What is a lame cache?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

We could differentiate between lame and stupid. Lame would denote a lack of effort and stupid would be poor judgment. All further definitions could arise from there.

 

Examples of lame:

• not taking the effort to find a nice place
  
• not taking the effort to cammo or waterproof the container
  
• not taking the effort to maintain or replace
  
• not taking the effort to make a bigger container work
  

Examples of stupid:

• placing in a dangerous or illegal spot
  
• bad choice of cammo, or obvious hiding spot
  
• placement near a dumpster or someplace insultingly unpleasant
  
• bad coordinates and a confusing web page
  

[+maggieszoo]

Just a note on parking lot caches:

 

My husband spent several weeks living out of a hotel in a strange city while working for the government. A series of parking lot/lightpost caches helped him learn his way around town and find the grocery store, movie theater, laundromat, etc.

 

It may seem lame to you because you live there. To the out of towner, it may be a life-saver!

[+budd-rdc]

Just a note on parking lot caches:

 

My husband spent several weeks living out of a hotel in a strange city while working for the government. A series of parking lot/lightpost caches helped him learn his way around town and find the grocery store, movie theater, laundromat, etc.

 

It may seem lame to you because you live there. To the out of towner, it may be a life-saver!

I'll have to disagree on how useful caches placed in front of businesses are. I wouldn't prejudge them as lame, but I prefer Geocaches be placed more for recreational purposes, instead of a crutch for doing daily chores.

 

Modern GPSr's like the Garmin 60 series already have POIs loaded for those things. I personally don't have such a unit, but I prefer stumbling into shopping centers and grocery stores on my way to a non-parking lot cache, even when I'm out of town.

[+naj3]

You know what people: If you don't like one don't go get it. Leave it for others that do like that level of the game. But who is anyone to judge anyone else? FTF , lame micros at shopping malls...someone took the effort to place it. If you don't like it, put it on your ignore list and move on. let others enjoy their level of fun in this game. I might add most of those LAME caches you refer to are NOT premium members only caches. If we didn't have free loaders (pony up the 30 bucks a year) in this game it would be a lot different and you wouldn't be hunting down "the lame cache". That now could maybe considered a rant.

Edited December 12, 2006 by naj3

[+kdgreene]

I'll tell you what's lame. Me going to scout out a location in a huge park with only 2 caches listed. I found the perfect spot under a fallen tree. I waited until my wife and children could go (as this was our first cache placement). My son walked around the tree gathering limbs to cover the cache and yells: "Daddy, I found another geocache!!"

 

Just as I mumble "yeah right", my wife looks at the spot and sure enough there is another ammo box! It didn't show up in the park because it was a multi-stage cache.

 

My cache placement skills..... LAME.... but still funny!

[+wavector]

lame micros at shopping malls

 

I think any cache hunt can be fun except for the ones that end in a wet logbook, those are invariably frustrating and are a waste of time, this is my opinion. I will look for any cache, I never filter out any caches. One benefit of this stance is that I have a lot of fun caching because they are all good. One disadvantage is I find myself drying out a lot of logbooks. I do want to mention the fact that I have a micro at a shopping mall. It was the first micro in Medicine Hat and the shopping mall is the only mall within 100 miles. I see that a few people have included shopping mall micros in the lame column. In my own defense I will post the logs of a few cachers who have found my "lame" shopping mall micro. I was gratified to see that even after finding many hundreds of caches a couple of these cachers said nice things about my cache (unless interesting is a euphemism for lame!). I included nicolo's log becaue he said shopping center caches were lame and he did find mine but politley refrained from yelling out lame. He did say that he couldn't believe it was still there though! In addition to being a micro in a shopping center the cache requires stealth but stealth can be used. I didn't put the cache in a high visibility location where there was no covering activity you could engage in and then say "stealth required", you do have to be stealthy but you can be stealthy. I have to be stealthy to check this cache.

 

January 28 by XRN95 (1777 found)

Felt almost spy like on this one. J2D2 and Nicolo did all of the hardwork. Interesting hide!! Thanks WV!

 

January 28 by j2d2 (1712 found)

Well, we weren't sure what we were getting into here, but we seemed to manage. It's nice being from out of town, you don't mind so much looking like an idiot.

nicolo had to wait a bit to rehide the firt part. Good thing we had nicolo's new fancy-schmancy gpsr, we got great reception with that baby.

It sure did look like an 8 on the one thing, once we got that straightened out, it was a breeze.

Thanks for the interesting cache, never done one like that before!

The logging requirements - about 4:35 PM

 

January 28 by nicolo (2253 found)

Found at 4:38 PM, 16th of 22 caches found with j2d2 and XRN95 while on a caching trip to Medicine Hat.

j2d2 had an idea of what to look for in looking for Mother - then began Letterbox-type caching trip to the micro. j2d2 and I searched for this on in a VERY public area ... I can't believe that this micro is still here, especially with someone directly across from it.

Anywho, once we found the micro, off to the final. Had a bit of a problem until j2d2 realized that we had mis-read a 3 for an 8 and were way off! Fortunately he took a picture of the coords and we were off to the REAL final, j2d2 scored on this one too.

j2d2 will be sending the logging requirements.

[+TrailGators]

We could differentiate between lame and stupid. Lame would denote a lack of effort and stupid would be poor judgment. All further definitions could arise from there.

 

Examples of lame:

• not taking the effort to find a nice place
  
• not taking the effort to cammo or waterproof the container
  
• not taking the effort to maintain or replace
  
• not taking the effort to make a bigger container work
  

Examples of stupid:

• placing in a dangerous or illegal spot
  
• bad choice of cammo, or obvious hiding spot
  
• placement near a dumpster or someplace insultingly unpleasant
  
• bad coordinates and a confusing web page
  

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

[+sbell111]

We could differentiate between lame and stupid. Lame would denote a lack of effort and stupid would be poor judgment. All further definitions could arise from there.

 

Examples of lame:

• not taking the effort to find a nice place
  
• not taking the effort to cammo or waterproof the container
  
• not taking the effort to maintain or replace
  
• not taking the effort to make a bigger container work
  

Examples of stupid:

• placing in a dangerous or illegal spot
  
• bad choice of cammo, or obvious hiding spot
  
• placement near a dumpster or someplace insultingly unpleasant
  
• bad coordinates and a confusing web page
  

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

I wonder if there aren't many people who read this thread who believe that calling someone's work 'stupid' is incredibly crass.

 

BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

[+TrailGators]

We could differentiate between lame and stupid. Lame would denote a lack of effort and stupid would be poor judgment. All further definitions could arise from there.

 

Examples of lame:

• not taking the effort to find a nice place
  
• not taking the effort to cammo or waterproof the container
  
• not taking the effort to maintain or replace
  
• not taking the effort to make a bigger container work
  

Examples of stupid:

• placing in a dangerous or illegal spot
  
• bad choice of cammo, or obvious hiding spot
  
• placement near a dumpster or someplace insultingly unpleasant
  
• bad coordinates and a confusing web page
  

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

I wonder if there aren't many people who read this thread who believe that calling someone's work 'stupid' is incredibly crass.

 

BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

...and calling them "lame" is so much better?

 

But I guess it's like the old George Bernard Shaw quote: "I am stubborn, you are obstinate and he is a pig-headed fool!"

[+sbell111]

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

I wonder if there aren't many people who read this thread who believe that calling someone's work 'stupid' is incredibly crass.

 

BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

...and calling them "lame" is so much better?

I'm already on record regarding the entire 'lame' issue, but here goes:

 

There are no lame caches, only lame cache seekers who fail to find amusement for themselves.

Edited December 12, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

I wonder if there aren't many people who read this thread who believe that calling someone's work 'stupid' is incredibly crass.

 

BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

...and calling them "lame" is so much better?

I'm already on record regarding the entire 'lame' issue, but here goes:

 

There are no lame caches, only lame cache seekers who fail to find amusement for themselves.

 

This is what you first posted:

 

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).

[+sbell111]

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

I wonder if there aren't many people who read this thread who believe that calling someone's work 'stupid' is incredibly crass.

 

BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

...and calling them "lame" is so much better?

