I'm dissapointed.

[Trinity's Crew]

No one ever promised that all caches will be fun. In fact, the enjoyment one gets from this hobby has a lot more to do with one's inner attitudes and motivations than with any specific type of existing or future hide method.

 

Those of you who are bitching about other volunteer, amateur, fellow participants' lack of inspiration should be ashamed of yourselves. If pointing that out is uncivil, then excuse me -- i can't think of any more diplomatic way to phrase it.

 

Whining that "sometimes I find caches that aren't fun" implies a lack of patience with your fellow man that indicates maybe Geocaching is not for you. Nothing wrong with that.

 

If my opinion makes me a "Defender O' Crap" then slap that D.O.C. badge on me!!

 

Well said. I'm sending in my self-adressed, stamped envelope for my D.O.C. badge right now!

[+CheshireFrog]

Inappropriate: Hiding a cache by throwing it waaaaay up in the air.

 

Rationale: Actually, this is a pretty effective hide, but only for very short periods of time. Also, the jury is still out on whther this constitutes a travelling cache, since the coords remain the same but the altitude changes.

[+El Diablo]

I believe the OP's dissapointment was not that there were too many park 'n grabs vs. hiking caches, or even that many park 'n grabs were not in interesting locations, but rather that he has been finding many of these park 'n grabs in questionable locations. The example he gave was dumpsters in the rear of shopping centers. There is a lot of conern that such caches have the potential to

1. turn-off people from geocaching
   
2. get people in trouble looking in places where hunting for a cache could be seen as suspicious activity
   

In addition, most these caches rarely explicity state if permission was granted. This raise a question of whether reviewers should be more involved in ensuring adequate permission for caches in these locations.

 

I suspect that caches are hidden in these locations because they tend to last longer than in high muggle areas in front of shopping centers and that some cachers prefer looking where there are fewer muggles around. I would not suggest banning this sort of hides. If you are unconfortable looking for any cache, you should just abort your search. You can log a DNF expressing your concerns. It might get deleted, but then again, some hiders may take it as constructive criticism and will improve their next hide.

 

You summed that up well. Thank you! Also I agree with Moose Mob, please try to keep this civil so that we may all get something from the various opinions offered.

 

Someone way back made a good statement about hiding quality caches to set an example to the local community. I agree with this statement. I've hidden about 1 cache to every 10 found. All I believe are quality caches.

 

I'm not against micros or park and grabs. I'm pretty much limited to doing them at this point in time. Some of the best caches I've found in the last 5 years have been micros in urban places. It's not the size of the cache but more of the thought behind it.

 

As far as needing permission to place caches in shopping centers? I still think it should be required. It may be a public parking area to allow access to the busines establishments in that area, but it doesn't give you the right to do anything else. What if I wanted to play a game of paintball there? Or set up a skateboarding ramp? You think it would be allowed? We aren't just parking in these area, we are pulling up skirting from around a light pole with electrical wires running through them.

 

Thanks for all the opinions. Even the ones that disagree with me have given me some things to think about.

 

El Diablo

Edited September 6, 2006 by El Diablo

[+Quest Master]

Everyone should hide caches they would like to find and ignore caches that they would not like to find.

So everyone should have psychic powers and know everything about the cache ahead of time, so that they can avoid those they don't like.

 

What a helpful suggestion.

 

It works very well if you start from the position that there's no such thing as a lame cache. The defenders of crap don't need psychic powers nor do they have to comb the listings looking for something worthwhile to hunt. It's the rest of us that are left to be disappointed.

[+kklems]

Stop for a second and think about all the opinions expressed in this thread. It seems that the consensus is that a cache should bring you to a place of interest. Did it occur to anyone that maybe some of the people hiding these micros find these places to be of interest? It is very possible that they work in that area, live in that area, shop in that area etc. It is a place they are comfortable with and know. To them that crappy area is home.

