Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+sbell111]

You know Mushtang if there were a way to filter out LPCs from our PQS nobody would be complaining. The problem is that some us us have hectic schedules and we want to load up and go caching for a few hours when we can. We don't want to do research trying to figure out from the cache page/logs which caches are LPCs. We don't want to waste our limited time driving over to a cache only to find out that it's another LPC. Those that don't like puzzle caches can filter those out. Those that don't like high terrain caches can fitler those out. Those that don't like any micro can fitler those out. But there is no filter for caches for LPCs.

I thought we got over this chestnut 5 angsty LPC threads ago. Don't make me drag out Steve's Three-Step Plan to Avoid Caches You Don't Like (STSPACYDL) (patent pending).

I'm not being angsty at all. I have a legitimate point. Face it, there is no method that is as efficient as a filter on a PQ.

There's also nothing quite as efficient as having Jeremy bring you the log book of each cache for your signature, but that doesn't mean that the solution is unduly difficult.

 

(BTW, I was calling the 5 old LPC threads angsty, not your post.)

Edited April 12, 2007 by sbell111

[+Moose Mob]

[+tozainamboku]

Will a film canister plopped under a Wally World lamp post kilt create fond memories that last a lifetime? I guess for some folks it will.

Some of my most memorable cache hunts are LPCs. In fact one is a film canister plopped under a Wally World lamp post kilt and it's even in Clan Riffster's neck of the woods. The cache page says " I am just sitting here -not magnetic or held by Velcro". I lifted the lamppost skirt and felt a piece of velcro stuck to the inside of the skirt. I was going to log a DNF but then remembered the description so I took another look an there it was. For awhile I had it watch listed. It got a few "Didn't find the cache but found the velcro so I'm claiming the find" logs.

[+TrailGators]

Will a film canister plopped under a Wally World lamp post kilt create fond memories that last a lifetime? I guess for some folks it will.

Some of my most memorable cache hunts are LPCs. In fact one is a film canister plopped under a Wally World lamp post kilt and it's even in Clan Riffster's neck of the woods. The cache page says " I am just sitting here -not magnetic or held by Velcro". I lifted the lamppost skirt and felt a piece of velcro stuck to the inside of the skirt. I was going to log a DNF but then remembered the description so I took another look an there it was. For awhile I had it watch listed. It got a few "Didn't find the cache but found the velcro so I'm claiming the find" logs.

What's your number....

[+KBI]

If LPCs are all that there were, I wouldnt have even bought a GPS. My wife and I found our first LPC on easter. Whoopee! (sarcasm). Really, I think that Geocaching should have a rule against these. They are not exciting.

Translation: "There is something out there I happen to dislike; therefore NOBODY should be allowed to enjoy it."

 

I guess I'll just never understand this bizarre (yet sadly very common) leap in logic.

[+KBI]

Are you saying every cache placed has to be a favorite?

I think what I'm alluding to is, "effort = reward", with a dash of "carpy locations are carpy", and a hint of "why is creativity frowned upon".

Who, exactly, are these people who "frown upon" creativity to whom you again refer?

[+TrailGators]

Are you saying every cache placed has to be a favorite?

I think what I'm alluding to is, "effort = reward", with a dash of "carpy locations are carpy", and a hint of "why is creativity frowned upon".

Who, exactly, are these people who "frown upon" creativity to whom you again refer?

What's your number?

[+KBI]

What's your number?

My answer is pretty much the same as Mushtang's. He and I seem to share the same preference for the most part, and he described it perfectly. No need to repeat his well-worded post when I can simply link it.

 

Does that answer your question?

[+TrailGators]

What's your number?

My answer is pretty much the same as Mushtang's. He and I seem to share the same preference for the most part, and he described it perfectly. No need to repeat his well-worded post when I can simply link it.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

I was looking for a overall rating compared with every other cache that you've ever found. So let's assume that you are on a business trip and no rental car, and every kind of cache is within walking distance. What is your number?

[+The Jester]

Are you saying every cache placed has to be a favorite?

I think what I'm alluding to is, "effort = reward", with a dash of "carpy locations are carpy", and a hint of "why is creativity frowned upon". These are somewhat difficult concepts for many to grasp, so don't feel bad if you can't. This is a fairly unique game, played by a host of diverse individuals. Somewhere out there is a cacher who actually prefers 500 acres of stinky, sweltering, trash strewn, SUV laden blacktop to a rural waterfall. These folks are tickled pink at the prospect of a new LPC popping up in their area.

 

blah, blah, blah cut out to save space.

Thank you so much for the insult. I probably should have hit the report button, but your opinions just aren't worth the effort. Very nice discussion skills.

[+KBI]

I was looking for a overall rating compared with every other cache that you've ever found. So let's assume that you are on a business trip and no rental car, and every kind of cache is within walking distance. What is your number?

