To ban or not to ban LPC's

[Clan Riffster]

In an attempt to get back on topic, (as well as a shameless grab at the aforementioned immunity idol), I propose a rather simple, long term experiment:

 

Contact your local geocaching organization, and, (if they don't already do so), ask them to hold an annual contest for "Cache Of The Year". I would be willing to bet small quantities of Guinness that there won't be a single, regular type, lamp post film canister hide amongst the winners. I realize that this prediction would run contrary to the mantra espousing, "If folks didn't love them, they wouldn't hunt them", but then, I've never accepted that particular theory as accurate. If my prediction were proven true, would that, in itself, qualify as a reason to ban LPC's? Of course not, but it might give the folks who love these hides a common voice, and it also might offer them some perspective. Who knows? Perhaps the countless hoards of previously silent LPC fans might unite over such an issue and those cache types could win the "COTY" contest nation wide? Maybe?

 

Until such a time, I will continue to promote the principle that caches placed on commercial properties should have explicit permission, as opposed to the current assumed permission evident today. Such a variation to the guidelines certainly wouldn't hurt the game, since getting permission is a fairly simple task, and it might just improve the game by opening channels of communication between us and local business managers. Definitely a win-win scenario.

[Mushtang]

Oh, BTW, you've given me an idea for a puzzle cache: "Big Box LPC". Let me work on it some and I may share it.

Shame on you, Sir! How dare you suggest that folks could possibly want to find, or enjoy a micro in a lamp post. Just you wait till the members of "Entertain Everyone Or Be Banned" hear about this atrocity! Oh, the humanity!

[+TrailGators]

Oh, BTW, you've given me an idea for a puzzle cache: "Big Box LPC". Let me work on it some and I may share it.

Shame on you, Sir! How dare you suggest that folks could possibly want to find, or enjoy a micro in a lamp post. Just you wait till the members of "Entertain Everyone Or Be Banned" hear about this atrocity! Oh, the humanity!

I know I never said anything about banning. Anyhow, I've been thinking a bit about what you guys like. Everyday when I eat my lunch I pull out my sandwich from a ziplock bag and throw the ziplock bag away. But maybe what I should do is dump out the crumbs, stick a piece a paper inside. Then I could drive over the nearest parking lot that doesn't have a cache and stick the bag under a lamp post cover. Then I could come back and take a couple of minutes to submit my new cache that I know all Lampawatu people would enjoy. I'm sure it would be close to somebody's house so it would have some redeeming value. What do you guys think?

[Trinity's Crew]

Ban lamp post caches? This is a shocking development! (Pun intended.) People actually want to ban them? I have never heard anything about this and I read these forums religiously.

 

Nah, they're harmless enough. Besides, if somebody DOES actually remove an access plate and start poking around inside the lamp post we'll probably be reading about them in a future "Darwin Awards" email. Those are always entertaining!

[Mushtang]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

[Clan Riffster]

People actually want to ban them?

I've never met any one who wants to ban LPC's, but there must be several who do, judging by the posts made by a relative few.

[+Team Dromomania]

Which store in a shopping center owns the parking lot? Is it a land management company?

 

Who watches over the parking lot? Security - controlled by whom? Store or management?

 

Who usually muggles the cache in the parking lots - landscapers who are usually employed by which store or management company?

 

They way I figure it for a small shopping center of only 20 shops you'll have 20 owners, 40 - 60 store managers, 20 or 30 store security guys and gals, the complex's roving security - 2 or 3 shifts worth and one or two out of town landscapers. We've also got to include the maintenance crews for lights, pavement, snow removal etc.

 

We're talking about notifying about 100 people in a small mall before listing a cache.

 

None of this prevents a muggle from the public reporting the cacher to the police so I guess we'll have to tell all the public entering the parking area not to worried if strange things are happening around that LP.

 

It must be a Democrat thing with all that control. In this case I like the Republican ways - less government.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Team Dromomania

[+TrailGators]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

[Mushtang]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

Absolutely! We definitely agree on those points.

 

The disagreement seems to be in that I appreciate LPCs, and you... don't appreciate them.

[+TrailGators]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

Absolutely! We definitely agree on those points.

 

The disagreement seems to be in that I appreciate LPCs, and you... don't appreciate them.

You got that right. I don't appreciate brussel sprouts, lima beans or beets either. Yeccch!

[Mushtang]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

Absolutely! We definitely agree on those points.

 

The disagreement seems to be in that I appreciate LPCs, and you... don't appreciate them.

You got that right. I don't appreciate brussel sprouts, lima beans or beets either. Yeccch!

I'll agree not to claim people want LPCs and PLCs banned, if you stop suggesting people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache. Deal?

[+TrailGators]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

Absolutely! We definitely agree on those points.

 

The disagreement seems to be in that I appreciate LPCs, and you... don't appreciate them.

You got that right. I don't appreciate brussel sprouts, lima beans or beets either. Yeccch!

I'll agree not to claim people want LPCs and PLCs banned, if you stop suggesting people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache. Deal?

When did I ever say that "people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache?" That doesn't even make any sense... Edited February 25, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

Absolutely! We definitely agree on those points.

 

The disagreement seems to be in that I appreciate LPCs, and you... don't appreciate them.

You got that right. I don't appreciate brussel sprouts, lima beans or beets either. Yeccch!

I'll agree not to claim people want LPCs and PLCs banned, if you stop suggesting people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache. Deal?

