Urban Caching

[+mamid]

I figure, if you don't like urban caches (micros) then make your own ones. I'm certain there are incredible ways to hide stuff in plain sight.

[+briansnat]

I figure, if you don't like urban caches (micros) then make your own ones. I'm certain there are incredible ways to hide stuff in plain sight.

 

I figure that if everybody else is hiding junk caches, how does that help your situation? It still doesn't give you decent caches to find unless you log your own caches.

 

That might be the case, but they should have an attribute that makes them easier to filter out.

 

A suggestion:

 

Edited January 22, 2007 by briansnat

[+KBI]

What? I dropped this statement out ("Cacher A hides a cache. Cacher B finds the cache and likes it. Cacher B hides a similar cache.") .... You agreed that a dumpster cache is a success. Just read where you answered "yes" to my statement....

Fine. I agreed that if a cacher finds a cache hidden near a dumpster and enjoys it, he may emulate that hide. In the scenario, there are alredy two cachers that would tend to enjoy that hide. Likely if there are two, there are more. Therefore, that cache would be considered a success.

 

Happy?

Yes! But is success what is good for the two cachers or what is good for geocaching as a whole?

I've been hearing this "lame micros are bad for the hobby" complaint repeated over and over for a very long time now, but none -- not a single one -- of the many folks who keep saying this has ever been able to explain exactly HOW so-called lame micros are bad for the hobby.

 

What is it, exactly, about these relatively uninspired urban micros that make them bad "for geocaching as a whole?"

 

Any of you ungrateful whiners fine members of the loyal opposition wanna take a stab at that question?

[+TrailGators]

I figure, if you don't like urban caches (micros) then make your own ones. I'm certain there are incredible ways to hide stuff in plain sight.

 

I figure that if everybody else is hiding junk caches, how does that help your situation? It still doesn't give you decent caches to find unless you log your own caches.

 

That might be the case, but they should have an attribute that makes them easier to filter out.

 

A suggestion:

 

[Clan Riffster]

I've been hearing this "lame micros are bad for the hobby" complaint repeated over and over for a very long time now, but none -- not a single one -- of the many folks who keep saying this has ever been able to explain exactly HOW so-called lame micros are bad for the hobby.

 

What is it, exactly, about these relatively uninspired urban micros that make them bad "for geocaching as a whole?"

Actually, many of us have explained exactly how lame caches hurt the game. You just chose not to accept our explanations as valid.

(sorry, spellcheck doesn't work on this PC)

[+KBI]

I've been hearing this "lame micros are bad for the hobby" complaint repeated over and over for a very long time now, but none -- not a single one -- of the many folks who keep saying this has ever been able to explain exactly HOW so-called lame micros are bad for the hobby.

 

What is it, exactly, about these relatively uninspired urban micros that make them bad "for geocaching as a whole?"

Actually, many of us have explained exactly how lame caches hurt the game. You just chose not to accept our explanations as valid.

I'm sorry -- if the question's been answered already, I must have missed it.

 

Please humor me by repeating the explanation, or by providing a link.

[+mamid]

urban micros ideas:

Camoflage electrical outlet on the outside of something that shouldn't have a 3 pronged plug, a light switch or anything else that would normall be found inside the house.

Camoflage a tv cable. In plain sight.

Use camo rocks.

use flocking and glue to hide it.

add rocks to the flocking and glue.

add fake leaves to the flocking, glue and rocks.

Make a stepping stone and leave a cavity in the bottom of it. Put micro in there. Get permission of landlord to place it.

Make a fake rock and don't get permission

cut a log up so that it has an interior chamber.

glue a fake plant to the top of a film canister.

 

Everything has some historical fact. Just do a bit of research. I know I could drop about a dozen in my old home town if I really wanted to. Or for that matter, in the town I was born in if I could get someone to adopt them from me. Stuff like "my grandparents' house was on this location, so this one is in their memory." "I had fond memories of this bridge as a child" etc etc etc.

 

Just dropping a micro isn't good. Putting some oomph in it - either in the hide itself or in the history of why - now that's a reason to cache for.

 

hmmm... if I could stash some in Southern Ontario I would.

[+briansnat]

I've been hearing this "lame micros are bad for the hobby" complaint repeated over and over for a very long time now, but none -- not a single one -- of the many folks who keep saying this has ever been able to explain exactly HOW so-called lame micros are bad for the hobby.

 

Here is my experience. At one time I used geocaching as a tool to see interesting sites when I visited a new area. Since most caches were placed at points of scenic, historic or other interest all I had to do when visiting a new city was load a few hundred waypoints for the area into my unit and when I arrived there I would select some at random and be taken to many wonderful places, many of which don't appear in any tourism brochures.

 

Now there is so much "chaff" I can no longer do this. I attempted to do this recently on a trip to a city 3 hours from home and we soon found ourselves on a tour of the local strip malls. Driving 20 minutes in another direction gave us more of the same. And this was in an area known for its history, scenery and tourism. End result, we couldn't geocache in the manner we liked to and had to put the GPS away and pick up a few brochures from the hotel.