Wow, that's pretty specific ... but I think I see what you’re after.

 

Based on that, and your original question:

I wish we could just do a simple poll (how much do you like LPCs on a scale of 1-10) without comments. That would be interesting.

... I guess I’d have to say:

 

If every kind of cache I’ve ever seen is available nearby, but I only have time to hunt ONE of them, then my number is: 2

(The 20-stage multis and the scuba-gear-required caches would, for me, rate below the LPCs)

 

If every kind of cache I’ve ever seen is available nearby, and I have time to hunt ALL of them, then my number is: 9

(They're not my absolute favorite, but hey, I like finding geocaches. What can I say?)

 

I don't prefer light pole caches, but I can – and frequently do – enjoy them. I get somewhere to walk to. I get to burn some calories. (Or, if I’m caching by car, I get a pleasant little break from my errands.) I get to play with my Garmin. I get to be in on a secret. I get to play like I'm James Bond. I get to waltz into a place I've never been and clandestinely snag something that the locals have no clue is there. I get to see if the cache really is hidden where I assume it is hidden. Sometimes I get a pleasant and entertaining surprise when my assumption is wrong. I get to draw my nerdy little logo next to my name on the log. I get to see who else has been there. I get to add a smiley to my find count. I get a chance to be creative when I log my find online.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

(Sorry, I guess I'm not doing very well with the "without comments" thing. )

[+T"n"T]

Bottom line with any post topic is it is all about choices. This game from coins to finds to hides to who logs what is all about a game and having fun doing it however you feel like doing it. If you like LPC's do them all, if you don't never do any. Not too hard to get the idea. Some people like to cache love to be around other cachers but have limits. We do alot of caching with my mother-in-law. She likes to go and her getting out of car and walking a few feet bending around to find these"crappy" hides(as some have stated) is a huge thrill to her. She has had three major strokes and this is a great step of exercise for her. My 9 year old has his own ideas. One day he wants to do 40 fast finds in just a few hours. The next day we do 1 that takes 6 hrs with a 6 mile mountain hike. Some days he will say he has a special item to place and needs a special box. So we look for a reg. size cache thats not found much. Again bottom line is it completly a personal game. Why waste good caching time trying to degrade others. Keep caching and lets all play nice.

[CoyoteRed]

Firstly, I didn't read the whole thread, only the first page, and a few here and there. I guess I got bored with the discussion too quickly--kind of like hunting LPCs.

 

Here's my opinion for your typical LPC. I don't like them. I don't do them except as a "point and laugh" factor, then I will rarely log them as they aren't worth further waste of my time.

 

Personally, if I'm dumped into some random hotel in some random city with hours of free time, I know I can easily find more interesting things to do that find LPCs. If I simply had to get out for a walk, that's what I'd do. This kind of reminds me of a study I read about a while back. You burn more calories laying down with your eyes closed and simply thinking than you do sitting and watching TV. For me, simply going for a walk would be more enjoyable than hunting a typical LPC.

 

Additionally, I don't like them because I have to weed them out from the list of worthwhile caches for me to hunt. Very few locations of LPCs have piqued my interest, much like any cache in a commercial location, while on the other hand I've been disappointed by very few caches that have been in any urban park. Now, if there were some kind of option in the Pocket Query generator to differentiate the two then I think a much larger percentage of us would be happier.

 

Now, if you've found fantastic location or subject to which you want to bring folks and the only place you can hide your logbook is in a micro under a lamp post skirt, then yeah, I'll probably enjoy it. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Edited April 13, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

You should check out STSPACYDL (patent pending). It might help you.

[CoyoteRed]

We do alot of caching with my mother-in-law. She likes to go and her getting out of car and walking a few feet bending around to find these"crappy" hides(as some have stated) is a huge thrill to her.

I'm wondering if she would prefer continuing with LPCs or find some in nice parks that are just as easy on her.

 

This is the same argument that keeps popping up in regards to folks with limited abilities. Personally, I'd be ashamed of relegating one of my own to only finding LPCs and not encouraging hides that are more entertaining. I find it disappointing and disheartening that folks think only LPCs and the like are suitable for those with limited abilities. Are all urban parks so difficult to get around in? No way to place a nice easy cache in a park with pretty flowers and nice statuary?

[CoyoteRed]

You should check out STSPACYDL (patent pending). It might help you.

Link me, please.

 

Hope it has a way I can never see the caches I don't like without dumping the worthwhile ones. Otherwise, what good is it other than what I'm already doing?

[+sbell111]

We do alot of caching with my mother-in-law. She likes to go and her getting out of car and walking a few feet bending around to find these"crappy" hides(as some have stated) is a huge thrill to her.

I'm wondering if she would prefer continuing with LPCs or find some in nice parks that are just as easy on her.