I'm already on record regarding the entire 'lame' issue, but here goes:

 

There are no lame caches, only lame cache seekers who fail to find amusement for themselves.

This is what you first posted:

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).

You can't tell that I was poking fun at you with that list?

[+TrailGators]

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

I wonder if there aren't many people who read this thread who believe that calling someone's work 'stupid' is incredibly crass. BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

...and calling them "lame" is so much better?

I'm already on record regarding the entire 'lame' issue, but here goes:

There are no lame caches, only lame cache seekers who fail to find amusement for themselves.

This is what you first posted:

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).

You can't tell that I was poking fun at you with that list?

If there had been a winky smiley maybe it would have clued us in that it was sarcasm. BTW, I got 26 ticks on me retreiving a cache one time and I didn't think the cache was lame because of that.

 

Anyhow, it seems like this whole thread is getting caught up in semantics. So let me phrase it this way: I think any cache placed near a vile or a disgusting place is a very poor place to put a cache. There are so many good places to put them that there is no reason to hide them in places like that.

Edited December 12, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Markwell]

So much for the lack of rants.

 

Wake me when something new is said - on either side.

[+tozainamboku]

We could differentiate between lame and stupid. Lame would denote a lack of effort and stupid would be poor judgment. All further definitions could arise from there.

 

Examples of lame:

• not taking the effort to find a nice place
  
• not taking the effort to cammo or waterproof the container
  
• not taking the effort to maintain or replace
  
• not taking the effort to make a bigger container work
  

Examples of stupid:

• placing in a dangerous or illegal spot
  
• bad choice of cammo, or obvious hiding spot
  
• placement near a dumpster or someplace insultingly unpleasant
  
• bad coordinates and a confusing web page
  

I wonder if the people that believe that there are no lame caches also believe that there are no stupid ones?

 

I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches. So I appreciate nonaeroterraqueous splitting his list in two (even though he still uses lame). I don't neccessarily agree with his lists (or with Kit Fox's list of lame caches, which I interprete to mean caches he feels are STUPID) but I see having two list as important. The CRAPPY caches are caches you don't like doing. They are personal preferences. Someone else may like these. It's fine to post in this forums that you personally don't like some cache because it is CRAPPY. Just don't say that because you don't like it is some how wrong that other people like it. I won't debate anybody's list of CRAPPY caches, since that is their personnal feeling. STUPID caches on the other hand are the caches that shouldn't exist. If they are already in violation of the guidelines and are not grandfathered or had a exception granted, then we can all agree they should not exist. If they are illegal per local laws (a violation of the guidelines that may have slipped by the reviewer) they should not exist and a SBA log is appropriate. There may be some additional reasons to label a cache as STUPID. Some of these reasons may be debatable. I don't agree that dumpster hides are always STUPID, but I can understand why they show up on people's lists of STUPID caches.

Edited December 12, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+tozainamboku]

BTW, am I the only one that is amazed to see 'obvious hiding spot' on this list?

I interpreted that to mean "caches that are hidden so poorly that they are very likely to be muggled". In which case I would agree that this is a STUPID cache, unless the hider it able to check the cache frequently and replace it when it is muggled. I suspect in that case it won't be long before the hider decides that it was a STUPID cache

[+TrailGators]

I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches.

I bet if we started a new thread to find out what we think a CRAPPY cache is, that the same people would chime in and say there is no such thing as a CRAPPY cache. Others would say calling people's caches CRAPPY is crass.....

 

These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

 

 

Edit: Sorry about the rant El D....

Edited December 12, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

... But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Perhaps these threads would go easier if you allowed for the possibility that the beliefs of those that you disagree with are valid.

[Mushtang]

I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches.

I bet if we started a new thread to find out what we think a CRAPPY cache is, that the same people would chime in and say there is no such thing as a CRAPPY cache. Others would say calling people's caches CRAPPY is crass.....

 

These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

 

 

Edit: Sorry about the rant El D....

I'll bet if I started mailing out $20 bills to people in the forums, a lot of these people would complain that the bills aren't new enough, or that the envelope they came it wasn't pretty.

 

Giving someone something for FREE is sometimes not enough.

