[Az-Geocaching] Cache Karma

[Jim Scotti]

As another one of those who probably enjioys placing caches more than finding
them, I agree with Trisha.  I certainly don't advocate every cacher placing a
cache, just so that they can say they did, but someone who has found 200
caches ought not to be just getting around to hiding their very first one.  
There are actually 6 teams with more than 100 Arizona caches who have not
hidden a single cache.  But I don't really care if they hide any or not,
that's up to the individual team.  Some like the hunt more than the hide!

I also don't think people should hide caches just to hide caches.  
Originality is important - we don't need just another ammo can or altoids tin
cache just for the sake of there being another cache.  I've been trying to
think of different ways of hiding caches and I'd like to think that every one
of my hides has been in an interesting place or has presented the cacher with
at least a little bit of a challenge.

Since I have hidden 26 caches (23 are still active), with a ratio of 20:1, I
guess I better go out and find more than 400 caches before I go hide my next
one, and since I wanted to hide one on Monday, I guess I should get off the
computer!

Jim.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 trisha@brasher.com wrote:

> Regan I agree with you about the "same 'ol urban cache so close
> together" is not such a great thing. I also think the original intent
> of the founders of Geocaching was that caching would take place
> PRIMARILY (but not necessarily exclusively) in more rural, remote
> areas (They started it in Oregon and Washington, I believe in a
> "rural" place) and any "city" caches would at least be creative.
> 
> Out of necessity due to geography, it is obvious that most geocachers
> (most live in urban areas) must hide urban caches if they are going to
> hide any.... EASILY, that is.
> 
> Keep in mind that if it wern't mainly for the great number of urban
> caches available, that many of the teams with high numbers would not
> have high numbers, or would not have them so quickly and easily. 
> 
> So if we want to continue the "Big Numbers Race", then urban caches
> are a necessary thing that not everybody likes. If we quit worrying
> about stats (not a bad idea) and just enjoyed the "finding" and not
> the "find", then numbers will go way down as there would be fewer but
> more remote and/or more difficult/creative (urban included) caches to
> find.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen. There will always be alot of easy urbans to do,
> unless GC archives them.
> 
> My original point, however, still is valid. If NOBODY hid any caches,
> there would be NONE to seek. So the people who hide NONE or very few,
> yet go find a hundred or two or more, are "riding" on the backs of
> those who have taken the time and money to hide the caches that others
> find. I am not complaining in that sense, as I enjoy hiding caches, so
> I can read the logs of the people who seek it. Also, I personally
> would feel guilty about using everybody else's caches for my
> enjoyment, and not giving back, if I didn't hide some of my own.
> 
> This may be a moot point, as it seems that AZ may be approaching some
> kind of saturation point of "good" places to put caches.
> 
> With the bulk of the vocal group out of town in Yuma, if may be a few
> days before they read this and an "argument" starts! I expect that not
> everybody will agree, but I still contend that cache hiding is
> important. I'm lucky to be up here and have more "location, location,
> location" to work with, I suppose!
> 
> Trisha "Lightning"
> Prescott
> 

Jim Scotti                              
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory         jscotti@pirl.lpl.arizona.edu 
University of Arizona                
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA                 http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/