Jump to content

signing log


Recommended Posts

5% or 95% cheating is wrong. Accepting it blindly in anything harms our society as a whole. But don't let it worry you, I'll sleep fine tonight. :)

 

My point on the cheaters is that with a sport of over 100,000 players, there will be cheats as well as trolls, vandals and other variable of ner-do-well included.

What the OP could have done is just log the find online and make the blind assumption that the hider isn't going to match the logbook to the online logs. Since she was honest up front, I would have let her keep the find online, but I'm a generous person.

 

For me, I will likely not sleep well tonight, but thats just because I don't have anyone to snuggle with. On second thought, its a bit warm for snuggling.

Link to comment

I'd hope that people have enough common sense to see the difference between a 1/1 which happens to be too tall for some people and a harder one where the challenge is getting to it (and it's challenging for most people or whatnot).

 

Slippery slope arguments are actually fallacies unless you can prove a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent.

 

Also, the wording in the "rules" looks like signing the paper log is a sufficient condition for signing online. It is up to debate whether the wording makes it look like it's a necessary condition. Although, based on why that line was introduced (to deal with the elimination of ALR), it seems unlikely that it was meant as a necessary condition.

 

Most certainly I am not arguing that a 1/1 and a more challenging cache should be considered the same. To recap my position these need to be taken on a case by case basis. "I can't reach it" isn't enough if reaching the cache is a part of the challenge. Short cutting a cache doesn't take away from the finds of others but can reduce the hiders enjoyment, making them feel like their effort was wasted. While I may accept that there where extenuating circumstances for not signing the log it is up to me, the cache hider, to make the call. In the guidelines or not signing the logbook is a part of the conventions of geocaching. These are my opinions.

 

 

But it does takes the fun out of it for the hider. What is the point of expending the effort to hide a challenging cache if others are just going to shortcut it? Demoralizing.

 

And yes, it does speak volumes about those who would "cheat".

 

Yes, but the hider isn't injured in any way by someone who is too short to reach a cache. If one wanted to cry foul for discrimination, one could.

The OP was stating that if she were of average height, she could have reached the cache but she isn't. The OP indicates that the cache wasn't intended to need a ladder for average height people.

 

I doubt the OP was trying to cheat, in any way shape or form.

 

As for the cheaters, again I would say what harm does it cause the hider if one cheats? I am sure that there are less than 5% cheaters out there.

 

My point has been all along that "I'm too short." may or may not be acceptable. If reaching the cache is a part of the challenge then no. I never said the OP was cheating but the conversation has gone beyond that It seems to be a discussion of the general state of caching. An attempt at understanding each others point of veiw. That or a total wast of time.

 

5% or 95% cheating is wrong. Accepting it blindly in anything harms our society as a whole. But don't let it worry you, I'll sleep fine tonight. :)

 

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. All I meant was that it isn't necessarily Groundspeak's position that signing the physical log is necessary for signing the online log. That doesn't mean that the CO can't make that a necessary requirement. Similarly, it doesn't mean that the CO must make it a necessary requirement (perhaps just describing the area or a picture of the GPSr next to the cache is sufficient). I think it should be up the CO.

Link to comment

I'd hope that people have enough common sense to see the difference between a 1/1 which happens to be too tall for some people and a harder one where the challenge is getting to it (and it's challenging for most people or whatnot).

 

Slippery slope arguments are actually fallacies unless you can prove a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent.

 

Also, the wording in the "rules" looks like signing the paper log is a sufficient condition for signing online. It is up to debate whether the wording makes it look like it's a necessary condition. Although, based on why that line was introduced (to deal with the elimination of ALR), it seems unlikely that it was meant as a necessary condition.

 

Most certainly I am not arguing that a 1/1 and a more challenging cache should be considered the same. To recap my position these need to be taken on a case by case basis. "I can't reach it" isn't enough if reaching the cache is a part of the challenge. Short cutting a cache doesn't take away from the finds of others but can reduce the hiders enjoyment, making them feel like their effort was wasted. While I may accept that there where extenuating circumstances for not signing the log it is up to me, the cache hider, to make the call. In the guidelines or not signing the logbook is a part of the conventions of geocaching. These are my opinions.

 

 

But it does takes the fun out of it for the hider. What is the point of expending the effort to hide a challenging cache if others are just going to shortcut it? Demoralizing.

 

And yes, it does speak volumes about those who would "cheat".

 

Yes, but the hider isn't injured in any way by someone who is too short to reach a cache. If one wanted to cry foul for discrimination, one could.

The OP was stating that if she were of average height, she could have reached the cache but she isn't. The OP indicates that the cache wasn't intended to need a ladder for average height people.

 

I doubt the OP was trying to cheat, in any way shape or form.

 

As for the cheaters, again I would say what harm does it cause the hider if one cheats? I am sure that there are less than 5% cheaters out there.

 

My point has been all along that "I'm too short." may or may not be acceptable. If reaching the cache is a part of the challenge then no. I never said the OP was cheating but the conversation has gone beyond that It seems to be a discussion of the general state of caching. An attempt at understanding each others point of veiw. That or a total wast of time.