[+tands]

'Lame Cache' Definition: An often excellent cache having unusual aspects which serve to accurately identify geocachers with a poor or whiny attitude. This allows easygoing geocache hiders with a list of cachers whose ill-natured logs can be ignored.

 

Any hider with more than a few caches hidden has at least one that's been called both lame by some and great by others.

 

- T of TandS

[+TrailGators]

I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches.

I bet if we started a new thread to find out what we think a CRAPPY cache is, that the same people would chime in and say there is no such thing as a CRAPPY cache. Others would say calling people's caches CRAPPY is crass.....

 

These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Edit: Sorry about the rant El D....

I'll bet if I started mailing out $20 bills to people in the forums, a lot of these people would complain that the bills aren't new enough, or that the envelope they came it wasn't pretty.Giving someone something for FREE is sometimes not enough.

Try sending me a crumpled up 20 dollar bill! I won't complain!

[+tozainamboku]

These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue.

I could accept a discussion of ways to improve your caches. And some peoples list of lame caches do point in this direction.

• Select a container that doesn't leak and will keep the log dry
  
• Check for errors on the cache page before submitting it
  
• Don't hide it near a smelly dumpster if there is a better spot not far away
  

But asking people to change their hiding style because you don't like micros or you're only interested in a cache that takes you to a scenic or historic place is forcing your personal preference on others. Accept that other people do in fact enjoy lamppost hides. Some people even like Cookie Dough ice cream. Yuck!

I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

No one has left CRAP in this one yet, but they have left some pretty disgusting garbage. GCKRX5

[Mushtang]

I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches.

I bet if we started a new thread to find out what we think a CRAPPY cache is, that the same people would chime in and say there is no such thing as a CRAPPY cache. Others would say calling people's caches CRAPPY is crass.....

 

These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Edit: Sorry about the rant El D....

I'll bet if I started mailing out $20 bills to people in the forums, a lot of these people would complain that the bills aren't new enough, or that the envelope they came it wasn't pretty.Giving someone something for FREE is sometimes not enough.

Try sending me a crumpled up 20 dollar bill! I won't complain!

I seriously doubt it.

[+TrailGators]

... But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Perhaps these threads would go easier if you allowed for the possibility that the beliefs of those that you disagree with are valid.

You're right. I will never accept that these types of caches are perfectly acceptable no matter what everyone else believes.

 

Another lame cache is one near a migrant home. If you are lucky you might get to slip and slide in human feces while hunting for the cache.

There are a bunch of those caches around here.

[+TrailGators]

I've already gone on record saying there are no lame caches only CRAPPY or STUPID caches.

I bet if we started a new thread to find out what we think a CRAPPY cache is, that the same people would chime in and say there is no such thing as a CRAPPY cache. Others would say calling people's caches CRAPPY is crass.....

 

These threads could serve a useful purpose if people took the advice and hid better caches. But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Edit: Sorry about the rant El D....

I'll bet if I started mailing out $20 bills to people in the forums, a lot of these people would complain that the bills aren't new enough, or that the envelope they came it wasn't pretty.Giving someone something for FREE is sometimes not enough.

Try sending me a crumpled up 20 dollar bill! I won't complain!

I seriously doubt it.

Not sure how you equated me not liking a small percentage of really lame caches with not liking money, but put your money where your mouth is....

[+Moose Mob]

Before this goes too far let me remind everyone that personal attacks are not allowed and personal disputes need to be taken off line.

 

We now return you to your angst filled thread.

 

Thank you.

[+TrailGators]

Before this goes too far let me remind everyone that personal attacks are not allowed and personal disputes need to be taken off line.

 

We now return you to your angst filled thread.

 

Thank you.

Sorry about that Moose Mob! So let's get back to giving new "opinions" of what lame caches are....

[+sbell111]

... But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Perhaps these threads would go easier if you allowed for the possibility that the beliefs of those that you disagree with are valid.

You're right. I will never accept that these types of caches are perfectly acceptable no matter what everyone else believes.

I guess you misread my post. I don't blame you as it was a particularly ugly sentence.

 

I didn't ask that you accept any particular caches as 'perfectly acceptable'. What I suggested is that you allow for the possibility that the beliefs of others are valid, even if they disagree with you.

