Why I enjoy lamp post hides

[+KBI]

There are more than just two options. I do #3:

 

(3) Skip the ones I think I might not like. Then do the any of the ones I skipped only if they are recommended.

That sounds Easy Peasy!

 

Glad it works for you.

[+Miragee]

I guess some cache owners enjoy getting DNF logs in their email InBox, otherwise they would provide a useful hint for a cache that has had many DNFs and has needed a lifeline call for nearly every "Found it" log . . .

If it's a difficult cache they do expect that. If it's an easy cache then the coords are probably off.

It is rated a 1.5/1.5 . . . and I did not see a single log on the cache page, except for the FTF, that wasn't either a DNF or one that referenced additional hints or lifeline calls.

 

The LPC I found today was very fun compared to that other cache.

[+TrailGators]

The LPC I found today was very fun compared to that other cache.

That's not saying much.

[+tozainamboku]

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

Pretty easy for me. I generally go with (2) but if I'm not having fun I can change my plans and concentrate on the caches that look like I might enjoy more. Generally, I don't look it as skipping the ones I think I might not like - but I guess it has the same effect. I will admit, however, that sometimes the method is to ignore caches by a particular hider. But more often it will be to look at higher terrain and difficulty or to find caches in the park or along the bike path instead of ones that appear to be in parking lots.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

The LPC I found today was very fun compared to that other cache.

That's not saying much.

 

Not a bad point. A cache is just one of MANY entertainment/time-wasting activities out there. To say it was "fun compared to that other cache" isn't much of a recommendation.

 

There's a greasy spoon diner near my house that I occasionally stop at to grab a hamburger. They don't have great hamburgers, but it's a local business and I like to support it. It has a sticker on the register that says, "Don't rush me. I work by the hour." There's a group of old regulars sitting in the corner. Ancient Coca-Cola signs adorn the place. Pie sitting under glass on the counter. I guess you could say it's kitschy, and that's why I still go by there from time to time.

 

But still, the hamburgers are not very good.

[+TrailGators]

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

Pretty easy for me. I generally go with (2) but if I'm not having fun I can change my plans and concentrate on the caches that look like I might enjoy more. Generally, I don't look it as skipping the ones I think I might not like - but I guess it has the same effect. I will admit, however, that sometimes the method is to ignore caches by a particular hider. But more often it will be to look at higher terrain and difficulty or to find caches in the park or along the bike path instead of ones that appear to be in parking lots.

I've never been disappointed by a cache along the trail. I've been doing that a lot more lately. That is known as option (4).

[+stepshep]

Luckily my area has no LPCs! Sadly I found my first LPC today in Findlay.

[+Moose Mob]

This thread has suddenly turned angsty. If it does not get back on track, it will need to be closed. - thanks

[+KBI]

The LPC I found today was very fun compared to that other cache.

That's not saying much.

Not a bad point. A cache is just one of MANY entertainment/time-wasting activities out there. To say it was "fun compared to that other cache" isn't much of a recommendation.

 

There's a greasy spoon diner near my house that I occasionally stop at to grab a hamburger. They don't have great hamburgers, but it's a local business and I like to support it. It has a sticker on the register that says, "Don't rush me. I work by the hour." There's a group of old regulars sitting in the corner. Ancient Coca-Cola signs adorn the place. Pie sitting under glass on the counter. I guess you could say it's kitschy, and that's why I still go by there from time to time.

 

But still, the hamburgers are not very good.

That's a great analogy.

 

That place you describe won't win any awards, but it will survive, and probably thrive, because people like it. You said it yourself: "It's a local business and I like to support it." It probably brings a smile to your face (and it certainly will the next time you go there) just because of its less-than-perfect 'character.'

 

Some folks enjoy that hamburger place because it is simple and easy. Comfortable. It has just the right unsophisticated "feel."

 

Others may grudgingly tolerate it – or maybe even avoid it – because the place is a bit too tacky for them.

 

A third group likes it simply because it is there, and they want something to eat.

 

Some may actually like it because it's such a kitschy kitchen – because it represents the exact opposite of those snooty restaurants where they take themselves way too seriously and call their hamburgers something like "Legacy Medallions of Beef with Sun-Dried Tomato on Baker’s Roll Adorned with Sesame Seed" ... and serve steamed asparagus instead of fries. This in itself is actually kitschy to me: something that clumsily apes some upper-class gourmet experience, yet clearly isn't.