 

Than the argument that people should have no problem affording to $6 or $10 or $20 to hide a "quality cache" Well maybe some people do. What about when the finders don't take the time to return the hide properly or are not discrete and it gets muggled. Another $10 down the drain to replace it. It is essentially free to hide a film canister micro. If all you care about is "the hide and the location you take me to" than why do you need a special container, or trade items? Is it about the area or the swag? Does an ammo can make the hide any more special?

 

People harp on about being in trashy, homeless areas but don't other threads discuss people hunting a certain "psycho" urban cache in a park teeming with homeless folks etc. (No I am not complaining about this one but my point is that this hide is ok but others ones aren't? It doesn't sound like this is any more redeeming location wise than the local homeless shelter but people still seek it out)

 

As far as granting permission. In my area there are a couple of prolific micro hiders and they post that permission was obtained on every one. I won't go out of my way looking for most of there hides since I have gotten used to their style (Although after 50 or so micros they are starting to get a little better) When one is particurally good or bad I will note that in my log as well. For instance, as part of the Hermits Quest game I needed a cache that I hadn't found that was related to a food establishment (not exactly but I forget the exact verbage) One of these caches fit the bill perfectly so I sought it out. It was placed on a temporary storage container in rocks, gravel, broken glass etc. In my log I voiced my displeasure at such a cache, heck there was even a metal stairway that would have been better. Last month I had found a cache and noticed that in the same area was another one I hadn't seen before so I followed the arrow and lo and behold it brought me to part of the city I hadn't known existed (an rc car track) which seemed really neat and something I will maybe do with the kids in the future. That log reflected the fun I had at finding the area.

 

Bottom line is if you don't like a cache let the owner know why and offer an alternative. Better yet quit crabbing and hid one of your own as an example.

 

Lastly, I think it is sad that some people are so presumptuous as to log a SBA just because they don't like a type of cache.

[+Mudfrog]

It works very well if you start from the position that there's no such thing as a lame cache. The defenders of crap don't need psychic powers nor do they have to comb the listings looking for something worthwhile to hunt. It's the rest of us that are left to be disappointed.

 

There are and always will be lame caches, at least in each of our opinions. I too wish that people would put more effort into some of their hides. Unfortunately, some don't so you're going to be extremely disappointed if you have the notion that all caches are going to be perfect. I do understand El Diablo's and others' concerns, but geocaching is like everything else we do in life. There are aspects of it that will never be perfect so ya gotta expect the bad to come along with the good.

 

Allthough it's not 100%, we can help ourselves by looking at cache pages, talking to fellow cachers, and doing some filtering to help weed out the undesireables. Bad, uninspiring, lame caches are still going to slip through but so what. Don't let these ruin your fun!

[+Team Torque]

Thank goodness we have a new fresh topic to discuss.

 

This seems real simple to me. Just be honest in the logs and public embarrassment should take care of the crap cashes.

 

Or we can just set around here and whine about bad caches and continue to find magnets stuck to the side of dumpsters while some people try to defend the right of crap cashes to exist. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

[CoyoteRed]

This seems real simple to me. Just be honest in the logs and public embarrassment should take care of the crap cashes.

 

The problem is, and will continue to be, few of these will survive to be read by others.

 

Critiquing a cache on its cache page is like critiquing a book on the author's website. It's not going to stick.

 

Until there is some sort of rating system in place complaining in the forums is the only avenue available.

[+Runaround]

This seems real simple to me. Just be honest in the logs and public embarrassment should take care of the crap cashes.

 

This won't work as long as cache owners can delete logs.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Thank goodness we have a new fresh topic to discuss.

 

This seems real simple to me. Just be honest in the logs and public embarrassment should take care of the crap cashes.

