Spew Be Gone!

[+cache_test_dummies]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Is there a reason you don't pre-screen the caches in an area before heading out? Wouldn't that help cut down on the walk-aways?

[+tozainamboku]

I agree with briansnat that geocaching has changed. Early adopters of geocaching tended to be outdoors types who already had a GPSr for hiking, off-roading, biking, and camping. So caches tended to get hidden outside of urban areas and those in urban areas were more likely to be in a park or on a bike path than in a parking lot. Of course there were always those people who hid a cache in their front yard or outside a favorite eatery. Some people undoubtedly questioned these hides but at least you figure the hider had a reason for putting a cache there. As geocaching has grown in popularity it has attracted many new people. Many, for one reason or the other, prefer quick easy urban hides over hikes or even wandering around a local park. These people are hiding the kinds of caches they like to find. briansnat finds that a higher percentage of caches are now of a type he doesn't enjoy finding. There are a number of options for him

1. start a new website that only lists caches that he likes
   
2. steal all the lame caches so they get archived (though this might get you a 1 month ban)
   
3. move to Lake Wobegon where all the caches are above average
   
4. get Geocaching.com to create new guidelines that reduce or eliminate the caches he doesn't like
   
5. convince the new cachers (who really do prefer urban hides no matter what he thinks) to stop hiding these caches and hide the caches briansnat likes instead.
   
6. learn to filter out caches that are more likely to be what he considers lame even if that means missing a few good ones
   

[+horsegeeks]

I'm very poor at debate so I guess I'll bow out. I'm just about to finish preparing for our caching trip tomorrow out of town. It's taken me about an hour and I can guarantee I won't find any I'll walk away from and the four of us will have a blast doing our caches. It could be because I spent that hour preparing our caching agenda. Maybe we're just lucky in North Carolina and Virginia and Texas and Florida and the states in between to not have many lousy caches that you forum folks gripe about all of the time. Happy Caching to all and to all a good night.......horsegeeks

[Trinity's Crew]

Heck. let's make the sucky cache percentage 20%. From my limited experience this is a VERY generous number. This puts the number of sucky caches around 90,729. That would still leave 362943 non-sucky caches for you to find. Most of these are in the good old US of A. Have fun!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

 

What determines worthlessness to you? Is part of it because you have found so many that the thrill of caching is wearing off? Ive noticed that many local cache complainers have numbers in the thousands. Caching seems to be getting old and tedious to them, so they complain a bit more about "lame" caches. Perhaps its in the attitude towards caching. For us, we enjoy the time together, out on the hunt. Even a "lame" cache is fun when Mike and I are together.

[+FireRef]

I agree with briansnat that geocaching has changed. Early adopters of geocaching tended to be outdoors types who already had a GPSr for hiking, off-roading, biking, and camping. So caches tended to get hidden outside of urban areas and those in urban areas were more likely to be in a park or on a bike path than in a parking lot. Of course there were always those people who hid a cache in their front yard or outside a favorite eatery. Some people undoubtedly questioned these hides but at least you figure the hider had a reason for putting a cache there. As geocaching has grown in popularity it has attracted many new people. Many, for one reason or the other, prefer quick easy urban hides over hikes or even wandering around a local park. These people are hiding the kinds of caches they like to find. briansnat finds that a higher percentage of caches are now of a type he doesn't enjoy finding. There are a number of options for him

1. start a new website that only lists caches that he likes
   
2. steal all the lame caches so they get archived (though this might get you a 1 month ban)
   
3. move to Lake Wobegon where all the caches are above average
   
4. get Geocaching.com to create new guidelines that reduce or eliminate the caches he doesn't like
   
5. convince the new cachers (who really do prefer urban hides no matter what he thinks) to stop hiding these caches and hide the caches briansnat likes instead.
   
6. learn to filter out caches that are more likely to be what he considers lame even if that means missing a few good ones
   

 

Interesting list - #2 seems to be a common thing to give out these, as mentioned in another, now-closed, thread. But technically, they don't ban you from geocaching - only from expressing your opinion in this arena

 

Personally - I have no problem with any kind of cache, except for those which are placed on private property without permission, thereby making it possible for me to get in some kind of trouble for going to hunt it. Otherwise, I like them all!

[Trinity's Crew]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

 

What determines worthlessness to you? Is part of it because you have found so many that the thrill of caching is wearing off? Ive noticed that many local cache complainers have numbers in the thousands. Caching seems to be getting old and tedious to them, so they complain a bit more about "lame" caches. Perhaps its in the attitude towards caching. For us, we enjoy the time together, out on the hunt. Even a "lame" cache is fun when Mike and I are together.

Yet another "Amen" post. Lame is in the eye of the beholder and many of the people who think too many caches are "lame" have a ton of finds under their belt. A year or two back TeamGPSaxaphone started a thread asking whether he (and others) were turning their nose up at average or slightly above average caches because it was hard to impress them anymore. I think he was delving into the heart of the problem for many (but not all of the) cachers who are becoming increasingly turned off by the caches they find.

[+Snoogans]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

 

What determines worthlessness to you? Is part of it because you have found so many that the thrill of caching is wearing off? Ive noticed that many local cache complainers have numbers in the thousands. Caching seems to be getting old and tedious to them, so they complain a bit more about "lame" caches. Perhaps its in the attitude towards caching. For us, we enjoy the time together, out on the hunt. Even a "lame" cache is fun when Mike and I are together.

 

I agree.

 

I just KNEW there would come a time when having less than a thousand finds would be fashionable. I think that time is here.

