Caching as it used to be

[The Hornet]

Several threads have sprung up recently commenting on the supposed "demise" of cache quality. I have tended to go along with the "curmugeon" side of things as I've had the feeling that "fings aint wot they used to be". There seem to be more and more dismal caches in boring locations with little or no contents of note. But that has just been a feeling.

However today it was all brought into focus when I found my first Terracache Carding Mill capers recycled (Back to basics) (https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCJ4) by Markandlynn.

All of a sudden I was transported back to the "good old days" of caching - a good location, a good cache and really worthwhile swaps. It's only when you see what you've been missing that you realise how things have truly changed. It used to be that good caches like this were common, now they are like hens' teeth.

I just wish there were more Terracaches near me so that I could gauge whether they are all up to this standard.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I've yet to find a Terracache, but I've listed a Locationless and I intend soon to place a Traditional on there - the camouflaged container's sitting beside me as I type but I never seem to find the time to get out there and hide it.

[jacobite]

I have noticed an over all drop in the quality of cahes over the past couple of years, and think part of this could be down to the ever increasing number of caches being placed, leaving cachers with less and less choice. However, there does seem to be a trend toward "a cache for a cache's sake", especially around events. The net result of this is poorly maintained caches and me standing at locations wondering why I'm there!

Give me a bit of history, an interesting location, and I'll show a happy cacher and a log to match :)

You're never happy, Jacobite.......don't kid yourself on!

[GAZ]

I agree, there are far more poor caches these days. I have found one recently that made me think "why?" Ok, the dog got a walk I suppose! And just today, I had to go to Annan to do a delivery....had the co-ords in the GPSr....but just drove right past....it's in a muggle ridden area, overlooked by houses....AND it was a magnetic nano....no wonder I didn't wanna stop! Maybe next time when the wife's with me.....she can look, I'll sit in the car!

Maybe I SHOULD try other listing sites......oops, that's a hot potato at the moment on t'other forums:popcorn:

[nobbynobbs]

maybe we should start a trend to rate caches in our logs. simple ?/10 at the end of every log.

[The Hornet]

maybe we should start a trend to rate caches in our logs. simple ?/10 at the end of every log.
Exactly, which is why I'm now mentioning GCVote (http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php) and providing a link on all my logs now.

[markandlynn]

Thank you the whole family enjoyed reading your log last night.

We try to set caches that show how it should be done hoping that people will remember them and try to at least copy them.

But with so much choice our caches show a relatively low strike rate these days :( while other nearby caches that went straight to our ignore list continue to rack up finds and TFTC logs.

We have a cunning plan though to plant a numbers type trail to attract people in but create a memorable experience.

Hopefully the lead by example approach may just influence the odd cache setter here and there.

I just wish there was an easy way to filter for these types of cache ?

[Watford Wobble]

As a recent convert to caching, coming up to my first anniversary, I have to agree with comments posted.

I don't know what the 'good old days' were like however I was at a cache recently that made me wonder what the heck I was doing there. It was hidden beside some old garages on a council estate near a prison. I had a quick search but told the wife it wasn't worth it so left. Another was a cache container wrapped in a bag in some bushes with mountains of other detritus.

I only have 5 caches but I hope they bring the person to a lovely spot with a bit of history. I maintain them every week as they are on a route I run most weeks.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I think the sheer weight of numbers of new caches is a big part of the problem. When I began caching there were, I think, 32 caches in the whole of Wiltshire, my home county. Now there are 32 within 2.7 miles of my home co-ords, and this morning 21 new caches were approved within 5 miles of me.

When I placed my first cache it took me weeks of camouflage-painting a container, amassing carefully thought out trade items, walking the area I had in mind to find the perfect hiding place, writing and editing the listing page to give not just details of the cache itself, but a hopefully interesting summary of the history of the area and why I thought it so special, and so on.

I find it hard to believe that the same amount of preparation goes into a trail of 21 caches, and I myself have no interest at all in seeking any of them.

[keehotee]

I think the sheer weight of numbers of new caches is a big part of the problem. When I began caching there were, I think, 32 caches in the whole of Wiltshire, my home county. Now there are 32 within 2.7 miles of my home co-ords, and this morning 21 new caches were approved within 5 miles of me.
Sounds like you're suffering from Bradford-on-Avon-itis too... :wacko:



When I placed my first cache it took me weeks of camouflage-painting a container, amassing carefully thought out trade items, walking the area I had in mind to find the perfect hiding place, writing and editing the listing page to give not just details of the cache itself, but a hopefully interesting summary of the history of the area and why I thought it so special, and so on.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Bill.
Anybody starting caching within the past year or two is going to think a filmpot chucked in a random hedge with a few words of inane blurb is the norm....so they'll carry on doing the same :(:(



I find it hard to believe that the same amount of preparation goes into a trail of 21 caches, and I myself have no interest at all in seeking any of them.
I walked a trail myself yesterday - and while it was a nice enough walk, I did have to wonder what was special enough about the pylon at the edge of the field that warranted a micro at the base of the fence post next to it..... :rolleyes:

[Bill D (wwh)]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Bill.
Anybody starting caching within the past year or two is going to think a filmpot chucked in a random hedge with a few words of inane blurb is the norm....so they'll carry on doing the same :(:(


I walked a trail myself yesterday - and while it was a nice enough walk, I did have to wonder what was special enough about the pylon at the edge of the field that warranted a micro at the base of the fence post next to it..... :rolleyes:
Indeed yes. At one time a micro was a last resort in a spot that could take nothing bigger, and where an offset wasn't realistic, but the location was one that was really worth visiting. I have a few like that myself.

But I remember, some years ago when micros were becoming almost the standard in the States, and before they became the ubiquitous norm over here, a post on Groundspeak that described someone driving down a State Highway with a pile of tennis balls on the passenger seat, each marked GEOCACHE, and throwing one out of the window every three hundred yards... :ph34r:

[jacobite]

But I remember, some years ago when micros were becoming almost the standard in the States, and before they became the ubiquitous norm over here, a post on Groundspeak that described someone driving down a State Highway with a pile of tennis balls on the passenger seat, each marked GEOCACHE, and throwing one out of the window every three hundred yards... :ph34r:

So that's what's been going on!
Throw cache through car window at bush, then hit mark on GPS and drive away......simples.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

So that's what's been going on!
Throw cache through car window at bush, then hit mark on GPS and drive away......simples.