 

Or we can just set around here and whine about bad caches and continue to find magnets stuck to the side of dumpsters while some people try to defend the right of crap cashes to exist. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

 

I've read the logs that criticise the caches, whether it was a find or a DNF. I tend to think less of the cachers who write those logs than the caches. I think a message sent to the cacher would be more appropriate. I'd respect that more if someone thought one of my hides sucked. I'd take the criticism into much greater consideration through email than I would in the log. In email, I'd feel like the cacher wanted to help me. In the log, I'd feel like the cacher wanted to vindicate zirself in some way. So, "public embarassment" wouldn't work on me the way the cacher would want it to.

 

That's just my take on that.

 

As far as the actual OP issues, I agree with both sides: The Defenders Of Crap and The Cache Connoisseurs. I don't think there's a way to effectively enforce any standard guidelines from the website, though. The TOS is very clear about weapons and food not being in caches, but people still complain about having to remove those items (and worse). The sport is just too big.

 

- HauntHunters

[+cachew nut]

This seems real simple to me. Just be honest in the logs and public embarrassment should take care of the crap cashes.

This won't work, so let's not even try.

[+El Diablo]

This seems real simple to me. Just be honest in the logs and public embarrassment should take care of the crap cashes.

This won't work, so let's not even try.

 

I agree. Most people, myself included don't like to publicly humiliate people, and to do so would cause more harm than good in the long run. We are all thankful for caches placed. How to tell someone it's crappy is a whole new world. At least to me.

 

El Diablo

[Mr.Yuck]

Yep. "The Defenders O' Crap" have arrived.

 

Whaddya talking about? All I see is an Avatar. About 15 times, unfortunately

[+Confucius' Cat]

I'm always hoping the hider found something worthwhile to show me.

 

In other words, you can't reliably pre-determine a cache's worth until you've done it simply from the cache descriptions. We've done plenty of caches that looked interesting from the cache page, but were let down in the end.

 

Works both ways. It is always good to hope and many times that hope pans out. You really can't tell by the cache description most of the time.

 

Three more years of geocaching has only reinforced my opinion. One thing that has changed during that time is the proportion of "bad" to "good" caches, if my experience is typical. Cheap, shoddy, ill-placed caches seem to be becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Fits my experience too. Just tonight I drove through an area that a few years ago had no caches at all. Well, it's a lot (LOT he he get the pun? LOT- like you park in- he he ) better now! There is a cache in every parking lot on the strip! However, I am only assuming lamity, I did not find them. I have a general rule: if the coordinates seem to lead to a lamppost, i drive on. I'm quite sure I miss a lot of quality caches this way.

[+olbluesguy]

I don't have a great amount of finds, but I have been at this GPS thing a lot longer than even geocaching has been around. so I wouldn't equate low numbers with inexperiance.

My first unit had only two decimal places, but I got around quite well.

For health reasons I have become a hider of caches instead of a hunter.

I am leary of traveling into unfamilliar territory to hunt a cache, but I can make multiple trips into an area that I am familiar with to place a Quality cache.

I recently found a HTML type counter that you can put on your cache page, and have the finders rate your cache.

One vote per finder, and they remain anonymous. so if it sucks you don't have to wory about offending anyone when you say so.

I'm not afraid to put this on any of my hides,because it's is the most honest way to find outl if you have done a good job or not.

I wish it was already on the cache page here.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I recently found a HTML type counter that you can put on your cache page, and have the finders rate your cache.

One vote per finder, and they remain anonymous. so if it sucks you don't have to wory about offending anyone when you say so.

I'm not afraid to put this on any of my hides,because it's is the most honest way to find outl if you have done a good job or not.

I wish it was already on the cache page here.

 

I looked at one of yours and I didn't see how it enforces the "one vote" thing or how it prevents a non-finder from voting.

 

A big problem with this system is that, if it DOES require a find to vote, then it is not anonymous. It is a very simple matter for the cache owner, or anyone who wants to watchlist the cache to simply keep count as the finds and votes come in. i.e. today the count is 5 for 4 against... Joe cacher logs a find and the stats are 5 and 5. Wanna guess what joe cacher voted?