 

Honestly, I can't become burnt out on caching because of the way I manage my quality time for caching. I find between 50 and 100 caches a year and and about 20% are events. FTF isn't my drug of choice so word of mouth gets me to the caches that are worth my time when I make time to cache.

 

It's pretty simple to be happy with this sport if you only CHOOSE those experiences that have the best chance to achieve that goal.

[+wavector]

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

 

Hey, that is my definition of a lame cache.

 

Lame Cache - Any cache that has a consistently wet logbook because of design decisions made by the hider is a lame cache.

 

I have one for geotrash as well.

Geotrash - Any cache which is not being maintained by an active owner is geotrash.

 

At least they are simple definitions that are not related to container size or container location.

I need a simple definition for spew?

[Trinity's Crew]

I agree.

 

I just KNEW there would come a time when having less than a thousand finds would be fashionable. I think that time is here.

 

Honestly, I can't become burnt out on caching because of the way I manage my quality time for caching. I find between 50 and 100 caches a year and and about 20% are events. FTF isn't my drug of choice so word of mouth gets me to the caches that are worth my time when I make time to cache.

 

It's pretty simple to be happy with this sport if you only CHOOSE those experiences that have the best chance to achieve that goal.

Wow! I went from inexperienced to fashionable in the same thread! Thanks Snoogans! I always liked you, now I know why!

[+TrailGators]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

 

What determines worthlessness to you? Is part of it because you have found so many that the thrill of caching is wearing off? Ive noticed that many local cache complainers have numbers in the thousands. Caching seems to be getting old and tedious to them, so they complain a bit more about "lame" caches. Perhaps its in the attitude towards caching. For us, we enjoy the time together, out on the hunt. Even a "lame" cache is fun when Mike and I are together.

 

I agree.

 

I just KNEW there would come a time when having less than a thousand finds would be fashionable. I think that time is here.

 

Honestly, I can't become burnt out on caching because of the way I manage my quality time for caching. I find between 50 and 100 caches a year and and about 20% are events. FTF isn't my drug of choice so word of mouth gets me to the caches that are worth my time when I make time to cache.

 

It's pretty simple to be happy with this sport if you only CHOOSE those experiences that have the best chance to achieve that goal.

I think you guys actually have a good point with the burnout thing. Pacing yourself is very important. I don't think we are that cognizant of exactly when we are starting to burn out but it happens. So I'm not sure I agree that we "choose" for it to happen. Anyhow, taking a break usually freshens things up. Also staying area from urban areas is a wise thing to do if you feel the slightest bit burned out.

[+briansnat]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Is there a reason you don't pre-screen the caches in an area before heading out? Wouldn't that help cut down on the walk-aways?

 

Because 1. It's not the way I like to cache and 2. If it gets to where I have to research every cache before I hunt it I'll take up golf.

[+tozainamboku]

Because 1. It's not the way I like to cache and 2. If it gets to where I have to research every cache before I hunt it I'll take up golf.

 

7. Golf

[+briansnat]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

 

What determines worthlessness to you? Is part of it because you have found so many that the thrill of caching is wearing off? Ive noticed that many local cache complainers have numbers in the thousands. Caching seems to be getting old and tedious to them, so they complain a bit more about "lame" caches. Perhaps its in the attitude towards caching. For us, we enjoy the time together, out on the hunt. Even a "lame" cache is fun when Mike and I are together.

 

Nope. For example I found a cache Monday on the way home from a short vacation. It was nothing really special. A simple 1/1 Hide a Key attached to the stairs of a gazebo in a pocket park on the main street of

the town. The park wasn't much larger than my living room .

 

Yet I enjoyed the cache. Why? Because the park was a nice place to stop, complete with benches, flowers and a marker from the late 1800s that commemorated the dedication of the park as a memorial to some local soldiers. It was the kind of place I probably would have driven by if not for the cache, but

it made for a pleasant, 10 minute stop on the way home.

 

I was thankful that the owner didn't put the cache in the strip mall parking lot .2 mile down the road. I've seen strip malls before. They are essentially the same. There is nothing there that is attractive to me unless I want to buy pretzels and a Coke or use the bathroom. If the cache had been there I would have driven by the way I drove by several other caches along the way.

 

Nope, the thrill of caching isn't wearing off for me. I still enjoy quality caches. I'm not looking to be wowed by every cache, or any cache for that matter. I'm just looking for something that's a notch above the

mundane.

[+TrailGators]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Is there a reason you don't pre-screen the caches in an area before heading out? Wouldn't that help cut down on the walk-aways?

 

Because 1. It's not the way I like to cache and 2. If it gets to where I have to research every cache before I hunt it I'll take up golf.

The good news is that you don't have to research hiking caches. So put those clubs back in the attic! Edited September 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...]The good news is that you don't have to research hiking caches. So put those clubs back in the attic!

Anymore they just cram these golf courses amongst all the houses and it's not such a nice stroll as it used to be. If I have to start researching golf courses, I'm going to just start drinking before I go golving.

[+traildad]

So Mr sbell111 can go on ad nauseam about his wonderful filtering system and maybe it works for him, but it wouldn't work for me.

From your replies I've realized that no filtering system will ever work for you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only filtering system you'd approve of is one that will eliminate all the caches you wouldn't like and leave all the caches that you would like.

 

Unless there was a "for numbers cachers only" attribute, or some sort of rating system, no filtering system would work. Rather I'd like to encourage owners to put a little though into their hides. That way the numbers people will still have plenty of quickie caches and people like me will be as happy as cows.

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

[+traildad]

 

So best I can do is bring up that a certain segment of cachers find these caches to be lame and boring, I followup that with a request to please put a bit more thought and effort into your hides and thier locations. How can that hurt?

