Does Geocaching Need Micro Guidelines?

[+Team Perks]

You couldn't be more wrong.  I have yet to come across a regular cache with nothing in it.  My little girl has *never* been disappointed with a regular.  On the other hand, due to her dissatisfaction with the one micro I took her to (and it was a "good" one), I do not want to take her to another.  Bigger isn't necessarily better, but (as my daughter sees it) something IS better than nothing.  Nothing = Lameness.  Anyway, if I had an opinion that there is no such thing as a good micro, so what?  Maybe I'm harming myself by missing out on some good caches, but that's not the issue. The issue is:  Since it would help some of us and is likely a relatively simple change, why not distinguish (and or filter) cache size on the search results page?

The statement couldn't be more wrong...FOR YOU. However, YOU are not every single geocacher. I just enjoy the hunt, so I don't trade. So for ME, nothing does not equal lameness. I don't have a 6-year old, so I don't care what's in there.

 

I HAVE seen caches full of nothing but expired coupons and broken, dirty toys--especially when the container is a dented coffee can with a cracked lid that has allowed all the expired coupons to get soaked. To me, THAT is lameness and frankly, I'd rather the cache be empty than full of useless junk I have to stuff back into the container, regardless of the size. Maybe some people actually do enjoy wet, expired coupons; however, I don't. I'm not opposed to trade items (I like to keep mine nicely stocked), but it bears no influence on what I want to find. To call my preference WRONG is, to put it bluntly, quite self-centered.

 

I have seen more than a handful of "log-only" regular-sized caches...here's one, for example. If nothing requates to lameness, then eliminating the micros still won't eliminate the lameness...at least not around here. (For the record, I consider the cache I referenced above to be among the more amusing ones I've found.)

Edited June 3, 2004 by Team PerkyPerks

[+drat19]

You couldn't be more wrong...

To call my preference WRONG is, to put it bluntly, quite self-centered.

As a player on this thread, but as an observer on this debate between you two (Matthew and PerkyPerks), I would have to agree that your (Matthew) choice of words changes "respectful disagreement" into an "attack".

 

"You couldn't be more wrong" is an attack. "I disagree; here is my counterpoint..." would be a respectful debate.

 

I know all about "heat of the battle", but since you're both making valid points in the ongoing discussion, keep it respectful and you have a better chance to find common ground.

 

Just my opinion...

-Dave R.

Edited June 3, 2004 by drat19

[+Torry]

I guess I should clarify a few of my gripes.

 

I understand that there are times and places that only a micro is appropriate. There are some good ones that I've found that were a hoot and took me to some interesting sites.

 

However ...

 

The abuses that I see that have become so rampant in Indiana and in other areas is troubling. I feel a cache should NEVER be approved if it has been placed on a lamppost, mailbox, private sign or other sites that are not safe and available for public access and use. The micro in the "Golden Gallon" parking lot should not have been approved in the first place as the location clearly violates the private propery guidelines.

 

The approvers are volunteers and cannot personally track down every single submission. Submitters need to be reminded and made to justify any placement the approver cannot be certain is placed legally.

[+JMBella]

Does Geocaching Need Micro Guidelines?

 

No thanks.

[+rbvstar]

The abuses that I see that have become so rampant in Indiana and in other areas is troubling.

Seems this is a growning problem not just here in Tennessee.. I think there needs to be a posted off limit area list this may help someone thats new and not sure if they can place one there or not. I realize there will still be gray areas but its getting out of hand.

[kayaker22589]

Don't get me wrong I love micros. In fact I have my own out. But when people hide an easy micro in an area that could easily take an ammo can or bigger, that ticks me off.

Edited June 4, 2004 by kayaker22589

[+Team Perks]

The abuses that I see that have become so rampant in Indiana and in other areas is troubling. I feel a cache should NEVER be approved if it has been placed on a lamppost, mailbox, private sign or other sites that are not safe and available for public access and use. The micro in the "Golden Gallon" parking lot should not have been approved in the first place as the location clearly violates the private propery guidelines.

 

The approvers are volunteers and cannot personally track down every single submission. Submitters need to be reminded and made to justify any placement the approver cannot be certain is placed legally.

I think you're absolutely correct in that caches placed without permission are becoming more and more of a universal problem. Out here, though, I've seen that for all types of caches--not just micros. Since this topic has to do specifically with micros, I don't know how tightening the placement guidelines would really help that problem. People can just as easily toss a peanut butter jar under a bush in the same parking lot instead of sticking a hide-a-key to the nearby lamp post.

 

As far as the approvers requiring that cache owners justify any legally questionable placements, I think the approvers are already doing that to the extent that their resources permit. At some point you have to trust the cacher in actually getting permission for placing a cache. Yes, there are going to be the ones who don't, but given the burden of what the approvers are already doing, I'm not sure how much more time they can spend "proving" that the cache owner has permission short of trusting my word that yes, the property owner has said it's OK (parks and other areas with known cache placement rules excepted, of course).

