Direction Of Sport...

[+RuffRidr]

I know this is a really easy question, but I have looked all over every piece of information and can't find the answer, so I will apologize right now for my lack of knowledge. What is a microcache. I have tried to find 3 caches and failed only to come back and find out that it is a microcache. Where should i look? What do they look like? Can someone send a picture of it? I am stumped and the family is losing interest because we come up short each time we hunt. Thanks!

Think small. Sometimes really small. Microcaches are usually a film container or altoids type tin, velcroed or magneted to some fixed place. However they can often be breath strip containers, or even smaller. There are some containers that are as small as a pencil eraser. Imagine all of the possible hiding spots! It gets really fun when somebody places one of these in a rock wall or trash heap.

 

Enjoy!

 

--RuffRidr

[+bigredmed]

One can't help but notice that there are a lot of people posting to this thread who have no concept of what this game was like a few years  ago.  One can't help but think that they have precious little perspective on the direction of this game.

 

One can't help but notice that there are some "old timers" that still refuse to see other points of view about this "Sport". It's their way or no way. I've been geocaching for well over two years myself and welcome the changes. I may prefer some of the hiking caches myself but the cache & dash finds are fun in their own way. But some cachers will never see it this way. That's just the way it is.

 

As far as I'm concerned, bring on all caches. I'll look for them all. It wasn't that long ago when I had found every cache within 50 miles of my home. You can't do that if you only look for the easy ones. Thanks to the growing number of cachers in my area, I now have over 80 caches to find in that same radius and I love it. Bring them on!

 

Btw, if someone would place a new cache somewhere near where this archived cache was placed, I'll bet it would soon be found many times. The subject cache was placed back in 2003 and was probably already found by most of the local cachers.

You know, I can understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

 

The rub comes from the squeezing out of regular caches and the warping of the stats. It used to be that the caches required some hike to get to them. If someone had 200 caches found, it meant that they put some time into caching. Now it means that they were on a cache machine yesterday.

 

If we had set up the stats so that cache machine finds and other inflators were counted separately, the stats errors would be limited.

 

The game really could begin to evolve in two directions so that the people who like the rural cache or the hike cache could go one way and the fans of urban micros could go another. As it is, both groups will continue to but heads.

[+Team Cotati]

One can't help but notice that there are a lot of people posting to this thread who have no concept of what this game was like a few years  ago.  One can't help but think that they have precious little perspective on the direction of this game.

 

One can't help but notice that there are some "old timers" that still refuse to see other points of view about this "Sport". It's their way or no way. I've been geocaching for well over two years myself and welcome the changes. I may prefer some of the hiking caches myself but the cache & dash finds are fun in their own way. But some cachers will never see it this way. That's just the way it is.

 

As far as I'm concerned, bring on all caches. I'll look for them all. It wasn't that long ago when I had found every cache within 50 miles of my home. You can't do that if you only look for the easy ones. Thanks to the growing number of cachers in my area, I now have over 80 caches to find in that same radius and I love it. Bring them on!

 

Btw, if someone would place a new cache somewhere near where this archived cache was placed, I'll bet it would soon be found many times. The subject cache was placed back in 2003 and was probably already found by most of the local cachers.

You know, I can understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

 

The rub comes from the squeezing out of regular caches and the warping of the stats. It used to be that the caches required some hike to get to them. If someone had 200 caches found, it meant that they put some time into caching. Now it means that they were on a cache machine yesterday.

 

If we had set up the stats so that cache machine finds and other inflators were counted separately, the stats errors would be limited.

 

The game really could begin to evolve in two directions so that the people who like the rural cache or the hike cache could go one way and the fans of urban micros could go another. As it is, both groups will continue to but heads.

"Stats errors"?..................you found it, it counts. There is no "error", period.

[+Moose Mob]

I know this is a really easy question, but I have looked all over every piece of information and can't find the answer, so I will apologize right now for my lack of knowledge.  What is a microcache.  I have tried to find 3 caches and failed only to come back and find out that it is a microcache.  Where should i look?  What do they look like?  Can someone send a picture of it?  I am stumped and the family is losing interest because we come up short each time we hunt.  Thanks!

This is one for the Getting Started forum, but here's a quick answer anyways.

 

A microcache is typicaly a "log book only" container. More spicifically, a piece of paper that may should have enough room to scraths your itilials onto. As the name implies, it's very small. It could be a 35 MM film canister, a magnetic key holder, or breath strip tin. Altoid tins are also a possibility, but since the introduction of a "small" container option, many are listing the Altoid tins as that size, but some are still listed as micro. I have found micros as small as the tip of my pinky. They aren't always an easy find.

 

Edit: Whoops, didn't see this thread move to the next page. Thought it was the most recent post. I see your question was already answered!

Edited March 14, 2005 by Moose Mob

[+Moose Mob]

This thread has gone west. It's the Cattle versus Sheep arguments of days gone by. The cattle folk took the land from the buffalo, then when the sheep moved in, the cattle guys screamed foul.

 

I guess this response is a little far fetched...

Knowing where we were and what has been done always helps the perspective on where things are going.

 

Since the first container was a 5 gallon bucket, and the term "Cache" is something to do with storing stuff.

- You can't store much stuff in a micro.

- The first cache contained food items. That's not allowed anymore (with good reason).

- The first cache was pretty much a drive up.

- The first cache required signing the log book. Virtuals, Locationless, and Web cam caches don't have log books.

 

There have been a lot of changes over the last 5 years. A lot more people are enjoying this game. Where is the problem with that?

 

Edit: Added a bunch of stuff.

Edited March 14, 2005 by Moose Mob

[+TetrAmigos]

Your very right, it has gone west.. hey wait a minute, that's where I live!

