Micros

May 14, 2005

I know I am new at this but after I walk 2 miles and get coordinates under 20 ft and can't find a micro I'm mad. When you find you are in a 100 sq ft area of dead trees, stumps, and rotting bark, and stumps the micro could be anywhere. Why have a GPS? I looked for an hour at one site and was back to one site twice. In cases like this a clue would be nice. Also these are usally multi caches. Why micros in the boonies?

5.3k · May 14, 2005

Hi Zappy

I see from your profile that you are from my neck of the woods. What cache was it that you couldn't find?

May 14, 2005

In general, I stink at finding micros. When I first started, I couldn't find caches b/c I didn't know people used "fake rocks" as hiding places Check some of the forums and you'll find caches in hollowed out pine cones, twigs, or camo'd to look like a pile of leaves... and I have a hard time finding Ammo boxes on the mesa Seriously though, I feel your pain

What was the difficulty rating on the cache? If it's a 4-5, then I typically check all the logs for any other clues I can find. If it's a micro, at all, I check the logs. Hopefully someone left a picture to help me out a little. 99% of my DNFs are micros.... guess I just can't think that small

May 14, 2005

I am also a little bit disappointed by these micros.

Also from the point of view that I don't want to turn around every stone and dig the whole area just to find a micro

When I am in nature I want to make the less intrusion as possible.

Greetings from Luxembourg,

soulwarrior

11.3k · May 14, 2005

I know I am new at this but after I walk 2 miles and get coordinates under 20 ft and can't find a micro I'm mad. When you find you are in a 100 sq ft area of dead trees, stumps, and rotting bark, and stumps the micro could be anywhere. Why have a GPS? I looked for an hour at one site and was back to one site twice. In cases like this a clue would be nice. Also these are usally multi caches. Why micros in the boonies?

Interesting you should bring this up in the Forums today.

I had a VERY disappointing day last Sunday with SIX DNFs

I came home and wrote about it in my blog and even wrote a little "editorial" about hiding caches.

Although these weren't exactly "micros," they were a container I had never seen before and there were just too many hiding places amidst the rocks and trees and bushes and poison oak and tangled overgrown vegetation.

I really don't understand why cache owners don't include hints. They might not be necessary for the person who has once found their caches hidden in their unique way, but until then, a hint would be nice for us newbies who haven't been caching that long . . .

May 15, 2005

I myself prefer ammo boxes in woods instead of micros, small cache are ok too. I think micro's should be in public. But if the cache is very creative and has a good hint I might not mind to find it.

May 15, 2005

Micros in urban areas = AOK

Micros in the woods = lazy person who can't take the time to put together an appropriate cache for the conditions at hand.

Urban areas in the woods = ????

11.3k · May 15, 2005

I myself prefer ammo boxes in woods instead of micros, small cache are ok too. I think micro's should be in public. But if the cache is very creative and has a good hint I might not mind to find it.

That is the key.

This guy was fun to find:

2.7k · May 15, 2005

Micros in the woods = lazy person who can't take the time to put together an appropriate cache for the conditions at hand.

I don't think I was Lazy when I put a micro as part of this Cache, maybe diabolical but definately not lazy. And all the components of both caches are not all that large, just well hidden a long ways in and up.

If you don't like them then there is a simple solution, just don't look for them.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Tahosa and Sons

May 15, 2005

It took an hour to find this one. They cut a branch in half, put the stuff inside and pushed one end into the ground. One of my favorites.

edit: spelling

Edited May 15, 2005 by badlands

2k · May 15, 2005

Them two photo's look like fun one. :huh:

2k · May 15, 2005

I don't mind interesting caches like the ones shown at the end, but I do mind a film cannister in the forest or in a rock pile. It seems to me that like the comment above, this is just a lazy cacher who didn't want to put in the time to create a proper cache. I also think that something like this is promoting degradation of the forest from cachers tearing up the area looking for such small containers.

May 15, 2005

I agree with the comment of degradation of the forest. I loved the photos. I found one in a fake rock. The cacher didn't put it in a 100 x 100 field of rocks, and he left a clue. I also found one that was in such a location. It was no fun turning over rock after rock after rock.