When did I ever say that "people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache?" That doesn't even make any sense...

Sorry, I was thinking about something Clan Riffster likes to say and got confused. My bad.

[+TrailGators]

I know I never said anything about banning.

That doesn't matter really does it? I mean, nobody ever said that using your brain to hide a more creative cache is bad, but that doesn't stop you from acting like it was actually said.

Then it sounds like we are in agreement. We both don't want to ban them and we both would appreciate more creative caches.

Absolutely! We definitely agree on those points.

 

The disagreement seems to be in that I appreciate LPCs, and you... don't appreciate them.

You got that right. I don't appreciate brussel sprouts, lima beans or beets either. Yeccch!

I'll agree not to claim people want LPCs and PLCs banned, if you stop suggesting people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache. Deal?

When did I ever say that "people get upset when brain power is used to hide a creative cache?" That doesn't even make any sense...

Sorry, I was thinking about something Clan Riffster likes to say and got confused. My bad.

OK. But if CR said that I'm sure it was sarcasm. I think everyone appreciates a well-placed cache. Edited February 25, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team GeoBlast]

Which store in a shopping center owns the parking lot? Is it a land management company?

 

Who watches over the parking lot? Security - controlled by whom? Store or management?

 

Who usually muggles the cache in the parking lots - landscapers who are usually employed by which store or management company?

 

They way I figure it for a small shopping center of only 20 shops you'll have 20 owners, 40 - 60 store managers, 20 or 30 store security guys and gals, the complex's roving security - 2 or 3 shifts worth and one or two out of town landscapers. We've also got to include the maintenance crews for lights, pavement, snow removal etc.

 

We're talking about notifying about 100 people in a small mall before listing a cache.

 

None of this prevents a muggle from the public reporting the cacher to the police so I guess we'll have to tell all the public entering the parking area not to worried if strange things are happening around that LP.

 

It must be a Democrat thing with all that control. In this case I like the Republican ways - less government.

 

What you described is the reason that there's a very small percentage of LPC in on commerical private property that are legal. If the LPC cache hider is going to spend less than five minutes putting together a cache, it's not reasonable to think he is going to take the time to go through all the correct channels that are suggested by the box he just checked when he posted the cache on GC.com It takes "the quick and easy" out of the whole thing.

[+Team GeoBlast]

In an attempt to get back on topic, (as well as a shameless grab at the aforementioned immunity idol), I propose a rather simple, long term experiment:

 

Contact your local geocaching organization, and, (if they don't already do so), ask them to hold an annual contest for "Cache Of The Year". I would be willing to bet small quantities of Guinness that there won't be a single, regular type, lamp post film canister hide amongst the winners. I realize that this prediction would run contrary to the mantra espousing, "If folks didn't love them, they wouldn't hunt them", but then, I've never accepted that particular theory as accurate. If my prediction were proven true, would that, in itself, qualify as a reason to ban LPC's? Of course not, but it might give the folks who love these hides a common voice, and it also might offer them some perspective. Who knows? Perhaps the countless hoards of previously silent LPC fans might unite over such an issue and those cache types could win the "COTY" contest nation wide? Maybe?

 

Until such a time, I will continue to promote the principle that caches placed on commercial properties should have explicit permission, as opposed to the current assumed permission evident today. Such a variation to the guidelines certainly wouldn't hurt the game, since getting permission is a fairly simple task, and it might just improve the game by opening channels of communication between us and local business managers. Definitely a win-win scenario.

 

Good point Ranster.

 

In fact.. is there anyone reading this that can name ONE straight-forward LPC cache that was a best cache winner in a local contest in any part of the nation? Or world for that matter? (was that a pin drop I just heard??)

 

So, we are honing in on something here and I think the question begs to be repeated. How could this be if they are beloved and worshiped by so many cachers? If these worshipers in the LPC temple cannot ban together and vote at least one of the caches in, is it reasonable to say that there would be much, or any opposition, to not allowing any more of these hides on private commercial property? I'd like to hear from anyone but the two automatics that remain the island.

[+The Jester]

So, we are honing in on something here and I think the question begs to be repeated. How could this be if they are beloved and worshiped by so many cachers? If these worshipers in the LPC temple cannot ban together and vote at least one of the caches in, is it reasonable to say that there would be much, or any opposition, to not allowing any more of these hides on private commercial property? I'd like to hear from anyone but the two automatics that remain the island.

The big problem with this arguement, is there would only be 350 caches in the USA to look for if this is the basis of allowing caches (7 years, 50 states with one COTY). So if that wonderful long hike (or pick your favorite cache) you love isn't a COTY we won't allow it anymore. So if the haters and revilers of the "LPC temple" vote on one cache as the best (and thereby the one to hide, by the COTY rule), then where is the creativity that is loudly proclaimed as vital to every single (or multi) cache to be placed? So you can see where an arguement like this can be applied against every cache type - even the one YOU love.

[+Team GeoBlast]

So, we are honing in on something here and I think the question begs to be repeated. How could this be if they are beloved and worshiped by so many cachers? If these worshipers in the LPC temple cannot ban together and vote at least one of the caches in, is it reasonable to say that there would be much, or any opposition, to not allowing any more of these hides on private commercial property? I'd like to hear from anyone but the two automatics that remain the island.