 

Another example. I was in the forum of a competing website that boasts of only "high quality" caches. One poster there noted how he started geocaching and soon got bored going from parking lot to parking lot. He even admitted to placing these kinds of caches because he thought that was what the sport was about. He says he quit geocaching because of this. That's only one person, but I wonder how many others have abandoned the sport after they discovered that a sport that supposedly requires "a GPS and a thirst for adventure" really only requires "a GPS and a desire to endure the mundane".

[Clan Riffster]

You know, you are assuming the rest of the caching world thinks like you..

Actually, you are living proof that "everybody" doesn't think like I do. Thank God for small favors, eh? If "everybody" thought like I do, this beautiful blue ball we all share would be a boring place indeed.

 

If you do not want to find a cache in a parking lot, Don't go to it.

Just to clarify a couple points; The Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame have a couple time honored mantras they pull out every time someone has the audacity to suggest that folks should try to keep creativity in the game.

 

Mantra # 1; "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em"

This rather brilliant bit of logic is probably wasted, since the vast majority of us already follow that rule. Very few people are out hunting things they don't like. Typically, within the first year, folks realize what kinds of caches they like, and concentrate on those. For some, this ends up being ammo cans in the woods. For others, it's cleverly concealed micros in high muggle settings, for still others, it's any hide that gets them a smiley. Also, by the end of that year, most folks know what they don't like. For many, time is a most precious commodity, and these folks are unwilling to waste that time in an activity they disdain.

 

Mantra # 2; "So you want micros banned?"

This particular mantra is nothing more than misdirection. Nobody in this thread has called for the elimination of micros, and the SDOEL know this. This mantra is simply thrown in as obfuscation. Those of us who believe that lame caches exist, would much rather educate than legislate.

 

I don't like G. W. Bush. But but for some reason everyone voted for him.

Apparently your history skills could use a bit of brushing up. (perhaps it's short term memory loss?) "Everyone" most commonly refers to 100% of a population. If you check, you'll find that George W did not win 100% of the vote. I suggest a tutor. They can really help. Seriously.

 

we are not unimaginative, this is what we like.

Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself, Brother!

 

It is obvious people like these types of caches cause they are there and people frequent them (usualy more often than regular caches).

Perhaps what this "proves", is that, as geocaching has gone mainstream, it has attracted more and more uninspired people into it's ranks, who can pat themselves on their collective backs, congratulating themselves for all the exercise they are getting driving from parking lot to parking lot?

Edited January 22, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[Clan Riffster]

Who are you to assume anything about anyone?

We don't need to assume. We know how to read. More specifically, we know how to read profiles.

 

DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM.

Ah, another mantra. I had almost forgotten this one. We call it the "You are not entitled to any opinion that differs from mine" mantra.

 

So now you're only a good cacher if you place a regular sized cache in a park?

I guess when reason fails, we must resort to twisting what others say. Typical...

 

It takes no time to find a tree off the trail throw a contaner on the ground behind it and cover it with some bark.

Check your watch. It might be broken. The fact is, doing these things does take time. Maybe not a lot of time, but certainly more than "none".

 

I still don't see your point, it takes the same effort.

So far, I've spent 12 hours working on my latest hide. I predict another 30 or 40 hours will be spent constructing it. Somehow you equate this as being the same amount of effort needed to drive up to a light pole and shove a film canister under the skirt? Really?

 

just because you are easily impressed with "sceanic wonders" to me they are just trees.

For this, if nothing else, I pity you.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't give you the right to bad mouth it.

Correct. It's the First Amendment that gives me that right.

 

and as long as you do I will defend it.

No problem, Brother. Some folks will defend anything. All part of living in a diverse world.

[Clan Riffster]

Please re think your reason and try this argument again or call your mama to help you. This is a recording.

I see the font of wisdom is overflowing again.

 

I personaly love smelly trash dumpster caches.

Uh.....OK.

 

I was actualy comparing you to retards

Hello Kettle, my name is Pot. You're looking mighty black today.

 

Even a half retarded blind deaf mute could understand what I'm saying

Classy....

 

Micro caches in parkinglots are here to stay.

Sad, but probably true.

[+drat19]

I've been hearing this "lame micros are bad for the hobby" complaint repeated over and over for a very long time now, but none -- not a single one -- of the many folks who keep saying this has ever been able to explain exactly HOW so-called lame micros are bad for the hobby.

 

Here is my experience. At one time I used geocaching as a tool to see interesting sites when I visited a new area. Since most caches were placed at points of scenic, historic or other interest all I had to do when visiting a new city was load a few hundred waypoints for the area into my unit and when I arrived there I would select some at random and be taken to many wonderful places, many of which don't appear in any tourism brochures.

 

Now there is so much "chaff" I can no longer do this. I attempted to do this recently on a trip to a city 3 hours from home and we soon found ourselves on a tour of the local strip malls. Driving 20 minutes in another direction gave us more of the same. And this was in an area known for its history, scenery and tourism. End result, we couldn't geocache in the manner we liked to and had to put the GPS away and pick up a few brochures from the hotel.

Thank you, Brian. For the record, as someone who travels extensively both for a living and also for personal reasons, as well as someone who's been around this game since before the Micro Spew explosion, I echo and amplify your observations. I have had the exact same experiences, numerous times.

Edited January 22, 2007 by drat19

[Clan Riffster]

You know, you had better hope that this is a new account created for a new geocaching group made up of people who've been caching for years.