11.3k · May 15, 2005

I agree with the comment of degradation of the forest. I loved the photos. I found one in a fake rock. The cacher didn't put it in a 100 x 100 field of rocks, and he left a clue. I also found one that was in such a location. It was no fun turning over rock after rock after rock.

"and he left a clue"

That is the important thing about leaving small caches out in the woods. I don't look at the clue until I've given my "Geosense" a chance to find the cache.

But, after turning over rocks and really searching for quite a while, it is disappointing, and discouraging, to not have a clue . . . :huh:

I left so many trails looking for one cache last weekend (which I never found) that it looked like a whole herd of Geocachers had been there.

That is not a good thing.

1k · May 15, 2005

We like to have fun Geocaching. Part of the fun for us is the journey, part of the fun is the find.

Some peoples' idea of fun differs from ours - a cache placed at a garbage transfer station but described as something else (true story), micros in the woods without a clue, a fake stone in a field of 1000 stones, no way to get to the cache without going through a quarter mile of briars or swamp, etc.

People will hide (and seek) whatever they wish, and to each his own, but in our opinion, all caches should have an accurate description of what to expect, so that a seeker can decide if this is what he or she considers a fun cache. My advice: don't seek caches that don't provide adequate descriptions, or that are placed by people who deliberately mislead or whose other caches have disappointed you!

5.7k · May 15, 2005

IMHO, certain urban micro-caches are the single greatest threat to the reputation and public image of geocaching. Yes, I have done urban micros and I probably will do more. However there are certain types/locations that I will never do again. As a matter of fact, I shined on one of these just yesterday.

Kai Team--1000% right on!! Cache on Dude. I don't know about the deliberate part but they do make you wonder don't they?

Edited May 15, 2005 by Team cotati697

May 16, 2005

I know I am new at this but after I walk 2 miles and get coordinates under 20 ft and can't find a micro I'm mad. When you find you are in a 100 sq ft area of dead trees, stumps, and rotting bark, and stumps the micro could be anywhere. Why have a GPS? I looked for an hour at one site and was back to one site twice. In cases like this a clue would be nice. Also these are usally multi caches. Why micros in the boonies?

Did the cache page indicate it was a micro in the woods? If so consider this a learning experience, you have found a cache type you don't enjoy so don't seek more of the same, lesson learned, move on.

If the cache page was deceptive then I don't blame you for being angry.

May 16, 2005

i'm certainly not new to this and i agree with you. micro's in urban areas have their purpose, but the woods cry out for a traditional cache. you only have to look at the area around a well hidden woodland micro to see that frustration frequently leads to a trashing of the area near the cache. in addition, a wooded area is the perfect place for a traditional cache in the sense that it provides a trading cache for those who prefer to take something, leave something. please place regular caches in the woods! -harry

May 16, 2005

HI

We are kinda of new at this what is a Micro cache??? What type of containers would they be in???

May 16, 2005

I know I am new to this, however I am not new to the outdoors. I agree that micros don't belong in the woods. I was looking for one today, and tore up a big area of ground trying to find it. I had enugh when the place looked like a hog had been through there.

Micros in urban areas, sure. But not in the woods without detailed clues.

The icing on the cake is when it is rated a 1. Come on....

I got into this sport as another way to enjoy nature, not tear it up.

just MHO

May 16, 2005

I just started caching and am really enjoying it. Although I agree that if it's a micro than it needs to be in an easy location or have really good clues. I tried finding one this weekend that was a micro and it's in a park that's at least 2 miles long with a creek running through it. It's a micro with vague clues and it could be anywhere. We wound up in the creek, mud, digging in the grass and this is a very nice park that is kept up really nice and I hated digging in it like we did. I think I may just stick with ammo boxes for now.

May 16, 2005

HI
We are kinda of new at this what is a Micro cache??? What type of containers would they be in???

Caches are labeled according to the size of the container. A micro is the smallest sized container and pill bottles and film containers are typical containers used and represent the usual size. They can be even smaller though.

When you view a cache listing on Geocaching.com there is a picture right under the difficulty rating that is 5 boxes with one being red. This indicates the size of the cache container you will find at that cache.