 

In playing the game their way it is possible that they have put all the thought and effort into their hide that they feel it should have. Placing caches that they enjoy is how they play the game. I would like to see people put more thought and effort into their cache descriptions. This way if we put more thought and effort into choosing which caches to look for, we have some useful information to work with.

[+aggiejwp]

Lead by example. Coach and train. Report guideline violations. Best we can do. These usually otherwise fit the current guidelines and so will continue to be published.

 

I posted this on my cache pages. And hide caches that I like to find.

 

 

The main reason Micro Spew is getting worse is because there are still cachers that find them and tell the owners, "Thanks for the cache." Do like I do, and put all spew caches on your ignore list. Imagine if nobody bothered to find caches under lampposts, in parking lots.

 

You act as if we don't like find those that are located in parking lots. I do. I enjoy the hunt all over, and If I don't know the area, I don't know that it's going to be under a lamppost. You are allowing yourself to say their should be only one type of geocacher, when infact I believe their are two types, and it's okay.

 

Type 1: The cacher who likes the unique caches that bring them to places, monuments, and intriguing spots.

 

Type 2: The cacher that likes to go to parking spots, look behind a sign, or find a hide a key under a post office box.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

You act as if we don't like find those that are located in parking lots. I do. I enjoy the hunt all over, and If I don't know the area, I don't know that it's going to be under a lamppost. You are allowing yourself to say their should be only one type of geocacher, when infact I believe their are two types, and it's okay.

 

Type 1: The cacher who likes the unique caches that bring them to places, monuments, and intriguing spots.

 

Type 2: The cacher that likes to go to parking spots, look behind a sign, or find a hide a key under a post office box.

 

Actually 3 types:

 

Type 3: The cacher who likes variety and sometimes wants the unique place, and sometimes just has a craving and longs for a nice LPC/ signpost/ hide-a-key cache.

[+simpjkee]

This is a good question. I agree with the question you present. Funny thing is, I didn't dare even consider placing a cache until I found at least 100 caches. Even then, I didn't feel like I was ready so I think placed my first after almost 200 finds.One reason why I waited is because I wanted to make sure that I was placing something that would be new to my area. IMO, if I placed something after 5 finds and realized 3 miles down the road someone placed an identical cache 3 years ago, I would feel like a copycat and that is something I refuse to be. This sport is brand spanking new and the oppurtunities to be original are unbelievable, but those oppurtunities are being pushed down the line every time a magnetic key holder or Altoids tin is placed.

 

Either way:

 

I joined no organization or club or anything. My mom told me about it, and since then I have found 470 caches and have placed 3 that I have never seen before. I will never place a cache that I have seen before.

 

I'm a unique human being and when I take something serious, I want to do it right. I'm a rare being. I find that most n00bs, as you state, place n00b caches. The only reccomendation I can give is that the elders inform and educate the n00bs. As a n00b, I would have appreciated some elders giving me suggestions. As a new elder (I proclaim), I message n00bs, but find that half my messages are me trying to explain that I am not a "bad person" or any other word that can be put in the qutations. So the solution is: elders educate the n00bs. n00bs, be okay with elders educating you without being offended. When that happens, your question will be addressed and answered.

[+Team GeoBlast]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

 

What determines worthlessness to you? Is part of it because you have found so many that the thrill of caching is wearing off? Ive noticed that many local cache complainers have numbers in the thousands. Caching seems to be getting old and tedious to them, so they complain a bit more about "lame" caches. Perhaps its in the attitude towards caching. For us, we enjoy the time together, out on the hunt. Even a "lame" cache is fun when Mike and I are together.

 

There's another way to look at this. It's not that he's burnt out and caching is getting old and tedious, he's has enough experience to know how good caching -could be-. For some, enough WOW experiences can leave you wanting for more. If there ever was a rating system like Netflix, I would do my best to find cachers like briansnat and see what he liked. I would also do my best to find someone that felt that -any- cache is great and avoid what they liked.

[+Team GeoBlast]

So Mr sbell111 can go on ad nauseam about his wonderful filtering system and maybe it works for him, but it wouldn't work for me.

From your replies I've realized that no filtering system will ever work for you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only filtering system you'd approve of is one that will eliminate all the caches you wouldn't like and leave all the caches that you would like.

 

Unless there was a "for numbers cachers only" attribute, or some sort of rating system, no filtering system would work. Rather I'd like to encourage owners to put a little though into their hides. That way the numbers people will still have plenty of quickie caches and people like me will be as happy as cows.

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

 

Oh, I like this for a filter idea very much.

[Dinoprophet]

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

I think it's brilliant, and I haven't seen it before. Apparently rehashing a topic once a month does bring out new ideas eventually.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

In past threads like this, I have suggested something similar to this idea. On the Waymarking site, there are several Categories that require answers to questions before the submission can go through.

 

Maybe just asking if the cache location has "worth" would make some hiders aware of the fact that their cache should be in a "location" worthy of bringing people to. Requiring a reply to whether the cache is in a historical location, or a scenic location, or "just for the numbers" might help the Spew.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this was implemented.

[+Kit Fox]

Lead by example. Coach and train. Report guideline violations. Best we can do. These usually otherwise fit the current guidelines and so will continue to be published.

 

 

The main reason Micro Spew is getting worse is because there are still cachers that find them and tell the owners, "Thanks for the cache." Do like I do, and put all spew caches on your ignore list. Imagine if nobody bothered to find caches under lampposts, in parking lots.

 

You act as if we don't like find those that are located in parking lots. I do. I enjoy the hunt all over, and If I don't know the area, I don't know that it's going to be under a lamppost. You are allowing yourself to say their should be only one type of geocacher, when infact I believe their are two types, and it's okay.

