To ban or not to ban LPC's

[+KBI]

What I don't get is the ease with which you guys defend the unauthorized tampering with of private property. You really equate tossing a bit of debris over an ammo box with tampering with electrical equipment?

Is that really what bothers you? Does that mean that, if the issues of permission and safety regarding lamppost skirt hides could be decisively resolved, that you would no longer complain about their lameness?

 

Somehow I doubt it. When I asked Clan Riffster the same question he turned away and started whistling, pretending he didn’t hear me. (I say pretended, because I know he hears me based on the way he reacts whenever I say I have to go to work and be away from the Forums for a few days, like I will again a couple hours from now.)

 

Will you answer the question that Clan Riffster wouldn't/couldn't?

[+KBI]

Imagine everyone who's posted on the past two pages being stranded together on a traffic island that has a cache on it. They're debating the merits of the cache. Whenever one of the posters personalizes the discussion towards one of the others, or generalizes an idea as "lame," "stupid," etc., they'll be asked to leave the traffic island. The last one left gets to ask for the thread to be closed. I call it "Survivor: Lamp Post."

 

Sounds like fun.

 

Just please don't tell me that Mushtang has to wear a loincloth.

[+TrailGators]

Imagine everyone who's posted on the past two pages being stranded together on a traffic island that has a cache on it. They're debating the merits of the cache. Whenever one of the posters personalizes the discussion towards one of the others, or generalizes an idea as "lame," "stupid," etc., they'll be asked to leave the traffic island. The last one left gets to ask for the thread to be closed. I call it "Survivor: Lamp Post." (Of course, so long as nobody crosses that boundary, the thread may continue as a respectful discussion about banning lamp post caches.)

Survivor: Lamp Post! Funny! I also think some people on the island need to quit calling people whiners. All that does is get the other people riled up. Everyone has a point of view that doesn't need to be ridiculed. One more thing KBI, I've been blowing off VL caches since September. I guess yesterday, I decided to tell others what I was doing. Who knows maybe others will boycott them too.... Edited February 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

Survivor: Lamp Post! Funny! I also think some people on the island need to quit calling people whiners. All that does is get the other people riled up.

Fair enough. If the W-word offends you, then I'll drop it. No more W-word.

 

Of course, folks are still welcome to refer to me as a Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame. I wear that badge proudly.

 

And for the record, it never bothers me when I was being called an idiot or an illiterate; when I am told I am going to Hell for my viewpoint (that was in a recent thread on the same subject); or when people cheer my temporary departures from the thread. Those things only serve to entertain me, and sometimes they do more to support my point of view than any clumsy wordiness I could ever generate myself.

 

Everyone has a point of view that doesn't need to be ridiculed.

Exactly.

 

Just remember that our referee Keystone has apparently now placed the word "lame" into the same category that you and I have placed the W-word. Can you post without it? Maybe that can count as Step #2 of the 12 Steps.

 

One more thing KBI, I've been blowing off VL caches since September.

"VL" -- Very Lame?

 

I guess yesterday, I decided to tell others what I was doing. Who knows maybe others will boycott them too....

It CAN be done. You're a true leader. You have my support.

 

[EDIT: more typey-typey]

Edited February 19, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

One more thing KBI, I've been blowing off VL caches since September.

"VL" -- Very Lame?

Yep, but maybe we need a good euphemism instead. Which one would you prefer? Edited February 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

One more thing KBI, I've been blowing off VL caches since September.

"VL" -- Very Lame?

Yep, but maybe we need a good euphemism instead. Which one would you prefer?

The word "lame" doesn't bother me. That's between you and Keystone.

[+TrailGators]

One more thing KBI, I've been blowing off VL caches since September.

"VL" -- Very Lame?

Yep, but maybe we need a good euphemism instead. Which one would you prefer?

The word "lame" doesn't bother me. That's between you and Keystone.

I think VL is OK. It can mean "Very Likable" for you guys and "Very Lame (or Lousy)" to us.

[+tozainamboku]

While all of you were arguing over LPCs yesterday, I went caching. I had hoped to meet TrailGators at the event. Sorry I missed him, maybe next time. Anyway I had fun. It was mostly urban caching in lots of parking lots, but I threw in a couple of short hikes and some 4x4 caching on the back roads. A lot of micros hidden in bushes, which I hate. And a few LPCs, which were nice because they took a lot less time than looking for a bison tube hanging in a bush. Some hides were clever, some had great camo, most were what some here call lame. At the event, I was telling everyone about the one that was just a log in a plastic bag hidden by a dumpster.

 

Urban caching is just a matter of attitude. Lower your expectations. Be prepared to accept a DNF and move on if there are too many muggles or you are uncomfortable searching for any other reason. There are many more caches to find. From time to time you will find that camo job that impresses or will laugh at the how the location fits the theme of the cache.

 

On the other hand, the issue of whether all the parking lot caches hidden without permission may result in restrictions on geocaching is a serious point to consider. But this issue doesn't relate just to parking lots. Several of the hiking caches I found yesterday were probably on private property without permission. There weren't any "No Tresspassing" signs but at least one has a big sign that said "Land for Sale". I had to pass up several caches where consruction of new homes was going on; in some cases a new chain link fence had been put up around the area. I understand that one of the reviewers was caching in the area this weekend and has already archived a few of the caches where he found similar conditions. I did find an LPC in the parking lot at the event. I actually like to find LPCs hidden in a church parking lots because I am sure that at least 90% of them have permission to be there - and the rest know that they will be forgiven

[+Team GeoBlast]

You guys are giving me a headache.

