+T1ASM_JWOOD Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I would like to see an additional cache category added to differentiate micro-caches from traditional caches. Perhaps I am the only one, but I am not much interested in micro-caches, and it would be nice to be able to tell from the notify e-mail which new caches are not micro-caches rather than having to go to the cache page and read the description. What do you think? Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 This has been discussed, ad nauseum, in the past. Do a search. Oh wait... Micro is a size not a type. You can already filter cache sizes. Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Oh and by the way, many people don't seem to realize that the nearest cache lists *do* show the cache size. Micro Small Regular Large Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 It's often requested. While micro's are a container size most cachers have a love hate relatinoship with them. A micro catagory isn't a bad idea for the same reason that everone already treats them as a catagory. If you are a paying member you can filter your searches to avoid micros. Link to comment
+The Blue Quasar Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Micros aren't a Cache Type catagory, for the same reason that Offsets aren't There is nothing about a MICRO that sets it apart from the other Cache Types. It's still either a Traditional or Multi or Mystery/Puzzle. Perhaps defining how a MICRO can stand apart from what we already have would help. The Blue Quasar Link to comment
Hugh Jazz Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 You can also filter them out quite easily using GSAK. What would be good would be a separate category for Lame caches. Those are very difficult to filter out using any means. A separate category would really help there. Link to comment
+forman Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 What would be good would be a separate category for Lame caches. Those are very difficult to filter out using any means. A separate category would really help there. I think the 'IGNORE' feature is for that. Make sure to check it on the PQ's. Link to comment
+beejay&esskay Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 What would be good would be a separate category for Lame caches. Those are very difficult to filter out using any means. A separate category would really help there. I think the 'IGNORE' feature is for that. Make sure to check it on the PQ's. Yes, but it would be more effective if the cache owner were to add it as an attribute. Link to comment
+Marky Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 What would be good would be a separate category for Lame caches. Those are very difficult to filter out using any means. A separate category would really help there. I think the 'IGNORE' feature is for that. Make sure to check it on the PQ's. Yes, but it would be more effective if the cache owner were to add it as an attribute. The cache owner already indicates the size, no other information is needed. Link to comment
Hugh Jazz Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Yes, but it would be more effective if the cache owner were to add it as an attribute. Yes, absolutely. I won't know a cache is LAME until I go do it, at which time I've just done a lame cache. If the cache owner had a way of marking it as Lame, then if I could filter those out, that would save me the trouble of finding another lame one. For the humor impaired: This post is of course in jest. Who would label their own cache lame? Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Who would label their own cache lame? I know of at least one!! Link to comment
+JDandDD Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 Micros are containers just like any other traditional cache. Size is the only difference. People tend to complain about micros because they tend to be lame. I agree that micros under lamp posts fit that category for me. But sometimes micros can be terrific and are the best type of container for the area. I have found a few of those and any large container would have been possible and I have put out two for the same reason. We shouldn't generalize like happens so much on this site. Some micros are lame but so are some regular size caches. If you filter out caches just because the size is micro you are going to miss some really great spots and hides from my experience. JDandDD Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 I think that micros should have their own icon, so that some people could avoid them easier, and others would seek them out. Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 For the humor impaired: This post is of course in jest. Who would label their own cache lame? We know a couple of old farts who did. It's right below the D/T ratings on the cache page Here Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 I think that micros should have their own icon, so that some people could avoid them easier, and others would seek them out. Micros *do* have their own icon: Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 And thanks to GPX Spinner, they have their own icon on my GPS screen, as well. Link to comment
+BBWolf+3Pigs Posted December 25, 2005 Share Posted December 25, 2005 Who would label their own cache lame? I know of at least one!! And this one. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 Yes, but it would be more effective if the cache owner were to add it as an attribute. Yes, absolutely. I won't know a cache is LAME until I go do it, at which time I've just done a lame cache. If the cache owner had a way of marking it as Lame, then if I could filter those out, that would save me the trouble of finding another lame one. For the humor impaired: This post is of course in jest. Who would label their own cache lame? I do. Link to comment
+Packanack Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 It may have been labeled Lame, but in fact it was not. I have been to Cleveland Bridge a couple of times and it is an historic and interesting place. With some memorable nearby caches. So even though it was labeled lame it did not qualify. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b9-e3d5e084a605 is a cache designed to be lame. It is actually very amusing, it takes you to a guardrail- One guy logs parked 15 feet away "needed the exercise" You can literally pull up and reach out your window for this one . it is in a mall parking lot, but the mall is closed. Everyone seems to have fun with the concept. Now with a day off, I am thinking where should I go today. Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Oh, heck, I even labelled one of my caches as lame! #11 7 of 9. Of course, it is a mystery cache, but it is in a Walmart parking lot. Lame! Link to comment
+Wandering Bears Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Fatboy's Latest Lame Cache Link to comment
Lowsky Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 What do you expect in a film can??? Anyway if you are in the zip code area 21061 look for this micro. I just found it and while the container was lame the containers container was far out. GCNW42 [howling at moon] Link to comment
+badlands Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Who would label their own cache lame? I know of at least one!! And this one. And another one Lamey Lamerson's Lame Cache of Lamity Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Who would label their own cache lame? I found this lame cache 239 on this list (but it also includes "flame" and "Alameda") Link to comment
Recommended Posts