nick_h_nz

My pleasure! In my experience, despite some previous trolling by someone who ought to know better (but then, that's what you get in this forum), the more information given on a cache page, the less likely you are to gather criticism. Yes, a traditional should be able to be found with only the co-ordinates, so noone should need to read anything on the page. (I have done this myself, when looking for a "just one more" cache, and not had any idea of the size of what I'm looking for, let alone any other information or hint.) I tend to think urban caches, especially, need good and full descriptions. Not to give the game away, but to ensure cachers there is no excuse for cachers not to know the area they will be searching in. I have no idea why, but cachers seem more inclined to moan and whinge about urban caching sites, than rural caching sites. More is expected, it seems, so unless some justification is given for the site then it will get rubbished. Of my urban caches, only once cacher has rubbished a couple of them - but the manner in which he did so (and also from private correspondance by email), it is clear he had never read the cache page, so didn't understand the reasoning behind the location. Often an urban cache is not in the most attractive of settings (and by this, I don't mean strewn with litter or poo - merely that even the cleanest and freshest urban area may not be an attractive setting), but there is a very significant and/or historic reason for placing a cache there. As far as the cache concerned in the OP, I've not yet visited it but at least I know what to expect. Regardless of what was in the description previously, the new cache page covers all bases and says exactly what to expect from the location, and why the cache has been placed where it is. As far as I'm concerned, if anyone went to the cache now they'd not have a reason to complain about the setting - because if they'd bothered to read the cache page, they'd have been forewarned. If it doesn't look like your cup of tea, then don't visit the cache. It really is that simple. (Unless, of course, it is all about the numbers - in which case the number chasers will visit any cache going, and then moan about them...) As for nanos, I completely agree with what has been said by Dawn - if the reviewer has no problem with a nano being classed as "other", then it's a bit petty for certain members of this forum to get up on their highhorse about what is a micro and what is not. I tend to think that if the cache page clearly states the cache is a nano, then if the reviewer has given the ok for the cache to be an "other", then it is an "other". As I've already said, virtually every nano I've found over here has been listed as "other", rather than micro - and I think that is entirely appropriate. So long as you know you're looking for a nano, it's all good.

Agree with a lot of what you're saying here. I can't stand cache sites that are covered in litter and/or glass - which so many urban caches seem to be - and whenever I have commented on that have been told words to the effect of "what do you expect from an urban cache", as if because it is not in the countryside it can be anywhere. Truth be told, it can be anywhere - but why would you choose to take me to somewhere rubbish? One problem with this is that the site may not have had litter when the cache was placed, and although guidelines state that the owner should be regularly maintaining their cache, many do not. And even if they do, there is nothing to stop something happening after such a maintenance visit. Unless the litter and/or glass looks to have been there for sometime, then I don't think it is always fair to blame the cache setter for something which may be out of their control. In terms of the cache of the OP of this thread, glass was an issue because of a nearby recycling centre. It is probable, from what the owner says, that this is rarely the case (this being the first time she has come across it), in which case it was hardly her fault and not expected. But the Web Rat wasn't to know that when he came to the site. (Although it was noted in the cache description - even before it was recently changed - that there was a recycling centre in the vicinity.) As for human waste, thankfully I've only found one literally crappy cache. Not so thankfully, I stood in said human waste. Ironically, even had it not been for the presence of faeces, the cache would have been crappy. When someone had used the location as a toilet, it was pretty much the icing on the cake.

Not sure why you've made that reply under a quote of mine, since not one of my urban caches trick people into looking for anything (and certainly don't list any micro as other). If you are heading back to the nano/micro argument then that is flogging a dead horse, and serves no purpose but a tangenital one (to use a word only very recently introduced to me - thanks Paul!) As for my definition of a traditional cache, it might be the case (and I know it is), but you need only read the majority of posts in this thread to see that most people would like to see a decent effort made in any cache description, to justify and explain the placement of the cache (especially useful for an urban cache, whereby the reason may not be so obvious as most rural caches). Therefore your reply to my post seems a little pointless here?