 

1. The first LPC I found was a challenge and I thought it was a cool idea.

2. The second LPC I was was the exact opposite.

3. The first hollow log cache I found was a challenge and I thought it was a cool idea.

4. The third and fourth hollow log caches I found was certainly no challenge.

 

So what is lame? Repetition of the same thing but there are a limited number of new and cool ideas especially if you are restricted to public parks.

 

I defaulted to a LPC because I saw little alternative. My goal was to attract people to a memorial that they might not know existed but because the memorial is placed in the middle of a busy highway overpass, there was no safe way to direct folks to the actual spot. That left the surrounding properties which are private and parking lots. So the choice was either no cache or (for now) a LPC. Is it a lame hide? Yes. Is the idea behind the cache worthwhile? Yes. Would I like to find an alternative? Sure.

 

Don't start banning hide location based on some one's subjective idea of what is lame. Ban something because it's unsafe but not because you think it's a "been there, done that" kind of cache.

 

I have never seen the area that you placed the LPC in nor did I look to see how many hides or finds you have. So I really don't know anything about this situation except for what you just shared. I do not mean to make an example of you or call your cache lame you but I see some things here that I commonly run into when I cache in urban areas away from home.

 

I will make these assumptions of why the LPC was default:

 

1. You'd seen LPCs so many times before and it's ingrained into your consciousness as an "okay hide.".

2. It was easy and you didn't have to invest much time or thought in it. It still got the folks there, right?

3. It served it's purpose "only" because it allowed you a place to put a cache at the monument you think is worth seeing with minimal investment of time and money on your part.

4. You really had no motivation or peer pressure from your fellow cachers "to do better" because you were following the logical default in a situation like this.

5. You admit that the cache was not going to thrill anyone but you were okay putting it there because it was lame with a purpose."

 

Throwing out an alternative idea:

 

Was there a plaque on the moment? If it was that important of a monument, I would bet so. Is is important to you that people take time to focus on the plaque and the message that it contains? With the LPC hide, what percentage of your seekers did not get to have the experience you intended? Just speaking for myself, it would have definitely put me in "lift and go" mode before someone reports me.

 

How about making it a short three stage multi with the first stage nearby. In the first stage you would find a laminated sheet the same size of the plaque. In the sheet there are what seem to be arbitrary holes punched in it and coords to the final moment on it. When the sheet is placed over the plaque, a secret message is revealed. You could dip in coffee grounds and burn the edges for a better effect. Tell a story about it including the person that was honored in the moment, if that was the case.

 

This message (you could make this as easy or hard as you wanted) would lead you to a final cache with a log book, pen, and things related to the monument. You could even do a little research and give out a take home sheet with some history of the place or person represented in the moment. Be sure to place the final in a place where the seeker would have to pass the first stage so they can put the laminated sheet back.

 

I'm being honest, I've never hid or found a cache like this and came up with the idea because I believe that there is "always" an alternative to punting on third down (ie the LPC). As a hider there is "always" an opportunity to thrill the seekers of your cache. What it boils down to is that you believe, as most cachers do, that "lame for a purpose" is acceptable. I am not faulting you for this, heck, look around you, you are surrounded by people in this very thread that feel this way.

 

I think that the urban cacher that encounters a high percentage of LPCs will naturally think that the LPC is a way around trying to thrill the person finding the caches they've hidden. But hey, where's the motivation to do this when you've got all these folks out here saying that they'd be just fine with LPCs in every parking lot, on every street corner, and lining every highway?

[+TrailGators]

While all of you were arguing over LPCs yesterday, I went caching. I had hoped to meet TrailGators at the event. Sorry I missed him, maybe next time. Anyway I had fun. It was mostly urban caching in lots of parking lots, but I threw in a couple of short hikes and some 4x4 caching on the back roads. A lot of micros hidden in bushes, which I hate. And a few LPCs, which were nice because they took a lot less time than looking for a bison tube hanging in a bush. Some hides were clever, some had great camo, most were what some here call lame. At the event, I was telling everyone about the one that was just a log in a plastic bag hidden by a dumpster.

 

Urban caching is just a matter of attitude. Lower your expectations. Be prepared to accept a DNF and move on if there are too many muggles or you are uncomfortable searching for any other reason. There are many more caches to find. From time to time you will find that camo job that impresses or will laugh at the how the location fits the theme of the cache.

 

On the other hand, the issue of whether all the parking lot caches hidden without permission may result in restrictions on geocaching is a serious point to consider. But this issue doesn't relate just to parking lots. Several of the hiking caches I found yesterday were probably on private property without permission. There weren't any "No Tresspassing" signs but at least one has a big sign that said "Land for Sale". I had to pass up several caches where consruction of new homes was going on; in some cases a new chain link fence had been put up around the area. I understand that one of the reviewers was caching in the area this weekend and has already archived a few of the caches where he found similar conditions. I did find an LPC in the parking lot at the event. I actually like to find LPCs hidden in a church parking lots because I am sure that at least 90% of them have permission to be there - and the rest know that they will be forgiven

Sorry I missed you too. I didn't go because I went to the Yuma event for 3 days last weekend and I thought it would be pushing it with my wife to be gone for an entire day/night this weekend too, so I did some yard work. The other reason I didn't go is that I went last year and found what you found so I wasn't too motivated to find "that" again. I was hoping they would publish a "Must-Do" list. If they did post it, I never saw it. Anyhow, you bring up a valid point. This lack of permission is more prevalent than some want to admit. The emperor is not wearing a robe. It's good to hear that the reviewers archived some of those caches that violated the guidelines. Edited February 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I think that the urban cacher that encounters a high percentage of LPCs will naturally think that the LPC is a way around trying to thrill the person finding the caches they've hidden. But hey, where's the motivation to do this when you've got all these folks out here saying that they'd be just fine with LPCs in every parking lot, on every street corner, and lining every highway?