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I have yet to come across a regular cache with nothing in it.

If you see a cache of mine with this on it...

 

 

you'll find regular cache with nothing in it. Just a log book.

 

If people are dissapointed in that they can always take their kids shopping I suppose.

[+Matthew1344]

If you see a cache of mine with this on it...

 

you'll find regular cache with nothing in it. Just a log book.

 

If people are dissapointed in that they can always take their kids shopping I suppose.

Sounds like you don't have kids.

 

Actually, once my daughter leaves it it will have something in it... she wouldn't want the next little girl or boy to be disappointed like she was.

 

And I guess instead of buying Cracker Jacks for my daughter, I should just go *buy* her some tatoos or a plastic ring? I'm not saying micros are evil or that no one should hunt them or place them. I'm just saying that from my daughter's perspective they're like getting an empty prize package in your Cracker Jacks. Would she choose Cracker Jacks without the prize? Maybe, but the fun of seeing what's in the package makes it a lot more fun and keeps her choosing Cracker Jacks instead of Crunch 'N Munch.

 

Micros would be of no consequence to me at all if I had a way to completely ignore them or identify them on searches and maps.

 

And PerkyPerks... Smokem peace pipe?

 

I apologize if you perceived my statement that you were "wrong" to be judgement against your preference of cache. This is not what I meant. The "wrong" that I assigned was to bons' assessment of what is desired by placing restrictions on guidelines. Looking back, I see that I should have read more carefully and been more clear in my statements.

 

When I do a search, I want to avoid micros--not lame regulars. It is the size of the container that I am concerned with. No doubt, my daughter would be disappointed to find an empty ammo can, but even then I could teach her about giving being better than receiving.

 

My bottom line is, when I do a search or look at a map, I only want to see hides which have the capacity to store a selection of items (lame or not) that my daughter will enjoy seeing. I know there are others that feel the same. It's not that I want micros banished or even regulated. We just want to know that a cache we see on a map or in search results are micros without drilling down to the details. It may be a location thing, but I just searched a radius of 10 miles from my zip and got back 24 caches... 14 of them were micros, only 8 were "regulars". Surrounding areas are even less "regular".

 

We may refer to micros as a cache size, but it could be argued that the practical application makes them a completely different animal that some of us would prefer to avoid. One more time... I don't want them taken away, I just want to be able to distinguish them from regulars wherever I see them (in searches, in maps, and in Pocket Queries--this is done... THANKS to the awesome staff of geocaching.com!).

[CoyoteRed]

I really don't see the problem here. You're a paid member who has access to PQs and can do exactly what you are asking for, but still complain about it.

 

It just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

 

There are plenty of other things that are a much higher priority.

 

Oh, I really like the idea of you and/or your child not repecting the wishes of a cache owner by keeping a non-trading cache non-trading.

[+Matthew1344]

I really don't see the problem here....

 

Oh, I really like the idea of you and/or your child not repecting the wishes of a cache owner by keeping a non-trading cache non-trading.

I realize that my last post was long, so I'm sorry if your eyes got tired before finishing it. The bottom line of my post is that to some people micros and regulars are different enough that they deserve an obvious distinction wherever they are seen together (search page and maps, as well as PQ's).

 

And, oh, I really like the idea of someone respecting the "Cache listing Requirements / Guidlines" of Geocaching.com by calling a regular a micro. From the site:

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon bucket or larger)

 

As someone once said, "Remember to always trade kindly. The person after you should be as pleased as you are." I won't apologize for my 4-year-old giving even though she didn't receive.

[+Team Perks]

Micros would be of no consequence to me at all if I had a way to completely ignore them or identify them on searches and maps.

 

And PerkyPerks... Smokem peace pipe?

 

I apologize if you perceived my statement that you were "wrong" to be judgement against your preference of cache.  This is not what I meant.  The "wrong" that I assigned was to bons' assessment of what is desired by placing restrictions on guidelines.  Looking back, I see that I should have read more carefully and been more clear in my statements.

 

When I do a search, I want to avoid micros--not lame regulars.  It is the size of the container that I am concerned with.  No doubt, my daughter would be disappointed to find an empty ammo can, but even then I could teach her about giving being better than receiving.

 

My bottom line is, when I do a search or look at a map, I only want to see hides which have the capacity to store a selection of items (lame or not) that my daughter will enjoy seeing.  I know there are others that feel the same.  It's not that I want micros banished or even regulated.  We just want to know that a cache we see on a map or in search results are micros without drilling down to the details.  It may be a location thing, but I just searched a radius of 10 miles from my zip and got back 24 caches... 14 of them were micros, only 8 were "regulars".  Surrounding areas are even less "regular".

 

We may refer to micros as a cache size, but it could be argued that the practical application makes them a completely different animal that some of us would prefer to avoid.  One more time... I don't want them taken away, I just want to be able to distinguish them from regulars wherever I see them (in searches, in maps, and in Pocket Queries--this is done... THANKS to the awesome staff of geocaching.com!).

Let me clarify that if Groundspeak decided that your wish was a good idea and went ahead and did it, I wouldn't have any objection. The simple point I'm trying to make is simply that in my own opinion there are other functions that should be worked out that will benefit many more people than that suggestion, especially since you already have the ability to filter out all of the micros.

 

I'm not sure I agree that the practical application of a micro is different in every case, since a good number of micros are trading caches--albeit smaller items--and there are a small but notable number of log-only regular caches. If your desired feature were to be added to GC.com, I would suggest the distinction be made between trading caches and log-only caches rather than basing the distinction on size alone. But then, that's only based on my experience in what I've seen here in California.

 

I take no personal offense to your prior statements; you've made valid and worthwhile points, but what some might consider to be personal attacks don't do any good to your credibility (as others have already stated). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own belief as to what makes this hobby fun. As others have also expressed, what makes geocaching great is because there are so many people with affinities for different caching syles, that there will always be a great variety of caches to choose from.

 

One final and very general comment, I think it's also important to realize that out of how many hundreds of thousands of registered users, this discussion is being carried out by only a handful of them...You are but one of many, and so am I. I don't think it is possible for anyone to infer the opinions of the silent majority from the forums.

 

EDIT: Off-topic, but I just looked up Matthew 13:44. I never knew the Bible endorsed geocaching.

Edited June 4, 2004 by Team PerkyPerks

[+Matthew1344]

Let me clarify that if Groundspeak decided that your wish was a good idea and went ahead and did it, I wouldn't have any objection. 

I appreciate that and feel the same way about features that are not personally beneficial to me.

 

... in my own opinion there are other functions that should be worked out that will benefit many more people than that suggestion...

I realize that there are a lot of other features that could be added, though I don't have any idea how many people each one would benefit. I guess it would be the job of GC.com to determine that. You may well be right.

 

...I would suggest the distinction be made between trading caches and log-only caches...

I guess I somewhat agree except for a few things:

 

1) When caching with my daughter I would want to avoid even "trading" caches if they are so small that we have trouble finding anything in our bag to leave. (this is part of why I'm so persistent about the size)

 

2) Is the trading/non-trading information stored? If not, I think it would be a simpler change if the information was already stored... and cache size is already there. (Being a "resource" myself, I would want the change to require as few resources as are necessary).

 

3) Size achieves my goal the vast majority of the time. I bet that for every regular log-book-only cache, there are 100's of trading regulars. Likewise, (and yes, I realize this may vary by area) for every trading micro there are 100's of non-trading micros.

 

Whether my request is ever granted or not, hats off to the staff of GC.com! They do an incredible job with the site.

[+graldrich]

I could care less whats in the containers or what size they are just give me something to hunt!I enjoy the adventure of geocaching!

[+Matthew1344]

I could care less whats in the containers or what size they are just give me something to hunt!I enjoy the adventure of geocaching!

Yeah, I'm sure it's frustrating if your area doesn't have a lot of caches. I'm thankful that mine does.

 

I guess the best way to help is to hide one yourself and tell a friend to go find it. I just hid my first one this past weekend. It's waiting for approval now. It's a regular.

[+Mastifflover]

Does Geocaching Need Micro Guidelines?

 

No thanks.

Agreed!!!

[+norbu]

there is no need for more rules for the volunteer approvers to have to deal with.

Sounds like you don't have kids.

Oh great, another parent/non-parent debate. Let me say this, IF I did have kids, I would not set their expectations to think that every cache would have something cool inside, and I would also want them to enjoy the challenge of finding a fun micro. I see people in my area all the time that have kids, finding fun micros. And guess what? A lot of the "micros" around here have swag too!!! OMG! Oh, and often the kids are the ones who find them because they have a different style of looking.

 

anyway, it might not hurt to have another icon, but the differences in sizes of micros makes that overkill I think. Not all micros are film cans. In my household we call altoids minis, and film cans and smaller are micros.

 

Heck, we need a smaller alternative than an ammo can in many places. The shape and size of an ammo can is just NOT appropriate for all places. Now maybe a micro might not be too, but there has to be some middle ground, and the cache hider should be the one being smart about it.

 

I guess if you have a beef about abuse of a micro, complain to the hider and the approver in that area....

[+Matthew1344]

I guess if you have a beef about abuse of a micro....

No "beef" here. You and your household can hunt micros all you want. I'm not opposing that. I'm just saying that they are different enough be distinguished or filtered on maps and searches for those of us who don't want to see them.