Am I the only one that sees the Monty Python/Holy Grail/Killer Rabbit reference?

 

Monty Python's

The Search for the Holy Micro

Scene 21

 

The sock puppet of Caerbannog

 

[clop clop clop] [whinny whinny]

GALAHAD:

They're nervous, sire.

ARTHUR:

Then we'd best leave them here and carry on on foot. Dis-mount!

TIM:

Behold the cave of Caerbannog!

 

ARTHUR:

Right! Keep me covered.

GALAHAD:

What with?

ARTHUR:

W-- just keep me covered.

TIM:

Too late!

[dramatic chord]

ARTHUR:

What?

TIM:

There he is!

ARTHUR:

Where?

TIM:

There!

ARTHUR:

What, behind the sock puppet?

TIM:

It is the sock puppet.

ARTHUR:

You silly sod!

TIM:

What?

ARTHUR:

You got us all worked up!

TIM:

Well, that's no ordinary sock puppet!

ARTHUR:

Ohh.

TIM:

That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered foot garment you ever set eyes on!

ROBIN:

You nit! I soiled my armour I was so scared!

TIM:

Look, that sock puppet's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer!

GALAHAD:

Get stuffed!

TIM:

He'll do you up a treat, mate.

GALAHAD:

Oh, yeah?

ROBIN:

You mangy Scots git!

TIM:

I'm warning you!

ROBIN:

What's he do, post meaningless, poorly spelled rants?

TIM:

He's got huge, sharp-- eh-- he can type-- look at the posts!

ARTHUR:

Go on, Bors. Chop his head off!

BORS:

Right! Silly little bleeder. One sock puppet stew comin' right up!

TIM:

Look!

[squeak]

BORS:

Aaaugh!

 

[N7DLV]

I also am working on my next hide. I found an old FCC monitoring site with a MONSTER antenna farm. It's adjacent to a residential neighborhood and an elementery school. It does have a few good areas to hide a decent cache. I just need to decide what type of hide and where to place it.

 

N7DLV

[+drat19]

I also am working on my next hide. I found an old FCC monitoring site with a MONSTER antenna farm. It's adjacent to a residential neighborhood and an elementery school. It does have a few good areas to hide a decent cache. I just need to decide what type of hide and where to place it.

 

N7DLV

Glad to see a newcomer taking some time and thought to plan next hides.

 

Thing to think about: Proximity to elementary school could create a tricky situation for cache searchers who might be mistaken for child stalkers by locals. This has always been an issue for cache searchers (esp. middle-aged males like myself), but it's particularly heightened now with the visibility of the case in Missouri. If the hide location could even POSSIBLY put cache searchers in a compromising perception position, you might want to think about a different hide location (and add this very real issue to your future consideration in planning other hides).

Edited January 22, 2007 by drat19

[saopaulo1@hotmail.com]

I planted a small one on a telephone booth on an interesting street. It's hard when you're in an concrete jungle.

That's convenient for anyone that needs to call someone for a hint! I have seen some very clever ideas that people have done in concrete jungles. One guy took a digital photo of a large sticker on an electrical box and made an exact copy of it and made it into a thin refrigerator type magnet with the log on the magnetic side. He stuck it on back the box and it looked exactly like the real thing but you pulled it off and signed it (once you finally figured it out)!

 

The worse part is the reception I get is so bad. All the tall building.

You may want to check out the new Garmins with the SiRF chip (60CSX). They will perform much better under those conditions!

 

I'm still trying to figure it out. If I'm on the street I can get 33 ft. If I'm 19 stories in the air with a clear view of the sky, I get worse reception.

I see what you mean. If the cache is 19 stories up then you will need really very good accuracy! But seriously, it sounds like you are getting some signal bounce. Many GPSs really work well with large amounts of concrete and metal nearby.

 

I'm gonna test it out some more. I know in dowtown SF the accuracy sucks.

[+sbell111]

...Mantra # 2; "So you want micros banned?"

This particular mantra is nothing more than misdirection. Nobody in this thread has called for the elimination of micros, and the SDOEL know this. This mantra is simply thrown in as obfuscation. ...

That's not true. Both the OP and TrailGators advocated the elimination of micros in this thread.

we are not unimaginative, this is what we like.

Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself, Brother!

This is the kind of insult (and Brian's 'witty' pic) that makes threads like this unproductive.

It is obvious people like these types of caches cause they are there and people frequent them (usualy more often than regular caches).

Perhaps what this "proves", is that, as geocaching has gone mainstream, it has attracted more and more uninspired people into it's ranks, who can pat themselves on their collective backs, congratulating themselves for all the exercise they are getting driving from parking lot to parking lot?

You realize that the difference between people who join today and who joined three years ago is just the three years. There is nothing magical about people who have been playing for a while. You are no better than the people who are joining now.

[+TrailGators]

...Mantra # 2; "So you want micros banned?"

This particular mantra is nothing more than misdirection. Nobody in this thread has called for the elimination of micros, and the SDOEL know this. This mantra is simply thrown in as obfuscation. ...

That's not true. Both the OP and TrailGators advocated the elimination of micros in this thread.

