Jump to content

Is it just me, or...


Stroover
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Is it just me, or are caches getting lamer and lamer by the day? When I first got into this sport, what I found the most alluring was that each cache was placed where there was something very interesting about the spot, whether it was the view, some incredible geological formation, or some kind of neat history, etc. As a matter of fact, it's thanks to geocaching that I was able to find many of my now favorite fishing holes having moved to a new part of the country in which I was unfamiliar with. Nowadays, I find myself hiking through the woods just to find a film canister hidden under an average everyday tree with nothing interesting to see there whatsoever. I am under the impression that people are just putting out caches for their numbers, period. Too bad there wasn't a way to regulate this sort of thing, otherwise this sport may end up losing it's worth. Any thoughts?

Link to comment

Judging from the number of times this subject comes up every month, it's not just you.

 

Shortly someone will post to this thread saying something along the lines of "If you don't like the cache, don't hunt it". Then someone will reply with something like "How do I know I won't like it until I've wasted my time looking for it?".

 

Then a debate will rage for 2-5 pages with neither side giving an inch.

Link to comment

Hmmm. I see what you mean. I guess I could pay more attention to the cache details, and if they don't mention anything about the site itself, then that's probably be a red flag that it's a lame one with absolutely nothing interesting there whatsoever, and I would not bother looking for it.

 

Thanks for the head's up.

Link to comment

I've found that using the Satellite view on the maps page is a good way to determine if the cache is in a area the is likely to be interesting. That said, it's entirely possible that a very cool hide is out there in what would otherwise be a very "average" area. Often, a clever disguise completely makes up for the lack of interesting scenery. YMMV

Link to comment

Stroover,

I'm new. That means I'm still in the honeymoon phase, and everything is exciting. :)

I haven't found any caches yet, but I'm fantasizing and vicariously enjoying the sport through others' stories.

I'm learning a lot about geocaching from reading this forum as well as the content of www.geocaching.com

Link to comment

Judging from the number of times this subject comes up every month, it's not just you.

 

Shortly someone will post to this thread saying something along the lines of "If you don't like the cache, don't hunt it". Then someone will reply with something like "How do I know I won't like it until I've wasted my time looking for it?".

 

 

You forgot "stop telling people what to think", and "stop trying to ban certain types of caches".

 

Wait a minute, post #12 covered the first one. B)

 

Anyways, Stroover, take comfort in the fact that there are many people (like myself) who agree with you 100%. Keep in mind though there are many more people who will think you're a whacked-out extremist who is telling people how to cache. :)

Link to comment

Stroover,

I'm new. That means I'm still in the honeymoon phase, and everything is exciting. :)

I haven't found any caches yet, but I'm fantasizing and vicariously enjoying the sport through others' stories.

I'm learning a lot about geocaching from reading this forum as well as the content of www.geocaching.com

There are number of reason why the OP may have the impression that there are more lame caches.

  1. burn out When starting out everything seem more exciting. The first time you find a cache hiding in a lamppost skirt, you are thinking, "I didn't know you could lift those up". After awhile you may feel you have seen too many of certain kinds of hide and it is just not as fun any more
  2. more caches There are lot more caches than when the OP began. Back then if a few were in less interesting places it didn't matter. They were just another cache to find and besides there would still be plenty of time to find the one with the great view or at an interesting historic location. Now there are so many cache that the "lame" ones seem to be getting in the way of find the good ones. There are more good caches too, but unless you spend some time trying to select which caches to hunt before you go out, you may fell that too much of your time is wasted looking for "lame" caches.
  3. changing demographics Perhaps in fact the percentage of "lame" cache is going up. Early adopters of geocaching tended to be hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts who already owned a GPS. They tended to hide geocaches to share an interesting spot on the trail with others. Even when they placed an urban cache, it was more likely to be one that shared an interesting location rather than just because there was anohter place where a cache could be hidden. As geocaching grew in popularity, more people started geocaching because they enjoyed finding caches. It didn't matter where the cache was hidden - a nice place was a bonus but not a necessity. Some of the old timers preferred to call these people numbers obsessed. In reality it is just another viewpoint about what is fun about geocaching. There has yet been another shift as cell phones have become GPS enabled and geocaching apps have been written for these. Mostly younger more urban types have discovered geocaching. For many their natural caching area are just within their neighborhoods or around where they work or go to school. Unlike the outdoor types who would go on long hikes and the second generation cachers who might travel to nearby towns where there were lots of unfound caches, it may be the latest generation needs to hide caches nearer to home. As there are fewer "interesting" places left, they may be hiding more caches that others find "lame" but this may only be natural as a way to keep having caches that can be found.

