Cache Placement & Clues

[davester]

I think this has been covered before but after a frustrating day mixing sucessful (but harrowing) finds and DNFs I feel like saying it again. I set out to do a 15 mile walk to cover most of the caches on Cannock Chase in Staffordshire. This is how I do the vast majority of my geocaching, but it does mean that you have to hope that the cache placer will have considered this.

 

My method of caching often means that I simply cannot afford the time to prod around every nook and cranny once my GPS indicates I'm in the cache area. I normally limit myself to a 5 minute search before resorting to the clue. My experience shows that if a cache isn't findable in that 5 minutes it usually requires the clue.

 

But that still leaves you with two problems, when the placer decides a clue isn't necessary or when the placer gives a clue which is either useless or requires a spoiler photo (how do I get that then when the nearest computer is 30 miles away?).

 

I understand that many placers will be car-cachers and happily bring the family to do a fingertop search for a cache, able to spend a good hour or more looking, but it would be nice if people could think inclusively.

 

So please :-

• Put your caches in a sensible place (ie. not in the first forest in sight on an otherwise empty landscape)
  
• Give us useful clues. That spoiler clue should be a last resort, last gasp, "HELP ME" blantant giveaway.
  

At the end of the day, I'm sure most placers will be of the mindset that they want as many visitors as possible to their cache. Some people (I include myself in this category) will not go back to a DNF cache unless there are VERY exceptional circumstance, so please please heed this advice.

Edited December 28, 2004 by davester

[+Snosrap]

I couldn't agree more.

 

If the cache is meant to be a difficult find then the difficulty rating should reflect this. It seems to be getting more common to find posts referring to the fact that the finder had to phone or e-mail the cache setter to get a meaningful clue.

 

The most useless I have come accross yet was "Ouch!" in an area surrounded by stinging nettles, gorse bushes and holly trees!

[+Team Ullium]

My method of caching often means that I simply cannot afford the time to prod around every nook and cranny once my GPS indicates I'm in the cache area. I normally limit myself to a 5 minute search before resorting to the clue. My experience shows that if a cache isn't findable in that 5 minutes it usually requires the clue.

 

But that still leaves you with two problems, when the placer decides a clue isn't necessary or when the placer gives a clue which is either useless or requires a spoiler photo (how do I get that then when the nearest computer is 30 miles away?).

 

I understand that many placers will be car-cachers and happily bring the family to do a fingertop search for a cache, able to spend a good hour or more looking, but it would be nice if people could think inclusively.

 

So please :-

• Put your caches in a sensible place (ie. not in the first forest in sight on an otherwise empty landscape)
  
• Give us useful clues. That spoiler clue should be a last resort, last gasp, "HELP ME" blantant giveaway.
  

At the end of the day, I'm sure most placers will be of the mindset that they want as many visitors as possible to their cache. Some people (I include myself in this category) will not go back to a DNF cache unless there are VERY exceptional circumstance, so please please heed this advice.

In a way I can sympathise which what you are getting at davester as my nearest caches are mostly about 60 miles away....however there are several that I have been forced to log DNF's on and visit not just once but several times.

 

But if the all the encrypted hints were dead give aways then DNF's would almost be unheard of and that would be a pity surely??

 

The cache placers also have my sympathy in that it is a thin line they have to walk in giving a hint which doesn't take all the pleasure out of finding the cache in the first place!!

 

I don't mind the hint still leaving me with a bit of work still to do and if necessary having to pay another visit to the same cache. Nor would I like to find every cache I went after within just 5 minutes in case I got bored with the whole geocaching pastime eventually. In other words I relish difficult caches and the feeling of achievement when I manage to crack them in the end.

 

my main bone of contention is a hint which is counter productive and is more of a hindrance than a help!! But fortunately that circumstance is fairly rare!!

 

Bill.

[davester]

My method of caching often means that I simply cannot afford the time to prod around every nook and cranny once my GPS indicates I'm in the cache area. I normally limit myself to a 5 minute search before resorting to the clue. My experience shows that if a cache isn't findable in that 5 minutes it usually requires the clue.