Sbell you never stop twisting things I have said to mean something that I didn't intend. I brought up a point that virtuals were moved to Waymarking (where they exist) because were many virtuals being placed in very poor locations and they were not true geocaches because they had no swag at all. So I applied the same logic to microspew. I did admit that there are some good micros. However, my point was the vast majority of microspew would never pass any kind of "wow" test. Also a large percentage of microspew has no swag. So my point is (and I will bold it for you) was why do we have double standard? Then you and StonedCachers defended microspew to the point that you admitted that it is a success to have a cache near a smelly trash dumpster. I think you guys are way out of touch with what most geocachers would like to find. I have met hundreds of cachers and have never met one that enjoyed finding a cache like that (until yesterday). Anyhow, we will never agree. If I say black you'll say white. So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want.... Edited January 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+drat19]

Sbell you never stop twisting things I have said to mean something that I didn't intend...

TG, this may help: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2669254

 

and http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2649416

 

I've had a happier time in the Forums since I discovered and implemented that late last week.

Edited January 22, 2007 by drat19

[+KBI]

I've been hearing this "lame micros are bad for the hobby" complaint repeated over and over for a very long time now, but none -- not a single one -- of the many folks who keep saying this has ever been able to explain exactly HOW so-called lame micros are bad for the hobby.

 

Here is my experience. At one time I used geocaching as a tool to see interesting sites when I visited a new area. Since most caches were placed at points of scenic, historic or other interest all I had to do when visiting a new city was load a few hundred waypoints for the area into my unit and when I arrived there I would select some at random and be taken to many wonderful places, many of which don't appear in any tourism brochures.

 

Now there is so much "chaff" I can no longer do this. I attempted to do this recently on a trip to a city 3 hours from home and we soon found ourselves on a tour of the local strip malls. Driving 20 minutes in another direction gave us more of the same. And this was in an area known for its history, scenery and tourism. End result, we couldn't geocache in the manner we liked to and had to put the GPS away and pick up a few brochures from the hotel.

Premise: A primary purpose of Geocaching is to play the role of local tourguide, and geocache hides are less than worthy unless they lead people to interesting places.

 

I don't agree with that premise.

 

If a hide, by accident or design, leads you to an interesting place, then lucky you. I enjoy those experiences as well. It never occured to me, however, to depend on cache owners for my scenic planning and sightseeing entertainment. Blaming a geocache for not showing you some amazing view or unique local flavor is like blaming a newspaper comic strip for not teaching you some cool tidbit of historical information. It's neat when it happens, but history education is not a primary function of newspaper comics.

 

Finding a quality experience as a tourist is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the latest college student to purchase a Garmin. You did the right thing by picking up a few brochures from that hotel -- I'd have done the same, but I wouldn't have thought to hold anything against my favorite hobby.

 

 

Another example. I was in the forum of a competing website that boasts of only "high quality" caches. One poster there noted how he started geocaching and soon got bored going from parking lot to parking lot. He even admitted to placing these kinds of caches because he thought that was what the sport was about. He says he quit geocaching because of this. That's only one person, but I wonder how many others have abandoned the sport after they discovered that a sport that supposedly requires "a GPS and a thirst for adventure" really only requires "a GPS and a desire to endure the mundane".

I see nothing wrong with someone starting their own caching website and making their corner of the game into whatever they want it to be. I happen to enjoy this one, however -- enough that I've never bothered to check out any of the other competing websites.

 

It takes VERY little intelligence or experience to learn how to use geocaching.com to largely avoid the types of hides one prefers not to deal with. There is a never-ending supply of highly entertaining caches out there. The online descriptions and logs will tell you which ones they are. If someone gets frustrated after using this website to find nothing but 'mundane' caches, then who's fault is that? If there's one wonderful, highly recommended restaurant in town, but one choses instead to spend his visit trying out all the local Burger Kings, then who's fault is that?

 

The mere existence of those caches I chose not to hunt takes absolutely nothing away from my enjoyment of those caches I DO choose to hunt. Nothing at all.

[+beezerb]

...Mantra # 2; "So you want micros banned?"

This particular mantra is nothing more than misdirection. Nobody in this thread has called for the elimination of micros, and the SDOEL know this. This mantra is simply thrown in as obfuscation. ...

That's not true. Both the OP and TrailGators advocated the elimination of micros in this thread.

Sbell you never stop twisting things I have said to mean something that I didn't intend. I brought up a point that virtuals were moved to Waymarking (where they exist) because were many virtuals being placed in very poor locations and they were not true geocaches because they had no swag at all. So I applied the same logic to microspew. I did admit that there are some good micros. However, my point was the vast majority of microspew would never pass any kind of "wow" test. Also a large percentage of microspew has no swag. So my point is (and I will bold it for you) was why do we have double standard? Then you and StonedCachers defended microspew to the point that you admitted that it is a success to have a cache near a smelly trash dumpster. I think you guys are way out of touch with what most geocachers would like to find. I have met hundreds of cachers and have never met one that enjoyed finding a cache like that (until yesterday). Anyhow, we will never agree. If I say black you'll say white. So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want....

 

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

This post by Mrs. Beezer the b part of beezerb

[+sbell111]

I've had a happier time in the Forums since I discovered and implemented that late last week.

Actually, I've had a happier time since he implemented that, also.

[+TrailGators]

So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want....

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

[+TrailGators]

I've had a happier time in the Forums since I discovered and implemented that late last week.