I've found that most of the people that dislike LPCs and would like to see them banned, seem to think that other people's caches are supposed to entertain everyone. Somehow, if I hide a cache, I've got to also ensure that I entertain everyone that looks for it. And if you're not entertained, it's my fault.

 

Why can't a cache exist without it having any other purpose than to be a piece of a secret game that most people aren't in on? There's nothing that says a cache HAS to thrill, or even should TRY and thrill, every person finding it.

 

If a cache thrills you, great, it will likely thrill someone else too. If you don't like it, great, someone else will.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I think that the urban cacher that encounters a high percentage of LPCs will naturally think that the LPC is a way around trying to thrill the person finding the caches they've hidden. But hey, where's the motivation to do this when you've got all these folks out here saying that they'd be just fine with LPCs in every parking lot, on every street corner, and lining every highway?

I've found that most of the people that dislike LPCs and would like to see them banned, seem to think that other people's caches are supposed to entertain everyone. Somehow, if I hide a cache, I've got to also ensure that I entertain everyone that looks for it. And if you're not entertained, it's my fault.

 

Why can't a cache exist without it having any other purpose than to be a piece of a secret game that most people aren't in on? There's nothing that says a cache HAS to thrill, or even should TRY and thrill, every person finding it.

 

If a cache thrills you, great, it will likely thrill someone else too. If you don't like it, great, someone else will.

 

Yeah, you are right. How are we ever going to reach a "trillion caches placed" if we stop and consider how to make the finder's experience better?

 

Before someone else goes in this very predictable direction.. I wasn't saying that my idea is right and his is wrong. There's several other possibilities, and I am sure of that, without even going there. I was just pointing out that there's "always a way" to inject more of yourself into a cache hide if the motivation exists. If an LPC is you, then I have no problem with that. I just think it's become the default.

 

He said he really wanted to people to visit this monument and I thought that was great and very encouraging to hear. But he also said that the LPC was the only alternative and I don't even have to visit this place to tell you that this is not the case. And speaking from my own personal experience, lifting up a LPS to find an LPC makes me feel like I am doing something wrong and it would have taken away from my visit to the monument. I am sure I am not alone in this.

[Mushtang]

There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to make the best possible cache you can make. It's nice that you (and I) want to hide caches that are more than run of the mill ho hum caches. Kudos to us! Seriously, no sarcasm.

 

Consider for a moment someone that wants to hide a cache, and he puts every effort he can into making it the best one he can. His selection of the pill bottle to use keeps him up for 3 nights, fretting over the size, waterproofness, etc. He spends a week tweaking the log sheet to get it as great as he can. He camps out in a parking lot to watch the lamp posts for a whole weekend, to see which ones are least likely to cause issues with muggles seeing the cachers. He spends countless hours writing, and re-writing the description so it sounds like a fun cache. And when he finally gets it approved, a few of us would read it and think, "Oh, another one of these".

 

This guy has put more time and effort into his LPC than I have on most of my caches.

 

Some people in this thread would look at this cache and not knowing what he did, complain that he didn't even try, say that his cache was lame, and that it They wouldn't even bother logging it. Other people would go ahead and find it, say thanks on the log, and enjoy doing so.

 

My example was extreem, and unlikely, but to complain that someone didn't do enough to try and entertain me with their cache is something I'm not willing to do.

[+DrAwKwArD]

Be prepared to accept a DNF and move on if there are too many muggles or you are uncomfortable searching for any other reason. There are many more caches to find.

So, did you find out where the cache was hidden? Access panel of the lamp post perhaps?

Several of the hiking caches I found yesterday were probably on private property without permission. There weren't any "No Tresspassing" signs but at least one has a big sign that said "Land for Sale". I had to pass up several caches where consruction of new homes was going on; in some cases a new chain link fence had been put up around the area. I understand that one of the reviewers was caching in the area this weekend and has already archived a few of the caches where he found similar conditions.

Was it obvious that these caches were placed without permission?

If a reviewer has the right to archive caches found in person, it sounds like they have more power than we give them credit for.

[CoyoteRed]

How 'bout you, CR? Action, man! Action! Not words! Action!

 

Gonna join the movement?

 

Join the movement? Hell, I think I might have started it. I've publicly mentioned I'll not log caches I feel are not worthy. I've mentioned I've actually held a cache in my hand and decided it was not worth signing. I have no problem with bypassing caches that aren't the effort.

 

I walk the walk and talk the talk.

 

What I don't do is bury my head in the sand, either.

[+Team GeoBlast]

There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to make the best possible cache you can make. It's nice that you (and I) want to hide caches that are more than run of the mill ho hum caches. Kudos to us! Seriously, no sarcasm.

 

Consider for a moment someone that wants to hide a cache, and he puts every effort he can into making it the best one he can. His selection of the pill bottle to use keeps him up for 3 nights, fretting over the size, waterproofness, etc. He spends a week tweaking the log sheet to get it as great as he can. He camps out in a parking lot to watch the lamp posts for a whole weekend, to see which ones are least likely to cause issues with muggles seeing the cachers. He spends countless hours writing, and re-writing the description so it sounds like a fun cache. And when he finally gets it approved, a few of us would read it and think, "Oh, another one of these".

 

This guy has put more time and effort into his LPC than I have on most of my caches.

 

Some people in this thread would look at this cache and not knowing what he did, complain that he didn't even try, say that his cache was lame, and that it They wouldn't even bother logging it. Other people would go ahead and find it, say thanks on the log, and enjoy doing so.

 

My example was extreem, and unlikely, but to complain that someone didn't do enough to try and entertain me with their cache is something I'm not willing to do.

 

First and foremost. Thank-you for the productive conversation void of angst.