 

Type 1: The cacher who likes the unique caches that bring them to places, monuments, and intriguing spots.

 

Type 2: The cacher that likes to go to parking spots, look behind a sign, or find a hide a key under a post office box.

 

I never once advocated a ban on lame caches (parking lot, trash dump, back alley, and housing tract caches). The only ban I ever advocated is multiple logs on event caches.

 

Like many of us in this thread, my hope is for a more effective method of weeding out lame caches. I'm finding that a lot of good but older caches are incorrectly labled as 1/1s. When I run a pocket query excluding 1/1s, I miss out on many mis-labled caches. If I run a PQ showing all caches in an area, I have to spend over an hour of my time reviewing each cache on "Nat Geo Topo" (to determine its actual location,) as well as reviewing past logs to see if the cache is of interest to me.

 

Traildad's suggestion of a check off sheet is the greatest idea i've ever seen on this forum. This wouldn't weed out all the "oldies but goodies" that were hidden way before attributes were invented. Hopefully cachers would truthful and call a spade a spade when using the check off sheet.

[+Team GeoBlast]

<snip>

 

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

In past threads like this, I have suggested something similar to this idea. On the Waymarking site, there are several Categories that require answers to questions before the submission can go through.

 

Maybe just asking if the cache location has "worth" would make some hiders aware of the fact that their cache should be in a "location" worthy of bringing people to. Requiring a reply to whether the cache is in a historical location, or a scenic location, or "just for the numbers" might help the Spew.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this was implemented.

 

Then the people that enjoy that type of cache can sort them out and find the caches that were placed purely to bolster their numbers. It's a good exercise for anyone placing a cache..."what will the seekers of this cache appreciate about it?" It's a win win.

 

This is by far the best suggestion I have seen on this topic in awhile. Probably deserves it's own thread.

[+clan_Barron]

I still don't agree at all with people who say that you can't tell a lame micro (or regular cache) from a decent one, particularly while traveling. I've been on all sorts of trips, some of them to notorious "lame micro" type spots like Dallas/Fort Worth, Nasheville, Phoenix, LA, etc. And so far, I've been pleased for the most part. I'd have to say maybe about 90% or more of the time.

 

Dunno. Maybe I have some wonderful talent for sifting through the worst of it. Perhaps God is being extra helpful to me in this area. Or it could just be that I'm easy to please.

 

We are able to sort out good from lame caches too, by scanning the cache page. For those who hate LPC etc, using the aerial photos on mapquest help too. I can tell if its a park or a parking lot from the photos.

 

We understand, really.... There's the "gremlin" way of doing it that seems to work for some folks... I want the "Lambourghini" <sp> way of doing it. Yes, I could scan all the logs and perform research and contact previous cache finders and do a background investigation, but I don't want to have to do all that!!!!!!

 

So basically you are saying you are too lazy to invest your own time in making sure that you only hunt what you like.

[+wimseyguy]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Is there a reason you don't pre-screen the caches in an area before heading out? Wouldn't that help cut down on the walk-aways?

 

Because 1. It's not the way I like to cache and 2. If it gets to where I have to research every cache before I hunt it I'll take up golf.

 

Umm wouldn't you still need to research which course to play on this weekend? What are the greens fees, is it a links style course, or a tight hilly mountain course? Are the grounds well maintained, or is a goat pasture?

 

I'll agree that there are more of all kinds of caches being hidden in my area. But since more cachers seem to prefer the suburban hide to the long walk in the woods, we do have more of that type being placed in the past year. It hasn't kept me from having fun though.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I still don't agree at all with people who say that you can't tell a lame micro (or regular cache) from a decent one, particularly while traveling. I've been on all sorts of trips, some of them to notorious "lame micro" type spots like Dallas/Fort Worth, Nasheville, Phoenix, LA, etc. And so far, I've been pleased for the most part. I'd have to say maybe about 90% or more of the time.

 

Dunno. Maybe I have some wonderful talent for sifting through the worst of it. Perhaps God is being extra helpful to me in this area. Or it could just be that I'm easy to please.

 

We are able to sort out good from lame caches too, by scanning the cache page. For those who hate LPC etc, using the aerial photos on mapquest help too. I can tell if its a park or a parking lot from the photos.

 

We understand, really.... There's the "gremlin" way of doing it that seems to work for some folks... I want the "Lamborghini" <sp> way of doing it. Yes, I could scan all the logs and perform research and contact previous cache finders and do a background investigation, but I don't want to have to do all that!!!!!!

 

So basically you are saying you are too lazy to invest your own time in making sure that you only hunt what you like.

 

I guess it depends on how much you enjoy researching and how much you enjoy caching. I don't see researching as part of the game and I spend enough time in front of my monitor when I am working. I see researching as a unnecessary evil that cuts into my hunting time.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

Lead by example. Coach and train. Report guideline violations. Best we can do. These usually otherwise fit the current guidelines and so will continue to be published.

 

 

The main reason Micro Spew is getting worse is because there are still cachers that find them and tell the owners, "Thanks for the cache." Do like I do, and put all spew caches on your ignore list. Imagine if nobody bothered to find caches under lampposts, in parking lots.

 

You act as if we don't like find those that are located in parking lots. I do. I enjoy the hunt all over, and If I don't know the area, I don't know that it's going to be under a lamppost. You are allowing yourself to say their should be only one type of geocacher, when infact I believe their are two types, and it's okay.

 

Type 1: The cacher who likes the unique caches that bring them to places, monuments, and intriguing spots.

 

Type 2: The cacher that likes to go to parking spots, look behind a sign, or find a hide a key under a post office box.

 

I never once advocated a ban on lame caches (parking lot, trash dump, back alley, and housing tract caches). The only ban I ever advocated is multiple logs on event caches.

 

Like many of us in this thread, my hope is for a more effective method of weeding out lame caches. I'm finding that a lot of good but older caches are incorrectly labled as 1/1s. When I run a pocket query excluding 1/1s, I miss out on many mis-labled caches. If I run a PQ showing all caches in an area, I have to spend over an hour of my time reviewing each cache on "Nat Geo Topo" (to determine its actual location,) as well as reviewing past logs to see if the cache is of interest to me.

 

Traildad's suggestion of a check off sheet is the greatest idea i've ever seen on this forum. This wouldn't weed out all the "oldies but goodies" that were hidden way before attributes were invented. Hopefully cachers would truthful and call a spade a spade when using the check off sheet.

 

If they were untruthful, this would be self correcting. If someone checked off that it offered a nice view and hike, people would call them out on it if it was a parking lot YNW. Another thing that this would do is to out all the orphan caches that are out there. If the option was made available to go back to your existing cache hides and put this in, it would soon become apparent if a cache is without a maintainer.

 

I don't see the downside to this idea.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

In past threads like this, I have suggested something similar to this idea. On the Waymarking site, there are several Categories that require answers to questions before the submission can go through.

 

Maybe just asking if the cache location has "worth" would make some hiders aware of the fact that their cache should be in a "location" worthy of bringing people to. Requiring a reply to whether the cache is in a historical location, or a scenic location, or "just for the numbers" might help the Spew.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this was implemented.

 

Then the people that enjoy that type of cache can sort them out and find the caches that were placed purely to bolster their numbers. It's a good exercise for anyone placing a cache..."what will the seekers of this cache appreciate about it?" It's a win win.

 

This is by far the best suggestion I have seen on this topic in awhile. Probably deserves it's own thread.

 

There have been threads asking for historical, just for numbers, and parking lot attributes. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. Another problem is that they use them improperly. So if you had to answer some questions when you submitted a cache it would solve the first problem but it wouldn't solve the second problem. I can see a lot of people not admitting that their cache is just for the numbers because it sounds demeaning. I still think the best solution is the awards system they have been talking about for a couple of years. This system would allow everyone to give their favorite caches an award. The site could then allow people to search for caches that had more than x number of awards and download them. This would especially nice for travelers. I wish they would give us an update on the status of this. I think it would raise the morale of a lot of people.

[+traildad]

There have been threads asking for historical, just for numbers, and parking lot attributes. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. Another problem is that they use them improperly. So if you had to answer some questions when you submitted a cache it would solve the first problem but it wouldn't solve the second problem. I can see a lot of people not admitting that their cache is just for the numbers because it sounds demeaning. I still think the best solution is the awards system they have been talking about for a couple of years. This system would allow everyone to give their favorite caches an award. The site could then allow people to search for caches that had more than x number of awards and download them. This would especially nice for travelers. I wish they would give us an update on the status of this. I think it would raise the morale of a lot of people.

First of all I am not suggesting attributes. This would be like choosing a container size and would be required.

If someone said their parking lot or dumpster cache was just for the numbers, you could choose to ignore it if you don't want to do "just for the numbers" type caches. If someone felt demeaned and said their parking lot or dumpster cache was a special location, you could choose to ignore all caches they placed because you felt they were not truthful.

 

No system is 100% foolproof. Some people might give out awards in order to not make some one feel demeaned. Some people might not bother to give out awards at all. The problem I see with this kind of system is the need to call caches good, or by omission, not good. If a "just for the numbers" cacher goes out and gets 150 parking lot caches in a day, he might give out 150 awards because he thought all of them were great.

 

I would rather decide on a cache based on what the hider thinks about the spot. The hider might have a love of Civil War history. A lot of finders might find this to be ho-hum and not give out an award. I might not know about this "great" cache because it was not found by anyone that appreciated the point of the choice in location. I could see some caches getting lots of awards from older cachers and other spots getting lots of awards from young cachers. Without knowing why it was "good" I can't tell if I would think it was "good".

 

Maybe the two systems could be combined. All cache hiders must check the box that best describes why they chose the spot. All caches finders must check the box that best describes what they liked about the cache. One of the choices would be "It was another smiley". This would be a way to say you found nothing you liked about the cache. If the hider checked the box for scenic location and all the finders checked the box "another smiley" one could conclude there was a problem.

 

You could choose to filter by hider description or finder description or where hider and finder description matched.

[+tozainamboku]

If they were untruthful, this would be self correcting. If someone checked off that it offered a nice view and hike, people would call them out on it if it was a parking lot YNW. Another thing that this would do is to out all the orphan caches that are out there. If the option was made available to go back to your existing cache hides and put this in, it would soon become apparent if a cache is without a maintainer.

 

I don't see the downside to this idea.

I remember an LPC in a parking lot at a CVS pharmacy. No "redeeming value" for the "take me to a neat place" crowd at all. But on the cache page the hider let us know that when he was growing up in the area this was the site of Jim Jefferies barn. Jim Jefferies was the world heavyweight boximg champion at the start of the 20th century. After he retired he moved to Burbank, California where he lived on a farm. The barn was used for training and exhibition fights. After Jim Jefferies died, Walter Knott bought the barn and had it moved to Knott's Berry Farm. I guess the owner would be honest in reporting that the cache was placed at an historic location even though there is no marker. Some people, who took the time to read the cache page, would think this is a cool spot for a cache. Others would say it's just another lame urban hide.