Actually, I've had a happier time since he implemented that, also.

He didn't hear you.....

[+wavector]

Do me a favour sbell111 and describe a cache that is "accessible for the handicapped" but those "confined to wheelchairs" cannot reach it?

 

sbell111's reply

 

On one cache hunt, the cache was a nano hidden on a sign. The cache was about six feet off the ground. I was able to log it, even with my handicap. Someone who was truly wheelchair bound would not have been able to log it without assistance.

 

sbell111, your limitations have nothing to do with the question I asked. You have simply described a cache that is not accessible for the handicapped.

 

There is no way to place a cache that is accessible to the handicapped but cannot be reached by those confined to wheelchairs.

 

For all new geocache hiders : Rating a cache as 1 Star difficulty is widely accepted in the GC community as indicating a cache that is wheelchair accessible. In many areas the volunteer Groundspeak reviewers will insist that all 1 Star caches are accessible to people in wheelchairs. There is no definition of the word handicapped that excludes those confined to wheelchairs. It is a very small positive action to ensure that your 1 Star rated geocaches are accessible to people confined to wheelchairs, it is a minor observance but it is helpful. Not only those confined to wheelchairs benefit from this practice, all cachers with mobility issues can expect that 1 Star Terrain caches will be easy to reach.

The wheelchair attribute is appropriate for any cache that can be reached by people in wheelchairs and is in no way limited to 1 Star caches. Longer distances might be fine for the attribute if the cache can be retrieved by those confined to wheelchairs. There is no GC rule in regards to 1 Star terrain caches being "wheelchair accessible" but only a few refuse to acknowledge that this helpful, widespread, simple practice is beneficial.

It actually might be a rule if you live in an area where the reviewer ensures that all 1 Star hides are wheelchair accessible. If the geocache cannot be reached by people confined to a wheelchair then it is a minor change to make it a 1.5 for Terrain.

[+sbell111]

...I brought up a point that virtuals were moved to Waymarking (where they exist) because were many virtuals being placed in very poor locations and they were not true geocaches because they had no swag at all. So I applied the same logic to microspew. ...

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

This post by Mrs. Beezer the b part of beezerb

You can. There is absolutely no reason that any PM member would have to have micros in their PQs.

 

I've often advocated that each player should use the methods that we have to weed out as many caches that they know they won't like as they can. If someone doesn't like the bulk of urban micros, they can easily weed out low difficulty, low terrain micros. Of course this method will weed out some caches that the individual would like to find, but those few caches can go unfound until after ALL of the remaining caches are found. At that time, they can take some more time to weed through the low diff/terrain micros. Perhaps by mapping this set of caches, they can then discard the ones that are known to be in areas of the city that they don't wish to cache in and identify those that are in areas that they do wish to cache in (such as parks).

 

My method is really simple to implement and manage. However, some people would rather rail for a more severe solution, such as removing micros from GC.com.

Edited January 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

Mantra # 1; "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em"

This rather brilliant bit of logic is probably wasted, since the vast majority of us already follow that rule. Very few people are out hunting things they don't like. Typically, within the first year, folks realize what kinds of caches they like, and concentrate on those. For some, this ends up being ammo cans in the woods. For others, it's cleverly concealed micros in high muggle settings, for still others, it's any hide that gets them a smiley. Also, by the end of that year, most folks know what they don't like. For many, time is a most precious commodity, and these folks are unwilling to waste that time in an activity they disdain.

So then what's the problem? If, as you correctly describe, the vast majority are able to avoid the hides they disdain, then what's the point of whining about those hides in the forums?

 

Seriously, what's the problem?

 

we are not unimaginative, this is what we like.

Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself, Brother!

Does it make you feel better to belittle those whose taste in caching happens to differ from yours? Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself, Brother!

 

It is obvious people like these types of caches cause they are there and people frequent them (usualy more often than regular caches).

Perhaps what this "proves", is that, as geocaching has gone mainstream, it has attracted more and more uninspired people into it's ranks, who can pat themselves on their collective backs, congratulating themselves for all the exercise they are getting driving from parking lot to parking lot?

KBI likes those types of caches. Or, to be more precise, my alter-ego CaptRussell likes them. A lot.

 

Even though your premise that 'a primary purpose of geocaching is to provide exercise' is a faulty one, exercise is one of the main reasons I like caching. As a matter of fact I do pat myself on the back, congratulating myself for all the exercise I get walking from parking lot to parking lot. I'm an airline pilot. My company provides hotel rooms but not rental cars. For me, those hides serve a purpose. I welcome them. I don't care WHERE a thing is hidden. If I can find it with my GPS, and the locals (muggles) don't have a clue that something was hidden there, that's cool enough for me. All the other stuff -- great view, interesting history, awesome camouflage, clever theme -- is just icing on the cake.

 

Does that make me 'uninspired?'

[+sbell111]

So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want....

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

Please see this post where I address your concern.

[+sbell111]

I've had a happier time in the Forums since I discovered and implemented that late last week.

Actually, I've had a happier time since he implemented that, also.

He didn't hear you.....

Please reread my post. I wasn't addressing him.

