Jump to content

What is a lame cache?


El Diablo

Recommended Posts

In my opinion, a lame cache is one placed in:

 

High Crime Areas

Trash filled areas

In Shopping Centers

In full view of homes without the homeowner's knowledge.

 

A great cache is one placed in an area such as a:

Park

Hiking Trail

A historical place of interest

In a scenic area.

Link to comment

What do you consider a lame cache?

 

A cache placed in a location that brings me to a nasty area, trash, broken glass, medical biohazards and the cache owner tells me that I don't have to dig through trash to find it.

 

Okay well I wasn't planning to, but come on seriously, why did you bring me here?

 

 

That's probably the main thing.

Link to comment

Any cache that takes me to a place where the only reason for being there is to find the cache.

 

Any cache where the total value of container/log/contents is worth less than the loose change I can find under my truck seat.

Edited by gnbrotz
Link to comment

  • Caches requiring stealth.
  • Caches clearly placed for no other reason than a number.
  • Anything in a shopping center parking lot.
  • Anything where you can not retrieve the cache, sign it, and replace without fear of being "caught" and having to either explain or go home knowing you just looked like some common criminal. (an exception would be if there is a good reason to bring you to the place other than another find. Wish we had virts)
  • Anything that could have used either a better or larger container but the owner's were too lazy to do so.
  • Any cache that has to put warnings on the page like "If you don't like this type of cache, then please don't search for it.". Seems the owner's already know it's lame and don't care.
  • Any cache claiming to be an evil micro hide, when there are at least 3 others of the same exact type already placed within 10 miles.
  • Any cache placed for no other purpose than some other game or competition. The owner's don't take the time to place it thoughtfully, they are in a hurry to win.
  • Caches listed as kid friendly yet are next to a busy highway or in a parking lot. What do these people think my kids want to do in either place?
  • Poorly placed caches that continue to fall apart due to lack of foresight on the owner's part.
  • Micros in the woods where the impact on the area is way more than would have ever been done with a regular cache.

To Be Continued Later...

Link to comment

The only lame cache is one that wasn't hidden near where I might stay on a business trip, leaving me with nothing to find.

 

The main thing that would be lame about it is if it wasn't hidden on account of pressure from others not to hide that particular kind of cache (whether it be a Wal-Mart, or a guard rail, or a cammo'd box near a path in a park).

 

[El D, I hope that doesn't count as a rant. If so, PM me, and I'll be happy to remove it]

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

The only lame cache is one that wasn't hidden near where I might stay on a business trip, leaving me with nothing to find.

 

The main thing that would be lame about it is if it wasn't hidden on account of pressure from others not to hide that particular kind of cache (whether it be a Wal-Mart, or a guard rail, or a cammo'd box near a path in a park).

 

[El D, I hope that doesn't count as a rant. If so, PM me, and I'll be happy to remove it]

 

Not a rant...you're good. :rolleyes:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

What do you consider a lame cache? I don't really want to hear any rants, just a simple reply as to your difinition please.

 

El Diablo

 

There are no lame caches, somebody had fun hiding it an someone will have fun finding it even just for a smiley

 

No rant here

 

By the way you misspelled definition also

 

Joe

Link to comment

So far, the only lame caches I have been to have been ones are made of 'Gladware' type containers, on which no maintenance has been done, despite the fact that the insides are completely soaked.

 

However, even I have found some in that condition in incredibly beautiful places, so I couldn't even call it a hard and fast rule.

 

There have been caches I have been UNCOMFORTABLE doing, but that doesn't mean they stink...

Link to comment

Any cache that has a wet log book where the cause of the logbook being wet is the design is a lame cache, this is my opinion. It isn't a maintenance issue, if a cache owner replaces the soaked logbook with a dry one every time someone complains it is still a lame cache, the logbook should not get wet. It isn't location, if a cache is in a wonderful place that I have never seen and the logbook is wet because the cache design allows the logbook to get wet, it is a lame cache. A lame cache is one where the cache design allows the logbook to get wet.

In my experience the wet logbook can almost always be traced back to a poorly informed design decision on the part of the placer, wet logbooks are often related to containers that are incapable of protecting the logbook in the hiding spot selected.

I have never met a cacher who argued that a wet logbook might have redeeming qualities. :rolleyes:

Edited by wavector
Link to comment

Any cache that has a wet log book where the cause of the logbook being wet is the design is a lame cache, this is my opinion. It isn't a maintenance issue, if a cache owner replaces the soaked logbook with a dry one every time someone complains it is still a lame cache, the logbook should not get wet. It isn't location, if a cache is in a wonderful place that I have never seen and the logbook is wet because the cache design allows the logbook to get wet, it is a lame cache. A lame cache is one where the cache design allows the logbook to get wet.

