ONCE AND FOR ALL... No more beatin' around the bush.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Take any 10 Wal-Mart LPCs and prove to me there's a quality spot for placement within' 528 feet. I'm sure you could find 1 somewhere, but how about 10, or 100, or 1000.

I don't have to go very far for an example. About 2 miles from my house in fact.

 

It is the oldest and largest tree of its type in the state. I had been considering placing a cache there. OK, its not exactly something of earthshaking importance or universal interest, but it's a far more interesting spot than the guardrail in the supermarket parking lot 400 feet away where someone stuck a magnetic key holder.

I would like that spot! I also think that there are plenty of spots to hide caches besides overused lamp posts and guard rails.

I'm thinking that the fact that the cache is on a guard rail wouldn't stop one from viewing the tree. In fact, many would suggest not hiding the cache too close to the tree for fear that it would get damamged in the search. Of course, if it is a healthy speciman, it is unlikely that any damage will occur. I'm just reminded of on cache that was hidden on a tree that was not in the best of health and considerable damage was done.

The fact that the cache page does not mention the tree is what would stop people from looking at the tree. Most cachers who find the guardrail cache won't even know the tree exists unless they had to drive right by it to get there, Even then they probably won't notice the tree because of "cache tunnel vision." And now a cacher who wants to "spotlight" the tree cannot because of the 528 rule.

 

He asked for an example and got one. I'm sure there are many others.

[+sbell111]

Take any 10 Wal-Mart LPCs and prove to me there's a quality spot for placement within' 528 feet. I'm sure you could find 1 somewhere, but how about 10, or 100, or 1000.

I don't have to go very far for an example. About 2 miles from my house in fact.

 

It is the oldest and largest tree of its type in the state. I had been considering placing a cache there. OK, its not exactly something of earthshaking importance or universal interest, but it's a far more interesting spot than the guardrail in the supermarket parking lot 400 feet away where someone stuck a magnetic key holder.

I would like that spot! I also think that there are plenty of spots to hide caches besides overused lamp posts and guard rails.

I'm thinking that the fact that the cache is on a guard rail wouldn't stop one from viewing the tree. In fact, many would suggest not hiding the cache too close to the tree for fear that it would get damamged in the search. Of course, if it is a healthy speciman, it is unlikely that any damage will occur. I'm just reminded of on cache that was hidden on a tree that was not in the best of health and considerable damage was done.

The fact that the cache page does not mention the tree is what would stop people from looking at the tree. Most cachers who find the guardrail cache won't even know the tree exists unless they had to drive right by it to get there, Even then they probably won't notice the tree because of "cache tunnel vision." And now a cacher who wants to "spotlight" the tree cannot because of the 528 rule.

 

He asked for an example and got one. I'm sure there are many others.

Actually, he asked for 10, 100, or 1000 examples, but that's not my point.

 

Perhaps Brian could place a cache 150 feet on the other side of the tree and mention the tree in the description. If there is absolutely no other place in the area for a cache, then Snoogans is absoutely correct. If you snooze, you lose.

 

Brian's been around long enough that he probably could have hidden a cache in this location if he really wanted to. He's also experienced enough to realize that sometimes you don't get to hide a cache where you want to.

Edited May 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+lindsychris]

I'm always amazed at the number of cachers that seem incapable of enjoying more than one type of cache.

 

This argument always seems to turn into "I like long, difficult hiking caches" vs. "I like urban micros" vs. the occasional "I like really challenging puzzles" or "I like caches at places of interest".

 

Is it really that hard to enjoy (or at least tolerate) each type of cache for its own purpose??

 

For example, let's say that the following are the 5 closest unfound caches to my house:

#1: micro, 1/1 parking lot

#2: puzzle in a small park, 3.5/2

#3: micro, 1.5/1 in a small park

#4: ammo can along local rail-trail, 2/2, 1 mile roundtrip hike over level terrain

#5: 3 stage multi-cache in a state park, 2.5/3.5, 3 mile hike over varied terrain

 

Now, in my eyes, each cache has its own pros and cons, and its own purpose.

 

If it's a beautiful Saturday afternoon and I want to cache, I'll probably go for #5

If it's Tuesday night and I just got home from work, but feel like getting out for a bit, I might go for #1 or #3

If it's Tuesday night and I decide I want to go caching this Saturday, I might sit down and figure out #2

If I'm out running errands and happen to be in the area, I might go for #1 or #3

If I get out of work early on Wednesday and have some time, but don't want anything serious, #4 is perfect

 

In each of the situations I mentioned, the other types of caches would not be ideal, or in some cases even possible. I'm certainly not going to start a 3.5 mile hike through the state park at 7:45pm when I get home from work, nor am I going to dedicate an entire spring day to looking for 1 parking lot micro (unless it's hidden REALLY well!).

 

The point is, each cache has it's own time, and it's own merits, but people still seem incaple of enjoying more than one type, and intolerant of any type that isn't "what they're looking for" at any given time.

[+Snoogans]

Take any 10 Wal-Mart LPCs and prove to me there's a quality spot for placement within' 528 feet. I'm sure you could find 1 somewhere, but how about 10, or 100, or 1000.

I don't have to go very far for an example. About 2 miles from my house in fact.

 

It is the oldest and largest tree of its type in the state. I had been considering placing a cache there. OK, its not exactly something of earthshaking importance or universal interest, but it's a far more interesting spot than the guardrail in the supermarket parking lot 400 feet away where someone stuck a magnetic key holder.

I would like that spot! I also think that there are plenty of spots to hide caches besides overused lamp posts and guard rails.

I'm thinking that the fact that the cache is on a guard rail wouldn't stop one from viewing the tree. In fact, many would suggest not hiding the cache too close to the tree for fear that it would get damamged in the search. Of course, if it is a healthy speciman, it is unlikely that any damage will occur. I'm just reminded of on cache that was hidden on a tree that was not in the best of health and considerable damage was done.

The fact that the cache page does not mention the tree is what would stop people from looking at the tree. Most cachers who find the guardrail cache won't even know the tree exists unless they had to drive right by it to get there, Even then they probably won't notice the tree because of "cache tunnel vision." And now a cacher who wants to "spotlight" the tree cannot because of the 528 rule.