 

But that still leaves you with two problems, when the placer decides a clue isn't necessary or when the placer gives a clue which is either useless or requires a spoiler photo (how do I get that then when the nearest computer is 30 miles away?).

 

I understand that many placers will be car-cachers and happily bring the family to do a fingertop search for a cache, able to spend a good hour or more looking, but it would be nice if people could think inclusively.

 

So please :-

• 
   
  
• Put your caches in a sensible place (ie. not in the first forest in sight on an otherwise empty landscape)
   
  
• Give us useful clues. That spoiler clue should be a last resort, last gasp, "HELP ME" blantant giveaway.
   
  

At the end of the day, I'm sure most placers will be of the mindset that they want as many visitors as possible to their cache. Some people (I include myself in this category) will not go back to a DNF cache unless there are VERY exceptional circumstance, so please please heed this advice.

In a way I can sympathise which what you are getting at davester as my nearest caches are mostly about 60 miles away....however there are several that I have been forced to log DNF's on and visit not just once but several times.

 

But if the all the encrypted hints were dead give aways then DNF's would almost be unheard of and that would be a pity surely??

 

The cache placers also have my sympathy in that it is a thin line they have to walk in giving a hint which doesn't take all the pleasure out of finding the cache in the first place!!

 

I don't mind the hint still leaving me with a bit of work still to do and if necessary having to pay another visit to the same cache. Nor would I like to find every cache I went after within just 5 minutes in case I got bored with the whole geocaching pastime eventually. In other words I relish difficult caches and the feeling of achievement when I manage to crack them in the end.

 

my main bone of contention is a hint which is counter productive and is more of a hindrance than a help!! But fortunately that circumstance is fairly rare!!

 

Bill.

Some good points but I don't see why the lack of DNFs is a problem. After all, some people just don't log them anyway.

 

I guess it all depend on what the prize actually is. To me the prize should be going to somewhere that you wouldn't go otherwise. The fact that someone may have left a tupperware box containing a few trinkets should be irrelevant, else why would people visit virtual caches. I know that argument can also be used the other way round but a find is more of a additional reward when you have made the extra effort of walking.

 

If a cache placer wants to add some illusion they could easily put two clues, the first being a cryptic helper and the second the giveaway.

 

I just find it a shame that I miss out on some caches, but I know there is little chance of me returning to them.

[Leoness]

If, for you, "the prize should be going to somewhere that you wouldn't go otherwise" then what does it matter whether you find the tupperware box or not? You have already got the prize simply by going there to look!

[+Stuey]

I did a 4 mile walk, 6 point multi-cache this morning which led me to a physical cache that I couldn't find. I emailed the owner for more help, and went back an hour or so ago. I still couldn't find it. I have emailed again, and will go back again later tonight I expect. The walk along the coast path was wonderful, but all I want to do now is find it. For me, I want to knock it off my nearest list, and being FTF would be a bonus. I don't mind going back until I find it (it is less than 5 miles from home).

 

I have set caches with no hints, some with cryptic hints, and some with give-away hints. It partly depends on the difficulty level set and the challenge that I (as the cache owner) have decided to impose on the searchers. Some I have made easy with the clue, and others (one in particular - Bill!) I have made very difficult, because that's what I decided.

 

I see your frustration though of course.

[+McDeHack]

Another confession. I rarely log DNF because I will go back again and again until I find the elusive cache.

Long drives and long walks to find a cache is what most of us do. When I ‘arrive at destination’ and spot the cache almost at once sussing out the hiding spot by the pile of twigs, or the trodden down undergrowth left by other cachers. It is for me sometimes a bit of a disappointment. I like the search best. The harder the better. As for the clues, At times I do not need a GPS as the text on the cache page can take me to the cache.

I have recently set some caches that I hope will make it more difficult to find. This is the sort of cache that I would like to try to find.