In my experience the wet logbook can almost always be traced back to a poorly informed design decision on the part of the placer, wet logbooks are often related to containers that are incapable of protecting the logbook in the hiding spot selected.

I have never met a cacher who argued that a wet logbook might have redeeming qualities. :rolleyes:

 

Um..ok...give me a minute...A wet log book is good because...um...it...is...um...ah...yes...well...lets see...um...Well on its way to...um...well...becoming "BIO DEGRADED!" Yes, that's it biodegraded, you know, the whole back to nature, recycled thing.

Hows that?

I gave it my best shot.

Link to comment

What do you consider a lame cache? I don't really want to hear any rants, just a simple reply as to your difinition please.

 

El Diablo

 

There are no lame caches, somebody had fun hiding it an someone will have fun finding it even just for a smiley

 

No rant here

 

By the way you misspelled definition also

 

Joe

 

Good point Max.

 

Maybe it is the seekers that are lame.

 

The only lame cache for me is one I don't like!

 

This changes depending on how I feel that day. Do I feel like a good hike, or maybe just a smiley on the way home cause I haven't had time to hike or even look for one for awhile.

 

A wet logbook isn't a lame cache, just a lame container! (now someone can start a rant on lame containers :rolleyes:)

Link to comment

There are several factors which, for me, can increase a particular cache's LQ, (Lameness Quotiant), including;

  1. Uninteresting locations, (Wally World/Burger King/Etc)
  2. Containers not suitable for the environment, (micro in woods/ammo box at a courthouse/etc)
  3. Poorly worded cache pages, (looks like a 5 year old typed it)
  4. Poor maintenance, (especialy after repeated NM logs)

The list is not all inclusive, and other factors certainly apply. Many caches that might increase their LQ due to one or more issues, often lose LQ points due to additional effort in other areas.

Link to comment

The only cache I have considered lame so far (I hunt everything) was one where multiple finders stated that the coordinates were off by over 60 feet. Nothing was done by the hider to either correct them or verify them. I needed 3 tries to find it, and it was only after another finder posted his coords!

 

Un-ranty version: To me the most likely thing that would make me consider it "lame" would be bad coords (assuming it is observed by multiple searchers....)

Link to comment
A wet logbook isn't a lame cache, just a lame container!

 

There are definitions that focus on some other aspect of a cache hide but I think the focus on the logbook is beneficial for several reasons. The condition of the logbook has an immediate impact on every finder. The condition of the logbook can be assessed objectively. If the importance of a readable, signable logbook was emphasized it would have a lot of implications, it would encourage hiders to imagine what was going to happen with their hides as time passed.

I never mentioned the container but you are right in noting that the condition of the logbook is often dependent on the container. The container is the container, I agree with you there as well, but if that is the case then the cache might be seen as the logbook, the container and the goods. Protecting, presenting and preserving that logbook is the purpose of the container. You can leave the goods out of a hide, the container can be left out as well but the logbook can't be left out. :rolleyes:

I know that people have clear ideas about lame and in my mind it is the wet logbook. I can't avoid it, I have to deal with it and it is something that happens a lot. It's not that I disagree with others here, a lot of conditions might make a cache lame but El Diablo asked and for me, soggy, waterlogged and wet are the very essence of lame.

 

Edited to add : On rereading I see I did mention the container but didn't intend to do that, any container might be appropriate for a cache and the choice is related to the location. I didn't want to focus on container choice as much as suitability.

Edited by wavector
Link to comment

Lame cache indicators:

  • missing travel bugs never get removed from the page.
  • that stupid red plus sign stays on with the attributes for the lifespan of the world wide web.
  • the list of DNFs keeps growing year after year with no indication that it's still there (and the gardener can't understand why people continue to destroy his hedge).
  • the reviewer won't archive it until it gets at least as many SBAs as it takes signatures to run for mayor.
  • the FTF finder says "You'd better come and find this one quick, because it's not going to last," and the STF says, "Dang, I missed it."

Link to comment
A wet logbook isn't a lame cache, just a lame container!

 

There are definitions that focus on some other aspect of a cache hide but I think the focus on the logbook is beneficial for several reasons. The condition of the logbook has an immediate impact on every finder. The condition of the logbook can be assessed objectively. If the importance of a readable, signable logbook was emphasized it would have a lot of implications, it would encourage hiders to imagine what was going to happen with their hides as time passed.

I never mentioned the container but you are right in noting that the condition of the logbook is often dependent on the container. The container is the container, I agree with you there as well, but if that is the case then the cache might be seen as the logbook, the container and the goods. Protecting, presenting and preserving that logbook is the purpose of the container. You can leave the goods out of a hide, the container can be left out as well but the logbook can't be left out. :rolleyes:

I know that people have clear ideas about lame and in my mind it is the wet logbook. I can't avoid it, I have to deal with it and it is something that happens a lot. It's not that I disagree with others here, a lot of conditions might make a cache lame but El Diablo asked and for me, soggy, waterlogged and wet are the very essence of lame.