The sizes are micro, small, regular, large and x large or something along those lines. 99% of the caches listed are in the first 3 sizes. A micro is around film container size, a small is around the size of a soap dish or peanut butter jar and a regular is something around the size of a 30 or 50 cal ammo can.

May 16, 2005

I know I am new at this but after I walk 2 miles and get coordinates under 20 ft and can't find a micro I'm mad. When you find you are in a 100 sq ft area of dead trees, stumps, and rotting bark, and stumps the micro could be anywhere. Why have a GPS? I looked for an hour at one site and was back to one site twice. In cases like this a clue would be nice. Also these are usally multi caches. Why micros in the boonies?

The answer is simple:

Ignore the micros and go for the other 100,000

5.3k · May 16, 2005

Micros in urban areas = AOK

Micros in the woods = lazy person who can't take the time to put together an appropriate cache for the conditions at hand.

Urban areas in the woods = ????

Also a cheap person that does not want to spend more that five cents to hide a cache.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Micros do not belong in an area that may be damaged by people seeking them.

1.2k · May 16, 2005

@%$#@! micros in the woods!!!!!!!!!!!

Tried (and failed) to find a micro cache in one of the largest municipal parks in the united states.

I decoded the hint, and got REALLY mad...the hint was "eight yards from a large oak tree".

I took a pic with my phone of where I was:

5.7k · May 16, 2005

Micros in urban areas = AOK

Micros in the woods = lazy person who can't take the time to put together an appropriate cache for the conditions at hand.

Urban areas in the woods = ????

Also a cheap person that does not want to spend more that five cents to hide a cache.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Micros do not belong in an area that may be damaged by people seeking them.

Well said Johnny. Thank you.

May 16, 2005

I'd recommend this article on cache size/location written by CYBret (famous for his most excellent brochure) to all cachers. Anyone just starting to seasoned cachers who have placed heaps.

To me it makes perfect sense for what to place, where and when, and keeping to the spirit of this game as it was envisioned.

May 16, 2005

I really like a good challenge! It does have to be findable, and I really do not mind returning to a cache for a 2nd look-over after contacting the owner and making sure it is still there. The more you do ... the better you get at it. The important lesson is to stand back and take a good look around. What is slightly out of place? What is slightly off color? What area looks the most trampled? If all else fails ask for a clue. ImpalaBob

7.3k · May 16, 2005

Im' rather fond of micros in the forest. Just a dissenting view. I own quite a few, mine have either hints or something in the title that ought to make for an easy find. I second what Impala Bob said, first take some time to let your GPSr find the spot - then just stand there and look - don't move anything for a while.

May 16, 2005

I don't know if micros are always bad in a wooded area. It is more of an issue of how difficult they are to find. But the damage is not done by the cache, it is done by overzealous searchers. Use common sense when searching for *any* cache. I don't rip out all the dead leaves covering an opening, I probe with a stick. This is both less damaging and safer. I don't turn over large rocks I will have a hard time replacing. If a cache is placed there, then I don't want to find it.

If a quick search of the area does not turn up results, I step back and try to think like I am hiding a cache. That often gives me a "spidey sense" that lets me search intelligently without trashing an area. If I can't find it this way, I give up. I don't have to find *every* cache. Well... maybe I do, but I can come back another day.

May 16, 2005

I was wondering about this issue myself when the other day my family and I went out looking for a micro in the woods. After the GPS told us that we were "standing" on the cache, my young son and daughter went crazy looking all over the place trying to find it. After about 10 minutes of searching, it suddenly dawned on me that we were tearing up quite a bit of area trying to locate the film canister or key box. I had to quickly put a lid on the entire thing because even if we WERE to find the cache, my kids had done quite a job of disturbing the natural surroundings to the point where everyone would know we were there. So even though the difficulty and/or terrain indications point out that the cache is relatively easy to find, young children are not going to understand this and will do whatever it takes to find that "treasure." The bottom line is that my son got very discouraged and started saying that GeoCaching was boring. It's like the old "needle in a haystack" addage. Picture it this way - walk into a wooded area or wetland. Take a penny out of your pocket and toss it about 10 feet in front of you but make sure your eyes are closed. Now go and find the penny. Demonstrate this to a child and he'll think you're crazy.