 

And, I hear what you are saying too. Bear with me for a moment and let's take a look at another extreme scenario. What if the same guy above has say 50 finds and the majority of his finds are like the finds that you and I would relish. Hides that make you want to tell all the folks at the office about what a great game geocaching is. Hides so good that every morning, the muggles would be on the edge of their seat waiting to hear about the next adventure you been on.

 

Why is my example so extreme and unreasonable? It's because in some pockets of the geo-world, we've lowered our expectations to a level that it proliferates and becomes the norm. Where is the motivation to go out and place a cache when you can get "Wow, GREAT hide" type feedback with almost no effort on an LPC? There's no escaping mirroring and when your experience is LPCs, this is pretty much going to be your reality.

 

So what's the answer? I honest don't have one but I do know that I can start with me. A few behaviors that I can practice would be to mentor a new cacher and be sure that he gets a premier base experience. I can share ideas in an encouraging way (if they are open), introduce them to others that possess the motivation to give more to the game and tell them about their hides. I can praise and reward cachers that do go out their way to thrill me with a great log, a special prize, or unsolicited maintenance on the cache. I can engage in meaningful and productive conversations with people on how the game can be preserved and improved. I can also steer clear of those who want to just argue and spread angst while offering opinions that degrade or demean.

[+KBI]

How 'bout you, CR? Action, man! Action! Not words! Action!

 

Gonna join the movement?

 

Join the movement? Hell, I think I might have started it. I've publicly mentioned I'll not log caches I feel are not worthy. I've mentioned I've actually held a cache in my hand and decided it was not worth signing. I have no problem with bypassing caches that aren't the effort.

 

I walk the walk and talk the talk.

In that case, I'll assume you have nothing further to complain about.

 

Sounds like you have found a way to satisfactorily cope with the existence of the cache hides you prefer not to find. I'll assume that we can expect to no longer hear CoyoteRed wh..... uh, rudely criticize his fellow player's level (or lack) of creativity.

 

Like I said to TG: Congratulations!

 

 

See you guys in a few days! I have to leave the "island" for a while. Gotta go "drive" my "bus" -- a bus that has no Internet access.

 

(Start the music, Clan Riffster.)

[+StarBrand]

As much as I do not currently like LPCs - I must admit that when I first saw one I thought it was innovative and cool. Even spent some time looking for a good pole so I could copy it. I never did.

 

Now I think they are a bit lame and way too common. I wouldn't ban them though - simply because I once saw them as neat - and I am sure many new cachers continue to see them that way.

[Mushtang]

And, I hear what you are saying too. Bear with me for a moment and let's take a look at another extreme scenario. What if the same guy above has say 50 finds and the majority of his finds are like the finds that you and I would relish. Hides that make you want to tell all the folks at the office about what a great game geocaching is. Hides so good that every morning, the muggles would be on the edge of their seat waiting to hear about the next adventure you been on.

I actually had someone specific in mind when I used my example. It's a guy I used to work with that, as far as I know, isn't a geocacher. Everyone has varying degrees of creativity and common sense. This guy was on the lowest end of that spectrum. If this guy had found 50 caches like you say... he still might not be able to produce anything that many wouldn't consider "lame". It's just beyone some people.

 

That's not to say that all hiders of LPCs are like that, or that they spent more than 10 seconds on the entire hide, but I'm still not willing to complain about a cache. I'd rather be appreciative.

 

I might feel different if there was something that said we HAD to find ALL caches that were close to us. You and CR have demonstrated that it's possible to walk away and ignore them.

[Keystone]

How 'bout you, CR? Action, man! Action! Not words! Action!

 

Gonna join the movement?

 

Join the movement? Hell, I think I might have started it. I've publicly mentioned I'll not log caches I feel are not worthy. I've mentioned I've actually held a cache in my hand and decided it was not worth signing. I have no problem with bypassing caches that aren't the effort.

 

I walk the walk and talk the talk.

In that case, I'll assume you have nothing further to complain about.

 

Sounds like you have found a way to satisfactorily cope with the existence of the cache hides you prefer not to find. I'll assume that we can expect to no longer hear CoyoteRed wh..... uh, rudely criticize his fellow player's level (or lack) of creativity.

 

Like I said to TG: Congratulations!

 

 

See you guys in a few days! I have to leave the "island" for a while. Gotta go "drive" my "bus" -- a bus that has no Internet access.

 

(Start the music, Clan Riffster.)

In a rare double-elimination challenge, Coyote Red and KBI have both been voted off of the Traffic Island. No more posts to this thread from them, as a condition of retaining full posting privileges elsewhere... as well as a chance to return again to compete in the next lamp post cache thread, "Survivor All Stars!" And, they may feel free to continue their discussions via private messaging.

 

We have lovely parting gifts. Quiggle will be along shortly to tell them what they've won.

[+tozainamboku]

In a rare double-elimination challenge, Coyote Red and KBI have both been voted off of the Traffic Island. No more posts to this thread from them, as a condition of retaining full posting privileges elsewhere... as well as a chance to return again to compete in the next lamp post cache thread, "Survivor All Stars!" And, they may feel free to continue their discussions via private messaging.

 

We have lovely parting gifts. Quiggle will be along shortly to tell them what they've won.

Good thing I have the Dueling Banjos video on my iPod. That should keep me entertained while they're gone.

Edited February 19, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

In a rare double-elimination challenge, Coyote Red and KBI have both been voted off of the Traffic Island. No more posts to this thread from them, as a condition of retaining full posting privileges elsewhere... as well as a chance to return again to compete in the next lamp post cache thread, "Survivor All Stars!" And, they may feel free to continue their discussions via private messaging.

 

We have lovely parting gifts. Quiggle will be along shortly to tell them what they've won.

Good thing I have the Dueling Banjos video on my iPod. That should keep me entertained while they're gone.