Luckily most wet logbooks are easily fixed. I'll leave a dry logbook in cool cache that has had the misfortune of becoming wet inside. Many cool caches become wet inside because some other cacher has not sealed the container properly. One time I found an ammo box that was left open! There was three inches of water inside and the contents were completely covered in mold! How stupid is that! :unsure: But even that ruined cache still took me to an awesome location! <_<
Link to comment

Well, when "lame" comes up in the forums, I normally automatically think micros. Could be just me though. :rolleyes: In that case, put me down for everything PghLooking said!! I especially like the bullet point about "Stealth required".

 

But I'm seeing some other great points here. Poorly worded cache descriptions that look like a 5 yr. old typed them, Bad coords where they are not corrected by the owner, (especially when others post alternate coords) and lack of maintenance by the owner where there are many calls for it in the logs.

 

All "lame", although I guess I didn't come up with anything that hasn't already been said.

Link to comment
2) Any cache that I don't have fun at.
This is a great way to say it! <_< It is interesting to note that there are many caches that were fun for me in the past, but they aren't fun for me anymore. I have also learned to really appreciate the caches that have always been really fun to find! :rolleyes: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

What do you consider a lame cache? I don't really want to hear any rants, just a simple reply as to your difinition please.

 

El Diablo

 

<groan>

Any cache that has to use crutches.

</groan>

 

Any cache put there just because there isn't a cache there, which you then go and find just to remove it from your 'closest caches' list. A cache that neither the hider or the finder get much fun out of.

Link to comment
One time I found an ammo box that was left open!

 

I had an ammo can cache come apart along the hinges in a finders hands and they couldn't get it back together! They noted the problem in the online log and I was able to get to the cache and remedy the situation. You are right, the wet logbook can be caused by factors beyond the cache hiders control and in that case I really don't think the cache is lame.

I replaced a cache this summer that was in a great location. When I found the cache it was in a parmesan cheese bottle with the shaker part of the lid missing so it was a lid full of holes. The parmesan cheese bottle had been placed by another geocacher who added it to try and protect the baggie which was the original container. The logbook was a piece of hotel paper with some lines of blurry ink that looked like it had been thrown in a puddle then sort of dried. The location was beautiful and the experience would have been enjoyable even without the geocache but I did think the cache itself was lame. The original hider chose a baggie and this failed to protect the logbook because it was placed on an open mountainside, it wasn't a suitable container for that location.

You make a good point about location, one of the reasons I enjoy geocaching is seeing cool locations but if I go to a cool spot and find a wet logbook in the geocache I still generally view that as a lame cache. I understand the unavoidable circumstance but most of the wet logbooks I have encountered have been entirely avoidable.

Link to comment

I would agree that location is the key here. I'd rather find a 35mm film canister in a really neat spot than a well stocked ammo can in an stupid one. But I'd hesitate to call any cache (at least those that I've found so far) lame. Even parking lot micros, while not particularly interesting locations, can offer their own unique challenge.

Link to comment

Caches placed with little thought or intention of bringing you to a worthwhile spot.

 

Amen! I'm not even all that picky about worthwhile spots, but if I have to honestly ask myself "Why the frig would someone put a cache here???" when I get to the cache site, then its a lame cache.

Link to comment

What do you consider a lame cache? I don't really want to hear any rants, just a simple reply as to your difinition please.

 

El Diablo

 

A lame cache is one on a dumpster behind a shopping center, on a guardrail along a highway, in the bushes of a fast food place, or under a lamp post skirt. The reason is that these types of caches don't lead me to any place I would like to go for an adventure. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Garbage dump sites, Non-waterproof containers, lampposts, NRV (no redeaming value). NRV is a series in the area here....luckily not everyone who contributed to the series stuck with the theme exactly. But a few certainly did.

sign0003.gif

I noticed that acronym when I drove through your area few months ago. "NRV" sounds deceptively cool. :rolleyes:

 

My feeling for a "lame cache" isn't the same from day to day, but it's the wrong combination of the following:

- location near a business, like Wal-Mart, restaurant...

- ho-hum hide technique, like film can in the lamp post skirt, magnetic <whatever> under the bench, guardrail, etc.

- repulsive location, near homeless encampments, garbage dumps...

- needle-in-a-haystack, like ivy, rock piles...

- misleading hints due to paranoia (trying to prevent cheating? <_< )

 

I could go on, but these sum it for me. If it's just one of the above, I see hope and don't consider it lame.