Hints are an excellent idea and add to the fun of the hunt. Our Cub Scout den especially enjoys having to solve a riddle in order to help find a cache. However, one of our mottos is "leave no trace." It's almost impossible to do if you have to tear an area to shreds looking for a micro.

Juanbanzai

May 16, 2005

Micros have their place; i.e. urban areas that won't support a full size container, but I hate micros in the woods. I cache with my kids, and we like to hike, and there should be a payoff at the end of that hike. My own feeling is that caches are hidden to be found, not to stump seekers. When I hide a cache, I hide it well enough to minimize the chances of it being found by muggles, but I want geocachers to find it. That's why I hid the dang thing!. Otherwise, what's the point? Aren't we supposed to be hiding a container with a logbook in it so that seekers can sign the logbook? If you make the hide so devious that many cannot find it, aren't you defeating the purpose of the game? Hiding something in the woods without giving out the coordinates at all would accomplish the same thing. :lol:

Edited May 16, 2005 by 4x4van

May 16, 2005

...So even though the difficulty and/or terrain indications point out that the cache is relatively easy to find, young children are not going to understand this and will do whatever it takes to find that "treasure." The bottom line is that my son got very discouraged and started saying that GeoCaching was boring...

Would his reaction have been any different if you had found that film container or Altoids box? I would gess not. From personal experience and what I've read here, kids want a box full of cool stuff. When we were just starting out, I didn't understand that micros existed. We had found a few ammo cans and tupperware containers, and then came across a film container. My son's first reaction was, "that's it?" I have to say I agreed with him.

So I now filter out micros from my Pocket Queries and we're all happier. I could have a much higher find count by looking for micros, but they're not our cup of tea, and are best left to those that enjoy them.

11.3k · May 16, 2005

Micros have their place; i.e. urban areas that won't support a full size container, but I hate micros in the woods. I cache with my kids, and we like to hike, and there should be a payoff at the end of that hike. My own feeling is that caches are hidden to be found, not to stump seekers. When I hide a cache, I hide it well enough to minimize the chances of it being found by muggles, but I want geocachers to find it. That's why I hid the dang thing!. Otherwise, what's the point? Aren't we supposed to be hiding a container with a logbook in it so that seekers can sign the logbook? If you make the hide so devious that many cannot find it, aren't you defeating the purpose of the game? Hiding something in the woods without giving out the coordinates at all would accomplish the same thing.

I'm glad to see someone else feels the same way I do. I wrote a little "editorial" on my blog after I couldn't find several caches that were deviously/well-hidden, and the hider did not include a hint. :lol:

May 17, 2005

Micros have their place; i.e. urban areas that won't support a full size container, but I hate micros in the woods. I cache with my kids, and we like to hike, and there should be a payoff at the end of that hike. My own feeling is that caches are hidden to be found, not to stump seekers. When I hide a cache, I hide it well enough to minimize the chances of it being found by muggles, but I want geocachers to find it. That's why I hid the dang thing!. Otherwise, what's the point? Aren't we supposed to be hiding a container with a logbook in it so that seekers can sign the logbook? If you make the hide so devious that many cannot find it, aren't you defeating the purpose of the game? Hiding something in the woods without giving out the coordinates at all would accomplish the same thing.

I'm glad to see someone else feels the same way I do. I wrote a little "editorial" on my blog after I couldn't find several caches that were deviously/well-hidden, and the hider did not include a hint.

Those are cases that should indicate the level of difficulty in the rating. If you don't like difficult micros, can't you just avoid them by reading the description and the rating?

1.7k · May 17, 2005

WOW me likes that photo :lol:

May 17, 2005

Another point .... ALWAYS log your DNFs ... especially on micros. This gives the newbies more info on wether they should try the cache or not. If it is a REALLY difficult micro, or a long trek was involved, it would make good sense to give a secondary coordinate where a clue could easily be found. Many caches are done while traveling / vacatioing and the cacher may never be able to return to your micro for a 2nd try. ImpalaBob

Micros

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation