medoug

Most of us have probably seen geocaching.com's latest notice to increase premium membership numbers. It mentions that premium-only caches earn twice the amount of favorite points. Apparently basic caches earn 4.5 average favorite points while premium caches earn 9 average favorite points. In the area where I usually cache northeast Iowa, northwest Illinois, and southwest Wisconsin, there are relatively few premium-member-only geocaches and they don't really appear to have generated many more favorite points so I wonder if this claim holds true here. Perhaps in other areas/countries this may be more true. Do you think it is true where you geocache?

I've seen this before. The name we have for them are "geohogs". It's way better for cache hiders to focus on quality, rather than quantity.

OK, please excuse my ignorance. What are "PL only caches"? I've racked my brain and nothing I can come up seems to match that acronym: PMO (premium member only), PT (power trail), PL (public library)?, etc.

Have you tried using the 'new' search and the "Geocache Name Contains ..." filter? You can put in part of a cache's name to find it. You don't have to know how the cache name BEGINS, just what the cache name CONTAINS. Seems that would be better than having to know what the cache name starts with, the way the 'old' search worked. noncentric, That feature is not available to non premium members on the new search page.

That link does not work.

Yep. And odds are that the method of attachment probably wasn't presented to the Reviewer before published. Dead tree and dead fungus. Are we not allowed to drill holes and use screws on dead things? Seems no more harmful than piling up dead sticks or loose rocks to make a hiding place for a cache. I've found several caches which have been hidden in hollowed out dead pieces of wood.

Let's (including myself) try to get back on the original poster's request by giving ideas instead of arguing what makes a cache evil, good, or bad. I've only seen 3 ideas posted so far, yet lots of people talking about the evil caches they have found or created without giving any details of these caches themselves. Please share these ideas so we can have more great evil caches!

I'd be ashamed if I could hide my private areas with a micro cache.

^ True. I forgot that. It'd get more visits and praising logs if it were open to all though. Perhaps it's of a construction nature that makes it unsuitable for the general geocaching population trying out the free app on their phones. I started caching in the days when you needed to make at least an $80 commitment by purchasing a GPSr to participate.... meaning you were more serious (like premium members) about maintaining the quality of the game.

I would classify most cache owners who put out "evil bad" caches as sadists (a person who gets pleasure from torturing others and from being cruel to them). Those who put out "evil good" caches want people to enjoy the struggle and realization that they should use their minds more than their eyes when geocaching once the cache is found. There is usually much more satisfaction finding a tricky, cleverly-hidden cache than one that is hidden in the same old way or one that requires tedious, repetitive action to find. It's all about thinking "outside the box".

Think of how many favorites it would have if it wasn't a premium-members-only cache!

OK, here's an idea for an evil simple cache. I'm not sure if it would be classified as "good evil" or "bad evil". I would lean toward "bad evil". Go to a forest with lots of trees. Look for a tree with a small knothole (where a lower branch had died, fallen off, and rotted out a little). Now look on the forest floor and find a small fallen branch that is about the same size diameter as the knothole and is a close match color/bark match as the tree with the knothole. Place a micro/nano cache (blinkie or small bison tube) in the knothole and then insert the branch in the hole on top of it. The hardest part of making this cache is finding a suitable tree and matching branch, but the cost and other preparation work is minimal. Prepare yourself to receive some flaming on-line logs as this is almost as evil as they get... a very well concealed nano in the woods.

Lamp post caches are for sure "EVIL!" Yes, lamp post caches are SIMPLE to make. Yes, the first person to make a lamp post cache was being creative and evil. Most copiers of that orignal lamp post cache are today considered cheap, lazy, and non-creative by most other geocachers. It's just been done too many times to be considered clever, creative, or even evil.

Is this the kind of "micro spew" you find in forests? That doesn't seem so bad to me.

Perhaps the CO wanted the cache to be more challenging for the FTF, STF, TTFers, and then after that they plan to return it to a standard logbook format. A better way to do this is to omit a "additional hint" and then add it after the race to FTF is over. Another way is to not provide a GeoChecker on a mystery cache until after the first few finds.

^ True. I can't count the times that an on-line log was left complaining that they didn't appreciate walking in the woods wearing shorts and flipflops even though the attributes on the cache clearly contained "poisonous plants", "thorny plants", and "ticks". Obviously these people are used to the more-recent dominance of urban and park-n-grab caches, not forest/hiking caches which the hobby originally started with.

That's not a good method. We had a "Little Library" cache in our area where the log was hidden in one of the books. Eventually someone "checked out" that particular book so the log was missing.

I'm assuming this was added later, and I think is sufficient. The CO will still want to check the cache fairly frequently to check for any helpfully-added logs, though. Now the cache contains two logs: The one hidden by the CO, and the one added by the FTFers. - If this note was added to the description since it's publish, the owner needs to visit the cache to remove the added logbook. - If the note was in the description when it was published, it'd be nice if the FTFers were to return to fix their mistake for not following directions. - It still wouldn't hurt for the CO to include a similar note on the cache container itself to eliminate future misunderstandings, especially since lots of geocachers don't seem to read the descriptions anymore.

I also agree that it is a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. But, the CO should have at least included a note in or label on the cache specifying that the log is contained within and the puzzle needs to be solved to access and sign it so the log wouldn't just be assumed missing as all of you did.

The ultimate "micro" (microwave) cache: As viewed when approaching from a nearby trail: A closer look: A view from the "back" side: Mostly hand-sawed (which took like forever) with fasteners assembled from inside to be invisible. This started as a 17" diameter log, 26" in length, weighing well over 100 lbs green. Final cache is still estimated around 50 lbs (with working innards of the microwave removed). I hauled it to the forest with help of an appliance hand truck. There's a few seams which are larger than I'd like, but definitely nothing obvious from a distance. Also notice that it's plugged into an electrical outlet in a dead stump. There's more details inside once the door is opened, but that's a surprise that I'm not going to share here.

There's really no way to get around running into yucky containers when geocaching. It's an unavoidable part of the activity. I always think it's funny that people use antibacterial hand sanitizer instead of washing with soap and water before eating. If you have poo on your hands, you still have poo on your hands after using sanitizer (it's just sanitized poo). Even worse is if you have hazardous chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, mercury, lead, etc.) on your hands, hand sanitizer does absolutely nothing to remove those chemicals. Best to wash away the poo or chemicals with soap and water. As Team Sagefox mentioned, some level of bacteria is actually healthy to build our immune system to stay healthy.

We do, but mostly use the pages as toilet paper in our out-houses. Most of the time we use this to find the phone numbers of people: whitepages on line

What does "I need in a much more timely manner" mean? You can alway create the cache listings with a note to the reviewer that you want to reserve the location until permission is obtained. If you intend on obtaining permission, the placement of the cache can wait however long it takes to obtain permission...even if that takes making a couple of phone calls. Yes, it seems you can reserve a spot indefinitely if you keep in contact with the reviewer while you are working on a placement. I understand that a spot can be reserved for a future cache placement. What I meant was that it may take just a few minutes to make two phone calls, while it could take hours to find the same information on the internet, and maybe days to determine and contact local authorities. Also, when I hide a new geocache, I like to do the preparation work and have it hidden in a couple weeks (depending on complexity) while all the information is fresh in my mind rather than string it out for a long time. That way it is done and off my plate of things-to-do.

I've tried the county assessor's office website and the information I'm getting on a particular cemetery is that it is exempt from taxes ($0) and it is deeded to the "XXXXXXX Cemetery Association" with no address or other details given. I could spend hours on various websites and working with the county and still maybe not get the information needed. Contacting a local monument retailer requires using a phone book and making a couple phone calls gets me the information I need in a much more timely manner.

Here's a tip that I discovered for finding out who to grant permission for a cache placement in an "active" cemetery: Look in the phone book for the closest cemetery monument retailer. Tell them that you need to know who to contact regarding an issue in a specified cemetery. They can usually provide the name of the maintenance person or members of the board for that cemetery as they usually work with those people when placing new stones. (Note that this only works with "active" cemeteries where monuments are still being added.) If they can only give you the name of the maintenance person, contact them to find out who is on the board. If it is a small cemetery, the board may only meet a couple times per year, so you might need to be patient with your cache placement before all members of the board can discuss it together and make a decision. If it's a really small cemetery, there may be just a single person in charge (sometimes it's actually the same as the maintenance person) to get permission from. Does anyone have any tips for getting permission contacts for "inactive" (historic, neglected) cemeteries?