Link to comment

While try not to be a rant, I'd like to reverse it and state what I think makes an INTERESTING cache.

  • A decent hike (>=0.25 miles) in a sparsely populated area
  • Nifty little-known history
  • Great scenery
  • Unusual hide (suspended in a tree, on an island that you have to canoe to)
  • Thought-provoking puzzle
  • Cool camo or really neat container
  • Long history of being at that spot (old cache that's been around for a long while)
  • Good theme (and people are sticking to it)

Any one of these characteristics on a cache, and I'll think it's pretty cool. Combine a few, and it scores more points. But if it doesn't have a single one of those characteristics, I'll be asking myself why I was brought here. If I have to ask myself that, I would think the cache was disappointing.

Link to comment

I think everyone will have a different idea of what a lame cache is. It just depends on where you live and what type of caches everyone does. Around here probably light post caches. I loved them when I first found them but now when I pull up to a light pull I see if I can get close enough in my vehicle so I don't have to waste the energy of getting out of the car LOL.

Link to comment

To me a lame cache is a cache placed for no reason than to place a cache.

 

A good cache will have some redeeming factor. It could be a place of historic interest, an oddity or otherwise unique feature, a scenic spot, or just a nice walk.

 

Some people would add clever hides and challenging puzzles, but to me a clever hide or a challenging puzzle that brings you next to the 7-Eleven dumpster or a homeless encampment is still lame. There still needs to be something appealing about the area.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I personally don't beleive there are any "lame" caches. It's just that everyone has their type of cache that they prefer, and anything else they call "lame".

I prefer a nice walk in the woods and a challenging hide, but I don't think everything else is "lame".

A cache hidden in a trash or dangerous area is just plain stupid.

 

That's my opinion and I'm stickin to it!

Link to comment

Right on Max Cacher

“There are no lame caches, somebody had fun hiding it and someone will have fun finding it even just for a smiley”.

 

If the cache gets you off the couch and out the door, its not lame.

 

Some of us do not have the 1000 plus acres of wilderness to hike in.

With a dozen or so city parks, with multiple caches in each one,

With over 761 hides within 17.36 miles of home, it does not leave much for new cachers

To place hides in.

 

Sorry for the small rant.

:santa:

Link to comment

I think the majority of lame caches have been covered above. One of the ones I don't care for are the needle-in-a-haystack hides, (Fake rock in a boulder field, fake leaf or camo film can laying in the middle of the woods, Mr. Magneto on an iron railroad bridge full of rivets) especially if satellite reception is bad in the area or it's out in the open and stealth is required. Some folks call them evil. I think evil is a cache that someone put some thought and effort into. Not just tossing a little container into a spot where it instantly dissapears.

Link to comment

Here's my list:

 

- Any cache that I can't find (especially when others have no problem

- Any cache that I look for when I'm really not in the mood to do so

- Any cache hidden under a pile of sticks (haven't we seen that hide style enough?)

- Any cache that results in ticks crawling on me (sure I could have put on repellant, but hiders should know better).

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I've hidden my (small) share of caches that would be considered both "lame" and "interesting" as per the definitions (or anti-definitions) posted so far in this thread. I've been trying to make my caches less lame, which generally means requiring some effort on the part of the hider or the finder, or both.

 

However, my lamest caches are the ones that get found most often. It just burns me up to spend hours preparing a cache that takes you to a beautiful location and forces you to use your brain just a wee smidgen of a bit only to have nobody bother to try to find it (despite TBs, coins, and other rewards). Meanwhile, the film cans in lamp skirts at the nearby 7-Elevens are getting hit every day.

 

I am starting to get the feeling that folks like lame caches.

Edited by ePeterso2
Link to comment

I've hidden my (small) share of caches that would be considered both "lame" and "interesting" as per the definitions (or anti-definitions) posted so far in this thread. I've been trying to make my caches less lame, which generally means requiring some effort on the part of the hider or the finder, or both.

 

However, my lamest caches are the ones that get found most often. It just burns me up to spend hours preparing a cache that takes you to a beautiful location and forces you to use your brain just a wee smidgen of a bit only to have nobody bother to try to find it (despite TBs, coins, and other rewards). Meanwhile, the film cans in lamp skirts at the nearby 7-Elevens are getting hit every day.

 

I am starting to get the feeling that folks like lame caches.

People like convenience, it has nothing to do with 'lameness'. I have a cache that sees a visit about once per year. That's fine with me as the people who do find it claim to enjoy it. There is no point in comparing it to other caches.

Link to comment

The only thing that bugs me is a cache hidden in an area covered in trash, with no other redeeming qualities and not even a note to advise CITO.

 

I recently went after one in Warner Robbins, Ga that a long time poster here said was one of his favorites..... it was in the same area as a homeless person. That was a little disappointing.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...