Edited June 4, 2004 by Matthew1344

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Sounds like you don't have kids.

 

Actually, once my daughter leaves it it will have something in it... she wouldn't want the next little girl or boy to be disappointed like she was.

 

Oh so you'll change my cache to suit whatever you think it should be? Interesting outlook there. I want a cache with only a logbook and you think enough of yourself that you'll turn it into whatever sort of cache you want it to me.

 

Maybe it's time to just take your daughter shopping???

 

I've got 3 kids. They aren't spoiled either []

[CoyoteRed]

As someone once said, "Remember to always trade kindly. The person after you should be as pleased as you are."  I won't apologize for my 4-year-old giving even though she didn't receive.

Great, teach your child that it's okay to play their own game even if it goes against what others want. Just what kind of parent are you?

 

"That's okay, honey. We'll make this cache better by doing this. It doesn't matter that the person who owns it wishes it to be a non-trading cache. We know what's best!"

 

Sounds a little like the folks who blaze a trail to the cache with surveyor's tape, or "hide" it out in the open to make it easier for the next person to find, or move it to where it "supposed to be."

 

[EDIT: removed something that was a little harsh.]

Edited June 5, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+norbu]

I guess if you have a beef about abuse of a micro....

No "beef" here. You and your household can hunt micros all you want. I'm not opposing that. I'm just saying that they are different enough be distinguished or filtered on maps and searches for those of us who don't want to see them.

well, I totally disagree. It is too difficult to define a micro for sure, and it really isn't necessary to show them differently on the maps because of that fact. Start doing that and start a whole new issue on what a micro IS and ISN't.

 

don't we have enough worries just figuring out where the darn things are.

 

And I totally agree with the others about your saying that you would leave things even in caches that are log-only, etc. how rude that is.

You aren't teaching your child good things. You are teaching them entitlement. But then you are the one that will have to try to deal with it later when they are older, so enjoy yourself. Life is full of excitement, and disappointments. You might be teaching a better lesson to just find what there is to find and teach them how to handle their emotions when they are disappointed.

It isn't always the best answer to change the system, especially when the problem is stemming from a perception, and a point of view. The system is fine as it is.

 

What I think the maps could really use someday is smaller icons, but that is problematic in its own way.

 

Here is my one snide comment, so if you don't want to see it, start filtering....

Well, yeah, if you don't want to see something in real life, like maybe the seafood on a menu because, well just because....do you demand a filtering? so you don't have to see it? Ok, lame analogy, but maybe you can get the point anyhow. Life isn't always fair, and neither are websites.

 

(OMGosh, I think this is the longest post of mine to date, on a topic that I really don't care that much about even.....YIKES!)

[+PandyBat]

If someone leaves something in a log-only cache, sounds like trading up to me, leaving the cache better than how it was found. Why would anyone balk at that? What is the owner going to do if they find out that someone managed to leave something in their teeny tiny micro container.....go take it out??

[+norbu]

If someone leaves something in a log-only cache, sounds like trading up to me, leaving the cache better than how it was found. Why would anyone balk at that? What is the owner going to do if they find out that someone managed to leave something in their teeny tiny micro container.....go take it out??

no, don't go take it out, unless they have to, like maybe it was a condition of having the cache where it is? but if a hider has a reason for the cache to be log-only, why mess that up?

people should do what they want really, but being considerate of others wishes isn't always such a bad thing.

[+Torry]

Maybe a different thread is needed. I have no love for micros, my beef is with the abuses that occur with placement in a lot of situaions.

Edited June 5, 2004 by Torry

[+Matthew1344]

It is too difficult to define a micro

Micro: a cache that the owner has labeled "micro"

 

That wasn't difficult at all.

 

You aren't teaching your child good things.

I'll ignore this...

 

The system is fine as it is.

Yes, the site is great and the staff does a MAGNIFICENT job with it.

 

if you don't want to see something in real life, like maybe the seafood on a menu .... do you demand a filtering?

I'm in no position to demand anything. And to use your own metaphor, if I am at a restaurant I would like to see something more specific than just the word "seafood" on the menu. I would like to see both "shrimp" and "lobster". (GC.com has provided this by distinguishing between the cache types.) Further, it would be nice if I could tell from the menu whether the shrimp would be cocktail or scampi.

 

And your smaller icons on maps idea does have me thinking... hmm... a new thread is born...

[+Mastifflover]

If someone leaves something in a log-only cache, sounds like trading up to me, leaving the cache better than how it was found. Why would anyone balk at that? What is the owner going to do if they find out that someone managed to leave something in their teeny tiny micro container.....go take it out??

Yes if it is supposed to be log only take it out, especially if it makes getting the log out of the container more difficult. I wouldn't call it trading up, I would call it ignoring the cache owners wishes to suit you.