The big problem with this arguement, is there would only be 350 caches in the USA to look for if this is the basis of allowing caches (7 years, 50 states with one COTY). So if that wonderful long hike (or pick your favorite cache) you love isn't a COTY we won't allow it anymore. So if the haters and revilers of the "LPC temple" vote on one cache as the best (and thereby the one to hide, by the COTY rule), then where is the creativity that is loudly proclaimed as vital to every single (or multi) cache to be placed? So you can see where an arguement like this can be applied against every cache type - even the one YOU love.

 

I know I am going to get banged on hard for saying this but I'm getting used to it now.

 

I feel that collectively the (fill in the number) LPCs that are placed illegally on commercial property that can be connected to the same (and currently oblivious) landowner are much more dangerous to the game while adding a lot less to the game than the (fill in the number) illegal ammo cans out in the woods. I just don't see the potential for saturation and the problems these two types of caches could cause as straight up equal.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Too Tall John]

Hmm... which is the bigger? Big Box(s) or Dept of Interior?

According to Answers.com, Wal-Mart has 1.7 million empoyees, and in 2003 had revenues of $244.52 billion. The DOI had 71,436 employees & a budget of $10.7 billion in 2004. The DOI probably does have more property, however. (I can't verify how much Wal-Mart owns.) All the big box stores together, I suspect, may have more property...

The 1100 number came from Wal-Mart's website.

Could you give us that link?

 

My point is that Wal-Mart's the big gorilla in our apple orchard. Is he going to come after me if I try to pick an apple? I don't know, that depends on if gorillas like apples. I am, however, going to be very cautious because I know he can tear my arm off if he wants.

 

Don't tick off the gorilla.

[+sbell111]

So, we are honing in on something here and I think the question begs to be repeated. How could this be if they are beloved and worshiped by so many cachers? If these worshipers in the LPC temple cannot ban together and vote at least one of the caches in, is it reasonable to say that there would be much, or any opposition, to not allowing any more of these hides on private commercial property? I'd like to hear from anyone but the two automatics that remain the island.

The big problem with this arguement, is there would only be 350 caches in the USA to look for if this is the basis of allowing caches (7 years, 50 states with one COTY). So if that wonderful long hike (or pick your favorite cache) you love isn't a COTY we won't allow it anymore. So if the haters and revilers of the "LPC temple" vote on one cache as the best (and thereby the one to hide, by the COTY rule), then where is the creativity that is loudly proclaimed as vital to every single (or multi) cache to be placed? So you can see where an arguement like this can be applied against every cache type - even the one YOU love.

 

I know I am going to get banged on hard for saying this but I'm getting used to it now.

 

I feel that collectively the (fill in the number) LPCs that are placed illegally on commercial property that can be connected to the same (and currently oblivious) landowner are much more dangerous to the game while adding a lot less to the game than the (fill in the number) illegal ammo cans out in the woods. I just don't see the potential for saturation and the problems these two types of caches could cause as straight up equal.

I wonder if you could stop misusing the words 'legal' and 'illegal'.

[Mushtang]

In an attempt to get back on topic, (as well as a shameless grab at the aforementioned immunity idol), I propose a rather simple, long term experiment:

 

Contact your local geocaching organization, and, (if they don't already do so), ask them to hold an annual contest for "Cache Of The Year". I would be willing to bet small quantities of Guinness that there won't be a single, regular type, lamp post film canister hide amongst the winners. I realize that this prediction would run contrary to the mantra espousing, "If folks didn't love them, they wouldn't hunt them", but then, I've never accepted that particular theory as accurate. If my prediction were proven true, would that, in itself, qualify as a reason to ban LPC's? Of course not, but it might give the folks who love these hides a common voice, and it also might offer them some perspective. Who knows? Perhaps the countless hoards of previously silent LPC fans might unite over such an issue and those cache types could win the "COTY" contest nation wide? Maybe?

 

Until such a time, I will continue to promote the principle that caches placed on commercial properties should have explicit permission, as opposed to the current assumed permission evident today. Such a variation to the guidelines certainly wouldn't hurt the game, since getting permission is a fairly simple task, and it might just improve the game by opening channels of communication between us and local business managers. Definitely a win-win scenario.

 

Good point Ranster.

 

In fact.. is there anyone reading this that can name ONE straight-forward LPC cache that was a best cache winner in a local contest in any part of the nation? Or world for that matter? (was that a pin drop I just heard??)

 

So, we are honing in on something here and I think the question begs to be repeated. How could this be if they are beloved and worshiped by so many cachers? If these worshipers in the LPC temple cannot ban together and vote at least one of the caches in, is it reasonable to say that there would be much, or any opposition, to not allowing any more of these hides on private commercial property? I'd like to hear from anyone but the two automatics that remain the island.

I'm sure there are some, or you wouldn't be referring to them, but I wonder who these folks are that loves and worships LPCs?

 

I accept them, I enjoy finding them, I don't want to see them banned, but that's about it. So it can't be me you're talking about. Care to clear that up? Possibly with a link?

[Clan Riffster]

Care to clear that up?

Nope.

[+sbell111]

Since this thread is about whether LPCs should be banned, can we all agree that they shouldn't and move on to the next angsty topic?

[+Too Tall John]

Care to clear that up?

Nope.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are many who enjoy geocaching but are unable to do some of the hike-type caches due to a disablility. I know if tomorrow I was unable to do them I'd maybe not worship LPCs, but I'd love the fact that there are still caches out there that I could do. From a comment made by a poster here in this forum, I think they can attest to what I'm saying.

In order to protect these caches, we need to make sure that the Big Boxes don't take away the majority of the places to hide such caches by explicitly banning them from their property. Maybe rather than following my lead and assuming that they'll say "No" we need (and by "we" I probably mean Groundspeak) to sit down with the major companies and see if we can hammer out an agreement. There will be details that'll need to be worked out, as I still predict Wal-Mart will resist such things, but maybe it is time something is done. I'd say more, but I'm late to church...

[Mushtang]

Care to clear that up?

Nope.

Well, since it was GeoBlast that said it, I don't see how you could. But thanks for playing.

[+Team GeoBlast]

In an attempt to get back on topic, (as well as a shameless grab at the aforementioned immunity idol), I propose a rather simple, long term experiment:

 

Contact your local geocaching organization, and, (if they don't already do so), ask them to hold an annual contest for "Cache Of The Year". I would be willing to bet small quantities of Guinness that there won't be a single, regular type, lamp post film canister hide amongst the winners. I realize that this prediction would run contrary to the mantra espousing, "If folks didn't love them, they wouldn't hunt them", but then, I've never accepted that particular theory as accurate. If my prediction were proven true, would that, in itself, qualify as a reason to ban LPC's? Of course not, but it might give the folks who love these hides a common voice, and it also might offer them some perspective. Who knows? Perhaps the countless hoards of previously silent LPC fans might unite over such an issue and those cache types could win the "COTY" contest nation wide? Maybe?

 

Until such a time, I will continue to promote the principle that caches placed on commercial properties should have explicit permission, as opposed to the current assumed permission evident today. Such a variation to the guidelines certainly wouldn't hurt the game, since getting permission is a fairly simple task, and it might just improve the game by opening channels of communication between us and local business managers. Definitely a win-win scenario.

 

Good point Ranster.

 

In fact.. is there anyone reading this that can name ONE straight-forward LPC cache that was a best cache winner in a local contest in any part of the nation? Or world for that matter? (was that a pin drop I just heard??)

 

So, we are honing in on something here and I think the question begs to be repeated. How could this be if they are beloved and worshiped by so many cachers? If these worshipers in the LPC temple cannot ban together and vote at least one of the caches in, is it reasonable to say that there would be much, or any opposition, to not allowing any more of these hides on private commercial property? I'd like to hear from anyone but the two automatics that remain the island.

I'm sure there are some, or you wouldn't be referring to them, but I wonder who these folks are that loves and worships LPCs?

 

I accept them, I enjoy finding them, I don't want to see them banned, but that's about it. So it can't be me you're talking about. Care to clear that up? Possibly with a link?

 

I said that to demonstrate that I think that some posters here are overly inflating the existence of "the love" for LPCs. This has been said, right? I think it is very telling that although some are claiming that some cachers LOVE LPCs that they don't win awards, ever.

 

I too accept them and don't want to see them banned, outright. But I say enough is enough.. This is because I dont' want to see them growing out of control (it's debatable if this hasn't already occured in some areas) and becoming the core of our cache inventory. Is this what we want geocaching to be known for? "The film canister under the light post skirt game?"

 

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

[+sbell111]

I said that to demonstrate that I think that some posters here are overly inflating the existence of "the love" for LPCs. This has been said, right? I think it is very telling that although some are claiming that some cachers LOVE LPCs that they don't win awards, ever.

So what?

 

People like ammo boxes placed 100 feet from parking, covered with sticks, but those vanilla caches don't win a ton of awards.

I too accept them and don't want to see them banned, outright. But I say enough is enough.. This is because I dont' want to see them growing out of control (it's debatable if this hasn't already occured in some areas) and becoming the core of our cache inventory. Is this what we want geocaching to be known for? "The film canister under the light post skirt game?"

Am I going to have to dredge up the graph, again?

 

It has been shown that micros are not 'taking over'. Since LPCs are but a subset of micros, it follows that they aren't taking over, either.

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

You have yet to show that the growth of urban caches needs to be 'controlled'. I am not willing to blindly go along with your assumption.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Care to clear that up?

Nope.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are many who enjoy geocaching but are unable to do some of the hike-type caches due to a disablility. I know if tomorrow I was unable to do them I'd maybe not worship LPCs, but I'd love the fact that there are still caches out there that I could do. From a comment made by a poster here in this forum, I think they can attest to what I'm saying.

In order to protect these caches, we need to make sure that the Big Boxes don't take away the majority of the places to hide such caches by explicitly banning them from their property. Maybe rather than following my lead and assuming that they'll say "No" we need (and by "we" I probably mean Groundspeak) to sit down with the major companies and see if we can hammer out an agreement. There will be details that'll need to be worked out, as I still predict Wal-Mart will resist such things, but maybe it is time something is done. I'd say more, but I'm late to church...

 

From the rational approach you have demonstrated, I am assuming that you are not late to attend services at Temple of the LPC? Think we agree on one major point. The status quo in Big Box hiding is not good for the game and needs to be addressed, before it addresses us. It is time for GC.com to grow up and start being a good citizen and take a proactive approach in cases like this.

 

Even if it is not a problem as some have taken that position and I totally disagree with, when is erring on the side of caution ever been a bad idea? Especially since we are traveling on an uncharted path of growth. If Walmart is cool with LPCs then there should be no problem asking for blanket permission from them ala Cracker Barrel. Right? And if they say no, I don't see the downside of losing this part of our cache inventory.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

You have yet to show that the growth of urban caches needs to be 'controlled'. I am not willing to blindly go along with your assumption.

 

I am sorry, I missed that completely. Yes, please bring back the graphic demonstrating that urban micro cache hides aren't growing faster than any other type of cache.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I said that to demonstrate that I think that some posters here are overly inflating the existence of "the love" for LPCs. This has been said, right? I think it is very telling that although some are claiming that some cachers LOVE LPCs that they don't win awards, ever. So what?

 

People like ammo boxes placed 100 feet from parking, covered with sticks, but those vanilla caches don't win a ton of awards.

 

I can name at least one ammo box that did win an award, can you name at least one straight forward LPC hide that has?

[+sbell111]

I said that to demonstrate that I think that some posters here are overly inflating the existence of "the love" for LPCs. This has been said, right? I think it is very telling that although some are claiming that some cachers LOVE LPCs that they don't win awards, ever.

So what?

 

People like ammo boxes placed 100 feet from parking, covered with sticks, but those vanilla caches don't win a ton of awards.

I can name at least one ammo box that did win an award, can you name at least one straight forward LPC hide that has?

Did that ammo box hide fit my other qualifications? traditional cache, 100 ft from parking, covered with sticks?

 

BTW, since you chose to respond to my post, please answer my question.

Edited February 25, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

You have yet to show that the growth of urban caches needs to be 'controlled'. I am not willing to blindly go along with your assumption.

I am sorry, I missed that completely. Yes, please bring back the graphic demonstrating that urban micro cache hides aren't growing faster than any other type of cache.

I apologize in advance to the majority of forum participants who have already discussed this graph. It shows the amount of micros and non-micros in the Chicago area over time.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I wonder if you could stop misusing the words 'legal' and 'illegal'.

 

Getting back on topic.. LPCs.

 

Why? Would you rather use the term caches that are non-complaint with GC.com guidelines and forget that someone else owns the property? This really seems to be the aspect of LPCs in Big Box Stores you would rather not be in the conversation. It's no different than shoplifting.. sure it is a small crime but it is still a crime unless you follow the rules... like paying for it... or asking for permission.

 

Seems like it's one of the core issue in this discussion to me. As far a them being legal and what we are saying is inaccurate, then I anxiously await your explanation (you can use graphs if you want) as to how this could be. You don't have to be a lawyer (or even very smart) to figure out that this is somebody else's property or that they don't fit into the promise you made when you checked that little box when you listed it on GC.com.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

You have yet to show that the growth of urban caches needs to be 'controlled'. I am not willing to blindly go along with your assumption.

I am sorry, I missed that completely. Yes, please bring back the graphic demonstrating that urban micro cache hides aren't growing faster than any other type of cache.

I apologize in advance to the majority of forum participants who have already discussed this graph. It shows the amount of micros and non-micros in the Chicago area over time.

 

Maybe I am reading you data wrong but doesn't this graph say that about 975 of the 2100 TOTAL caches placed in March 06 were micros? What I am missing? This is close to half of ALL other cache types placed? Really, how does this demonstrate your point?

[+sbell111]

I wonder if you could stop misusing the words 'legal' and 'illegal'.

Getting back on topic.. LPCs.

 

Why? Would you rather use the term caches that are non-complaint with GC.com guidelines and forget that someone else owns the property? This really seems to be the aspect of LPCs in Big Box Stores you would rather not be in the conversation. It's no different than shoplifting.. sure it is a small crime but it is still a crime unless you follow the rules... like paying for it... or asking for permission.

 

Seems like it's one of the core issue in this discussion to me. As far a them being legal and what we are saying is inaccurate, then I anxiously await your explanation (you can use graphs if you want) as to how this could be. You don't have to be a lawyer (or even very smart) to figure out that this is somebody else's property or that they don't fit into the promise you made when you checked that little box when you listed it on GC.com.

First, I challenge you to identify any caches that I've ever placed that did not meet the guidelines.

 

Second, misclassifying caches as 'illegal', stating the a film can under a light pole cover is the same as shoplifting, and twisting the guidelines to make it appear that all caches need permission, you are attempting to spin the issue in a way that is inappropriate. You would do better by simply arguing the merits.

 

The simple fact is, none of those caches are 'illegal'. I challenged you to point me to a law that was broken and you would not. Until you are able to reference such a law, please sto using the term 'illegal'. Thanks.

 

Until you can show that the caches in question were stolen, please stop comparing them to shoplifting.

 

The issue of permission has been covered in plenty of threads, including this one.

[+sbell111]

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

You have yet to show that the growth of urban caches needs to be 'controlled'. I am not willing to blindly go along with your assumption.

I am sorry, I missed that completely. Yes, please bring back the graphic demonstrating that urban micro cache hides aren't growing faster than any other type of cache.

I apologize in advance to the majority of forum participants who have already discussed this graph. It shows the amount of micros and non-micros in the Chicago area over time.

< SNIP >

Maybe I am reading you data wrong but doesn't this graph say that about 975 of the 2100 TOTAL caches placed in March 06 were micros? What I am missing? This is close to half of ALL other cache types placed? Really, how does this demonstrate your point?

