Least Hides/Greatest Complaints

[+Turtletyme]

What I found as offensive was the crap comment about couch potato(e)s bringing down the mental aspect of the game.

If you would read what was typed, as opposed to what you wanted to be typed, you'd probably save yourself a lot of angst. Harboring angst is not healthy. It causes stress, which can lead to long term elevated blood pressure and blood toxin accumulation. On the off chance that you maybe missed it the first time around, (rather than simply being deliberately obtuse), I'll repeat myself: Being a couch potato is not a measure of intellect. As a Life Member of Couch Potato's Anonymous, I can vouch for the fact that being lazy does not make a person stupid. Your attempts to connect the two traits are disparaging to sedentary people everywhere.

 

If you insist on taking this course, ignoring the facts which have been placed before you, could you please continue your argument via PM, so we don't drive this thread any farther off course?

 

Thanx!

see, that's just it. i read what you wrote the first time. And trust me, I am perfectly aware that lazy does not equate to stupid. That's why I was annoyed. Now, I'm just done.

 

The purpose of the Travel Channel is to share great places to visit, and to explore. Law and Order is a fake show with fake drama. The travel channel has always appealed to me because I like to go outdoors, and hike, not sit on a "Lazy boy" with a bag of Cheetos watching fake drama all day.

 

yet both are watched while sitting on the couch in front of the TV. It doesn't matter what feelings the show evokes, both are spent sitting on the couch watching the TV.

Edited March 20, 2009 by TurtleFinder

[Mr.Yuck]

 

how did Law & Order introduce geocaching on their show? and why is a show like L&O a "couch potato" show, but the Travel Channel shows aren't?

 

Even Jeremy had a great post on the original Law and Order thread.

 

Fortunately there is still a barrier to entry right now (price of GPS). I'm more concerned about when cell phones have GPS units in them. That's when you'll see the "AOL affect"

 

No offense to AOL users.

 

 

That's alright Kit, no one uses AOL anymore. Besides, I prefer the Web-TV on usenet analogy. When hundreds of thousands of Web-TV users were suddenly unleashed on Usenet in the late 90's it was really ugly (and also AOL users a few years earlier). Usenet is where Geocaching was invented, as if anyone knows or cares. Funny though, I don't remember anyone saying "the Web-Tv users are just using the internet their way; who are you to say it's lame?"

 

OK, carry on.

[+tozainamboku]

What I found as offensive was the crap comment about couch potato(e)s bringing down the mental aspect of the game.

 

In the beginning, most geocaches were hidden outdoors, requiring hikes to find them. Park and grabs in Walmart parking lots, didn't start until much later in the game. As geocaching became more popular, TV shows started using Geocaching content on episodes. The treasure hunting aspect of the game that helped increase the number of geocachers was the Travel Channel episode about finding treasure. Then came the introduction of geocaching in Couch potato shows like Law & Order. Another detraction that ruined (my opinion) the game was attributing status to your find number. Geocaching evolved (backward) towards easy caches in mundane locations, in an effort to pad smiley counts. A geocache on the top of a peak gets few visits, but number cachers figured they would help out, so they placed geocaches every .1 mile, all the way to the top of the peak.

While it is true that originally geocaching had a high percentage of participants who were active outdoors types who would hike to the top of a mountain or go on a 30 mile cross-country bike ride to find one cache, from the start a fairly large percentage of caches were park n grabs requiring a walk of no more than a few feet from parking. As people found ways to hide smaller and smaller containers, they were able to place micros in urban areas where the would not be found by muggles and these caches became more popular. This no doubt attracted people to the hobby who were less physically active (perhaps more PC than calling them coach potatoes) who simply liked the idea of being able to find hidden caches nearby their homes where they could walk on flat ground only a few feet from parking. This included families with small children, teenagers with no cars, some older people who couldn't do the more difficult hikes, and even people who were just to busy with other things but who could find one or two caches on their lunch hour. None of this prevented those who liked to find more physically or mentally challenging caches from doing so, and as the sport grew there were a lot more of these caches as well. Its fairly easy to use the terrain and difficulty ratings to find challenging caches (or to limit your hunts to quick easy caches). Sure some caches are misrated, but these are a relatively small number. The biggest complaints are those people who want to find easy cache but prefer them to be at nice parks or a place of historic or cultural interest instead on in Wal*Mart parking lots or in the bushes at a McDonalds. I'll admit that there isn't an easy way to filter out these caches. The best approach I've found is to be willing to drive on past if you see this is what is in store as you approach the cache.

