To hunt or not to hunt is the question...

[Buckrider]

Seems to me that Geocache is supposed to be an exercise to test your tracking and plotting skills and see how well your GPS will home in on a particular predetermined location. I find that more of the hiddy holes are more a test of seeing how well you can dig, claw, seek, poke around, turn over logs, and just plain looking for a cache in a haystack all the while not even being 100% for sure you are even within 50 yards of the cache to begin with! I understand the need to keep the cache out of plain view of non Geocachers but where do you draw the line from just making it inconspicous to making it a near impossibility to find without doing the above mentioned things to find it? I am not trying to whizz off anyone but while I am new to the game, I also want to feel like I can introduce other frinds into the sport without them being turned off by an almost impossible and sometimes Not so much fun hunt. I realize that diehard geocachers looking for more challenging hunts will probably scoff at me for asking the question. But seriously, what is the norm as far as this topic goes? Thanks.

 

Donnie

[BassoonPilot]

In this part of the country, I think pretty much the opposite is the norm ... caches are usually pretty easy to find, and cachers have a tendency to rehide caches easier than they found them ... the latter is a particular pet-peeve of mine.

 

The theoretical "cache difficulty rating" found atop the cache description should give you an idea of how difficult a search you are in for ... 1 or 2 stars should be pretty easy, 3 or 4 should require substantially more time and effort to find, and 5 stars should be very difficult.

[cswrench]

I am a newbie also. But in the few caches I have found I have gotten a knack at finding the cover-up. It sometimes so well covered it is obvious. You will ge the "feel" for it soon! Good Luck

[+Alan2]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I've got thirty something finds and about half dozen no finds because I basically gave up turning over logs. What's the point? Actually I find the best part is mapping the "attack" with topo and road maps, setting up routes from the PC and generally planning before getting into the field. Once I'm near the cache, it's fairly anticlimactic poking around everywheres. Plus it increases the chances of getting bit by a tick up where I'm from; I guess snakes in your area.

 

I like interesting virtuals too. Today I went to one that I plotted beforehand (see above). It turned out to be a 16" gun site used to protect NY harbor during WWII in a place with beaches and fishing etc. Hand a great time with my wife and dog in a really great area I would not have visited if it wasn't for the virtual.

 

Here's some suggestions. Place your own caches once you get a few more finds under your belt. With your name, I guess you're into horses so you can probably do a horse cache where riders would be the type of people who would go for your cache since it's in a place where people ride but otherwise there's few people around. Then you can stick it pretty much in the open behind a tree but not buried.

 

There's some really good theme, virtual, etc. type caches you'll see around these forums and the geocaching site. These will increase as more and more people get bored with traditionally hidden caches (Watch them attack me now)

 

Alan

[+Renegade Knight]

Once you get the hang of it, you don't have to turn over so many logs etc. This is because you develop a feel for where a cache would be hidden so that a cacher would find it but not a random person walking by. In my area (Boise ID) people tend to hide them harder than the last time. Also you learn to look for 'signs' and use tose to figure out where a cache is at. Broken sticks, bent plants etc. By looking for those signs you know where to look first and can lessen your own impact while poking under logs.

[+briansnat]

A cache often needs to be well hidden to prevent non cachers from stumbling upon it. The closer it is to a trail or popular area, the more carefully it should be hidden. If you find the difficulty of finding the cache when you get to the spot to be a negative, then stick with 1 or 1.5 ratings. Personally, I find the final leg of the hunt to be the best (and at times most frustrating) part.

If the caches where all out in the open or very easily found, then there is no challenge.

 

As others mentioned here, as you gain experience, you'll learn to pick out the likely spots without turning over every log and rock in the area (which you shouldn't be doing anyway)

[+The Leprechauns]

I am a newbie too, and after 3 finds I might have agreed with you. Now I look at those early hunts as valuable learning experiences. Finds 5 through 10, I walked right up to the cache, it is like a 6th sense... that piece of bark or rock that looks slightly out of place.

 

My first cache, I hunted without a GPS while waiting for it to arrive, so that taught me to look around with my eyes. 2nd cache, was under forest cover and I had to go into a clearing and get a compass bearing - - another good skill to have. 3rd cache, the coordinates were off by 80 feet and I spent 2 hours looking. 4th was a no find. Those two taught me how to think WHICH trees, rocks, etc. were the best likely hiding places.

 

When I get frustrated, I sit down with my daughter and have a drink of water and some candy. Pick your own diversion!

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

"Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house."

[+Markwell]

BTW - we've mentioned getting the "feel" for cache hides before: The Force.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[Buckrider]

Excellent replies folks! Thank you for the input, I feel better already in knowing that I am not that far off base with my thinking. I am getting my confidence in the GPS up a bit more with each find too. I agree with experience being an asset in noticing the little tell tale signs you learn to look for when homing in on a cache. It very much similar to tracking your game after a sucessful hunt, you learn what to look for and where! By the way, the name Buckrider was given to me after a deer hunt in Arkansas with a muzzleloader. After the shot, I ran and jumped on the bucks back to keep him from running off and finished him off with my knife. He still managed to go about 20 yards with me on his back before finally going down for good.

