caches you refuse to get

1.2k · January 30, 2007

There is one in a Walmart parking lot less than 2 miles from my house. I've been to that Walmart probably a dozen times since it has been placed. Probably parked within 50 feet of it one time or another. No thanks.

That's the problem. You need to park 1-2ft from it so you can reach out the car window to grab it. Jeez!

January 30, 2007

I don't know that there is any cache I have refused to look for. There are caches I have thought afterwards, "now what was the point of that?" Sometimes, what is lacking in location though can be made up for with innovation and I have found little gems in some of the most unexpected places. I guess what I am saying is that I don't always know if a cache is lame until I've found it. Darned if I'm going to miss out on some really ingenious new idea for a cache in a lamp-skirt because I refused to look for it. You never know.

A slight modification of that old Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song...

If you can't be with the cache you love,

love the cache you're with...

January 30, 2007

When I started geocaching about five years ago, I lived in CT. In the spring/summer there was no such thing as a NON-tick infested area, or a NON-Poison Ivy infested area! Maybe the cache owners could put MULTIPLE Tick symbols and Dangerous Plant symbols if it is a really bad problem???

January 30, 2007

I think all cache hiders should read this thread.

It's not your usual angst filled complaining thread,Just one about what folks won't go after.

Maybe it will help.

24.7k · January 30, 2007

what's your definition of a "bad" cache?... one that when you pull up to it, you just say " forget it!" I have seen a few... very high muggler area, on a trash can, ...etc. What would it take for you to say, no way!

If there is a muggle by the cache I'll pass on by. If the cache is in a high traffic area (like a light pole on the roadway...) I won't stop. I hate the feeling of being exposed while searching for a cache. Those kinds of caches don't thrill me.

The only consistant thing though is the cache owner. There are a couple of cache owners that I just don't even bother with their caches. It has more to do with their attitude than anything else.

14.3k · January 31, 2007

what's your definition of a "bad" cache?... one that when you pull up to it, you just say " forget it!" I have seen a few... very high muggler area, on a trash can, ...etc. What would it take for you to say, no way!

If there is a muggle by the cache I'll pass on by. If the cache is in a high traffic area (like a light pole on the roadway...) I won't stop. I hate the feeling of being exposed while searching for a cache. Those kinds of caches don't thrill me.

The only consistant thing though is the cache owner. There are a couple of cache owners that I just don't even bother with their caches. It has more to do with their attitude than anything else.

That reminds me of a time when I walked up to a find cache at a Rubio's (fish taco joint) and saw that the cache was stuck to the bottom of a table that a family was eating at. I'm not kidding but the other cacher that was with me wanted to interrupt their dinner so he could log the cache. I stopped him because it would be rude to do that. Anyhow, it was a stupid place to hide a cache because it created that situation....

10.2k · January 31, 2007

Repetative, uncreative micros hidden under newspaper stands. Lots of those here in LA, especially by one particular cacher. bah.

You could always take 3 or 4 of them out of contention for potential cache sites by making them part of a multi-cache. Not that I've done this myself, of course.

14.3k · January 31, 2007

Repetative, uncreative micros hidden under newspaper stands. Lots of those here in LA, especially by one particular cacher. bah.

You could always take 3 or 4 of them out of contention for potential cache sites by making them part of a multi-cache. Not that I've done this myself, of course.

Edited January 31, 2007 by TrailGators

2.3k · January 31, 2007

At first we hated in town micros but now I like them, so far there has not been a cahce that I have turned down other than it was some crazy puzzle that I could not even think of how to solve.

January 31, 2007

Caches in front yards, caches placed on WORKING farm machinery ( thats just not funny folks) , and caches near mailboxes.

1k · January 31, 2007

Don't care if I drove an hour to get to it, if I walk to the coords and it brings me to a pine tree and I know I'm probably looking for a film canister on a piece of coat hanger I just turn around.