 

As far as people hiding caches for the numbers. This is a simplistic excuse. There are a number of prolific hiders that actually put some thought into creating a series of caches. Spending an afternoon or a day doing one of these series - especially with a group of friends - can be a lot of fun. I know I complained that people who climb Ladyface now won't have the same experience that I had when I first found God's Eye View. I still enjoy the adventure of finding a cache on a trail that is unknown to me and if there is only the one cache hidden there I might even get a chance at a first to find. But there is nothing that can be done to stop someone else from placing another cache on the trail and then another. I've been up the mountain again and found all the a caches leading up to the top (I ran out of time so I didn't get the caches "beyond" the top). These were not easy parking lot hides. One has to make the same hike and frankly many cachers will appreciate getting to break up that climb with other caches to find. If you are more interested in seeing how fast you can get to the top, you are free to skip all the caches. Nobody is forced to find a cache when hiking or bike riding and I see many times where hikers or bike riders will visit a trail several times only getting a few caches at a time.

[+Kit Fox]

While it is true that originally geocaching had a high percentage of participants who were active outdoors types who would hike to the top of a mountain or go on a 30 mile cross-country bike ride to find one cache, from the start a fairly large percentage of caches were park n grabs requiring a walk of no more than a few feet from parking. As people found ways to hide smaller and smaller containers, they were able to place micros in urban areas where the would not be found by muggles and these caches became more popular. This no doubt attracted people to the hobby who were less physically active (perhaps more PC than calling them coach potatoes) who simply liked the idea of being able to find hidden caches nearby their homes where they could walk on flat ground only a few feet from parking. This included families with small children, teenagers with no cars, some older people who couldn't do the more difficult hikes, and even people who were just to busy with other things but who could find one or two caches on their lunch hour. None of this prevented those who liked to find more physically or mentally challenging caches from doing so, and as the sport grew there were a lot more of these caches as well. Its fairly easy to use the terrain and difficulty ratings to find challenging caches (or to limit your hunts to quick easy caches). Sure some caches are misrated, but these are a relatively small number. The biggest complaints are those people who want to find easy cache but prefer them to be at nice parks or a place of historic or cultural interest instead on in Wal*Mart parking lots or in the bushes at a McDonalds. I'll admit that there isn't an easy way to filter out these caches. The best approach I've found is to be willing to drive on past if you see this is what is in store as you approach the cache.

 

As far as people hiding caches for the numbers. This is a simplistic excuse. There are a number of prolific hiders that actually put some thought into creating a series of caches. Spending an afternoon or a day doing one of these series - especially with a group of friends - can be a lot of fun. I know I complained that people who climb Ladyface now won't have the same experience that I had when I first found God's Eye View. I still enjoy the adventure of finding a cache on a trail that is unknown to me and if there is only the one cache hidden there I might even get a chance at a first to find. But there is nothing that can be done to stop someone else from placing another cache on the trail and then another. I've been up the mountain again and found all the a caches leading up to the top (I ran out of time so I didn't get the caches "beyond" the top). These were not easy parking lot hides. One has to make the same hike and frankly many cachers will appreciate getting to break up that climb with other caches to find. If you are more interested in seeing how fast you can get to the top, you are free to skip all the caches. Nobody is forced to find a cache when hiking or bike riding and I see many times where hikers or bike riders will visit a trail several times only getting a few caches at a time.

 

I've become adept at utilizing the ignore function, as well as the creative use of PQs to avoid those geocaches that i've disliked.

 

When I made a recent hike to Simi Peak, my partner and I stopped for every single cache along the way. The downside of stopping to find all the caches is our trip took three times as long as it would have, had we simply went straight to the top. I'll admit that several were mundane, but had I not added any of the caches "along the way" I would have missed several caches. I was so impressed with a few of the caches I found that I actually favorited three caches.

[+C_B_W]

 

I think she took your quote personal, because all of her hides average 1 star terrain?

 

I refer to them as fast food cachers. Everything has to be "quick" their food, their cache finds, and their pathetic excuses for "found it" logs.

