less than 20.

Good luck and keep plugging! It does get easier with experience (and not that much experience).

Dave_W6DPS

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

June 9, 2003

Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:
Good luck and keep plugging! It does get easier with experience (and not that much experience).

QUOTE]

I'll echo that last point. Our first two or three taught us a lot. After that we had a pretty good idea what we were looking for as soon as we reached the immediate vicinity. There have been been a couple that we figured out the hiding place from 70-80 feet away, but only a geocacher with a few finds would have thought to check that location. We have also had a couple of misses, including one which occurred somewhere around find #40-45. We posted a "Did not find" notice, and the owner promptly disabled the cache until it can be checked. That way, it helps to prevent others from spending a lot of time looking for something that may not be there. If we simply missed it, the owner will put a log to that effect and restore the cache to active status. For this reason, it is important to post a "did not find" when you are unsuccessful. It alerts the owner to the fact that something may be amiss, and also alerts anyone else who is planning to search for that cache. It's entirely possible that the cache you were searching for has been plundered and is no longer there. As far as GPS accuracy, we often see readings showing us 30-50 feet away from the cache when we're standing with our feet touching it. We've also seen cases where we laid the GPSr down while logging in and showed errors of 1-2 feet when done logging

The other lesson we've learned is not to print off data a month or so before hunting for a cache, or at least recheck it before hunting. We hunted for one that had been moved by the owner between the time the data was printed and we made our attempt to find it. That was our first "did not find". After revisiting the web page and seeing the change note, we found it easily with the new coordinates.

Keep trying, don't give up after one or two caches!

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need .... roads" --Dr. Emmett L. Brown

6.5k · June 9, 2003

I have to admit that when I read the thread topic and the author's name I came in here looking for a troll tossing. But no, a legit question posed from a new geocacher!

Guess what, sometimes you still need a helping hand, (or at least a finger) even with over a hundred finds!

I agree that cache postings should have some form of hint that gives you a nudge in the right direction without screaming 'it's right here!' Of course anytime thousands of people are involved in an activity there are bound to be a few thousand differences of opinion on this.

Once I get to GPS ground zero I stop looking at the device so much and start looking for a likely hiding spot. Most are within 20-40 feet of he point, but if you are getting 25-35 feet of accuracy in the woods, it is likely the hider did too. If by chance those feet of accuracy are linear then the cache could be 70-80 feet away. Any more than that, and someone has a problem imho.

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

June 9, 2003

I can only think of one time I used the clue and it really helped. I've used the clues before but after reading them I nearly always find that I already knew what the clue is telling me.

However as of this post I've only got 16 finds so you can take my comments for whatever you think they're worth. There ought to be more hours in the day. <sigh>

38.2k · June 9, 2003

If you can't find a 1/1 in two trips, consider the possiblilty its missing. Esp. if the rest of the logs indicate that it was an easy find.

quote:
Unfortunately, the ratings are pretty subjective. What one hider might rate 2 another would rate a 1, still another rate it a 3. It depends on so many factors that it will be a subjective call. Does elevation make it more difficult? (Head high vs 8 feet off the ground vs under a rock???) Sometimes it makes a big difference based on which direction you approach from.

The ratings shouldn't be that subjective, if people would only follow the guidelines:

Difficulty rating:

1 star - Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

2stars - Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

3 stars - Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

4 stars - Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

5 stars - Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

Terrain rating:

1 star - Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

2 stars - Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

3 stars - Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

4 stars - Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

5 stars - Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

As far as my clues, I try to make them dead giveaways. I don't want people going away empty handed. My caches are rated assuming that the hunter has not decrypted the clue. Often, by decrypting one of my clues, it could change it from a 2.5 star difficulty, to a 1 star.

But it does bug me when you go through the trouble of decrypting the clue and it says "no clue needed". Helloooo, if I went through the trouble of decrypting it, obviously I need it!

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

38.2k · June 9, 2003

quote:
After I posted this I had another question. Just how on target will my GPS be? I'm reading about other people whose GPS's are way off, and now I'm wondering if we're just not looking far enough. How far do other folks look for their cache from the center point their GPS gives them? We don't look farther than 50 or so.

Generally the cache will be within 40 or so feet of the posted coordinates, but I've found them as much as 100 feet away and in one case almost 100 yards, because the placer had an old Magellan that only went to two digits.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on June 09, 2003 at 01:04 PM.]

June 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
When I give a clue it's an exactly clue or at least I try to give one that's exact. My theory is that I try to find the cache without the clue but when the time comes that I am stumped I'd rather feel like the cache owner had a great hide and 'got me' than walk away skunked and never know.

I agree with this totally. The reason a clue is encrypted is because it's giving something away. It's not detracting from the fun to have a direct givaway encrypted... if you don't want to read it, all you have to do is NOT decrypt it.

-Dan

Team Kender - "The Sun is coming up!" "No, the horizon is going down."

2.1k · June 9, 2003

What about the halfs, like 1.5 and 2.5? What would they be rated as? I would think a 1 would be right off the path by a few feet and easy to find. Not having to bushwack any. At least not over 50 or more feet.

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

June 9, 2003

Thanks for all the discussion, everyone! It's been great to hear what everybody thinks. I did get a hint from the author, but it basically asked if I'd checked a certain tree, and the cache is hidden somewhere in a long line of trees. So again, not that helpful. But I'm going to go back today or tomorrow and try again.