Sorry all, can't stand them.

January 31, 2007

Maybe I haven't been caching long enough, but I have loved just about every cache I've found except two. Both hadn't been taken care of by the owner in ages. One was an old rusted out altoids container with a wet moldy log, that should have been taken out long ago and replaced or just retired. The other was tupperware, that had dirt, and grungy dirty stuff in it. Both of them made you wish you hadn't touched them and were not worth signing the journal log.

IF any cacher reports in the log that a cache is wet, I won't be searching for it until the owner does some Cache First Aid

January 31, 2007

A cache nearby which is located in the cacheowner's shop.

A travelbug hotel with a rule to leave at least three travelbugs in it.

And then I recently dropped anything with a container smaller than "Regular" from my pocket queries.

3.2k · January 31, 2007

Just today I stopped in a small park with a patch of woods and a metal and plastic play ground monster. There was an ammo can in the woods and a micro somewhere on/in/around the play yard. I went for the ammo can and then went home.

20.7k · January 31, 2007

Just today I stopped in a small park with a patch of woods and a metal and plastic play ground monster. There was an ammo can in the woods and a micro somewhere on/in/around the play yard. I went for the ammo can and then went home.

Just out of curiosity, was it the micro or the playground that you didn't care for? Edited January 31, 2007 by sbell111

January 31, 2007

The only consistant thing though is the cache owner. There are a couple of cache owners that I just don't even bother with their caches. It has more to do with their attitude than anything else.

Ditto, there's one or two around here whose caches I won't hunt unless I'm WALKING right by theirs to get to someone else's cache.

February 1, 2007

Would any of you be so brazen as to post to a cache page why the cache isn't up to your standards and link directly to this thread?

Edited February 1, 2007 by supertbone

February 1, 2007

Around here, two different people have put out a relatively large series of micros... usually a film canister or pill container. The film container series tends to be hidden in the forest under something, or dangling in the middle of a bush. The pill-container series... most of 'em are (once again, in a forest), lying under some bark on the ground. One of them was actually just lying in the middle of a bush... that's it.

I got a few of them in general, seeing as some of them were kinda fun. By this point however, going after 'em isn't worth the risk, as the severely annoying tend to outnumber the good. Yeah, not worth the risk.

There's two more that I'll eventually go after, but that's just to get rid of the DNF's I've gotten on them. However, despite me being the type of person who wants to get rid of DNF's as fast as possible, those I'm leaving until immediately after someone else finds them and confirms they're still there. Both have had multiple DNF's after me on them... so unless it's found, it can stay a DNF until it gets archived.

*shudder* micros in a forest. Not even imaginitive ones either. Just... there.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Kabuthunk

9.3k · February 1, 2007

Would any of you be so brazen as to post to a cache page why the cache isn't up to your standards and link directly to this thread?

I can't speak for others, but I know I would not be willing to do this. I have no problem posting my opinions on a particular topic, and I'm more than happy to wax philosophic concerning what kind of caches I dislike, but I draw the line at calling someone out. I don't mind posting generalized rude, obnoxious comments about hypothetical soggy log film canisters in uninspired locations, but I will not allow my angst to target specific individuals.

(Yeah, I know....how noble of me...) LOL!

Edited February 1, 2007 by Clan Riffster

14.3k · February 1, 2007

Would any of you be so brazen as to post to a cache page why the cache isn't up to your standards and link directly to this thread?

I use the short logs to communicate boredom and long logs to communicate approval. I think a lot of people do this. I have tried to make my own caches better over the years. Is is fun knowing that you made something that was fun for a lot of people. :cool:

38.2k · February 1, 2007

Would any of you be so brazen as to post to a cache page why the cache isn't up to your standards and link directly to this thread?

What purpose would that serve?

February 1, 2007

Would any of you be so brazen as to post to a cache page why the cache isn't up to your standards and link directly to this thread?

What purpose would that serve?