 

<snip>

 

I still would like to see every cache hider include on the cache page a reason for choosing the location. They could check a box for, historical location, scenic location, hard find, easy find, just for the numbers, handicapped accessible, quick find, long hike, cache fell out of my pocket, or other, etc. etc. etc. Make the pocket query filter for these and it would go a long way to keep everyone happy.

In past threads like this, I have suggested something similar to this idea. On the Waymarking site, there are several Categories that require answers to questions before the submission can go through.

 

Maybe just asking if the cache location has "worth" would make some hiders aware of the fact that their cache should be in a "location" worthy of bringing people to. Requiring a reply to whether the cache is in a historical location, or a scenic location, or "just for the numbers" might help the Spew.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this was implemented.

I wouldn't like a requirement that you had to answer or provide additional information to get a cache listed. Waymarking has a concept of category variables. This is used to collect additional information about a location that is specific to the Waymarking category. For example in the Pennsylvania Historic Marker category there is a variable called category type where you must select from a list of types like: Revolutionary War site, Civil War site, Industrial site, etc. In some categories, some variables may be madantory as part of submitting a waymark. We already have something like this for geocaches where you select a cache type, an optional container size, a difficulty and a terrain. I suppose a set of values could be defined for reason why the cache was place here. I would imagine that this would be optional or that one options would be 'no reason given'. If not people will just pick a reason that may not have anything to do with why they placed the cache. I've asked people why they have place caches in parking lots or on residential streets and gotten lots of answers - anywhere from "the area needed another cache" to "this is site where Jim Jeferries barn used to be". Suppling a reason for placing a cache may give the people who believe that a lame cache is one that has no reason to be placed other than to increase someone's numbers a good feeling and it may turn out to be a tool that they can use to avoid these caches. But I doubt it would turn out this way. They will still be complaining that some caches don't meet their standards and that they can't filter these out.

[+Team Cotati]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Is there a reason you don't pre-screen the caches in an area before heading out? Wouldn't that help cut down on the walk-aways?

 

That's fer sure. The Team filters out micros. Our 'walk-away' rate these days.... very near zero.

[+traildad]

 

I would imagine that this would be optional or that one options would be 'no reason given'. If not people will just pick a reason that may not have anything to do with why they placed the cache. I've asked people why they have place caches in parking lots or on residential streets and gotten lots of answers - anywhere from "the area needed another cache" to "this is site where Jim Jeferries barn used to be". Suppling a reason for placing a cache may give the people who believe that a lame cache is one that has no reason to be placed other than to increase someone's numbers a good feeling and it may turn out to be a tool that they can use to avoid these caches. But I doubt it would turn out this way. They will still be complaining that some caches don't meet their standards and that they can't filter these out.

The choice they could use would be "other". This choice would have an area where the hider could write "this is where Jim Jefferries barn used to be". With a little thought I think we could come up with a complete list of reasons to pick a place.

 

1. Easy numbers find

2. Historical location

3. Scenic area

4. Easy to get to

5. Hard to get to

6. Close to work

7. Close to home

8. Nice local park

9. Memorial

10. Handicap accessible

11. Personal reason

12. Other

13. No special reason

14. Event cache

15. Special local area

16. Requires special skills or equipment

17. Cache container fell out of my pocket

 

How many would we need? Could we do it in 20 or less? 25 or less?

[+Kit Fox]

I've been thinking about alternatives to "creative pocket queries." to help me avoid spew.

1. Actively encourage premium members to create bookmarks of their favorite caches. (Helps cachers who like the same type of caches.)
   
2. Write nice logs describing why the cache was enjoyable, to help other cachers decide if they would like to find said cache.
   
3. Create a PQ function that looks for caches with bookmarks (although not perfect, it is a start) The majority of caches I consider lame, are not bookmarked as being someone's favorite find.
   
4. Take pictures of the view found near "ground zero."
   
5. (cont) I review photo galleries on caches all the time to see if the area is scenic or worth visiting. The simple act of taking a picture can show others if the cache is in front of a business, near a trash dump, or near a nice statue, waterfall, or scenic overlook.
   

These simple steps help your fellow cacher find more of the type of caches that they like to find.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+TrailGators]

There have been threads asking for historical, just for numbers, and parking lot attributes. The problem with attributes is that a lot of people don't use them. Another problem is that they use them improperly. So if you had to answer some questions when you submitted a cache it would solve the first problem but it wouldn't solve the second problem. I can see a lot of people not admitting that their cache is just for the numbers because it sounds demeaning. I still think the best solution is the awards system they have been talking about for a couple of years. This system would allow everyone to give their favorite caches an award. The site could then allow people to search for caches that had more than x number of awards and download them. This would especially nice for travelers. I wish they would give us an update on the status of this. I think it would raise the morale of a lot of people.

First of all I am not suggesting attributes. This would be like choosing a container size and would be required.

If someone said their parking lot or dumpster cache was just for the numbers, you could choose to ignore it if you don't want to do "just for the numbers" type caches. If someone felt demeaned and said their parking lot or dumpster cache was a special location, you could choose to ignore all caches they placed because you felt they were not truthful.

 

No system is 100% foolproof. Some people might give out awards in order to not make some one feel demeaned. Some people might not bother to give out awards at all. The problem I see with this kind of system is the need to call caches good, or by omission, not good. If a "just for the numbers" cacher goes out and gets 150 parking lot caches in a day, he might give out 150 awards because he thought all of them were great.

 

I would rather decide on a cache based on what the hider thinks about the spot. The hider might have a love of Civil War history. A lot of finders might find this to be ho-hum and not give out an award. I might not know about this "great" cache because it was not found by anyone that appreciated the point of the choice in location. I could see some caches getting lots of awards from older cachers and other spots getting lots of awards from young cachers. Without knowing why it was "good" I can't tell if I would think it was "good".