Actually you need to keep a eye on where the container lands :eek: as depending on the No of bounces dictates the terrain rating :wacko: One bounce is
is a 2* cache, 2 bounces means a 3* one. And heaven help if the container makes more than 4 and it's a 5* Cache :lol:

Dave :lol:

[GAZ]

I think the sheer weight of numbers of new caches is a big part of the problem. When I began caching there were, I think, 32 caches in the whole of Wiltshire, my home county. Now there are 32 within 2.7 miles of my home co-ords, and this morning 21 new caches were approved within 5 miles of me.

When I started in 2001, there were only 37 hidden in the whole of the UK!!

We are not too bad up here in the very north of Cumbria, around Carlisle to be precise, there are not that many caches.....unlike the Lakes. I'm not saying that's a bad thing for the Lakes, that is just what it is like.

Anyway, I tried to sign up to Terracaching last night, and my username was taken................by me!!! I had signed up in 2006!! Sheesh.....losing it, or what? Tonight I have had 2 emails wanting to sponsor me!

Watching these threads with interest, by the way!

Gaz

[GAZ]

Tonight I have had 2 emails wanting to sponsor me!


Gaz


And as we speak, another sponsor offer comes in :cheers:

I will be logging in to TC and accept, me finks :applause:

Gaz

[keehotee]

edited coz I put the wrong map up

[jacobite]

Actually you need to keep a eye on where the container lands :eek: as depending on the No of bounces dictates the terrain rating :wacko: One bounce is
is a 2* cache, 2 bounces means a 3* one. And heaven help if the container makes more than 4 and it's a 5* Cache :lol:

Dave :lol:

That'll be half a dozen of mine up to a 5 then :o

[jacobite]

Anyway, I tried to sign up to Terracaching last night, and my username was taken................by me!!! I had signed up in 2006!! Sheesh.....losing it, or what? Tonight I have had 2 emails wanting to sponsor me!

Watching these threads with interest, by the way!

Gaz

I signed up with Terra and Navi a while ago, threatening to list a few caches on each site and see how it go's.............I think I'll make the effort really soon..........cause let's face it...........there's a slim chance the find rate might be better than the caches listed on my own site ;)

Two quality (as they used to be) caches on both Navi and Terra, let them run for 12 months, and see where we are at the end of that time.

[keehotee]

There are more good caches on Geocaching.com now than ever before - they just get lost in a sea of dross.. :(:(:(

[nobbynobbs]

There are more good caches on Geocaching.com now than ever before - they just get lost in a sea of dross.. :(:(:(


How very true. Trouble is you go out for a day and accidently the first few turn out to be dross... suddenly you can't be bothered to do any more.
To be honest I do far less caching now than I used to mainly due to the hassle involved in clearing the rubbish from the potential good caches. It's just much easier to grab the camera and go for a walk.

[Wronskian]

Hello again for anyone who remembers me!

Caching has changed a great deal since I started (2002, I think). We used to think nothing of travelling 50+ miles for a cache, because you knew the hunt, the location and the swaps would all be great. And with few cachers on the scene, you'd often know the hiders and you'd recognise the finders in the log book.

Now I have dozens of caches within a few miles of me. Many of these I still haven't done. I sort of stopped caching a year or two ago - the urge just wasn't there any more. I've done a few recently, but haven't been impressed - what's the point of hiding a film canister in a tree?

I've just signed up for TC (thanks to my sponsors!) so look forward to trying a few of those soon. With so few TC caches, it does feel like the old days may be here again!

Sam (aka Wronskian)

[Bill D (wwh)]

I remember you, Sam, and you and I started in the same year.

I've hardly been caching for ages, mainly because of poor health, but when I look at the caches near me I find I'm swamped with ones I haven't done, and I'm afraid all too many just don't tempt me to get out there.

I'm not saying that they're all poor quality - I'm sure many aren't. But things have indeed changed a great deal.

[nobbynobbs]

What we need is some computer pro to write a programme to rate caches.

location gets points, size and so on. anyone able to?

[The Hornet]

What we need is some computer pro to write a programme to rate caches.

location gets points, size and so on. anyone able to?
Like http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php you mean?!

[mizmazmoz]

I started caching in may - so i'm a newbiee I suppose.

But I completely agree some of the caches out there are rubbish. I got to one the other day and it had a couple of hair bands in, a bull dog clip and paperclips. Ugh.

I like the caches which have some history involved with them, which is why I like the fort micro and church micro series.

I myself have put out a walk of 9 caches, on the info page there is some history and things to look out for on the walk.

I don't want to put out caches without any purpose to them being there. I want people to learn something from my caches, or put in a place with an amazing view.

[keehotee]

Unfortunately too many of any of the "micro" series' seem to have been put out solely as an excuse to drop a micro in a hedge.
I found three church micros one day last week. The closest one to any church was 100 metres, it was a film pot under a hedge, and there was practically no info on any of the pages that made them any different from any other lame micro.
So why, exactly, were they part of the series???
If a church is really that interesting don't feel compelled to throw a film pot into a hedge and call it part of a series - place a unique cache nearby and have it stand on it's own merits :)

And most of the route march walks around here consist of trails of micros under stiles, seemingly put there just to mark a change in direction. To be completely honest, when it comes to logging them I usually can't remember one film pot from another :( (and the owners complain if each one has the same cut'n'paste log !!! )
If a walk's really worth doing, put a nice, well hidden and decent sized container half way around. If people really want to find it they'll do the walk anyway - without the geomicrolitter along the way...

[blueboots]

It would be a good idea to make the distance between caches greater to reduce the number of caches on any given walk much less. I've only been caching for a couple of years and only have two caches of my own which I think are interesting walks. One is a good distance from any other caches but has recently become part of another cachers circular walk completely removing the impact of the view which was intended when we set it. I have bagged these new caches since I walk there frequently anyway as it's on my doorstep. They are some great containers and some are very well stocked. I think as the rules stand he has every right to do this but it has made me think it is all becoming about the numbers. I really enjoy the caches that are published with some interesting details about the area and preferably a decent walk and as Mr B says-didn't these used to be called multis?

