Jump to content

Ban Micro Caches


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

The only difference will be, I'll have fewer of them to find.

If it means a bit more thought was put into the hide then it would be fine by me.

 

A couple of weeks ago we were taken to a really neat park by, get this, a nano, a micro, and a regular. They all fit the place they were placed and all were interesting. Each took us to a new part of the park, a new view, and each by a different person or team. Very nice.

 

OTOH, I'm still seeing caches that appeared to be where the owner said to himself, "I can place a cache here" instead of asking "should I bring a geocacher here?"

 

While I'm not sure one a month is the right frequency, but the idea certainly has merit. Slowing down the rate at which you can hide caches will force folks to put out only the best they have to offer at any one time. It also gives them time to think about their placements.

 

With the rate of growth is what it is, I'd much rather the restrictions come in the form of placement frequency than caches with limited lifetimes. Personally, I don't trust TPTB to make the right decision on that one.

Link to comment
...OTOH, I'm still seeing caches that appeared to be where the owner said to himself, "I can place a cache here" instead of asking "should I bring a geocacher here?"...

Some of the most brilliant hides I've seen. The very hides that make you feel worthy if you find the cache at all come about because of that question. I'm not talking about the needle in the haystack. I'm talking about the cache so obviouse once you see it, or hidden so cleverly that you walk away thinking the owner is nothing short of brilliant.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Personally, I don't trust TPTB to make the right decision on that one.

I have a feeling that they would never pass a "geolaw" like that because it may bare down on the better cache hiders.

 

But, maybe the better cache hiders spend a month planning the cache placement, and extra information for the site, and properly rating everything, etc. so this law will baredown on the "mailbox" hiders that jump in their car and throw every 35mm canister they've ever owned behind every mailbox for miles.

 

I haven't found a micro besides the "multicache" micro. But I really don't think that micros are all that bad if well placed, but my idea is that you should have the size of the cache vary on where the cache is placed. If it's in the middle of a remote area, make it a large or regular so the "needle in the haystack" effect doesn't set in, but in the city or a heavily-trafficked trail in a park may have a small, micro, or nano.

 

All we can do, if geocaching.com doesn't step in, is for cachers to be reasonable. Hide them in a worthwhile location, and let the size be reasonable for the area.

Link to comment
...Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that there be a mandate on how many you can hide at once, you don't have to hide any if you don't want to....

So we limit hides so people will think long and hard about their hide because it's all they are going to get for a while.

 

That's makes as much sence as limiting how many finds so people will stop whining so much about what they do find because they are lucky to find anything at all. OR better still they will seek out the caches they enjoy rather than whining about the ones they didn't.

 

I don't like either idea.

Link to comment
Personally, I don't trust TPTB to make the right decision on that one.

I have a feeling that they would never pass a "geolaw" like that because it may bare down on the better cache hiders.

 

But, maybe the better cache hiders spend a month planning the cache placement, and extra information for the site, and properly rating everything, etc. so this law will baredown on the "mailbox" hiders that jump in their car and throw every 35mm canister they've ever owned behind every mailbox for miles.

 

I haven't found a micro besides the "multicache" micro. But I really don't think that micros are all that bad if well placed, but my idea is that you should have the size of the cache vary on where the cache is placed. If it's in the middle of a remote area, make it a large or regular so the "needle in the haystack" effect doesn't set in, but in the city or a heavily-trafficked trail in a park may have a small, micro, or nano.

 

All we can do, if geocaching.com doesn't step in, is for cachers to be reasonable. Hide them in a worthwhile location, and let the size be reasonable for the area.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg. Since you have started offering your self gratifying posts you have waffled more than IHOP.

 

No micros, do this, do that, Then you post this on your own cache

July 18 by CreekFalls90 (1 found)

The cache is too much "in the open" for the wildlife there, might turn this into a micro for some less hassle, should be back up soon.

 

What in the hell do you want? You should've researched a bit more?

Link to comment

Team Alpha Omega/Creekfalls90,

 

It is time for you put the mouse down, pick up your GPS, and go find caches. Find the type of caches you like, and go have some (get this) fun.

 

Quit trying to share your "ever changing" opinion on this forum, and start finding caches.