 

Does your system inhibit this?

[+JimmyEv]

So my question is why do you feel you have to place a cache? Is it so bad to not cover every possible location? If your town only has 15 interesting locations then only place 15 caches.

 

Because these are the ones that geocachers apparently like, judging from the number of times they're found. Round-trip hike of eight miles through palmetto-hardwood-bottomland forest? Four finders since December. Micro in the shopping center? Four finders since last weekend.

 

I got tired of these lame park and grabs about last year. They were boring. So I started doing only terrain 3.0-4.5. Then I ran out of money for all the travel that involves. So I adapted to the micros. Bicycling between them makes getting to each one a little adventure. And looking for every single one, no matter how 'lame', is cool because you get a break. And then they don't seem 'lame' anymore. It's all in the way you approach it.

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Because these are the ones that geocachers apparently like, judging from the number of times they're found. Round-trip hike of eight miles through palmetto-hardwood-bottomland forest? Four finders since December. Micro in the shopping center? Four finders since last weekend.

 

That's like saying that watching football on TV must be better than actually playing it because so many more people watch than play.

 

I would submit that the fact that they are EASIER is the primary reason more people find them. Kinda like how it's easier to watch a game than to play it.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Confucius' Cat

[+JimmyEv]

 

Because these are the ones that geocachers apparently like, judging from the number of times they're found. Round-trip hike of eight miles through palmetto-hardwood-bottomland forest? Four finders since December. Micro in the shopping center? Four finders since last weekend.

 

That's like saying that watching football on TV must be better than actually playing it because so many more people watch than play.

 

I would submit that the fact that they are EASIER is the primary reason more people find them. Kinda like how it's easier to watch a game than to play it.

 

I'm not saying anything is better than anything else. I'm pretty sure the reason more people go after these is because they're easier. Using your analogy: Putting football on TV for more people to enjoy isn't a bad thing. So why is putting out an easy cache that more people will enjoy a bad thing?

[+briansnat]

Because these are the ones that geocachers apparently like, judging from the number of times they're found. Round-trip hike of eight miles through palmetto-hardwood-bottomland forest? Four finders since December. Micro in the shopping center? Four finders since last weekend.

 

I don't know that this proves that people prefer shopping center micros. I know these parking lot cache-n-dashes get far more hits, but I think its because there is little time investment required. They are available to people passing through, people who want to grab a cache or two on their lunch hour, those who are just clearing out not founds within X miles of their house, etc..., while longer hikes and multis require that the finders set aside a good chunk of time. Time that people don't always have.

[+sbell111]

I guess it depends on whether you agree with the hypothesis that people place caches that they would enjoy finding.

In theory that sounds great, though I know it around here not to be true. We've got a handful of people that "love" to do our and others hiking caches, and then proceed to place micros in every parking lot available. They have the energy to find them, just seems they don't have that same energy to hide them. Course I think it also ties into numbers, they want to hide as many as possible and it takes a lot more time/work to actually go hike out and put one somewhere remote, or even think of a clever urban cache than to go around sticking film canisters in walls.

Perhaps they like both hiking caches and drive-up micros.

[+sbell111]

Everyone should hide caches they would like to find and ignore caches that they would not like to find.

So everyone should have psychic powers and know everything about the cache ahead of time, so that they can avoid those they don't like.

 

What a helpful suggestion.

Everyone should try to be less snarky. A practice that some use to do rarely, but now never do.

[+sbell111]

Inappropriate place: trash heap ...

 

Inappropriate: Homeless encampment. ...

Remember when cachers practiced CITO and tried to make the world better. That was nice. Sometimes, I miss that.

[+sbell111]

Inappropriate: functional birdhouses

Could the birdhouse really be used by a bird, or would it take a very close inspection to determine that it is not functional? If the answer is "yes" to either, don't use it.