I wonder that myself as I have seen it done by another user.

February 1, 2007

Would any of you be so brazen as to post to a cache page why the cache isn't up to your standards and link directly to this thread?

That comes across as a very loaded/skewed way of asking the question, especially in the use of the word "brazen", which has a very negative connotation; the primary definition of the word is "shameless or impudent". See: brazen

And the phrasing of "up to your standards", coupled with that, implies that you think everyone posting to the thread is being somehow snobby.

I realize you may not mean it that way, but it's how it's reading to me.

Perhaps some people are being a bit superior, but the main gist of this thread is about caches which are not well placed, with a secondary theme of what people PREFER.

Getting back to your question, yes, when I find something about a cache which I think other seekers should be aware or forewarned of, I put a note on the cache page or put the information in my log (if I found the cache). However, more often than not, it's a cache that I've actually found, and that I don't necessarily think is a bad cache.

For an example, go to GC104WV - Emma's Stash Cache - and read my FTF log.

I LIKE that cache - I think it's great - but I wouldn't want someone unfamiliar to the area to come in looking for the cache, and have a dog or child killed because they don't know the train tracks are there and/or assume they're completely fenced off.

As mentioned in my log, there HAVE been several dogs killed there; you can't see the tracks when you're walking into the park, and it's natural to assume that they'd be 100% fenced or gated because there are always dogs running free there.

In the case of the cache-with-rats mentioned upthread, a) I was new to the sport (it was maybe the 5th cache I'd looked for); :blink: there were other logs complaining about the conditions, and c) it was archived shortly thereafter - so I didn't post anything. Now, yes, I would have posted a note or DNF and stated why I declined to search.

Similarly, when I went looking for a cache and found myself in the middle of a homeless camp - the cache was placed on the other side of it - I absolutely planned to post, AND to drop an e-mail to the cache owners, but when I pulled it up on my computer I found it had been archived the week before.

Hanging Out at Big Elk Creek

I'm not sure what was up with that hide staying up as long as it did.

However, the couple who placed it have about 50 caches; some of which I REALLY like - for example, Little Chapel and Granite Terrace (which is the perfect example of what an urban micro should be, IMO... although Port Deposit is only marginally "urban"), some of which are not my taste but not what I'd call a bad cache.

And I've had courteous/pleasant e-mail exchanges with them several times with questions about other caches....so my assumption is that the homeless camp wasn't there when they placed it and/or that they didn't realize people were actually LIVING there. I'm also guessing that they archived it on the basis of a private e-mail detailing the circumstances; a lot of logs allude to it, but people were being perhaps too tactful.

Edited February 1, 2007 by cimawr

3.3k · February 1, 2007

I use the short logs to communicate boredom and long logs to communicate approval. I think a lot of people do this. I have tried to make my own caches better over the years. Is is fun knowing that you made something that was fun for a lot of people.

Bingo!

Short logs are a great indicator of caches you didn't enjoy. I remember when the ignore list was not available, and you got stuck with caches on your nearest unfound list, that you had no desire to find. Thankfully, they don't exist anymore. :blink:

February 1, 2007

User deleted post

Edited February 1, 2007 by supertbone

February 1, 2007

Any cache is fine with me, I try to find them ALL, but:

Found an area where men meet other men in the woods and they are not fishing or hunting. There was a cache there placed by someone who, hopefully, did not know that situation . . . being so attractive :blink: , I refuse to go in there for a cache.

Another that is becoming really tedious is the soft coords 'green nano/micro in a holly bush hide' where there are a row of the bushes. It takes for ever to find, sticks your hands & arms and kills the joy of the hunting day . . . no more for me, thanks though.

Edited February 1, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

14.3k · February 1, 2007

Found an area where men meet other men in the woods and they are not fishing or hunting. There was a cache there placed by someone who, hopefully, did not know that situation . . . being so attractive , I refuse to go in there for a cache.