[zwei ormers]

With reference to church caches, we did this one (a multi/mystery with a micro at the final location) last week which involved visiting the inside of the church which was spectacular:-
"Marienmunster Diessen"
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1511412
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/1511412.jpg
Caching in Germany was a new experience for us as there is not a single micro here in Guernsey. We specifically took travelbugs on holiday with us to continue their journeys and struggled to find caches big enough to put them in :-(

[thekennelat79]

Unfortunately too many of any of the "micro" series' seem to have been put out solely as an excuse to drop a micro in a hedge.
I found three church micros one day last week. The closest one to any church was 100 metres, it was a film pot under a hedge, and there was practically no info on any of the pages that made them any different from any other lame micro.
So why, exactly, were they part of the series???
If a church is really that interesting don't feel compelled to throw a film pot into a hedge and call it part of a series - place a unique cache nearby and have it stand on it's own merits :)

And most of the route march walks around here consist of trails of micros under stiles, seemingly put there just to mark a change in direction. To be completely honest, when it comes to logging them I usually can't remember one film pot from another :( (and the owners complain if each one has the same cut'n'paste log !!! )
If a walk's really worth doing, put a nice, well hidden and decent sized container half way around. If people really want to find it they'll do the walk anyway - without the geomicrolitter along the way...

Can I just second all of those remarks and comments, please? :applause:

In my area (Havant), we have so far managed to avoid the worst of the "pointless micro" route marches.
Chichester / Arundel / Worthing areas are a different story with ring upon ring of film canisters.

If a location warrants a cache being placed, then surely it's worth taking a little time and trouble to find a hide for a decent sized container (there's usually somewhere if you look hard enough).

I'm not anti-micro per se; they do have their uses in urban areas.
I am anti-micro in the depths of a forest or at a stile every 528 feet along a footpath. :wacko:

[Dave Gerrie]

While I'm against micro trails, I am a fan of trails with proper size containers. We have a walk of 34 caches, with only about 3 micros on it (no choice) and the rest are tupperware boxes. Its not difficult to find a hiding place for a proper container in the country, and only using micros smacks of laziness and lack of imagination.

All the caches have been found over 120 times since January, with happy logs all round - so people do enjoy doing them. I would stake my mortgage on the fact that if I placed one multi that took a 3 hour walk, it would have been found less than 10 times! At the end of teh day, we place caches to get the interesting logs, and people like finding caches, not doing 6 mile walks for one cache. :D

[keehotee]

..... and people like finding caches, not doing 6 mile walks for one cache. :D

Speak for yourself......I can think of quite a few single caches that involved looooong walks that I'd happily trade for some of the multi-find trails around here :D:D

But then I've never been a numbers cacher ;)

[Paddygt]

I have found this thread of great interest. I have only just found this site thanks to a link on UKGeocachers and, as a very new novice to geocaching myself with only six finds under my belt, I would like to ask what may not be a simple question.

What is a 'good' geocache?

The reason I ask is that, to me, every cache I have found and even the ones I looked for in vain, have been good caches. I can see the argument that there are too many caches which I suppose has the effect of diluting the hobby but if there were only a finite number would that mean that it would soon end as each one is found?

I accept that maybe a good cache is one that takes you way off the beaten path, sadly it will never be like going into 'the woods' USA style in the UK. But is that really a good cache or a good walk? Please accept my inexperience in all this, remember I am asking a question.

My first cache was a small magnetic hidden under the bottom rail of a fence in a local park. I had to find three locations to finally get the co-ordinates for the final location of the cache and I did it using software downloaded onto my Nokia N95 phone. Certainly not off the beaten track but I thoroughly enjoyed it and it was that first cache that made me want more. The fact that I invested in and have downloaded the nearest 250 caches to where I live to my GPS, and the radius of that circle is not that big, actually made me quite excited at the prospect of being able to find so many without having to travel the length and breadth of the country for my next one.

Now that may make it sound as though I am only interested in getting a high score, I can assure you that that is not the case. I have enjoyed trying to find the ones that, as yet, still elude me but I have not given up on them, I will be back and I will find them one day.

The argument that a cache is put out for the sake of it could, I suppose, be attributed to any but I have yet to find one that made me wonder why it was there. The reason they are all there surely is to be found.

So, after what in my innocence I think, I will return to my original question. What makes a 'good' cache? I do want to know because when I plant my first one, I would prefer it if it satisfied newcomers and old hands alike.

[dodgydaved]

What is a 'good' geocache?

My first cache was a small magnetic hidden under the bottom rail of a fence in a local park. I had to find three locations to finally get the co-ordinates for the final location of the cache and I did it using software downloaded onto my Nokia N95 phone. Certainly not off the beaten track but I thoroughly enjoyed it and it was that first cache that made me want more.



....then that was a good cache for you!

A good cache is one that you enjoy a lot - and of course it will not be the same for everyone.

I have done good caches which were a lovely walk; which took me to a great viewpoint. Virts that took me to places I did not know existed - or places that I knew were there but might not have visited them were it not for the virt.

The frustration of of not finding a micro on a busy yacht marina on the IOM and going "Doh" when I found another one hidden by the same cacher and realised that I had had the first cache in my hand without realising it.

Teasel's late lamented cache in Bracknell that was a hollowed out cherry branch in a pile of other branches.

Yup, it's whatever you enjoy - others may not but you did - that's what makes it a good cache:):):)

[Dave Gerrie]

Speak for yourself......

I will thanks ;) And the many finders of our caches! :p

Actually, I suppose the point is that people like different caches, and no cache will ever appeal to everybody, so as long as it appeals to some people, then thats fine!

The best maxim we keep to is to always place the biggest cache possible. A string of 34 ammo cans on a walk (rather expensive!) is an enjoyable day out - a string of 34 micros in trees on the same walk could be a huge disappointment...