 

He asked for an example and got one. I'm sure there are many others.

 

 

Actually, I asked for any one poster to give me 10 examples. 10 not 1. 1 is a random anomoly. 10 is a local trend.

[+Strike Anywhere]

When I started placing caches I made some errors and by many area forum members I still do make mistakes placing caches. I am fairly new at this from this last fall and have seen many new caches placed. I wish, for my sake as a newbie early on there was some sort of guideline or hard rule that you need to find 50 caches or so until you could hide any. I see so many people who have found 1 or 5 or 10 and try to hide one and they cant even get coords close to 400 feet - not because they are lame - they just havent learned or know or have read some for the tips on forums and stuff... I would not have started my 6 micros to a puzzle ending caches had I had to wait for my 50th find. I too have seen the greatness of location verses quick... I like them both, obviously, but you really need to spend some time out in the finding world and seeing it through some well done stuff..

 

The problem now is that you can travel through any suburban larger city in PA and get 75 caches in one day with 80% being micros... so then all you know how to hide is micros.

 

So what can you do? I like them all but I see more and more people angry about this and that and read logs that I am sure make the newbies and the oldies rather angry themselves. People sure like to bash others in this game over silly things - I know how it is to feel like you have been around longer and know better but it cannot be just about how you liked to play the game before others ruined it... It is sad for me to see so many leaving the game because all of 'newbies ruining it and making it junk for the rest. It's not like it was back in 2001 and you had to travel 100 miles for a cache.' I wouldn't have gotten so thrilled by it then but I love it now.

 

If your micro is crowding out a great cache, you might be asked to move it for a good reason or archive it and that would be totally cool by me... but people just get mad and rant in their forums and that is sad. just ask nicely and explain it...

 

I believe we cache how we like, love those we cache with and ignore all the junk we feel is unacceptable. Words really do hurt and the written word is often received wrongly by so many others. This post has had some tough bashings too... Criticize with concern and care and help us and the new newbies understand why something may be lame so we have the chance to understand more and make a better decision ... I know that an angry word about a poorly placed cache only causes me to respond without much respect either.

 

Two cents thrown in... it would be cool if we could encourage those newcomers and help the old-timers see the opportunity to change and grow but I know we are all stuck in our mudd baths. Churches break up left and right over change and newness - maybe GC.com is headed that way too... I know there is an underground group who boycott caches, cachers and go to the 'church' of the non-logging cachers! I remember being told not to do something by one of our icons here in Philly - I disagreed but have since changed it on my cache pages because I have grown and now understood. He was kind in how he said it and that was a huge difference. Thanks.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Never Lost In Him

[+StarBrand]

Not all caches are created equal. Just because the area meets the guidelines doesn't make the cache placed there worth my time or effort to visit. Sadly it is often hard for me to know that until I get close. Even then I am seeing caches placed in containers that appear to be discarded trash among discarded trash. Waste of my time. Fun meter goes to zero and I skip it and move on to another cache - sadder for the experience. Doesn't happen often but it does happen too much.

 

Gives us all a bad name. They get visits - just not from me.

[+TrailGators]

I believe we cache how we like, love those we cache with and ignore all the junk we feel is unacceptable. Words really do hurt and the written word is often received wrongly by so many others. This post has had some tough bashings too... Criticize with concern and care and help us and the new newbies understand why something may be lame so we have the chance to understand more and make a better decision ... I know that an angry word about a poorly placed cache only causes me to respond without much respect either.

Good post. You are right. My advice would be to go to your local thread and to ask what the "must-do" caches in your area are and to find those. Then if you learn to place caches like those then someday you may have the honor of having a cache or two that appear on some must-do lists! Now wouldn't that be cool!

[+The Jester]

A geocacher new to the game has lots of choices. There are lots of hiking caches to great locations and lots of micro caches in easy to get and find locations - some of which are lame and some that are not. But the situation is different for someone that has been active for some time in the game. I prefer the hikes to scenic locations. There are precious few of them left for me to seek within a reasonable driving distance. To say that I have lots of choices to play the game the way I enjoy it (and the way I originally learned to play it), is incorrect. My number of choices, as a percentage of new caches, has declined radically in the last several years.

The game has changed and to deny that is wearing blinders. I suspect the main reason is the quest for big numbers, caches that require a significant investment of time and effort (and gasoline) just don't have a sufficient return in smilies/day. The players are voting with their hide styles, and urban/suburban micro caches are winning, big time!

Several things caught me about this post. I can't see why people hiding more caches of types you don't like limits your choices of caches you do like. Unless you can show that the same number of caches are being hidden every month since you started, arguing that the percentage of new caches you like is declining is a meaningless arguement.

 

You still have many choices available to you the caches all around. Just because you reject some of them, doesn't make the number of choices you have any less. Which is more important - hiking caches or limited driving distance? Another choice.

 

I don't think anyone has said the game hasn't changed - it sure has! But if you're not willing to change with it, too bad. That's the choice you've made. When the first "micro" caches started they were film cans - and pretty tough to find then. Now we're finding nano's in less time then those first film cans. Should I complain that there are fewer film can hides? Nope, I've learned to find the new caches. There were certain items that people tracked from cache to cache - it was difficult to find where JoeCacher placed that copy of Age Of Empires, but fun! Now there are TB tags and we can follow an item all over the world, but few post what other trades they make (if they make any). People adapt.

[+Snoogans]

Not all caches are created equal.

 

Agreed.

 

Just because the area meets the guidelines doesn't make the cache placed there worth my time or effort to visit.

 

I'm right there with ya.

 

Sadly it is often hard for me to know that until I get close.

 

That never seems to happen to me. When planning a cache run, I usually check the the close-up satellite view for proximity to houses, high traffic public areas, the backs of strip malls and restaurants, etc.

 

Waste of my time.

 

My free time is literally worth $100+ bucks an hour to me, so I tryyy to spend it as wisely as possible. It translates to me not finding many caches, BUT most of the caches I do find are of a quality level I can accept and the ones that don't measure up are generally of no consequence to me because they were opportunistic finds that were on the way.

 

Fun meter goes to zero and I skip it and move on to another cache - sadder for the experience.

 

Let me put this in a different perspective. I pay people to mow my yard and wash my car and to fix things because it's actually cheaper than doing it myself and the fun meter on those activities for me is zero anyway.

 

Some people like yard work, washing their car, and fixing things. Not me. I still won't fix anything, but sometimes I have to wash my car, or mow the yard. I'm never sadder for the experience.

 

When I find a cache that doesn't float me, I sometimes don't even bother to log it, but I'm so careful in most of my cache choices that this has happened only a few times. I never blame the hider for my choice and if I do log the cache, I try not to say anything negative and I certainly don't tax a braincell to wonder what the hider's motivation was for placing the cache as some folks do.

 

Doesn't happen often but it does happen too much.

 

Gives us all a bad name. They get visits - just not from me.

 

I take no responsibility for other folks perceived lame caches, so please leave me out of that statement. I take full responsibility for my own caches and any cache I've assisted in placing.

 

I just don't get how anyone can claim that any cache that doesn't meet their personal aesthetic criteria hurts the game for everyone else or gives us all a bad name. I refuse to buy into that mentality. It's obtuse.

[+Snoogans]

The urbans and "everything lame" are a valid part of the hobby, but their sheer numbers are "choking out" the regulars in the sport. This is not because we have to "wade through them due to our personal lack of sophistication in filtering algorithms, but because those cachers who place "quality" caches are doing so with less frequency and those who place "ho-hum" or "lame" caches are tossing them out in droves.

That hasn't been my experience at all -- and I have been caching in urban and suburban locations all over the United States for several years now, as well as some cities in Canada and Mexico. Based on my observations most cache hiders seem to be constantly trying to out-do each other in terms of creativity and cleverness. Some succeed at the pizzazz thing better than others, but I think your characterization is a huge exaggeration based on my own travels.

 

Yup. That is the case all over from my experience too. There are several cachin' communities that I frequent from coast to coast and there is a healthy spirit of competition amongst the most creative cachers.

 

 

Not everyone can be creative or inspired, nor should everyone be expected to just to be able to participate. That is the great thing about geocaching. You don't have to be among the elite to participate fully in every aspect of the activity.

[+LostInTheWorld]

Interesting posts.

 

As a newbie I realized very quickly that some hiders in my area were thoughtful and creative. Others it seems, simply stuck a container in a bush on a busy street corner and had it published. When I found my first cache it was fun and exciting. It was equal parts of learning the new piece of equipment I had; learning to view old areas in a different way; and seeing how this game was played. In my area there are now several newbies (5 or less finds) that are placing a lot of new caches. All have more hides than finds. I experimented the other day when 6 new hides hit my email. I printed the pages, left my GPSr turned off, and found all six in less than two hours. I logged one or two and didn't bother logging the others. I also decided that maybe this game isn't for me.

 

I'm not complaining about those hides, or the people who hid them. I'm simply saying that they weren't my cup of tea. It sounds like geocaching, like all things in this world, keeps changing. We each need to determine how we fit with those changes.

Edited May 6, 2007 by LostInTheWorld

[+Snoogans]

Interesting posts. As a newbie I realized very quickly that some hiders in my area were thoughtful and creative. Others it seems, simply stuck a container in a bush on a busy street corner and had it published. When I found my first cache it was fun and exciting. It was equal parts of learning the new piece of equipment I had; learning to view old areas in a different way; and seeing how this game was played. In my area there are now several newbies (5 or less finds) that are placing new caches almost daily. All have more hides than finds. I experimented the other day when 6 new hides hit my email. I printed the pages, left my GPSr turned off, and found all six in less than two hours. I logged one or two and didn't bother logging the others. I also decided that maybe this game isn't for me. I'll try some caches out of this area next summer and make another decision then.

 

 

Interesting point of view. Try going to a geocaching event before you give up completely on geocaching based on a few disappointments. Every cache isn't going to please every cacher. At an event, you can find out which caches are greatly recommended and which caches and cachers to avoid.

 

 

I rarely seek caches at home. I tend to use geocaching to enhance trips more than anything else.

 

 

I'm more of a hider than a finder anyway, so much of my greatest enjoyment of the sport comes through logs on my own hidden caches. I try to hide caches that will generate good logs, but I do it to please myself rather than to cater to anyone else.

[+briansnat]

That never seems to happen to me. When planning a cache run, I usually check the the close-up satellite view for proximity to houses, high traffic public areas, the backs of strip malls and restaurants, etc.

 

While that may help reduce the chance of encountering trache it could also eliminate what I consider to be interesting areas. Locally there is a grave in the middle of a mall parking lot that is quite fascinating. It actually takes up a few parking spaces (it's a virtual). I found a cool cache in an underground tunnel in front of a Cracker Barrel. I initially ignored it because I thought it was one of those Cracker Barrel porch caches. I've discovered numerous interesting historical markers in residential neighborhoods right by houses. I found a narrow ravine with a scenic stream tucked behind a strip mall. I found a piece of the Berlin Wall, complete with original graffiti right next to about the highest traffic area possible, a New York City street.

 

These are the kinds of caches I enjoy. They are the exact reason I geocache, to find these little gems and I would have missed them had I ruled them out through a close up sat view or street map.

 

And therein lies the issue. It's becoming harder and harder to find them amongst all the chaff. At one time, if there was a urban or suburban cache, it was a good bet it highlighted one of these interesting places. Sure there was the random toad now and then, but now they are mostly toads and I'm not willing to kiss hundreds of them looking for that one handsome prince (If I found him, he would just be a fishing buddy. I'm not that way.). That is why the rampant trache has spoiled the game for me.

Edited May 6, 2007 by briansnat

[+Snoogans]

That never seems to happen to me. When planning a cache run, I usually check the the close-up satellite view for proximity to houses, high traffic public areas, the backs of strip malls and restaurants, etc.

 

While that may help reduce the chance of encountering trache it could also eliminate what I consider to be interesting areas. Locally there is a grave in the middle of a mall parking lot that is quite fascinating. It actually takes up a few parking spaces (it's a virtual). I found a cool cache in an underground tunnel in front of a Cracker Barrel. I initially ignored it because I thought it was one of those Cracker Barrel porch caches. I've discovered numerous interesting historical markers in residential neighborhoods right by houses. I found a narrow ravine with a scenic stream tucked behind a strip mall. I found a piece of the Berlin Wall, complete with original graffiti right next to about the highest traffic area possible, a New York City street.

 

These are the kinds of caches I enjoy. They are the exact reason I geocache, to find these little gems and I would have missed them had I ruled them out through a close up sat view or street map.

 

And therein lies the issue. It's becoming harder and harder to find them amongst all the chaff. At one time, if there was a urban or suburban cache, it was a good bet it highlighted one of these interesting places. Sure there was the random toad now and then, but now they are mostly toads and I'm not willing to kiss hundreds of them looking for that one handsome prince (If I found him, he would just be a fishing buddy. I'm not that way.). That is why the rampant trache has spoiled the game for me.

 

 

Yeaaa, I just don't have that issue. I go to events as often as possible and the word of mouth helps a great deal in narrowing down choices.

 

 

Combine that with actually reading the cache page and the logs, by the time I get to the satellite view, I'm about 80-90% sure a cache is going to fill my bill.

 

 

Perhaps folks need to lose their "in it to win it" approach to geocaching to appreciate taking the time to locate a cache that WILL please them rather than taking the stance that hiders of caches they find to be uninspired by their personal aesthetics are a waste of their time.

 

 

Again, you CHOSE to hunt a cache that didn't please you. That cache didn't hunt you.

[+geomann1]

[Perhaps folks need to lose their "in it to win it" approach to geocaching to appreciate taking the time to locate a cache that WILL please them rather than taking the stance that hiders of caches they find to be uninspired by their personal aesthetics are a waste of their time.

 

Again, you CHOSE to hunt a cache that didn't please you. That cache didn't hunt you.

 

That is a very good point. I read the logs before I go out for a search to make sure its is likely still there (recent find) and to screen out caches I just don't want to do. If I'm not sure I will look it up on Google Earth to see, for example, if it is in a parking lot or shopping center. I'm not obsessed with my count, so I am willing to ignore quite a few caches.

[CoyoteRed]

In that case, why did you single urban caches out in your post?

I thought it obvious. That's where the majority of the problem lay. While there is the occasional cache in rural areas that leave me less than satisfied, it is considerably less than in urban areas.

[CoyoteRed]

Unlike what Sbell111 tried to allude to I really enjoy a good urban cache. The problem I see is these are getting harder to find.

 

Ignoring the fact that your perception of good is completely subjective,...

Yes, my perception is subjective, yet it is shared with quite a number of others. I wouldn't try to characterize my stance as one where I stand alone.

 

...what IS your plan for getting cachers to hide caches that will satisfy you?

I'm doing it. I'm lending my voice to the group which is making a effort to raise the quality of the overall caching experience. I'm also willing to let my opinions be known any time the subject is raised at events.

[+Snoogans]

...what IS your plan for getting cachers to hide caches that will satisfy you?

I'm doing it. I'm lending my voice to the group which is making a effort to raise the quality of the overall caching experience. I'm also willing to let my opinions be known any time the subject is raised at events.

 

 

I don't want to sound overly skeptical, but how is your group going about this grand work to improve geocaching? Is it positive and proactive, or is it more of the same negative demotivation and derision of caches and cachers that don't pass your group's collective and quite subjective muster?

 

BTW- Events are the absolute best place to be negative about caches that are less than inspired. We share that in common. However, you may come face to face with the object of your derision and that's where it gets interesting.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Snoogans

[Clan Riffster]

I keep hearing how LPCs are hurting the sport, but bottom line, more caches are better for geocaching than less.

Only for those who believe the axiom that quantity is more important than quality.

 

I just don't get how anyone can claim that any cache that doesn't meet their personal aesthetic criteria hurts the game for everyone else or gives us all a bad name. I refuse to buy into that mentality. It's obtuse.

I believe stuffing your head in the sand pretending not to see the lions hunting you is equally obtuse. To each his own, I reckon. It's been demonstrated in other "Anti-Lame" threads that uninspired hides can have a negative impact on the game. Pretending otherwise doesn't change reality for anyone but you.

 

I'm lending my voice to the group which is making a effort to raise the quality of the overall caching experience.

Thank you!

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, I asked for any one poster to give me 10 examples. 10 not 1. 1 is a random anomoly. 10 is a local trend.

The question is loaded. You asked for re-doing a Wal-mart parking lot micro.

 

I can give an example of a cache hidden in a Wal-mart competitor's parking lot that was more interesting than if it were in a lamp post. I know of another that could have been a lame parking lot cache yet was made physically challenging and during certain points of the year you are watched by an alligator.

 

In another case, a micro was hidden in a bush 5' from the asphalt of an office building. Yet, a regular could have been hidden 20' away. Latter, a cache was hidden in a nice wooded area with a foot bridge and running water about 200' away after the landscapers cut away the bush.

 

We've all seen examples of folks hiding caches that could have been a lot better if they had given it just a bit of thought. There are plenty of examples where lameness was avoided because the hider gave it some thought.

[+Snoogans]

I just don't get how anyone can claim that any cache that doesn't meet their personal aesthetic criteria hurts the game for everyone else or gives us all a bad name. I refuse to buy into that mentality. It's obtuse.

I believe stuffing your head in the sand pretending not to see the lions hunting you is equally obtuse. To each his own, I reckon. It's been demonstrated in other "Anti-Lame" threads that uninspired hides can have a negative impact on the game. Pretending otherwise doesn't change reality for anyone but you.

 

 

C'monnnn, LIONS? Really? That analogy is a real knee slapper. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

Please give a link to these demonstrations. I don't read every thread, so I musta missed it.

 

 

OH, And YES, more CHOICES are better than LESS. It's firmly established that quality is too subjective to measure accurately for everyone. YES, YES, YES, more is better than LESS. (Excuse me. Dr. Seuss' ghost must have possessed me while I wrote that last bit.)

Edited May 6, 2007 by Snoogans

[CoyoteRed]

I don't want to sound overly skeptical, but how is your group going about this grand work to improve geocaching? Is it positive and proactive, or is it more of the same negative demotivation and derision of caches and cachers that don't pass your group's collective and quite subjective muster?

Well, I think the most important thing is not take an attitude that it is acceptable. I think some folks do take this stance because they think there is nothing they can do thus creating a self-fulfilling situation. It kind of like not being about to do anything about not trading kindly. You can really do anything about it except to continue to voice your opinion it is unacceptable.

 

There's also peer pressure. It's not direct, but when you're talking about some third parties less-than-satisfying cache the person to whom you are speaking will be thinking "I don't want my caches talked about like this."

 

There's no direct confrontation and you lead by example--both in the kinds of caches you place and voicing the caches you enjoy and those you don't. If folks respect your opinion they will take it into consideration. If they don't, they won't. Simple as that.

[CoyoteRed]

OH, And YES, more CHOICES are better than LESS. It's firmly established that quality is too subjective to measure accurately for everyone.

I'm not sure that could be accurately said about the runaway lame virt issue a while back. Didn't the lame virts overrun the decent ones leading to the "wow" factor?

[+Snoogans]

OH, And YES, more CHOICES are better than LESS. It's firmly established that quality is too subjective to measure accurately for everyone.

I'm not sure that could be accurately said about the runaway lame virt issue a while back. Didn't the lame virts overrun the decent ones leading to the "wow" factor?

 

 

Okay, half a point. I'll give you that much. It's not quite apples and oranges, so how about peaches and nectarines?

[+DocDiTTo]

A geocacher new to the game has lots of choices. There are lots of hiking caches to great locations and lots of micro caches in easy to get and find locations - some of which are lame and some that are not. But the situation is different for someone that has been active for some time in the game. I prefer the hikes to scenic locations. There are precious few of them left for me to seek within a reasonable driving distance. To say that I have lots of choices to play the game the way I enjoy it (and the way I originally learned to play it), is incorrect. My number of choices, as a percentage of new caches, has declined radically in the last several years.

 

 

You still have many choices available to you the caches all around. Just because you reject some of them, doesn't make the number of choices you have any less. Which is more important - hiking caches or limited driving distance? Another choice.

 

That's like saying to a person who doesn't like chocolate "I baked you 100 new cupcakes of various sizes with different flavors of icing. They're all chocolate cupcakes, but since you have so many choices you should find something you'll like."

 

That's not the way it works.

[CoyoteRed]

OH, And YES, more CHOICES are better than LESS. It's firmly established that quality is too subjective to measure accurately for everyone.

I'm not sure that could be accurately said about the runaway lame virt issue a while back. Didn't the lame virts overrun the decent ones leading to the "wow" factor?

 

 

Okay, half a point. I'll give you that much. It's not quite apples and oranges, so how about peaches and nectarines?

Not an exact fit, but simply illustrates you can't make a blanket statement like that.

 

To tell you the truth, it's not that these caches exist, it's that it is hard to exclude them contrary to the claims of some. The choices aren't easy to make until time and effort is expended. Then, it's too late to have not wasted your time.

[+sbell111]

Of course, an event is the perfect place to talk about any good caches and hiding techniques. It wouldn't take too much imagination to come up with an event the celebrates caches that you like.

Most of the local urbans I like the best take a couple of hours to several hours to do.

Hows that? Can you give me some examples of urban caches that you liked that took hours to do?

Even if we did that a most people have already found those caches.

You still could do the event and showcase 'good' urban caches. All you have to do is team up with your local friends and each of you hide one or two 'good' caches to be activated the day of the event. Use these caches for your 'wagon train' before the event.

I wouldn't want to focus an event on just what I like. I'm not like that. It should involve what lots of people like.

The cool thing about you teaming with other members of your geoclub on these caches is that it would end up showcasing the urban hide techniques that others in your area like. You wouldn't be focussing only on your desires.

What would you or others in this thread consider to be "good" urban caches?

My all-time favorite urban cache involved the altering of a piece of public artwork to allow the cache to be housed inside. Obviously, most cachers would not be able to pull off permission for this kind of hide. I'm sure that I would fail.

[+sbell111]

In that case, why did you single urban caches out in your post?

I thought it obvious. That's where the majority of the problem lay. While there is the occasional cache in rural areas that leave me less than satisfied, it is considerably less than in urban areas.

Huh. In that post of mine where I discussed those early 'lamers', all the lamers were in non-urban locations. I guess urban caches are only the problem for you.

[+sbell111]

I don't want to sound overly skeptical, but how is your group going about this grand work to improve geocaching? Is it positive and proactive, or is it more of the same negative demotivation and derision of caches and cachers that don't pass your group's collective and quite subjective muster?

Well, I think the most important thing is not take an attitude that it is acceptable. I think some folks do take this stance because they think there is nothing they can do thus creating a self-fulfilling situation. It kind of like not being about to do anything about not trading kindly. You can really do anything about it except to continue to voice your opinion it is unacceptable.

 

There's also peer pressure. It's not direct, but when you're talking about some third parties less-than-satisfying cache the person to whom you are speaking will be thinking "I don't want my caches talked about like this."

 

There's no direct confrontation and you lead by example--both in the kinds of caches you place and voicing the caches you enjoy and those you don't. If folks respect your opinion they will take it into consideration. If they don't, they won't. Simple as that.

So basically, you choose to bully people into agreeing with you. I'm surprised that you haven't fixed the lame 'problem' already.

[+sbell111]

A geocacher new to the game has lots of choices. There are lots of hiking caches to great locations and lots of micro caches in easy to get and find locations - some of which are lame and some that are not. But the situation is different for someone that has been active for some time in the game. I prefer the hikes to scenic locations. There are precious few of them left for me to seek within a reasonable driving distance. To say that I have lots of choices to play the game the way I enjoy it (and the way I originally learned to play it), is incorrect. My number of choices, as a percentage of new caches, has declined radically in the last several years.

You still have many choices available to you the caches all around. Just because you reject some of them, doesn't make the number of choices you have any less. Which is more important - hiking caches or limited driving distance? Another choice.

That's like saying to a person who doesn't like chocolate "I baked you 100 new cupcakes of various sizes with different flavors of icing. They're all chocolate cupcakes, but since you have so many choices you should find something you'll like."

 

That's not the way it works.

That analogy would only be on-target if there were no caches benig placed that appeal to you. If this is the case, Iw ould recommend that you do one of the following:

• Widen your search area
  
• Inspire your friends to hide more caches that you like (see earlier posts related to this)
  
• Give up geocaching because you don't like it, anymore.
  

[+sbell111]

To tell you the truth, it's not that these caches exist, it's that it is hard to exclude them contrary to the claims of some. The choices aren't easy to make until time and effort is expended. Then, it's too late to have not wasted your time.

What techniques have you used to avoid these bad apples?

[+Muddy Chris]

I like oysters, seaweed, long walks on the beach, macaroni and cheese, hanging out in parking lots, scuba diving, shopping for underware, mountain climbing, sky diving, bullet proof vests, and caving.

 

Oh ... and geocaching.

 

Chris

[CoyoteRed]

In that post of mine where I discussed those early 'lamers', all the lamers were in non-urban locations. I guess urban caches are only the problem for you.

Huh. I rarely come across a less-than-satisfying rural cache. Additionally, the majority of the complaints I'm reading are urban caches. I don't know what you're reading.

[CoyoteRed]

So basically, you choose to bully people into agreeing with you.

I doubt I'm considered the bully around the forums. Have you read any of your posts? I responded to the OP and the very first post from you is attack my position. It appears the major theme of your posts is attacking other people's opinions. So, who's the bully, again?

[+briansnat]

That never seems to happen to me. When planning a cache run, I usually check the the close-up satellite view for proximity to houses, high traffic public areas, the backs of strip malls and restaurants, etc.

 

While that may help reduce the chance of encountering trache it could also eliminate what I consider to be interesting areas. Locally there is a grave in the middle of a mall parking lot that is quite fascinating. It actually takes up a few parking spaces (it's a virtual). I found a cool cache in an underground tunnel in front of a Cracker Barrel. I initially ignored it because I thought it was one of those Cracker Barrel porch caches. I've discovered numerous interesting historical markers in residential neighborhoods right by houses. I found a narrow ravine with a scenic stream tucked behind a strip mall. I found a piece of the Berlin Wall, complete with original graffiti right next to about the highest traffic area possible, a New York City street.

 

These are the kinds of caches I enjoy. They are the exact reason I geocache, to find these little gems and I would have missed them had I ruled them out through a close up sat view or street map.

 

And therein lies the issue. It's becoming harder and harder to find them amongst all the chaff. At one time, if there was a urban or suburban cache, it was a good bet it highlighted one of these interesting places. Sure there was the random toad now and then, but now they are mostly toads and I'm not willing to kiss hundreds of them looking for that one handsome prince (If I found him, he would just be a fishing buddy. I'm not that way.). That is why the rampant trache has spoiled the game for me.

 

 

Yeaaa, I just don't have that issue. I go to events as often as possible and the word of mouth helps a great deal in narrowing down choices.

 

 

Combine that with actually reading the cache page and the logs, by the time I get to the satellite view, I'm about 80-90% sure a cache is going to fill my bill.

 

 

Perhaps folks need to lose their "in it to win it" approach to geocaching to appreciate taking the time to locate a cache that WILL please them rather than taking the stance that hiders of caches they find to be uninspired by their personal aesthetics are a waste of their time.

 

 

Again, you CHOSE to hunt a cache that didn't please you. That cache didn't hunt you.

 

My problem is that this occurs when I travel so word of mouth is little help. I'm lucky to live in an area where the lame LPC is still a rare commodity, but when I'm away on business or for pleasure, I don't have the time (or often the ability, being sans PC) to research every cache beforehand. All I have is a waypoint on my GPS and if I remember to bring it, Cachemate on my PDA.

 

When I started this sport, one of the things I loved about it was that when I visited a new area I'd discover many interesting and sometimes fascinating places through geocaching. It was a great way to explore a new area.

 

Not log ago, the wife and I spent a weekend in area known for its history and scenery, a big tourist destination. We headed out for an afternoon of geocaching, expecting to find the offbeat, historic, interesting or scenic areas that we love. Instead we found ourselves being taken on a tour of the area's strip malls.

 

We drove a few miles in another direction hoping for something more and we did get more - more strip malls.

 

Finally we had to put away the GPS and pick up some brochures and tourist maps. Bottom line is that thanks to all the clutter, we were unable to geocache the way we like to. If we were numbers hounds we would have been in our glory, but we aren't in the sport for that so basically we were SOL.

[+TrailGators]

Hows that? Can you give me some examples of urban caches that you liked that took hours to do?

Snakes and Ladders took the three of us about 12 hours. We were STF and had no help.

Zis is Kaos, Ve Don't Bushwhack here took me three hours to complete.

Pseudo took me a couple of hours to complete.

Bingo took me a couple of hours to complete.

UCSD - Art Collection took me over 2 hours to complete.

Carlsbad Village Historic Walk took us about two hours to complete

Ding Dong the witch is dead took me a couple of hours to complete.

Lame Micro 243 took us a couple of hours to complete.

I could go on and on......

[+Totem Clan]

Huh. I rarely come across a less-than-satisfying rural cache. Additionally, the majority of the complaints I'm reading are urban caches. I don't know what you're reading.

Come up here and I'll show you some lame rural caches.

 

How is a leaky piece of gladware in a tree row next a sugar beet field is in someway better than a leaky piece of gladware next to the Jeep dealer 5 miles in town?

 

Or how about the cache we just remove from the state park I work with. It was a Playdough container with two quarter some yarn and small piece of paper for a log. BTW it was hidden without permission. It was in the middle of the park and require a 1/2 mile hike to get to it. That does sound urban to me.

 

A bad cache is a bad cache. Just because you don't find them there, doesn't mean they don't exist.

[+briansnat]

Hows that? Can you give me some examples of urban caches that you liked that took hours to do?

Snakes and Ladders took the three of us about 12 hours. We were STF and had no help.

Zis is Kaos, Ve Don't Bushwhack here took me three hours to complete.

Pseudo took me a couple of hours to complete.

Bingo took me a couple of hours to complete.

UCSD - Art Collection took me over 2 hours to complete.

Carlsbad Village Historic Walk took us about two hours to complete

Ding Dong the witch is dead took me a couple of hours to complete.

Lame Micro 243 took us a couple of hours to complete.

I could go on and on......

 

A cache in Manhattan that can take several days:

 

Five Star New York

[+ImperfectSense]

I think a lot of it comes down to this: Those of you who like caches in scenic areas and are trying to use the search from the Geocaching.com web page are having difficulty finding new "good" caches, right?

 

Well, I'd recommend using Google Earth with the Geocaching plugin to search for caches. Basically, what I do is I pick a park I want to go to, or simply a direction I want to travel, and then I view that area in Google Earth. This allows me to only see "good" caches, plus it gives me a better idea of which are of particular interest to me (ones near water, ones near cliffs, etc). You *can* use the Google Earth plugin to filter out nanos... but as others have stated, some nanos are good, so I personally leave nothing filtered. The simple fact that I'm only seeing caches in a park or in a wooded area means I'm not gonna be seeing those walmart micros that most people detest so much.

 

An alternative to this would to be set your "home" coordinates on Geocaching.com to a spot at the center of what you consider a "good" area for caches... but that's generally the "long way" of doing it.

 

Or, barring installing Google Earth on your computer, Geocaching.com has the ability to view caches on Google Maps, and if you turn on Satellite or Hybrid in that, it's the same as Google Earth.

 

As far as whether I feel all these micros are bringing down the sport, or adversly affecting new members... no, I don't. If a muggle finds a micro, and then becomes interested in geocaching, then they do so with the knowledge that micros exist, therefore that isn't enough to stop them from being interested. If a muggle finds a micro, and decides not to get into geocaching because micros seem stupid, well... what are the chances that that same person would even have known about geocaching any other way? And if existing cachers don't want to deal with micros, well... you can filter, or you can use Google Earth, either way you don't HAVE to deal with them.

[CoyoteRed]

Huh. I rarely come across a less-than-satisfying rural cache. Additionally, the majority of the complaints I'm reading are urban caches. I don't know what you're reading.

A bad cache is a bad cache. Just because you don't find them there, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I highlighted an important word for you in my above quote. I can spout off several less-than-satisfying urban caches, too. How about the Slurpy container complete with open straw hole found in sub-freezing temps? We got to pry a semi-frozen soggy log apart to log it. Thankfully, other cachers in the area made the trip worth seeing the park. I got plenty more examples, too.

 

So, what's your point? You trying to prove me wrong by bringing up a few examples counter to my point? I did allow for the few bad apples, thank you. I didn't say there were no lame rural caches.

[+sbell111]

So basically, you choose to bully people into agreeing with you.

I doubt I'm considered the bully around the forums. Have you read any of your posts? I responded to the OP and the very first post from you is attack my position. It appears the major theme of your posts is attacking other people's opinions. So, who's the bully, again?

I have not been pounding my fist against the table demanding that the community change to please me. I responded to your post because there were at least four issues with it. I tried to touch on each issue with my response. Surely, you don't believe that you should be able to make sweeping statements like you have without anyone responding to them.

[+Totem Clan]

I highlighted an important word for you in my above quote. I can spout off several less-than-satisfying urban caches, too. How about the Slurpy container complete with open straw hole found in sub-freezing temps? We got to pry a semi-frozen soggy log apart to log it. Thankfully, other cachers in the area made the trip worth seeing the park. I got plenty more examples, too.

 

So, what's your point? You trying to prove me wrong by bringing up a few examples counter to my point? I did allow for the few bad apples, thank you. I didn't say there were no lame rural caches.

The point is, whether it's urban or rural, what make a bad cache is not just that is urban or rural. Yes urban cache in most areas take less time and effort to hide to a rural. Mainly because in most areas the cachers live in urban confines. Where the cacher are more rural the rural cache are just as lame.

 

It's not the urban/rural local that makes the cache; it's the cache hider.

[CoyoteRed]

Surely, you don't believe that you should be able to make sweeping statements like you have without anyone responding to them.

Sounds more like you don't expect someone to have a differing opinion than you without wanting to jump all over them.

[+sbell111]

... Not log ago, the wife and I spent a weekend in area known for its history and scenery, a big tourist destination. We headed out for an afternoon of geocaching, expecting to find the offbeat, historic, interesting or scenic areas that we love. Instead we found ourselves being taken on a tour of the area's strip malls.

 

We drove a few miles in another direction hoping for something more and we did get more - more strip malls.

 

Finally we had to put away the GPS and pick up some brochures and tourist maps. Bottom line is that thanks to all the clutter, we were unable to geocache the way we like to. If we were numbers hounds we would have been in our glory, but we aren't in the sport for that so basically we were SOL.

With your experience (and presence in the forums), I'm surprised that you didn't realize that you would have to do research on caches before you went out the door.

[CoyoteRed]

It's not the urban/rural local that makes the cache; it's the cache hider.

I can't disagree with this statement. However, the problem lay with the area those hiders prefer.

 

You also may want to refer back to where I said I like urban caches and I'm having a harder and harder time separating the treasures from the chaff.

[+TrailGators]

I highlighted an important word for you in my above quote. I can spout off several less-than-satisfying urban caches, too. How about the Slurpy container complete with open straw hole found in sub-freezing temps? We got to pry a semi-frozen soggy log apart to log it. Thankfully, other cachers in the area made the trip worth seeing the park. I got plenty more examples, too.

 

So, what's your point? You trying to prove me wrong by bringing up a few examples counter to my point? I did allow for the few bad apples, thank you. I didn't say there were no lame rural caches.