 

5% or 95% cheating is wrong. Accepting it blindly in anything harms our society as a whole. But don't let it worry you, I'll sleep fine tonight. :)

 

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. All I meant was that it isn't necessarily Groundspeak's position that signing the physical log is necessary for signing the online log. That doesn't mean that the CO can't make that a necessary requirement. Similarly, it doesn't mean that the CO must make it a necessary requirement (perhaps just describing the area or a picture of the GPSr next to the cache is sufficient). I think it should be up the CO.

No problem. When I read your post I felt a need to restate my position. For clarity.

Link to comment

Isn't being strict about signing logs more likely to cause people do things that risk the integrity of the cache such as carrying beach chairs in the middle of winter or asking a tall muggle nearby to reach the cache for them? By being strict doesn't one force shorter people to take more of a risk in revealing the location of the cache and hence, forcing them to sometimes choose between getting the find and respecting the creed? Whereas while tall people will face this tension occasionally (heck all cachers will), they will face it less often if they can reach caches using conventional methods.

*I'm only talking about caches where reaching the cache isn't meant to be a challenge. Presumably on the ones where reaching the cache is a challenge it will be equally difficult for tall and short people to be inconspicuous or whatnot.*

 

Edited to add: This isn't necessarily meant as an argument for not being strict. It's simply meant as an honest question about whether this does increase this kind of action/tension.

Edited by Hope13
Link to comment
If someone is stupid enough to put a cache up a tree that people can't get to then they deserve whatever they get.

What sadistic person would do something like that? That kills the "fun".

 

I probably would never vandalize a cache but I have complete empathy for anyone who would that took time out of their day to find a cache, only to find that some sadistic, ahem, person put it in a tree out of reach.

Why is it sadistic to hide a cache in a tree? Some people consider caches like that fun. Not all caches have to be easy.

Of course, if the T/D isn't proper and such, well, then I'd be a bit miffed

The cache was rated a 4 terrain, which seemed appropriate.

Link to comment

 

Why is it sadistic to hide a cache in a tree? Some people consider caches like that fun. Not all caches have to be easy.

 

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

Edited by bittsen
Link to comment

Isn't being strict about signing logs more likely to cause people do things that risk the integrity of the cache such as carrying beach chairs in the middle of winter or asking a tall muggle nearby to reach the cache for them? By being strict doesn't one force shorter people to take more of a risk in revealing the location of the cache and hence, forcing them to sometimes choose between getting the find and respecting the creed? Whereas while tall people will face this tension occasionally (heck all cachers will), they will face it less often if they can reach caches using conventional methods.

*I'm only talking about caches where reaching the cache isn't meant to be a challenge. Presumably on the ones where reaching the cache is a challenge it will be equally difficult for tall and short people to be inconspicuous or whatnot.*

 

Edited to add: This isn't necessarily meant as an argument for not being strict. It's simply meant as an honest question about whether this does increase this kind of action/tension.

 

Sometimes you just have to accept that now is not the time to get the cache.

Link to comment

 

Why is it sadistic to hide a cache in a tree? Some people consider caches like that fun. Not all caches have to be easy.

 

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

 

I have caches that are hidden for a small portion of cachers. I also have caches that are hidden for everyone. The great thing about caching is that there is something for everyone. It isn't elitist, it's divers.

Link to comment
Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

How can you possibly place a cache that would satisfy everyone? Or what's your criteria for "general caching community" - 50%? And does this have to be a cache that is enjoyed by them? Or merely retrievable? Why would placing a cache that only some people are physically able to retrieve be "selfish"? Do you need to be able to sign a log in order to enjoy the cache? There are a couple I can see but can't retrieve and sign. I don't log them, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them by thinking about how to retrieve them, and talking about them.

Link to comment
Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

I know what you're saying. I sometimes ask the same thing when I see really hard puzzles that get 1 or 2 finds per year.

 

But, that's the good thing about caching, people can find all types of different caches. It might seem surprising, but the really challenging caches are sometimes very popular. Maybe not the most popular as in number of finds but the ones that everyone raves about and puts on their "must do" lists.

 

This particular cache is 3 1/2 years old and has 99 finds. The last finder wrote in his log, "My favorite hide in the park." The park has 35 other caches.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

How can you possibly place a cache that would satisfy everyone? Or what's your criteria for "general caching community" - 50%? And does this have to be a cache that is enjoyed by them? Or merely retrievable? Why would placing a cache that only some people are physically able to retrieve be "selfish"? Do you need to be able to sign a log in order to enjoy the cache? There are a couple I can see but can't retrieve and sign. I don't log them, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them by thinking about how to retrieve them, and talking about them.

 

I think you just want to argue.

Good day.