Link to comment
I'm learning a lot about geocaching from reading this forum as well as the content of www.geocaching.com

 

OMG, this part really scares me.. so, you're learning the following:

 

- take a thread off topic

- insult people when because they don't share your position

- say one thing and then do another when no one's looking

 

You have to be careful if you're using these threads as your learning tool. Half the people who watch these threads are not indicative of the geocaching community as a whole.

Link to comment
I'm learning a lot about geocaching from reading this forum as well as the content of www.geocaching.com

 

OMG, this part really scares me.. so, you're learning the following:

 

- take a thread off topic

- insult people when because they don't share your position

- say one thing and then do another when no one's looking

 

You have to be careful if you're using these threads as your learning tool. Half the people who watch these threads are not indicative of the geocaching community as a whole.

 

It used to be that about 20% of registered geocachers have ever even once in their entire lives looked at these forums. But I just checked, and that number is even lower now, maybe 15% or so. And yes, you can figure this out. B) But yeah, all of us here know what we're talking about. At least we'd like to think so. :)

Link to comment

B) Being rather new to this geocaching sport, I have found some exciting ones and some lame ones, but here's my 2 cents: It's hard to find a spot to place a cache that isn't private property or there isn't a cache within 500 feet in a park/nature area. You have to abide by the rules, so I think some people are putting caches at places they have been because it's personal to them; not so much 'it's a beautiful view or historical'. Those places are already used up. Sure, I recently found a film canister in a spot where I would never go normally, but it's all up to the finder. I like quality over quantity, and that's why I only have 4 out. I'm planning my next one, but it's going to be very unique. In my recent hide, someone who found it made the comment 'why this location' - kind of made me irritated but whatever. And don't forget, not everyone can hide a cache at a historical location because they not everyone lives near one. I think one of the rules is that you have to be within so many miles of your home to hide one? So yeah, people are always going to complain about something no matter what side of the fence you're on. I like to stay in the middle and if I don't like a certain cache location, I won't look for it. :)

Link to comment

I guess different strokes for different folks. I had decided to pay closer attention to cache details to determine if it's some place I want to check out (I prefer the cache site over the cache itself), but then realized that my old clunker (Etrex Legend) simply shows me the waypoints on the screen, and if I happen to be in an area where I'm already using my gps and notice a waypoint along the way, I have no way of knowing if it's a decent site or not, unless I go back to ALL the caches I had downloaded, delete them all, go through them one by one and read about them, then deciding whether or not to select them or to skip them. Sounds like a meticoulous task. I should probably just get a new gps with all the cache details available in just one click...

 

It irkes me when I go on Google Earth, and select the "geocaching" thingamawhut, and at about ten kilometers up the whole screen gets plastered with little green tupperware icons. And I KNOW that ninety percent of them are nothing more then a micro stuck in the nook of a tree a half mile off a trail, or are a half douzen or so along the same nature trail, etc. BUT, I do appreciate the other ten percent which are WAAAAY cool sites (Like the Midland Ice Cave for example) that keep me going back just to appreciate what the cacher had to share with the rest of us.