 

Stop your GeoRambling, and Start Geocaching.

Link to comment
Team Alpha Omega/Creekfalls90,

 

It is time for you put the mouse down, pick up your GPS, and go find caches. Find the type of caches you like, and go have some (get this) fun.

 

Quit trying to share your "ever changing" opinion on this forum, and start finding caches.

 

Stop your GeoRambling, and Start Geocaching.

CreekFalls90 was once part of our team, but quit before he he ever got his first "actual" find. He got me into geocaching, and I stay in longer than he did. We had adopted the "Barren Run Falls" cache or are in the process of doing so, so that we can reactivate the account since the cache is closer to us than it is to him.

 

And I hope I didn't come off making you think that I dislike micros, because I've only found one micro, so I haven't got the whole "grasp" of micros. I don't get to cache as much as I'd like since I don't drive, but I try to keep active in the forums while I'm not caching.

 

Kit Fox, how many finds should I have before I'm allowed to use this keyboard again? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
The only difference will be, I'll have fewer of them to find.

If it means a bit more thought was put into the hide then it would be fine by me.

I just don't draw the conclusion that because someone can hide caches less frequently, they'll have to think "long and hard" and come up with a great hide.

 

I think there are very few among us who wouldn't care to see the general quality of the caches they find improve, but if I'm the sort of cacher who just loves to hop in the car and drop off a bunch of Wal-Mart dumpster hides, that's going to be my modus operandi no matter how many caches I'm allowed to place. I can still hide a dozen leaky Gladware containers in a bush next to the interstate every year.

 

Likewise, if I can go out in a weekend and hide a dozen unique and worthwhile hides, that essentially squelches the vast majority of my ideas. And since that is how I normally hide caches (I spend months planning several of them--identifying the hiding spots, perfecting the camo, then waiting for a good weekend when I'm in town so I can go out and actually hide them all), it would be such an annoyance to limit myself to one hide within whatever predetermined time period that I would more than likely stop hiding caches altogether. How does that benefit the game?

Link to comment
Team Alpha Omega/Creekfalls90,

 

It is time for you put the mouse down, pick up your GPS, and go find caches. Find the type of caches you like, and go have some (get this) fun.

 

Quit trying to share your "ever changing" opinion on this forum, and start finding caches.

 

Stop your GeoRambling, and Start Geocaching.

CreekFalls90 was once part of our team, but quit before he he ever got his first "actual" find. He got me into geocaching, and I stay in longer than he did. We had adopted the "Barren Run Falls" cache or are in the process of doing so, so that we can reactivate the account since the cache is closer to us than it is to him.

 

And I hope I didn't come off making you think that I dislike micros, because I've only found one micro, so I haven't got the whole "grasp" of micros. I don't get to cache as much as I'd like since I don't drive, but I try to keep active in the forums while I'm not caching.

 

Kit Fox, how many finds should I have before I'm allowed to use this keyboard again? :rolleyes:

I kind of find selective memory amusing. And I QUOTE

 

CreekFalls90 Posted on: Jul 5 2005, 02:17 PM

 

Replies: 785

Views: 15,297 Team AlphaOmega, has no signifigance rather than someone might figure out that it means the beginning and the end. Which then would represent that this team will last through anything. I'm looking for a 5/5 in my SW PA area. IF ANYONE READ THIS IN THAT AREA>>>MAKE ONE!!!! We're all about the challenge. CreekFalls90 is just my forum name, named after the waterfalls in my backyard.

Link to comment
Team Alpha Omega/Creekfalls90,

 

It is time for you put the mouse down, pick up your GPS, and go find caches. Find the type of caches you like, and go have some (get this) fun.

 

Quit trying to share your "ever changing" opinion on this forum, and start finding caches.

 

Stop your GeoRambling, and Start Geocaching.

CreekFalls90 was once part of our team, but quit before he he ever got his first "actual" find. He got me into geocaching, and I stay in longer than he did. We had adopted the "Barren Run Falls" cache or are in the process of doing so, so that we can reactivate the account since the cache is closer to us than it is to him.