Link to comment

How can you possibly place a cache that would satisfy everyone? Or what's your criteria for "general caching community" - 50%? And does this have to be a cache that is enjoyed by them? Or merely retrievable? Why would placing a cache that only some people are physically able to retrieve be "selfish"? Do you need to be able to sign a log in order to enjoy the cache? There are a couple I can see but can't retrieve and sign. I don't log them, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them by thinking about how to retrieve them, and talking about them.

 

I think you just want to argue.

Good day.

 

I think there are some valid questions here in light of your statement. Do you really expect all caches to be accessible to everyone?

Link to comment

 

I think there are some valid questions here in light of your statement. Do you really expect all caches to be accessible to everyone?

 

You know that isn't what I said, or implied. If you want to bait me, you will have to do better.

 

What I see lacking in some of the arguments, is the basic common sense when it comes to "placing caches" for a game that is supposed to be open to everyone. The arguments are those of exclusivity. I doubt that was the intent of Groundspeak.

Link to comment

 

I think there are some valid questions here in light of your statement. Do you really expect all caches to be accessible to everyone?

 

You know that isn't what I said, or implied. If you want to bait me, you will have to do better.

 

What I see lacking in some of the arguments, is the basic common sense when it comes to "placing caches" for a game that is supposed to be open to everyone. The arguments are those of exclusivity. I doubt that was the intent of Groundspeak.

 

I'm not trying to bait anyone. I'm trying to understand. You call a cache that some can't reach "elitist" and I would like to know why. We have terrain ratings from 1 to 5 and difficulty ratings of 1 to 5. These are meant to give the cache seeker the ability to decide if a cache is within their ability. If we make all caches accessible to all cachers we won't need those ratings. I still say it is diversity not elitism.

Link to comment

 

I'm not trying to bait anyone. I'm trying to understand. You call a cache that some can't reach "elitist" and I would like to know why. We have terrain ratings from 1 to 5 and difficulty ratings of 1 to 5. These are meant to give the cache seeker the ability to decide if a cache is within their ability. If we make all caches accessible to all cachers we won't need those ratings. I still say it is diversity not elitism.

 

My use of the word "elitist" is broad. It implies that, in this case, the cache hider is trying to create something that many people simply cannot do.

 

A few examples.

 

1) A boat cache. Not everyone owns a boat. Sure, the argument is made that for those who do own boats there is an opportunity to cache somewhere they might be enjoying their boat anyhow. And, of course, the argument could be made that anyone could charter a boat to take them to a boat cache (ie island) so they might find the cache. I would classify boat owners as an elite class even though there are some who would argue the point.

 

2) Though I doubt it has happened, there is a possibility for placing a cache on the face of a cliff. Sure, the argument is made that anyone could learn how to rock climb (or rappel) to get the cache or otherwise hire someone or rent some equipment to get them donw the cliff face, but in reality this cache would be, by design, only for those who are already rock climbers. Wouldn't you agree this is an elite class?

 

3) Caches placed high in trees. Sure you could bring climbing gear to the tree and climb it if you aren't otherwise able to climb the tree but wouldn't this create an elite class? Most people over the age of 18 don't regularly climb trees. Most geocachers are over 18. So, again, this would make this "tree cache" an elitist cache for those who can climb trees. (Please bear in mind the difference between having to climb a tree as opposed to just looking in one)

 

The issue is that caches shouldn't necessarily be subject to the rules set by some organizations regarding accessibility for handicapped persons but designing a cache where a subset of the general population can achieve the goal is, in essence, elitist.

 

Now, before this gets too far off track, I think posting a cache where "everyone" should be able to get it, and then not allowing someone to claim it because they were physically unable to get it, is just plain absurd. I understand that people "own" the cache but some take this ownership a little far. At best, geocaching is a game of "fun" and when it stops being fun, people will quit playing. Yes, it's supposed to be fun for the CO and the searcher and yes some people have fun making people jump through flaming hoops to claim the virtual prize (lets face it, other than treasures, its all virtual as far as the prizes go) is a little, oh whats the word, elitist. And yes, there are some who enjoy the littls and sometimes big challenges but that subset is small, judging by the # of "finds". Again, it's an elitist group. Don't believe me? Listen to them brag about how they got it sometime. They are, in their own subtle way, saying "I'm better than you are because I got it and you didn't. That IS elitist.

 

Did that satisfy your need for clarification? Are you happy I jumped through your hoop?

 

I am just happy that this game has more "normal" people than those who feel the need to make the "game" hard or difficult (as opposed to challenging).

When I hide my caches, I am going to get my jollies knowing that people walk past it all the time and never see it but there is a small subset of the population that will know its there. It's my fantasy of a secret society and not some subset of that same secret society.

 

Why else would we all worry about muggles?

Link to comment

My use of the word "elitist" is broad. It implies that, in this case, the cache hider is trying to create something that many people simply cannot do.

 

A few examples.

 

1) A boat cache. Not everyone owns a boat. Sure, the argument is made that for those who do own boats there is an opportunity to cache somewhere they might be enjoying their boat anyhow. And, of course, the argument could be made that anyone could charter a boat to take them to a boat cache (ie island) so they might find the cache. I would classify boat owners as an elite class even though there are some who would argue the point.

 

2) Though I doubt it has happened, there is a possibility for placing a cache on the face of a cliff. Sure, the argument is made that anyone could learn how to rock climb (or rappel) to get the cache or otherwise hire someone or rent some equipment to get them donw the cliff face, but in reality this cache would be, by design, only for those who are already rock climbers. Wouldn't you agree this is an elite class?

 

3) Caches placed high in trees. Sure you could bring climbing gear to the tree and climb it if you aren't otherwise able to climb the tree but wouldn't this create an elite class? Most people over the age of 18 don't regularly climb trees. Most geocachers are over 18. So, again, this would make this "tree cache" an elitist cache for those who can climb trees. (Please bear in mind the difference between having to climb a tree as opposed to just looking in one)

 

The issue is that caches shouldn't necessarily be subject to the rules set by some organizations regarding accessibility for handicapped persons but designing a cache where a subset of the general population can achieve the goal is, in essence, elitist.

 

Now, before this gets too far off track, I think posting a cache where "everyone" should be able to get it, and then not allowing someone to claim it because they were physically unable to get it, is just plain absurd. I understand that people "own" the cache but some take this ownership a little far. At best, geocaching is a game of "fun" and when it stops being fun, people will quit playing. Yes, it's supposed to be fun for the CO and the searcher and yes some people have fun making people jump through flaming hoops to claim the virtual prize (lets face it, other than treasures, its all virtual as far as the prizes go) is a little, oh whats the word, elitist. And yes, there are some who enjoy the littls and sometimes big challenges but that subset is small, judging by the # of "finds". Again, it's an elitist group. Don't believe me? Listen to them brag about how they got it sometime. They are, in their own subtle way, saying "I'm better than you are because I got it and you didn't. That IS elitist.

 

Did that satisfy your need for clarification? Are you happy I jumped through your hoop?

 

I am just happy that this game has more "normal" people than those who feel the need to make the "game" hard or difficult (as opposed to challenging).

When I hide my caches, I am going to get my jollies knowing that people walk past it all the time and never see it but there is a small subset of the population that will know its there. It's my fantasy of a secret society and not some subset of that same secret society.

 

Why else would we all worry about muggles?

 

I have never done a cache that requires specific equipment to get to it but if I saw a T5 cache, I would find out what is necessary and if I had it I would do it. If I didn't, there are plenty of caches I choose not to or am unable to find. This would just go on that list. I don't see someone placing a boat cache or a climbing cache as elitist but rather that they are placing the cache to appeal to a specific subset of the community.

 

The more eclectic the hides are whether kayaking or climbing or multi day hiking, the more challenge there is and the more people the game can potentially interest.

 

No hide is elitist per se... just some require certain subsets of skills or equipment to reach. For climbing: If someone puts a cache up a 5.13 route, I know that I can't get it. Put it up an 11 and maybe. I don't begrudge the cache but know that I probably have no chance at it. And if I didn't climb, i wouldn't resent it either; I wouldnt have the skill or knowledge to get up there.

 

EVERY cache has a subset of people who can get to it. Whether it be the D1/T1 cache in Maine that I don't have the economic resources to get to or the D5/T5 cache that I don't have the skill to get to, all caches will have people who can reach them and those that cant. To me, any cache hide is great. Even the ones that nobody has gotten to for years... yay for having a vast spectrum of caches that we can disdain for their easiness, cheer for their accessibility, sweat for for their difficulty, and swoon over for their impossibility.

 

All people fall somewhere on the spectrum of caching ability. Great to have caches that appeal to all sorts. Ignore, without rancor, those that you can't get to and relish those that test you :lol:

Link to comment

I have never done a cache that requires specific equipment to get to it but if I saw a T5 cache, I would find out what is necessary and if I had it I would do it. If I didn't, there are plenty of caches I choose not to or am unable to find. This would just go on that list. I don't see someone placing a boat cache or a climbing cache as elitist but rather that they are placing the cache to appeal to a specific subset of the community.

 

The more eclectic the hides are whether kayaking or climbing or multi day hiking, the more challenge there is and the more people the game can potentially interest.

 

No hide is elitist per se... just some require certain subsets of skills or equipment to reach. For climbing: If someone puts a cache up a 5.13 route, I know that I can't get it. Put it up an 11 and maybe. I don't begrudge the cache but know that I probably have no chance at it. And if I didn't climb, i wouldn't resent it either; I wouldnt have the skill or knowledge to get up there.

 

EVERY cache has a subset of people who can get to it. Whether it be the D1/T1 cache in Maine that I don't have the economic resources to get to or the D5/T5 cache that I don't have the skill to get to, all caches will have people who can reach them and those that cant. To me, any cache hide is great. Even the ones that nobody has gotten to for years... yay for having a vast spectrum of caches that we can disdain for their easiness, cheer for their accessibility, sweat for for their difficulty, and swoon over for their impossibility.

