Jump to content

Too Well Hidden


Recommended Posts

We did some geocaching in Virginia a few weeks ago and the geocaching was a joy. Most of the caches were hidden from prying eyes but when you got close, you could soon spot them. In my home area, however, there are a few cachers (some very prolific hiders) who place caches way off the beaten path and when you get close, you may end up spending a long time in a fruitless search because the tree cover affects the accuracy and the cache is hidden under one of many roots in the area, and then completely covered with dead leaves. I recently read a no find log where the person got very upset with the practice:

 

"Even after reading all the instructions and comments it was a no go. There's something rude about hiding a film cartridge in dense forest when you can't get better than 10m accuracy. After reading all the past adventures/problems and no new hints, I'm not going after this one, sorry but it's not my idea of fun."

 

I have heard that the cache belongs to the person who hides it, but are there etiquette rules, etc.??

Link to comment

I had a nice guy email me that I had my cache hidden in a manner that was too easy to find, with those sticks all lined up in a row. Well I wanted it hidden that way because it's off the beaten path, a tough hike and I wanted to make sure that whoever worked hard to get up there would easily find it. It isn't in an area where muggles are likely to plunder it.

 

But he fixed it for me so now I have to go back up there and change it back the way I wanted it. If it's too well hidden it will end up looking like a professional rototiller team visted the area.

Link to comment

Half the fun is hiding the cache...some do it very creatively.

There is no fun in being able to walk right up to a cache and Whap...there it is.

It's the joy of the hunt... B) and you will undoubtedly find a lot more caches that are just as well hidden....it's part of the game B)

Link to comment

Be prepared for the "if you don't like them, don't search for them" speeches that seem to be so prolific around here. B)

 

I personally am not going to hunt for micros in wooded areas anymore. I have the same problems. Hiding camouflaged micros in the forest are not my idea of fun either. I always thought the whole point was for someone to find your cache, not have everyone log it as a DNF. Some people are just evil about hiding caches. To each his own, I guess.

Link to comment

I have to agree. I went out last week and had a no find on a micro in a nice wooded area that was screaming for a traditional cache. The signal was very weak in there and to top it off, it was raining. Micros are fun if hidden in the correct manner. Example...very near the evil micro above, there is another micro hidden by a small waterfall. It's a beautiful little cubby hole of a spot. A regular would be plundered because there is very little room to walk around. It was the best cache I did that day because of the location.

 

Micros in woods= bad! B)

 

Micros in urban areas and parks = good :(

A creative hide that takes me a while to find is great. I love the moment that it is found and a smile appears on your face because it was well done. To make it impossible or very difficult just to deceive, that pisses me off.

 

Thanks for letting me vent. B)

Edited by Sox Fan
Link to comment
Micros in woods= bad!  Micros in urban areas and parks = good

 

Beg to differ!

 

Micros in spot which is the same as the next spot and the next and the next = bad! Micros hidden in spots that are unique or at least different from everything else for 60 feet around = good!

 

Urban, suburban or sylvan glen, looking for a tiny cache can be fun if it's been hidden with care.

 

And, as an aside, if it seems like there's going to be poor reception for the GPS, it's only courteous to include a spoiler clue. Where's the fun in tearing up a cache site because your GPS is sending you in circles??

Link to comment

Of coarse this rant is solely based on the fact that the difficulty ratings are accurate as possible. :D

 

With the exception of the Difficulty rating of 1 or 2, when it should be a 4 or 5, this sure sounds like a bunch of crybaby stuff to me :ph34r: . I have never met any of you, so I am definitely not making a personal attack on anyone :D . I have never met a cacher I did not get along with B) . But at the same time, if the caches are accurately rated for the difficulty, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? If DNF’s bothered me that much I would not hunt anything above a 2.5 Difficulty.