 

TurtleFinder,

 

You haven't been caching long enough to see the devolvement of geocaching by the type he has just described. We have seen the quality of caches degrade over the years.

Are you serious??? Yet another individual convinced of their own superiority because of the length of time they are a member of a forum/club. " Well, I've been a member longer so you don't know what you're talking about." PLease.

As for "devolvement" of cache types, let me ask this; Have you looked at Ebay lately? You mean to tell me that all your hides are unique? When this game started, they already had the little fake poo, or the birhouses, the electrical boxes, the magnetic nano, the magnetic numbers with logs attached to the backsides? All these were there right off the bat when GS started their site? Come on, new ideas are being put to use everyday. But as with everything in life, if all caches were perfect, how would we know the difference? I enjoy a challenge, and a good hunt, but the easier "vanilla" ones are fun too. Sorry that you can't just enjoy the game for what it is. To me, it's not always the destination, the journey is part of the experience.

 

You "old timers" need to get off your high horses and stop crying about everything that doesn't particularly suit your tastes. If you don't like the smalls, filter them out, and read the logs before heading out. problem solved.

All the smarmy-down-your-noses commentary and double talk serves no purpose whatever. Does it just make you feel better to talk down about other people?

 

This is why I can't stand forums. Instead of lifting one another up, all the threads seem to eventually "devolve" into a "i'm better than you, and newbs suck" tear down session.

Get over yourselfs, really...

 

I guess what saddens me the most about this is that we have met so many wonderful people inthis game. Good, upstanding people of moral character and a fun nature. But as with anything, there are dissidents too. What I can't figure is this; It's a game. When you reach the point where all you look at is negativity, aren't you missing the point?

[Clan Riffster]

You "old timers" need to get off your high horses and stop crying about everything that doesn't particularly suit your tastes.

Could you provide a link where anyone is crying about anything? No?

 

If you don't like the smalls, filter them out, and read the logs before heading out. problem solved.

Has anyone mentioned not liking smalls? No?

 

All the smarmy-down-your-noses commentary and double talk serves no purpose whatever.

Actually, our "smarmy" comments do serve a grand purpose. They allow us to express ourselves, and voice our opinions. Kinda like yours.

 

This is why I can't stand forums.

And yet, here you are. Ironic, eh? Why not filter out the forums you don't like? I'm guessing from your comment that this would be all of them.

Problem solved.

 

"i'm better than you, and newbs suck"

Has anyone even hinted at such foolishness? If your only debate tactic is to exaggerate what was said so far that it's not even recognizable, it's no wonder your past forum experiences have been less than stellar. It's been my experience that threads start to devolve when those folks who are so dependant upon drama that they can't stick to simple reality pop in for drive by postings. Not unlike the one quoted here, as well as another one several posts ago.

 

To clarify, over the decades, I've participated in a legion of outdoor activities. The vast majority of these were populated with folks who thought newbies were a curse to be endured until they learned "how things work". My delight with geocaching is that, that attitude is almost entirely non-existent in this game. The average player recognizes that, without new blood, the game we all love would stagnate. As such, there's not a hobby I know of that embraces newbies as much as this one. To claim that there is an anti-newbie mindset prevalent within this game is insulting and woefully inaccurate.

Have a blessed day!

Edited March 20, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[Mr.Yuck]

 

You "old timers" need to get off your high horses and stop crying about everything that doesn't particularly suit your tastes. If you don't like the smalls, filter them out, and read the logs before heading out. problem solved.

All the smarmy-down-your-noses commentary and double talk serves no purpose whatever. Does it just make you feel better to talk down about other people?

 

 

Dude! If internet forums (and not just this one) raise your blood pressure so high that you feel the need to "tell off the regulars" with drive-by postings, you should really avoid internet forums. There's plenty of other stuff out there on the internets.

 

By the way, I've been on the internet longer than you, and this is the 1,324th drive-by posting to tell off the regulars that I've seen.

[sdarken]

... and back on topic for a second.....

 

To the OP, I think there's probably some truth to the idea that a person with a number of hides is likely to be a little less critical of someone else's cache maintenance. I think you have to have experienced a few unnecessary "needs maintenance" logs or complaints to understand what a pain they are.

 

That said, if it that kind of issue becomes a big nuisance to you, it probably suggests that you have too many caches (or caches that are spread out too far) to maintain properly. We all have our own thresholds as to what is possible/comfortable.

 

I dont think there is much correlation between the number of caches a person owns and the amount of maintenance they will do on someone else's cache. It seems like it has much more to do with the kind of person someone is. Some people are much better about that kind of thing than others. It may also depend on the types of caches involved. I dont usually think about doing much maitenance on a drive-up cache whereas I'll usually help out with cache maintenance for a cache that's in a remote location.

 

I see that the OP is from Thailand. By coincidence I visited there last year and took a replacement cache with me specifically to replace a cache that I could tell, by the log photos, was missing. I did it for slightly selfish reasons as I wanted to ensure that I could post at least one "find" while I was there and there were only 2 caches on the island I was visiting.

[+tozainamboku]

I enjoy a challenge, and a good hunt, but the easier "vanilla" ones are fun too.

This is about the only thing in your rant that made any sense. It would have help had you use the correct emoticon with this.

 

Some of us "old timers" have seen that there will alway be threads complaining that there are too many caches of some type that somebody doesn't like. Often that person will remember (rightly or not) a time when they found much fewer cache that they didn't enjoy than they do now. They will comment that the game has changed and in their opinion for the worse. In fact, the history of geocaching does seem to indicate that it is growing to include a more diverse demographic. While things started out with mostly people who were already into hiking long distances (or mountain biking or 4 wheeling), there is undoubtedly a shift to a more urban/suburban demographic who prefer finding caches either closer to home or that are easy to drive to. A more diverse demographic mean that there are more different kinds of caches. What most people are looking for a ways to filter caches to find the ones they are more likely to enjoy. Many newbies tend to enjoy finding all kinds of caches because they are discovering what is out there. Many "old timers" have a good idea of what they enjoy and what they don't, though some still remember being newbies and keep worrying that if they skip too many caches they'll miss some new type that might really like. To me it sounds like someone saying "I'm tired of vanilla ice cream. There's too much vanilla out there. But I can't filter out all the vanilla ice cream because I might miss a really good vanilla made with real vanilla and cream instead of that artificial stuff." There are so many other flavors out there, eat them. If somebody finds some really special vanilla, they'll probably let you know and you can go try that one then.

[+briansnat]

"I'm sure when they're new to the forums they probably expect the Mods to be nice and helpful and not snarky and rude. I'm sure it doesn't take long for that wacky notion to be gone either."

 

Have to agree, we are fortunate to have very patient and helpful reviewers, and to to see this from a moderator?????

 

Better he gets a sock puppet if he finds it necessary to be a snide. Currently reflects poorly on GC

 

I don't see how my comment was rude. Snarky perhaps, but it was not directed at any individual in this thread; rather at those people who don't maintain their caches. If one of them read my post and was offended, that was my intent.

[+Kit Fox]

Are you serious??? Yet another individual convinced of their own superiority because of the length of time they are a member of a forum/club. " Well, I've been a member longer so you don't know what you're talking about." PLease.

 

Too bad you couldn't infer what I actually wrote. My point was people like you (one year of geocaching or less) haven't been witnesses to the changes geocaching has gone through. "Pile of crap caches" have exploded ten-fold, and in some areas 100 fold. When you started, the pile was already there. When I started, there were only a few pieces of poo laying around. Got it?

 

As for "devolvement" of cache types, let me ask this; Have you looked at Ebay lately? You mean to tell me that all your hides are unique?

I pride myself on my camo jobs. Feel free to look at the cool cache containers thread, I have posted many containers there over the years.

 

When this game started, they already had the little fake poo, or the birhouses, the electrical boxes, the magnetic nano, the magnetic numbers with logs attached to the backsides? All these were there right off the bat when GS started their site?

My first cache find was a hand crafted piece of dog crap.

 

Come on, new ideas are being put to use everyday. But as with everything in life, if all caches were perfect, how would we know the difference? I enjoy a challenge, and a good hunt, but the easier "vanilla" ones are fun too. Sorry that you can't just enjoy the game for what it is. To me, it's not always the destination, the journey is part of the experience.

 

So I guess you enjoy all the journeys to Wal-mart, homeless outhouses, pickle-parks, mailboxes near apartment complexes, etc? I don't, those caches go on my ignore list, which didn't exist when I started.

 

You "old timers" need to get off your high horses and stop crying about everything that doesn't particularly suit your tastes.

Who was crying, you?

 

If you don't like the smalls, filter them out, and read the logs before heading out. problem solved.

Where have you been? Recipe for fun Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike.

 

All the smarmy-down-your-noses commentary and double talk serves no purpose whatever. Does it just make you feel better to talk down about other people?

Provide some examples of double talk. I prefer snarky over smarmy.

 

This is why I can't stand forums. Instead of lifting one another up, all the threads seem to eventually "devolve" into a "i'm better than you, and newbs suck" tear down session.

Get over yourselfs, really...

 

Get over yourself. None of my comments were directed at newbies. Not once did I berate newbies in my posts. I never said I was better than anyone else in this thread. My comments were directed towards lame caches hidden in lame spots, by unimaginative cachers interested in the great smiley padding game.

 

I guess what saddens me the most about this is that we have met so many wonderful people inthis game. Good, upstanding people of moral character and a fun nature. But as with anything, there are dissidents too. What I can't figure is this; It's a game. When you reach the point where all you look at is negativity, aren't you missing the point?

 

Your right, if you aren't having fund geocaching, than you only have yourself to blame. I avoid the caches I can't stand, but I still reserve the right to discuss why I think they suck. Just as I respect your right to form and post your own opinion, we have the right to disagree.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+undertree]

Here is a log I received on a new cache today.

 

"This is a good hide, but beware to all the rocks are not stable. I feel and hurt myself. Owner may want to replace in another area."

 

The terrain is rated as a "2". The cache is only 5-8 feet off of the flat ground. I also state clearly that the cache is on a Steep Rocky Bank. I have had the person complain that my difficulty is set too high on another cache, then they complain about loose rocks on another cache. Holy crap. If you get to an area and you are unable to negotiate the terrain then don't hunt the cache. I have a few DNF's on caches I could see but was unprepared to reach.

 

Why would I want to replace it in another area? Its in a good spot that will hopefully discourage muggles.

 

Caution Rant follows:

 

Caches that take time to place are often criticized by folks with lack of ambition. Your cache was too hard, your cache was too easy. I have easy caches that have very great containers.

 

Some people will never have any creativity or ambition to make a nice cache. Most of my caches have several hours of thought put into their placing, if not several days. The one with the least amount of preparation was archived about 7-8 months after placing it.

[Clan Riffster]

Caches that take time to place are often criticized by folks with lack of ambition.

On that same note, I have a cache that's a fairly long hike into a swamp. The first person to locate it complained, saying words to the effect of, "A cache this hard should've had a FTF prize!". While I normally do leave FTF prizes, (antique foreign silver coins), this hide was of the last minute variety, and I didn't have any coinage with me.

[+undertree]

Caches that take time to place are often criticized by folks with lack of ambition.

On that same note, I have a cache that's a fairly long hike into a swamp. The first person to locate it complained, saying words to the effect of, "A cache this hard should've had a FTF prize!". While I normally do leave FTF prizes, (antique foreign silver coins), this hide was of the last minute variety, and I didn't have any coinage with me.

 

People EXPECT stuff. ***Edit for rude political comment. ***

 

I did give out FTF prizes on my first two hides. No my feelings are that if I think it needs a FTF prize then I give one. If I don't have the resources to give it then there is nothing.

Edited March 21, 2009 by undertree

[Ozmomndad]

Speaking as a newbie (26 finds--0 hides), I would never complain about a cache, at least not yet. I just assume that the hider knows a whole lot more than me, therefore the error is mine, not his, on a DNF. I have searched for some caches on 3 seperate occasions, finally to find them. When I DNF, I go home and think about the spot, revisit the logs, and think some more.

I am still not quite ready for my first hide, but I am looking at spots in my area. I want to make it a good one, with something good for FTF.

I love caching and I want everyone else to love it also.

[+briansnat]

Here is a log I received on a new cache today.

 

"This is a good hide, but beware to all the rocks are not stable. I feel and hurt myself. Owner may want to replace in another area."

 

The terrain is rated as a "2". The cache is only 5-8 feet off of the flat ground. I also state clearly that the cache is on a Steep Rocky Bank. I have had the person complain that my difficulty is set too high on another cache, then they complain about loose rocks on another cache. Holy crap. If you get to an area and you are unable to negotiate the terrain then don't hunt the cache. I have a few DNF's on caches I could see but was unprepared to reach.

 

Why would I want to replace it in another area? Its in a good spot that will hopefully discourage muggles.

 

Caution Rant follows:

 

Caches that take time to place are often criticized by folks with lack of ambition. Your cache was too hard, your cache was too easy. I have easy caches that have very great containers.

 

Some people will never have any creativity or ambition to make a nice cache. Most of my caches have several hours of thought put into their placing, if not several days. The one with the least amount of preparation was archived about 7-8 months after placing it.

 

I received this log on my first cache:

 

...I went into the part of this site which rates terrain & challenge difficulty and based on my answers it said this is a 4 difficulty. By the defintions of 3 star difficulty though, a 3 would be correct. All I know is this was way over my head. Perhaps if i was by myself I might've persevered, but I had my 3 yr old son with me (I figured I could carry him past rough spots. the entire journey was a roug spot!) Others in my group aren't physically fit so this was an even bigger challenge for them & so we turned around after hitting the dadgum.

 

I think another reason this disapointed me was that we started out with the GPS indicating it was 4/10 mile as the crow flies, but it must be 2-3x that. Everyone we asked said the dadgum was right over the next hill, only a few hundred yards, etc, and it was much further.

 

I'm sorry we didn't get the monkey, but glad I gave up, it wouldn't have been worth it to tax the group so bad. Maybe next time (by myself that is)

 

This is actually a fairly easy cache and the author turned around before the most difficult part, which is nothing more than a hill. Because it was one of the first logs on my first cache it caused me a great deal of grief. It seems however that most finders enjoyed the cache so I learned not to sweat the negative logs.

[+Knight2000]

no, i didn't take it personally and it had nothing to do with the 1 star terrains. My big whopping 8 hides (not off all them are 1, BTW) have all been hidden with a 2 year old child in tow. Don't plan on me hiding much beyond that when her legs are as short as they are. 1/2 of my hides were also hidden to enable a friend on crutches to get out and start making some more finds. The other 1/2 are nanos. Don't expect me to take them out into the woods and make somebody seek them.

Don't be afraid to let you child walk. They can do more than many imagine. I remember when my son was 1. He had been walking a few months and we made him walk everywhere. We didnt carry him. We could walk a mile and he would be fine. Short legs are ok. They'll never know, plus they'll sleep a lot better! They arent the fastest though!

[+Knight2000]

Here is a log I received on a new cache today.

 

"This is a good hide, but beware to all the rocks are not stable. I feel and hurt myself. Owner may want to replace in another area."

 

The terrain is rated as a "2". The cache is only 5-8 feet off of the flat ground. I also state clearly that the cache is on a Steep Rocky Bank. I have had the person complain that my difficulty is set too high on another cache, then they complain about loose rocks on another cache. Holy crap. If you get to an area and you are unable to negotiate the terrain then don't hunt the cache. I have a few DNF's on caches I could see but was unprepared to reach.

 

Why would I want to replace it in another area? Its in a good spot that will hopefully discourage muggles.

 

Caution Rant follows:

 

Caches that take time to place are often criticized by folks with lack of ambition. Your cache was too hard, your cache was too easy. I have easy caches that have very great containers.

 

Some people will never have any creativity or ambition to make a nice cache. Most of my caches have several hours of thought put into their placing, if not several days. The one with the least amount of preparation was archived about 7-8 months after placing it.

I was curious if they were a new cacher so i looked. I found this log on a this virtual. [To me] this says a lot about this cacher. They play the game differently than what I imagine geocaching was when it began.

 

(Check it out and see what you think.)

[+Knight2000]

Perhaps it's because novices come into this sport with unrealistic expectations. For instance, they believe that cache owners should take care of their caches.

 

Once they've found their 5th full logbook, in their 20th leaky film canister that wacky notion is gone.

Exactly what the heck is snarky or rude about this? It is tounge-in-cheek.

[Mr.Yuck]

Here is a log I received on a new cache today.

 

"This is a good hide, but beware to all the rocks are not stable. I feel and hurt myself. Owner may want to replace in another area."

 

The terrain is rated as a "2". The cache is only 5-8 feet off of the flat ground. I also state clearly that the cache is on a Steep Rocky Bank. I have had the person complain that my difficulty is set too high on another cache, then they complain about loose rocks on another cache. Holy crap. If you get to an area and you are unable to negotiate the terrain then don't hunt the cache. I have a few DNF's on caches I could see but was unprepared to reach.