 

Donnie

[+Prime Suspect]

When you get to a location, switch your GPS to display your current latitude and longitude. Move around in the appropriate direction until you get an exact match with the cache description. Take you time, the coordinates may be jumping around a bit. Give them time to settle down. Once you think you're in the right spot, drop your backpack, or take a good look around at your exact position - that's your ground-zero. Now look around, and ask yourself where you would hide something so that it would only be seen by someone looking for it. Check the cache description to see what size the cache container is - that's makes a big difference.

 

Also, ask yourself, Does anything look "not quite right"? A bunch of sticks piled up at the base of a tree? A large piece of tree bark, but nowhere near the tree it may have come from? And don't get stuck just look at the ground. Caches can be suspended in trees, under park benches, or disguised as a tree stump. Think outside the box.

 

[CachePenguins]

Prime Suspect, thank you! We are new cachers who are still on the GPS learning curve, and your suggestion will help immensely.

 

I feel Buckrider's pain.

[+Mudfrog]

I try to do as Prime Suspect has recommended. Sometimes when i get close i switch screens to see my present coordinates and then try to match the cache coordinates. This has helped a few times for sure. Also i start looking around when the GPSR shows that im within 70 or 80 feet of the cache for likely hiding places. This is where i have my best luck usually. Think where you might hide a cache, then look for that spot. Many times i pick out where the cache is before i even reach the coordinates... Im pretty new at this as well, but im learning more with each find!

[+briansnat]

Early on I used Prime Suspects method of matching the coordinates. I found it nearly impossible (and at the time I didn't realize that it was) and very frustrating. Now I just follow the navigation arrow and when I get to within 30 or so feet of the cache, I put the GPS down and start looking. More often than not, I go back to the GPS and find that I'm suddenly 120 feet away.

 

One tip, when you put your GPS down, put your pack down next to it. I almost lost my Etrex once. It took me longer to find it than it did for me to find the cache.

when I

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

After awhile you learn to look for things that just aren't quite right. In the woods I'll look for neat stacks of wood or bark. All lined up like a firewood pile. Certain cachers have a certain way of hiding things. So with them you'll learn if they like hiding inside of a log or stump. In a bush, under a pile of leaves.

 

My gps counts down to zero feet, when I'm there I know I'm close. Just a matter of using my eyes instead of my gps.

 

I like to be able to find them so I appreciate a cacher that will conceal it well enough for the public but obvious enough for a cacher to find this. In my area we have many cachers who are good at this.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[Buckrider]

Mine will only go to .01 of a mile which is roughly 17 yards or 51 feet but the arrow will center itself much closer to the target than the mileage readout will for me.

[Nothlit]

All of this is well and good, using the Force and such... But the problem I ran into for the first time tonight, on my fifth hunt, was that I couldn't get accurate enough readings from my GPSr to even get anywhere near the cache site. There were just too many trees and whenever I would get within 20 feet or so of the cache, suddenly my GPSr would decide I was 100+ feet away in the opposite direction. There's no way I was about to scour every tree stump, hole in the ground, etc., in the entire park just to find the cache. I'll go back later when I have more time and perhaps a better satellite configuration.

[+Mr. Phrost]

I have come to learn something about myself and my approach to caching after several finds. While I will hunt for an hour on more, I get pretty tired of that aspect of things. It is the getting there, the crossing the river or the plotting the bushwack that I enjoy. Once I am there, I am ready to log in and head out. As a result, I tend to stay away from caches with a high difficulty rating. I can tell I would rather do a 4 on the terrain than once I get there.

 

One note that I do think would help new cachers. I believe difficulty ratings should be increased when tree cover makes the satelite locks poor. There are some 1 star caches that I have had to locate by backtracking to a clear spot and taking a compas bearing, then trying to stay on the compas track for 500 feet or more into the woods. To me those are 3 or 4 stars, not 1.

[+Cache4Corn]

We are pretty new to the game. The first ten caches that we found were just like I like them. Most of them required some looking around, some of them were a long hike, but they could be found. The next couple that we sought after were a different game. Slogging a half mile through the swamp, mosquitos trying to carry you out, underbrush, thorns, and grass so thick that you couldn't see three feet. The woods canopy blocked out the GPS signal on a regular basis. In my book, not fun!

 

Since those attempts, I spend more time qualifying which caches we go after. (Now we just need to find the time!) Our goals are to have a nice hike, to find parks and trails that we have not seen before, and to get some fresh air and exercise. The caches that look like swamp sloggers or mosquito feeders will go on the winter frozen tundra list!

 

One technique that I have used when searching is to take a bearing from 160 feet out or so, pick a landmark, and work to it. If I have trouble locating the cache, back out and take bearings from three different directions.

 

I hid a cache after I thought I had a feel for what I liked in a cache. Nice little park, about a 600 foot hike in from a parking area, placed in a hollowed out stump. Pretty easy to find, with a nice hike. Later, I discovered that there was another parking area about 150 feet from the cache! So it became more trivial than I had hoped for. But it is still a nice hide, great for people getting started, and not requiring a half mile slog through the swamp!

 

Seems to me that the keepers of the cache can provide a great service to the seekers by describing the level of challenge. The ratings are something, but when the hider describes it as a nice 2 hour hike, that tells me what to expect.