 

For example we went after this one yesterday. The cache was hidden down a small hill along a creek bed and in heavy foliage, and very well concealed. We also had to walk through about 10 yards of heavy wild berry bushes with small but sharp stickers. It was rated a 1/1. The terrain should defiantly be at least a 1.5, because there is no way a wheelchair is getting to this one and it is .25 miles from parking. The difficulty should be a 1.5-2 in my opinion; another “seasoned cacher” wrote in his find log that the difficulty should be at least a 3 star. Not that big of a deal, it was not like it was rated a 1/1 when it was really a 3/5, but there is still a certain amount of personal judgment when rating your own hide.

 

Terrain ratings are especially tricky because of what each of us is accustomed to regionally. A terrain of 2 in a mountainous region might be a 4 or 5 to someone like myself from a somewhat flat area. On the flip side, someone from Colorado visiting my area would probably think all terrains ratings should be a 1. <_<

Link to comment

If folliage/tree cover is going to seriously mess with GPS readings (throwing someone off more than 40'), then some kind of clue/hint should be thrown in as an aide. Another neat thing to do is to give a couple of bearings from some obvious landmarks (tree or benchmark) in an attempt to triangulate or project the location of the cache.

 

All this of course is up to the cache owner.

Link to comment

Clues that relate to logs are a bad idea in the woods.

 

"It's hidden by the log" is very bad horrible no good clue.

 

"It's hidden by the tree" is a very bad terrible horrible no good clue.

 

"It's hidden by the tree marked with the big heart with Jimmie + Suzie inside. could be a good clue if Jimmie + Suzie only carved up the one tree back when they were still together.

Link to comment

Some caches are hidden to be challenging finds others are meant to be hidden from muggles but an easy find for cachers. I can't say this enough: There's something for everyone. As long as the rating is accurate there is nothing to complain about.

Link to comment

Ok guys, split this hair.

 

A truly clever hide that is a true 4 on the scale and the only reason it's not a 5 is that you don't need specil equipment.

 

Vs:

 

A needle in the haystack approache. Micro in a 12 acre rock pile 42' deep.

 

Both are hard, and both would be 4's. And yet both are worlds apart for the type of hunting experience.

 

The idendical rating does not clue you in. Is this broken? Is this worth differentiating somehow?

Link to comment
I had a nice guy email me that I had my cache hidden in a manner that was too easy to find, with those sticks all lined up in a row. Well I wanted it hidden that way because it's off the beaten path, a tough hike and I wanted to make sure that whoever worked hard to get up there would easily find it. It isn't in an area where muggles are likely to plunder it.

 

But he fixed it for me so now I have to go back up there and change it back the way I wanted it. If it's too well hidden it will end up looking like a professional rototiller team visted the area.

I agree, why can't cachers place a cache back EXACTLY like they found it. I have a cache that is intended to be visible from .2 miles away. I check it every day and everytime someone finds it it gets placed behind a guardrail post. So I move it back and again it gets placed where they think it goes. Put caches back just like you found them.

Link to comment
Put caches back just like you found them.

 

You can help cachers put the cache back the way you want them by including a photo in the cache of how you want your cache hidden.

 

Whenever I find caches with sticks neatly piled up in rows I assume some new cacher has been through and "fix" the camo by scattering the sticks and making the spot look more natural. If I found a cache just sitting out in the open with no indication that this is what the owner intended, I'd use camo according to the rating.

 

If you want the cache to be easy to find then you'd better indicate it on the cache page with an appropriate rating or include instructions in the cache.

Link to comment
Ok guys, split this hair.

 

A truly clever hide that is a true 4 on the scale and the only reason it's not a 5 is that you don't need special equipment.

 

Vs:

 

A needle in the haystack approach. Micro in a 12 acre rock pile 42' deep.

 

Both are hard, and both would be 4's. And yet both are worlds apart for the type of hunting experience.

