Urban Caching

[+TrailGators]

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.

I asked for a list of the ones that are not microspew.....

[+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.

I asked for a list of the ones that are not microspew.....

None of those are 'microspew'. Instead, it is a good list of caches that I could go after on vacation to your area if I hated 'microspew'.

[+KBI]

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.

I asked for a list of the ones that are not microspew.....

As I've said before:

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" (or crappy, or 'microspew,' or whatever you want to call it) as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.

[+Jhwk]

Why, why, why are we doing this again...

 

I mean really?

 

please, just go find some caches....

[+TrailGators]

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.

I asked for a list of the ones that are not microspew.....

None of those are 'microspew'. Instead, it is a good list of caches that I could go after on vacation to your area if I hated 'microspew'.

So does that mean that the 3500 caches that you eliminated are most likely microspew?

[+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.

I asked for a list of the ones that are not microspew.....

None of those are 'microspew'. Instead, it is a good list of caches that I could go after on vacation to your area if I hated 'microspew'.

So does that mean that the 3500 caches that you eliminated are most likely microspew?

No, it meant that I misunderstood your question. A new sort identified 1435 caches that the hypothetical vacationer would likely like.

 

BTW, the remainder are not 'likely microspew'. They would, however, require additional sorting once the 1435 were found by the vacationer. It should also be noted that I really don't know where the boundaries of the county are. Instead, I picked an arbitrary distance and ran with it, as a vacationer would do.

Edited January 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

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.

I asked for a list of the ones that are not microspew.....

None of those are 'microspew'. Instead, it is a good list of caches that I could go after on vacation to your area if I hated 'microspew'.

So does that mean that the 3500 caches that you eliminated are most likely microspew?

No, it meant that I misunderstood your question. A new sort identified 1435 caches that the hypothetical vacationer would likely like.

BTW, the remainder are not 'likely microspew'. They would, however, require additional sorting once the 1435 were found by the vacationer. It should also be noted that I really don't know where the boundaries of the county are. Instead, I picked an arbitrary distance and ran with it, as a vacationer would do.

San Diego County (4526 sqmi) is actually more than twice the size of Delaware. There are 3567 caches within 50 miles of downtown but the ocean and Mexico reduce that area to less than half of the area in the county. So at any rate, you are claiming that half of the caches within ~40 miles of downtown are definitely not microspew. Is this correct? What percentage are micros? I'm still not sure how you are doing this without downloading without several PQs and using GSAK....

[+Renegade Knight]

....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.

 

You will notice that I also said that people will also have examples of exactly what they don't want to do and try something different.

 

People do tend to copy aspects of a cache. It's why regions seem to have different styles. However if they emulated exacty what they saw where did all the lame caches come from?

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle and probably complicated by other factors.

[+sbell111]

San Diego County (4526 sqmi) is actually more than twice the size of Delaware. There are 3567 caches within 50 miles of downtown but the ocean and Mexico reduce that area to less than half of the area in the county. So at any rate, you are claiming that half of the caches within ~40 miles of downtown are definitely not microspew. Is this correct? What percentage are micros? I'm still not sure how you are doing this without downloading without several PQs and using GSAK....

50 miles? My radius is much smaller than yours.

[+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.

You will notice that I also said that people will also have examples of exactly what they don't want to do and try something different.

 

People do tend to copy aspects of a cache. It's why regions seem to have different styles. However if they emulated exacty what they saw where did all the lame caches come from?

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle and probably complicated by other factors.

agreed.

[+TrailGators]

When it comes right down to it, I'm just panning for the gold that is mixed in with all the sand and gravel! The gold is just getting tougher to find. If someone does want to post an easy step-by-step method of downloading a PQ and filtering out most of the sand and gravel without filtering out any gold; I am all ears.

[+drat19]

When it comes right down to it, I'm just panning for the gold that is mixed in with all the sand and gravel! The gold is just getting tougher to find. If someone does want to post an easy step-by-step method of downloading a PQ and filtering out most of the sand and gravel without filtering out any gold; I am all ears.

Sigh, the gold rush is over. I guess that makes all of us pre-'04 cachers "49ers".

 

And the only panning we can do now is the panning of uninspired caches.

Edited January 22, 2007 by drat19

[Clan Riffster]

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.

I know a senior land manager who fits that description to a "T". He discovered that geocaching was occurring on the property he manages, and decided to find out what all the hub-bub was about. He went to the nearest cache and discovered a Gladware container full of damp McCrap, with a damp log. He has since closed that property to any future caches. Had the hider used a less lame container, his first impression might have been very different.

 

Edit to add: I'd like to offer my apologies to StonedCacher and the forum moderators for my earlier rant. I let him get under my skin and devalued the forums as a result.

[+tozainamboku]

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

 

Congratulations to TrailGators, I've been avoiding responding to this thread since page 3 and what I said there still goes. But I found this remark quite funny. Somebody hid a cache that 1000 people bothered to find. 5 of those people really enjoyed the cache while the other 995 thought it was lame. At the same time, somebody hid one of those really remote hiking caches that TrailGators likes so much. 5 people visited that cache and all thought that even though it was just an ammo can hidden behind a rock it was a challenging hike that they wouldn't have gone on otherwise. 995 people ignored the cache because they don't like challenging hikes. I certainly am not going to make any judgement as to which of these two caches is lame.

 

I could make a judgement as to which group of cachers is lame - the ones that went to look for parking lot micro and didn't like it or the ones that ignored the difficult hiking cache, but I tend to agree that is much easier for the urban cacher to ignore caches that might be too challenging or take too long to find than it is for the cacher who likes challenging caches or even just likes caches in "wow" places to eliminate the caches that don't meet their criteria.

[+briansnat]

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

 

Apparently I'm not that bright, because I've yet to find an easy way to weed out the kinds of caches I don't like.

I can investigate every single cache by checking topo maps and sat photos, but that isn't foolproof and its not the way I prefer to cache. I like to just download waypoints and go. When it gets to the point where I have to

research every cache before I head out, that will be the point where this will stop being fun. Thankfully, I live in an area where micro spew has yet to take hold, so I only have to deal with this when travelling, but it certainly takes away from my enjoyment of geocaching when I'm away from home.

[+TrailGators]

I tend to agree that is much easier for the urban cacher to ignore caches that might be too challenging or take too long to find than it is for the cacher who likes challenging caches or even just likes caches in "wow" places to eliminate the caches that don't meet their criteria.

I'm glad that someone finally recognizes this fact! To be honest, when it comes to hiking or off-roading it is all about the adventure. Those caches are what got me to that location. I could honestly care less how those kind of caches are hidden because they have already made my day so much better!

[+KBI]

Thankfully, I live in an area where micro spew has yet to take hold, so I only have to deal with this when travelling, but it certainly takes away from my enjoyment of geocaching when I'm away from home.

Thankfully, I haven't yet managed to let the mere existence of less-than-exciting cache hides affect my enjoyment of geocaching.

 

Thankfully, I haven't yet been infected by the current 'entertain-me-to-my-satisfaction-or-I-will-declare-you-LAME' attitude.

 

Thankfully, I'm apparently not bright enough to realize that I'm supposed to be whining about lack of creativity every time a cache fails to rock my world instead of just being happy to have pretty much ANY hidden container with a logbook available to try to locate with my GPS.

 

Thankfully the whole urban lameness thing just doesn't bother me. I understand why it happens, and I easily deal with it.

 

I like to just download waypoints and go. When it gets to the point where I have to research every cache before I head out, that will be the point where this will stop being fun.

Translation: "Give me convenience ... AND protection from caches that might not meet my personal minimum standard of fun ... or give me death!"

 

 

Seriously -- I've never really had any trouble at all determining the better-than-average ones from the less-than average ones before heading out for the hunt. I don't even use PQs! I just read over the logs and the descriptions, and it's usually pretty obvious which is which. You can't avoid ALL the disappointing hides that way, of course, but I also think that, no matter how you prepare, demanding a continuous and uninterrupted minimum quality of entertainment from every cache you hunt is simply asking too much of your fellow volunteer participants in this amateur-driven hobby.

Edited January 23, 2007 by KBI

[+briansnat]

Thankfully, I live in an area where micro spew has yet to take hold, so I only have to deal with this when travelling, but it certainly takes away from my enjoyment of geocaching when I'm away from home.

Thankfully, I haven't yet managed to let the mere existence of less-than-exciting cache hides affect my enjoyment of geocaching.

 

Thankfully, I haven't yet been infected by the current 'entertain-me-to-my-satisfaction-or-I-will-declare-you-LAME' attitude.

 

Thankfully, I'm apparently not bright enough to realize that I'm supposed to be whining about lack of creativity every time a cache fails to rock my world instead of just being happy to have pretty much ANY hidden container with a logbook available to try to locate with my GPS.

 

Thankfully the whole urban lameness thing just doesn't bother me. I understand why it happens, and I easily deal with it.

 

Thankfully you're satisfied being taken from lamp post to dumpster to loading dock. The thing about this sport that attracted me in the first place was that it offered a bit more than that.

[+Kit Fox]

Thankfully you're satisfied being taken from lamp post to dumpster to loading dock. The thing about this sport that attracted me in the first place was that it offered a bit more than that.

 

There are still a few of us left that prefer to hide quality caches over quantity caches.

 

I'm still hoping TPTB will institute my "park and grab" or "parking lot" attribute.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Did a bit of both today, 10 finds, 4 in a wildlife preserve, the rest in suburbs, six ammo can or similar, 4 micros, met another cacher on the way out of one, met a young family on the back roads, introduced them to caching by taking them to 3 caches.

 

Yep, a good day, and the lamp-post and the telephone booth were just as much fun as the hikes, just different!

 

I don't pick 'em, just follow "next nearest" on the GPS and take 'em as they come.

[+cmiked]

While I prefer a nice walk in the woods where I have the opportunity to spend the afternoon in the woods with my kids, I also like the ability to grab a quick find at lunch, on the way to work or home. So I like em all. I'm not picky.

[+KBI]

Thankfully you're satisfied being taken from lamp post to dumpster to loading dock. The thing about this sport that attracted me in the first place was that it offered a bit more than that.

There are still a few of us left that prefer to hide quality caches over quantity caches.

You can count me in that group too. Prefer to hide them, prefer to find them. Where I seem to be different is that I don't let the mere existence of the less exciting ones bother me.

[+KBI]

Thankfully, I live in an area where micro spew has yet to take hold, so I only have to deal with this when travelling, but it certainly takes away from my enjoyment of geocaching when I'm away from home.

Thankfully, I haven't yet managed to let the mere existence of less-than-exciting cache hides affect my enjoyment of geocaching.

 

Thankfully, I haven't yet been infected by the current 'entertain-me-to-my-satisfaction-or-I-will-declare-you-LAME' attitude.

 

Thankfully, I'm apparently not bright enough to realize that I'm supposed to be whining about lack of creativity every time a cache fails to rock my world instead of just being happy to have pretty much ANY hidden container with a logbook available to try to locate with my GPS.

 

Thankfully the whole urban lameness thing just doesn't bother me. I understand why it happens, and I easily deal with it.

Thankfully you're satisfied being taken from lamp post to dumpster to loading dock. The thing about this sport that attracted me in the first place was that it offered a bit more than that.

Thankfully, there's something in this hobby for everyone!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm still hoping TPTB will institute my "park and grab" or "parking lot" attribute.

You don't need it; Just filter out caches with terrain less than or equal to 2 and all the parking lot micros and drive-ups disappear from your world.

 

Simple.

 

Take control of your life.

[Clan Riffster]

Ed, my parking lot micro is a 3/1.5.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ed, my parking lot micro is a 3/1.5.

True, the lame cache on my front porch is rated high too, but it's a lie.

 

Still, while there are exceptions to every rule, the vast majority of parking lot and drive-ups will be less than 2.5 terrain.

 

Anyone that doesn't like them can choose to set the filter to eliminate micros and anything less than 2.5 and voila - the beauty of caching is restored! Nothing left for them to whine about but crappy trade items!

 

Maybe that's why they don't do it?

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm pretty much like you are TAR, I find them as they come too! I do read the descriptions and such, but if it gets onto my GPS, I go from one to the next choosing the next closest to go after. The requirement to get onto the GPS isn't much...no puzzles or multis over three stages!!

 

Last night, Tod and I spent hours on end choosing locations for upcoming hides, we're planning an event for this spring, and are readying for the new hides to draw more guests. Our new locations will mostly house regulars, but we MAY slip in a small or micro just to keep the finders on their toes!!

 

Five miles of hiking (maybe a bit more) through deep woods and swampy areas, saw tons of deer and loved every minute!! Only a few more trips on that route to place the hides, verify the coords and possibly clear the trail (or actually MAKE a trail in spots)...lots of work, but worth every minute when those great "found it" logs come in!!

 

I have both kinds of hides, but I don't have MANY urbans, just a bunch of micros. I AM guilty of the micro in the woods hides too! Hey, a bit of searching is what makes this sooo fun (for me)!!

[+sbell111]

... If someone does want to post an easy step-by-step method of downloading a PQ and filtering out most of the sand and gravel without filtering out any gold; I am all ears.

Apparently I'm not that bright, because I've yet to find an easy way to weed out the kinds of caches I don't like. ...

I would suggest that you both review my previous posts on how to do exactly that:

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.

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.

Edited January 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

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).

 

The problem with your method is that I have no problem with micros or low terrain and/or low difficulty caches, so weeding them out is useless to me. Also, how would I know that I don't want to visit a certain area of a city? I've found fascinating caches in areas of cities that I would never have dreamed of visiting, but for the cache (which is what drew me to this sport). I've also seen some excellent caches in mall parking lots, so eliminating areas where there are shopping malls won't work.

 

Sure I can eliminate the majority of junk caches by researching each one. I can look at maps, sat photos and the logs. It's something I can do before I'm heading out for a day of caching when I'm home. Its not a luxury I have when I'm travelling and all I have is the waypoint on my GPS.

Edited January 23, 2007 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

The problem with your method is that I have no problem with micros or low terrain and/or low difficulty caches, so weeding them out is useless to me. Also, how woud I know that I don't want to visit a certain area of a city? I've found fascinating caches in areas of cities that I would never have dreamed of visiting, but for the cache (which is what drew me to this sport). I've also seen some excellent caches in mall parking lots, so eliminating areas where there are shopping malls won't work.

 

Sure I can eliminate the majority of junk caches by researching each one. I can look at maps, sat photos and the logs. It's something I can do before I'm heading out for a day of caching when I'm home. Its not a luxury I have when I'm travelling and all I have is the waypoint on my GPS.

You got me there.

 

Certainly, a person like you who likes all kinds of caches but can't easily quantify what he doesn't like is going to have a harder time. You won't be able to use your raw PQs as a guide to cool places in a new city quite like you and I used to. You are pretty much left with either checking to see which caches the locals think are cool (typically, this information can be found on the local group's website) or following the advice that I gave in the Europe thread:

When I visit a new place, I concentrate on two things: Where I will be staying and what I want to see. On my trip to Europe, I first loaded up all the caches in the areas of my hotels. Next, I thought about the sites that I was visiting and loaded caches in the area of those sites.

I would recommend doing both. Edited January 23, 2007 by sbell111

[instafar]

I've never once advocated the banning of any type of cache.

No you have not. Instafar and TrailGators did.

No sbell, I did not suggest banning anything. Read every one of my posts again and you will see. This is another example of when you are continually reading into what other posters are trying to say. You have done it over and over throughout this thread.

 

If you read my posts you would see that I am not against a micro cache, I am not against an urban cache, and I am not against a parking lot cache. I gave an example of a great parking lot cache that was next to a mall that you even responded too.

 

All I am saying is that I wish placers just added "something" to their cache. The something being one of the following, a great location, and educational location, an interesting container, an interesting log book, something interesting in the cache. That is my wish. I understand that you don't care about that part. For you it is fun to nail a find in a busy location. I understand that and support you. People can place caches in lots all over and they CAN do it and make it just a little interesting with a little thought. I think that is what Trailgators and Kit agree with me on even though they are burned out from the parking lots and choose not to do them any more.

 

Stoned, you do need to learn to spell, it is more than typos... Prolly is not a word and you have used it more than once.

Edited January 23, 2007 by instafar

[+TrailGators]

The problem with your method is that I have no problem with micros or low terrain and/or low difficulty caches, so weeding them out is useless to me. Also, how woud I know that I don't want to visit a certain area of a city? I've found fascinating caches in areas of cities that I would never have dreamed of visiting, but for the cache (which is what drew me to this sport). I've also seen some excellent caches in mall parking lots, so eliminating areas where there are shopping malls won't work.

 

Sure I can eliminate the majority of junk caches by researching each one. I can look at maps, sat photos and the logs. It's something I can do before I'm heading out for a day of caching when I'm home. Its not a luxury I have when I'm travelling and all I have is the waypoint on my GPS.

You got me there.

 

Certainly, a person like you who likes all kinds of caches but can't easily quantify what he doesn't like is going to have a harder time. You won't be able to use your raw PQs as a guide to cool places in a new city quite like you and I used to. You are pretty much left with either checking to see which caches the locals think are cool (typically, this information can be found on the local group's website) or following the advice that I gave in the Europe thread:

I think you finally understand us! If you don't enjoy parking lot caches there is no way to ignore JUST them. Kit Fox's Parking Lot cache attribute is a great idea for people like us. I know GC already has an attribute for parking. The parking attribute is logical because you typically park and then go visit some interesting spot. In this case, we would have an attribute to let us know that you park and you be visiting some interesting spot.

 

I'm sure that we don't want to debate that a parking lot is an interesting spot.

"Hey Joe, where'd ya go for your vacation?"

"Hey Sam! I went to a bunch of parking lots!"

"Hey Joe, I'm glad you had fun..... I went to Yosemite!"

[+KBI]

Sure I can eliminate the majority of junk caches by researching each one. I can look at maps, sat photos and the logs. It's something I can do before I'm heading out for a day of caching when I'm home. Its not a luxury I have when I'm travelling and all I have is the waypoint on my GPS.

If I understand this correctly: You don't want to waste your caching time on simple drive-up caches. You are looking for an easy, efficient way to cull them out.

 

In other words: You want a convenient way to avoid convenient caches.

 

That sounds ironic, but it actually makes perfect sense to me. You want your cache experience to be (among other things) challenging, but you want your planning to be easy. Trouble is, you never know for sure which ones you're going to like until you try them. All the software tricks in the world aren't going to help.

 

Someone else used the analogy of panning for gold. I think that just about perfectly sums it up for me. One of my very favorite things about this hobby is that you never really know for sure what to expect when you go for ANY cache, and the surprises can be wonderfully entertaining -- especially when you're fully expecting something mundane. Arbitrarily eliminate any cache, or category of caches, at the front end of your planning, and you risk missing out on some of the very best gems. Of course this requires putting up with other caches that might not spin your beanie with quite the same torque as the surprise gems, but in my opinion the lesser ones make the good ones all the more enjoyable. Finding a lame cache just doesn't bother me. Finding a really cool cache that I EXPECTED to be lame is the best kind of find! it's a normal facet of human psychology that we tend to get hooked on intermittent random gratification. It addicts gamblers to gambling. It addicts me to geocaching.

 

If I ever get to the point that I think ALL the caches are lame, of course, then it's time for me to find another hobby. If any of you feel like you're rapidly approaching that point now, as many of the posts in this thread seem to indicate, then maybe it's time to re-think your entertainment choices.

 

Birdwatcher: Dadgummit, the only birds for a hundred miles around here are these lame PIGEONS! Friggin' sky rats!!

 

Birdwatcher's wife: then why do you sit here for so many hours a day looking at them through the binoculars?

 

Birdwatcher (through gritted teeth): because Birdwatching's my HOBBY!

[+Renegade Knight]

Kill Place them all. Let cachers sort the bodies caches.

[+sbell111]

You got me there.

 

Certainly, a person like you who likes all kinds of caches but can't easily quantify what he doesn't like is going to have a harder time. You won't be able to use your raw PQs as a guide to cool places in a new city quite like you and I used to. You are pretty much left with either checking to see which caches the locals think are cool (typically, this information can be found on the local group's website) or following the advice that I gave in the Europe thread:

I think you finally understand us! If you don't enjoy parking lot caches there is no way to ignore JUST them. Kit Fox's Parking Lot cache attribute is a great idea for people like us. I know GC already has an attribute for parking. The parking attribute is logical because you typically park and then go visit some interesting spot. In this case, we would have an attribute to let us know that you park and you be visiting some interesting spot.

 

I'm sure that we don't want to debate that a parking lot is an interesting spot.

"Hey Joe, where'd ya go for your vacation?"

"Hey Sam! I went to a bunch of parking lots!"

"Hey Joe, I'm glad you had fun..... I went to Yosemite!"

I have no idea what your post has to do with mine, but whatever.

[+briansnat]

If I understand this correctly: You don't want to waste your caching time on simple drive-up caches. You are looking for an easy, efficient way to cull them out.

 

In other words: You want a convenient way to avoid convenient caches.

 

You do not understand me correctly. I have no problem with drive up caches, easy caches, micros, 1 star terrain and or difficulty. My issue is with junk caches placed for the sake of placing a cache, with no other redeeming quality.

 

A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Walmart doesn't interest me. A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Revolutionary War era home where George Washington wrote his farewell address to his troops - that would interest me.

 

A drive up cache hidden under the loading dock behind 7-Eleven next to a dumpster would not interest me. A drive up cache attached to a guardrail at a scenic overlook would interest me.

 

Got it?

[+sbell111]

If I understand this correctly: You don't want to waste your caching time on simple drive-up caches. You are looking for an easy, efficient way to cull them out.

 

In other words: You want a convenient way to avoid convenient caches.

You do not understand me correctly. I have no problem with drive up caches, easy caches, micros, 1 star terrain and or difficulty. My issue is with junk caches placed for the sake of placing a cache, with no other redeeming quality.

 

A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Walmart doesn't interest me. A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Revolutionary War era home where George Washington wrote his farewell address to his troops - that would interest me.

 

A drive up cache hidden under the loading dock behind 7-Eleven next to a dumpster would not interest me. A drive up cache attached to a guardrail at a scenic overlook would interest me.

 

Got it?

I think I have it. You don't like caches that you don't like.

 

Let's say I place a cache. I place it because I think that the location is a good place for a cache. Perhaps it is at the location of a long-gone baseball stadium. Currently, however, the area is basically just ugly warehouses in a questionable area of town. It's a good place to me, but many cachers wouldn't enjoy it even if I explained on the cache page what the history of the spot is. You would like to have some way to sort out this 'lame' cache. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen. There's no way to automate a BS filter for caches.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If I understand this correctly: You don't want to waste your caching time on simple drive-up caches. You are looking for an easy, efficient way to cull them out.

 

In other words: You want a convenient way to avoid convenient caches.

 

You do not understand me correctly. I have no problem with drive up caches, easy caches, micros, 1 star terrain and or difficulty. My issue is with junk caches placed for the sake of placing a cache, with no other redeeming quality.

 

A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Walmart doesn't interest me. A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Revolutionary War era home where George Washington wrote his farewell address to his troops - that would interest me.

 

A drive up cache hidden under the loading dock behind 7-Eleven next to a dumpster would not interest me. A drive up cache attached to a guardrail at a scenic overlook would interest me.

 

Got it?

Got it.

 

But where that breaks down is the things that interest you may not interest me.

 

If we had an attribute for, say "Lay Mass Parking Lot or Guardrail" how would I know when to apply it to suit you?

 

There's a guardrail cache at the local mall that in the daytime provides a spectacular view of the valley in daylight - at night it's just another guardrail micro. Do we have a "Lame at night" attribute?

 

Would I have to poll all cachers to see who likes guardrail cache and who doesn't?

 

I did one under a lamp-post skirt behind a gas station and one under a pay telephone right next to a store entrance yesterday; I liked them, but you might not - how will I apply the attribute then?

 

And does anyone often place a cache they feel to be lame and boring? Since they would be the one to apply the attribute, it would rarely if ever be used!

 

EDIT for spelling before someone attacks me for it - now THAT's lame!

Edited January 23, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Tahoein' Bunch]

We enjoy all the hides some more than others but you can just about guess when it's a lamp post hide when you pull up if you don't like em don't do em some are P/L hides but not in lamp posts and are really good, ivy next to a transformer so you think magnetic but it's on the ground by a pole..... it's all in what floats your cache.

 

Greg

[+KBI]

If I understand this correctly: You don't want to waste your caching time on simple drive-up caches. You are looking for an easy, efficient way to cull them out.

 

In other words: You want a convenient way to avoid convenient caches.

You do not understand me correctly. I have no problem with drive up caches, easy caches, micros, 1 star terrain and or difficulty. My issue is with junk caches placed for the sake of placing a cache, with no other redeeming quality.