 

Some folks like a gourmet hamburger establishment with all those artistic touches that makes them feel special.

 

Others prefer to savor the personality of a restaurant with fewer pretenses and a bit more of a country or blue-collar feel.

 

A third group doesn’t want to have to think about any of that crap – they just want a friggin’ hamburger.

 

Yes, I like that analogy.

[+KBI]

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

Pretty easy for me. I generally go with (2) but if I'm not having fun I can change my plans and concentrate on the caches that look like I might enjoy more. Generally, I don't look it as skipping the ones I think I might not like - but I guess it has the same effect. I will admit, however, that sometimes the method is to ignore caches by a particular hider. But more often it will be to look at higher terrain and difficulty or to find caches in the park or along the bike path instead of ones that appear to be in parking lots.

I've never been disappointed by a cache along the trail. I've been doing that a lot more lately. That is known as option (4) (1).

Corrected it for you.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

That's a great analogy.

 

That place you describe won't win any awards, but it will survive, and probably thrive, because people like it. You said it yourself: "It's a local business and I like to support it." It probably brings a smile to your face (and it certainly will the next time you go there) just because of its less-than-perfect 'character.'

 

Some folks enjoy that hamburger place because it is simple and easy. Comfortable. It has just the right unsophisticated "feel."

 

Others may grudgingly tolerate it – or maybe even avoid it – because the place is a bit too tacky for them.

 

A third group likes it simply because it is there, and they want something to eat.

 

<snip>

Yes, I like that analogy.

I like the analogy also. When I go caching, I really want to find the caches. Yesterday I cleared up a DNF for a cache that had been missing when I was at the location before. But, now I have a new DNF in my long list.

 

If a cache is there, and is rated a 1.5, I would like to be able to find it. It would be nice if cache owners provided a useful hint, so that finding their cache is possible on the first trip. Since I drove more than 75 miles yesterday, I'm not likely to revisit that location very soon.

 

The LPC I found yesterday had been found many, many, many times. I looked at the log paper and some logs looked very happy. I was happy to have found it.

 

I guess I am that unsophisticated person who is just hungry and wants a hamburger.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

The LPC I found today was very fun compared to that other cache.

That's not saying much.

Not a bad point. A cache is just one of MANY entertainment/time-wasting activities out there. To say it was "fun compared to that other cache" isn't much of a recommendation.

 

There's a greasy spoon diner near my house that I occasionally stop at to grab a hamburger. They don't have great hamburgers, but it's a local business and I like to support it. It has a sticker on the register that says, "Don't rush me. I work by the hour." There's a group of old regulars sitting in the corner. Ancient Coca-Cola signs adorn the place. Pie sitting under glass on the counter. I guess you could say it's kitschy, and that's why I still go by there from time to time.

 

But still, the hamburgers are not very good.

That's a great analogy.

 

That place you describe won't win any awards, but it will survive, and probably thrive, because people like it. You said it yourself: "It's a local business and I like to support it." It probably brings a smile to your face (and it certainly will the next time you go there) just because of its less-than-perfect 'character.'

 

Some folks enjoy that hamburger place because it is simple and easy. Comfortable. It has just the right unsophisticated "feel."

 

Others may grudgingly tolerate it – or maybe even avoid it – because the place is a bit too tacky for them.

 

A third group likes it simply because it is there, and they want something to eat.

 

Some may actually like it because it's such a kitschy kitchen – because it represents the exact opposite of those snooty restaurants where they take themselves way too seriously and call their hamburgers something like "Legacy Medallions of Beef with Sun-Dried Tomato on Baker’s Roll Adorned with Sesame Seed" ... and serve steamed asparagus instead of fries. This in itself is actually kitschy to me: something that clumsily apes some upper-class gourmet experience, yet clearly isn't.

 

Some folks like a gourmet hamburger establishment with all those artistic touches that makes them feel special.

 

Others prefer to savor the personality of a restaurant with fewer pretenses and a bit more of a country or blue-collar feel.

 

A third group doesn’t want to have to think about any of that crap – they just want a friggin’ hamburger.

 

Yes, I like that analogy.

 

I meant the analogy as support for the OP. (hope the admonishment from the mod about angstiness wasn't for that post)

 

I'm trying to become more tolerant and understanding of this hide type rather than just rolling my eyes the next time one pops up. I won't ever love them, but I'll think of this thread and laugh as I sign the log on the next one!