 

Maybe the two systems could be combined. All cache hiders must check the box that best describes why they chose the spot. All caches finders must check the box that best describes what they liked about the cache. One of the choices would be "It was another smiley". This would be a way to say you found nothing you liked about the cache. If the hider checked the box for scenic location and all the finders checked the box "another smiley" one could conclude there was a problem.

 

You could choose to filter by hider description or finder description or where hider and finder description matched.

1) I didn't say that you suggested having attributes. Re-read what I wrote in bold. I was pointing out how what you suggested would be better than attributes, but it still has one issue that attributes have. I just don't think most people would admit that their cache was hidden "just for numbers." Those are the ones that we are trying to flag so we can filter them out.

 

2) I would love a feature where you could ignore all caches placed by certain people.

 

3) We have been doing a consensus favorites list, which in basically the same thing as an awards system in San Diego for well over a year now, and we have yet to have a LUM show up in that list (see link in my sig). If one did slip through it would be identified fairly quicklyby people that found it and then the "non-lummers" could ignore it. People do know the difference between and very fun caches and LUMs, whether they want to admit it or not in these forums.

Edited September 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

When I was a kid I remember eating at a restuarant called Lums. I wonder if they are still around and if they are if there any LUMS at a Lums?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

In your fervor to eliminate or classify Lame Urban Micros please do not forget or ignore us Lame Urban Cachers!

 

We have several handi-cachers, including myself, in Alabama.

 

I can no longer do hikes, climbing, much bending or spend a lot of time on crutches looking as my broken neck becomes more painful, so Lame Urban Micros are right up my alley nowadays!

 

I think quite often 'easily accessible' and 'lame' are confused, it's easy to see why, but keep in mind there are cachers who can't do what you do - lame to you may be quite difficult for us. We have a new cacher in our area that's wheelchair-bound... a film can velcroed under a park bench may be lame to you, it's hard for him, requiring an extendable mirror and grabbing device. You can walk up, see it's a bench hide, decide it's lame and walk on to the next cache, whereas it will be one of the few he could get.

 

This delimma, defining words like 'lame' and 'accessible' and differentiating between them is the biggest reason folks don't comment on and rate caches on handicaching.com.

 

My take on this thread is that the proposed rating systems would not be any more logical or workable.

 

Look at the 1/1 rating - supposed to mean that it's accessible, that rating is more often than not ignored and abused.

 

Why expect that folks would follow any rating system then, if we can't follow that simple one?

 

Most of the 'lame cache' complaints would be solved this way too, those who don't like key holders under paper boxes could simply ignore 1/1s... whereas those caches would be my primary target!

[+TrailGators]

In your fervor to eliminate or classify Lame Urban Micros please do not forget or ignore us Lame Urban Cachers!

 

We have several handi-cachers, including myself, in Alabama.

 

I can no longer do hikes, climbing, much bending or spend a lot of time on crutches looking as my broken neck becomes more painful, so Lame Urban Micros are right up my alley nowadays!

 

I think quite often 'easily accessible' and 'lame' are confused, it's easy to see why, but keep in mind there are cachers who can't do what you do - lame to you may be quite difficult for us. We have a new cacher in our area that's wheelchair-bound... a film can velcroed under a park bench may be lame to you, it's hard for him, requiring an extendable mirror and grabbing device. You can walk up, see it's a bench hide, decide it's lame and walk on to the next cache, whereas it will be one of the few he could get.

 

This delimma, defining words like 'lame' and 'accessible' and differentiating between them is the biggest reason folks don't comment on and rate caches on handicaching.com.

 

My take on this thread is that the proposed rating systems would not be any more logical or workable.

 

Look at the 1/1 rating - supposed to mean that it's accessible, that rating is more often than not ignored and abused.

 

Why expect that folks would follow any rating system then, if we can't follow that simple one?

 

Most of the 'lame cache' complaints would be solved this way too, those who don't like key holders under paper boxes could simply ignore 1/1s... whereas those caches would be my primary target!

 

 

1) Nobody is talking about getting rid of LUMs.

2) If you ignore all 1/1s, you will ignore some great caches.

3) If you had an award system you would know which 1/1s were the better ones.

[+elmuyloco5]

I don't think a "reason" for the cache necessarily matters, nor will it always ensure a "non-lame" cache. If a person placed a micro under the lamppost in a parking lot where there sister died in a car accident, would it be any better than if they just placed a micro in same spot? If so, how are you not sure that other "previously viewed lame caches" aren't there for those reasons? I'm sure there's lots of people placing caches all over the place that haven't noted a reason, but there might be a good one. If someone chooses to tell me why they placed the cache, that's fine. But I think it has little to do with my overall opinion of whether or not the cache is decent. I think it's more a matter of the "type" of cache, than the "reason" for putting it there. I do, however, feel that using labels, or having to answer certain questions about a cache prior to posting, would be more helpful in filtering out the types of caches that you would like to do.

 

My husband and I are the type that prefer the lovely hike, or a scenic spot. But, that's because we started caching to add something more to our hikes. We have small kids who aren't capable of taking longer than 5 mile hikes right now (so to keep it more interesting for us, we like to cache).

 

But, I can see why others would like the urban type caches. Not everyone is the outdoors type. That's just fine with me, or it would be alot harder to find some solitude (or at least as much as I can get with my immediate family). Some people live in really large cities and don't have a car. They use public transportation to go caching. You can't ride a subway out to the mountains. There has to be something available for EVERYONE that wants to be involved, to do.

