What will kill the game

[hack1of2]

We usually write a paragraph or two or four, and often get emails back from the CO thanking us for our logs. I guess in light of this discussion we can better understand why. We also take pictures of every cache, every waypoint (usually) and post them with the log if they’re not spoilers. We’re scouting out areas to *finally* start hiding caches. Marking coordinates and planning multis vs. traditionals. I think maybe we’ll post in the description a request that the logs be at least a sentence or two. Or put it in the hints. I bet the TFTC cachers read those first! We’ll see what that accomplishes…

I especially like what GetMeOutdoors wrote; we’re on the same page. Like some others have said I don’t think crappy logs will completely kill the game, but I can see where it could kill the game for some. I think the biggest threats to truly killing the game are hiding caches without permission, poorly marked caches that may cause a bomb squad alert, hiding caches in areas not allowed by Groundspeak (mailboxes, etc.), and sloppy caching habits on the part of the seekers that harm the environment. They can turn public opinion against the sport of geocaching. It’s great that we have CITO events, educate cachers to “leave no trail,” and encourage cachers to leave the area in better shape than we found it by picking up trash that doesn’t belong there. My heart sank about a month or two ago when reading that beccaday was denied permission for a cemetery cache because the caretakers have had geocaching damage to the grounds in the past. I don’t know why I worry about these things but I do.

[Sloughfoot]

When I titled this thread “what will kill the game” I meant that if COs become disgusted with the response they get to their hides they will quit hiding. If no one hides caches there will be nothing to find. There are a lot of good hides out there and they deserve to be acknowledged as such. No one who hides a crappy cache is going to complain about the log they get. I hope that the TFTC crowd will tire of the game and fade away or finally get what this game can offer and change their ways.

[Northwoods Tom]

@Timberline Echoes wrote:

it is getting disheartening to hear the “purist” bash P & G’s as if they are only for the “number grabbers” or “lesser cachers” sometimes there are other reasons for why people get these. We sometimes take our handicapped friends caching and long hikes are not always doable for them. Some handicaps sometimes prevent much typing too. So before eveyone is lumped into one box please consider there may be different things for different cachers why things are done the way they are.

So many excellent comments by everyone! And Timberline Echoes reminds me of something I should always remember.

At this time in my life I find the P&G’s a cache I often drive right past. I look down at them when I should be remembering not that long ago when I would push my late father around in his wheel chair, through fields and other areas a wheelchair should not go just so he too could still be part of the outdoor experience and enjoy it.

Don’t know if he would have liked geocaching, but at least he could have experienced it.

[GetMeOutdoors]

@Timberline Echoes wrote:

We are adjusting but it is getting disheartening to hear the “purist” bash P & G’s as if they are only for the “number grabbers” or “lesser cachers” sometimes there are other reasons for why people get these. We sometimes take our handicapped friends caching and long hikes are not always doable for them. Some handicaps sometimes prevent much typing too. So before eveyone is lumped into one box please consider there may be different things for different cachers why things are done the way they are.

I hope I didn’t come across this way in my comments, TE, in fact, I was just thinking the other day that this kind of variety is good for the game because of the very reasons you cited. Very few of us will enjoy every point on the very wide spectrum of cache types but the spectrum is important because it gives us options and opportunity.

My only concern is when “easy” caches are placed in dangerous or inappropriate places where able-bodied people really shouldn’t be hanging around at – let alone a person with a handicap. i.e. along a narrow, busy road, on an electrical panel, or where a person’s presence (and “snooping”) would cause suspicion. I even get nervous about those light-post caches in large retail store parking lots. Some of them are under the “skirt” of the post and others might be a fake magnetic plate cover. TBC and I were stopped by the cops in Appleton one time while looking for a cache near a road sign and garbage can.

I have to admit, it’s tough placing a handicapped accessible cache that is not in a high-muggle zone. If you take away city sidewalks, parking lots, and roadside locations, there’s not much left. But I contend that care should still be taken to minimize danger and suspicion.

Maybe I should put my caches where my mouth is and hide a few terr 1 caches for the purposes of making them handicapped friendly. It does seem like there is an interest for them.

[gotta run]

Within 200 miles of my home, there are fewer than 400 T5 caches.
Within 200 miles of my home, there are well over 1,000 handicap accessible caches.
Within 50 miles of my home, there are nearly 1,000 T1 caches.

Now, not every T1 cache is a craptastic gem but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say there’s more trash on the lower end of the T scale than on the upper end. (Hello Power Trails!)

If you put out a quality cache, more often than not you will get quality logs. Not always, but often. If you are frequently getting worthless logs, maybe your cache needs to be rethought.

What will kill this game is not finders writting cookie cutter logs, it’s the continued drive for more and more…a shift of focus from seeking treasure in treasured locations to being an electronic version of “whose is bigger,” which is an unsustainable model because the rewards of that endeavor are ultimately meaningless.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Northwoods Tom]

What’s going to kill this game?

Geocaching.com not taking care of the glitches in their site..

[GetMeOutdoors]

@Northwoods Tom wrote:

Geocaching.com not taking care of the glitches in their site..

hehe… good point Tom 😆

[Timberline Echoes]

Not addressing anyone particular just wanted people to think when the trash caches for what ever reason. If we feel a cache is in a location that is dangerous we skip it. Neither of us are able to climb trees because of physical limitations but we don’t trash them because we know some people like them. Guard rails may not bring us to some awesome place but they give us caches that are doable for us together. If they meet approval by an approver then who are we to judge. Just dealing with limitiations is hard enough being told we are not doing “quality” caches is disheartening. Okay off my soap box.
Mrs. TE

[jenhen1]

@GetMeOutdoors wrote:

Zuma, you come around to an excellent point which started this thread and which is a concern about what is a threat to the game.