You are reading the graph wrong. There were not 2100 caches placed in the Chicago area in March 06. There were 2100 total caches. Less than half of them were micros. Since the growth of micros and non-micros appears to be approximately the same (actually non-micros are growing at a slightly higher rate), there are more non-micros than micros, and LPCs are but a subset of micros, it cannot be said that LPCs are 'taking over'.

 

edited to add that micros are not a cache type.

Edited February 25, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

Assuming that controlling the saturation of urban caches is something that we are going to have to consider, someday, I think they are the one category of caches that we would not miss because -really the best rating anyone would give one is lukewarm...unless they are arguing a point in a forum.

You have yet to show that the growth of urban caches needs to be 'controlled'. I am not willing to blindly go along with your assumption.

I am sorry, I missed that completely. Yes, please bring back the graphic demonstrating that urban micro cache hides aren't growing faster than any other type of cache.

I apologize in advance to the majority of forum participants who have already discussed this graph. It shows the amount of micros and non-micros in the Chicago area over time.

< SNIP >

Maybe I am reading you data wrong but doesn't this graph say that about 975 of the 2100 TOTAL caches placed in March 06 were micros? What I am missing? This is close to half of ALL other cache types placed? Really, how does this demonstrate your point?

You are reading the graph wrong. There were not 2100 caches placed in the Chicago area in March 06. There were 2100 total caches. Less than half of them were micros. Since the growth of micros and non-micros appears to be approximately the same (actually non-micros are growing at a slightly higher rate), there are more non-micros than micros, and LPCs are but a subset of micros, it cannot be said that LPCs are 'taking over'.

 

No.. I am reading it right. It pretty much backs up my position that the placement of micros is the fastest growing segment of caches placed since it is almost half of ALL other caches. It also demonstrates the exponential growth that I was referring to.

 

So when that number gets to 21,000 and micros are still keeping the same pace that is documented your graph, are we still cool? Look at where the indicator arrow is point there in your graph.. you see it leveling out at all? I'd say that you just presented more evidence to back up what I am saying than your own position.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I wonder if you could stop misusing the words 'legal' and 'illegal'.

Getting back on topic.. LPCs.

 

Why? Would you rather use the term caches that are non-complaint with GC.com guidelines and forget that someone else owns the property? This really seems to be the aspect of LPCs in Big Box Stores you would rather not be in the conversation. It's no different than shoplifting.. sure it is a small crime but it is still a crime unless you follow the rules... like paying for it... or asking for permission.

 

Seems like it's one of the core issue in this discussion to me. As far a them being legal and what we are saying is inaccurate, then I anxiously await your explanation (you can use graphs if you want) as to how this could be. You don't have to be a lawyer (or even very smart) to figure out that this is somebody else's property or that they don't fit into the promise you made when you checked that little box when you listed it on GC.com.

First, I challenge you to identify any caches that I've ever placed that did not meet the guidelines.

 

Second, misclassifying caches as 'illegal', stating the a film can under a light pole cover is the same as shoplifting, and twisting the guidelines to make it appear that all caches need permission, you are attempting to spin the issue in a way that is inappropriate. You would do better by simply arguing the merits.

 

The simple fact is, none of those caches are 'illegal'. I challenged you to point me to a law that was broken and you would not. Until you are able to reference such a law, please sto using the term 'illegal'. Thanks.

 

Until you can show that the caches in question were stolen, please stop comparing them to shoplifting.

 

The issue of permission has been covered in plenty of threads, including this one.

 

Whether you like it or not, this conversation is not about your caches or mine. It is about LPCs in total and my particular stated interest is LPCs hidden in Big Box Stores. You are arguing that they are okay stay and we need more? Right?

 

You've been a big help to me in supplying data today, thanks. Can you point me to the place in the guidelines that details which caches do and do not require permission. And, I am sorry, I don't buy into the "we've discussed before in other threads, therefore it is not allowed to be mentioned" school of thought. Frankly, it seems to me that it's a place where you'd rather not go because it's the gapping hole in your whole platform that these caches should be allowed to be placed, don't harm anyone or a at a minimum are potentially harmful to the game itself.

 

As far as a law.. c'mon stop playing the Ostrich game where you can avoid things that are not explainable. Let's think globally for a moment and look past your little circle of caches shall we? Private property is private property where ever you go and you know well as I do that the laws governing it would exclude stuffing anything under a light pole skirt. You know it, I know it, and GC.com knows it.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Clan Riffster]

Kewl graph! My eyes aren't what they used to be, but it seems like the graph says that in May, there were around 1300 existing caches which were a combination of unknown, large, regular and small. At the same time, there were about 1000 micros. Since micros represent only 20% of the total cache sizes, it could be argued that a diverse placement graph would show that 20% of existing caches in a given area were micros. Seems like Chicago has more than 20% micros. Yet another reason I'm thankful not to live in an urban environment. If I had to guess what percentage commercial parking lot caches represent in the game, I'd say considerably less than 1%. Sorry, but I have no kewl graph to support this guess. If we assume that my guess is somewhat accurate, and PLC's do end up needing explicit permission, how many would we lose? I own one, which the general manager was happy to grant explicit permission for. Working on another.

 

With this logic, requiring explicit permission would only hinder a tiny portion of existing and potential future caches, while promoting good will betwixt us and commercial establishments across the globe. Is this a bad thing?

[+sbell111]

No.. I am reading it right. It pretty much backs up my position that the placement of micros is the fastest growing segment of caches placed since it is almost half of ALL other caches. It also demonstrates the exponential growth that I was referring to.