[+TrailGators]

A lame cache is one placed where security guards come out and ask you what you are doing.

 

A lame cache is one where you have to go to a little kiddies playground and walk around suspiciously with all the mothers thinking that you are some really strange dude or a child molester.

[+sbell111]

A lame cache is one placed where security guards come out and ask you what you are doing.

 

A lame cache is one where you have to go to a little kiddies playground and walk around suspiciously with all the mothers thinking that you are some really strange dude or a child molester.

One could merely explain to the security guards what he is doing and come back to the playground when it isn't full of little kids. That's what I would do and I would probably end up enjoying both caches.

 

Perhaps lameness has more to do with the attitude of the finder than the actions of the hider.

[+El Diablo]

Before this goes too far let me remind everyone that personal attacks are not allowed and personal disputes need to be taken off line.

 

We now return you to your angst filled thread.

 

Thank you.

 

It's ok with me if you or another Moderator would lock it down. It's seems to become centered around a couple of posters that are using it as a public way to argue with each other.

 

I asked that this thread not go into a rant, but I should've known better.

 

El Diablo

Edited December 12, 2006 by El Diablo

[Mushtang]

Not sure how you equated me not liking a small percentage of really lame caches with not liking money, but put your money where your mouth is....

I wasn't trying to equate you personally with anything, and didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you. I was only trying to point out that when given a FREE opportunity to find a cache, a group of people in these forums have decided to complain about it.

 

If we were paying the cache owners to be able to find their caches, I'd feel totally different about it, and would agree with you 100%.

 

<edit>

Sorry ED, you're right.

 

To stay on topic, I'll use the above to underline my opinion that no caches are lame to everyone. If someone enjoyed hiding it, someone will enjoy finding it.

 

Not everyone has to enjoy finding every cache.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Mushtang

[+TrailGators]

Before this goes too far let me remind everyone that personal attacks are not allowed and personal disputes need to be taken off line. We now return you to your angst filled thread. Thank you.

It's ok with me if you or another Moderator would lock it down. It's seems to become centered around a couple of posters that are using it as a public way to argue with each other. I asked that this thread not go into a rant, but I should've known better. El Diablo

Sorry El D! I'm trying to just get back this back on track by listing examples of what I think are lame caches.....

[+TrailGators]

Another lame cache that most of my caching buddies agree on is a cache that is placed way off the trail in a park that makes you needlessly bushwhack and tear up the environment. These kind of caches can eventually lead to rangers banning caches in these parks or setting stringent rules that make it tougher for all of us.

[+edscott]

Another lame cache that most of my caching buddies agree on is a cache that is placed way off the trail in a park that makes you needlessly bushwhack and tear up the environment. These kind of caches can eventually lead to rangers banning caches in these parks or setting stringent rules that make it tougher for all of us.

 

Actually the further off the trail it is the less environmental impact. 20 meters off the trail means everyone goes in and out the same way..equals geotrail. 1000 meters off the trail means everyone goes their own way and miniumizes the impact. ... at least in a moist temperate environment. I see you are in California. Dry environments do have their unique problems, so perhaps this one needs a regional disclaimer.

[+TrailGators]

Another lame cache that most of my caching buddies agree on is a cache that is placed way off the trail in a park that makes you needlessly bushwhack and tear up the environment. These kind of caches can eventually lead to rangers banning caches in these parks or setting stringent rules that make it tougher for all of us.

Actually the further off the trail it is the less environmental impact. 20 meters off the trail means everyone goes in and out the same way..equals geotrail. 1000 meters off the trail means everyone goes their own way and miniumizes the impact. ... at least in a moist temperate environment. I see you are in California. Dry environments do have their unique problems, so perhaps this one needs a regional disclaimer.

Out here most parks require that caches be within 30 feet of the trail. There are all sorts of protected plants and animals and the rangers don't want people trampling over their habitat. So we end up with a lot of geo-trails but the impact is only a small path. The other bummer about needless bushwhacking is that your clothes get full of sap and goo or even worse they get all torn up. We have lots of plants that will stick you out here!