The point is, whether it's urban or rural, what make a bad cache is not just that is urban or rural. Yes urban cache in most areas take less time and effort to hide to a rural. Mainly because in most areas the cachers live in urban confines. Where the cacher are more rural the rural cache are just as lame.

 

It's not the urban/rural local that makes the cache; it's the cache hider.

This is exactly right. I gave some examples of great urbans that took a lot of effort to hide. However, we have a few hiders out here that hide hundreds of lame caches that take zero effort. How is anybody hiding good caches ever supposed to keep up them? So I really think that we need an ignore button that ignores all hides from certain cachers! One click and they are gone forever! I bet even Snoogans would like to have this feature! Edited May 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

... Not log ago, the wife and I spent a weekend in area known for its history and scenery, a big tourist destination. We headed out for an afternoon of geocaching, expecting to find the offbeat, historic, interesting or scenic areas that we love. Instead we found ourselves being taken on a tour of the area's strip malls.

 

We drove a few miles in another direction hoping for something more and we did get more - more strip malls.

 

Finally we had to put away the GPS and pick up some brochures and tourist maps. Bottom line is that thanks to all the clutter, we were unable to geocache the way we like to. If we were numbers hounds we would have been in our glory, but we aren't in the sport for that so basically we were SOL.

With your experience (and presence in the forums), I'm surprised that you didn't realize that you would have to do research on caches before you went out the door.

 

Didn't have my laptop along. Anyway, I figured with an area chock full of historic and scenic places, there would be some quality caches. Besides, not all areas are like this. I've been to a few areas where there are still many great caches and little clutter. It seems to be a regional thing.

[+sbell111]

Hows that? Can you give me some examples of urban caches that you liked that took hours to do?

Snakes and Ladders took the three of us about 12 hours. We were STF and had no help. Multi 4/2.5

Zis is Kaos, Ve Don't Bushwhack here took me three hours to complete. Unknown 5/5

Pseudo took me a couple of hours to complete. Multi 4/3

Bingo took me a couple of hours to complete. Multi 2.5/1.5

UCSD - Art Collection took me over 2 hours to complete. Multi 4.5/1

Carlsbad Village Historic Walk took us about two hours to complete Multi 2/1

Ding Dong the witch is dead took me a couple of hours to complete. Multi 3.5/2

Lame Micro 243 took us a couple of hours to complete. Multi 3.5/1

I could go on and on......

Thanks for the list. Based on it, I'm not sure why you refuse to take the steps that were offered to you in other threads to attempt to avoid the caches that you don't like. It would appear that they would work perfectly for you. Edited May 6, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

... Not log ago, the wife and I spent a weekend in area known for its history and scenery, a big tourist destination. We headed out for an afternoon of geocaching, expecting to find the offbeat, historic, interesting or scenic areas that we love. Instead we found ourselves being taken on a tour of the area's strip malls.

 

We drove a few miles in another direction hoping for something more and we did get more - more strip malls.

 

Finally we had to put away the GPS and pick up some brochures and tourist maps. Bottom line is that thanks to all the clutter, we were unable to geocache the way we like to. If we were numbers hounds we would have been in our glory, but we aren't in the sport for that so basically we were SOL.

With your experience (and presence in the forums), I'm surprised that you didn't realize that you would have to do research on caches before you went out the door.

Now, there's a disingenuous statement if I ever saw one. You purposely skipped the previous paragraph and focused on the remainder. Did he or did he not say that he used to be able to cache without doing any research?

 

I have to concur with his assessment. It used to be you could simply follow the arrow and truly seldom be disappointed.

 

Now, you can't.

[+tozainamboku]

In that post of mine where I discussed those early 'lamers', all the lamers were in non-urban locations. I guess urban caches are only the problem for you.

Huh. I rarely come across a less-than-satisfying rural cache. Additionally, the majority of the complaints I'm reading are urban caches. I don't know what you're reading.

I just don't understand this statement. Why is another ammo can under a pile of sticks more satisfying than an LPC? Some people complain that LPCs are too common and that's why they are lame. "The first one I found was cool but now they are boring". If that is true the ammo can under sticks or rocks is just as boring. Granted that the ammo can might have some swag to trade. Not everyone is into swag - and if you are - how often do you find an ammo can that has degraded into junk? The only reason you might be more satisfied with the rural cache is because you prefer to be outdoors in a natural surrounding than in a parking lot. If that is the case it doesn't have much to do with geocaching.

 

I see here that many people don't want to eliminate all urban caches because they have found a few that are among their favorites. One complaint is that they used to be able to find these "urban gems" but now there are so many lame one that its become harder to find a good urban. I'm not entirely convinced that the proportions have changed that much. What is true it that there use to be fewer caches, so you looked for more urban caches and found the good ones. Now you might decide after two are three "lame" caches that it isn't fun so you stop looking. Also when you began, every hiding style was new. That LPC was cool. Now the unique hides are fewer and farther between.

 

What makes a "good" urban hide? I think that different people have different opinions on this. There are certainly numbers cachers who just want more caches and prefer them in places that can be gotten to quickly and easily. Others prefer a challenge - a unique hide or camouflage, or having to search stealthily with many muggles. Some want to be taking to a unique location - a scenic view or historic location. Some people like to discover those small urban neighborhood parks that they didn't know about or a unique family-run business that you wouldn't have guessed was there. Some like to do an urban multi-cache that takes the better part of an afternoon as you run around town to find the waypoints - perhaps it's an historic tour or maybe not. The problem is that what makes a good urban cache (or any cache) is different to different people. Even most of the so-called "lame" caches have a reason for being placed.

 

So what can be done to help cachers find the urban caches he or she likes among all the "lame" caches? Perhaps some kind of rating system where a finder could indicate which caches stand out for them. If you find a urban cache you like you could use the data to find other caches that you might like. I'm not proposing a list to rank caches - just a system to help find others you might like. Another approach, that could be done today, is for premium members to create a bookmark list of outstanding urban caches and share this list. Perhaps some local geocachers can get together and create a consensus list like TrailGators has done in San Diego. It may take some time for new caches to show up on the list, but eventually someone will tell you about this cache you might like.