 

On a serious note, I am speaking from the platform of the new geocacher, and I can see the benefit of both sides. Where I live, it's practically impossible to get out of your car to avoid stepping on a cache of some sort. Does it spoil it for me? Not really. I see it like a nice round pizza. Some like thin crust, some like thick. Some don't like mushrooms, and others do. Meat? No meat? It makes no difference to me, becuase sometimes a quick park & grab is exactly wht Im up for during the lunchhour, etc. On the weekends, it's CITO trail and hill hiking all the way.

 

Not everyone enjoys the exact same type of "pizza," or cache if you will. Some like both, and yet (shockingly) some don't even like it at all. Thank heavens that a place like gc.com exists so both sides of the spectrum can at least be exposed to the nicer elements of caching in the outdoors.

 

Rather than sitting at home with a beer and a remote, I'm finding myself drawn to the outdoors, urban or dirt. It's amazing what you can find out there, micro or traditional!

[+sbell111]

I'm starting to see why CR doesn't like to read your posts. 

I think he doesn't like my posts because he believes that the game should be his way or no way, while I accept that others like caches that I might not. Their happiness in the hobby doesn't affect mine, so I see no need for change.

 

...The fact that more people live in urban areas is completely irrelevant....

 

I'm not sure of this. To some extent, it's obviously true, but then I consider the fact that every park around me that can sustain them already has a multitude of regular-sized caches. While there is always one more place to hide an urban micro. I imagine that there are plenty of people who do not want to drive a distance to manage a regular cache, so they hide micros instead.

Edited March 14, 2005 by sbell111

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I have tried to find 3 caches and failed only to come back and find out that it is a microcache. Where should i look? What do they look like? Can someone send a picture of it? I am stumped and the family is losing interest because we come up short each time we hunt. Thanks!

Have you considered attending an event cache in your area? Get to know the cachers. Ask someone in your area if you can pick up a few caching pointers from them. Are you choosing caches with a 1 star difficulty? Have you read the cache logs to see if it is missing? Dont be discouraged. What stumps you now will jump out and scream "here I am" in the future.

[+reveritt]

Just a bit more data. Looking at cache placements withing a 100-mile radius of Newport, RI, and totaling for every six-month period, starting January, 2002:

• 1H02 - 159 caches placed; 5 (3.1%) were micros.
  
• 2H02 - 155 placed; 6 (3.9%) were micros.
  
• 1H03 - 250 placed; 19 (7.6%) were micros.
  
• 2H03 - 269 placed; 35 (13%) were micros.
  
• 1H04 - 458 placed; 61 (13.3%) were micros.
  
• 2H04 - 383 placed; 60 (15.7%) were micros.
  

So in my area, while micros have certainly grown in popularity, the growth is not ( to me at least) alarming, and may be levelling off.

 

I thought maybe micros are a "winter thing", because it's easier to plant a micro in town than it is to hike through the snow to some remote location. This has been a tough winter in my region, but so far in 2005, 50 caches have been placed in this radius, of which 7 (14%) are micros. That is roughly the same ratio that was maintained for all of 2004, so that blows my winter micro theory.

 

I just can't get worked up over this.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm starting to see why CR doesn't like to read your posts. 

I think he doesn't like my posts because he believes that the game should be his way or no way...

I figured you'd have something to say about that. I figured you might say something about how much your arguments make sense and I couldn't refute them.

 

I don't have a problem with debating folks on a point of view and I do it all the time. However, when anyone consistently responds with non-issues, zingers, twists arguments, tries to de-rail the thread, or basically just adds noise, then I start ignoring them. I might scan a post ever so often, but when most are same feel, then there is no reason to respond. Something about "when you wrestle with pigs" comes to mind.

 

My way or no way? Nah, I like all flavors of caching, too, except the ones that have absolutely no point to them other than to increment one's vanity quotient. I find it unfortunate in the extreme micros are becoming the instrument of choice for these kinds of placements. I like micros, but when you go into an area it is so hard to find the gems amongst the chaffe--kind of like spam. Maybe not, spam is easier to filter than junk caches, or "trache" like Mr. Snazz says.

[+sbell111]

I figured you'd have something to say about that. I figured you might say something about how much your arguments make sense and I couldn't refute them.

 

I don't have a problem with debating folks on a point of view and I do it all the time. However, when anyone consistently responds with non-issues, zingers, twists arguments, tries to de-rail the thread, or basically just adds noise, then I start ignoring them. ...

Its funny that you're the one posting off-topic, yet you accuse others of it.

[+bigredmed]

["Stats errors"?..................you found it, it counts. There is no "error", period.

Yeah, they do. I use the stats to judge how well I am doing, and how active I am as well as how active other cachers are. If I see that others have 100 finds, they must be active. With the explosion of micros and other rapid find caches, a 100 is not a big deal anymore.

[+sbell111]

Which is the standard argument against stats. They can only give you a very rough guess of a cacher's experience.

[CoyoteRed]

I figured you'd have something to say about that.  I figured you might say something about how much your arguments make sense and I couldn't refute them.

 

I don't have a problem with debating folks on a point of view and I do it all the time.  However, when anyone consistently responds with non-issues, zingers, twists arguments, tries to de-rail the thread, or basically just adds noise, then I start ignoring them.  ...

Its funny that you're the one posting off-topic, yet you accuse others of it.

My point illustrated perfectly.

[+reveritt]

Hey--how about them Red Sox?!

[+sbell111]

My point illustrated perfectly.

Yet another post that was neither on topic nor made any sense.

[+RuffRidr]

This topic has started to degenerate. I think everyone has had a chance to weigh in, so I'm closing it now. If anybody has anything serious that they wish to add, let me know and I'll reopen it.