[+TrailGators]

Here is my experience. At one time I used geocaching as a tool to see interesting sites when I visited a new area. Since most caches were placed at points of scenic, historic or other interest all I had to do when visiting a new city was load a few hundred waypoints for the area into my unit and when I arrived there I would select some at random and be taken to many wonderful places, many of which don't appear in any tourism brochures.

 

Now there is so much "chaff" I can no longer do this. I attempted to do this recently on a trip to a city 3 hours from home and we soon found ourselves on a tour of the local strip malls. Driving 20 minutes in another direction gave us more of the same. And this was in an area known for its history, scenery and tourism. End result, we couldn't geocache in the manner we liked to and had to put the GPS away and pick up a few brochures from the hotel.

This is why microspew is a problem in a nutshell. It's like the old Reeses commercial "You got your chocolate in my peanut butter." Except we are having a really hard time finding the peanut butter and I'm not saying what it is but it sure ain't chocolate!

[+sbell111]

Do me a favour sbell111 and describe a cache that is "accessible for the handicapped" but those "confined to wheelchairs" cannot reach it?

sbell111's reply

On one cache hunt, the cache was a nano hidden on a sign. The cache was about six feet off the ground. I was able to log it, even with my handicap. Someone who was truly wheelchair bound would not have been able to log it without assistance.

sbell111, your limitations have nothing to do with the question I asked. You have simply described a cache that is not accessible for the handicapped.

 

There is no way to place a cache that is accessible to the handicapped but cannot be reached by those confined to wheelchairs....

Do you want me to reply in this thread or the thread that is about handicap accessibility? Although, come to think of it, I already answered your question. You just don't want to accept my answer.

 

Whatever.

[+Renegade Knight]

Here it is. How lame caches both hurt and help the game.

 

They hurt the game in that some people will think "that's it?" and move on. They hurt the game in that some cachers will get burned out by finding lame caches and the work they have to do to seek out good caches to find. They hurt the game in that those are the caches that are more likely to be reported and create some kind of incident involving authorities and creating disruption. They hurt the game in that if lame caches are all anyone ever see's they may emulate them creating more.

 

They help the game because in an anything goes enviroment if you want to stand out from the riff raff you have to figure out a new and better way to hide a cache to earn your accolades. It helps because where creativity and anti-creativity is allowed you get more variations and more types of hides and locations than in a vanilla generic world of medium good caches. They help the game because anyone can give back including the people who don't have a creative bone in their body. They help the game because sometimes it's not about the cache so much as being the cache that's in the right place at the right time to make for a great experience in spite of every single thing that would point to that cache as being lame. They help the game in that people can see what they don't like and know exactly what they don't want to do based on hard experience.

[+TrailGators]

So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want....

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

Please see this post where I address your concern.

Your method will not work for the reason that I stated in this post.

[+TrailGators]

Here it is. How lame caches both hurt and help the game.

 

They hurt the game in that some people will think "that's it?" and move on. They hurt the game in that some cachers will get burned out by finding lame caches and the work they have to do to seek out good caches to find. They hurt the game in that those are the caches that are more likely to be reported and create some kind of incident involving authorities and creating disruption. They hurt the game in that if lame caches are all anyone ever see's they may emulate them creating more.

 

They help the game because in an anything goes enviroment if you want to stand out from the riff raff you have to figure out a new and better way to hide a cache to earn your accolades. It helps because where creativity and anti-creativity is allowed you get more variations and more types of hides and locations than in a vanilla generic world of medium good caches. They help the game because anyone can give back including the people who don't have a creative bone in their body. They help the game because sometimes it's not about the cache so much as being the cache that's in the right place at the right time to make for a great experience in spite of every single thing that would point to that cache as being lame. They help the game in that people can see what they don't like and know exactly what they don't want to do based on hard experience.

Well said RK! My only comment is that we don't need any more help! We have enough already!

[Luckless]

Some suggested ways to help improve cache hides.

 

If you are a pemium member start a bookmark or two of the caches in your area that you liked. (You might want two-One for people passing through and one for people with time to spend.) This way there is a rating system for caches in your area based on what you like to find-don't forget to mention what that is. The list can be a goal for hiders who might want to make a better cache in order to make it onto your list. Because the lists also act as a reference for good hiders you can use them to find other caches hidden by these people. Increased interest in a cachers hides is another way of rewarding good hiders.

 

Geocaching organizations can also do something similar by having its members vote for their favorites in that area and then make a list of the top twelve or twenty... I noticed a listing for local a geocaching organization that was going to make an event out of it.

 

Be sure to encourage good hides by letting people know when you enjoy finding their caches. One of my favorite logs was. Great hide, You keep hiding them and we'll keep finding them.

 

Try to avoid criticism it doesn't usually change anything. Lead by example.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Luckless

[+sbell111]

Here it is. How lame caches both hurt and help the game.

 

They hurt the game in that some people will think "that's it?" and move on. They hurt the game in that some cachers will get burned out by finding lame caches and the work they have to do to seek out good caches to find. They hurt the game in that those are the caches that are more likely to be reported and create some kind of incident involving authorities and creating disruption. They hurt the game in that if lame caches are all anyone ever see's they may emulate them creating more.

