[Az-Geocaching] "NEED"? No way.

[Larry H]

--- shan in az <shan_in_az@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Are you saying that there are enough geocaches out
> > there now that we don't NEED to place anymore?
> That's precisely what I'm saying.  There are
> hundreds of caches in AZ alone; until or unless 
> you've been to every one of them, where is the 
> NEED for any new ones?

As Ken mentioned, some people prefer to climb
mountains like Squaw Peak, others Everest. 
I have no desire to hunt caches with high terrain
ratings. Does that mean I'm done caching when I've
found all of the 'easy' ones? No! It means more caches
NEED to be placed to keep me and others like me
involved. If we're not involved, we won't want to
maintain our existing caches. Once we archive those,
there will be fewer easy caches for new cachers to
find. New cachers will get discouraged because all
caches will require more work than they want to do.
Climbing 'Everest' when they only want to climb 'Squaw
Peak', if you will.
 
> > Once you've found all of
> > the ones in your local area, you have to expand
> > your area, 
> 
> No kidding.  That's what I'm saying.  There are
> plenty
> of caches out there, although they might not be as
> close to you as you'd prefer.  So what?  Gas up and
> head out, what's so hard about that?  What?- you
> don't
> like to travel?  Geocaching might not be the thing
> for you, then.  

I do like to travel, but that doesn't mean I should
have to. Should we force all cachers to travel long
distances to find caches? Let's not allow any new
placements. Then cache-sparse areas like, say, the
4-corners will not have many new cachers join. The new
cachers won't be able to fully participate since they
can't place caches. So, YES, there is a NEED for new
caches.
 
> Here's a thought: can you give me the coordinates of
> a spot that, in your opinion absolutely *needs* a
> geocache?    I mean really *NEEDS* one, not just
> somewhere that you thought would be nice to have
> one, somewhere that NEEEEDs one. I wonder: what 
> are your criteria for determining that a place 
> NEEDS a geocache?

Does any park really NEED (or NEEEED) a horseshoe pit,
volleyball court, tennis court, chairs, tables, etc?
No, but they make the park more enjoyable for the
people that want to use them there. Geocaches make the
park more enjoyable for geocachers also. In that
sense, those places do NEED geocaches.

> What is it about a particular spot that
> renders it incomplete but for the presence of a
> scrap of paper in an Altoids tin or a tupperware box
> filled with dime-store detritus?  Mark well that 
> I'm not declaring the whole practice of geocaching
> inappropriate (for I have set out caches myself!),
> but I am saying that caches are ultracopious here
and
> elsewhere, and no more are, in a word, NEEDED.  

You sure sound like you don't like geocaching. No
place needs a geocache, as those places all existed
before the game/sport was invented. I have found many
places through geocaching that I would not have found
out about on my own. These places would not exist to
me if it were not for that 'scrap of paper' in a
container. Therefore, those places NEED the cache
there for me (any many others) to find and enjoy the
area.


=====
FriarED

_______________________________________
Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like 
having a peeing section in a swimming pool?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com