 

All I know is that still have my tiki torch!

Edited February 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team GeoBlast]

How 'bout you, CR? Action, man! Action! Not words! Action!

 

Gonna join the movement?

 

Join the movement? Hell, I think I might have started it. I've publicly mentioned I'll not log caches I feel are not worthy. I've mentioned I've actually held a cache in my hand and decided it was not worth signing. I have no problem with bypassing caches that aren't the effort.

 

I walk the walk and talk the talk.

In that case, I'll assume you have nothing further to complain about.

 

Sounds like you have found a way to satisfactorily cope with the existence of the cache hides you prefer not to find. I'll assume that we can expect to no longer hear CoyoteRed wh..... uh, rudely criticize his fellow player's level (or lack) of creativity.

 

Like I said to TG: Congratulations!

 

 

See you guys in a few days! I have to leave the "island" for a while. Gotta go "drive" my "bus" -- a bus that has no Internet access.

 

(Start the music, Clan Riffster.)

In a rare double-elimination challenge, Coyote Red and KBI have both been voted off of the Traffic Island. No more posts to this thread from them, as a condition of retaining full posting privileges elsewhere... as well as a chance to return again to compete in the next lamp post cache thread, "Survivor All Stars!" And, they may feel free to continue their discussions via private messaging.

 

We have lovely parting gifts. Quiggle will be along shortly to tell them what they've won.

 

Hey Quiggle, come over here. I've got some additional and equally lovely parting gifts to contribute.

[+Team GeoBlast]

And, I hear what you are saying too. Bear with me for a moment and let's take a look at another extreme scenario. What if the same guy above has say 50 finds and the majority of his finds are like the finds that you and I would relish. Hides that make you want to tell all the folks at the office about what a great game geocaching is. Hides so good that every morning, the muggles would be on the edge of their seat waiting to hear about the next adventure you been on.

I actually had someone specific in mind when I used my example. It's a guy I used to work with that, as far as I know, isn't a geocacher. Everyone has varying degrees of creativity and common sense. This guy was on the lowest end of that spectrum. If this guy had found 50 caches like you say... he still might not be able to produce anything that many wouldn't consider "lame". It's just beyone some people.

 

That's not to say that all hiders of LPCs are like that, or that they spent more than 10 seconds on the entire hide, but I'm still not willing to complain about a cache. I'd rather be appreciative.

 

I might feel different if there was something that said we HAD to find ALL caches that were close to us. You and CR have demonstrated that it's possible to walk away and ignore them.

 

You are right in that experience and background only go so far. Talent and ability are factors that cannot really be controlled but I like to believe that everyone has something to offer the game. I suppose if you knew someone like you describe however, maybe you could encourage him to bowl (insert any non-caching activity here).

 

I also agree that complaining about a cache is not really productive either. As long as the hider gave his or her best effort, it should be appreciated. Knowing that a lot of others feel this way, I do have to wonder how accurate reading the cache logs are in determining which caches to skip.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Keystone]

Good thing I have the Dueling Banjos video on my iPod. That should keep me entertained while they're gone.

Mr. T's looking pretty vulnerable for the next Tribal Council, but he's safe for now.

[Clan Riffster]

I've found that most of the people that dislike LPCs and would like to see them banned, seem to think that other people's caches are supposed to entertain everyone.

 

Just to clarify something that seems to be misunderstood: Judging by the folks who have posted to the various threads regarding the pros & cons of urban hides, the vast majority of those who feel the average LPC could be improved upon, do not want them, (or any other cache type), banned. While there are a boisterous few who call for the banishment of things they don't like, they seem to be in the minority. The resounding message from my camp is; "Make your cache as creative as you possibly can". That's it. Nothing more.

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to make the best possible cache you can make.

Bingo! I've always subscribed to the axiom, "Effort = Reward". In your cited example, the hider did the best that he could. Nobody could ever ask more from him. He will most likely get a lot of enjoyment from reading the found logs, and there are numerous folks who will enjoy the cache. A win-win scenario, if you ask me. Will I be one of the ones who enjoys it? Who knows? In the overall scheme of things, what I like or dislike is pretty much irrelevant. If I feel I won't enjoy it, I would simply move on to one I feel I would enjoy. Considering the relatively short span of our individual existence on this big blue marble, time is our most precious resource. Why waste it doing something you don't like?

 

In a concerted effort to get back on topic and answer the OP's question: No, don't ban LPC's. If their existence bothers you, take one of three steps:

1 ) Proactive: Teach others to embrace creativity in all things. Lead by example through creating the best hides you can.

2 ) Reactive: Continue to find LPC's, and log how you really feel about them.

3 ) Neutral: Vote with your feet, avoiding caches that you feel you might not enjoy, and don't express your views regarding these caches, even if asked.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I've found that most of the people that dislike LPCs and would like to see them banned, seem to think that other people's caches are supposed to entertain everyone.

 

Just to clarify something that seems to be misunderstood: Judging by the folks who have posted to the various threads regarding the pros & cons of urban hides, the vast majority of those who feel the average LPC could be improved upon, do not want them, (or any other cache type), banned. While there are a boisterous few who call for the banishment of things they don't like, they seem to be in the minority. The resounding message from my camp is; "Make your cache as creative as you possibly can". That's it. Nothing more.

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to make the best possible cache you can make.

Bingo! I've always subscribed to the axiom, "Effort = Reward". In your cited example, the hider did the best that he could. Nobody could ever ask more from him. He will most likely get a lot of enjoyment from reading the found logs, and there are numerous folks who will enjoy the cache. A win-win scenario, if you ask me. Will I be one of the ones who enjoys it? Who knows? In the overall scheme of things, what I like or dislike is pretty much irrelevant. If I feel I won't enjoy it, I would simply move on to one I feel I would enjoy. Considering the relatively short span of our individual existence on this big blue marble, time is our most precious resource. Why waste it doing something you don't like?