 

Why would I want to replace it in another area? Its in a good spot that will hopefully discourage muggles.

 

Caution Rant follows:

 

Caches that take time to place are often criticized by folks with lack of ambition. Your cache was too hard, your cache was too easy. I have easy caches that have very great containers.

 

Some people will never have any creativity or ambition to make a nice cache. Most of my caches have several hours of thought put into their placing, if not several days. The one with the least amount of preparation was archived about 7-8 months after placing it.

I was curious if they were a new cacher so i looked. I found this log on a this virtual. [To me] this says a lot about this cacher. They play the game differently than what I imagine geocaching was when it began.

 

(Check it out and see what you think.)

 

I'm more offended by the goofy grin than the drive-by logging of the virtual.

[+Knight2000]

I'm more offended by the goofy grin than the drive-by logging of the virtual.

I'm not offended. It's just how they play the game. If it makes them happy- thats cool. But if i had a hide in rocks and they complained, i wouldnt give their opinion too much credit.

[+Turtletyme]

no, i didn't take it personally and it had nothing to do with the 1 star terrains. My big whopping 8 hides (not off all them are 1, BTW) have all been hidden with a 2 year old child in tow. Don't plan on me hiding much beyond that when her legs are as short as they are. 1/2 of my hides were also hidden to enable a friend on crutches to get out and start making some more finds. The other 1/2 are nanos. Don't expect me to take them out into the woods and make somebody seek them.

Don't be afraid to let you child walk. They can do more than many imagine. I remember when my son was 1. He had been walking a few months and we made him walk everywhere. We didnt carry him. We could walk a mile and he would be fine. Short legs are ok. They'll never know, plus they'll sleep a lot better! They arent the fastest though!

 

Trust me, my child walks! I know exactly what she can do, which is a lot. However, when people want to comment on my hides because they are only 1 and 2 terrain, they should know there is a reason. I can't go do a day hike up a mountain with a 2 year old and place a higher terrain cache when I need to be back down and home to get the 6 year old after school. It takes a small child time to cover that distance, and it's not time I have. Heck, the drive itself would take too long!

[+Knight2000]

However, when people want to comment on my hides because they are only 1 and 2 terrain, they should know there is a reason.

Was someone questioning your hides? (I guess I wasn't paying attention.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with 1 and 2 terrain hides! I wish i had more that I could do like that. They are excellent for handi-cachers.

 

A 1 star terrain doesn't necessarily mean a 1 star difficulty.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Knight2000

[+Turtletyme]

However, when people want to comment on my hides because they are only 1 and 2 terrain, they should know there is a reason.

Was someone questioning your hides? (I guess I wasn't paying attention.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with 1 and 2 terrain hides! I wish i had more that I could do like that. They are excellent for handi-cachers.

 

A 1 star terrain doesn't necessarily mean a 1 star difficulty.

 

somebody commented on the fact that I only have 1 star terrains.

[+Unkle Fester]

At first i thought the problem with newbies is they place caches too quickly and they are of poor quality.

 

Then i think of seasoned cachers who this applies to. It seems that if you use duct tape on a vitamin bottle then it is less money per cache which equals more caches and (i guess?) more importantly more smileys.

 

We dont cache for smileys so i hate your pill bottle with camo duct tape (that doesnt even camo at all) stuck in that bush at McDonalds.

 

ugh...

Maybe the duct tape pill bottle won't work at McDonalds, but seems to blend in at Wal-Mart when tossed in the pile of debris near the overnight truck parking... that is and ick factor all it's own.

[+undertree]

 

 

I was curious if they were a new cacher so i looked. I found this log on a this virtual. [To me] this says a lot about this cacher. They play the game differently than what I imagine geocaching was when it began.

 

(Check it out and see what you think.)

 

The only comment I thought was uncalled for was the "Owner should palace it someplace else". It could just be me but I thought it was a pretty good hide in the place that it is. I ran all of the scenarios through my head and I concluded that the location was the best there was on this new walking area. It is just enough off the main area and it was hidden well. Just cause the hide is in a suburban area doesn't mean its going to be an easy 1/1. Many times they can be super difficult to locate and the terrain rating can be more than one hidden in the woods.