Geocaching is as we call it a sort of treasure hunt. ‘Hunt’ is the object of the exercise is it not?

Today I had a report from a cacher that DNF. I know that the cache was under their noses. But maybe they did not understand how wicked I am getting in my old age,

[+Stuey]

Another confession. I rarely log DNF because I will go back again and again until I find the elusive cache.

I've logged two DNF's on the same cache today already . For future visitors to the cache page it's an indication of how difficult it is to find... either that or it's an indication of how bad I've been at searching in this instance

[+Team Ullium]

Some I have made easy with the clue, and others (one in particular - Bill!) I have made very difficult, because that's what I decided.

 

Oooooohhhh Stuey ....is it within my reach??

 

Another confession. I rarely log DNF because I will go back again and again until I find the elusive cache.

 

I can't understand why you don't log your DNF's McDehack??

Apart from anything else like a heads up to follow on cachers...it lets the placer know that his cache is being visited and some cachers are having difficulty finding it ... and that could either be a source of satisfaction to him (right Stuey? ) or a heads up that it might be muggled! Do you see the sense in that??

 

Bill.

[+kewfriend]

Obviously Built Early Likely It Superceded Knights

 

I twice logged DNFs at this one and finally found it by reading every 'found it' very carefully. This cache tested my stoicism not least because the GPS coordinates are quite simply wrong and its horrific rating should not need to reflect that. Loss of GPS does occur when the leaves are on the trees but not in winter.

 

The clue refers to the access route, not to the final location.

 

Having said that several cachers obviously simply went to the wrong location and found it, so my stocisim may be just sour grapes.

 

I suppose its all part of the fun. Now some puzzle caches which are deliberately devious are just excellent entertainment. Highclere Binary was worth the hours of grey matter. But in general I do agree that it would be nice if just a smidgen more care was taken both in getting the GPS location correctly posted and the clue a trifle more assisting.

 

[+McDeHack]

I can't understand why you don't log your DNF's McDehack??

 

Maybe I am a bit of a snob or don't like to admit that I have been beaten.

But what you say is correct in that it could have been muggled.

There is one that I CNF and have been back 3 times It is a micro and is in a small area. It is placed in the city of London, and I do get in the area many times during the day. I think that some of the security people in the area are getting suspicious as they reconise my motor and me prodding about.

I am watching the cache to see if others find it.

Maybe on second thoughts I should stop being proud and report it as DNF.

If I can't find it tomorrow

Edited December 28, 2004 by McDehack

[+sTeamTraen]

The guidelines suggest that two-star difficulty (assuming it's a Traditional nothing else is difficult) should mean that it can reasonably take half an hour to find the cache. In practice, even when alone, and even speaking as someone for whom the actual rummage on the site is one of the least fun aspects of the game, I find that most 2-star caches don't take more than this.

 

Without knowing in advance how long the walk from/to the parking place will be, plus whatever problems one might encounter, when planning a day with several caches I like to allow one hour per cache, plus of course driving time between them. Sometimes you have a five-minute walk, find it in two, and a five-minute walk back, but that's usually offset by the one which turned out to be an unannounced 9-stage, 5-mile multi.

 

Nick

[+Stuey]

Some I have made easy with the clue, and others (one in particular - Bill!) I have made very difficult, because that's what I decided.

 

Oooooohhhh Stuey ....is it within my reach??

Ahhhh, another Bill. I was referring to Bill D(wwh) who was first to not find my Devious Devonian cache. It's a long way from Scotland

[+BlueDeuce]

Give us useful clues. That spoiler clue should be a last resort, last gasp, "HELP ME" blantant giveaway.

I agree.

 

IF the point of the cache is to be difficult to find, then I might be a bit more obscure.

 

If the point is to enjoy the area and the cache placement, then yeah, my hints are dead giveaways. I like people to enjoy the hike, enjoy the search, and enjoy the logging. I've yet to hear someone complain about finding my caches.