[thekennelat79]

See my GC1MY9G Sheepdog Trials - Opening Statement, and the following caches in that series.

Blatent self publicity I know, but it's intended to make other cachers stop and think.

[Mrs Blorenge]

...I would stake my mortgage on the fact that if I placed one multi that took a 3 hour walk, it would have been found less than 10 times! At the end of teh day, we place caches to get the interesting logs, and people like finding caches, not doing 6 mile walks for one cache. :D

... on the other hand ;) we have a multi-cache near Tintern, through some beautiful FC land. It's 4 waypoints along the route where you have to collect a few numbers which lead you to the final which is a small (but amusing) final cache. It's about 4.5 miles in all, has been out for about 3 years and has had 29 finds. It consistently has lovely logs from those who take the time to do it - It's just "horses for courses", I guess :) .

[DrDick&Vick]

I remember reading all of this on the other forum and at the end of the day it is a case of each to his/her own.
My opinion is simple if you don't like a finding micros and nanos then the answer is simple delete them from your GPS/Database and don't go look for them.
I don't like puzzle caches as I just delete them from my database and just don't bother to look for them, I think that counts as a HUMAN filter.

[L8HNB]

I accept that maybe a good cache is one that takes you way off the beaten path, sadly it will never be like going into 'the woods' USA style in the UK.

There are some caches where you can get away from it all, just got back from Scotland and we found some great caches up there where we were miles from anywhere, as indeed there are all over the UK, you just have to look that bit harder. Oh, were both mid 50's amd really do need the exercise, so exercise mad we 'aint - LOL.

I think there seems to be the old school who get a bit jaded with run of the mill stuff and the newer cachers who enjoy every new challenge, because that is what it is, new.

We've been caching since early '06, so not exactly old hands, but not exactly newbies either - after the first go for anything phase we have become somewhat more selective in what we look for. We especially like to get out of our own area and see what other challenges are out there - caches, in our experience, on the whole tend to similar in an area, go else where and you will find different challenges.

Main thing is, enjoy what you are doing. Select and set caches that you and others, hopefully, will remember when they crop up in geoconversation, another great part of the hobby.

[Paddygt]

Thanks for the comments so far, I can see that it is very much what I thought, horses for courses.

I have no doubt that eventually I will settle on a certain type and I doubt it will be Nano size as most of the ones I have failed to find are nano types and, maybe my inexperience, I just cannot work out where the heck they could be.

If it is that small, then it has to be attached to something obvious. I have stood there constantly checking my GPS and staring at a hawthorn hedge with nothing obviously different about any part of it.

Now given that I am looking for something the size of a thimble and also given that I may be be only within 20 feet or so I just give up. Trouble is, when I get home, I keep thinking I must have missed something so I need to go back. As these are local, that isn't a problem so I suppose given that they are still on my mind and I still want them, it cannot be a bad thing.

[esim]

With 253 caches within 10km of our home :eek: I'd agree that it's getting a bit overpopulated in Wiltshire.

Many of the rings that are placed now are nice walks, however they could just as well be multi's rather than 23 individual caches. Many of them could be converted to a multi that leads you to a great location.

I remember the joy of finding my 100th cache within my target (1st year of caching) as it had been a challenge. I've found my 500th cache :socool: last weekend, but the joy of that was not much really as you can now pick up 50 on a day's walk.

If you consider placing a cache, make it an interesting multi with a good story to it. :wub:

[martybartfast]

Many of the rings that are placed now are nice walks, however they could just as well be multi's rather than 23 individual caches. Many of them could be converted to a multi that leads you to a great location.


I'm in two minds about this, I agree in principle, but the big advantage of a ring is that you can see before you set out where you're going to be going, decide whethrer it's within your capabilities and work out how long it will take you. I've had several multis which I've had to pass by because I wasn't sure of what I was letting myself in for before starting, so I think it's important to state on a multi page how far the walk is, and where it will leave you, and what sort of terrain is involved.

[markandlynn]

I remember reading all of this on the other forum and at the end of the day it is a case of each to his/her own.
My opinion is simple if you don't like a finding micros and nanos then the answer is simple delete them from your GPS/Database and don't go look for them.
I don't like puzzle caches as I just delete them from my database and just don't bother to look for them, I think that counts as a HUMAN filter.

Its not as simple as ignoring all micros or all nanos its about excluding caches you dont / wont like. I like some micros and some nanos but as with many caches you dont really know until you get there that you dont like them.

[Happy Humphrey]

...
Many of the rings that are placed now are nice walks, however they could just as well be multi's rather than 23 individual caches. Many of them could be converted to a multi that leads you to a great location.

I remember the joy of finding my 100th cache within my target (1st year of caching) as it had been a challenge. I've found my 500th cache :socool: last weekend, but the joy of that was not much really as you can now pick up 50 on a day's walk.

If you consider placing a cache, make it an interesting multi with a good story to it. :wub:
Clearly, a series of caches is going to be more popular than the same caches arranged as a multi. But as you appear to support the "multicache" version, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why the same caches are better as a multi. Many of them could be converted to a multi, but why would you? As far as I can tell, there's no difference except that the multi has a few disadvantages.

Back on the general topic, it appears to me that there are still plenty of "caches-as-they-used-to-be" being created. Perhaps more than ever.

It's just that there are many variants of the game being played nowadays, so for every cache that appeals to the connoisseur of a particular type, there are several that don't.

[Dave Gerrie]

Clearly, a series of caches is going to be more popular than the same caches arranged as a multi. But as you appear to support the "multicache" version, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why the same caches are better as a multi. Many of them could be converted to a multi, but why would you? As far as I can tell, there's no difference except that the multi has a few disadvantages.

Back on the general topic, it appears to me that there are still plenty of "caches-as-they-used-to-be" being created. Perhaps more than ever.

It's just that there are many variants of the game being played nowadays, so for every cache that appeals to the connoisseur of a particular type, there are several that don't.

agree completely!