 

This is the same argument that keeps popping up in regards to folks with limited abilities. Personally, I'd be ashamed of relegating one of my own to only finding LPCs and not encouraging hides that are more entertaining. I find it disappointing and disheartening that folks think only LPCs and the like are suitable for those with limited abilities. Are all urban parks so difficult to get around in? No way to place a nice easy cache in a park with pretty flowers and nice statuary?

I'm sure that she goes after all caches that are within her abilities. That being said, she clearly enjoys LPCs, so what's the big deal?

[+sbell111]

You should check out STSPACYDL (patent pending). It might help you.

Link me, please.

 

Hope it has a way I can never see the caches I don't like without dumping the worthwhile ones. Otherwise, what good is it other than what I'm already doing?

It was discussed in one of the other LPC threads, but basically, it consists of first running a couple different PQs. The first set of PQs entails one with all caches except micros and PQs of micros with terrain over 1.5 or difficulty over 1.5. You can be fairly confident that these PQs contain very few LPCs, so absent any sorting that you do for other purposes, these are ready to be used as your primary caching file.

 

There are two other PQs that only need to be run if you have no remaining caches to go for in your primary caching file. These PQs are micros with a terrain or difficulty of less than 1.5. These PQs will require additional spindling before you can use them for caching. You have a few options for this further screening. First, some cachers typically hide LPCs (or similar) caches. Ignore any caches from those people. Second, dumping these caches into a mapping program like S&T or MapPoint will allow you to ditch any in known shopping areas. Beyond this, you will have to look at the actual individual caches. Luckily, GSAK makes this easy. A quick review of the cache page will give you some clues. Notice a bunch of TFTC-type logs? Ignore those, they probably don't meet your standards.

 

Sure, it takes a little work to weed out as many lamers as possible from this second group of PQs, but you don't have to deal with them unbtil you are out of caches in your primary file.

 

I hope this helps you.

Edited April 13, 2007 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

Thank you so much for the insult. I probably should have hit the report button, but your opinions just aren't worth the effort. Very nice discussion skills.

Please, feel free. Report away. That particular statement was what I refer to as "user enabled". Any insult derived was attached to themselves by the reader. Physician, heal thyself. Then go grab a few LPC's to reduce your angst.

[Mushtang]

You should check out STSPACYDL (patent pending). It might help you.

Link me, please.

 

Hope it has a way I can never see the caches I don't like without dumping the worthwhile ones. Otherwise, what good is it other than what I'm already doing?

CR, would you be okay with missing out on a small percentage of the "worthwhile" ones to be able to rid yourself of a very large percentage of the LPCs? That would still leave you with a large number of "worthwhile" caches to choose from.

 

If so, remove all 1/1 and micros from your PQs. It seems like you'll be much happier with the left-over selection.

[+TrailGators]

I was looking for a overall rating compared with every other cache that you've ever found. So let's assume that you are on a business trip and no rental car, and every kind of cache is within walking distance. What is your number?

Wow, that's pretty specific ... but I think I see what you're after.

 

Based on that, and your original question:

I wish we could just do a simple poll (how much do you like LPCs on a scale of 1-10) without comments. That would be interesting.

... I guess I'd have to say:

 

If every kind of cache I've ever seen is available nearby, but I only have time to hunt ONE of them, then my number is: 2

(The 20-stage multis and the scuba-gear-required caches would, for me, rate below the LPCs)

 

(Sorry, I guess I'm not doing very well with the "without comments" thing. )

I take that to mean that in the overall scheme of things LPCs are 2's to you. I appreciate the honesty. I would rate smelly garbage dumpster caches and homeless/migrant caches below LPCs.

[CoyoteRed]

I hope this helps you.

It doesn't.

 

Your scheme fails on multiple levels.

• First, it's not even workable in that you can't create--not that I can figure out--a PQ that includes only caches with a difficulty of 1.5 and greater or terrain of 1.5 and greater. You can do "and" but not "or." Can you show me how to create a single query that eliminates 1/x and x/1 caches?
  
• Segregating micros will increase the number of queries you have to run. Someone like myself who is at or near capacity would have to sacrifice larger caches in favor of running this scheme. This defeats the purpose.
  
• It doesn't fit my criteria of not losing worthwhile micros with a 1 difficulty or terrain. Even if I could eliminate 1/x and x/1 micros as you suggest, when I go to a distant location I doubt I would exhaust all the caches that would be available to me. I'd never see that fantastic, easy micro that would really wow me.
  

Your scheme is too complicated if even possible and does little to separate worthwhile caches from junk. How does it differentiate between a typical Walmart LPC and the drive-by at a fantastic overlook?

 

I would have said "nice try," but I suspect you didn't test your theory for viability.

[Mushtang]

How does it differentiate between a typical Walmart LPC and the drive-by at a fantastic overlook?