 

And I hope I didn't come off making you think that I dislike micros, because I've only found one micro, so I haven't got the whole "grasp" of micros. I don't get to cache as much as I'd like since I don't drive, but I try to keep active in the forums while I'm not caching.

 

Kit Fox, how many finds should I have before I'm allowed to use this keyboard again? :rolleyes:

I kind of find selective memory amusing. And I QUOTE

 

CreekFalls90 Posted on: Jul 5 2005, 02:17 PM

 

Replies: 785

Views: 15,297 Team AlphaOmega, has no signifigance rather than someone might figure out that it means the beginning and the end. Which then would represent that this team will last through anything. I'm looking for a 5/5 in my SW PA area. IF ANYONE READ THIS IN THAT AREA>>>MAKE ONE!!!! We're all about the challenge. CreekFalls90 is just my forum name, named after the waterfalls in my backyard.

Yeah, it's a team. He used to be in it, when you read a post by Team AlphaOmega a possibility of one of seven people will have had the chance to write it, as well as email. But, CreekFalls90, apparently, is no longer geocaching and just hikes with the GPS. I'm "Master Sherpa" which I used to log with the online logs but I'm just sticking with in cache logbooks signing. And coincidentally enough, the only cache Mark had logged was never actually logged.

 

I need to change this password, so only I know it. :ph34r:

Link to comment

A most excellent plan. Then you will have experienced enough to make your judgements of the good, the bad and the ugly statistically significant. :ph34r:

 

But you know what, sometimes it still FUN just driving around in the 'burbs finidng lame hides on a really HOT afternoon, instead of being at work staring at the computer, or managing the staff. :lol::rolleyes:

I speak from experience; that was yesterday's MO, and it was a fun time. I even stopped for ice cream. :lol:

Link to comment
Some of the most brilliant hides I've seen.

...and nothing short of rare.

 

Besides, if it was a truly inspired hide then it wouldn't matter anyway.

 

I just don't draw the conclusion that because someone can hide caches less frequently, they'll have to think "long and hard" and come up with a great hide.

Nor do it.

 

It would reduce the number of "Johnny Appleseeds" who decide they want to place a cache and do so with little rhyme or reason to only one trashy cache a month. Most of those aren't motivated so it's not as if they'll place one a month like clockwork.

 

But let's take you as an example. Making a monthly trip into town is that burdensome? Don't get me wrong, we tend to place cache in batches as well. Some of our caches range out to a 45 minute drive one way. I think if it's worth while, even having to make the trip once a month is a better trade off than hordes of indiscriminate placements.

 

The main reason I think the idea has merit is because many of inspired hiders will have a list of cache hides ready to go and will place what they think are their better ones. At the same time it will slow down the less inspired.

 

The deal breaker for me though would be the problem with poaching spots before you had a chance to make a real claim. Of course, it's not really poaching if no one has a real claim to the spot, but I think you get my drift.

 

So, while I think the idea has merit, until you have a workable solution for problem of losing spots, I'm not advocating it. But something is going to have to be done to slow growth as I'm sure no one in the early months had any concept of having to have a proximity rule.

Link to comment

I hide caches in spurts. I'm currently in the planning stages for a 5/5 cache that requires traveling to remote areas, visiting "X-plane" crash sites, rugged hikes, as well as a devious puzzle or two.

 

If there was a 1 cache per month clause, It would take me 6 months to hide all the caches involved in my 5/5.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment
I don't see the point in banning or limiting something that you are not forced to be a part of. The existence of micros is not a mandate for you to find them.

 

I prefer larger caches, myself. But, that's because I spend a great deal of my time in the mountains or out in the desert. But, in urban areas, it can be pretty hard to hide an ammo box. (although, I'd like to see a 5-gallon bucket hidden in a parking lot) :rolleyes:

 

It seems to me that once you get out of town, there are very few micros.

 

--Chino

Very well said

Link to comment
...I speak from experience; that was yesterday's MO, and it was a fun time. I even stopped for ice cream. <_<

I like ice cream. I like it a lot.

I had a double scoop of mint chocolate chip in a cup. I really wanted a cone, but it was so bleepin hot that I just knew it would melt before I was done, and I do not like to eat ice cream fast. I prefer to take small spoonfuls and savor it. :o

has anyone tried the new Sarah Lee cheesecake flavor?