 

All people fall somewhere on the spectrum of caching ability. Great to have caches that appeal to all sorts. Ignore, without rancor, those that you can't get to and relish those that test you :lol:

 

You are correct. Most of my replies were about the short woman who couldn't reach an average height persons cache. In other words, addressing the OPs concerns.

The fact that it wasn't even designed as an elitist cache merely exacrebates the issue. She told the CO that she was just too short to reach it and the CO said tough tatas and deleted her "find".

 

And then a few come in here to say "No signey, no smiley" and to that, in this ONE circumstance, I say it's a BS stance to take. It wasn't designed as an elitist cache.... why force a short person to have to get special equipment (which she admits to doing).

 

Anyhow... Though I can't appreciate the elitist caches and the complicated caches, I enjoy geocaching. I have gone out in the woods and I do urban caching but I have MUCH better things to do with my life than to stand on my head, wiggle my ears, facing east, flashing my genitals, just to get a smiley.

 

I know, others have the time. More power to them but, in no way, will I consider them better than I am simply because they do. BTW, this is my stance everywhere in life. And I don't conider myself better than they are because of the things I can do that they can't or simply don't do.

Link to comment

A few examples.

 

1) A boat cache. Not everyone owns a boat. Sure, the argument is made that for those who do own boats there is an opportunity to cache somewhere they might be enjoying their boat anyhow. And, of course, the argument could be made that anyone could charter a boat to take them to a boat cache (ie island) so they might find the cache. I would classify boat owners as an elite class even though there are some who would argue the point.

 

2) Though I doubt it has happened, there is a possibility for placing a cache on the face of a cliff. Sure, the argument is made that anyone could learn how to rock climb (or rappel) to get the cache or otherwise hire someone or rent some equipment to get them donw the cliff face, but in reality this cache would be, by design, only for those who are already rock climbers. Wouldn't you agree this is an elite class?

 

3) Caches placed high in trees. Sure you could bring climbing gear to the tree and climb it if you aren't otherwise able to climb the tree but wouldn't this create an elite class? Most people over the age of 18 don't regularly climb trees. Most geocachers are over 18. So, again, this would make this "tree cache" an elitist cache for those who can climb trees. (Please bear in mind the difference between having to climb a tree as opposed to just looking in one)

You missed SCUBA caches. And, yes, number 2 has been done, many times.

Link to comment

I have never done a cache that requires specific equipment to get to it but if I saw a T5 cache, I would find out what is necessary and if I had it I would do it. If I didn't, there are plenty of caches I choose not to or am unable to find. This would just go on that list. I don't see someone placing a boat cache or a climbing cache as elitist but rather that they are placing the cache to appeal to a specific subset of the community.

 

The more eclectic the hides are whether kayaking or climbing or multi day hiking, the more challenge there is and the more people the game can potentially interest.

 

No hide is elitist per se... just some require certain subsets of skills or equipment to reach. For climbing: If someone puts a cache up a 5.13 route, I know that I can't get it. Put it up an 11 and maybe. I don't begrudge the cache but know that I probably have no chance at it. And if I didn't climb, i wouldn't resent it either; I wouldnt have the skill or knowledge to get up there.

 

EVERY cache has a subset of people who can get to it. Whether it be the D1/T1 cache in Maine that I don't have the economic resources to get to or the D5/T5 cache that I don't have the skill to get to, all caches will have people who can reach them and those that cant. To me, any cache hide is great. Even the ones that nobody has gotten to for years... yay for having a vast spectrum of caches that we can disdain for their easiness, cheer for their accessibility, sweat for for their difficulty, and swoon over for their impossibility.

 

All people fall somewhere on the spectrum of caching ability. Great to have caches that appeal to all sorts. Ignore, without rancor, those that you can't get to and relish those that test you :lol:

 

You are correct. Most of my replies were about the short woman who couldn't reach an average height persons cache. In other words, addressing the OPs concerns.

The fact that it wasn't even designed as an elitist cache merely exacrebates the issue. She told the CO that she was just too short to reach it and the CO said tough tatas and deleted her "find".

 

And then a few come in here to say "No signey, no smiley" and to that, in this ONE circumstance, I say it's a BS stance to take. It wasn't designed as an elitist cache.... why force a short person to have to get special equipment (which she admits to doing).

 

Anyhow... Though I can't appreciate the elitist caches and the complicated caches, I enjoy geocaching. I have gone out in the woods and I do urban caching but I have MUCH better things to do with my life than to stand on my head, wiggle my ears, facing east, flashing my genitals, just to get a smiley.

 

I know, others have the time. More power to them but, in no way, will I consider them better than I am simply because they do. BTW, this is my stance everywhere in life. And I don't conider myself better than they are because of the things I can do that they can't or simply don't do.

 

In no way was i suggesting that you regard those cachers as better than you are. I can't get to lots of caches and I don't regard those who can as better than I am.

 

As far as your point about the CO/OP relationship, as a CO I would have allowed the find (let the flames descend) because I am a fan of geoaching being fun and I would far prefer my hides be found than not. If I placed a cache at a place where someone at 6.2 could get to it no prob but would be totally out of the question for a 5'3 person, I would totally be fine with the logging of the short person. That would be 100% between me and the cacher. If another cacher placed a cache and deleted any short person's "I was just too short to get the cache" then that's okay with me. It's up to the CO really.

 

However that's me. If a CO placed a cache that a tall person could easily reach but say someone like my mom couldnt get to.. well that's up to the CO. For me, im for the idea if you have the cache in your hands great. Today I had a bum pen and scratched my name into a log. The owners didn't care. they were happy I went to find it. My log was cruddy with flakes of ink... I tried (including using natural methods to ink up) but it was a bad log. I'm happy with it though will ink in the grooves when I get out that way again soon and the COs were happy with it. Just play in a way that makes you and the CO happy.

Link to comment

 

I have a confession. I don't know what an ALR cache is.

Additional Logging Requirement. No longer allowed.

 

Ah, so many puzzle caches fall into a grey area then...

And the ones who say "You must email me with the text from the sign that is next to the oak tree" as well. Or is that a classic example of an ALR?

Edited by bittsen
Link to comment

reading this topic made me giggle a bit as my step father is a disabled vet and cant climb trees for high up caches. i could just imagine him just cutting the tree down with his chainsaw and logging it as needing maintenance. :lol:

 

Would that violate the 'no sharp things to hide / recover cache' guideline? Vandalism guidelines?

How about making holes... just big enough to fell the tree...

 

On the other hand... he would have 'logged' the cache for sure!

 

Doug

Link to comment
Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

 

How can you possibly place a cache that would satisfy everyone? Or what's your criteria for "general caching community" - 50%? And does this have to be a cache that is enjoyed by them? Or merely retrievable? Why would placing a cache that only some people are physically able to retrieve be "selfish"? Do you need to be able to sign a log in order to enjoy the cache? There are a couple I can see but can't retrieve and sign. I don't log them, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them by thinking about how to retrieve them, and talking about them.

 

I think you just want to argue.

Good day.

I guess I should not have asked one question after another. My apologies if I come across as wanting to argue instead of discuss. I do disagree with you, and find your choice of words offensive (specifically adding quotes to "some" and calling such caches elitist) but I'm not trying to pick a fight.

 

First, allow me to point out one of the Cardinal Truths of geocaching - You do not have to find every single cache out there (or near you). Size, terrain, difficulty, type - they all help you narrow them down.

 

Next, let me ask - do these caches take away from you some of the fun of geocaching? If so, how?

 

Finally, would it really be better for someone not to place a cache, than to place a kayak cache?

 

My own answer are : not at all, and no. I really would like to know your answers.

 

I'm also trying to understand your position about placing a cache for the general community. Please allow me to rephrase my question. Do you mean placing a cache accessible by the general community, or a cache that can be enjoyed by the general community? And who constitutes this general community?

 

I wish you a good day as well, despite our obvious difference in opinions.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

 

I guess I should not have asked one question after another. My apologies if I come across as wanting to argue instead of discuss. I do disagree with you, and find your choice of words offensive (specifically adding quotes to "some" and calling such caches elitist) but I'm not trying to pick a fight.

 

First, allow me to point out one of the Cardinal Truths of geocaching - You do not have to find every single cache out there (or near you). Size, terrain, difficulty, type - they all help you narrow them down.

 

Next, let me ask - do these caches take away from you some of the fun of geocaching? If so, how?

 

Finally, would it really be better for someone not to place a cache, than to place a kayak cache?

 

My own answer are : not at all, and no. I really would like to know your answers.

 

I'm also trying to understand your position about placing a cache for the general community. Please allow me to rephrase my question. Do you mean placing a cache accessible by the general community, or a cache that can be enjoyed by the general community? And who constitutes this general community?

 

I wish you a good day as well, despite our obvious difference in opinions.

 

You are free to find my replies offensive if you want to. Everyone is free to choose. I am not the kind to make an offensive post without the postee knowing for a fact it was meant as offensive. My feelings on internet offensiveness are that its like competing in the special olympics...you know the end.

 

You keep comparing apples to oranges. As I have said numerous times, my original point was about the short woman living in an average sized world.

The point is made that there are enough elitist caches that this one cache should not have been denied because she failed to bring a step stool.

 

I have digressed.

 

If you want answers to the questions, make them pertinent to my points.

I don't give a flying freak what caches are what and where, for the most part. I will, or will not, seek them as I see fit. My points about elitism were generic. I still don't see the need for puzzle caches as they are a mixture of puzzle solving and geocaching. We might as well mix poodle shaving and geocaching....

 

I digress more.

 

I have read a lot about how one group will consider urban caching as less than "real" geocaching. Why is it wrong for me to say the opposite is true? It's not. In fact, the mere presence of mugglers makes urban caching interesting. I have found half of my finds in the woods and such and, frankly, spending a half hour looking for a cache with nobody around is equally as interesting as trying to locate a 1/1 with 100 other people in the park.

 

Did I digress? Hmmm.