But the situation you pointed out, Zuma, is a real threat to the sport. We already have enough trouble with caches being mistaken for malicious containers / bombs, we don’t need caches / cachers that are clearly making unwise choices in their placement. Calling them out on it is vital to the health of the sport. If bad (if not illegal) placement happens often enough, pretty soon things will either become very difficult for the geocaching community, or downright impossible.

In summation, my position is that cache density becomes a threat to the game when people start making poor choices and when the general community becomes too aware of what’s going on around them causing them either to have a negative opinion of the game or to vandalize caches.

GMO, you are right on the money. This is EXACTLY what will kill the sport/game. Until Groundspeak takes a stand and regulates power trails, rewrites it’s guidelines on cache placements and allows reviewers to use more of a personal bias in rejecting crap caches, geocaching will continue to degrade.

DNR has already starting rejecting caches due to cache density in some areas and I’m sure it won’t be long until some other land managers or city/county officials start to have a serious problem with the amount of caches placed in dangerous or unwise locations such as guardrails or sign posts that could lead to a traffic accident which would in turn lead to a ban on geocaching in certain cities. It will only take one serious accident.

I really hope Groundspeak becomes more proactive instead of reactive on this issue.

[team kamper]

I agree with TE I am not a big..big…numbers man(i only have 160) I get out when I can…when I get out for a couple of hours I can only really go in this area that’s in the burbs of Milwaukee I don’t have all day to get out and cache so the few “crap” cache is really the only ones I can get to Plus it gets me out and see new parks in the area so i kind of like P&G and park and ride Caches…I can do them at Midnight after work and doing these types I do put alot of “nice area” and “TFTC”
case there are just so much you can say about a guard rail or a street light…but I do agree that any thing more interesting should have a little more in the log ok now off my soapbox 😉

[Team Deejay]

Wow, this is a long thread. With regard to the mailbox hides, these have always been against the guidelines, as well as being a violation of federal law. There was an issue down in Chicago where someone was visited at home by the FBI after finding one of these across the street from the Social Security building. Cameras captured his entire search as well as his license plate. If you run into this, please let a reviewer know so that we can act. Just so you know, any cache which involves illegal activities, including trespassing, is against the guidelines, and always has been.

From a hider’s perspective, I agree that longer log is essentially a thank you, but I don’t consider a short log to be a slap in the face. As Birdin said, there are a lot of folks out there who struggle to put 10 words together into a sentence. They aren’t necessarily being rude, but instead are just displaying their communication skills (or lack thereof).

From a finder’s perspective, I almost never do a TFTC log, even for the most lame caches out there. The few TFTC logs of mine you will find are the result of someone deleting my original log pointing out issues with the cache (just like Zuma’s case)

Note that as reviewers, we are not allowed to refuse publication of caches based on perceived “quality”. If someone places a bunch of caches along the roadside in guardrails, signs, etc., we generally will publish as long as they are on public property or placed with permission. Would I rather be publishing something in a State Park or historical site? You bet. But my preferences don’t count. Do I think these roadside caches are the death of the game? Not really. I was getting kind of frustrated, but since the advent of the Favorites feature, I now can limit my adventures to those recommended by my fellow cachers.

[-cheeto-]

Speaking of cache owners who think they can delete logs because of the quality of the logs, here is a current discussion thread on the groundspeak forums: http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272739

(Note: I do not endorse cut-n-paste or no-content logging)

[rtrezrsnhvn]

@-cheeto- wrote:

Speaking of cache owners who think they can delete logs because of the quality of the logs, here is a current discussion thread on the groundspeak forums: http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272739

(Note: I do not endorse cut-n-paste or no-content logging)

can I just say that I’m thankful that everyone on this board is a whole lot friendlier…. yikes – almost hateful atmosphere there.

thanks for sharing the link cheeto.

[zuma]

@-cheeto- wrote:

Speaking of cache owners who think they can delete logs because of the quality of the logs, here is a current discussion thread on the groundspeak forums: http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272739

(Note: I do not endorse cut-n-paste or no-content logging)

Thanks for posting this Cheeto. I am a bit saddened that Groundspeak’s official position is that logs are not desired by them to be any more than a blank space. I agree that neither Groundspeak or cache owners can require a decent log, just like we cannot require good manners in any of life’s endeavors. However, a decent log should be encouraged and seen as a positive thing, just like any type of good manners.

z

[zuma]

@rtrezrsnhvn wrote:

@-cheeto- wrote:

Speaking of cache owners who think they can delete logs because of the quality of the logs, here is a current discussion thread on the groundspeak forums: http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272739

(Note: I do not endorse cut-n-paste or no-content logging)

can I just say that I’m thankful that everyone on this board is a whole lot friendlier…. yikes – almost hateful atmosphere there.

thanks for sharing the link cheeto.

Yeah, I agree that it is a good thing that folks are more civil in this forum that in the Groundspeak forums. I read the thread as well, and some of the nastiest most opinionated people who post there are not even active cachers. Just folks who like to argue.

One of the frequent posters there is a good friend of mine, and an exception to the problems of civility in the Groundspeak forums. Knowschad is a well known MN cacher, that I just ran into again last week while caching in Kinni State Park, and he says he is trying to bring civility to the boards as much as he can. The biggest problem is all of the trolls who post there to argue and do not even cache.

z

[Author]

Posts