It wouldn't, you'd lose both. But you'd still be left with a lot of other neat caches at neat locations. Isn't that what you'd want?

[CoyoteRed]

CR, would you be okay with missing out on a small percentage of the "worthwhile" ones to be able to rid yourself of a very large percentage of the LPCs? That would still leave you with a large number of "worthwhile" caches to choose from.

 

If so, remove all 1/1 and micros from your PQs. It seems like you'll be much happier with the left-over selection.

Why should I allow those who would rather place, defend, and find lame caches rob me of the decent caches placed with similar descriptives? It's like saying, if you have a great 1/1 micro a certain segment will not see it because of all of the lame 1/1 micros. Only those who will not likely appreciate it for what it is will likely see it.

[CoyoteRed]

How does it differentiate between a typical Walmart LPC and the drive-by at a fantastic overlook?

It wouldn't, you'd lose both. But you'd still be left with a lot of other neat caches at neat locations. Isn't that what you'd want?

Well, considering one of the things that attracts me to geocaching is the locations I would have never visited otherwise then I'd have to answer "no."

 

I go to Walmarts and similar locales often enough already. Those aren't locations I wouldn't have visited if it weren't for geocaching.

[+tozainamboku]

What's your number....

I started to reply to this last night and decided not to. Then I saw TrailGators ask for KBI's number. I think I see the basic philosophical difference now. The lamp post haters believe that each cache has intrinsic value that can be assigned based on location, container size, creativity of the hide, and other criteria. Bigger caches are better than smaller caches given that you could hide either size there. Caches in parks with scenic views are better than caches in parking lots. Caches hidden in plain site using camouflage are better than caches hidden under a lamp post skirt. And so forth. The SDOEL (the name the lamp post haters give them) believe that the value in a cache is the experience of finding or searching for that cache, which is different to each person. Someone looking for a quickie find while out running errand could be happier finding an LPC than doing a hike in the woods that takes more time. If you're looking to visit a interesting place, the Wal*Mart parking lot is probably not going to do it for you.

If I were to make a list of the my most memorable cache hunts it would not be the same list as the caches I would recommend to others. The cache hunts that I remember most are where something interesting or unusual happened. Very few caches are so unique or in such spectacular locations as to be memorable of themselves. It's great when they are. I'm still more like to remember a cache if something out of the ordinary happened on my search. Many memorable caches have been LPCs. Perhaps the fact that these hides are so bland means that if there is even something a little unusual that happens in sticks in my mind. At the end of the day it isn't the finds or the DNFS, it isn't what was traded, it is the memories I have (even the unpleasant ones sometimes) that make caching worthwhile.

[+sbell111]

Thank you so much for the insult. I probably should have hit the report button, but your opinions just aren't worth the effort. Very nice discussion skills.

Please, feel free. Report away. That particular statement was what I refer to as "user enabled". Any insult derived was attached to themselves by the reader. Physician, heal thyself. Then go grab a few LPC's to reduce your angst.

You really don't see this comment as a personal insult?

These are somewhat difficult concepts for many to grasp, so don't feel bad if you can't.

[+Miragee]

When I went on a trip to Colorado, I took my laptop with me with a database of Littleton caches in GSAK.

 

Since I was taking my cousin out caching for the first time, I did not want to be looking for any LPCs, or any Micros, for that matter. So, I did a filter in GSAK eliminating all the Micros. I put the remaining caches in my GPSr and Palm.

 

It really was fun looking for only Virtual and larger-sized caches that afternoon.

 

I should probably do that here so I would feel like turning on my GPSr when I go to town . . .

[Mushtang]

CR, would you be okay with missing out on a small percentage of the "worthwhile" ones to be able to rid yourself of a very large percentage of the LPCs? That would still leave you with a large number of "worthwhile" caches to choose from.

 

If so, remove all 1/1 and micros from your PQs. It seems like you'll be much happier with the left-over selection.

Why should I allow those who would rather place, defend, and find lame caches rob me of the decent caches placed with similar descriptives?

I think "rob" is too strong of a word. I'm not trying to rob you of anything, I'm trying to offer you a way to avoid the things you don't like, even though you also avoid a few things you do like.

 

Robbing you would be removing caches from you without your approval, this would be you removing caches on your own and having the option of keeping them (or getting them later). Robbing would be someone that doesn't like skirt lifters asking the web site to ban them because they don't like them (not you, but other folks).

 

It's just paying insurance. I give some of my money away, that I do like, to have peace of mind that I won't have to pay huge bills that I don't like (if something happens). In this case, you're giving away a few of the caches you would like, to have the peace of mind that you'll never see the huge pile of caches you don't like.

 

It's like saying, if you have a great 1/1 micro a certain segment will not see it because of all of the lame 1/1 micros.