We have those too... :wub:

Anyhow, I've been told to make sure that you never backup into your parking spot in case you accidentally come across one of "those" places, because that is their signal.... :blink:

February 1, 2007

Found an area where men meet other men in the woods and they are not fishing or hunting. There was a cache there placed by someone who, hopefully, did not know that situation . . . being so attractive , I refuse to go in there for a cache.
We have those too... Anyhow, I've been told to make sure that you never backup into your parking spot in case you accidentally come across one of "those" places, because that is their signal....

hahahaha

:blink:

1.9k · February 1, 2007

I only have one on my refuse to find list. Flameproof - Memorial Garden This cache is placed at a memorial for crash victims of an airline crash. Nice are and very thoughtful memorial. The owner didn't like the local caching group in the area holding an event called Burning Micro, so on the suggestion of our local reviewer they started a campaign called Flameproof. They were each going to place a bunch of micros all on the day of the event that opver 100 people attended. The worst part was their choice of wording at this memorial. Can you image standing there with cache page in hand looking for it when a family shows up. They explain to you they are their out of respect for their father who died when this plan burst into flames and crashed. You explain how nice a spot this is and that Geocaching brought you to this place and enlightened you to what happened. Then you show them the cache page to explain what Geocaching is and the first thing they see is in bold print at the top is Flmaeproof. I am sure they would just love that kind of respect. No thanks I will pass on this one. I have even let the owner know how disrespectful this is. I have heard they actually don't like the name since they realize how bad a choice it is, but pride won't allow them to change it.

February 1, 2007

There's one where I work that I just won't go find. The owner is a cacher who in over 5 years as a member of this site, has logged less than 20 caches. He states in the cache description that he watches the cache via a webcam, supposedly to keep the maintance folks from taking the film canister. He has a less than warm fuzzy attitude (on the cache description and on his personal info page) and personally, the camera thing just creeps me out. It'd be one thing if it was a web cam for security reasons, but a personal one?... ick.

There's another one nearby that has never been found, and this is an area with a few FTF hounds. A couple of people have attempted it (not me) but either couldn't find or wouldnt' find it. The owner doesn't have many finds either (one of the finds is the creepy cache) and there are a few local cachers who wonder if he is a sock puppet account of the creepy guy.

I really really hate micros in the woods. The last one I found I asked in the post why a full size cache wasn't placed there, it was the perfect spot. Unless the micro is really clever (I've hidden one like that myself) then I'm just not interested in finding another bison tube hanging off of a branch or down a hole in a tree.

I do wish that there was some level maintance by GC on caches... Some of the icky ones that I posted a SBA on seem to be owned by cachers that have long since left the game. I dunno, maybe an annual check in, are you still wanting to keep the cache out there kinda email? I just hate going to find caches that are full of mold or aren't being maintaned anymore. Those really are my least favorite of all really.

February 1, 2007

EARTHCACHES

Sorry to all of you who set these up. They obviously take a LOT of effort.

I just don't get them. Really, just virtuals that take a lot of effort to log.

I also don't like spinach, broccoli, coliflower or mushrooms. To each his own.

1.6k · February 2, 2007

based on your question, and my caching wants...

I have yet to meet a cache I wouldn't find. If you put it out there, I will eventually find it.

February 2, 2007

My new rule is if it's in the city and it smells like pee, it goes on the ignore list.

Now, if it's in the woods and it smells like pee.... well, I just convince myself it's from a deer or a bunny rabbit

14.3k · February 2, 2007

My new rule is if it's in the city and it smells like pee, it goes on the ignore list.

Now, if it's in the woods and it smells like pee.... well, I just convince myself it's from a deer or a bunny rabbit

7.9k · February 3, 2007

My personal protocol is to attempt every cache at least once.

Except for puzzles.

For some, I don't have to even get out of the truck to hit the IGNORE button.