 

At any rate, there are LOTS of reasons and ways to hide caches. Lots of people who believe their hide is excellent. Lots of people thinking their find is awesome. It's all in the beholder.

Just as I won't search a garbage cache, I won't do a complex puzzle cache. The funny thing is I can appreciate the mentality of the one who hides the garbage cache and the one who creates the complex puzzle cache. I see the need for neither though.

 

Back to the original point. There was a "normal" cache that was hidden. The CO appeared to place it with the intent that it was easy to get and log. Then the CO denied someone a "find" because, though she found the cache, she was unable to reach it due to a physical "limtation". I personally think the CO was not being a very good person (not to offend you with language). I believe the CO was not acting in the good intent of the "game" and was taking an elitist stance.

My stance was not from a geocachers perspective but from a compassionate human perspective. I know, some can't quite feel empathy. Its sad but true.

 

I stand by my original thoughts.

 

Happy now? I believe I answered your questions in my own (offensive?) way.

Link to comment
You keep comparing apples to oranges. As I have said numerous times, my original point was about the short woman living in an average sized world. The point is made that there are enough elitist caches that this one cache should not have been denied because she failed to bring a step stool.

 

Happy now? I believe I answered your questions in my own (offensive?) way.

Actually, you have not answered most my questions at all. Let's just boil them down to one : how are they selfish?

 

I have no problem with your original position about the CO denying the find. I agree with your position. If it is my cache, I would allow the find. I'd even sign their name for them into the logbook the next time I do a maintenance run. If you look at my response, way in the beginning of the thread, I said it is between her and the cache owner, instead of a straight "no - because you did not sign the log".

 

You kept deleting the section you wrote that I quoted. In it, you were not addressing the OP's issue at all, but attacking difficult caches as elitist and selfish. If you feel strongly about this, why won't you defend your point of view, instead of trying to avoid it?

 

And for someone who says, essentially "I don't like them, so I don't see a need for them" - you're accusing those who place them for being selfish? Where's the compassion? Again, I want to point out that you are not referring to the cache owner of the cache the OP found in this case, but to those "stupid" people who place "elitist caches" like those high up in trees.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

 

I guess I should not have asked one question after another. My apologies if I come across as wanting to argue instead of discuss. I do disagree with you, and find your choice of words offensive (specifically adding quotes to "some" and calling such caches elitist) but I'm not trying to pick a fight.

 

First, allow me to point out one of the Cardinal Truths of geocaching - You do not have to find every single cache out there (or near you). Size, terrain, difficulty, type - they all help you narrow them down.

 

Next, let me ask - do these caches take away from you some of the fun of geocaching? If so, how?

 

Finally, would it really be better for someone not to place a cache, than to place a kayak cache?

 

My own answer are : not at all, and no. I really would like to know your answers.

 

I'm also trying to understand your position about placing a cache for the general community. Please allow me to rephrase my question. Do you mean placing a cache accessible by the general community, or a cache that can be enjoyed by the general community? And who constitutes this general community?

 

I wish you a good day as well, despite our obvious difference in opinions.

 

You are free to find my replies offensive if you want to. Everyone is free to choose. I am not the kind to make an offensive post without the postee knowing for a fact it was meant as offensive. My feelings on internet offensiveness are that its like competing in the special olympics...you know the end.

 

You keep comparing apples to oranges. As I have said numerous times, my original point was about the short woman living in an average sized world.

The point is made that there are enough elitist caches that this one cache should not have been denied because she failed to bring a step stool.

 

I have digressed.

 

If you want answers to the questions, make them pertinent to my points.

I don't give a flying freak what caches are what and where, for the most part. I will, or will not, seek them as I see fit. My points about elitism were generic. I still don't see the need for puzzle caches as they are a mixture of puzzle solving and geocaching. We might as well mix poodle shaving and geocaching....

 

I digress more.

 

I have read a lot about how one group will consider urban caching as less than "real" geocaching. Why is it wrong for me to say the opposite is true? It's not. In fact, the mere presence of mugglers makes urban caching interesting. I have found half of my finds in the woods and such and, frankly, spending a half hour looking for a cache with nobody around is equally as interesting as trying to locate a 1/1 with 100 other people in the park.

 

Did I digress? Hmmm.

 

At any rate, there are LOTS of reasons and ways to hide caches. Lots of people who believe their hide is excellent. Lots of people thinking their find is awesome. It's all in the beholder.

Just as I won't search a garbage cache, I won't do a complex puzzle cache. The funny thing is I can appreciate the mentality of the one who hides the garbage cache and the one who creates the complex puzzle cache. I see the need for neither though.

 

Back to the original point. There was a "normal" cache that was hidden. The CO appeared to place it with the intent that it was easy to get and log. Then the CO denied someone a "find" because, though she found the cache, she was unable to reach it due to a physical "limtation". I personally think the CO was not being a very good person (not to offend you with language). I believe the CO was not acting in the good intent of the "game" and was taking an elitist stance.