That is certainly what I attempt to do with my urban caches. But while cachers like you or me appreciate that, there are still plenty out there who don't care (and if it is a traditional cache, have not even bothered to read the cache page or previous logs), and so will still rubbish the cache. Often it does seem to be the more experienced cachers who have the greatest criticism (as a previous poster has mentioned in this thread). Again, while I always like to read past logs before visiting an urban cache, I am fully aware that many people do not - purely because most urban caches are traditionals, and many cachers figure that a traditional should be able to be found by co-ordinates alone so never bother to read the cache page. On the other hand, it seems clear to me that if it is not a traditional, then even an urban cache doesn't get that many visitors. All my traditional urban caches are visited quite frequently, but those which are multi or mystery are barely ever visited...

I was brought to this thread via the cache described by the Web Rat. Before I give my verdict on urban caches, I have a tangential question after reading the previous posts. Please ignore it, if you wish to stay on topic.... (Why should a nano be listed as a micro when it is not (a micro)? I've visited many nano caches, and not one has been listed as micro that I've noticed. The convention in these parts definitely seems to be to listing a nano as an "other" sized cache - which makes perfect sense to me. So long as the cache is described as a nano in the cache listing, then surely there is nothing wrong with describing it as "other"?) Now, back to urban caches. As stated on all my urban caches (or Urby(n) Caches, as the case may be!), I'm no great fan of urban caches. They're generally in unattractive places, and often in such places for no apparent reason but because they could be. I felt it was inevitable that urban caches would come to Bury St Edmunds, so in a pre-emptive strike each of my caches were chosen specially for their historic significance. Like other urban caches, the locations might not always be the most picturesque, but if these Urby(n) caches get people to know more about Bury, their purpose will have been fulfilled. They'll never compare with a good rural cache, but I hope cachers visiting them will take the caches for what they are, and be willing to learn a bit about the small market town of Bury St Edmunds. The most popular of my urban/Urby(n) caches is Inner Glow, which gets me all sorts of emails thanking me for placing it (as well as the praise in the online logs). It seems people love the fact that the cache container is in plain view for those who look, and in one of the busiest areas of Bury St Edmunds. It's also quite a large container, making it rather difficult to remove and/or replace without attracting the attention of the many muggles. Therefore, a large container (itself a novelty in urban caches) set in an obvious manner at a point of historical interest in a busy area seems to be a good formula for a good urban cache. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek - since it is my own cache - but I do know that I enjoy finding a larger container, so make the assumption that other cachers will also. A nano or a micro is easy enough to hide in an urban setting, but more thought needs to be made to place a larger container! For that reason, this Urby(n) cache always gets some surprised and happy comments, because it is so large. Definitely not what people are expecting to find (in part because I have called it a regular - though the truth is there for anyone who reads the logs....) When attending an event in Coventry, we had a multitude of urban caches to choose from. Some were rather rubbish, but the good ones were very good! A nice idea was hiding caches on different levels of buildings (eg car parks), so that a cacher would be in the correct co-ords but unable to find the cache unless they found a way of getting to the correct level - sometimes more difficult than one might expect! To be fair, so long as a good enough reason is given to me in the cache page as to why the location has been chosen, I will probably accept it. If it's a rubbish location and I have no idea why I've been brought there, I will likely give a scathing log. If it's the same rubbish location but I have been told that (in the case of the cache in question): 1) It's a convenient place to park to see a beautiful, historic village, and to make a quick cache and dash; 2) The car park itself might not be so nice, but the surrounding area is; 3) In addition, the cache can be seen from the owner's house, enabling her to have a laugh at the antics of cachers trying to make a quick cache and dash. So long as I know why I'm there, I don't mind. It still might not be the greatest cache in the world (and I still might not be at all enamoured with the location), but at least I know why I am there, so I am less inclined to think it is a completely crappy cache.

Well said Very well said!

As usual, I agree with Icenians. I was directed to this thread by someone else (as I don't normally frequent the GS forum), but have to agree with what he has to say. Surely it's not too much to let anyone who wants to put their hands up to organise an event, to let them do so. If this means that there's one or two or even more Mega events planned, so be it. What's the worst that could happen? The event doesn't quite draw 500+ attendees, and so isn't designated a Mega. So long as it is well organised, it could still be a very profitable and enjoyable event for those who do attend - be that 400 or 4000 cachers. Given that there were almost 1000 cachers at the first Mega, and over 1000 at the second, chances are that anyone who organises a Mega will get the numbers....