For others, I use a 20 minute limit, and a 'three strikes you're out' system. I'll look for about twenty minutes each time on three attempts...after that, forget it!

Most of my IGNORE list consists of puzzles. I can look up some facts on the internet to derive the correct co-ordinates, but if I need to decrypt the numbers using some less-than-obvious cypher, no thanks! If it takes more than five minutes to see the way to the correct numbers, you lost me.

February 3, 2007

I did one last summer that was placed right smack dab in the middle of a poison ivy patch. This was a NEW cache and the owner actually meant to put it there and was even told that it was in poison ivy. They still refused to remove it... I think ALL cachers should KNOW what poison ivy looks like!!! Anyway I will refuse to go after a cache when I see in the logs that PI is involved.

This same person also placed a ton of micros in a town that had plenty of places for some nice sized caches. Several parking lot and even one under the pay phone. They even did the micro capsule in a pine tree with not so good coordinates. I guess I'll just refuse to get any caches placed by this person. They must not have liked my logs because they sent me a nasty email in reply to them

7.3k · February 3, 2007

I use the short logs to communicate boredom and long logs to communicate approval. I think a lot of people do this. I have tried to make my own caches better over the years. Is is fun knowing that you made something that was fun for a lot of people.

Bingo!

Short logs are a great indicator of caches you didn't enjoy. I remember when the ignore list was not available, and you got stuck with caches on your nearest unfound list, that you had no desire to find. Thankfully, they don't exist anymore.

I wish that if a person didn't enjoy a cache, they could just say so, not try to hint by making a short log. I tend to make shorter logs lately, and I worry that someone (especially the owner) will think that it means I didn't like the cache, because so many others do that. So I end up saying lame things like, great cache, liked your cache, etc. Anyways. Just an observation. Just because it's short doesn't mean someone didn't like it. There could be other reasons, like mine.

3.9k · February 3, 2007

Well first, much as I (Vinny) pointed out on another thread here on the forums recently, I tend to be very elitist, exclusive and selective in terms of the caches which I will bother to seek, and for the most part, I tend to seek only caches with a D/T rating of 4/4 or above and which seem to be very interesting in some way; that decision is based largely upon reading the cache listing page and past logs, also upon feedack received from other cachers. Because of this approach, I tend to seek only one or two caches per month. The only exception to this rule of thumb is when I am traveling and will be visiting a city, state or country which I have not visited before, and then, in about 75% of those cases (in the other 25% I do not bother seeking any geocaches), I will lower my 4/4 rule by quite a bit just to find a few caches there in order to get a taste of the "flavor" and style of caches in that area. But even in this case, I tend to be very selective: on a recent 8-day trip to Kalamazoo, MI, my friend Tajie and I went out seeking about 16 local MI caches (largely picked and loaded onto the GPSr by my wife Sue before my trip), and, of the 16 we sought, we decided to pass on a bit more than half of them (on nine, I believe) when we actually arrived at the hide sites, largely due to concerns about possible trespassing issues or other questionable (to us, that is) placement issues. I absolutely refuse to trespass on what appears to be private property, and that ruled out a good number of the MI caches we encountered (one such cache was located in an area covered liberally with No Trespassing and No Parking signs, in a very exclusive residential neighborhood with signs all over the place saying that the residents will call the police if they even see you stop your car. sigh...)

February 3, 2007

what's your definition of a "bad" cache?... one that when you pull up to it, you just say " forget it!" I have seen a few... very high muggler area, on a trash can, ...etc. What would it take for you to say, no way!

I am not shy or easily embarased, so there are not too many I would not go for. I might pick a day and time (Like 06:00 on a Sunday morning) to look for some in high traffic areas.

I would shy away from any thing that looked physicaly dangerous. Most folks have some common sense, but some may not use the best of judgement when placing a cache, or conditions may change after it has been placed that make it unsafe to try for it.