So I shouldn't place a cache unless I know that EVERY cacher will hunt for it?

 

Only those who will not likely appreciate it for what it is will likely see it.

No, only those that dislike 1/1 micros enough to ignore them will miss it. This might include you, and it might not. You have options that you can use.

[+sbell111]

I hope this helps you.

It doesn't.

 

Your scheme fails on multiple levels.

• First, it's not even workable in that you can't create--not that I can figure out--a PQ that includes only caches with a difficulty of 1.5 and greater or terrain of 1.5 and greater. You can do "and" but not "or." Can you show me how to create a single query that eliminates 1/x and x/1 caches?
  

I didn't say that you should run a single query. Run two. GSAK can put them all together for you, easily enough.

• Segregating micros will increase the number of queries you have to run. Someone like myself who is at or near capacity would have to sacrifice larger caches in favor of running this scheme. This defeats the purpose.
  

You'll run a few more queries, with my plan. Luckily, as a premium member you can run five per day.

• It doesn't fit my criteria of not losing worthwhile micros with a 1 difficulty or terrain. Even if I could eliminate 1/x and x/1 micros as you suggest, when I go to a distant location I doubt I would exhaust all the caches that would be available to me. I'd never see that fantastic, easy micro that would really wow me.
  

You actually don't lose any caches with my plan. You get to find all the ones that you're reasonably sure fit your desires and then take a closer look at the remainder. Many cachers have so many local cachers that they may never have to take a look at the remainder.

Your scheme is too complicated if even possible and does little to separate worthwhile caches from junk. How does it differentiate between a typical Walmart LPC and the drive-by at a fantastic overlook?

Actually, my 'scheme' is very simple. You first find the caches that you are pretty sure that you'll like and then you take a closer look at the remainder. Easy peasy.

I would have said "nice try," but I suspect you didn't test your theory for viability.

Actually, the plan was developed to help cachers like you who lament the fact that you are forced to look for LPCs for fear of missing awesome, easy micros. I needn't do any testing of the 'theory' because I am not haunted by the knowledge that LPCs exist. Edited April 13, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

How does it differentiate between a typical Walmart LPC and the drive-by at a fantastic overlook?

It wouldn't, you'd lose both. But you'd still be left with a lot of other neat caches at neat locations. Isn't that what you'd want?

Well, considering one of the things that attracts me to geocaching is the locations I would have never visited otherwise then I'd have to answer "no."

I don't understand. This would INCREASE the percentage of caches you'll see that have good locations.

 

I go to Walmarts and similar locales often enough already. Those aren't locations I wouldn't have visited if it weren't for geocaching.

Right. And eliminating 1/1 micros will keep you from seeing most of the parking lot caches that you don't want to see.

 

I don't understand why this isn't better for you.

[+sbell111]

CR, would you be okay with missing out on a small percentage of the "worthwhile" ones to be able to rid yourself of a very large percentage of the LPCs? That would still leave you with a large number of "worthwhile" caches to choose from.

 

If so, remove all 1/1 and micros from your PQs. It seems like you'll be much happier with the left-over selection.

Why should I allow those who would rather place, defend, and find lame caches rob me of the decent caches placed with similar descriptives? It's like saying, if you have a great 1/1 micro a certain segment will not see it because of all of the lame 1/1 micros. Only those who will not likely appreciate it for what it is will likely see it.

Alternatively, you can go look for all of them and whine about those caches that you don't like. It's an option.

 

BTW, who are you to decide what others may or may not appreciate? It seems like the people that you insult are MORE likely to appreciate any cache that is hidden for them and you are LESS likely to do so.

Edited April 13, 2007 by sbell111

[+mtn-man]

I like my method. I call it "the five minute rule".

 

I load up all caches.

After 5 minutes at a cache if I am not having fun, I leave.

[Mushtang]

• Segregating micros will increase the number of queries you have to run. Someone like myself who is at or near capacity would have to sacrifice larger caches in favor of running this scheme. This defeats the purpose.
  

You'll run a few more queries, with my plan. Luckily, as a premium member you can run five per day

You don't actually have to run more PQs. Run the same ones you're running now. If you use GSAK you can create a filter that will remove 1/x and x/1 micros pretty easily.

[+sbell111]

How does it differentiate between a typical Walmart LPC and the drive-by at a fantastic overlook?

It wouldn't, you'd lose both. But you'd still be left with a lot of other neat caches at neat locations. Isn't that what you'd want?

Well, considering one of the things that attracts me to geocaching is the locations I would have never visited otherwise then I'd have to answer "no."

 

I go to Walmarts and similar locales often enough already. Those aren't locations I wouldn't have visited if it weren't for geocaching.

Take a quick reread of Mushtang's post. You wouldn't be going to Walmart.

[+Moose Mob]

It seems like just yesterday that this thread was showing evidence of dying off into the sunset.

 

{Heavy sigh}

[+sbell111]

• Segregating micros will increase the number of queries you have to run. Someone like myself who is at or near capacity would have to sacrifice larger caches in favor of running this scheme. This defeats the purpose.
  

You'll run a few more queries, with my plan. Luckily, as a premium member you can run five per day

You don't actually have to run more PQs. Run the same ones you're running now. If you use GSAK you can create a filter that will remove 1/x and x/1 micros pretty easily.

One of these days, I'm going to really learn how to use GSAK. I bet I'm only taking advantage of 1% of what it can do.

[+sbell111]

It seems like just yesterday that this thread was showing evidence of dying off into the sunset.

 

{Heavy sigh}

I've come to the realization that if this thread went away, someone would start a similar one tomorrow.

[+Moose Mob]

It seems like just yesterday that this thread was showing evidence of dying off into the sunset.

 

{Heavy sigh}

I've come to the realization that if this thread went away, someone would start a similar one tomorrow.

Sad, but true.

[+KBI]

Why should I allow those who would rather place, defend, and find lame caches rob me of the decent caches placed with similar descriptives? It's like saying, if you have a great 1/1 micro a certain segment will not see it because of all of the lame 1/1 micros. Only those who will not likely appreciate it for what it is will likely see it.

Allow? You mean as opposed to banning them? Or as opposed to you learning how to deal with them?

 

Why should I allow those who would rather build and manage bad barbeque restaurants to rob me of the decent meals at places with similar descriptives? It's like saying: if a barbecue place didn't make me happy, then it shouldn't have been allowed to exist. It shouldn't have been allowed to deflect me from the one that people should have known I would prefer. I shouldn't ever have to suffer the possibility of being displeased.

 

You’re demanding never to be disappointed, CR. That’s just not possible with this game. You’re asking too much.

 

Personally, I have never had a problem weeding out and avoiding the caches I don't like -- and I don't even use PQs. Yes, it takes a little effort, but so does hunting geocaches. If you get this stressed out over the mere existence of those caches you dislike, then maybe this pastime is not for you.

 

Birdwatcher (angrily, while looking through binoculars): Look at all these freaking PIGEONS!! Where the &!%*@ are all the interesting birds in this park? It's just pigions, pigeons, PIGEONS!!!!!

 

Birdwatcher's wife: If birdwatching makes you so frustrated every day, then why do you keep doing it?

 

Birdwatcher (even more angrily, teeth gritted, still looking through the rapidly steaming-up binoculars) BECAUSE IT'S MY #$%@-ing HOBBY!!!!!!

 

 

Here's my opinion for your typical LPC. I don't like them. I don't do them except as a "point and laugh" factor, then I will rarely log them as they aren't worth further waste of my time.

 

Personally, if I'm dumped into some random hotel in some random city with hours of free time, I know I can easily find more interesting things to do that find LPCs. If I simply had to get out for a walk, that's what I'd do. ... For me, simply going for a walk would be more enjoyable than hunting a typical LPC.

Now THAT sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

But then you go on to say:

 

Additionally, I don't like them because I have to weed them out from the list of worthwhile caches for me to hunt. Very few locations of LPCs have piqued my interest, much like any cache in a commercial location, while on the other hand I've been disappointed by very few caches that have been in any urban park. Now, if there were some kind of option in the Pocket Query generator to differentiate the two then I think a much larger percentage of us would be happier.

Everyone’s preference is unique. Everyone’s taste in caches is distinctive, and applies only to that particular cacher.

 

What you seem to be asking for is a way to electronically filter for "caches that CoyoteRed is guaranteed to like" vs. "caches that CoyoteRed is guaranteed to dislike." How would you design such a filter, CR? Can't you do that on your own like the rest of us manage to do? Do you think the website should be responsible for protecting you from the risk of occasional disappointment? You seem to be bothered by the mere fact that some cache hides just don’t adequately entertain you. Are you suggesting that it’s not okay for cache hiders to place caches that might not be pleasing to CoyoteRed?

 

Now, if you've found fantastic location or subject to which you want to bring folks and the only place you can hide your logbook is in a micro under a lamp post skirt, then yeah, I'll probably enjoy it. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Waste your time? If I hide a lamp post cache, it's there for the enjoyment of ALL cachers who would hunt such a cache. Nobody hides caches just to please KBI; nobody who hides a cache is worried in the slightest whether it will be satisfactory to CoyoteRed. If your time gets wasted while you're out caching, that's your own fault.

 

Now you sound as if you’re demanding that Geocaching.com serve as your personally-customized tour guide.

