At 07:20 AM 4/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Now I am having second thoughts, and wanted some input before placing
>another. The emphasis seems to be on the number of caches, and the speed
>with which they are attained. Buster Spring will definitely hinder that
>type of goal. Is it a bad idea to place caches in Arizona that eat up
>time?
Personally I like seeing all type of caches. There are times that we want
to go out and find the cache that only takes an hour or two round trip, and
then there are times that we would like to go and spend a day finding a
place that we would have never gone to otherwise.
I have met a few people via e-mail on the geocaching forums that want to
hide caches in harder and harder places each and every time, just for the
sake of it being harder than the one before. I don't really care much for
this. You have to ask what you want to happen with your cache. People
will find hard caches, but if you make each one harder than the last, just
for the sake of making it hard and ignoring the reason for the cache to be
at a specific location people might start to lose interest. If the
location is really great people will never lose interest.
The other thing that I try to keep in mind is that for me the purpose of
hiding a cache is not to keep people from finding it. I want people to
find the cache.
Scott
Team My Blue Heaven
www.myblueheaven.com/geocache
(text/plain)