[+Renegade Knight]

We could differentiate between lame and stupid. Lame would denote a lack of effort and stupid would be poor judgment. All further definitions could arise from there.

 

Examples of lame:

• not taking the effort to find a nice place
  
• not taking the effort to cammo or waterproof the container
  
• not taking the effort to maintain or replace
  
• not taking the effort to make a bigger container work
  

Examples of stupid:

• placing in a dangerous or illegal spot
  
• bad choice of cammo, or obvious hiding spot
  
• placement near a dumpster or someplace insultingly unpleasant
  
• bad coordinates and a confusing web page
  

That list works for you. It doesn't work for me. Take the nice place for example. That varies by peron and by geography. There is no reason to practice geographic discrimination. If the area has no cache, it's got potential for a cache and all the great spots are no worse off for a cache in this "nice" challenged location. It's even more of a professional challenge to make it a well recieved cache. Any moron can put a cache by a waterfall but not just anyone can make that wally world cache a stand out experience.

 

Next: Why would I cammo the container if you can't see it? If I hid it in plain sight, ok, but if I make it a 5 mile hike and put it in plain sight flourescent orange that's not wrong. Then you have cache condition as a lame thing? Sounds like a princess and the pea thing. A great day at a great spot when I'm in a great mood on gods green earth is not gonig to be messed up by a container thats in a state of disrepair. A bigger container? It's always a nice thing but for me once it's big enough to hold swag it's big enough for me to like. Then you have stupid. A illegal spot that is utterly cool is where the big lost river goes under ground. That would be a great cache. Just illegal. Don't confuse what makes a good and non lame cache for what makes it non-viable. A dangerouse spot is seldom dangerous with the right training and equipement. It's all about knowing your limits even of that limit means you only cache in good neighborhoods. Bad choice of cammo, um...do we need to have queer eye set us all straight on the fashion do's and dont's of modern cammo? An obviouse hiding spot is an art. Obvious to geocachers while invisible to muggles is a true craft perfected by few. Not all caches need to be an exaustive search involving ground penetrating radar, bomb sniffing bee's, and a ferritt retrieval team. Dumptsters are usully kept out of muggles vision, which happens to be where you want caches to go. Sometimes it's just going to be coincidence that a cache is hidden in a good spot only to have the dumpster in the same area. That's life in a disposable society. Bad coordinates are another thing. the cache can be a thing of beauty and the coordinats reported on the website are wrong. So the fix isn't to paint the cache in lame colors it's the fix the coordinates. Ditto on a confusing cache page. It's hard to make a cache confusing, just the cache page.

 

If two people were faced with finding 30 random caches of all types I'd choose to go with the one that was going to have more fun finding those 30 caches. I'd have a lamer time with the other.

[+TrailGators]

Another cache that is bothers me are caches placed near beautiful landscaping beds. We have lots of those in California and some of them just get totally trashed by people trampling all over the landscaping while hunting for a cache. These caches would be OK if the cache owner gave clear instructions not to go into the landscaping to find the cache. Many do but many do not and so caching has a negative impact on those areas.

[+Renegade Knight]

[...Out here most parks require that caches be within 30 feet of the trail. There are all sorts of protected plants and animals and the rangers don't want people trampling over their habitat. So we end up with a lot of geo-trails but the impact is only a small path. The other bummer about needless bushwhacking is that your clothes get full of sap and goo or even worse they get all torn up. We have lots of plants that will stick you out here!

 

Classic catch 22. They build the park so people will come. The people come and enjoy the park but...there are so many people so they build trails and tell you to stay out of the park and on the trail. Park being the scenic areas. They naturally build the trails and parking areas away from the protected spots that most people want to see. Cows have more open range than people do these days.

 

When I see a waterfall I want to feel the rumble in my feet and feel the air itself shake from the sheer power of the water. I want to feel the wind it creats and the spray hitting my skin like pin pricks of cold. I want to be able to reach out and touch it. That's experiencing a waterfall. Not the view deck.

[Clan Riffster]

No one has left CRAP in this one yet, but they have left some pretty disgusting garbage. GCKRX5

Hey, I got one of those!

McCrap

 

Back on topic: (Sorry El D!)