[+TrailGators]

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

Pretty easy for me. I generally go with (2) but if I'm not having fun I can change my plans and concentrate on the caches that look like I might enjoy more. Generally, I don't look it as skipping the ones I think I might not like - but I guess it has the same effect. I will admit, however, that sometimes the method is to ignore caches by a particular hider. But more often it will be to look at higher terrain and difficulty or to find caches in the park or along the bike path instead of ones that appear to be in parking lots.

I've never been disappointed by a cache along the trail. I've been doing that a lot more lately. That is known as option (4) (1).

Corrected it for you.

No, it really needs to be option (4) because hiking on trails doesn't bypass or skip any caches. That's not the intention at all. I find all the caches hidden in these areas that I enjoy the most. It's an uplifting experience to get away from it all; breath in fresh air; take in some great views and to get some great exercise without stepping on a boring treadmill. So option (1) would only apply if I were to go urban caching the next weekend.

[+TrailGators]

I meant the analogy as support for the OP. (hope the admonishment from the mod about angstiness wasn't for that post) I'm trying to become more tolerant and understanding of this hide type rather than just rolling my eyes the next time one pops up. I won't ever love them, but I'll think of this thread and laugh as I sign the log on the next one!

It's my observation that about one third of the people like them; one third don't care and one third don't like them. I think we can all live in peace. We should also have the right to share our opinions no matter which third we reside in. What is nice is that there are so many caches these days (in most areas) that we can be much more selective.

[+KBI]

No, it really needs to be option (4) because hiking on trails doesn't bypass or skip any caches. That's not the intention at all. I find all the caches hidden in these areas that I enjoy the most. It's an uplifting experience to get away from it all; breath in fresh air; take in some great views and to get some great exercise without stepping on a boring treadmill. So option (1) would only apply if I were to go urban caching the next weekend.

Keep in mind that I am mentally defective, but -- I don’t see a difference. You’ve explained before that you sometimes like to intentionally limit yourself to the caches that require hiking through the woods in order to avoid what you see as an urban environment contaminated by too many uninteresting micros in unpleasant places. I applaud you for doing so, but that sure sounds like option number (1) to me:

 

Should I ...

(1) skip the ones I think I might not like and risk missing out on some unexpected and potentially VERY cool fun, or should I

(2) go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by at least some of the ones that I already know are likely to disappoint?

Not that it really matters. I'm not here to split off-topic hairs or number the options. My point is that the design of the cache itself is not the only factor that determines whether one is likely to enjoy it. It also depends what kind of attitude and expectations one brings along on the hunt..

[+KBI]

I meant the analogy as support for the OP. (hope the admonishment from the mod about angstiness wasn't for that post)

I took it that way, and I meant my response only as friendly agreement, not as sarcasm. I hope it was taken that way.

 

I'm trying to become more tolerant and understanding of this hide type rather than just rolling my eyes the next time one pops up.

You mean my endless babbling is actually having a positive effect on someone? Be careful there, you'll only encourage KBI!

 

I won't ever love them, but I'll think of this thread and laugh as I sign the log on the next one!

Entertainment is where you find it.

[+KBI]

It's my observation that about one third of the people like them; one third don't care and one third don't like them. I think we can all live in peace. We should also have the right to share our opinions no matter which third we reside in. What is nice is that there are so many caches these days (in most areas) that we can be much more selective.

That is one of the most thoughtful, accurate, reasonable and tolerant comments I have ever read in these threads.

 

I have no disagreemeent with any of that, and nothing else to add other than to say: I agree!

 

 

[EDIT: Removed Hrpty Hrrs' quote to make it clear who I was responding to. Nice work, TG!]

Edited August 11, 2007 by KBI

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

Not that it really matters. I'm not here to split off-topic hairs or number the options. My point is that the design of the cache itself is not the only factor that determines whether one is likely to enjoy it. It also depends what kind of attitude and expectations one brings along on the hunt..

This is exactly the way caching is for me. I have a chronic illness and when I am not feeling well, I do not have fun caching. It isn't that caches that are the problem, it is my "attitude."

 

When I feel better, I can have a lot of fun finding the most mundane of caches.

 

Even when I feel better, as I did yesterday, I don't have fun not finding caches. :cry:

[+KBI]

Gee, that DNF wouldn't be, like, bugging you or anything, would it?

[+Miragee]

Nope . . .

[+TrailGators]

No, it really needs to be option (4) because hiking on trails doesn't bypass or skip any caches. That's not the intention at all. I find all the caches hidden in these areas that I enjoy the most. It's an uplifting experience to get away from it all; breath in fresh air; take in some great views and to get some great exercise without stepping on a boring treadmill. So option (1) would only apply if I were to go urban caching the next weekend.

Keep in mind that I am mentally defective, but -- I don't see a difference. You've explained before that you sometimes like to intentionally limit yourself to the caches that require hiking through the woods in order to avoid what you see as an urban environment contaminated by too many uninteresting micros in unpleasant places. I applaud you for doing so, but that sure sounds like option number (1) to me.

The difference between Option (1) and Option (4) is the process! If I am going to do Option (1) I will sit down in front of my PC and scan through the caches in that area using the Google map feature on the site. I will click on caches and read the page/logs and I will ignore the caches "I think" I won't like. Then I will run a PQ to download them and go find them. I might ignore a couple of good ones but sobeit. However, if I do Option (4), I just lock and load. I don't have to spend any time reading anything because I know I am going to an area where I will like all the caches in that area. So now do you see the difference?

[+TrailGators]

It's my observation that about one third of the people like them; one third don't care and one third don't like them. I think we can all live in peace. We should also have the right to share our opinions no matter which third we reside in. What is nice is that there are so many caches these days (in most areas) that we can be much more selective.

That is one of the most thoughtful, accurate, reasonable and tolerant comments I have ever read in these threads.

 

I have no disagreemeent with any of that, and nothing else to add other than to say: I agree!

 

[EDIT: Removed Hrpty Hrrs' quote to make it clear who I was responding to. Nice work, TG!]

Thanks!

[+Ambrosia]

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

[+TrailGators]

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

[+KBI]

The difference between Option (1) and Option (4) is the process! If I am going to do Option (1) I will sit down in front of my PC and scan through the caches in that area using the Google map feature on the site. I will click on caches and read the page/logs and I will ignore the caches "I think" I won't like. Then I will run a PQ to download them and go find them. I might ignore a couple of good ones but sobeit. However, if I do Option (4), I just lock and load. I don't have to spend any time reading anything because I know I am going to an area where I will like all the caches in that area. So now do you see the difference?

Well, to be honest ... no. One method employs software, the other method employs your steering wheel. Note the bolded words from your post. Either way you're skipping the ones you think you might not like, which is all that was meant by option (1) in my post -- and by the sound of things this apparently works well for you.

 

Is this detail really important?

Edited August 11, 2007 by KBI

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

 

I don't like the direction this headed. If this thread doesn't develop more angst we're going to have to shut it down.

[+KBI]

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

 

Do you suppose a thread could ever get locked for becoming too syrupy?

[+TrailGators]

The difference between Option (1) and Option (4) is the process! If I am going to do Option (1) I will sit down in front of my PC and scan through the caches in that area using the Google map feature on the site. I will click on caches and read the page/logs and I will ignore the caches "I think" I won't like. Then I will run a PQ to download them and go find them. I might ignore a couple of good ones but sobeit. However, if I do Option (4), I just lock and load. I don't have to spend any time reading anything because I know I am going to an area where I will like all the caches in that area. So now do you see the difference?

Well, to be honest ... no. One method employs software, the other method employs your steering wheel. Note the bolded words from your post. Either way you're skipping the ones you think you might not like, which by the sound of things works well for you.

Let me try explaining it another way. I'm not skipping any caches with option (4). I'm heading to a specific caching destination to cache and I will find and enjoy every cache that crosses my path. For example, if I went on vacation in Maui, I didn't purposely skip going to Wally World, I just went to Maui because I like really like Maui. So if you use option (1), you skip over certain caches in the area you are caching. If you do option (4) you don't have to skip any caches in the area you are headed to. So there is no extra preparation required. You just load up the GPS and head out! When I started caching I used to do option (4) all the time. Now I have to employ option (1) whenever I go to certain areas. They are two different processes.

[+KBI]

Let me try explaining it another way. I'm not skipping any caches with option (4).

Yes, you are. You are (intelligently) skipping entire geographic areas that you have told me in the past tend to contain the caches that disappoint you.

 

You do understand that this has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, right? You read and understood the main point of my post, right?

[+TrailGators]

Let me try explaining it another way. I'm not skipping any caches with option (4).

Yes, you are. You are (intelligently) skipping entire geographic areas that you have told me in the past tend to contain the caches that disappoint you.