Edited by Stroover
Link to comment

Stroover,

I'm new. That means I'm still in the honeymoon phase, and everything is exciting. B)

I haven't found any caches yet, but I'm fantasizing and vicariously enjoying the sport through others' stories.

I'm learning a lot about geocaching from reading this forum as well as the content of www.geocaching.com

There are number of reason why the OP may have the impression that there are more lame caches.

  1. burn out When starting out everything seem more exciting. The first time you find a cache hiding in a lamppost skirt, you are thinking, "I didn't know you could lift those up". After awhile you may feel you have seen too many of certain kinds of hide and it is just not as fun any more
  2. more caches There are lot more caches than when the OP began. Back then if a few were in less interesting places it didn't matter. They were just another cache to find and besides there would still be plenty of time to find the one with the great view or at an interesting historic location. Now there are so many cache that the "lame" ones seem to be getting in the way of find the good ones. There are more good caches too, but unless you spend some time trying to select which caches to hunt before you go out, you may fell that too much of your time is wasted looking for "lame" caches.
  3. changing demographics Perhaps in fact the percentage of "lame" cache is going up. Early adopters of geocaching tended to be hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts who already owned a GPS. They tended to hide geocaches to share an interesting spot on the trail with others. Even when they placed an urban cache, it was more likely to be one that shared an interesting location rather than just because there was anohter place where a cache could be hidden. As geocaching grew in popularity, more people started geocaching because they enjoyed finding caches. It didn't matter where the cache was hidden - a nice place was a bonus but not a necessity. Some of the old timers preferred to call these people numbers obsessed. In reality it is just another viewpoint about what is fun about geocaching. There has yet been another shift as cell phones have become GPS enabled and geocaching apps have been written for these. Mostly younger more urban types have discovered geocaching. For many their natural caching area are just within their neighborhoods or around where they work or go to school. Unlike the outdoor types who would go on long hikes and the second generation cachers who might travel to nearby towns where there were lots of unfound caches, it may be the latest generation needs to hide caches nearer to home. As there are fewer "interesting" places left, they may be hiding more caches that others find "lame" but this may only be natural as a way to keep having caches that can be found.

 

Yeah, what he said

 

Geocaching is not a sport.

 

It's not? :)

Link to comment

Geocaching is not a sport.

 

It's not? :)

 

If Chess is considered a sport then I would have to say Geocaching is one.... It's not necessarily an aerobic activity but then again neither is baseball. I love both but it's all semantics...

Link to comment

Geocaching is not a sport.

 

It's not? :)

 

If Chess is considered a sport then I would have to say Geocaching is one.... It's not necessarily an aerobic activity but then again neither is baseball. I love both but it's all semantics...

 

Webster defines Sport as

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c (1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

 

So by that definition, Geocaching is a sport.

Link to comment
Geocaching is not a sport.
It's not? :)
If Chess is considered a sport then I would have to say Geocaching is one.... It's not necessarily an aerobic activity but then again neither is baseball. I love both but it's all semantics...
Webster defines Sport as

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c (1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

 

So by that definition, Geocaching is a sport.

When most people say "sports" they are meaning a pastime that pits one or more people against one or more people in a regulated game. The closest geocaching has to this is one person's lifetime number of finds. In other pastimes, even a stats heavy one like baseball, it's rare that there's a lifetime number that of any importance--save something like the number of homeruns. Most of the stats is for a season. Geocaching doesn't have "seasons." The closest I've seen of any sort of real competition is SkyDiver's scheme, but he got kicked off the site and developed Terracaching.

 

I think whether or not one considers geocaching a sport is one's take on the hobby. I don't consider it a sport--regardless of what definition one can quote. It fits a lot of them: game, pastime, hobby, sport, recreational activity, entertainment, diversion, etc.

Link to comment
hiking through the woods just to find a film canister hidden under an average everyday tree....