 

Rationale: If a bird starts a family in your functional birdhouse, cache seekers could become home wreckers. If cache seekers need to get very close to your non-functional birdhouse to discover the difference, they could inadvertently disturb other legitimate birdhouses before investigating yours. They could also disturb legitimate birdhouses near other caches, based on their experience seeking yours.

OK, I agree with the statement that we shouldn't use functional birdhouses. However, I can't buy your non-functional birdhouse argument.

[CoyoteRed]

Inappropriate: functional birdhouses

Could the birdhouse really be used by a bird, or would it take a very close inspection to determine that it is not functional? If the answer is "yes" to either, don't use it.

 

Rationale: If a bird starts a family in your functional birdhouse, cache seekers could become home wreckers. If cache seekers need to get very close to your non-functional birdhouse to discover the difference, they could inadvertently disturb other legitimate birdhouses before investigating yours. They could also disturb legitimate birdhouses near other caches, based on their experience seeking yours.

OK, I agree with the statement that we shouldn't use functional birdhouses. However, I can't buy your non-functional birdhouse argument.

 

What I got out of it was advise to not make your non-functional birdhouse appear to be so much like a functional one that it takes close inspection. The idea is to not train folks to closely inspect all birdhouses to see if they really are birdhouse or caches.

 

There is one near here that from a distance you can't tell, but get to about 20' or so you can see the hole is blocked.

[+sbell111]

I think many people would agree that that is part of the fun. If you've never seen a cache like that, you might wander about fir a while before ever thinking to pay closer attention to the birdhouse.

[CoyoteRed]

Because these are the ones that geocachers apparently like, judging from the number of times they're found. Round-trip hike of eight miles through palmetto-hardwood-bottomland forest? Four finders since December. Micro in the shopping center? Four finders since last weekend.

 

I don't know that this proves that people prefer shopping center micros. I know these parking lot cache-n-dashes get far more hits, but I think its because there is little time investment required. They are available to people passing through, people who want to grab a cache or two on their lunch hour, those who are just clearing out not founds within X miles of their house, etc..., while longer hikes and multis require that the finders set aside a good chunk of time. Time that people don't always have.

 

I think the factors that get caches found more often include:

• Unique visits of folks to the area of the cache.
  
• Convenience.
  

Easily retrieved caches in tourist spots could easily garner a lot more finds than your typical cache off the beaten path--even a typical parking lot cache. Folks are going there anyway and there is a massive turn over of finders.

 

Places with easy parking, close to route of travel, low risk of close observation from muggles, easy to find, easy to retrieve, easy to return, and little to no restrictions on access are all going to contribute to a higher number of finds--even if the vast majority of the folks didn't like it. I figure the reason is the investment in finding it simply wasn't that much--less than researching whether it is worth finding.

 

Personally, this tells me that folks prefer convenience. I'd bet if you replaced nearly any micro with a regular it'd get found just as many times--especially park-n-grabs.

[+worldtraveler]

Inappropriate place: trash heap ...

 

Inappropriate: Homeless encampment. ...

Remember when cachers practiced CITO and tried to make the world better. That was nice. Sometimes, I miss that.

• Cachers still practice CITO.
  
• Sarcasm is an ineffective smokescreen.
  
• Please provide rationale for why trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations.
  

[+worldtraveler]

Inappropriate: functional birdhouses

Could the birdhouse really be used by a bird, or would it take a very close inspection to determine that it is not functional? If the answer is "yes" to either, don't use it.

 

Rationale: If a bird starts a family in your functional birdhouse, cache seekers could become home wreckers. If cache seekers need to get very close to your non-functional birdhouse to discover the difference, they could inadvertently disturb other legitimate birdhouses before investigating yours. They could also disturb legitimate birdhouses near other caches, based on their experience seeking yours.

OK, I agree with the statement that we shouldn't use functional birdhouses. However, I can't buy your non-functional birdhouse argument.