 

You do understand that this has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, right? You read and understood the main point of my post, right?

I forgot your point. My point is that I only have to mess with filtering caches when I go to certain areas. It is a completely different strategy.

[+Miragee]

The Idea That Shows Promise / A way to end a scourge thread, along with my initial post to the Worst Cache Containers thread, got me thinking more than ever about exactly why it is I sometimes enjoy simple lamp post hides – and other "lame" caches – so much.

 

This is my post from the Worst Cache Containers thread. Note the portion in bold:

 

One of the caches that has impressed me the least was the one I once found:

• In a Wal-Mart parking lot
  
• Under a lamp post skirt
  
• With a magnetic hide-a-key as the container
  
• And using the Wal-Mart receipt for the purchase of said hide-a-key as the log sheet .
  

That's right -- the hider walked into the store, bought a hide-a-key box, walked out to the parking lot, got as far as the nearest lamp post, unwrapped the box from its packaging (this step represented the most effort involved), placed the receipt in the box, placed the box under a lamp post skirt, marked the coords, and drove home to submit his hide.

 

The interesting thing is that dozens and dozens of cachers have logged it, many with very complimentary logs, earnestly describing their fun.

 

I logged it. I actually enjoyed it, in a twisted sort of way. Kind of the same way some people love to watch bad sci-fi movies from the 50s, the ones with the cheap and terrible special effects.

 

I wasn't impressed, but you do have to marvel at the efficiency of the whole concept.

 

Kitsch.

 

THAT’s the word I was looking for when I wrote that post! I just couldn’t think of it at the time.

 

"Kitsch" precisely describes not only the predictable and less-than-clever caches that I nevertheless enjoy finding, but also one of the main reasons I nevertheless enjoy finding them.

 

It is an honest appreciation for the very lack of creativity those hides represent, but it is neither an eye-rolling sense of self-superiority nor a compassionate sympathy; it is somewhere in the middle ... and then half a bubble off in another direction.

 

It is my twisted admiration for laziness and tastelessness, or as Jeff Foxworthy defines the word Redneck: A glorious lack of sophistication.

 

Lamp post caches, by their very nature, are gloriously unsophisticated. The first one I ever found was clever. The fifth one was lame. The twentieth one was kitschy.

 

From the Wikipedia definition: "It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art."

 

In the regular world, kitsch is:

- Garden gnomes

- Twenty-foot-tall residential mailboxes labeled "AIR MAIL"

- Paintings of dogs playing poker

- Those fake baseball-in-cracked-window stickers on cars

 

In the Geocaching world, kitsch is:

- A half square foot of parallel sticks (not) covering a brand new two-square-foot cache container in the woods

- A fake bird house cache that looks nothing at all like a real bird house

- Ironically bad grammar in a cache description, such as "The puzzle simple."

- Micro caches under lamp post skirts.

 

These things represent the amateur flavor, the democratic nature – the very grassrootness – of our hobby. They are pitiful and beautiful at the same time.

 

I like simple lamp post caches not because they are bad, but because when they are near other simple lamp post caches they are comically bad. I like tacky caches simply because they are tacky. (Plus they give me an excuse to play with my Garmin, and to log a smiley.)

 

If my appreciation for lamp post caches – my ability to enjoy pretty much any cache out there, no matter how unsophisticated – makes me abnormal, then I don’t want to be normal. If I were normal I apparently wouldn’t enjoy this hobby nearly as much.

 

 

Is it just me?

Thought this might bear repeating.

 

The LPC I found yesterday was very "Kitschy." I was "entertained" by the outside of the container, the little "gift" I found near the container, and the funny log stating "WORST CACHE EVER" after many other people had signed the log, happily, perhaps because the cache guided them to the Costco Store.

 

[+KBI]

You do understand that this has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, right? You read and understood the main point of my post, right?

I forgot your point.

Your honesty is appreciated.

 

My point, that I originally made waaaay back in this post, was that my mental defect equips me with the ability to enjoy pretty much any cache that's out there, and that I therefore don't have to worry about any kind of filtering. Those who avoid caches, whether ignoring them one at a time or by entire geographic regions, can only do so at the risk that they might miss something good. It's a compromise, but not one that affects me.

 

My point is that I only have to mess with filtering caches when I go to certain areas. It is a completely different strategy.