 

Yep, many of those caches are placed by folks who discovered "the woods" through geocaching. It's all cool and new to them, both the caching and "the woods". You can try to share their excitement, or figure out a filtering technique :)

 

I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a log on one of my caches with, "lived here 10 years, never set foot in the forest before!" And then they return and drop a parking area hide or a film-can-in-the-crotch-of-an-oak hide along the trail.

 

Posting for increased pagination, per briansnat.

 

 

....neither side giving an inch....

 

Feel free to give an inch on the 2003 US Geocacher of the year negotiations any time now, by the way. I'll negotiate in good faith, but I will not grovel.

Link to comment

 

Webster defines Sport as

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c (1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

 

So by that definition, Geocaching is a sport.

 

So, for you, which definition does it meet: a, b, or c?

 

:)

 

Well... ummm... :P

 

I think I'd go with (a) "a source of diversion : recreation".

 

Yep, that's how we view geocaching.

 

As for 1 b ... :) (Maybe there's a whole side of geocaching that we just haven't discovered yet. B) )

 

MrsB :D

Link to comment

There are several ways that you can look at this. Sometimes I find a great location, but the cache is lame. Other times I will find a really cool cache in a lame location. Sometimes the whole situation is lame… I think that we as geocachers are the only people that can really improve the situation. I agree that it seems sometimes that a lot of the best locations are already occupied. In this situation, try to make your cache the interesting part. I personally like the “hidden in plain sight” caches in parks or other urban locations. I have also enjoyed a cache recently, while the location wasn’t very interesting, I had to solve a physical puzzle to actually retrieve the cache. There are lots of ways to play the game as well. I just went out and only looked for caches with TBs. I do this quite often if I am about to take a trip so I can assist the owners in getting some distance.

 

Overall, there are people that spend a great deal of time creating caches and there are others that just keep a pack full of micros and randomly place them as they go about their day. Bottom-line, if you want to create a solution, we should start creating the caches like what we want to find. If we all do it, we will see things change. I have started to create two kinds of caches. Ones for great locations and some for not so great, but interesting… You will start to see these out there soon if you are in the Denver area.

Link to comment
hiking through the woods just to find a film canister hidden under an average everyday tree....

 

Yep, many of those caches are placed by folks who discovered "the woods" through geocaching. It's all cool and new to them, both the caching and "the woods". You can try to share their excitement, or figure out a filtering technique :)

 

I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a log on one of my caches with, "lived here 10 years, never set foot in the forest before!" And then they return and drop a parking area hide or a film-can-in-the-crotch-of-an-oak hide along the trail.

 

Posting for increased pagination, per briansnat.

 

 

....neither side giving an inch....

 

Feel free to give an inch on the 2003 US Geocacher of the year negotiations any time now, by the way. I'll negotiate in good faith, but I will not grovel.

 

Wow, kinda surprised we haven't hit page 2 yet.

 

 

Webster defines Sport as

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c (1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

 

So by that definition, Geocaching is a sport.

 

So, for you, which definition does it meet: a, b, or c?

 

:)

 

Well... ummm... :P

 

I think I'd go with (a) "a source of diversion : recreation".

 

Yep, that's how we view geocaching.

 

As for 1 b ... :) (Maybe there's a whole side of geocaching that we just haven't discovered yet. B) )

 

MrsB :D

 

Yeah, I would go with 1a also but might have to investigate the 1b side of the 'sport' this summer.

Edited by DiamondDaveG
Link to comment
You have to be careful if you're using these threads as your learning tool. Half the people who watch these threads are not indicative of the geocaching community as a whole.

 

It used to be that about 20% of registered geocachers have ever even once in their entire lives looked at these forums. But I just checked, and that number is even lower now, maybe 15% or so. And yes, you can figure this out. tongue.gif But yeah, all of us here know what we're talking about. At least we'd like to think so. ohmy.gif

 

Thank you so much for validating my sig line. :)

What I think is that there are more of all kinds of caches out there, but there is a finite number of most excellent places to put a cache that meets most everyone's standards as a most excellent cache. So we're 'stuck' with looking for lots of pretty good caches, and lots of not so good caches. But we're still out there finding caches and having fun. And if you aren't having fun it's your own damm fault.

