Jump to content

I Hate Rules As Much As The Next Guy, But...

Recommended Posts

That's Ok if the cache page states "This is a sucky cache with bad coordinates" Usually they don't, so we find out after a drive and a walk.. or worse yet a half hour sitting in traffic. Perhaps the best way to police cache quality is to stop sugar coating our logs. Call 'em as we see 'em.


Good luck with that.


People get pissy when you're honest.





I agree.. that's why so few do it. But if more people spoke up about the quality of the caches they do, it would point out to everyone to what the expectations are. We might not agree with the results, but at least we would know what the local caching population wants.



Well, I suppose a large part of the problem is that not everyone wants to find the same type of cache, nor does everyone care about the quality of a cache.


A number 'ho will take that number any way s/he can get it. Piece of crap? Big whoop... I'm up to 2500 caches found! (TFTH!) Nice location? Big whoop... I'm up to 2501... (TFTH!)


Ya know? Sometimes it just doesn't matter. In fact, I think a LOT of times it doesn't matter.


And hey, that's great. Each to his own.


However, as I mentioned above, I don't believe that gives anyone the right to criticize me because I'm vocal regarding what I LIKE and DON'T LIKE. I'm not just pissy about everything... If I like a cache, I am generally very clear, grateful, and thankful that someone took the time to do something that I found enjoyable. The same goes for a Crappy Cache.


Now it's kind of hit or miss as to whether I'll log it online either way. michelle

Don't you love the ones near toilets... :anicute: Honestly, what possesses some people? :D



Why would you put it near a toilet???? :anicute::unsure:

Now you know why I've been asking for this.


I've been using that 'feature' in GSAK for a couple of years now. PQ's designed to filter out micro's, unknown cache sizes, anything with a < [something] terrain ... and then GSAK out particular cache owners.


Quite honestly, once I filter on micro/unknown (which I've found in particular areas to be equal to 'Tupperware' or 'Ammo can's' that are Barbie or GI Joe size hidden in the middle of dense wooded areas) and cut out easy terrain, there's not much that actually makes it through still belonging to particular cache owners who's caches I don't care to spend time searching for.


Being a discerning cacher is a very solvable problem w/o requiring Groundspeak to come up with a new feature.




I bet you'd be surprised I don't use the 'friends' list either. Not that I don't have friends... I'm just not keen on it's future intended features.



Ignoring people's caches has the advantage of removing them from Google map views and nearest caches on the website. Also not everyone is not a GSAK expert so the site is a better place to do it. Plus it would remove hundreds of caches from my PQs and expand my range. Plus it would feel so good to hit the button someday! :D


If I start getting bombarded with emails from all my friends, I will stop using that feature and delete the list....

Link to comment

I had about 10 when i place my first cache. When I found a good location I e-mailed a fello geocacher gave him the cords and asked him to check it and see what he thought, he gave me the thumbs up. I wrote my listing and posted it to my admin. and he helped me fix things that were wrong with it. I wrote in the note thatthis was my first cache placment and if there was anything wrong to please help me fix it, and he did help.. I still contact my admin. with any cache questions that I may have. It must me that I am lucky that my admin can take the time to help and check that every thing looks good and is up to par.

Link to comment

"sneaky" they may call it, or whatever - but in the end- its just poor/sloppy use of the technology.

I'd morso call it "not wanting to bother to check the coords a second time, so just ditch the last number and call it a day". Sadly, I think I've seen several of those kicking around... but never THAT far off. Maybe... 20 meters or so (60 feet around?).

Edited by Kabuthunk
Link to comment
Without rules like that the new geocachers will not repect the geocaching commumity as much as we do...



Yes, like any game, it has rules to keep the game fun and interesting. However its a stretch to take that mental leap and say that new players are somehow less respectfull of the geocaching community then the more experienced veterans are.


This hobby is open to one and all. Young and old, rich and poor alike. Your use of "we" to describe geocachers "in the know" implies somehow that a "they" exists. If "they" just started caching today, then "they" are already a member of the geocaching community are they not?


Just say no to geocaching elitsim. I say!


i think that 10 caches is a good limit to find before putting up a new cache


The current rules are good, and good enough. The FTF folks take the risk that the find won't be the greatest in the world, but they do it for the fun. They are our first line of defense to tell the gc community if a cache is any good or not.


I don't think 10 finds will make your cache any less cool then if you logged 8 finds, or 1 find or a 1000 finds.


You either have the skill or you need to work on it some more. I've seen some experienced cachers make pretty big mistakes. But that is part of the fun of the game, is that you may have too work a little to find the cache.

Edited by bcummings
Link to comment


The current rules are good, and good enough. The FTF folks take the risk that the find won't be the greatest in the world, but they do it for the fun. They are our first line of defense to tell the gc community if a cache is any good or not.



Unfortunately, in most locations, you can't count on the "FTF folks" to let you know if the cache is any good or not.


I stopped being the FTF guinea pig long before I stopped logging finds online.


No thanks. It only helped to encourage my growing pissy-ness re: the game due to factors OTHER THAN 'goodness' of the cache. Most frequently it was coordinates that were not quite representative of the cache location.


Interestingly enough I was just looking at new local caches a couple of days ago and noticed that most of the active locals (which only number a small handful) had tried to FTF a new cache... separately from one another. As if the logs from the first... or second... attempt weren't enough to dissuade anyone, they kept going out.


I have no idea what the problem was/continues to be, but my guess is extremely wrong coordinates... not just a few hundred feet... but maybe a county or two.

Link to comment

I think I probably made less silly errors when I was a noob because I was paranoid enough to double check everything.


I totally agree, as a relatively noob (only 12 caches hidden) I have been very conscientious about how and where my caches are hidden and maintained. I was careful about my coordinates, and double-checked by walking away and then making sure the GPS brought me back to the cache. There is more of a problem with old pros with 100+ caches hidden and no active maintenance.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...