No cache size? No hint? What the?

[Yurt]

In spite of the notorious Bifrost setting what we think is a record for DNFs before the first find (which hasn't happened yet) two new caches have appeared in the same part of Sydney by a different CO which may prove as difficult.

Bifrost was published with a cache size but no clue. The COs have provided more information as time has gone on but of course we are all still awaiting that FTF.

The new caches:
The Echelon Project
and
The Pergola
There are already 10 DNFs against each by well-known, experienced cachers. Early days yet but having visited both I've got no idea at all. What makes it trickier is having no cache size as well as no clue.

Anyway the CO is a very experienced finder and hider (over 300 hides) so there's no question over them at all but I was wondering what conditions apply for having no container size listed? I can understand a mystery cache not listing it but I can recall not listing it for a traditional cache and being asked to include a size.

Some might say just put them on the 'ignore' list but many of us are like a dog with a bone and just can't let these things go! Who hasn't looked for Bifrost several times and had sleepless nights?

[theUMP]

i,riblit did discuss the size issue and suggested "not chosen" because the description of "other" is "See the cache description." and the owner didn't want to offer any hint as to what searchers were looking for.

(Personally, I prefer "Other" in these cases as it makes it clear that the owner does know what size their cache is, but is choosing not to tell you, rather than an omission in the listing process. But it's not a hard and fast thing.)


I just hope that these caches aren't in areas when frustrated searchers are going to cause eco-damage. There was one here in Perth that turned several metres of (admittedly pretty nondescript) park into a bomb site from multiple failed searches, including a sprinkler fitting that was repeatedly dismantled. (The description said it wasn't the hidey-hole, but I guess desperation sets on by the third hour on the fifth visit!)

[Richary]

Personally I hope it's not going to lead to a trend of caches that aren't meant to be found. I believe Bifrost to be an unintentional impossible hide due to the difficulty level that was initially given to it.

AussieCacher's ones have never been straightforward and always tricky, so these probably follow the theme. He might just have learned some new tricks while in the USA.

[Papa Bear_Left]

Yeah, we haven't spent a lot of time on the intentionally "hidden from geocachers" hides, as the frustration of the search is often greater than the eventual buzz of finding it. The ones we have found have generally been met with relief that we could go away now, rather any feeling of triumph.

As in most things, of course, your mileage may vary and we don't all like the same things.

[Toriaz]

I have one new cache with size 'not chosen'. Riblit did question me about that aspect of the cache & gave me a suggestion as to what he thought the size should be. I explained to him why his suggestion was not appropriate for the cache & why I had deliberately listed it as 'not chosen'. He published the cache after that, so I guess he accepted my reason as a valid one.

But my cache hardly falls into the same category as Yurt's three examples, it's easy to find and has not had any DNFs, even with people having no idea of what size container to look for. Although one local cacher who knows me read the cache notes & figured out what I had placed .

[Browngang]

I fail to get how a container size can truly be unknown. If it is a nano stuck in a larger, placed item then it should be listed as a micro ie. if it is a nano type container glued into a larger "rock" or something at least if it is listed as micro then the cacher won't be trying to overturn huge boulders or anything in the hunt. If it is listed as small for example (think Bifrost) well all size issues fly out the door. You could probably eliminate most cache listing sizes by classing either nano, micro or larger. That would solve most search problems IMHO. You know what it is you placed, call it something!!! I reckon it is like placing soft co-ordinates to make it a harder search.

[Big Matt and Shell]

I too am also very concerned with the eco damage this new string of caches will cause. I have seen Bifrost but have not seen the others. The only saving grace for Bifrost is that the cache owner visits the site fairly regularly (a few times per week). This has not stopped people visiting the cache location and being fairly destructive with their searching techniques. Luckily it is a fairly hardy location and the owner has been very specific where not to look now to stop further damage.

With cache owners that reside not as close this can be a real concern.

[Ministro]

I'm very much like theUmp. I will allow people to choose other but I have yet to have someone convince me that "Not Chosen' is the only option for their cache.

Options are here http://support.groundspeak.com/index.ph ... page&id=75

If it is a nano stuck in a larger, placed item then it should be listed as a micro ie. if it is a nano type container glued into a larger "rock" or something at least if it is listed as micro then the cacher won't be trying to overturn huge boulders or anything in the hunt.

The guidelines say you could also choose other but would be expected to say it's a micro in a larger container.

[fluffyfish]

I too am also very concerned with the eco damage this new string of caches will cause. I have seen Bifrost but have not seen the others. The only saving grace for Bifrost is that the cache owner visits the site fairly regularly (a few times per week). This has not stopped people visiting the cache location and being fairly destructive with their searching techniques. Luckily it is a fairly hardy location and the owner has been very specific where not to look now to stop further damage.

With cache owners that reside not as close this can be a real concern.

I think it is the searchers responsibility rather than the cache owner. If you can't look without damaging things, maybe you should be taking a break from it. I put a cache in a tree and was disappointed that searchers were ripping into the bark of the tree. Seems to be against the ethos of caching to search and damage the environment.

[noikmeister]

I too am also very concerned with the eco damage this new string of caches will cause. I have seen Bifrost but have not seen the others. The only saving grace for Bifrost is that the cache owner visits the site fairly regularly (a few times per week). This has not stopped people visiting the cache location and being fairly destructive with their searching techniques. Luckily it is a fairly hardy location and the owner has been very specific where not to look now to stop further damage.

With cache owners that reside not as close this can be a real concern.

I think it is the searchers responsibility rather than the cache owner. If you can't look without damaging things, maybe you should be taking a break from it. I put a cache in a tree and was disappointed that searchers were ripping into the bark of the tree. Seems to be against the ethos of caching to search and damage the environment.

I couldn't disagree more. The CO is the one who is responsible for bringing the searchers and for the difficulty of the hide. You can't control what people do, but you can anticipate what the lowest common denominator will. If you think you are an average cache, the by definition half of the seekers will have lower regard for the environment than you do.

[Diadem]

I think upon the saying "it takes two to tango". A geocacher who uses destructive search techniques needs to rethink lest they contribute to harming the reputation of geocaching, but a hider that hides with intent to frustrate fellow geocachers is likewise contributing to the problem. I've seen both, with the same outcome.

[Browngang]

POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD-

I see one of Yurt's difficult ones is called "The pergola". Here's what I would do- say it is an extra dummy roof rafter or the like. That is asking for the structure to be dismantled. If I came up with such a great hide, I would mark it (the fake rafter)with say the GC emblem or say something like "it is rafter number 5 from the end". This way it stays muggle proof, but cachers won't have to wreck the joint looking for it. You could say "1st rock from the post".
Along with indicating the cache's potential difficulty, the cache size indicates that there may or may not be swaps for the kids, I might need my own pen, the TB I've had for too long ain't going to fit.

After all, I try to make my caches only muggle proof - not cacher proof.

[fluffyfish]

I too am also very concerned with the eco damage this new string of caches will cause. I have seen Bifrost but have not seen the others. The only saving grace for Bifrost is that the cache owner visits the site fairly regularly (a few times per week). This has not stopped people visiting the cache location and being fairly destructive with their searching techniques. Luckily it is a fairly hardy location and the owner has been very specific where not to look now to stop further damage.

With cache owners that reside not as close this can be a real concern.

I think it is the searchers responsibility rather than the cache owner. If you can't look without damaging things, maybe you should be taking a break from it. I put a cache in a tree and was disappointed that searchers were ripping into the bark of the tree. Seems to be against the ethos of caching to search and damage the environment.

I couldn't disagree more. The CO is the one who is responsible for bringing the searchers and for the difficulty of the hide. You can't control what people do, but you can anticipate what the lowest common denominator will. If you think you are an average cache, the by definition half of the seekers will have lower regard for the environment than you do.

I don't think it is necessary to aim for the lowest common denominator. Otherwise it would be all mint tins at the base of a tree sort of stuff. Shame that careless searching can ruin what could be a very devious cache. Is logging (or not logging) a DNF worth tearing something up? I've done one stupid cache where by its design and the wrong hint got a place torn up. I felt bad as it was probably the wrong sort of cache for the location. Guess I am the sort of cacher to walk away after a short search.

[noikmeister]

I too am also very concerned with the eco damage this new string of caches will cause. I have seen Bifrost but have not seen the others. The only saving grace for Bifrost is that the cache owner visits the site fairly regularly (a few times per week). This has not stopped people visiting the cache location and being fairly destructive with their searching techniques. Luckily it is a fairly hardy location and the owner has been very specific where not to look now to stop further damage.

With cache owners that reside not as close this can be a real concern.

I think it is the searchers responsibility rather than the cache owner. If you can't look without damaging things, maybe you should be taking a break from it. I put a cache in a tree and was disappointed that searchers were ripping into the bark of the tree. Seems to be against the ethos of caching to search and damage the environment.

I couldn't disagree more. The CO is the one who is responsible for bringing the searchers and for the difficulty of the hide. You can't control what people do, but you can anticipate what the lowest common denominator will. If you think you are an average cache, the by definition half of the seekers will have lower regard for the environment than you do.

I don't think it is necessary to aim for the lowest common denominator. Otherwise it would be all mint tins at the base of a tree sort of stuff. Shame that careless searching can ruin what could be a very devious cache. Is logging (or not logging) a DNF worth tearing something up? I've done one stupid cache where by its design and the wrong hint got a place torn up. I felt bad as it was probably the wrong sort of cache for the location. Guess I am the sort of cacher to walk away after a short search.

I didn't say aim, I said anticipate. When designing your cache hide think "What would a frustrated idiot do?" and if the answer is "tear up the place" then redesign it.

[Big Matt and Shell]

I think it is the searchers responsibility rather than the cache owner. If you can't look without damaging things, maybe you should be taking a break from it. I put a cache in a tree and was disappointed that searchers were ripping into the bark of the tree. Seems to be against the ethos of caching to search and damage the environment.

The guidelines that you agree to when placing a cache see it differently.

Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.