The question of what is, and what is not a lame cache can never be definitively answered, because the definition, by it's very nature, is subjective. The infamous "Soggy log film canister behind a dumpster" could, conceivably, be liked by somebody. Judging a particular cache is somewhat akin to judging art. Whilst one person might fall in love with a velvet Elvis painting, others would find it crass and tasteless. Whether or not lame caches exist will always be strictly a matter of opinion.

[+TrailGators]

[...Out here most parks require that caches be within 30 feet of the trail. There are all sorts of protected plants and animals and the rangers don't want people trampling over their habitat. So we end up with a lot of geo-trails but the impact is only a small path. The other bummer about needless bushwhacking is that your clothes get full of sap and goo or even worse they get all torn up. We have lots of plants that will stick you out here!

Classic catch 22. They build the park so people will come. The people come and enjoy the park but...there are so many people so they build trails and tell you to stay out of the park and on the trail. Park being the scenic areas. They naturally build the trails and parking areas away from the protected spots that most people want to see. Cows have more open range than people do these days.

 

When I see a waterfall I want to feel the rumble in my feet and feel the air itself shake from the sheer power of the water. I want to feel the wind it creats and the spray hitting my skin like pin pricks of cold. I want to be able to reach out and touch it. That's experiencing a waterfall. Not the view deck.

I guess we are lucky! All the paths go to the waterfalls down here! Plus none of the waterfalls have any man-made structures. But most waterfalls down here have a lot of boulders around them that no human could ever hurt by jumping from rock to rock. You can go swimming in all of them too! Anyhow, I guess I'd have to take to to the caches I'm talking about....They are beyond evil!

[+wavector]

"Soggy log film canister behind a dumpster"

 

I disagree.

I do think there are cachers who would enjoy a film canister behind a dumpster and they have said so on this thread.

 

Are there any geocachers who enjoy finding soggy logbooks/logsheets?

 

I know the walk and the sights and getting out of the house are fun, I never said there weren't but I have decided a soggy logbook detracts from every geocaching experience, this is my opinion.

If I could get rid of one type of cache it would be the one with a wet logbook.

 

Lame caches (caches with wet logbooks where the logbook is wet because of a design decision made by the hider) are detrimental to the activity, they are a minus, the wet logbooks are not enjoyed by anyone, well at least their hasn't been anyone who has claimed the wet logbook has redeeming qualities.

 

In my experience the wet logbook is often accompanied by wet ruined trade items, foul odours and in some cases mold and mildew, this is unpleasant. I never find these wet logbooks when I am out viewing scenery, out at the mall or out getting some excercise, just when I am geocaching.

 

I accept that the logbook is biodegrading better because it is wet but I still think that argument might be viewed as red herring.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

I disagree.

 

I'd like to ask you some questions about your points but I don't want to be told I'm ranting.

 

And I don't want to say you're wrong but I honestly don't understand the attraction of a film canister behind a dumpster.

 

Do I need to open my own thread to discuss opinions about caches placed in non-pretty areas? (I didn't say lame!)

[+sbell111]

I think the 'wet logbook' issue is a red herring. Typically, a wet logbook is a temporary maintenance issue. You just happened to find the cache either before the owner was aware of the problem or before he had a chance to correct it.

 

If you want to say that unresolved maintenance issues are lame, that's another story, but one that is also somewhat easily resolved in the present system.

 

Also, a number of people have posted that 'lame caches' (by their personal definition) are 'bad for the game'. I have yet to read a convincing argument as to why this is true.

[+sbell111]

...Do I need to open my own thread to discuss opinions about caches placed in non-pretty areas? (I didn't say lame!)

I think that it is reasonable that if this thread is to exist to define what lame is, then it is appropriate to be able to challenge those definitions. Edited December 13, 2006 by sbell111

[+wavector]

Perhaps lameness has more to do with the attitude of the finder than the actions of the hider.

 

A wet logbook is not subjective and it has nothing to do with a finders attitude, I am talking about logbooks that are wet because of a design decision made by the hider. Suggesting that geocachers who find wet logbooks need an attitude check doesn't seem sensible to me. Perhaps you can explain how an attitude shift will allow me to enjoy wet logbooks that I find when I am out geocaching?