 

If I had to wear a label I could be called an omnivorous cacher.

Saturday I joined up with a group of cachers I barely knew and we spent 3.5 hours on one nasty tough multi out in the woods. Then sat down and enjoyed burgers and dogs and each other's company some more.

Yesterday I wanted to find some more caches, but the weather wasn't cooperating, and none of my friends could go out to play, so I went after a handful of nearby park n grabs that were cleverly hidden until the rainfall got too heavy.

 

But it would be nice if there was some easier way to assist those who really want the tool to sift some of the signal from the noise and help find the types of caches they want to seek on a given day without a lot of work. Since I'm so active I have a pretty good idea of what to expect based on the location and the hider. YMMV

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

I agree, a tool to sift through the type of caches IF YOU WANT TO, would seem to solve the problem. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and a few "park and grabs" are a nice diversion. However, if I am with my treasure seeking husband, I had better not drag him to a 35mm if it's not in an historical spot or a unique hide. Such is married life. So, how do we create a tool to better sort caches?

Link to comment

Is it just me, or are caches getting lamer and lamer by the day?

 

Sometimes it does seem like that doesn't it! :D Having replaced some of our caches 4-5 times because people didn't 'use stealth' and were muggled, the caches started to shrink in size and interest. One really cute cache we had became compromised and now it is a lame film container under said rock. :) The history is still there. The numbers are still there. But someone ran up and grabbed it right in front of others and now it cannot keep its place. Perhaps we should just archive it and forget it.

 

But then - what would you prefer Lame cache or No cache? :D

Link to comment

Is it just me, or are caches getting lamer and lamer by the day?

 

Sometimes it does seem like that doesn't it! :D Having replaced some of our caches 4-5 times because people didn't 'use stealth' and were muggled, the caches started to shrink in size and interest. One really cute cache we had became compromised and now it is a lame film container under said rock. :) The history is still there. The numbers are still there. But someone ran up and grabbed it right in front of others and now it cannot keep its place. Perhaps we should just archive it and forget it.

 

But then - what would you prefer Lame cache or No cache? :D

 

Not being a smart aleck, but why hide the cache in a location where "stealth" is required? I despise Stealth. Stealth sucks. :D I realize that's a blanket statement, and there are some cool locations where there are just going to be people around. You're not the first one I've seen blame cachers for their hides going missing, and I'm sure you won't be the last. I have to say I disagree with that.

Link to comment

...Not being a smart aleck, but why hide the cache in a location where "stealth" is required? I despise Stealth. Stealth sucks. :) ...

 

Stealth can be very good! :D

 

The first time I went geocaching on my own in the centre of London was so enjoyably different for the very reason that so much stealth was required. At several locations it was obvious exactly where the cache was hidden but the fun was trying to retrieve, sign and replace the cache without any one of the passing 500 tourists realising what I was doing. It provided me with a very different caching experience from what I had previously been use to.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

...Not being a smart aleck, but why hide the cache in a location where "stealth" is required? I despise Stealth. Stealth sucks. :D ...

 

Stealth can be very good! :D

 

The first time I went geocaching on my own in the centre of London was so enjoyably different for the very reason that so much stealth was required. At several locations it was obvious exactly where the cache was hidden but the fun was trying to retrieve, sign and replace the cache without any one of the passing 500 tourists realising what I was doing. It provided me with a very different caching experience from what I had previously been use to.

 

MrsB

 

Well, yeah, it was sort of a blanket statement. Doesn't apply world-wide. You don't have any Wal-Mart parking lots over there yet, do you? :)

Link to comment
Not being a smart aleck, but why hide the cache in a location where "stealth" is required? I despise Stealth. Stealth sucks. biggrin.gif I realize that's a blanket statement, and there are some cool locations where there are just going to be people around. You're not the first one I've seen blame cachers for their hides going missing, and I'm sure you won't be the last. I have to say I disagree with that.

 

One of my all time favorites was in the Roman Forum under a bench about 20' from the supposed site of Caesar's funeral pyre. There were a few people around on a lovely May afternoon as I grabbed that one.

 

I own a few high exposure urban caches. I would never blame a finder for them going missing. unless they were playing the Pink Panther theme song out loud while seeking the cache.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
Not being a smart aleck, but why hide the cache in a location where "stealth" is required? I despise Stealth. Stealth sucks. biggrin.gif I realize that's a blanket statement, and there are some cool locations where there are just going to be people around. You're not the first one I've seen blame cachers for their hides going missing, and I'm sure you won't be the last. I have to say I disagree with that.

 

One of my all time favorites was in the Roman Forum under a bench about 20' from the supposed site of Caesar's funeral pyre. There were a few people around on a lovely May afternoon as I grabbed that one.

 

 

I went to look for that one when I was in Rome a couple of months ago. I got there too late in the day though and the gates were already closed. The Colosseum cache nearby is also a bit of a stealth challenge.

 

The most difficult hide I've seen which required stealth was just outside a Starbucks. The problem was, while the container was fairly easy to locate, it was difficult to remove. That was compounded by the fact that there is a letterbox hidden about 12" from it that was equally difficult to remove, and of course, I found that one first. I found it at about 9:00am on January 1st a couple of years ago so there weren't a log of muggles around.

Link to comment

...Not being a smart aleck, but why hide the cache in a location where "stealth" is required? I despise Stealth. Stealth sucks. :D ...

 

Stealth can be very good! :D

 

The first time I went geocaching on my own in the centre of London was so enjoyably different for the very reason that so much stealth was required. At several locations it was obvious exactly where the cache was hidden but the fun was trying to retrieve, sign and replace the cache without any one of the passing 500 tourists realising what I was doing. It provided me with a very different caching experience from what I had previously been use to.

 

MrsB

 

Well, yeah, it was sort of a blanket statement. Doesn't apply world-wide. You don't have any Wal-Mart parking lots over there yet, do you? :D

 

No... but we have the U.K. equivalent, the "Off your trolley" series of caches. :)

 

MrsB

Link to comment

Is it just me, or are caches getting lamer and lamer by the day?

 

Sometimes it does seem like that doesn't it! :D Having replaced some of our caches 4-5 times because people didn't 'use stealth' and were muggled, the caches started to shrink in size and interest. One really cute cache we had became compromised and now it is a lame film container under said rock. :) The history is still there. The numbers are still there. But someone ran up and grabbed it right in front of others and now it cannot keep its place. Perhaps we should just archive it and forget it.

 

But then - what would you prefer Lame cache or No cache? :D

 

I'm sorry. Perhaps I should clarify exactly what I mean: It's not that the CACHE is lame, but rather the cache SITE which is lame. I don't necessarily mind treking through the woods to ultimately find a 35mm can, as long as the site is either way cool, or has some historical significance, etc. I gotta mention Red Witch again, as I LOVE going to her caches as they ALWAYS have either historical significance or some kind of natural beauty.

I like the idea of creating some tool to sift through the caches. Maybe they could add another thing to click that would read something like: "Find: caches of historical significance, caches of geological significance, caches of natural beauty" etc.

Link to comment

I'm sorry. Perhaps I should clarify exactly what I mean: It's not that the CACHE is lame, but rather the cache SITE which is lame. I don't necessarily mind treking through the woods to ultimately find a 35mm can, as long as the site is either way cool, or has some historical significance, etc. I gotta mention Red Witch again, as I LOVE going to her caches as they ALWAYS have either historical significance or some kind of natural beauty.