 

A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Walmart doesn't interest me. A drive up cache in the parking lot of a Revolutionary War era home where George Washington wrote his farewell address to his troops - that would interest me.

 

A drive up cache hidden under the loading dock behind 7-Eleven next to a dumpster would not interest me. A drive up cache attached to a guardrail at a scenic overlook would interest me.

 

Got it?

I'll repeat:

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" (or crappy, or 'microspew,' or whatever you want to call it) as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.

 

That permanent lack of a useable definition applies to what you're trying to do as well.

 

There is no software that will predict what views or what points of interest briansnat will find enjoyable. No matter what one does (short of quitting), one is going to end up finding caches here and there that they feel are lame. This game is run by amateurs, and occasionally it requires patience. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I love this game.

 

I'll also repeat: Playing tourguide for you is NOT a primary function of Geocaching. It's neat when it happens, but it doesn't affect my pleasure negatively when it's missing from the caches I find -- and I certainly don't ever want to see it codified as a requirement. If caching isn't providing you with adequate sightseeing guidance, then maybe you need to find a better and more appropriate tourguide.

[+TrailGators]

You got me there.

 

Certainly, a person like you who likes all kinds of caches but can't easily quantify what he doesn't like is going to have a harder time. You won't be able to use your raw PQs as a guide to cool places in a new city quite like you and I used to. You are pretty much left with either checking to see which caches the locals think are cool (typically, this information can be found on the local group's website) or following the advice that I gave in the Europe thread:

I think you finally understand us! If you don't enjoy parking lot caches there is no way to ignore JUST them. Kit Fox's Parking Lot cache attribute is a great idea for people like us. I know GC already has an attribute for parking. The parking attribute is logical because you typically park and then go visit some interesting spot. In this case, we would have an attribute to let us know that you park and you be visiting some interesting spot.

I have no idea what your post has to do with mine, but whatever.

I'll spell it out for you: You basically admitted that your "easy peasy method" won't work for us. I then commented Kit Fox's idea that would help us. But even that idea is still not ideal because Brian later pointed out there are parking lots near scenic overlooks or historical sites that most would enjoy finding. Since there is an attribute for Scenic Views, we could use that attribute to add those caches back into our GPSs. So, when it comes down to it, many of us some need new attribute(s) and a macro written for GSAK, so we can filter caches that many of us don't enjoy.

[+TrailGators]

So here is our program so far:

 

10 IF ATTRIBUTE = "SCENIC VIEW" THEN MOVE TO "KEEP"

20 IF ATTRIBUTE = "HISTORIC SITE" THEN MOVE TO "KEEP"

30 IF ATTRIBUTE = "PARKING LOT CACHE" THEN DELETE

40 IF TERRAIN RATING <2 AND DIFFICULTY RATING <2 THEN LABEL CACHE "GCABCD ?"

[Luckless]

So..

How many premium members here have a listing/bookmark of their favorite caches for the area they frequently cache in?

[+TrailGators]

So..

How many premium members here have a listing/bookmark of their favorite caches for the area they frequently cache in?

I and many folks in SD have done this! In fact, I have combined everyone's favorites lists created a San Diego Consensus Favorites list (see below). I think using one cachers favorites list is hit or miss but using a composite list is better. I really wish they had something like this for all parts of the country so when I traveled I could pull PQS using a feature like this! Edited January 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I'll spell it out for you: You basically admitted that your "easy peasy method" won't work for us. I then commented Kit Fox's idea that would help us. But even that idea is still not ideal because Brian later pointed out there are parking lots near scenic overlooks or historical sites that most would enjoy finding. Since there is an attribute for Scenic Views, we could use that attribute to add those caches back into our GPSs. So, when it comes down to it, many of us some need new attribute(s) and a macro written for GSAK, so we can filter caches that many of us don't enjoy.

Actually, my method wouldn't work as well for Brian as it would for some. It would still work for him. He would simply have a larger amount of caches in the final group. It would much better for you, based on the preferences that you have given in this thread.

 

edit: (Why can I never type THE correctly?)