 

What I want to say in response to that has already been expressed perfectly by Team GeoBlast in another thread (highlighting mine):

 

The most unique thing I find about the game is that there are so many ways to participate. I've met people that are into collecting coins, some cache to build an amazing photo gallery, some people like to move travel bugs, some are into composing stories in their logs, there's some that won't seek a cache under a 4 star terrain and others that don't care about anything but the smiley. This list is endless. There's is no one way to be a "good geocacher" and no one "correct" way to play. I think where you get into trouble in the forums and in the company of some other geocachers is when you assume that there is an intended path that geocachers -should- take to enjoy it.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Who could argue with that?

[+TrailGators]

What's your number....

I started to reply to this last night and decided not to. Then I saw TrailGators ask for KBI's number. I think I see the basic philosophical difference now. The lamp post haters believe that each cache has intrinsic value that can be assigned based on location, container size, creativity of the hide, and other criteria. Bigger caches are better than smaller caches given that you could hide either size there. Caches in parks with scenic views are better than caches in parking lots. Caches hidden in plain site using camouflage are better than caches hidden under a lamp post skirt. And so forth. The SDOEL (the name the lamp post haters give them) believe that the value in a cache is the experience of finding or searching for that cache, which is different to each person. Someone looking for a quickie find while out running errand could be happier finding an LPC than doing a hike in the woods that takes more time. If you're looking to visit a interesting place, the Wal*Mart parking lot is probably not going to do it for you.

If I were to make a list of the my most memorable cache hunts it would not be the same list as the caches I would recommend to others. The cache hunts that I remember most are where something interesting or unusual happened. Very few caches are so unique or in such spectacular locations as to be memorable of themselves. It's great when they are. I'm still more like to remember a cache if something out of the ordinary happened on my search. Many memorable caches have been LPCs. Perhaps the fact that these hides are so bland means that if there is even something a little unusual that happens in sticks in my mind. At the end of the day it isn't the finds or the DNFS, it isn't what was traded, it is the memories I have (even the unpleasant ones sometimes) that make caching worthwhile.

No need to call me a hater of anything. I was just curious where people would rate a LPC compared to all the other caches they have found. I was trying an objective approach. I'm sure you'd have no issue rating a movie or a restaurant if I asked you that. So I wasn't asking for a diatribe on why we shouldn't rate caches. If you don't want to give a number then don't. Edited April 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KA7CJH]

Here in Reno we had a LPC, that i thought was real cool.. It wasn't in the typical location so it made you think. I was almost ready to give up when my brother asked me if that could be the cache? And after further examination it indeed was. I think the clue should have been something like think out of the box. And you'll hold your head high after you find it.

 

LPC's give cachers of all calibers the chance to find caches. This thread is almost as bad as the "Hate Micros" one we had a while back..

 

 

Chris - KA7CJH

[adm4984]

If LPCs are all that there were, I wouldnt have even bought a GPS. My wife and I found our first LPC on easter. Whoopee! (sarcasm). Really, I think that Geocaching should have a rule against these. They are not exciting.

Translation: "There is something out there I happen to dislike; therefore NOBODY should be allowed to enjoy it."

 

I guess I'll just never understand this bizarre (yet sadly very common) leap in logic.

 

Ok So maybe i was a little harsh. I think there should be a rule of HOW MANY are in a certain area. I have nothing against micros, in fact i really enjoy them. But, LPCs defeat what i thought was a principal of geocaching-to get out there and enjoy nature, not a parking lot. However, i do understand some people like them so i'm not saying ban them altogether but it just seems like there are way too many. Sorry if i was too harsh.

[+The Jester]

No need to call me a hater of anything. I was just curious where people would rate a LPC compared to all the other caches they have found. I was trying an objective approach. I'm sure you'd have no issue rating a movie or a restaurant if I asked you that. So I wasn't asking for a diatribe on why we shouldn't rate caches. If you don't want to give a number then don't.

But you're not asking for the rating of a cache, but a genre of caches. I can give you a rating of one movie, but that doesn't mean all movies of that type are rated the same. The same hold true for LPC's. Some are better than others (in many different ways). The location of one may be nice, the name of another is cute, the puzzle of another is good, and others are more predictable. I think that's why you're getting long comments to explain how people feel about LPC's, not just a hard number.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

What I want to say in response to that has already been expressed perfectly by Team GeoBlast in another thread (highlighting mine):

 

The most unique thing I find about the game is that there are so many ways to participate. I've met people that are into collecting coins, some cache to build an amazing photo gallery, some people like to move travel bugs, some are into composing stories in their logs, there's some that won't seek a cache under a 4 star terrain and others that don't care about anything but the smiley. This list is endless. There's is no one way to be a "good geocacher" and no one "correct" way to play. I think where you get into trouble in the forums and in the company of some other geocachers is when you assume that there is an intended path that geocachers -should- take to enjoy it.

Doesn't that sound reasonable? Who could argue with that?

 

No one can argue with that, of course. So what he's saying is "either way is correct". LPC's are approved and listed on this website. They are logged on this website, and count as one smiley, the same as a 5 mile round-trip hike to the top of a mountain. I'm sure I could throw out several examples of "either way is correct" in life. But frankly, analogies in these forums give me a headache. Especially ice cream analogies. But if I feel that the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole, (as opposed to the 5 mile round-trip hike to the top of the mountain), why should I not be entitled to express that opinion? It seems to me the LPC supporters are too interested in stressing "either way is correct", and have convinced themselves my side doesn't believe that.

[+KBI]

But if I feel that the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole, (as opposed to the 5 mile round-trip hike to the top of the mountain), why should I not be entitled to express that opinion?

Did someone say you weren’t entitled to express your opinion?

 

It seems to me the LPC supporters are too interested in stressing "either way is correct", and have convinced themselves my side doesn't believe that.

I am convinced that you don't believe that. If you truly do believe that "either way is correct," how can you also state that "the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole?" It is either acceptable to you that people enjoy hiding and finding the kinds of caches you happen to think of as lame, or it isn't. Which is it?

 

BTW, speaking for myself: I'm not an "LPC supporter." I'm an LPC defender. There IS a difference.

 

Please be careful that you understand this correctly. There's a big difference between defending LPCs and promoting LPCs. I'm proud to be called a Staunch Defender, but I certainly don't prefer to hunt LPCs myself, and I've yet to see anyone come out in favor of actually promoting uninspired, predictable or boring hides in favor of other types of caches.

 

Yes, I defend the right of so-called lame hides to exist. That doesn’t mean that I insist they exist, as many have incorrectly concluded.

[+geomann1]

There will always be some people who prefer quantity over quality. Its no skin off my back if someone is content to do LPCs in WM parking lots all day long.

 

Nevertheless, it would be very useful if GC came up with a sortable classification for sites, such as C = commercial, P = park, etc.

 

What does bother me is spending time and gasoline driving to a lame thoughtless cache. I would make an effort to go to cache that the hider took the trouble to create a pleasant, challenging and/or interesting experience.

[+tozainamboku]

No need to call me a hater of anything. I was just curious where people would rate a LPC compared to all the other caches they have found. I was trying an objective approach. I'm sure you'd have no issue rating a movie or a restaurant if I asked you that. So I wasn't asking for a diatribe on why we shouldn't rate caches. If you don't want to give a number then don't.

But you're not asking for the rating of a cache, but a genre of caches. I can give you a rating of one movie, but that doesn't mean all movies of that type are rated the same. The same hold true for LPC's. Some are better than others (in many different ways). The location of one may be nice, the name of another is cute, the puzzle of another is good, and others are more predictable. I think that's why you're getting long comments to explain how people feel about LPC's, not just a hard number.

I rate vanilla ice cream a 2. I rate Ben and Jerry's Vanilla ice cream a 7.

 

However, the point I was trying to make was there is a philosophical difference. It may be that LPCs are the lamest, least creative, least inspiring caches. So some would like to eliminate them (either entirely or just from their own hunts). Others feel that given a particular set of circumstances, these caches can be fun to do. Who know what might happen during your search that will make a interesting story? So it doesn't matter to me if every single LPC rates a 1, if I happen to be in the mood for doing one I will and likely as not will have fun doing it. When I'm not in the mood, I will skip them. Even if I've got a bunch in my GPSr, when I see the arrow pointing into a parking lot no one is forcing me to go in.

[+skysensor]

Here is a request for the GC.com powers that be, free from emotion, free from personal attacks:

 

Many members would appreciate a cache attribute indicating "Parking Lot Cache" or "Skirt Lifter". This would be just another attribute like "Dogs Allowed", "24/7", etc. It would allow those members who are not interested in this type of cache to filter them from queries/downloads. It seems like this functionality would be easy to provide.

 

I am not suggesting rules against this type of cache. I am only asking for (what seems to me to be) a fairly simple enhancement of GC.com functionality.

 

**********************

 

If implemented, couldn't this put the debate to rest, once and for all? Or is there some objection to labeling a cache a "Parking Lot" cache?

[+Always & Forever 5]

Let me chime in and add my $.02 worth on this topic. I happen to enjoy geocaching for the locations it takes me, as well as the fun in the hunt. If I see my pointer swing to the back of a Wal-Mart that I haven't been to, I will generally go find the LPC. Parking lot micros shouldn't be banned any more than a 4/4 ammo box at the top of a dormant volcano should be banned. Don't hunt them if you don't want to. Nobody makes you.

 

I hunt them, mostly because once I'm there in the parking lot it is only a matter of 15 seconds or so before it's found. Then, I'm on to bigger (hopefully) and better caches.

 

But, the caches placed are as diverse at the cachers, and rightfully should be.

 

Again, my input, for what it's worth.