 

What I got out of it was advise to not make your non-functional birdhouse appear to be so much like a functional one that it takes close inspection. The idea is to not train folks to closely inspect all birdhouses to see if they really are birdhouse or caches.

 

There is one near here that from a distance you can't tell, but get to about 20' or so you can see the hole is blocked.

Thanks, CR. That is exactly what I meant. I think fake birdhouses make great cache locations as long as it can be observed from a reasonable distance that they are fake.

Edited September 6, 2006 by worldtraveler

[+sbell111]

... Personally, this tells me that folks prefer convenience. I'd bet if you replaced nearly any micro with a regular it'd get found just as many times--especially park-n-grabs.

I bet most of them would only be found once or twice.

 

Other than to point out that your motivation is truly anti-micro, rather than anti-lame, what was your point?

[+sbell111]

• Cachers still practice CITO.
  
• Sarcasm is an ineffective smokescreen.
  
• Please provide rationale for why trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations.
  

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs.

Edited September 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

Works both ways. It is always good to hope and many times that hope pans out. You really can't tell by the cache description most of the time.

 

I wouldn't say that, at least from what i've seen in my travels. I'm not a micro hater so don't get me wrong, but,, if the cache description says the cache is a micro then i have a pretty good idea (90%+ chance probability) that this cache is gonna be only so so. What's nice is that i go out with this expectation so it's very rarely a real disappointment when i do find them. If they happen to surprise me by being a great cache, then that's a bonus!

[+sbell111]

Certainly if it's a micro rated as a 1/1 there is a higher probability that many of the Cache Connoisseurs will find it offensive. If I were one of these people, I would likely filter out these caches until I had nothing 'better' to find.

[CoyoteRed]

... Personally, this tells me that folks prefer convenience. I'd bet if you replaced nearly any micro with a regular it'd get found just as many times--especially park-n-grabs.

I bet most of them would only be found once or twice.

 

Other than to point out that your motivation is truly anti-micro, rather than anti-lame, what was your point?

 

Actually, and as usual, you are wrong.

 

The point I was making was that it was not "lame micros" that folks prefer--if you're looking at number of finds equating to preference--but caches of convenience.

[+worldtraveler]

• Cachers still practice CITO.
  
• Sarcasm is an ineffective smokescreen.
  
• Please provide rationale for why trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations.
  

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs.

Okay, if I understand your rationale correctly, it is that trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations because they identify places in need of CITO. Did I get it right?

[+sbell111]

Actually, and as usual, you are wrong.

 

The point I was making was that it was not "lame micros" that folks prefer--if you're looking at number of finds equating to preference--but caches of convenience.

So your position is that every spot that now holds a micro is a viable spot for a larger cache? Surely, this is not your position.

[+sbell111]

Okay, if I understand your rationale correctly, it is that trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations because they identify places in need of CITO. Did I get it right?

My position is that these locations are not inherently bad spots for geocaches because placing a geocache there can flag them for CITO.

[+Mudfrog]

Certainly if it's a micro rated as a 1/1 there is a higher probability that many of the Cache Connoisseurs will find it offensive. If I were one of these people, I would likely filter out these caches until I had nothing 'better' to find.

 

Uh huh, this is my point. You threw in the difficulty ratings to help with your surmizing of the cache. That's what i'm getting at, that you can help yourself by doing a little cache page reading and some filtering. This is not going to be 100% accurate but it can certainly help cachers who are easily offended by lame caches.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

• Cachers still practice CITO.
  
• Sarcasm is an ineffective smokescreen.
  
• Please provide rationale for why trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations.
  

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs.

Okay, if I understand your rationale correctly, it is that trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations because they identify places in need of CITO. Did I get it right?

 

I just wanted to add that while caching in a local park, right by the playground (which didn't happen to have any children playing at the time), I was searching for a cache and was sexually harassed and threatened by a homeless man. He wouldn't leave me alone and he was between my car and me so I couldn't make a dash to escape if I needed to. The only people nearby were over 500ft away (with trees and brush in between us) at the tennis courts and I doubt they would have heard me or attempted to find me if I'd screamed for help.