 

And we have gone on some urban ones ourselves. We took a two-day trip and some we hiked to, but with all the driving, we needed to do quick roadside type ones as well if we wanted to do more. No, we're not in it for the numbers, but again, with small kids you can't do that many hikes in a short time period. They enjoy the "hunt" for a "treasure".

 

I think there is a place for both types of caches. It is a true statement though to say that there is a fair share of the "lame" caches (by our standards, anyway). To us, lame caches, are those that are dumped like trash on the roadside and not even hidden, stuck to garbage cans *yuck*, or are in desperate need of repair and the owner clearly has not attempted to do so despite several comments about such.

 

I have said before that it would be nice even to see a simple rating system like: Urban, Off the Beaten Path /Trail, Roadside, etc. It would certainly make things easier to filter. I spent hours and hours preparing for our trip just scanning through all of the possible caches.

[+TrailGators]

I spent hours and hours preparing for our trip just scanning through all of the possible caches.

But the lummers keep saying that it's "easy peasy." I agree with you that it is not.

[+uxorious]

I see researching as a unnecessary evil that cuts into my hunting time.

 

And I see research as a NECESSARY evil. This game has many different players, who either like, or need many different hides.

 

With my limited mobility, I need to do research to be sure I can do the caches I'm going for. I sure would not complain about that research cutting into MY hunt time, nor would it ever cross my mind that what I want is so important, that all others are wrong. (that seems to be a theme in this thread.)

 

My favorite caches are ones that will get myself and my dogs out in the woods for as much of a walk as my knees will take. However, I do enjoy magnetic guardrail caches, and other NRV caches. I have never seen a cache on a dumpster, but would walk away from one if I ever came across one.

[+TrailGators]

I see researching as a unnecessary evil that cuts into my hunting time.

With my limited mobility, I need to do research to be sure I can do the caches I'm going for.

Why not just filter for caches with a terrain rating <2?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I see researching as a unnecessary evil that cuts into my hunting time.

With my limited mobility, I need to do research to be sure I can do the caches I'm going for.

Why not just filter for caches with a terrain rating <2?

 

Ratings lie. Ive seen many so called 1 star terrain that requires a 1 mile hike, or a walk off trail through a wash, or a small climb up a knoll. They might be 1 star terrain to a physically fit person, but it doesnt fit the guidelines for a 1 star terrain cache. So we have to read the pages before setting out.

[+uxorious]

Why not just filter for caches with a terrain rating <2?

 

Because there are caches 2> that I can get even with my limited mobility. (Using a mobility scooter, or even my electric bicycle.)

The point is, research, at least for me, is a part of this game. I would rather have to do some research, then to try to limit caches to only what I like.

[+TrailGators]

I see researching as a unnecessary evil that cuts into my hunting time.

With my limited mobility, I need to do research to be sure I can do the caches I'm going for.

Why not just filter for caches with a terrain rating <2?

 

Ratings lie. Ive seen many so called 1 star terrain that requires a 1 mile hike, or a walk off trail through a wash, or a small climb up a knoll. They might be 1 star terrain to a physically fit person, but it doesnt fit the guidelines for a 1 star terrain cache. So we have to read the pages before setting out.

That's too bad. 1 star terrains are supposed to be wheelchair accessible.

[+traildad]

I don't think a "reason" for the cache necessarily matters, nor will it always ensure a "non-lame" cache.

I don't think you will ever find a way to always ensure anything.

 

If a person placed a micro under the lamppost in a parking lot where there sister died in a car accident, would it be any better than if they just placed a micro in same spot?

For some people it would be. If the simple fact that it meant something to the hider was not enough, I would not visit any memorial caches unless I researched the location. A memorial cache location would be chosen because of what happened there. It might be a beautiful place it might be on any old street corner. You would have the info ahead of time to know why they chose that spot and that it might be a waste of time for you. At least there would be a way to filter it into a separate pile. Ignore it all together or look more closely if you want, when you want.

 

In my opinion this whole discussion should be about how to more easily filter out caches we don't want to look for. It should not be about how to convince everyone to only hide caches we want to look for.

[+elmuyloco5]

I see researching as a unnecessary evil that cuts into my hunting time.

With my limited mobility, I need to do research to be sure I can do the caches I'm going for.

Why not just filter for caches with a terrain rating <2?

 

Ratings lie. Ive seen many so called 1 star terrain that requires a 1 mile hike, or a walk off trail through a wash, or a small climb up a knoll. They might be 1 star terrain to a physically fit person, but it doesnt fit the guidelines for a 1 star terrain cache. So we have to read the pages before setting out.

 

I second that. I've went on several that were listed as 2 or less and required a hike or at least a nice pleasurable walk somewhere. It would be a shame to have lost some of those if I filtered in hopes of getting only hiking trails. They were easy trails, but very nice areas to visit, and not what I would consider the same as a roadside stop.

 

I think the only way to fix the problem (as much as it can be fixed anyway....as nothing is perfect) is to add labels that the cache owner could use to describe the cache. If it's a hike, it should state how long of a hike.

 

We just went on one that a local hiking club placed. From the cache description and the google maps, it looked like a roadside cache. When we got there, the coordinates were 1.5 miles away. Normally, I wouldn't mind it (love to hike), but didn't have the time as we were on a trip and needed to make a certain city by nightfall to even find a hotel. I would think that a hiking club would have the common sense to put in that a hike was required, and maybe the length. Sure, one could say that it was listed by a hiking club so we should have known. But, when the map says it's directly on the road, what else can you think if they don't explain things better? Then you're left to try to guess why people do the things they do.....and let's face it....that can get messy.