Edited January 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I'll spell it out for you: You basically admitted that your "easy peasy method" won't work for us. I then commented Kit Fox's idea that would help us. But even that idea is still not ideal because Brian later pointed out there are parking lots near scenic overlooks or historical sites that most would enjoy finding. Since there is an attribute for Scenic Views, we could use that attribute to add those caches back into our GPSs. So, when it comes down to it, many of us some need new attribute(s) and a macro written for GSAK, so we can filter caches that many of us don't enjoy.

Actually, my method wouldn't work as well for Brian as it would for some. It would still work for him. He would simply have a larger amount of caches in the final group. It would much better for you, based on the preferences that you have given in this thread.

Based on what Briansnat, ClanRiffster, CoyoteRed, Drat19, Instafar, Kit Fox, The WhiteUrkel and many many others have written, I bet all of us pretty much like/dislike the same kind of caches. I really see a clear divide between the people that enjoy finding microspew and us. I also think that the more you cache the more likely you are to get bored with microspew.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Based on what Briansnat, ClanRiffster, CoyoteRed, Drat19, Instafar, Kit Fox, The WhiteUrkel and many many others have written, I bet all of us pretty much like/dislike the same kind of caches. I really see a clear divide between the people that enjoy finding microspew and us. I also think that the more you cache the more likely you are to get bored with microspew.

There are 352535 active caches worldwide.

In the last 7 days, there have been 181945 new logs written by 29725 account holders.

 

How many cachers do you think there must be to come up with those stats? Gotta be millions of us.

 

Yet you will let the forum voices of, what, 20 people... 50 people tops, sway your thinking?

 

We should assume that those 50, your "many, many others" dictate the game to the millions?

 

Never confuse forums with real life!

 

Folks hide and seek what they like.

[+DRMOO]

Living in Houston, TX you can imagine that most of the caches around me are urban micro caches. Some of them are hidden in wonderful places that show me interested or beautiful parts of the city that I might not have ever found on my own.

 

More and more though I am running into caches that are just placed in terrible spots. As I find the cache I look around and wonder why in the world would someone place a cache here??? It is not fun, exciting, interesting, beautiful, or educational. Here is an example of one I just found 1 hour ago. The cache was a micro cache (rolled up log book in a film canister) that was hidden in the base of a light pole in the middle of a Walmart parking lot. First of all, while driving to it you already know exactly were it has to be... can't hide it in the pavement. Second, the only way to get to it without looking suspicious is to pretend to be talking on your cell phone next to your parked car. Third, lifting the base collar on a light pole could be both dangerous and concidered tampering with private property.

 

This is just one example of an urban microcache that just does not fit the whole purpose behind the Geocaching game. There are so many out there as silly as this one. Don't get me wrong, I have found so many others that are very interesting and unuasual, but how do we get cache placers to put a little effort into where and why they are hiding a cache?

 

I would love to hear what others have to say about this issue. Or maybe you don't see it as a big deal... comments...

Edited January 23, 2007 by DRMOO

[+TrailGators]

Based on what Briansnat, ClanRiffster, CoyoteRed, Drat19, Instafar, Kit Fox, The WhiteUrkel and many many others have written, I bet all of us pretty much like/dislike the same kind of caches. I really see a clear divide between the people that enjoy finding microspew and us. I also think that the more you cache the more likely you are to get bored with microspew.

There are 352535 active caches worldwide.

In the last 7 days, there have been 181945 new logs written by 29725 account holders.

How many cachers do you think there must be to come up with those stats? Gotta be millions of us.

Yet you will let the forum voices of, what, 20 people... 50 people tops, sway your thinking?

We should assume that those 50, your "many, many others" dictate the game to the millions?

Never confuse forums with real life!

Folks hide and seek what they like.

It's amazing that you think you are so psychic that you know all the research I've done and how I've formed my opinion. I've talked to tons cachers outside of the forums. Give me freaking a break! Rather than argue let's conduct a poll with these three questions:

 

Which do you prefer?

a) Caches that are hidden in interesting places

b.) Caches hidden in parking lots

c) Any cache is fine with me

 

Are numbers important to you?

a) Yes

b.) No

c) Sort of

 

How long have you been caching?

a) Less than one year

b.) 1-3 years

c) More than 3 years

Edited January 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Kit Fox]

An added benefit of the "parking lot" attribute is that cachers who actively hunt parking lot caches, have an added tool to use in pocket queries.