 

I ended up DC'ing my husband. When his voice boomed over the walkie-talkie speaker, the homeless man ran to his bike and peddled away. I left, not caring about the cache anymore.

 

The experience has made me:

1. stop caching alone, even if I have a child or dog with me.

2. carry a mace baton.

 

I don't like my chest grabbed for or the suggestions of what I can do for someone "because it's been so long." But that's me. I would not go into a homeless camp or anywhere that leaves me too vulnerable to possibly dangerous people (which needn't necessarily be homeless people or anyone of any particular class). I haven't even managed to return to that park, where dozens of people go every day and activities (even geocache events) are hosted there. I've also repeatedly passed up an opportunity to look for a gazebo micro because the same man has been there. I don't think I could invalidate another person's reasons for not wanting to go into unsecured locations where there's no personal control, CITO or not, even if they're just being classist about it.

 

On the other hand, and I think this is the real root of it, for those of us who know what's too far out of our comfort zone, we sacrifice finding those caches. That's my decision and my decision shouldn't be forced on anyone else. After all, it's not me who had the problem in the park that day. I was just caching. I wasn't doing anything wrong. It was him. It's my choice not to put myself in that position again, even with company. Another person is more than able to go there and be fine.

 

- HauntHunters

Edited September 6, 2006 by HauntHunters

[+sbell111]

I just wanted to add that while caching in a local park, right by the playground (which didn't happen to have any children playing at the time), I was searching for a cache and was sexually harassed and threatened by a homeless man. ...

I have two thoughts on this. First, I'm sorry that this happened to you. It's sad that women cannot be safe in public when alone. Second, I hope you called the police. It has long been my position that the homeless are a law enforcement issue.

[+worldtraveler]

Okay, if I understand your rationale correctly, it is that trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations because they identify places in need of CITO. Did I get it right?

My position is that these locations are not inherently bad spots for geocaches because placing a geocache there can flag them for CITO.

Trash heaps:

My proposal specifically suggests locating caches no closer than twice the GPS accuracy reading from a trash heap. That will equate to no more than 100 ft. most of the time. If the purpose of the cache is to CITO that area, the cache should still not be hidden in or near the trash heap for reasons already given.

 

BTW, none of the caches I've found in or near trash heaps had any mention of the need for CITO on the cache page, so they evidently were not placed there for that purpose.

 

Homeless encampments:

It could be quite dangerous and possibly illegal to attempt to CITO a homeless encampment. The person(s) could have either explicit or implicit permission to be there. I doubt a reviewer would approve a cache if that intent was on the cache page.

[+tozainamboku]

Okay, if I understand your rationale correctly, it is that trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations because they identify places in need of CITO. Did I get it right?

My position is that these locations are not inherently bad spots for geocaches because placing a geocache there can flag them for CITO.

Trash heaps:

My proposal specifically suggests locating caches no closer than twice the GPS accuracy reading from a trash heap. That will equate to no more than 100 ft. most of the time. If the purpose of the cache is to CITO that area, the cache should still not be hidden in or near the trash heap for reasons already given.

 

BTW, none of the caches I've found in or near trash heaps had any mention of the need for CITO on the cache page, so they evidently were not placed there for that purpose.

 

Homeless encampments:

It could be quite dangerous and possibly illegal to attempt to CITO a homeless encampment. The person(s) could have either explicit or implicit permission to be there. I doubt a reviewer would approve a cache if that intent was on the cache page.

 

I have found cache hidden in junked cars and major appliances illegally dumped out in the desert. The hider knew about the illegal dump site and for whatever reason though it would be cool to bring someone there. Sure you can complain that he (or is it zie) was advertising the illegal dumping activity or that I may have gotten injured crawling over the the dump. If you want to ban caches there you might as well ban them in abandoned nuclear reactor containment buildings.