Link to comment
I think they should ban Butter Pecan. Traditionally ice cream is either chocolate or vanilla. Sometimes other flavors are interesting but 90% of them are lame.

Marty, you're right. We should ban 90% of all ice cream flavors. I'm sick of tired of hoping for chocolate and discovering pistachio instead. <_<

Link to comment

OK would some of the math whizzes help me out then-if we are going to ban 90% of the ice cream flavors, and Baskin Robbins (where I happened to stop) features 31 flavors as part of their deal-do they need to come up with 310 flavors in order to offer 31 flavors and be in compliance with the ban? :o

Do the same 310 flavors have to be in existence all the time, and the 31 available ones rotate? How would this work? Would it be enforcable? <_<

 

Suppose on a quiet day, some ice cream scooper invented another cool flavor like blueberry crumble swirl, while at work. Would he have to create 9 more bannable flavors before this one could be offered to the public? :D

 

PS screw the bludgeoned equine icons, someone post a cool train wreck one now. :o

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

If we could start by banning "no pencil" micros, I think it'd go a long, long way.

 

If your cache doesn't have a pencil in it you either didn't put much/any effort into creating it or it's too derned small to be very interesting at all.

 

The button caches might be an exception to this if they're hidden in a very clever way. However, those got old about 3 finds in. I'm waiting for the day that I "go micro postal" and fill my pockets with little magnetic button caches and hide them on/under anything magnetic within 30 miles of my house.

 

I like a good micro. Sadly though, like virtuals, I find that 90% of submitted micros are just lazy hides. If you can't find a clever way to hide it or a spot to hide something larger, I think you REALLY need to ask yourself what the redeeming quality of the area is.

 

Parking lots and boat ramps are a great example in particular. "There was no better place." Then perhaps it's just not that grand of a spot.

 

I wish we could review micros based on merit like we do virts.

Link to comment
Don’t get me wrong Micos have their place.  I just think that place should be severely limited, and proper.  We have all found a micro cache on the edge of some woods or park where a large cache could have been placed with a little effort.

PROPER! Not on the side of the road! Refer to This Thread.

Edited by Gecko1
Link to comment

Case in point, Sax: Last Friday I went out hiking and found some caches along the trail. I enjoyed the hike and finding all of the caches along the way, BUT...

 

The majority of them were micros. All of the micros were in areas that theoretically could have supported a regular sized cache. However, all of the micros were well-planned, cleverly-camo'd, hidden in a manner to not be detrimental to the surroundings, and all in all a LOT of fun to find.

 

I also found two ammo cans under various bushes.

 

Is it apparent which ones were more fun to find?

Link to comment
Case in point, Sax: Last Friday I went out hiking and found some caches along the trail. I enjoyed the hike and finding all of the caches along the way, BUT...

 

The majority of them were micros. All of the micros were in areas that theoretically could have supported a regular sized cache. However, all of the micros were well-planned, cleverly-camo'd, hidden in a manner to not be detrimental to the surroundings, and all in all a LOT of fun to find.

 

I also found two ammo cans under various bushes.

 

Is it apparent which ones were more fun to find?

um...the caches that you found were the most fun? :(

 

True, I usually prefer the largest container the site can support. However, there should be some variety in container size and type of hide. I don't want to go to a park that has nothing but ammo boxes. Throw in some tupperware, a couple of micros, etc and I'll have fun. Just as long as they aren't virts, but that's another thread :D

Link to comment
I think advice about setting geocaching rules should come from people who actually geocache instead of professional forum posters. How about some kind of rule about cache find to forum post ratios.

We can do both. What does one have to do with the other?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
...True, I usually prefer the largest container the site can support. However, there should be some variety in container size and type of hide. I don't want to go to a park that has nothing but ammo boxes. Throw in some tupperware, a couple of micros, etc and I'll have fun. Just as long as they aren't virts, but that's another thread :(

I've never thought it through before, but now that I have I realise that my fun-level doesn't take into account the size of the box. The only time that I really think about it is when I am trying to get into the mindset of the hider to find the stupid thing.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...