 

The identical rating does not clue you in. Is this broken? Is this worth differentiating somehow?

oof. Tough one. I don't think there is anyway to differentiate those. I would rather leave that up to the cache owner and hope they are kind enough to give the appropriate details. It's not worth making new guidelines for though. If Groundspeak could incorporate a tool that would give more info then that would certainly be fine. Until then I'm willing to just chalk it up as being part of the game. You know going to the site, at the very least, if it's a micro or not. If you get there and see a 12 acre rock pile you can decide to move on or accept the challenge. One other thing... I don't buy the argument, "well what if I drove 150 miles to do this cache at $2.50 a gallon." I've never heard of anyone driving that distance for one cache without knowing more about it.

Link to comment
I had a nice guy email me that I had my cache hidden in a manner that was too easy to find, with those sticks all lined up in a row. Well I wanted it hidden that way because it's off the beaten path, a tough hike and I wanted to make sure that whoever worked hard to get up there would easily find it.

Yeah. I love parallel sticks.

 

Washington State Geocacher's Association has a t-shirt that says "Parallel Sticks Rule!"

Link to comment
I had a nice guy email me that I had my cache hidden in a manner that was too easy to find, with those sticks all lined up in a row.  Well I wanted it hidden that way because it's off the beaten path, a tough hike and I wanted to make sure that whoever worked hard to get up there would easily find it.

Yeah. I love parallel sticks.

 

Washington State Geocacher's Association has a t-shirt that says "Parallel Sticks Rule!"

:ph34r: well if they are along a well traveled path it's too obvious. But out in the woods only a cacher would really pay it any attention.

 

I really like this guy and he's as nice as can be but, now I have to climb a moutain and fix things. It's ok, I'm old but not dead. <_<

Link to comment

I posted a DNF on a local cache, one of a string of DNFs from several people. There were clues, but the cache was hidden really, really well. I spent well over an hour looking, and decided the only way to find it was by using a 'scorched earth' search, and I refuse to do that. I won't tear up things just to find an ammo box or a piece of tupperware. Hiding caches in the woods so cleverly that people start digging is going to far, IMHO. The owner got in a little bit of a snit after reading all the DNFs, and archived the cache. Fair enough, I guess, but there is no reason to get so clever with caches that it causes damage to the area. I just won't dig for trinkets.

Edited by NightPilot
Link to comment

I've been known to hide a few "micro in the woods" style caches in my area. Lately, as a general rule, I've tried to hide the cache in a spot that is set apart from the surroundings, however slightly (the only multi-forked tree in a forest full of mostly identical non-forked trees, for example). I provide an extra hint in nearly every case, which usually is (in my opinion) a dead giveaway (though some who have hunted my caches may not agree <_< ).

Link to comment

Add Blaylockgang to the bandwagon for not hiding micros in heavily wooded areas. We spent several hours over several trips trying to locate a 35mm film canister in a heavily wooded area where there were literally hundreds of great spots for a regular cache. The closest reading we got was about 30-40 feet. When I emailed the owner and politeley told him of our troubles, he emailed back saying, "Maybe it's supposed to be hard to find." Hard to find is one thing. Impossible is something else entirely. We finally found it, but by the time we did, it had ceased being fun. We're stubborn or we would have just called it quits. I guess what I'm trying to say is, what's the point? Why make it so difficult for people. I know the hunt is part of the fun, and we love having to look really hard for caches, but that one was just ridiculous. <_<

Link to comment

A few points:

 

There's nothing wrong with DNF on a cache. If you can't find it in a reasonable time, go hunt down the next one. It doesn't count against you. Any "scoring" that occurs on GC.com seems to be on finds only.

 

Don't hide caches that people won't like. Making a cache is serving the public (well, GC crowd). If they don't tend to like micros in forests, then don't hide them if you want people to seek your cache.

 

Use the cache description to note whether the trek is hard, or the hide site is hard. A note that it is a micro that is really hard to find would be fair warning.

 

You can't get standardization on the ranking of caches, because humans pick the numbers. That's life. The best you can do is use the maps to find a starting point, and the ending point and plot a course between. If the route looks hard, and you know its a micro, then you know it will be a long hunt.

 

Just a few thoughts,

Janx

Link to comment
Ok guys, split this hair.

 

A truly clever hide that is a true 4 on the scale and the only reason it's not a 5 is that you don't need specil equipment.

 

Vs:

 

A needle in the haystack approache. Micro in a 12 acre rock pile 42' deep.

 

Both are hard, and both would be 4's. And yet both are worlds apart for the type of hunting experience.

 

The idendical rating does not clue you in. Is this broken? Is this worth differentiating somehow?

4 difficulty stars indicates it could very well take all day, or longer, to find the cache. One is either willing to budget that much time for the search or one isn't.

 

You did not mention the size of the first cache, so I presume it was at least a "regular" size cache. One would know before setting out to look for locations that could conceal that size cache and to expect to spend the day looking for it. If the individual found it short order, then it wasn't really a 4-star cache ... it was actually a misrated 2.5 star cache.

 

You also stated that "the needle in the haystack" cache was a micro cache. You did not mention whether the cache page disclosed any other site conditions; only that it also carried 4 difficulty stars. Cache pages usually disclose the size of the cache near the upper right hand corner of the page ("This is a micro [regular, large] cache"), although I don't think it is a parameter required for approval. Assuming the cache page disclosed the fact that the cache was a micro cache, one could take that into consideration when making their educated decision whether or not they wanted to potentially spend all day on it.

 

So what is broken? Only that specifying the size of the cache on the page is not a required parameter for approval.

Link to comment
...I spent well over an hour looking, and decided the only way to find it was by using a 'scorched earth' search, and I refuse to do that. ...

Excellent. I agree. When I reach that point I leave. It's no longer fun.

I agree, as well ... it is wrong to be destructive. But as stated above, expecting to find a cache with 3 or more difficulty stars in an hour or less is an indication that the person had not properly planned for the search ... it in no way indicates that there was anything wrong with the cache, its description, or "the system."

Edited by Bassoon Pilot
Link to comment

Just curious--what was the rating for that cache, Blaylockgang?

 

It's difficult to get a feel for the situation and weigh the hider's comment without knowing the rating.

 

For example, I know that the Clayjar guidelines indicate that a 3 difficulty "could take up a good portion of an afternoon" for an experienced finder, and a 4 "May require multiple days / trips to complete."

 

My point here is that the difficulty rating seems to cover the entire gamut from "In plain sight" to "ground-penetrating radar required to find cache." The rating system is so you, the seeker, can decide which kind of caches you want to hunt according to the circumstances and your preferences. I have gone after some 4 difficulty hides, and even found a couple. Yes, they took a few trips. I have also enjoyed some 1s at lunch-break from work.

 

So my opinion is that, assuming a cache is rated reasonably well (within a half-star or so), no one should be complaining that it is too well hidden. The fact that one could have fit a full-size cache doesn't mean it is wrong to hide a micro. Simply avoid the 4-stars if you don't want to take multiple trips to find the cache.

 

John

Team Shredded Bark

Link to comment
I had a nice guy email me that I had my cache hidden in a manner that was too easy to find, with those sticks all lined up in a row.  Well I wanted it hidden that way because it's off the beaten path, a tough hike and I wanted to make sure that whoever worked hard to get up there would easily find it.  It isn't in an area where muggles are likely to plunder it.

 

But he fixed it for me so now I have to go back up there and change it back the way I wanted it.  If it's too well hidden it will end up looking like a professional rototiller team visted the area.

I agree, why can't cachers place a cache back EXACTLY like they found it. I have a cache that is intended to be visible from .2 miles away. I check it every day and everytime someone finds it it gets placed behind a guardrail post. So I move it back and again it gets placed where they think it goes. Put caches back just like you found them.

Webscouter - I hear you. I put your cache just like I found it.

 

A later finder posted that they hid it so it won't be seen or something like that.

(The only way that cache can't be seen is for it to be buried at least 10 feet under very black soil, and then paved over with 8 inchec of asphalt.

Link to comment
You can help cachers put the cache back the way you want them by including a photo in the cache of how you want your cache hidden.

It didn't work.

For my first cache, I put 2 photos of the proper cache placement.

 

We have found that cache 5 feet away, or hidden in a variety of places.

Link to comment
I recently read a no find log where the person got very upset with the practice:

 

"Even after reading all the instructions and comments it was a no go. There's something rude about hiding a film cartridge in dense forest when you can't get better than 10m accuracy. After reading all the past adventures/problems and no new hints, I'm not going after this one, sorry but it's not my idea of fun."

 

I have heard that the cache belongs to the person who hides it, but are there etiquette rules, etc.??

The etiquette? As I understand it, it is now considered "poor form" to hide lousy film canisters in the manner described.

 

If, however, the cache hider had used a bison capsule (or something similarly "radical"), then the cache would be considered "cutting edge" and would be "really cool."

Link to comment

Just curious--what was the rating for that cache, Blaylockgang?

 

The rating for the cache is 3 1/2 for both difficulty and terrain. I really believe they should both be 5's. The area the cache is located in is off a dirt road, with steep hills on either side of the road. With a GPS reading of between 30-40 feet, it could be on either side, and we did alot of serious climbing on both sides looking for it.

Link to comment
I had a nice guy email me that I had my cache hidden in a manner that was too easy to find, with those sticks all lined up in a row.  Well I wanted it hidden that way because it's off the beaten path, a tough hike and I wanted to make sure that whoever worked hard to get up there would easily find it.  It isn't in an area where muggles are likely to plunder it.

 

But he fixed it for me so now I have to go back up there and change it back the way I wanted it.  If it's too well hidden it will end up looking like a professional rototiller team visted the area.

I agree, why can't cachers place a cache back EXACTLY like they found it. I have a cache that is intended to be visible from .2 miles away. I check it every day and everytime someone finds it it gets placed behind a guardrail post. So I move it back and again it gets placed where they think it goes. Put caches back just like you found them.

I got a bit of a problem with this.

 

You assume that the last finder actually found[/b} the cache where it should be. This is not always the case. What if the person that found it before neglected to cover/hide it as it was originally? The next finder does not know how it was supposed to be, so common sense says they should hide it "better". They are only trying to preserve the cache.

 

I sometimes find one of my caches right out in the open (in a muggle rich area) and I appreciate the next finder putting it back where it should be.

 

If it is intended to be out in the open, because this is very unusual, you should place a note prominently in or on the cache saying so.

Link to comment

What would the rating be if it was hidden where everyone could walk right up to it but just not see it because it is in an object like an earlier thread of an electrical box. Out in the open where everyone walks right to it but most wouldn't open it to see that it is fake?

Link to comment
I have one to hid that should be a one to get to but need to know if I should up the rating due to the odd hiding place.

If it's wheelchair accessible the terrain can be a 1. If your idea is new to the area and you're expecting to skunk a few people, bump the difficulty rating up a bit. Be careful not to bump it up too much or players will know it's something different and bag it easily. There's a fine line between an accurate rating and giving away too much info.

Link to comment
Half the fun is hiding the cache...some do it very creatively.

There is no fun in being able to walk right up to a cache and Whap...there it is.

It's the joy of the hunt... :mad: and you will undoubtedly find a lot more caches that are just as well hidden....it's part of the game :mad:

I like the hides where you search for awhile, and then all of a sudden, whoa, there it is and you wonder why you couldn't find it before.

Link to comment

Being a cacher who prefers to plant them, its not how well they are hidden but how well your clues and GPS readings have a coorelation to the final solution. And the majority of my hides range around 4x4. And they are not as easy as some cachers think to plant them, it usually takes some map work and at least two hikes all the way back up there just to get it right.

 

I just planted one that is way back in there. And after I got it done I was planning on going back up there to double check and and make sure all the waypoints and clues were workable, I just didn't want to send someone on a wild goose chase. But my fears were alleviated when they Found It. So now I can go find another place to plant a cache.

