Is it just me, or...

[Stroover]

Glad you clarified that. But there are also nice parks, that aren't 'way cool'...

 

Exactly, and that would be part of my "etc.". It's all thanks to geocaching that I found terrific nature trails and family parks in a new-to-me area that we moved to three years ago. I guess I'm into geocaching for different reasons then most of you: I am not into "numbers" as you can tell with my something like 89 finds despite the fact that I've been doing this for about five years. I'm into it for finding neat and interesting places, whether it be in my neighbourhood or when I'm off on a trip somewhere in another part of the province, in another province, or country. I like the fact that quite often (at least this was the case when I first started geocaching) a cache reveals wonderful sites that the average tourist would never get to see if they relied entirely on tourist information booths, all thanks to locals who generously share their secret Shangry-La with fellow geocachers. I'm into it for the fishing holes, the hunting spots, the blueberry picking fields, the off-the-beaten-path beaches, the historic value, well, you get the idea. I pretty much like what Sol Seeker likes in a cache site. A lot of times I don't even find the cache, but you know what? It really doesn't matter when you end up at a spectacular waterfall you would normally only find on a post card. THOSE are the caches I'm interested in.

 

I understand that there are tons of people who actually LIKE the micros on the guardrails and the lamp posts. And that's ok! I'm not dissing them! Like I said a few posts up, different strokes for different folks. But maybe if we could come up with a quick system to filter out the "noise" like somebody called it, that would be FANTASTIC!

Edited May 18, 2009 by Stroover

[TM92]

i totally agree with you Stroover. You can never beat a great view. Except if the FTF prize was a fifty.

[knowschad]

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.

 

If you are looking for a way to power-cache only the best locations... perhaps by pocket query, then you'll have to use something like terrain ratings to filter out the rest, and that is going to be far from perfect, I'm afraid. Power caching and caching because you love the hike and the surroundings are pretty much mutually exclusive.

 

Your best bet is going to be in selecting the general vicinity. I've made two great caching trips to the Black Hills, and there wasn't a cache in the bunch that I considered "lame". Not all are on my Cream of the Crop list, but none disappointed. I got plenty of caches on both trips, but "plenty" was far from my mind at the time.

[+ladyrich007]

I guess im one of the newbies that likes all of them. I figure if we start filtering out the ones you comsider lame we wouldn't have more then 10% of the of the caches to find. How much fun would that be?

None for me.

[+Snoogans]

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.

 

Gosh, I don't have anything significant to say after that.

 

This thread took an interesting turn after you posted that though.

 

I guess my 2 cents are all I have left:

[Clan Riffster]

So, how do we create a tool to better sort caches?

GSAK does this quite nicely.

 

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

For me that's an easy question. Lame caches do absolutely nothing but increase someone's find count, which is not why I play.

Ergo, if I had to choose, I'd prefer fewer quality caches vs. more lame ones.

 

I figure if we start filtering out the ones you comsider lame we wouldn't have more then 10% of the of the caches to find.

One of the kewl things about this game is that we all enter the field as unique individuals, with personal likes & dislikes. It doesn't matter at all what kind of caches I like, or TWU likes or Kit Fox likes. When you fire up your GPSr, it only matters what kind of caches you like. The day may come when your preferences change, and that's OK too. If you reach that point, there are gobs of tools available to you for sorting caches which are more attuned to your individual caching aesthetics.