I like the idea of creating some tool to sift through the caches. Maybe they could add another thing to click that would read something like: "Find: caches of historical significance, caches of geological significance, caches of natural beauty" etc.

 

The suggestion above about using the satellite views is an excellent one. At least it will help filter out spruce tree hides, bleacher hides, lampskirt hides, and stuff like that. Not perfect, but its a start.

 

Next, look at the gallery (is there one?) and at least scan the logs. Unless its a new cache, you'll learn a lot that way.

 

Remember, if you want the best food, don't just stop at the first restaraunt you come to... do some research first.

Link to comment

I'm sorry. Perhaps I should clarify exactly what I mean: It's not that the CACHE is lame, but rather the cache SITE which is lame. I don't necessarily mind treking through the woods to ultimately find a 35mm can, as long as the site is either way cool, or has some historical significance, etc. I gotta mention Red Witch again, as I LOVE going to her caches as they ALWAYS have either historical significance or some kind of natural beauty.

I like the idea of creating some tool to sift through the caches. Maybe they could add another thing to click that would read something like: "Find: caches of historical significance, caches of geological significance, caches of natural beauty" etc.

 

The suggestion above about using the satellite views is an excellent one. At least it will help filter out spruce tree hides, bleacher hides, lampskirt hides, and stuff like that. Not perfect, but its a start.

 

Next, look at the gallery (is there one?) and at least scan the logs. Unless its a new cache, you'll learn a lot that way.

 

Remember, if you want the best food, don't just stop at the first restaraunt you come to... do some research first.

I'm actually trying to avoid exactly what you're suggesting as it would be too time consuming. As far as reading posts, simply reading the hider's paragraph on the cache reveals whether it's just a cache for hiding a cache's sake, or if the site is significant in some way. The problem lies when one wants to download umpteen pages of waypoints to their gps: reading through the hundreds of caches would take far too long.

Link to comment

I'm sorry. Perhaps I should clarify exactly what I mean: It's not that the CACHE is lame, but rather the cache SITE which is lame. I don't necessarily mind treking through the woods to ultimately find a 35mm can, as long as the site is either way cool, or has some historical significance, etc.

Glad you clarified that. But there are also nice parks, that aren't 'way cool'. Enjoyable walk, but nothing spectacular. Did three yesterday. (Thought it would have been nicer to find larger caches, but you cannot win them all.)

I've got some micros in high stealth areas, but the views are spectacular. One of my newer ones is near the rock commemorating the duel between Hamilton and Burr, with views of The City from the top of the Palisades. Micro is all that could be placed, but the view makes the visit worthwhile.

On the other fin, there do seem to be a lot of caches that make me ask: Why did you bring me here? Nothing terribly interesting about the parking lot at the mall. Or the electrical box at the ball field. But, as someone said, you learn who like to hide those caches, and you ignore them (unless you need a quck fix. And there is something to be said about needing a quick geocaching fix sometimes.) Hey. I even got in trouble once for logging that a park was boring. (It was an incredibly boring park!) It was requested that I not seek any more of that CO's caches. Not a big loss.

Link to comment

I'm sorry. Perhaps I should clarify exactly what I mean: It's not that the CACHE is lame, but rather the cache SITE which is lame..

 

I think whatever the details are, it's good that this keeps coming up so people who actually DO read the forums will realize what people like to find in a good cache, and that they're not so interested in a million micros on guard rails.

 

Keeping the subject on what you want in a find is good, in addition to what you don't want. Keeping these threads going does inform, which is a very good thing.

 

I want caches that have hints; that are not in sensitive plant areas, and if they are, I'd like them to be really good hints so the place doesn't get trashed.

 

I like historical caches

I like great views.

Someone wrote about "date" caches near places you'd take a date.

I like to learn something worth learning.

I like new parks.

I hate "evil" caches. Especially because they always seem to get muggled right before I look for them so they aren't even really there when I look.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...