Link to comment
Just curious--what was the rating for that cache, Blaylockgang?

 

The rating for the cache is 3 1/2 for both difficulty and terrain. I really believe they should both be 5's. The area the cache is located in is off a dirt road, with steep hills on either side of the road. With a GPS reading of between 30-40 feet, it could be on either side, and we did alot of serious climbing on both sides looking for it.

That hardly sounds like a 5/5. As a matter of fact, without actually looking for the cache, your description sounds like it's rated pretty accurately. A 5/5 cache would require special equipment or training to reach the area, such as a boat, scuba gear, or mountain climbing gear, as well as special equipment, training, or preparation find the cache once you got to the location.

A true 3/3 cache should be:

TERRAIN(getting to the cache)

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.)

 

DIFFICULTY(finding the cache once you get there)

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

A 3.5/3.5 cache like you attempted should be just a bit harder to get to, and a bit harder to find once you get there, then that.

 

Some people enjoy to journey. Some people enjoy the hunt. Some people enjoy both. Some people prefer different combinations at different times. The ratings are there so you can only go after caches you want. If you don't LIKE spending 3hrs or more searching for a cache, stick to the low difficulty ones. If you don't like rugged hikes, stick to the low terrain ones.

 

Not all of us like to stroll right up to a pile of sticks or rocks every time.

Link to comment

Surprises in the form of something that is contrary to what the cache page says are poor etiquette. This includes ratings and cache container descriptions among other tidbits.

 

That said, when writing up a cache page, there are two sections for the cache description. The first section specifically suggests a description of the cache container.

 

There is no single part of the cache page that is the end-all information. (insert standard statement about subjective nature of the rating system here.) But between the rating system, the cache description, the maps, the hints, and if necessary/available the logs of other cachers, there shouldn't be any deal breaking surprises.

 

To the original question of this thread--The cache description should indicate that the container is a film canister or at least a micro (see first two paragraphs above). That plus the rating and anything goes. Etiquette has been preserved. The rest is just the wonderfully varied world of cache creativity and personal preference.

 

EDIT: Surprises/are not Surprises/is DOH

Edited by Toron
Link to comment

Personally, I think it bad form to make very difficult hides in areas where there are no durable surfaces.

 

In the course of someone trying to find a cache they must "hunt" and in doing so they will be moving around. The longer they are moving around the more potential they have to trample the area. It's similar to a social trail. Eventually, it could cause the need for the cache to be moved. Plus, if the cache is not really remote and in the course of the hunt the cacher doesn't notice they've piqued someone's interest, they may compromise the cache.

 

Plus, if the area can support a cache that at least can hold a regular logbook what's the point of the micro? :mad:

 

I just don't get the point of trying to hide a cache from just the geocacher. If that's what you want there are myriad of lame ways to hide a cache. "Ohh, I want a 5/5 that is pratically impossible to find--I know, I'll weight an ammo can drop it overboard on my next cruise. NOW, let them find it. Bwahahaha!" Lame, lame, lame. Better yet. Give the coords to the spot your standing and the general direction you're facing and throw a Bison tube as hard as you can! Now, let them find that! Oh, thrilling! :mad:

 

If any of the jokers want to really stump cachers, first you should be stumping the muggles that will be walking within 2 feet of your cache. :(

 

Heck, maybe even stump yourself. Go find a really cool spot in town with a nice interesting view. Stand there and say to yourself, "I'm going to hide a regular-sized cache here" and figure out how to do it. :o Don't just look around and think it can't be done. Tackle it as hard as you would figuring out a hard puzzle. Only after you've put a lot of thought into it and can't figure out a way to place a regular, then step down to a micro.

 

[Yet, another rant on a tangent. Sorry about that folks.]