As said above - why would you prefer a multi with 23 parts, rather than 23 seperate caches? being a multi doesn't intrinsically make it a better cache! Further, depending on how the multi is set, a missing cache / DNF could stop you finding the cache at all. Finally, like it or lump it, 23 caches on a walk is many many times more popular than a 23 stage multi, and I for one like getting logs on my caches - why would I want to cut it down from one find per day to one find per month (if I'm lucky...) :eek:

[pieman]

agree completely!

As said above - why would you prefer a multi with 23 parts, rather than 23 seperate caches? being a multi doesn't intrinsically make it a better cache! Further, depending on how the multi is set, a missing cache / DNF could stop you finding the cache at all. Finally, like it or lump it, 23 caches on a walk is many many times more popular than a 23 stage multi, and I for one like getting logs on my caches - why would I want to cut it down from one find per day to one find per month (if I'm lucky...) :eek:

This is an interesting point as there is no reason why a multi should be better than a series separate caches... but in my experience they often are. The only way I can rationlise it is that people take more care (on average) in setting multis. By definition, a multi is not set just to rack up a load of finds on your caches and probably reflects a quality not quantity approach.

For the last few years, when I cache in a new area I seek out multis first ahead of the traditionals and the approach has worked for me.

[Happy Humphrey]

By definition, a multi is not set just to rack up a load of finds on your caches and probably reflects a quality not quantity approach.

I appreciate the attempt, but I'm not convinced.

I suspect that the stages of a multi are often less worthwhile than the stages of a series: because the cache setter regards them as less a cache, more a staging point.

But a good series will be designed to consist of caches that are good enough to stand on their own, not just as part of a group of caches. After all, they are usually designed to be found in any order, and a cacher may only seek one or two in a day. They may have a theme (like the Curiosities of Derbyshire), and may provide a bit of entertainment on a walk (such as one of the many Canal towpath series).

[keehotee]

Unfortunately too many of any of the "micro" series' seem to have been put out solely as an excuse to drop a micro in a hedge.
I found three church micros one day last week. The closest one to any church was 100 metres, it was a film pot under a hedge, and there was practically no info on any of the pages that made them any different from any other lame micro.
So why, exactly, were they part of the series???


Never being one to not put my money where my (quite over-worked) mouth is, I've started a new series... [blatant self promotion] Church Macro's (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2ee88283-f02d-4b5b-8216-f2b44475766f) [/blatant self promotion]

[Mrs Blorenge]

Never being one to not put my money where my (quite over-worked) mouth is, I've started a new series... [blatant self promotion] Church Macro's (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2ee88283-f02d-4b5b-8216-f2b44475766f) [/blatant self promotion]

I noticed ;)

I wish you'd started it a few weeks back...
We set an off-set cache down near my 'home' church in west Cornwall - I could have made it a Church Macro. But I'll be looking out for other Church Macro possibilities... as long as the location is worth it.

[sssss]

[blatant self promotion] Church Macro's (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2ee88283-f02d-4b5b-8216-f2b44475766f) [/blatant self promotion]

Some of the church micro's in east kent did a nice system of a micro at the church to keep the church micro fans happy, these then contained the co-ords for a proper sized trad nearby.

That seemed to keep everyone happy.

[von-horst]

Never being one to not put my money where my (quite over-worked) mouth is, I've started a new series... [blatant self promotion] Church Macro's (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2ee88283-f02d-4b5b-8216-f2b44475766f) [/blatant self promotion]

That's fantastic! :cheers:

[monkeyhanger]

Never being one to not put my money where my (quite over-worked) mouth is, I've started a new series... [blatant self promotion] Church Macro's (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2ee88283-f02d-4b5b-8216-f2b44475766f) [/blatant self promotion]
Before everyone gets completely carried away, can I just point out that;
Church Micro's do not HAVE to be MICRO's. Some ( and they are quite clearly marked and easily identifiable) are not
A few are
339 - Eclectic Penguin, 458 - Jabawokee, 601,602,603,605,659,660 - all by GentryAlveston, a whole load by Mcwomble (515,543-546) and many many more that I have neither time nor inclination to list as I am sure you get the picture.

All sizes are clearly marked, if you do not like Micros; then DONT DO THEM!

Groundspeak make it very easy for us to select our caches to find, so why are people indiscriminately waging war against a particular type of cache?

"Micro bashing" in general is getting out of hand as some micro's are very cleverly hidden and more difficult to find than an ammo box in the only tree in the field. Maybe that's why certain cachers don't like them?

This series is open to individual interpretation, but essentially, they should highlight a church and it's history to encourage at least a quick look inside/around before hunting the cache. Not many logs reflect that, but some cache pages are very informative and do just what caching should be all about, encourage you to visit an interesting location which you may not have visited otherwise.

And another point I must make here, Churches are places of worship and remembrance, out of courtesy to some greiving relatives it may be more prudent to have a cache placed a discreet distance away rather than in full view. Kehotee's Macro guidelines of 10m of Church precincts, regular sized and wheelchair accessible will be a challenge to HIDE, rather more easy to find I should think!

Interestingly, there are over 750 Church Micro's already placed, and with over 20,000 find by over 3,000 cachers, it seems not everyone thinks the same way as Kehotee.
Thank goodness

[SidAndBob]

Cache quality has undeniably dropped, but more in some areas than others.
I believe the trend for big trails and dull series has fuelled the "It all about the numbers" mentality. I personally would far rather walk 12 miles for one really good cache than for 20 dull caches.
There are plenty of good caches out there, but you need to seek them out. For example, if we go to the Cotswolds we will do Wrighty caches, because they maintain a consistent standard. There are other cachers (who shall remain nameless) who we would avoid like the plague.

We have just started using GCvote (http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index.php), which ranks caches in a similar way to the old G:UK site, but through a Firefox Add-on. Very nice.:socool:
http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/screenshot.png

[markandlynn]

quote=monkeyhanger;34271


All sizes are clearly marked, if you do not like Micros; then DONT DO THEM!