 

In a concerted effort to get back on topic and answer the OP's question: No, don't ban LPC's. If their existence bothers you, take one of three steps:

1 ) Proactive: Teach others to embrace creativity in all things. Lead by example through creating the best hides you can.

2 ) Reactive: Continue to find LPC's, and log how you really feel about them.

3 ) Neutral: Vote with your feet, avoiding caches that you feel you might not enjoy, and don't express your views regarding these caches, even if asked.

 

All of the sudden this thread feels like a safe haven, protected from lunacy.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[Mushtang]

All of the sudden this thread feels like a safe haven, protected from lunacy.

What "lunacy" would that be?

[+TrailGators]

Good thing I have the Dueling Banjos video on my iPod. That should keep me entertained while they're gone.

Mr. T's looking pretty vulnerable for the next Tribal Council, but he's safe for now.

I'm trying to figure out which tribe Mr. T is in.....Is it Lampawatu or Ammoiliki?

[+beezerb]

Don't care for them but we know a Wal Mart when we see it and just drive on by. Leave em alone.

[+gh patriot]

i cant believe this thread is still goin, its like the enigizer bunny.

[+Team GeoBlast]

All of the sudden this thread feels like a safe haven, protected from lunacy.

What "lunacy" would that be?

 

Lunacy would be what I experienced here when I first entered the thread, you are welcome to review the earlier posts but I am trying to forget it ever happened. Mostly because I feel like I got baited, swallowed it whole and sunk down to a level that I am not proud of. Speaking an honest opinion is no longer a concern because the moderator made a wise and welcome choice recently.

[Keystone]

::: Hands over the personal immunity idol to Team GeoBlast for the next Tribal Council :::

[+usyoopers]

Our viewpoint on LPC's....

 

We are currently working on a cache in Michigan that requires you to log a cache in each county of the Lower Peninsula, we live in the Upper Peninsula so any trip downstate we try to grab a cache or 2. Saturday we are driving to the Detroit area to catch a plane Sunday AM...doesn't leave us a lot of time for 5 mile hikes so far does it?? For the trip we are taking Sunday I really need to go to Wal-Mart to pick up a few things, the Wal-Mart in my area is 20 miles north of me and I really don't have time to go between now and Saturday. Now get this....in Midland County (a county we need for that cache!) there is a Wal-Mart and in that very parking lot there is a LPC!! How much more can the Caching Gods be smiling on you.

 

Yes, we do love a good hike but sometimes those LPC's sure do come in handy!

[+Team GeoBlast]

Our viewpoint on LPC's....

 

We are currently working on a cache in Michigan that requires you to log a cache in each county of the Lower Peninsula, we live in the Upper Peninsula so any trip downstate we try to grab a cache or 2. Saturday we are driving to the Detroit area to catch a plane Sunday AM...doesn't leave us a lot of time for 5 mile hikes so far does it?? For the trip we are taking Sunday I really need to go to Wal-Mart to pick up a few things, the Wal-Mart in my area is 20 miles north of me and I really don't have time to go between now and Saturday. Now get this....in Midland County (a county we need for that cache!) there is a Wal-Mart and in that very parking lot there is a LPC!! How much more can the Caching Gods be smiling on you.

 

Yes, we do love a good hike but sometimes those LPC's sure do come in handy!

 

That cache sounds like a "chore" to me.

[+Team GeoBlast]

::: Hands over the personal immunity idol to Team GeoBlast for the next Tribal Council :::

 

"It's good to see you lil idol... Can I take you with me when this thread dies?"

[+Team GeoBlast]

This is a great post. It's almost a thread killer because it pretty much sums up where a lot of us were going. Because I love this thread and the peace of mind that comes with it.. a few thoughts as to how these "best practices" would be complemented by a rating system.

 

 

In a concerted effort to get back on topic and answer the OP's question: No, don't ban LPC's. If their existence bothers you, take one of three steps:

1 ) Proactive: Teach others to embrace creativity in all things. Lead by example through creating the best hides you can.

2 ) Reactive: Continue to find LPC's, and log how you really feel about them.

3 ) Neutral: Vote with your feet, avoiding caches that you feel you might not enjoy, and don't express your views regarding these caches, even if asked.

 

1) This should be the mission of any forward thinking geocaching individual or geocaching association. As for stimulating the individual hiders motivation to do better... think about the lengths that people go through to get a smiley now and then consider a rating that reflects -their own- personal efforts in hiding a cache. Other than assisting people in filtering out caches, this is the single best reason for having a rating system, it will give people feedback on their own caches.

 

2) This is sadly not the norm and I am just as guilty as others that I know. I think most people (including myself) won't be brutally honest about how they feel when they run across a cache that others might appreciate an honest preview on. Anymore, I will write very little in the log and then email the owner personally and see if there's something that I can do to help with their next hide.

 

Because others do this too, I do not see how you can rely on logs or other information supplied on the cache page to help you filter caches. Sure, if the cache has been around long enough (usually not the case) somebody, eventually, is going to be brutally honest but then you are stuck having to weigh the pull no punches logs against all of the others that elected to keep quiet about it. Again, an anonymous rating system where each finder gets a chance to give a thumbs up or thumbs down in a few different categories, would be huge. Where I cache, counting the number of "found it" logs is the best indication of a cache to avoid.

 

3) I know there are people that "have to clear the area" and will attempt to find every cache within a certain proximity. Eventually this will even out and the number and frequency of finds will speak volumes. Again, this is "if" the cache lasts long enough.