When you ignore individual caches you are filtering. When you avoid entire urban or suburban areas you are also filtering. Whether you limit yourself tactically or strategically, either way you run the risk of missing out on something you might enjoy. Nothing wrong with that, of course -- you should do whatever works for you.

 

Have we covered this enough now?

[+TrailGators]

Have we covered this enough now?

To summarize, I see five options:

(1) Skip the ones I think I might not like by using special filtering techniques on my PC. There is a risk that I could miss out on some unexpected and potentially cool ones by doing this.

(2) Go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by some of them.

(3) Skip the ones I think I might not like by using special filtering techniques on my PC. Then later do the any of the ones I skipped only if they get recommended.

(4) Go after ALL of them in a particular area that I really enjoy going to. I know these areas are free from ones I don't like, so I don't have to do any special filtering at my PC at all.

(5) Go after ALL of them because I am having fun with a group. Let the others sign the logs on the ones I don't like and keep having fun.

 

I do #3 or #5 for urbans. I do #4 for non-urbans.

[+tozainamboku]

<snip>

Let me try explaining it another way. I'm not skipping any caches with option (4). I'm heading to a specific caching destination to cache and I will find and enjoy every cache that crosses my path. For example, if I went on vacation in Maui, I didn't purposely skip going to Wally World, I just went to Maui because I like really like Maui. So if you use option (1), you skip over certain caches in the area you are caching. If you do option (4) you don't have to skip any caches in the area you are headed to. So there is no extra preparation required. You just load up the GPS and head out! When I started caching I used to do option (4) all the time. Now I have to employ option (1) whenever I go to certain areas. They are two different processes.

It's just a matter of attitude. I already posted that when I shift from (1) to (2) I view it not as skipping caches I don't like but as selecting caches I would more likely like. But you can use a variety of methods to achieve this. You could filter by terrain or difficulty, you could filter out hides by a certain hider, you can look on a map see if the cache is in a park or in a parking lot, etc. Whichever method you use - and it looks like trailGators is using several methods - the net result is that you can increase your fun while caching if you get tired of finding too many caches of a certain type. I use the same method to avoid hiking caches when it gets too hot when I'm nursing blisters from the last hike in my new boots. I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

[+TrailGators]

I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

I don't mind those at all.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

Boy, me too. I have the hardest time spotting those, and don't even mention the Bison tubes hanging in bushes . . .

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

Boy, me too. I have the hardest time spotting those, and don't even mention the Bison tubes hanging in bushes . . .

It sounds like you need to set a filter in your PQ or GSAK to filter out everything more than a "1" for difficulty. That will allow you to go for caches that you can easily find and not get frustrated. Edited August 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

<snip>

 

I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

Boy, me too. I have the hardest time spotting those, and don't even mention the Bison tubes hanging in bushes . . .

 

In most cases, filtering out micros ought to eliminate those bisons. That has been my experience. Of course there is no "in bushes" filter. Life can be so unfair sometimes, huh? But if you really love those micros, you're probably going to have to take the good with the bad. As for The Team, there is no 'good' micro.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

Boy, me too. I have the hardest time spotting those, and don't even mention the Bison tubes hanging in bushes . . .

 

In most cases, filtering out micros ought to eliminate those bisons. That has been my experience. Of course there is no "in bushes" filter. Life can be so unfair sometimes, huh? But if you really love those micros, you're probably going to have to take the good with the bad. As for The Team, there is no 'good' micro.

What is interesting is that one of the few ways you can make a micro a difficulty of "1" is to hide it under a lamp post cover. So maybe the reason some people like them is because they are so easy to find. I only like easy caches when I've hiked a long distance to get to the cache. I don't think they need to be difficult if you've already put in a lot of effort to get to the cache location.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I wish there was a way to avoid decon containers hanging in bushes.

Boy, me too. I have the hardest time spotting those, and don't even mention the Bison tubes hanging in bushes . . .

In most cases, filtering out micros ought to eliminate those bisons. That has been my experience. Of course there is no "in bushes" filter. Life can be so unfair sometimes, huh? But if you really love those micros, you're probably going to have to take the good with the bad. As for The Team, there is no 'good' micro.

Sure there is! As long as the hiding place is obvious and it takes you to a great location, like this cache does. Check out the Web Site link on the cache page.

 

 

Edit to add appropriate quote

Edited August 11, 2007 by Miragee

[+TrailGators]

Sure there is! As long as the hiding place is obvious and it takes you to a great location, like this cache does. Check out the Web Site link on the cache page.