Link to comment

Okay, I admit I didn't understand the rating system better. However, the only hint given for the micro was "look in the root of the problem!" Yeah, we got it! However, we're talking hundreds of trees with a GPS rating which was off 30-40 feet because of heavy tree cover. We don't mind the climbing around or looking hard for 3 hours. That's part of the reason we love geocaching! What we do mind is a 35 mm film canister being hidden when there were hundreds of places for a regular cache container to have been hidden well. And because of the micro, no one else in the area, including ourselves, can hide a regular cache there. It just doesn't make sense to me, and to not provide a better clue when I politely asked the owner for one, in my opinion, wasn't very nice. If he had even told us which side of the road to look on, it would have been helpful, but he wouldn't. He just said, "Maybe it's supposed to be hard." No kidding! I wasn't expecting him to tell us where it was, but a little extra hint would have been nice.

Edited by Blaylockgang
Link to comment

I guess I just hate micro caches. We have one hidden in our area - No trees the GPS can read a dozen fixes, the hint says it is 15 ft from the "7" there is a big "7" on a large sign, the info says you do not need to climb on the sign to find it. You get the long/lat by verifying a telephone number. The cache is a small vial at least that is what the description says. Several people that recorded a Find claim they found it laying on the ground, I doubt that since when it rains about 2 inches of water drain under the sign area. A lot of people look who do not record a DNF, some do.. I guess I am one who thinks the GPS location should be correct if you are out in a open field.

 

Yes I hate micros.

Link to comment

Interesting topic. It brings up something that is "near & dear" to me: the subject of where micro caches "belong". Someone above wrote:

Plus, if the area can support a cache that at least can hold a regular logbook what's the point of the micro? 

 

 

Why not a regular? Simple. To make it harder. I refer you to the cache I most recently placed: UnSubDivided 2: Controversy In The Woods

 

Now I made it quite clear what they were looking for. Including giving the option to see what the containers look like before leaving home. And I believe the difficulty ratings are right on according to Clayjar's system.

 

The real issue here is very simple. If you are going for a cache that has a higher difficulty rating, then you are inherently accepting the fact that it is going to take a long time to find. Whether it is a regular-sized cache that is very cleverly hidden, or a micro in a woods, the matter is the same. It's going to be difficult.

Link to comment

But how many people really check the rating before they go out? i just hit a nearest and go for it. nothing i hate more than not being able to find a cache. i am willing to try a couple of times, coming from different angles, but i really do want to log a find. the taller half of our team is starting to refuse to go on multi's because it's so easy to miss one leg and never find the final.

Link to comment
But how many people really check the rating before they go out? i just hit a nearest and go for it. nothing i hate more than not being able to find a cache. i am willing to try a couple of times, coming from different angles, but i really do want to log a find. the taller half of our team is starting to refuse to go on multi's because it's so easy to miss one leg and never find the final.

I usually check the rating after about 10 minutes of hunting.

Link to comment

Some of my favorite finds have been those that were hidden real well. One of my most recent finds was practically out in the open and it still took near 15 minutes to find and it was my son who said upon seeing it "No way" I would rather search and not find than to have it wave at me and say here.

Link to comment

People are just going to have differing tastes. Some get great satisfaction out of finally cracking that fake rock in a pile of rocks hide. Whether it be in their 'wiring' for stubborness, perserverance or some other reason, and who is anybody to say that a style of hide shouldn't be done because "I" don't like it. I don't even like regular jigsaw puzzles, but they make puzzles with no picture, and I guess enough people like them so they don't lose money. I wouldn't consider getting one of those, and if I'm not in the mood, I won't hunt for a hide of the 'pile of rocks' sort. Most of my outings are planned to hit several in an area, so if the hunt turns into one of those and I don't care for it, I 'pull the plug' early and go on to the next. I look at it as democracy in action. I get to vote on which caches I elect to do. So does everyone else. Hiders get feedback in their logs (or lack thereof) and can balance out their satisfaction between type/toughness of hide and number of people who find/dnf or who elect to not show up. It's a big bell curve in both the dimensions of hiding and finding, and I think we have plenty of room to accommodate the full spectrum of both. My $0.02 (putting on nomex suit).

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...