 

They help the game because in an anything goes enviroment if you want to stand out from the riff raff you have to figure out a new and better way to hide a cache to earn your accolades. It helps because where creativity and anti-creativity is allowed you get more variations and more types of hides and locations than in a vanilla generic world of medium good caches. They help the game because anyone can give back including the people who don't have a creative bone in their body. They help the game because sometimes it's not about the cache so much as being the cache that's in the right place at the right time to make for a great experience in spite of every single thing that would point to that cache as being lame. They help the game in that people can see what they don't like and know exactly what they don't want to do based on hard experience.

Great post. Thanks.

 

I do disagree somewhat with one tiny point you made, however. That is that 'lame' caches hurt the game because people emulate them. I would argue that if they are emulated, then they must have been liked. If a cache was enjoyed, then it couldn't have been lame.

 

(Don't tell TrailGators about this post or he'll be telling everyone that I like lame caches, which is not true.)

[+sbell111]

So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want....

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

Please see this post where I address your concern.

Your method will not work for ...

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

The beauty of my plan is that you get to go find all of the caches that you know that you'll like and then take a harder look at the remainder. By mapping the remainder, I quickly devide them into three categories: Maybe good, maybe, and maybe not.

 

The maybe yes ones are clearly shown in parks and cool places on the map. So I can go find those. The maybe nots are clearly in strip malls, so I can avoid them. The maybes are the few caches that I will read the cache pages to see if they interest me.

 

My plan is easy peasy. The best part about it is any real work (reading) is backloaded so I don't even have to do it until 95% of the caches are either found or discarded.

[+TrailGators]

I do disagree somewhat with one tiny point you made, however. That is that 'lame' caches hurt the game because people emulate them. I would argue that if they are emulated, then they must have been liked. If a cache was enjoyed, then it couldn't have been lame.

(Don't tell TrailGators about this post or he'll be telling everyone that I like lame caches, which is not true.)

Sbell you only think in black and white but the world is shades of gray. If 995 people don't like a cache and 5 do that doesn't mean it wasn't lame.

 

I also 100% agree with RK that people are emulating what they find. The more experience people get the more they learn their craft. Some actually do strive to try to please more people with enhancements to their new caches. This is the kind of behavior that is very good for the game. In fact, we should reward this kind of behavior.

 

Finally, I don't twist what people say so you don't have to worry about me.

[+wavector]

I already answered your question.

 

Sure you did.

You described a cache that no one but you would consider handicap accessible.

I am surprised that you would feel that cache was accessible.

I am even more surprised that you would object to the widespread practice followed by the community and imply that it was OK to rate caches that are not wheelchair accessible as 1 Star for Terrain.

 

The other thread was about 1 Star caches not about handicap accessibility. Your feelings about 1 Star Terrain indicating a cache that is "wheelchair accessible" doesn't change the topic of that other thread.

Your insistence that the metric for handicap accessibility should be "your" ability to retrieve a cache is simply another non-sensical statement.

 

The 1 Star Terrain cache thread and this Urban cache thread have a natural intersection as most lame micros hidden near dumpsters are often misrated as 1 Star Terrain when they are really 1.5 Stars because they cannot be reached by those in wheelchairs, it is why the subject came up in this thread and the other thread.

 

If you are a new geocacher hiding caches in an Urban area then you should rate those caches that cannot be reached by those confined to wheelchairs as 1.5 Stars for Terrain, do not be fooled by the presence of asphalt which seems to be the point that causes sbell111 to stumble (no pun intended). This simple practice is very helpful and in some areas the reviewer may insist that you do this. The presence of pavement does not make a cache 1 Star for Terrain and wheelchair users are not limited to short 1 Star distances, the wheelchair attribute is proper everywhere a cacher confined to a wheelchair can reach the cache. Try to be helpful when rating your caches, it benefits everyone.

[+sbell111]

I do disagree somewhat with one tiny point you made, however. That is that 'lame' caches hurt the game because people emulate them. I would argue that if they are emulated, then they must have been liked. If a cache was enjoyed, then it couldn't have been lame.

(Don't tell TrailGators about this post or he'll be telling everyone that I like lame caches, which is not true.)

Sbell you only think in black and white but the world is shades of gray. If 995 people don't like a cache and 5 do that doesn't mean it wasn't lame. ...

On the other hand, how do I know that the scales are tipped in such a crazy fashion? Where's the break point before a cache can be called a 'success'? Certainly, everyone doesn't have to love the hypothetical cache. If that were the case, the only flavor would be vanilla. Edited January 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

They hurt the game in that some people will think "that's it?" and move on.

If that happens, it's not due to any 'lameness' on the part of the caches. That's due to mental lameness on the part of the person selecting which caches to hunt.

 

They hurt the game in that some cachers will get burned out by finding lame caches and the work they have to do to seek out good caches to find.

Finding the good ones is NOT hard work. Besides, should we really try to guarantee that nobody will ever have a less-than-exciting geocaching experience? Where else in life is there such a guarantee? All caches are hidden by amateur, volunteer, fellow players. Have a little patience.

 

They hurt the game in that those are the caches that are more likely to be reported and create some kind of incident involving authorities and creating disruption.

That is not creativity issue. That is a Guidelines/Terms of Service issue, and is off-topic for this thread.

 

They hurt the game in that if lame caches are all anyone ever see's they may emulate them creating more.