 

So when that number gets to 21,000 and micros are still keeping the same pace that is documented your graph, are we still cool? Look at where the indicator arrow is point there in your graph.. you see it leveling out at all? I'd say that you just presented more evidence to back up what I am saying than your own position.

I disagree with what you think the graph is telling us. By your logic, we should curb non-micros since they are growing at a faster rate. I believe that your logic is fundementally flawed.

[+sbell111]

... You don't have to be a lawyer (or even very smart) to figure out that this is somebody else's property or that they don't fit into the promise you made when you checked that little box when you listed it on GC.com.[/color]

First, I challenge you to identify any caches that I've ever placed that did not meet the guidelines.

Whether you like it or not, this conversation is not about your caches or mine. It is about LPCs in total and my particular stated interest is LPCs hidden in Big Box Stores. You are arguing that they are okay stay and we need more? Right?

Then why did you try to make the conversation about my caches?

You've been a big help to me in supplying data today, thanks.

Again, the data doesn't say what you are making it appear that it does. It certainly doesn't support any of your conclusions about LPCs.

Can you point me to the place in the guidelines that details which caches do and do not require permission. And, I am sorry, I don't buy into the "we've discussed before in other threads, therefore it is not allowed to be mentioned" school of thought. Frankly, it seems to me that it's a place where you'd rather not go because it's the gapping hole in your whole platform that these caches should be allowed to be placed, don't harm anyone or a at a minimum are potentially harmful to the game itself.

You have been trying to make the case that the guidelines require all caches to have explicit permission. This is not the case. Entire threads have discussed this issue. It has been discussed in this thread at least three times, I believe.

As far as a law.. c'mon stop playing the Ostrich game where you can avoid things that are not explainable. Let's think globally for a moment and look past your little circle of caches shall we? Private property is private property where ever you go and you know well as I do that the laws governing it would exclude stuffing anything under a light pole skirt. You know it, I know it, and GC.com knows it.

If you know it, show it.

 

Show me a law that would make a film can under a light pole skirt at the local mall illegal. If you cannot do that, stop using the 'legality' argument.

Edited February 25, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Kewl graph! My eyes aren't what they used to be, but it seems like the graph says that in May, there were around 1300 existing caches which were a combination of unknown, large, regular and small. At the same time, there were about 1000 micros. Since micros represent only 20% of the total cache sizes, it could be argued that a diverse placement graph would show that 20% of existing caches in a given area were micros. ...

There is a flaw in your logic. You presume that unknown, regular, small, and large caches all have a relatively normal distribution. We all know that this is not true. Of these four cache sizes, most people choose 'regular'. Unknown, large, and small actually are a very small part of the total distribution.

 

This graph was originally created to defend against an assertion that micros were taking over. It clearly showed that non-micros had healthy growth and were not being taken over by micros. It was on-point to that thread. It's only good use to this topic is defending against Team Geoblasts assertion the LPCs were 'taking over'. Since it can be shown that micros are not 'taking over' and LPCs are but a subset of micros, then LPCs cannot be 'taking over'.

[+BearGPS]

February 12 by thisismeisthatu (679 found)

Able to open this cache again on the condition no cachers do any lifting to find this cache. THERE IS NO NEED TO LIFT ANYTHING TO FIND THIS CACHE.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 9, 2006 by thisismeisthatu (679 found)

The manager of the WalMart has asked me to move the Cache do to the damaged to the signs shirts. Which I will do early next week.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 8, 2006 by RedRouge (1813 found)

Second time DNF. The poor sign is taking a beating from aggressive searching.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

An elegant solution?

[Keystone]

As far as a law.. c'mon stop playing the Ostrich game where you can avoid things that are not explainable. Let's think globally for a moment and look past your little circle of caches shall we? Private property is private property where ever you go and you know well as I do that the laws governing it would exclude stuffing anything under a light pole skirt. You know it, I know it, and GC.com knows it.

The tribe observes Team GeoBlast's post, notes that it speaks condescendingly towards sbell personally, and resolves to vote Team GeoBlast off the island.

 

HOWEVER.... Team GeoBlast solves a difficulty 4.5 Fizzymagic Puzzle Cache faster than anyone else on the Traffic Island, thereby winning individual immunity.

 

Safe for now, Team GeoBlast recognizes the close call, and resolves to play nice so that the Tribe doesn't focus their attention in that direction at the next vote.

[Clan Riffster]

There is a flaw in your logic.

There usually is. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

You presume that unknown, regular, small, and large caches all have a relatively normal distribution.

No sir. No presumption is in existence. I was stating a hypothetical perfect cross section, and pointing out that, according to the graph, micros far exceed that imaginary cross section. This was a strictly hypothetical numbers play. If I had to guess the current state of distribution, (again, I have no supporting data), I'd say that regulars and micros are very close to each other, with either pushing out the other for lead position depending on location. Third place would go to smalls, fourth place goes to large, and fifth place goes to unknown. This distribution is based only on my, biased, individual experience.

 

(now I gotta start work on Fizzy's puzzles)

Edited February 25, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+TrailGators]

This graph was originally created to defend against an assertion that micros were taking over. It clearly showed that non-micros had healthy growth and were not being taken over by micros. It was on-point to that thread. It's only good use to this topic is defending against Team Geoblasts assertion the LPCs were 'taking over'. Since it can be shown that micros are not 'taking over' and LPCs are but a subset of micros, then LPCs cannot be 'taking over'.

It took me about 18 months to find my first LPC. Like new chewing gum it tasted OK. I found my second LPC a couple of months later and the chewing flavor was wearing out. By the time I found my 10th LPC the flavor was gone. I probably found well over 100 LPCs during the next two years and the chewing gum flavor became beyond completely stale for me. So I spit out that gum and I haven't been chewing it for the past six months. Anyhow, if you go into the non-green spot areas on maps you will find LPCs. Plotting a micro trend will not show the LPC trend. There is no way to get that data. However, my guess is that LPCs in the non-green spot areas has grown to about 10% of the micros in those areas from less than 1% three years ago. Edited February 25, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

There is a flaw in your logic.

There usually is. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

You presume that unknown, regular, small, and large caches all have a relatively normal distribution.

No sir. No presumption is in existence. I was stating a hypothetical perfect cross section, and pointing out that, according to the graph, micros far exceed that imaginary cross section. This was a strictly hypothetical numbers play. If I had to guess the current state of distribution, (again, I have no supporting data), I'd say that regulars and micros are very close to each other, with either pushing out the other for lead position depending on location. Third place would go to smalls, fourth place goes to large, and fifth place goes to unknown. This distribution is based only on my, biased, individual experience.

 

(now I gotta start work on Fizzy's puzzles)

That sounds about right, to me.

[+sbell111]

This graph was originally created to defend against an assertion that micros were taking over. It clearly showed that non-micros had healthy growth and were not being taken over by micros. It was on-point to that thread. It's only good use to this topic is defending against Team Geoblasts assertion the LPCs were 'taking over'. Since it can be shown that micros are not 'taking over' and LPCs are but a subset of micros, then LPCs cannot be 'taking over'.

It took me about 18 months to find my first LPC. Like new chewing gum it tasted OK. I found my second LPC a couple of months later and the chewing flavor was wearing out. By the time I found my 10th LPC the flavor was gone. I probably found well over 100 LPCs during the next two years and the chewing gum flavor became beyond completely stale for me. So I spit out that gum and I haven't been chewing it for the past six months. Anyhow, if you go into the non-green spot areas on maps you will find LPCs. Plotting a micro trend will not show the LPC trend. There is no way to get that data. However, my guess is that LPCs in the non-green spot areas has grown to about 10% of the micros in those areas from less than 1% three years ago.

That would be your guess. I suspect that the percentage would differ depending on where you were. I also believe that this percentage doesn't have a thing to do with whether this kind of cache should be banned.

[+TrailGators]

This graph was originally created to defend against an assertion that micros were taking over. It clearly showed that non-micros had healthy growth and were not being taken over by micros. It was on-point to that thread. It's only good use to this topic is defending against Team Geoblasts assertion the LPCs were 'taking over'. Since it can be shown that micros are not 'taking over' and LPCs are but a subset of micros, then LPCs cannot be 'taking over'.

It took me about 18 months to find my first LPC. Like new chewing gum it tasted OK. I found my second LPC a couple of months later and the chewing flavor was wearing out. By the time I found my 10th LPC the flavor was gone. I probably found well over 100 LPCs during the next two years and the chewing gum flavor became beyond completely stale for me. So I spit out that gum and I haven't been chewing it for the past six months. Anyhow, if you go into the non-green spot areas on maps you will find LPCs. Plotting a micro trend will not show the LPC trend. There is no way to get that data. However, my guess is that LPCs in the non-green spot areas has grown to about 10% of the micros in those areas from less than 1% three years ago.

That would be your guess. I suspect that the percentage would differ depending on where you were. I also believe that this percentage doesn't have a thing to do with whether this kind of cache should be banned.

Ummm, that's what I said. Thanks for reinterating what I just said. Of course there would be variation in my guess. It could be lower and it could be higher in some areas. Also my point does relate to "not banning" at this point in time. Please read the topic title again.

[+sbell111]

This graph was originally created to defend against an assertion that micros were taking over. It clearly showed that non-micros had healthy growth and were not being taken over by micros. It was on-point to that thread. It's only good use to this topic is defending against Team Geoblasts assertion the LPCs were 'taking over'. Since it can be shown that micros are not 'taking over' and LPCs are but a subset of micros, then LPCs cannot be 'taking over'.

It took me about 18 months to find my first LPC. Like new chewing gum it tasted OK. I found my second LPC a couple of months later and the chewing flavor was wearing out. By the time I found my 10th LPC the flavor was gone. I probably found well over 100 LPCs during the next two years and the chewing gum flavor became beyond completely stale for me. So I spit out that gum and I haven't been chewing it for the past six months. Anyhow, if you go into the non-green spot areas on maps you will find LPCs. Plotting a micro trend will not show the LPC trend. There is no way to get that data. However, my guess is that LPCs in the non-green spot areas has grown to about 10% of the micros in those areas from less than 1% three years ago.

That would be your guess. I suspect that the percentage would differ depending on where you were. I also believe that this percentage doesn't have a thing to do with whether this kind of cache should be banned.

Ummm, that's what I said. Thanks for reinterating what I just said. Of course there would be variation in my guess. It could be lower and it could be higher in some areas. Also my point does relate to "not banning" at this point in time. Please read the topic title again.

Other than the fact that you're against the banning of LPCs, I guess I missed your point.