[davester]

The guidelines suggest that two-star difficulty (assuming it's a Traditional nothing else is difficult) should mean that it can reasonably take half an hour to find the cache. In practice, even when alone, and even speaking as someone for whom the actual rummage on the site is one of the least fun aspects of the game, I find that most 2-star caches don't take more than this.

 

Without knowing in advance how long the walk from/to the parking place will be, plus whatever problems one might encounter, when planning a day with several caches I like to allow one hour per cache, plus of course driving time between them. Sometimes you have a five-minute walk, find it in two, and a five-minute walk back, but that's usually offset by the one which turned out to be an unannounced 9-stage, 5-mile multi.

 

Nick

You hit on a good point there. When the missus comes caching with me, we tend to do the car-caching and it is more fun to search around when you're not alone. Alone, it just becomes tedious very quickly and it's far harder to be systematic with your search.

[+Chris n Maria]

I have to agree with Davestar hear. I think it comes down to different people getting different things from caching. Some (like us) like the way it introduces you to new and interesting places whilst others preffer the hunt part of the game. Thats the joy of it you can play whichever way you choose.

 

We always log our DNFs and have never regretted it, in many cases it has lead to the cache placer confirming the cache has gone missing and in another we were able to inform the owner that the clues in a multi cache just didn't work properly and noone else had bothered to let them know.

 

Chris

[+sTeamTraen]

We always log our DNFs and have never regretted it,  in many cases it has lead to the cache placer confirming the cache has gone missing and in another we were able to inform the owner that the clues in a multi cache just didn't work properly and noone else had bothered to let them know.

I have a sure-fire way to guarantee that a cache is in fact there: log a DNF and include the phrase "maybe it's gone missing?".

 

This is always followed within 48 hours by three logs from people who found it, usually with "easy find in the obvious place, more or less a drive-in". GeoSod's law, it's called.

 

Nick

Edited December 29, 2004 by sTeamTraen

[+Chris n Maria]

I have a sure-fire way to guarantee that a cache is in fact there: log a DNF and include the phrase "maybe it's gone missing?".

 

This is always followed within 48 hours by three logs from people who found it, usually with "easy find in the obvious place, more or less a drive-in". GeoSod's law, it's called.

 

Oh Yes - how true is that

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think it comes down to different people getting different things from caching

I'd like to think that most caches are at an interesting site that's worth being taken to, and hidden somewhere that's enjoyable to find. If the site isn't THAT marvellous, though, there's certainly a case for making the hunt a bit more exciting or novel.

 

To me, the guideline on the coded "hint" is that whether or not you found the cache, you're sure you've looked (or not looked) in exactly the right place.

 

If the cache site is full of hiding places - particularly where the GPS signal isn't too reliable - the main cache description should be specific enough to prevent a search for a needle in a haystack (I can't imagine too many people would enjoy that). The hint should only be used as a last resort, and ideally should be clever enough that it's only meaningful when you're looking in the right place.

 

For example, a cache description says "the fourth tree from the gate" and the hint "in a hole two feet up the trunk of the tree". Assuming the trees cause GPS reception problems and there are a lot of them around, you're not faced with a tedious fingertip search of 100 square metres, because you've been given a specific tree to search around - not too much to ask. Then, when you don't find anything you can use the hint - if there's an empty hole in the tree you can give up and inform the cache setter (and future searchers) that it's gone (the DNF log is very important). If you look at this hint before beginning the search, it will hardly help at all, but if the tree you're looking at has no hole at two feet - you're obviously barking up the wrong one!

 

HH

[+Bill D (wwh)]

Stuey wrote:

Ahhhh, another Bill. I was referring to Bill D(wwh) who was first to not find my Devious Devonian cache. It's a long way from Scotland

It's only twenty or twenty-five miles from me right at the moment, but unfortunately my only opportunity to get there now would be tomorrow morning, and as I have to drive up for an early meeting in north Gloucestershire I don't think I'd have time for it on the way, given how long it took me to fail to find it last time... Ah, well, next time I'm down here...