 

I enjoy walking, I enjoy seeing scenery, I like any kind of geocache, I like geocaching. I still have fun walking and I still enjoy the scenery in spite of the wet logbook. My enjoyment of geocaching is negatively impacted when I find a wet logbook and that has nothing to do with my attitude, it is directly related attributable to a design decision made by the hider.

[+BlueDeuce]

...Do I need to open my own thread to discuss opinions about caches placed in non-pretty areas? (I didn't say lame!)

I think that it is reasonable that if this thread is to exist to define whether what lame is, then it is appropriate to be able to challenge those definitions.

 

Nah, If I needed to get something off my chest I might, but I'm not feeling chatty at the moment. Maybe later.

 

I'm going back to the TB forum, see ya'll.

[+sbell111]

Perhaps lameness has more to do with the attitude of the finder than the actions of the hider.

A wet logbook is not subjective and it has nothing to do with a finders attitude, I am talking about logbooks that are wet because of a design decision made by the hider. Suggesting that geocachers who find wet logbooks need an attitude check doesn't seem sensible to me. Perhaps you can explain how an attitude shift will allow me to enjoy wet logbooks that I find when I am out geocaching? ...

OK, but I'll just be repeating what I typed a few minutes ago:

I think the 'wet logbook' issue is a red herring. Typically, a wet logbook is a temporary maintenance issue. You just happened to find the cache either before the owner was aware of the problem or before he had a chance to correct it.

 

If you want to say that unresolved maintenance issues are lame, that's another story, but one that is also somewhat easily resolved in the present system.

 

Also, a number of people have posted that 'lame caches' (by their personal definition) are 'bad for the game'. I have yet to read a convincing argument as to why this is true.

The 'design decision' is also a side issue, rather than the real issue. While I do believe that matching the container to the environment is important and that a properly chosen container will result in fewer maintenance needs, the container choice is not the only reason that logs get wet. The bottom line is that individual caches require as much maintenance as they require. If that maintenance is performed, good on the hider. If the cache requiers lots of maintenance, the hider can make decisions: He can archive it, he can change the container, he can attempt to educate finders on properly closing and rehiding the container, he can continue to do maintenance. A hider that is performing these functions is not an owner of a lame cache, in my opinion.

[+naj3]

... But it seems pointless to try to influence people to hide better caches because it is obvious that some people out there really have no clue. I'm starting to think that we could fill a cache with CRAP and there would still be some people out there that would be happy to find it!

Perhaps these threads would go easier if you allowed for the possibility that the beliefs of those that you disagree with are valid.

Filled with crap has already happened. Geodumping. Cachers unfortunate to find them weren't to happy about it. But they still got a number I guess.

[+wavector]

but I honestly don't understand the attraction of a film canister behind a dumpster

 

I found one cache right behind a shopping center, near a dumpster.

It was a film canister hidden in a protected location on a chain link fence but we could see the site was selected because there was a historic buffalo jump on the other side of the fence, the cache wasn't great but it wasn't lame. The view from that cache down into the buffalo jump was a nice sight. The only approach to the buffalo jump was via the shopping center parking lot. The buffalo jump was a pay-to-enter site so the cache couldn't be placed in the jump, it had to be outside the jump so finders could visit when the jump was closed. The whole back of the shopping center had dumpsters here there and everywhere, there was one gross greasy restaurant dumpster right there. I wouldn't put the cache on my favourites list but I could clearly see that the hider wanted to show us the buffalo jump and the rest of the nearby stuff was secondary to the sight being highlighted.

 

On the other hand -

 

Think of the caches you have found that had wet logbooks. How many do you think were the result of a previous finder failing to close the cache properly ? How many do you think were the result of a finder leaving the cache open and the owner not getting there in time to fix it befoire you arrived?

How many were caused by poor design decisions made by the hider?

 

In my experience wet logbooks are almost never a maintenance issue. Almost every wet logbook I have found is wet because the hider made bad design decisions. Logbooks that are wet are wet because water is getting into the cache, this is rarely because someone left the cache open.

 

Notice I didn't ask you this question : Have ever found a wet logbook?