I like some micros how do you suggest i find out if i will like them without visiting them ? royal crescent bath is a micro where no other size will do and the crescent is quite a thing to bring you to,menai bridge micro great location and an ingenious hide again a micro with your ignore advice id never of seen those


Groundspeak make it very easy for us to select our caches to find,

No they dont how do i work out what the view is or the structure etc from container size and d and t and the description?


some micro's are very cleverly hidden and more difficult to find than an ammo box in the only tree in the field. Maybe that's why certain cachers don't like them?

yes they can be well done, however having been to few micros where the area has been trampled and ruined by searching cachers this is more about appropriate placements than micros.


This series is open to individual interpretation, but essentially, they should highlight a church and it's history to encourage at least a quick look inside/around before hunting the cache. Not many logs reflect that, but some cache pages are very informative and do just what caching should be all about, encourage you to visit an interesting location which you may not have visited otherwise.

Excellent approach and one i would encourage after all church cache no 1 or church cache no40 is hardly worth reading on a cache page . A good description describing why the cache was placed whats of interest etc goes a long way


And another point I must make here, Churches are places of worship and remembrance, out of courtesy to some greiving relatives it may be more prudent to have a cache placed a discreet distance away rather than in full view. Kehotee's Macro guidelines of 10m of Church precincts, regular sized and wheelchair accessible will be a challenge to HIDE, rather more easy to find I should think!

After a few incidents last year these rules were written by groundspeak for all reviewers of caches in churchyards



Interestingly, there are over 750 Church Micro's already placed, and with over 20,000 find by over 3,000 cachers, it seems not everyone thinks the same way as Kehotee.
Thank goodness


Last time i checked number of finds did not indicate the quality of a cache it just shows how many people have found it.

Ive bolded the key point for me above. Appropriate placement is the key.

[monkeyhanger]

Sorry Mark and Lynn,
Your points are all valid and I agree with everyone of them, my post above was in direct reply to vitriol regarding the Church Micro series, all of which should involve a church, not a suspension bridge etc. The view you are going to should be the church etc. If you are setting out to do a Church Micro series, and hate micro's, you can select a CM that isn't a micro, that was the point I was trying to make. It would be like us complaing about the hill if we did Hill Top Mountain View with a DT of 5/5 ! We should research our pages before attempting a cache.
It wasn't regarding all micro's per se, as all caches should have their place. Your example of Bath is a perfect one.
I agree wholeheartedly with your bold words, after all , the whole point of caching is to see interesting things etc. I hope I haven't ruffled too many feathers here, I was trying to be quite specific in my reply, as it was initially the generalisation of "all micro's are chucked in hedges and are bringing the game down" which was something we were trying to redress.

[t.a.folk]

Caching as it used to be ?
In some respects we think things are better .
In our day trip radius area (West Hampshire ,East Dorset ,South Wiltshire,)we now rarely find a cache wrapped in a smelly wet poly bag .
And can't recall the last time we find soggy old sweets and other food stuff in a cache. And there are still good multi caches being placed that take more than an hour or two to complete .
Two examples ,
" Pips Patch and the Naughty Monkey" at Milford
and nearby "Henry VIII Castle " at Key Haven/Hurst Castle


And we don't mind what size the container is as long as it is an appropiate size for where it is hidden ...ah ,that doesn't always happen!

[L8HNB]

Caching as it used to be ?
In some respects we think things are better .
In our day trip radius area (West Hampshire ,East Dorset ,South Wiltshire,)we now rarely find a cache wrapped in a smelly wet poly bag .
And can't recall the last time we find soggy old sweets and other food stuff in a cache. And there are still good multi caches being placed that take more than an hour or two to complete .
Two examples ,
" Pips Patch and the Naughty Monkey" at Milford
and nearby "Henry VIII Castle " at Key Haven/Hurst Castle


And we don't mind what size the container is as long as it is an appropiate size for where it is hidden ...ah ,that doesn't always happen!

Very true, but perhaps thats more to do with availability of good, cheap watertight containers than actual cache placement and quality?

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Very true, but perhaps thats more to do with availability of good, cheap watertight containers than actual cache placement and quality?

Perhaps it's to do with the fact that the UK Reviewers work hard to insure caches are not wrapped in plastic bags :D

Also ice cream & take away tubs are not used :eek:

Deci

[sandvika]

There are more good caches on Geocaching.com now than ever before - they just get lost in a sea of dross.. :(:(:(

I've watched and read the whole thread - I think keehotee's comment here really sums it up for me and why most of my new caches are listed on Terracaching.com. I found it too disheartening that many of my caches which have had really great feedback in logs get overlooked in favour of more recent "dross" that has clogged up the place. For example, one of my caches has been found just 8 times in 2 years, receiving comments like "An ingenious concept well-executed that shoots straight into the top five of caches I have discovered" yet a micro placed nearby as part of a series 6 months ago has been found 39 times already with comments like "2 of 37 today. TFTC".

I have no intention of catering for the pure number seekers, since any cache is just a number to them, as instantly forgettable as the previous one. In contrast, I've derived huge pleasure from finding caches that have not been found for ages - or ever - because of the challenge they have presented. So, instead of following the addage "if you can't beat them, join them", I've opted to differentiate myself unambiguously from them!

Certainly, the audience at TC.com is probably still under 1% of the audience on GC.com however I am perfectly happy for my caches to be found rarely if they provide a memorable experience to those seeking them. I think time is on my side too :)

[Baddesley Bodgers]

I've opted to differentiate myself unambiguously from them!

I think this sums up the entire thread, Choice.... everyone has their own idea and why they like the game.

Let me explain...

I went with both my kids cache along a canal where the caches were 1/3rd of mile, they loved the fact that they could race from one to the other to find them. Will they remember the caches? no, will they remember the day? yes. I hated it..., So did my mum, as it was too far to walk. She likes the fact she can drive and look, then drive to another and look. Which my father dislikes. He would rather go and find one, after hiking 2 miles plus in a nice place. Which my wife wouldnt do, neither would my kids.
Whilst here in holland, i spent two and a half hours trying to find a smallish cache in the middle of a tarmac carpark. Prize to guess where it was...If the kids were there, they would have been moaning, so would the wife, and both my parents....and probably the dog.

Everyone has a different way to enjoy this....and everyone is catered for.

Aesop wrote a fable, called The Man, The Boy and The Donkey, also called you cannot please everyone

[Simply Paul]

If you hanker for the good ol' days, I recommend doing what I do; go to extremes. The caches I've found on the Western Isles of Harris and Lewis, Skye, then the Isles of Scilly and this year Orkney and Shetland (most of Scotland is good, actually) have all been a bit special and memorable. They've all been in hand-picked locations, rather than fired out of a cache-gun from a moving car, have mostly been a good size (not important to me really, so long as micros are used appropriately) and offered a range of challenges. Every cache was a mini-adventure once- some in the ass-end of the country still are :D

SP

[Happy Humphrey]

I found it too disheartening that many of my caches which have had really great feedback in logs get overlooked in favour of more recent "dross" that has clogged up the place. For example, one of my caches has been found just 8 times in 2 years, receiving comments like "An ingenious concept well-executed that shoots straight into the top five of caches I have discovered" yet a micro placed nearby as part of a series 6 months ago has been found 39 times already with comments like "2 of 37 today. TFTC".

I have no intention of catering for the pure number seekers, since any cache is just a number to them, as instantly forgettable as the previous one. In contrast, I've derived huge pleasure from finding caches that have not been found for ages - or ever - because of the challenge they have presented.
Don't know why you should be disheartened. Had there not been all the "dross" (in your opinion!) then you'd most likely still have had eight finds in two years.

People are playing different variations of the game, and all are equally valid. Why compare apples with pears like that? Perhaps that's why you're disheartened. Some of my caches get found two or three times a year, and others get the same per week. That's fine, because I designed them to address different aspects of the game. If you don't like collecting caches for collecting's sake (AKA "numbers"), then it's fine that you don't set caches like that. But why worry about caches that ARE designed to cater for that game, and which give people as much pleasure as your favoured type of cache (because that's all that it is, it isn't superior)?

The strength of geocaching is that you're free to hunt caches in whatever way you see fit (as long as it doesn't hinder others), and if a certain way doesn't appeal then you don't do it. And no-one complains (or at least, no-one SHOULD complain!).

[nobbynobbs]

I think the problem is a little more complicated.

I have done micros that have been well thought out and suitable for their location and haven't just been placed to make up numbers. Equally I've found some larger ones that were there purely because someone could with no redeeming features to make it interesting.
How, before setting out, can I edit those ones?

I'm happy to hunt any size if it's an interesting hunt and the size is suitable. Maybe cache owners should be more honest and gc.com should introduce an attribute of "just for the numbers" then iI could filter them.

[t.a.folk]

Anyone else think there could be erosion issues in the future with some of the "curcuits " that get multiple visits per week ?

[von-horst]

I think the problem is a little more complicated.

How, before setting out, can I edit those ones?

Perhaps looking at the logs might help? If people's logs rave about the cache its likely to be a good'un, if they're cut-and-paste "TFTC" logs, then not so much.

[Happy Humphrey]

Perhaps looking at the logs might help? If people's logs rave about the cache its likely to be a good'un, if they're cut-and-paste "TFTC" logs, then not so much.
That's what I tend to do. Plus, I use bookmark lists; they're a bit hit-and-miss but can often point to some worthwhile caches. If you favour certain types of cache, then a filter by attribute can help (e.g. good view, short walk).

None of this is quite as easy as it could be, of course, but then how could you set up a system that caters for such a wide variety of tastes without making it too complicated for use?
For instance, on the same day I've been known to walk a couple of hours just for one cache, then drive and walk to another that has a tricky puzzle to solve. But then go to a couple of easy roadside ones just for the contrast (or so I feel a sense of achievement after failing to find the more long-winded ones!). Followed by another easy urban one which fits in with a bit of spare time in town.
It would be annoying if the roadside/urban ones had been eliminated because someone deems that they are there "just for numbers"!

[keehotee]

"Micro bashing" in general is getting out of hand as some micro's are very cleverly hidden and more difficult to find than an ammo box in the only tree in the field. Maybe that's why certain cachers don't like them?

This series is open to individual interpretation, but essentially, they should highlight a church and it's history to encourage at least a quick look inside/around before hunting the cache. Not many logs reflect that, but some cache pages are very informative and do just what caching should be all about, encourage you to visit an interesting location which you may not have visited otherwise.

Interestingly, there are over 750 Church Micro's already placed, and with over 20,000 find by over 3,000 cachers, it seems not everyone thinks the same way as Kehotee.
Thank goodness

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post - and Church Macro.
I was not micro bashing - I agree they have their place - but this is an example of a church micro placed by one of the hiders you highlighted in your post..



Wheelchair, buggy and cycle friendly and easy access

This cache is not quite as close to the Church as I would like but once you have visited the area you will understand just why it is where it is.
contents
log book, pencil and sharpener all to remain in cache and odd trading items



There is no mention of the church apart from the title of the cache and the line about the proximity.
The cache is over 1/10th of a mile from the church in a hedge in the corner of a playing field behind some houses - whereas the church is surrounded on 3 sides by open fields and public footpaths.
The church is not even visible from the cache location.
There are no issues with hiding a cache on any of these footpaths - so I have, and when it's listed it'll be a Macro cache.
Googling the church in question brings up no end of info - even a Wikipedia entry - but none of this (not even a picture) appears on the cache page.
So why on earth is this listed as a church micro???

[von-horst]

So why on earth is this listed as a church micro??? :applause:

Because it brings in the punters, whereas "Bland village random micro no 3768" wouldn't!

[Baddesley Bodgers]

Because it brings in the punters, whereas "Bland village random micro no 3768" wouldn't!


Now theres an idea for a series.....

[keehotee]

:applause:

Because it brings in the punters, whereas "Bland village random micro no 3768" wouldn't!

My point exactly.
I don't have a problem with Church Micros at all - mostly they take you somewhere interesting. But this particular cacher seems to have fallen into the habit of chucking film pots willy nilly ((hahaha) - even if he has placed a few small caches too ), then grouping them with the nearest applicable series definition just to give them a point. :( :(

[uktim]

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post - and Church Macro.
I was not micro bashing - I agree they have their place - but this is an example of a church micro placed by one of the hiders you highlighted in your post..