 

Sure there is what? Good micros? If the guy doesn't like them then so be it. They are very easy to filter out.

[+Scaber]

I just like saying "skirt lifter."

[+KBI]

Have we covered this enough now?

To summarize, I see five options:

(1) Skip the ones I think I might not like by using special filtering techniques on my PC. There is a risk that I could miss out on some unexpected and potentially cool ones by doing this.

(2) Go after ALL of them, which will guarantee that I will be disappointed by some of them.

(3) Skip the ones I think I might not like by using special filtering techniques on my PC. Then later do the any of the ones I skipped only if they get recommended.

(4) Go after ALL of them in a particular area that I really enjoy going to. I know these areas are free from ones I don't like, so I don't have to do any special filtering at my PC at all.

(5) Go after ALL of them because I am having fun with a group. Let the others sign the logs on the ones I don't like and keep having fun.

 

I do #3 or #5 for urbans. I do #4 for non-urbans.

That's all very interesting, but I think you are reeeeeeeeeally missing my meaning.

 

The issue, TG, is not HOW you bypass caches you think you might not enjoy; the issue is WHETHER you bypass caches you think you might not enjoy. It is a yes or no question, nothing more. There are only two possible responses. Everything in your long list is just details relating to one of those two responses – yes or no. Bypass some, or bypass none. One or zero. Up or down. Yes or no.

 

Is you is or is you ain't?

 

For the gist of my original point, please do me the honor of carefully reading my post regarding that point one more time, and see if you agree with my interpretation ... of my own post.

 

I am a simple person. I made a simple point about the fact that I am equipped with a mental defect which allows me to enjoy all caches, and that I therefore have no need for avoidance. Others are not so lucky, and are sometimes disappointed – unless they take steps to avoid certain caches. That is the ONLY reason for my description of the resulting dilemma. Not sure if you know this, TG, but the "di" in the word "dilemma" means two. The existence of a dilemma implies exactly two available choices.

 

The other stuff in your list is very interesting, but is unfortunately off topic here.

 

If you still insist on discussing the mechanics of HOW you avoid some caches, then I invite you to please move that element of our discussion to another thread, or to the PMs where you and I can talk about it there.

 

Thanks.

[+Ambrosia]

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

 

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

 

I don't like the direction this headed. If this thread doesn't develop more angst we're going to have to shut it down.

 

Now, now...this thread is just getting way too sweet for me.

 

 

Do you suppose a thread could ever get locked for becoming too syrupy?

Thanks for the laugh, guys.

[+Ambrosia]

I just like saying "skirt lifter."

"skirt chaser"

 

"chasing skirts"

 

"looking under skirts"

 

[Mushtang]

I just like saying "skirt lifter."

"skirt chaser"

 

"chasing skirts"

 

"looking under skirts"

 

I know a guy that used a mirror to look under skirts when nobody was looking.

 

(To see if there were spiders near the magnetic cache. What did you think I meant?)

[+KBI]

I just like saying "skirt lifter."

I'm more of a full-size cans man, myself.

 

(We are still talking about geocaches, right?)

[+Ambrosia]

[+fauxSteve]

I'm still certain that the first time that I'll be questioned by police while geocaching will involve lifting skirts in a parking lot.

 

I actually really don't mind the basic idea of the LPC; it's a perfectly acceptable way to obscure a container. What I don't like is looking for a cache in a crowded parking lot. Therefore, almost all of my finds on this type occur well before or after opening hours. I also still haven't found a way to log my find without sounding snotty or mean. Even when I try to write something light (no pun intended) or funny, I resort to some reference to lameness. I'm trying, though.

 

I think a LPC in the middle of a forest would be kitschy, while in a Home Depot parking lot it's just expected...

 

My real question, however, is: what percentage of LPCs have the hint "You light up my life"?

 

You light up my life

You give me hope

To carry on

You light up my days

and fill my nights with song

(and get another smiley)

 

Now 1977 Debbie Boone in 2007 is kitschy.

[+TrailGators]

My real question, however, is: what percentage of LPCs have the hint "You light up my life"?

 

You light up my life

You give me hope

To carry on

You light up my days

and fill my nights with song

(and get another smiley)

 

Now 1977 Debbie Boone in 2007 is kitschy.

Like someone really needs a hint....

 

Speaking of 70s songs, there's:

Kitschy Woman by the Eagles

The Kitsch is back by Elton John

Edited August 12, 2007 by TrailGators