 

I have also found caches in or near homeless encampments. I have to believe that the hider was unaware of the homeless problem when hiding the cache. Caches near homeless encampments get muggled pretty quickly. I have a cache on a hiking trail near my house. To get to the cache you pass the homeless man's bed roll. I've never seen the guy there when I hiked by. I did post an alternative way to get to the cache, but you'll probably have more of a problem with the rich people on top of the hill who don't like outsiders parking on the city street they live on.

 

Caches will be placed in locations that some people find dangerous or uncomfortable to be in. Some are placed because the hider was unaware of the situation. Other times they are intentionally placed. I agree that a hider should make it clear what potential dangers exist so the cache can be avoided by someone who doesn't want to do it.

Edited September 6, 2006 by tozainamboku

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, and as usual, you are wrong.

 

The point I was making was that it was not "lame micros" that folks prefer--if you're looking at number of finds equating to preference--but caches of convenience.

So your position is that every spot that now holds a micro is a viable spot for a larger cache? Surely, this is not your position.

 

No, it's not my position, but then again, you already knew that.

[+cachew nut]

Personally, this tells me that folks prefer convenience. I'd bet if you replaced nearly any micro with a regular it'd get found just as many times--especially park-n-grabs.

You must mean convenience for the hider more than convenience for the finder. But how would the size matter if you replaced the film container behind the Walmart with a larger tupperware? Would it now be less lame because it's not a micro?

Edited September 6, 2006 by cachew nut

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Personally, this tells me that folks prefer convenience. I'd bet if you replaced nearly any micro with a regular it'd get found just as many times--especially park-n-grabs.

You must mean convenience for the hider more than convenience for the finder. But how would the size matter if you replaced the film container behind the Walmart with a larger tupperware? Would it now be less lame because it's not a micro?

 

Until it was muggled by dumster divers.

 

- HauntHunters

[+sbell111]

Trash heaps:

...none of the caches I've found in or near trash heaps had any mention of the need for CITO on the cache page, so they evidently were not placed there for that purpose.

Why would they need to tell you that there's trash there? You have eyes. You see trash. Pick it up.

Homeless encampments:

It could be quite dangerous and possibly illegal to attempt to CITO a homeless encampment. The person(s) could have either explicit or implicit permission to be there. I doubt a reviewer would approve a cache if that intent was on the cache page.

The mere fact that there is an increase in activity by non-homeless people often will be enough to cause the homeless to move along. Once they are gone, CITO the trash. BTW, why would one not notify the authorities of this issue?

[+Jhwk]

Every time I read this thread a little snippet of a cartoon pops up in my head:

 

"not lame"

 

wish I could think of which one it came from - maybe Cartman in South Park?

 

On second thought it may have been SpongeBob, with a twinkle in his eye.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Jhwk

[+fizzymagic]

• Cachers still practice CITO.
  
• Sarcasm is an ineffective smokescreen.
  
• Please provide rationale for why trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations.
  

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs.

So you think it's appropriate for cachers to "clean up" human feces and used needles while they are out caching.

 

Sigh.

[+sbell111]

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs.

So you think it's appropriate for cachers to "clean up" human feces and used needles while they are out caching.

 

Sigh.

I have yet to find either of those while caching. Either way, should these places not be cleaned up? I guess it would be OK with some if the entire world just became a cesspool. After all, it's not your responsibility to clean it.

 

<yawn>

Edited September 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs.

So you think it's appropriate for cachers to "clean up" human feces and used needles while they are out caching.

 

Sigh.

I have yet to find either of those while caching. Either way, should these places not be cleaned up? I guess it would be OK with some if the entire world just became a cesspool. After all, it's not your responsibility to clean it.

 

<yawn>

 

Then I guess you haven't read this post.

 

- HauntHunters

Edited September 6, 2006 by HauntHunters