If every single cache a newbie sees is a cache he himself would describe as 'lame' (unlikely, but that's your premise), then why would he want to copy them? Besides, I disagree with that premise. In my experience it would take more work to AVOID the great hides than to avoid the mundane ones. Not all geocaches are wonderful, but the good ones just aren't that difficult to detect.

 

They help the game because in an anything goes enviroment if you want to stand out from the riff raff you have to figure out a new and better way to hide a cache to earn your accolades. It helps because where creativity and anti-creativity is allowed you get more variations and more types of hides and locations than in a vanilla generic world of medium good caches. They help the game because anyone can give back including the people who don't have a creative bone in their body. They help the game because sometimes it's not about the cache so much as being the cache that's in the right place at the right time to make for a great experience in spite of every single thing that would point to that cache as being lame. They help the game in that people can see what they don't like and know exactly what they don't want to do based on hard experience.

Well said. Thanks for open-mindedly considering both sides.

[+TrailGators]

So the only solution is the provide a way for those that do not enjoy microspew to filter it out from our PQs. Then everyone will have what they want....

You can filter them by size in a PQ can't you? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

Please see this post where I address your concern.

Your method will not work for ...

I can but there are some wow micros that I would not want to filter out. Also filtering out everything that is at least 2/2 or above will not work for the same reason.

The beauty of my plan is that you get to go find all of the caches that you know that you'll like and then take a harder look at the remainder. By mapping the remainder, I quickly devide them into three categories: Maybe good, maybe, and maybe not.

 

The maybe yes ones are clearly shown in parks and cool places on the map. So I can go find those. The maybe nots are clearly in strip malls, so I can avoid them. The maybes are the few caches that I will read the cache pages to see if they interest me.

 

My plan is easy peasy. The best part about it is any real work (reading) is backloaded so I don't even have to do it until 95% of the caches are either found or discarded.

 

Put your easy peasy plan to the test. Someone is visiting San Diego on vacation. They plan on driving throughout the entire county for the two weeks that they are here. You tell me which caches in San Diego county are not microspew. I think SD county is well over 4000 caches now, so I think it will be tougher than "easy peasy."

[+TrailGators]

Certainly, everyone doesn't have to love the hypothetical cache. If that were the case, the only flavor would be vanilla.

Black and white thinking again. We enjoy a variety of creative well-placed caches.

[+sbell111]

I already answered your question.

Sure you did.

You described a cache that no one but you would consider handicap accessible.

I am surprised that you would feel that cache was accessible.

I am even more surprised that you would object to the widespread practice followed by the community and imply that it was OK to rate caches that are not wheelchair accessible as 1 Star for Terrain....

I don't know why you insist on discussing this issue in this thread, rather than the other.

 

My feelings boil down to two issues:

 

First, the definition of a terrain of one does not mention wheelchairs. It mentions 'handicap'. 'Handicapped' is generally defined as 'having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities'. Clearly, requiring a cane or crutches would be a handicap.

 

The second issue deals with the wheelchair attribute. If all 1-terrain caches were automatically wheelchair accessible, there would be no need for the attribute. The existence of the attribute suggests that 1-terrain caches were never meant to be all wheelchair accessible.

[+sbell111]

Certainly, everyone doesn't have to love the hypothetical cache. If that were the case, the only flavor would be vanilla.

Black and white thinking again. We enjoy a variety of creative well-placed caches.

True, but every cache that you like isn't widely liked by every other player. You are the one looking at the issue as if it were back-and-white.

[+sbell111]

Put your easy peasy plan to the test. Someone is visiting San Diego on vacation. They plan on driving throughout the entire county for the two weeks that they are here. You tell me which caches in San Diego county are not microspew. I think SD county is well over 4000 caches now, so I think it will be tougher than "easy peasy."

OK, but give me a few minutes, I'm posting at work.

[+wavector]

Someone is visiting San Diego on vacation

 

Someone will be visiting in a few weeks and intends to use your Consensus Favourites list to find a few caches while we are there, thanks for taking the time to make the list.

[+KBI]

If 995 people don't like a cache and 5 do that doesn't mean it wasn't lame.

Assuming such a cache exists:

 

Those 995 people are welcome to either:

• avoid the cache (before they find it), or
  
• get over it (after they find it)
  

Both options are easy to accomplish with very little effort.

 

Five people did like it. Why begrudge them their fun? Why is their taste in caching any less valid than yours? When you're down the road shouting yippee upon finding an awesomely creative cache at the same time someone is shouting yippee upon finding the 995-to-5 cache, how does the fact that someone is enjoying the 995-to-5 cache disturb your fun?

 

I suspect that you're having more difficulty than most folks at employing at least one of the two options listed above, else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited January 22, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

Someone is visiting San Diego on vacation

 

Someone will be visiting in a few weeks and intends to use your Consensus Favourites list to find a few caches while we are there, thanks for taking the time to make the list.

You are welcome! Maybe someday this kind of list will be available for any place you travel!

[+sbell111]

Put your easy peasy plan to the test. Someone is visiting San Diego on vacation. They plan on driving throughout the entire county for the two weeks that they are here. You tell me which caches in San Diego county are not microspew. I think SD county is well over 4000 caches now, so I think it will be tougher than "easy peasy."

OK, but give me a few minutes, I'm posting at work.

OK, I narrowed down to 502 caches that I believe that I would enjoy.