[+gh patriot]

Yesterday I found a lpc and the buisness owners actually caulked the cover to the pole so that it could not be slid up and down to retrieve the cache. I guess that they got sick of people pulling up and tampering with their light pole. I loged a find since it wasn't disabled yet and i notified the owner that it needs to be archived.

[+sbell111]

Yesterday I found a lpc and the buisness owners actually caulked the cover to the pole so that it could not be slid up and down to retrieve the cache. I guess that they got sick of people pulling up and tampering with their light pole. I loged a find since it wasn't disabled yet and i notified the owner that it needs to be archived.

If the cover was caulked, how did you make the find?

[+gh patriot]

Yesterday I found a lpc and the buisness owners actually caulked the cover to the pole so that it could not be slid up and down to retrieve the cache. I guess that they got sick of people pulling up and tampering with their light pole. I loged a find since it wasn't disabled yet and i notified the owner that it needs to be archived.

If the cover was caulked, how did you make the find?

 

Well i guess if you want to get picky i didn't actually sign the log book but I saw the wear marks on the post and decided not to break the cover to get at the log book which was probably just a icy block of paper anyway. If they want to take the log away from me fine.

[+BlueDeuce]

Yesterday I found a lpc and the buisness owners actually caulked the cover to the pole so that it could not be slid up and down to retrieve the cache. I guess that they got sick of people pulling up and tampering with their light pole. I loged a find since it wasn't disabled yet and i notified the owner that it needs to be archived.

 

hmmm, I have some extra caulking....hmmm.

[Mushtang]

Yesterday I found a lpc and the buisness owners actually caulked the cover to the pole so that it could not be slid up and down to retrieve the cache. I guess that they got sick of people pulling up and tampering with their light pole. I loged a find since it wasn't disabled yet and i notified the owner that it needs to be archived.

If the cover was caulked, how did you make the find?

 

Well i guess if you want to get picky i didn't actually sign the log book but I saw the wear marks on the post and decided not to break the cover to get at the log book which was probably just a icy block of paper anyway. If they want to take the log away from me fine.

You just assumed the cache was in there. You're probably right, but then again...

 

You've got a Find on a cache that you never actually found. How do you feel about that?

 

What if the cache was actually a magnetic sign on the side of the lamp post, and the log was on the back? (I've seen those before, they're very tricky)

What if the cache was actually a FAKE access cover, held to the side of the lamp post by a magnet, with a tiny log book behind it?

(Also have seen one like that, and found it after reporting that the cache was gone and finding out I was just not looking careful enough)

What if there's some other way that the cache was actually there, you just missed it?

 

Are you sure you want to log a find on a cache that you didn't actually find? Even if you were right, and it was forever locked inside the covering by caulk... you never found it. It's clearly a DNF.

 

But then again, you're not the only person to log finds this way, and your bogus find doesn't change my number, or the fun I'll have playing the game, so do what you feel you must.

[+gh patriot]

Yesterday I found a lpc and the buisness owners actually caulked the cover to the pole so that it could not be slid up and down to retrieve the cache. I guess that they got sick of people pulling up and tampering with their light pole. I loged a find since it wasn't disabled yet and i notified the owner that it needs to be archived.

If the cover was caulked, how did you make the find?

 

Well i guess if you want to get picky i didn't actually sign the log book but I saw the wear marks on the post and decided not to break the cover to get at the log book which was probably just a icy block of paper anyway. If they want to take the log away from me fine.

You just assumed the cache was in there. You're probably right, but then again...

 

You've got a Find on a cache that you never actually found. How do you feel about that?

 

What if the cache was actually a magnetic sign on the side of the lamp post, and the log was on the back? (I've seen those before, they're very tricky)

What if the cache was actually a FAKE access cover, held to the side of the lamp post by a magnet, with a tiny log book behind it?

(Also have seen one like that, and found it after reporting that the cache was gone and finding out I was just not looking careful enough)

What if there's some other way that the cache was actually there, you just missed it?

 

Are you sure you want to log a find on a cache that you didn't actually find? Even if you were right, and it was forever locked inside the covering by caulk... you never found it. It's clearly a DNF.

 

But then again, you're not the only person to log finds this way, and your bogus find doesn't change my number, or the fun I'll have playing the game, so do what you feel you must.

 

I knew that someone would pipe up and say some crap like this. First there was no magnetic sign on the side of the lamp post. second I checked the access cover and it was screwed in, third I have emailed the owner about the other two of their lpc's that were hidden in an identical fashion and fourth it had a matinance attribute for a couple of months so obvioulsy the owner doesn't give a crap about this cache anyway. Yes I loged it as a find. Yes this is the ONLY cache ever that I have loged as a find without actually finding the cache. If he wants to archive it i would be more than happy to delete my find but please dont knock the way I cache by saying the find was bogus.

[Keystone]

gh patriot, it's time for you to go. The tribe has spoken. Please bring me your torch on your way out of the thread.

[+gh patriot]

and for the record i feel fine about loging a find on the only cache that I didn't actually hold in my hand. If I was desperate enough to put out a lpc and my cache got caulked shut i wouldn mind people loging a find until i disabled it. stop crying. I didn't log this one to inflate my numbers. I have almost 400 finds in a little over 2 months and this one caulked shut lpc isn't going to make a diff. I have located the hiding spots of many caches to find they were muggled and I always contact the owner to ask them what to do. THis particular cache owner refuses to respond.

[+TrailGators]

gh patriot, it's time for you to go. The tribe has spoken. Please bring me your torch on your way out of the thread.

...and now Logitanyhowa loses a tribe member. (j/k) Edited February 21, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Too Tall John]

::: Hands over the personal immunity idol to Team GeoBlast for the next Tribal Council :::

 

Does that mean Team GeoBlast is safe from being voted off? Can they pass it to another they think will get voted off? Are Keystone and Jeff Probst brothers? Will Boston Rob make an alliance with Richard Hatch? Mmmm... Survivor....