February 3, 2007

I did one last summer that was placed right smack dab in the middle of a poison ivy patch. This was a NEW cache and the owner actually meant to put it there and was even told that it was in poison ivy. They still refused to remove it... I think ALL cachers should KNOW what poison ivy looks like!!! Anyway I will refuse to go after a cache when I see in the logs that PI is involved.

This same person also placed a ton of micros in a town that had plenty of places for some nice sized caches. Several parking lot and even one under the pay phone. They even did the micro capsule in a pine tree with not so good coordinates. I guess I'll just refuse to get any caches placed by this person. They must not have liked my logs because they sent me a nasty email in reply to them

Well, in Central Texas there is PI all over the place, especially in some of the less "manicured" parks and trails. Also, many caches tend to be put out in the winter, when PI isn't as obvious, unless you know what the vine on the tree looks like. We also tend to put out a warning that PI is on the trails, so keep a lookout.

That being said, it isn't intentional in most cases that PI is involved. Most of the cachers, when someone points out that their winter hide is now covered in PI, will move it to a less obnoxious place.

Cedar trees and prickly vines? Well, that's another story...

February 3, 2007

We avoid:

Rock wall caches

Most micros (but there are exceptions)

Caches in people's yards

February 3, 2007

I'm in agreement with skipping ones in disgusting locations.

There is a 4 or 5 stage multi near me. While I don't have anything against multi's it hasn't been at the top of my to do list. A lot of work for one find. Maybe some day.

February 3, 2007

And then I recently dropped anything with a container smaller than "Regular" from my pocket queries.

If been tempted to this also but there are some good smalls and micros out there.

You would have missed this small for example.

79 Feet of Waterline

Of course it helps that the cache wouldn't fit in the trunk of my car...

Paul

PS: The cache is archived now so I don't mind giving "it" away. The cache container was a 1 liter naglene water bottle on a bike (my bike) locked to a public bike rack. Fooled a lot of people...

10.2k · February 3, 2007

We avoid:

Rock wall caches

I don't see many, but they are a bugger, aren't they?

Most micros (but there are exceptions)

A year ago, I wouldn't even have said "most" micros. But now, probably "most"

Caches in people's yards

Ya' know, that's been mentioned often in this thread. It really depends on the cache description for me. If it says something like "it's in our yard, knock on the door and say hi if we're home", I'll do it, especially if I had ever met the cacher, or if it was in a more rural setting, where it's difficult to go to the wrong house. But if it's not clearly outlined that the cache is at the cache owners house, and it's in a "tight" neighborhood with many nearby houses, I definately skip it. There is such a cache less then 3 miles from the home coords I've never attempted.

Edited February 3, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

February 4, 2007

around here, there arent many pointless caches considering that there are only 20 within 15 miles of my house. but there are some that i regret getting, oh well.

February 4, 2007

That being said, it isn't intentional in most cases that PI is involved. Most of the cachers, when someone points out that their winter hide is now covered in PI, will move it to a less obnoxious place.

Cedar trees and prickly vines? Well, that's another story...

I understand that BUT as I said this cache was new and the PI was already there.

February 6, 2007

I try to avoid anything that makes me uncomfortable.

February 6, 2007

We were going to try this one the other day GCWD8Z but came across a scene somewhat like this pic from the site log:

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/1b9145...0a295acf007.jpg

No cache is that intriguing to me:) We walked away..no, we ran :unsure:

February 6, 2007

I avoid those that are unsafe for a girl on her own. Lately I've been taking my German Shepherd with me but there are a few I visited early on that was plain stupid of me to go to. I'll avoid those types in the future even with the dog.

February 6, 2007

We were going to try this one the other day GCWD8Z but came across a scene somewhat like this pic from the site log:

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/1b9145...0a295acf007.jpg

No cache is that intriguing to me:) We walked away..no, we ran

LOL you're afraid of this

Edited February 6, 2007 by Team Dubbin

caches you refuse to get

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment