dead_white_man

This looks very interesting.... I would like to know more about it to do something like that here. Perhaps I'll message you privately since I doubt I will be in Mass. any time in the next 10 years.

I also do orientering at events around my state. I enjoy orienteering more than geocaching. I often use geocaches to teach orienteering to boys in my Royal Ranger outpost. Last year my boys took first place in the state. As I see it, the best ways to combine them in a cache are; a) an event cache and b ) a multi cache, in which the first set of coordinates can be given, the remaining stages can be designated on a map in which the cacher could either navigate using a map and compas and ruler, or use the map and ruler to calculate the next set of coordinates for his gps. I favor the second method because of the greater mathematical skills involved.

I think I missed math class that day!

8 more to say that "just because it is bunt out to you, doesn't mean other people might like it. After all who is to say what is burnt out and what isn't?"

I'm waiting for all those people to jump on you and say "So you don't think micro's are real caches

43.2 miles. 4 of them are mine. To get the first 100 that are not mine I get 44.1 miles

I first found geocaching on the internet. I actually did a number of caches before I even owned a gps. I still prefer the hunt with just a topo and a compass, but I keep a gps in my car to let me know when I am close to a cache. Then I just dig out the map and get at it. Sometimes I will use the gps, especially when caching with other people.

This comment reminds me of the guy who complained because the cache was too near the parking area on ahiking trail. He never realized that you could keep walking on the trail, even after finding the cache. Well, no one said you always have to park in the closest spot. If one wants to find a cache that requires a hike, go find a cache and take a hike. Park farther away if that what it takes you to get a nice walk in. Frequently, what I have done when going after urban micros is park the jeep in the general area of a cache. I find that cache and walk to the next one. I keep that up until I get tired or run out of time (lately, its been the former). Then I walk back to the jeep. Maybe our problem is that we complain when we ought to make a suggestion. Conversely, maybe when we make suggestions, people take them as a complaints. Anyway, I have discovered the universal answer for the forum. "You can use the feature that filter them out, ya know"

Because everone (many people) keep trying to turn it into a discussion about what makes a lame cache. That has been covered in about a thousand threads. I realize that my question has been answered. In fact I got much good advice. But if I close the thread, they somehow make believe I don't want to hear what they say and I get flamed.

This is very helpful oppinion. What you are saying makes sense. I have already altered my log to reflect that sort of change.

A fair question, I'll give it a fair answer. Should have probably been obvious by now. If that is the only way to put a cache there, I would applaud it for it's utility. But I will repeat... There were MANY, MANY places to hide a real cache. This was NOT disability accessable, so that is not an issue. Within a couple of dozen paces of it's location were NUMEROUS good places to put a cache. This on was not thought out. But I digress, because once again you have me talking about what makes a lame cache, that is not the purpose. I merely want to know if I have the privilege (I won't say right) to criticize in the log!

I closed this once because I don't want it to degenerate into yet 1 more thread about what is and isn't lame. This is actually about whether or not any criticism is allowed in the log. You can, of course, do whatever you want but who wants to listen to unwarranted and rude comments about something they have done for you and me. My opinion is if it needs maintenance, is on private property or the coordinates are off, please do say something about it. But just because you didn't like a cache that was well advertised as to what it was doesn't mean you have to say what you did. Give constructive criticism, good remarks or say nothing at all. OK, I'll take that statement, but what you're telling me is somewhat conflicting. First you say to only note if it needs repair or coords are off etc. Then you say Constructive criticism is allowable. I felt my original post was constructive, pointing out that there were so many great options avavilable to the owner, why just shove a film can and soggy paper in the bark of a sapling. Now, I didn't go into too much detail in the log because I didn't want to create a spoiler. But now I wish maybe I had. Why did you place this silly micro doesn't sound too constructive to me. Because you conveniently left off the first half of the sentence which was "With all the good places here available to hide a regular cache, why this silly micro?"

I closed this once because I don't want it to degenerate into yet 1 more thread about what is and isn't lame. This is actually about whether or not any criticism is allowed in the log. You can, of course, do whatever you want but who wants to listen to unwarranted and rude comments about something they have done for you and me. My opinion is if it needs maintenance, is on private property or the coordinates are off, please do say something about it. But just because you didn't like a cache that was well advertised as to what it was doesn't mean you have to say what you did. Give constructive criticism, good remarks or say nothing at all. OK, I'll take that statement, but what you're telling me is somewhat conflicting. First you say to only note if it needs repair or coords are off etc. Then you say Constructive criticism is allowable. I felt my original post was constructive, pointing out that there were so many great options avavilable to the owner, why just shove a film can and soggy paper in the bark of a sapling. Now, I didn't go into too much detail in the log because I didn't want to create a spoiler. But now I wish maybe I had.

I closed this once because I don't want it to degenerate into yet 1 more thread about what is and isn't lame. This is actually about whether or not any criticism is allowed in the log.