 

To summarize my posts so far:

Don't ban LPCs, even though many are placed without permission.

Why do we need permission? First, placing a cache on someone's property is inviting others to enter that property. Inviting people onto someone else's property is inviting them to trespass. Secondly, if a property owner knows a cache is there, the likelyhood that the bomb squad is going to be called in to blow it up is greatly reduced.

Enforce the rule about permission for cache placement or new legislation will be passed OR current laws will be reinterpreted to regulate geocaching after LEOs have had to deal with one too many bomb/cache scares.

 

Am I being overly cautious? Is it overly cautious to walk a little faster to get out of the crosswalk when a car is speeding toward you? Or is it prudent?

[+Team GeoBlast]

::: Hands over the personal immunity idol to Team GeoBlast for the next Tribal Council :::

 

Does that mean Team GeoBlast is safe from being voted off? Can they pass it to another they think will get voted off? Are Keystone and Jeff Probst brothers? Will Boston Rob make an alliance with Richard Hatch? Mmmm... Survivor....

 

To summarize my posts so far:

Don't ban LPCs, even though many are placed without permission.

Why do we need permission? First, placing a cache on someone's property is inviting others to enter that property. Inviting people onto someone else's property is inviting them to trespass. Secondly, if a property owner knows a cache is there, the likelyhood that the bomb squad is going to be called in to blow it up is greatly reduced.

Enforce the rule about permission for cache placement or new legislation will be passed OR current laws will be reinterpreted to regulate geocaching after LEOs have had to deal with one too many bomb/cache scares.

 

Am I being overly cautious? Is it overly cautious to walk a little faster to get out of the crosswalk when a car is speeding toward you? Or is it prudent?

 

I am in it to win it and I make no apologies for this. All you suckaz are going be swimming with the fishes and I'll be just hanging on dry land with my personal immunity idol.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+sbell111]

To summarize my posts so far:

Don't ban LPCs, even though many are placed without permission.

Why do we need permission? First, placing a cache on someone's property is inviting others to enter that property. Inviting people onto someone else's property is inviting them to trespass.

Every LPC that I have ever visited was located in an area where the public was already clearly welcome.

Secondly, if a property owner knows a cache is there, the likelyhood that the bomb squad is going to be called in to blow it up is greatly reduced.

While I agree that explicit permission does reduce the likelyhood of visits from the bomb squad, I don't believe that it greatly reduces the chances. In situations where one person made the approval, but there are many, many employees (like Wal-Mart), the chance of the right person being talked to at the right time to avoid such a call is fairly slim. It should be noted that caches which had explicit permission have received visits from the constabulary.

Enforce the rule about permission for cache placement or new legislation will be passed OR current laws will be reinterpreted to regulate geocaching after LEOs have had to deal with one too many bomb/cache scares.

Again, the guideline does not require explicit permission. Also, as I tried to get into earlier in this thread, it would be quite difficult for governments to regulate geocaching on private property. Edited February 21, 2007 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

To summarize my posts so far:

Don't ban LPCs, even though many are placed without permission.

Why do we need permission? First, placing a cache on someone's property is inviting others to enter that property. Inviting people onto someone else's property is inviting them to trespass.

Every LPC that I have ever visited was located in an area where the public was already clearly welcome.

Just because the public is welcome to park in a parking lot does not mean they are welcome to do other things, like tamper (def: play around with or alter... usually secretively...) with light posts.

Secondly, if a property owner knows a cache is there, the likelyhood that the bomb squad is going to be called in to blow it up is greatly reduced.

While I agree that explicit permission does reduce the likelyhood of visits from the bomb squad, I don't believe that it greatly reduces the chances. In situations where one person made the approval, but there are many, many employees (like Wal-Mart), the chance of the right person being talked to at the right time to avoid such a call is fairly slim. It should be noted that caches which had explicit permission have received visits from the constabulary.

I looked it up in the dictionary, likelihood (we've been spelling it wrong, oops...) means "the state of being likely or probable; probability." Chance is "a possibility or probability of anything happening." Please clarify your statement.

Regardless, if the "right person" is asked for permission to place a LPC at Wal-Mart the answer will likely be "No." Even if it was yes, if there were a situation requiring the police to be called in the parking lot, you better believe the "right person" (store manager) would be the second call after the cops, maybe the call before 911. When I was in Wally World management you better believe I got calls about smaller stuff all the time. In fact, if I were a store manager & didn't receive a call about this, heads would roll.

Oh, even if you found a store manager who said "yes" to a LPC I bet if you asked them what the Home Office thought about geocaching they'd scurry off & you'd get a phone call later asking you to remove the cache.

Yes, caches with explicit permission have probably received visits from police, but that would typically result from a miscommunication on the part of people other than the geocacher (unless they didn't properly label the cache, don't get me going on that!) and instead of the headline reading "Geocaching Causes Panic at Mall" it would read "Police Admit Miscommunication with Mall Officials Over Bomb Scare." (Or chances are it is probably more likely to... )

Enforce the rule about permission for cache placement or new legislation will be passed OR current laws will be reinterpreted to regulate geocaching after LEOs have had to deal with one too many bomb/cache scares.

Again, the guideline does not require explicit permission. Also, as I tried to get into earlier in this thread, it would be quite difficult for governments to regulate geocaching on private property.

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

Sounds like you need permission to me.

Police have a lead in the investigation into Sunday's incident but are not commenting at this time. Potential charges in this case are disorderly conduct and criminal trespass.

It also sounds like there are enough laws in place already to get you arrested if you tick off the wrong person. Besides, I'm not calling geocaching on private property to question, but geocaching on private property without permission.