- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am more upset about these remote caches on Dartmoor being archived than I am about this missing TB which can easily be replaced (although annoying). There are not enough quality remote caches on Dartmoor so it seems such a tragedy to lose quality caches which have not gone missing and which are not requiring maintenance.
As a remote cache owner myself, I am constantly impressed by the quality and generosity of the logs written by those who venture on to the more remote parts of Dartmoor, and to receive those logs is worth 100 TFTC which are normally logged for C&Ds.
Dave, there are more than enough remote caches .. there are in fact so many that it is hard to find a cache on Dartmoor that is further then a few hundred yards away from another cache. Would you like to see a powerloop around Cranmere pool or something?
I disagree with you there I’m afraid. I think there are not nearly enough remote caches on the moor. There are vast tracts of Dartmoor with not a single cache, unlike letterboxing which is rife in every place you look.
I would also say most caches on the moor relate to a particular feature, for example points of interest or summits, or can be used as waypoints. In the very centre of the North and South moors there are very few caches at all.
As for using Cranmere Pool as your example of “remoteness” – it is only a 15 minute walk from the military road network. Hardly remote!
This has gone way off topic (and I was to blame) so I have split the existing topic to form this new one. Clearly there are differing views on this (and everybody knows my view) so I will shut up (for the time being :)) and let others have an input – please!
This probably seems a bit of a cop out, but I think there’s room for both.
A lot of people (my partner included) would be unlikely to venture out for a 2 hour walk for 1 cache (for example). It seems inefficient if you’re a numbers person, which to an extent I think a majority of cachers are.
I would certainly be drawn to a remote cache if it’s particularly interesting (i.e. a 5/5 or similar), but if after a long hard hike it was just a tupperware tub under a rock on the floor, I’d probably find myself a bit disappointed.
A good compromise would be a remote series, or even one that starts at a road and leads you out into the wilderness. I don’t see how that would be any less rewarding…in fact by most definitions it would be more rewarding.
Well i’ve got mixed feelings about this, as someone who through my own stupidity has been out of work for the last 20 months, caching has given me something to do when there is nothing else to do. And as someone who does not drive i often walk for miles to get one cache (yesterday i walked for 6 miles to get one cache). And without the very good friend that is pearlywhirly i would have to walk (i often do) a long way to get onto the moors from Ivybridge or South Brent which is the only way for me most of the year from Torbay if i am venturing onto the moors by myself.
But i do still think that there are areas of the moor that have too many caches close together, even duplicating nearby caches. But like others if i am walking in the area i will find the caches, so in other words if there is a cache there i will try to find it whatever i feel about there being ‘too many Caches’.Remote caches are great. There is more of a sense of achievement if you have walked 2, 3 or 4 miles to get some caches rather than an urban cache. Each to their own but I often leave TB’s in remote caches. I see it as a little prize for the next cacher that has made the effort to walk a bit of a distance.
It pains me to see the latest series on Bodmin Moor tonight. 60 plus ‘drive by’ caches on the moor. (Sarcasticly) That’s just what an area of outstanding beauty needs. Roadside caches all over it. More cars, more pollution, more livestock potentially getting injured or killed! Why??Not sure it would make much difference in the grand scheme of things, y’know.
Sure, there’s be a rush at first, might even be noticable to the locals – but much less intrusive than the several cycle races held across the moor a year. Geocaching is still a very very niche hobby and these might get 2 or 3 visits a week after that first surge of interest – that’s how many the three “Knights View” roadside caches I adopted get.
Some people can’t reach the remote areas of the moor for various reasons. I don’t see why roadside and remote caches can’t co-exist quite happily.
Finderman: No I wouldn’t, but I expect it will happen and if it does I will try to be FTF on all of them 🙂
Dartymoor: Of course roadside and remote can co-exist, I have no problem with roadside caches and we often pick them up. However, its the sheer number that is the problem. You don’t need caches placed at 0.1 mile intervals. If the object is to enjoy a nice drive then 3 or 4 a mile is perfect. I don’t know this Bodmin Moor road, but I doubt if it is suitable for this sort of power trail. Is it a single track road? Are these placed in passing places? Clearly not for the disabled as none that I’ve noticed have a terrain 1 rating. It won’t do your car much good either unless you leave the engine running, imagine stopping and starting your car engine 60 times in about 7 or 8 miles! So it really needs a team to tackle this or better still walk it, but it appears not to be circular.
Time to stir things up a bit!
After a recent DNF on a remote cache i received an email from another cacher saying that the cache was missing and that in their opinion the CO had far too many caches on the remote moor to be able to maintain them all.
I am not going to name the CO, the cache or the other cacher but i do agree that some cache owners have far too many caches. It made me think of a questionaire from Groundspeak a few years ago where i answered one of the questions as ‘perhaps there should be a limit to the amount of caches one person can own’.Whenever this topic comes up, I like to cite kevham1 who, with ceekay1, have 370 of the best maintained caches out there.
Bitchiness and petty backbiting exist in all aspects of human interaction, and geocaching’s certainly not exempt.
I hope I wasn’t the guilty party here as very few of my caches have ever gone missing and I try to get out to them very quickly if they do. At the moment out of 173 caches I have one disabled and one needing maintenance, which is probably as good a record as one can have. I have also only ever archived one cache (as I said recently – a cache is for life and not just for placing).
In my experience of finding (or not finding) caches I think the worse culprits for lack of maintenance are those who have only placed a handful of caches. The more caches you place the more likely they are to be maintained. I do however think that one’s record should be taken into account when a reviewer publishes a cache. Those with a bad record of maintenance or of archiving caches should certainly be restricted when it comes to placing new caches. I also think that you need to have found a minimum number (say 200?) before you can place any cache.
A percentage of new cachers want to place caches. I was no different and placed my first well before I hit 200, and it lasted up until recently. It was nothing special and actually a fairly poor hide – but did highlight some interesting local history that I felt was worth sharing.
The only statistical thing about low count players I think is that a percentage will drop out entirely, same as with any hobby. Lots of enthusiasm at the start, then once the honeymoon’s over, a dip and at that point they might leave, or perhaps regain some interest and a long term levelling out. I think those who combine caching with other things tend to last longer – those who cache in combination with walking or dog-walking as companion hobbies might get more miles out of it. (Pun intended)
High counters have shown they enjoy the hobby enough to have racked up some big numbers in finding, and have had more time to “give back” by placing hides. They’re not supermen, just have stuck with it. Whether than makes them “good” COs or not is probably too broad a question.
Those who do stop maintaining their caches are probably less likely to place any more, once they realise the downsides to cache ownership – so the problem, if it exists, tends to self-extinguish fairly quickly.
So I don’t think it’s a big problem. Certainly not one that requires yet more rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