Also, having folks talk about searching 20-40 feet is really helpful for me to know. I'm totally new to this, and my GPS is just SO COOL, and I've been imaginging that it's EXACT, like I've actually stood there looking at the grass at me feet, which probably makes you guys laugh. Because the GPS says it's RIGHT HERE! Hehehe.

2.1k · June 9, 2003

Yeah learned it wasn't exact about 1 hour after buying it. My wife ran into a store and I sat in the parking lot playing with it. With it sitting still the elevation continously changed. It would go up 25-50 fett and then come down and go below that amount. Had to make sure I wasn't riding a roller coaster.

And then when searching for our cache yesterday, the trees were not cooperating with our unit. We had to stop, turn it off and get new coordinates several times.

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

June 9, 2003

Strangely enough, my 9 year old son is alot better at finding the caches than myself. I get us to the general area, and then he finds the actual cache.

So far, the hardest cache we've had to find was a set of coordinates that were written on a rock. We had left the print-out at home by mistake. We knew we were looking for coordinates written with a Sharpie, but didn't know what they were written on. Not having the clues actually made it alot more fun!

Gimpygoo

June 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
What about the halfs, like 1.5 and 2.5? What would they be rated as? I would think a 1 would be right off the path by a few feet and easy to find. Not having to bushwack any. At least not over 50 or more feet.

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

A good use of a half is a cache with a relatively easy terrain, but it is not wheelchair accessible. e.g. a 1 1/2 is not a long or difficult hike, but it is not accessible to somebody using a chair. I've seen a lot of 1's that should be 1 1/2. And calling them a 2 would be wrong if the distance to the cache is rather short.

2.1k · June 11, 2003

I agree Brainerd. We were at one that was down a flat dirt road about a 1/4 of a mile. Maybe a tad further. But the cache was not right off the road. You had to "bushwack" around a 100 ft or so to get near it. It was rated a 1/1. Terrain was more of a 1.5 in our opinion. It was not strenous, but as you stated, a wheelchair couldn't get to it.

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

4.7k · June 11, 2003

i use the rating system carefully, and for easy caches sometimes i provide a clue, and sometimes i don't. sometimes the description or the title provides a clue. everything might be a clue.

if i think a clue might prompt someone in the right direction, i'll give it. but i won't tell exactly.

for harder caches, i will not provide clues. not even parking coordinates. that's part of the hunt. searchers who ask me for help will only get a bump in the direction provided they have brought something of their own to the problem.

when searching, i expect the clue to be useful. do not leave clues that tell me i don't need them. do not leave slues that tell me i should have looked at the spoiler picture. if i'm decoding a clue, i'm IN THE FIELD and i've been looking a long time.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

June 11, 2003

I feel that the most of the fun is in the hunt not the opening of the cache. I get a little disappointed when I walk straight up to a cache. I had to return to my first mico-cache 4 times before I found it. At the same time, I get frustrated with encoded hints the say no hints required! I always print the cache page and take it with me. The harder time I have finding the cache, the deeper into the page I’ll read for more info but, I always start trying to find it with no hint/clues.

There was a thread last week regarding requirements of having to find so many caches before placing your first. There was an interesting comment saying that it should be the other way around, so as to not be biased by the previous hides. So many caches are hid in a similar manor it makes them obvious.

Remember, the cache is always in the last place you look!

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

June 11, 2003

Cache update:

We went back a third time. Our clue that I got in email from the cache owner was to look for the small tree on the north side. Basically, it's a large sports field with one side lined in fir trees. The north side! So the clue encompasses every tree on the north side. Which means it didn't help us at all, except to say to look for the small ones, which we did, and there was no cache.

I guess I'll let the owner know, maybe it's lost.

June 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by flask:
i use the rating system carefully, and for easy caches sometimes i provide a clue, and sometimes i don't. sometimes the description or the title provides a clue. everything might be a clue.

if i think a clue might prompt someone in the right direction, i'll give it. but i won't tell exactly.

for harder caches, i will not provide clues. not even parking coordinates. that's part of the hunt. searchers who ask me for help will only get a bump in the direction provided they have brought something of their own to the problem.

when searching, i expect the clue to be useful. do not leave clues that tell me i don't need them. do not leave slues that tell me i should have looked at the spoiler picture. if i'm decoding a clue, i'm IN THE FIELD and i've been looking a long time.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

I guess I don't understand your comment, first you state you do not give hints for hard to find caches, then you say you expect others to give good clues for ones you seek? Isn't that a double standard?

I travel much distance to find caches and I like difficult caches that have several clues that enable the seeker to decode them one at a time to hind them locate the cache, with the final clue to be a dead giveaway. I do not decode the clues if I don't need them and if the clues do not help then I will not waste any more of my time to drive 2 or more hours to seek the cache a second time after I ask the hider for clues.

Hell any idiot can hide a needle in a haystack and expect that it will not be found. But someone who is good can hide the needle and then give a few well thought out clues to enable someone to find it. You must remember this is not exact technogoly but only gets you to the area.

I can take a .50 ammo can into the deep woods and post only the coordinates (with a 50 foot error) and have it hid so that most people will not find it without damaging the area while seeking it. I do not want people to dig around and trample the whole area trying to find the "needle"

4.7k · June 11, 2003

i think what i'm saying is that where clues are provided, i expect them to be useful. it's fine with me if there are no clues. and i do provide clues where necessary, but they mostly appear in the text of the description if i think they're necessary.

i do not think this is difficult to extract.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Clues are for newbies!

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

Join the conversation