There is no mention of the church apart from the title of the cache and the line about the proximity.
The cache is over 1/10th of a mile from the church in a hedge in the corner of a playing field behind some houses - whereas the church is surrounded on 3 sides by open fields and public footpaths.
The church is not even visible from the cache location.
There are no issues with hiding a cache on any of these footpaths - so I have, and when it's listed it'll be a Macro cache.
Googling the church in question brings up no end of info - even a Wikipedia entry - but none of this (not even a picture) appears on the cache page.
So why on earth is this listed as a church micro???

Maybe he was naive enough to assume that finders could be arsed to walk 1/10th of a a mile to the church and do a bit of research for themselves. We don't have to be spoon-fed all of the time ;)

[nobbynobbs]

so it would be ok for all caches to be listed without a name or any description, after all it's only a matter of getting off your own **** and finding out about where it is and what the place is about......

[keehotee]

Maybe he was naive enough to assume that finders could be arsed to walk 1/10th of a a mile to the church and do a bit of research for themselves. We don't have to be spoon-fed all of the time ;)

Then you might as well create a series called Bland village random micro and invite people to find their own church/stand pipe/chocolate-box-cottage/interesting dog-poo bin .......

[uktim]

so it would be ok for all caches to be listed without a name or any description, after all it's only a matter of getting off your own **** and finding out about where it is and what the place is about......

For me that would be fine. I use the waypoint, the container size and maybe the hint in conjunction with a map to sort out which caches we visit. For us it's all about the walk and the exploration, the map is the best tools for this approach ;)

[uktim]

Then you might as well create a series called Bland village random micro and invite people to find their own church/stand pipe/chocolate-box-cottage/interesting dog-poo bin .......

That has it's merits, it might teach folks to use maps to plan for themselves and their own eyes and brains along with some simple research to appreciate their surroundings. All we need is a catchy acronym and we could have a great series ;)

[von-horst]

Maybe he was naive enough to assume that finders could be arsed to walk 1/10th of a a mile to the church and do a bit of research for themselves. We don't have to be spoon-fed all of the time ;)

Going to disagree with you on this one.

If its called "Church micro XYZ" then the punters can and should expect a certain 'corporate' nature to the cache; It should be either within the boundary of the church (with express permission) or adjacent thereto, and the description should contain a brief synopsis of the church.

The challenges of hiding a cache (even a micro) near to a church should be what drives a certain degree of creativity so as to give the series 'life'.

Otherwise, all you get is a misnamed "Bland village random micro no 3768", and the whole series starts to become (whether fiarly or not) a whipping boy' for the anti crappy mico brigade...

My favorite example of a 'bad' church micro is so far away that it is out of the village and is 'randomly' hidden by the side of a road where you can just see the church on the horizon.

Even with the zoom, this was the best shot I could get!

https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/efd8606d-439d-4c27-939b-c8c93501520d.jpg

Mike

[gazooks]

Sadexploration did explain in his email to me (when I asked for 3 numbers) that the 'Church Micro series' caches do not necessarily have to be micros.

In fact two of mine are but the other is a multi that uses info from gravestones to a small cache down a lane next to the church.
The micros are just outside the church property.

In all three cases you can see the churches ;)

[Mrs Blorenge]

Sadexploration did explain in his email to me (when I asked for 3 numbers) that the 'Church Micro series' caches do not necessarily have to be micros.

In fact two of mine are but the other is a multi that uses info from gravestones to a small cache down a lane next to the church.
The micros are just outside the church property.

In all three cases you can see the churches ;)

...which is almost exactly how I set up our recent cache, "Methusalah's rest". It has some details about an interesting feature in the church graveyard to (hopefully) attract cachers' attentions but those who want more facts will either visit the inside of the church or find them on-line.

[uktim]

Going to disagree with you on this one.

If its called "Church micro XYZ" then the punters can and should expect a certain 'corporate' nature to the cache; It should be either within the boundary of the church (with express permission) or adjacent thereto, and the description should contain a brief synopsis of the church.

The challenges of hiding a cache (even a micro) near to a church should be what drives a certain degree of creativity so as to give the series 'life'.

Otherwise, all you get is a misnamed "Bland village random micro no 3768", and the whole series starts to become (whether fiarly or not) a whipping boy' for the anti crappy mico brigade...

My favorite example of a 'bad' church micro is so far away that it is out of the village and is 'randomly' hidden by the side of a road where you can just see the church on the horizon.

Even with the zoom, this was the best shot I could get!

https://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/efd8606d-439d-4c27-939b-c8c93501520d.jpg

Mike

That could be a good photo showing the churches place in the surrounding community, I wonder if without the zoom you would get a better sense of the churches place in the landscape? I can think of churches in our area where you could set a cache at a distance that would give you a wonderful sense of the churches beautiful location on the hill overlooking the village and for me personally this would be every bit as relevant as grovelling around in the churchyard looking for a cache behind the compost heap whilst digesting the info that the cache setter felt that I should be fed.

It's about imagination and a sense of place, sometimes the cache seeker should use these abilities instead of expecting the cache setter to do it all for them.

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I think that a Church Micro series could and maybe even should include caches in locations that offer distant views of churches in the surrounding countryside. The view that the parishioners would have seen as they crested the hill on the way to church on a sunny morning is a very relevant part of the experience of these historic buildings. Personally that sentiment would be rather spoilt if it was spelt out in the cache page, it's about personal appreciation of your surroundings, maybe studying the map to see where parishioners would have been walking from several hundred years ago and which routes they would have taken. Using a bit of imagination and logic to piece together some of the folk history of the area is a big part of any walk or cache hunt , heaven forbid that too many caches sink to the lowest common denominator of blow by blow tour itineraries with descriptions of set "must see" features. It's about exploration and we really should be doing some of the work ourselves!

[Maple Leaf]

snip.......

but the other is a multi that uses info from gravestones to a small cache down a lane next to the church.
The micros are just outside the church property.

In all three cases you can see the churches ;)

I have done that one .... and it is a nice walk (and a nice tucked away church). Much better than a cache and dash :)