Re opened by request of jaimez

Seems sbell has a problem of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" He was able to research my caches and found that they were in need of repair twice in the last 6 months. A little more research would show that fully half the caches in my area were also down for repair those times. Thus is the devistating power of the Ohio river. She only floods like that every 40 years or so, but perhaps if it floods every 40 years, we should have caches in the ohio valley. By the same reasoning, they shouldn't have caches in Florida where hurricanes can wipe them out. Or So. Cal where mudslides and earthquakes can be a problem Sorry sbell, you are way off. Again my topic was simple, was I too harsh? But since this thread, like most of the others in this forum seem to do, has degenerated into a fingerpointing and namecalling free for all, I shall close it

The reason your post was offensive is that you should realize that *every* cache is a gift, a treasure - if not from God himself, then at least from the cacher. They're all good caches! Most cachers try to convey something deep and meaningful from within their very soul. Consider the time and effort and expense the fellow in question put into placing this cache. A film canister ($Free), a scrap of paper (free or close to it), and the time - (first tree found in the park - near 0.) There is, of course, the time spent finding the park. Maybe that took a real long time. How can you possibly turn up your nose at this VALUABLE gift?!? I'm stunned. Were you not overwhelmed by the adventure and the experience the hider wanted you to share? And consider the emotional trauma - yes trauma - you've inflicted on the poor hider! Suddenly they've had to face the fact that not everything they hide is viewed as super, super fun by everyone. This is CRUSHING! Coming home to the "I found it!" logs is the high point of the day for so many. Luckily there'll be many, many other logs that say "wow, what a great cache", whether true or not, to reinforce the tender ego of the hider. So hopefully the damage isn't terminal. Or perhaps it's that many hiders completely lack the intellectual honesty and objectivity to accept any criticism of their cache hides, whether the criticism is valid or invalid. You decide which! I know which one I think it is. While your thinking about this, keep in mind that everything is good. All caches are good. Everything on TV is good. Every meal you've ever had, or ever will have, is good. (Even the ones that send you to the hospital with salmonella - mmm good meal.) Every repair ever done to your vehicle was a good one, even if it didn't actually fix the problem you brought it in for. If you can't quite grasp this, please contact the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical corporation. They have products that are quite helpful in maintaining this mindset. They are very widely used here in North Dallas, I can tell you. Consult your physician - these products may help you surpress your desire to evaluate anything in a negative manner. By the way, our inability to agree on "what is not good" here on gc.com means that everything that's ever happened to you in your life - every experience you've ever had - has been - you guessed it - good. Because certainly, no matter what's happened to you in life, there's likely someone, quite possibly a handicapped person, who might have enjoyed it. At least that's what I've come to understand from reading the forums. Remember - it's all good! BTW, I didn't think your original log was too harsh. Thank you Mr. Benchmark!!!! Finally a post that shows SOMBODY understands!!!

I don't believe that I lost track of anything. I guess my point is that everyone has the right to place the type of caches they wish where they wish as long as they meet the geocaching.com guidelines and are approved. It is not the place of any of us to judge them and to tell the cache owner what and where their caches should be. It is our place to hunt the caches we like and to ignore those we don't so IMHO your post was not only harsh but inappropriate. The fact that there are many good places within 100 ft is your opinion and need not be shared by anyone else. When you become a geocaching.com approver then and only then do you have the right to tell others where their caches should be placed. Until then you do not have the right to post such comments in cache logs and the owners of caches you post such logs to have the right to delete them. They CERTAINLY have the right. I did not seek to take that from them. I merely asked a rhetorical question, "why the micro" It was meant as a suggestion. If as you say in your post that I don't even have the RIGHT to suggest an improvement, then you are being despotical. I do concede however that I could have been more tactful in my approach.

It might be possible, 2-3 acres usually dos'nt leave room for 2 caches, but possibly. That is moot since I don't live anywhere near it, I would have to make a "vacation cache" which would not be approvable.

Again, let me say, in case you lost track of the original post. I would be perfectly happy to log it, especially if there had not been so many good places within 100 ft of this micro. My question was simply "was my post to harsh" the answers seem to be split on that, so I have edited my post to be less offensive. (although I fail to see how it could have been in the first place)

Because it is presumptive and just plain wrong for you to assume that the cacher didn't know his options and make his choice. If we assume he knew he had choices and still hid as he did, then your disappointment and desire to make him change his ways comes from some kind of expectation that he's here to entertain you, to cater to your whim. No hider can please everyone, so if if a hider disappoints you you've learned the value of the ignore feature, that's all. You totally mis-understand!

I have taken the good advice of some of the early posters, who actually answered my question instead of ranting about tangent subjects. I edited my post to read "The hider should consider upgrading this cache to a regular size. There are many good places here to hide, and this micro seems somewhat disappointing." Thanks

I am perfectly happy logging my grab and go, but shouldn't I be permitted to comment? Had there not been so many good places there to hide a regular cache, I would have just written LNTN TFTC but since there were many good places, and I do mean MANY, why not mention it in the cache.

This is a large rest area with a couple of wooded acres, 2 or 3 perhaps more.

Tact, seems to always be my problem. Give me a tactful example how I should have logged it. I thought it was tactful. What I wanted to say was "This cache stinks" and "Why did you waste my time" But instead I asked why they didn't use a full size whith so many good spots around.