My stance was not from a geocachers perspective but from a compassionate human perspective. I know, some can't quite feel empathy. Its sad but true.

 

I stand by my original thoughts.

 

Happy now? I believe I answered your questions in my own (offensive?) way.

I suppose I need to add my own opinion to this discussion. For me it is pretty simple, really. If I can find the cache and sign the log I will claim a find. If I can't find the cache I will not claim a find. If I can find the cache and I can't sign the log I will not claim a find. I usually don't climb trees or cliffs and I don't swim well. For these reasons I do not claim finds for caches that require me to do so. If I happen to be vertically challenged and I am unable to retrieve a container I log a DNF and figure out what I need to do to retrieve the container and claim the find. Every cache is placed for me to find. If I am unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to sign the log I do not claim the find.

Link to comment

.... I don't see people calling those who choose not to log online 'cheaters'......

 

I will... they're cheating the cache owner when they refuse to log online.

 

out of what exactly an Ego-Boost?

 

More or less. I'd prefer to call it a Warm Fuzzy, though. :lol:

 

Why do you hide caches?

Link to comment

.... I don't see people calling those who choose not to log online 'cheaters'......

 

I will... they're cheating the cache owner when they refuse to log online.

 

out of what exactly an Ego-Boost?

 

More or less. I'd prefer to call it a Warm Fuzzy, though. :lol:

 

Why do you hide caches?

Out of the feedback also. Did you like it? Did you think it could use improvement? Is it the type of cache you enjoy? Should I hide more like it? Should I not waste my time? Even criticism, constructive of course, is valuable to a hider that wants to give the seeker the most fun he can.

 

That and the warm fuzzy feeling of a job well done when a cacher expresses their enjoyment on a well produced cache. Nothing wrong with a little ego boost when it has been earned.

 

I don't think it is imperative that a cache log every cache visited as a find on the site, but at least a note would be nice, thanks.

Link to comment

.... I don't see people calling those who choose not to log online 'cheaters'......

 

I will... they're cheating the cache owner when they refuse to log online.

 

out of what exactly an Ego-Boost?

 

More or less. I'd prefer to call it a Warm Fuzzy, though. :lol:

 

Why do you hide caches?

 

For a varity of reasons. Because my area doesnt have enough. Because I like hiding things. Because I enjoy taking people places. Because I like the pat on the back.

 

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

Link to comment

Actually, you have not answered most my questions at all. Let's just boil them down to one : how are they selfish?

 

I have no problem with your original position about the CO denying the find. I agree with your position. If it is my cache, I would allow the find. I'd even sign their name for them into the logbook the next time I do a maintenance run. If you look at my response, way in the beginning of the thread, I said it is between her and the cache owner, instead of a straight "no - because you did not sign the log".

 

You kept deleting the section you wrote that I quoted. In it, you were not addressing the OP's issue at all, but attacking difficult caches as elitist and selfish. If you feel strongly about this, why won't you defend your point of view, instead of trying to avoid it?

 

And for someone who says, essentially "I don't like them, so I don't see a need for them" - you're accusing those who place them for being selfish? Where's the compassion? Again, I want to point out that you are not referring to the cache owner of the cache the OP found in this case, but to those "stupid" people who place "elitist caches" like those high up in trees.

 

I answered the questions. I just did it in a long written way.

Your new question. "how is it selfish?

We all do this game for our own selfish reasons but to make a cache that is overly elitist (meant to exclude many people) is overly selfish (but that is human nature).

It is selfish because the CO is actually getting enjoyment by knowing that someone spent a long time, and/or a lot of effort, just to sign their little piece of paper all the while knowing some people just aren't up to their challenge.

 

I'm sorry if you can't see the selfish aspect. I would suspect you are one of those who get off making difficult geocaches, but, again, that would be digressing.

Link to comment

.... I don't see people calling those who choose not to log online 'cheaters'......

 

I will... they're cheating the cache owner when they refuse to log online.

 

out of what exactly an Ego-Boost?

 

More or less. I'd prefer to call it a Warm Fuzzy, though. :lol:

 

Why do you hide caches?

 

For a varity of reasons. Because my area doesnt have enough. Because I like hiding things. Because I enjoy taking people places. Because I like the pat on the back.

 

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

 

Well, maybe your online logs tend to be of the TFTC, TNLNSL type, but mine generally tend to be much more interesting than the logs in the cache.

 

OK, so call it a pat on the back, call it a warm fuzzy, or call it an ego-booster... its all the same thing.

Link to comment

Actually, you have not answered most my questions at all. Let's just boil them down to one : how are they selfish?

 

I have no problem with your original position about the CO denying the find. I agree with your position. If it is my cache, I would allow the find. I'd even sign their name for them into the logbook the next time I do a maintenance run. If you look at my response, way in the beginning of the thread, I said it is between her and the cache owner, instead of a straight "no - because you did not sign the log".

 

You kept deleting the section you wrote that I quoted. In it, you were not addressing the OP's issue at all, but attacking difficult caches as elitist and selfish. If you feel strongly about this, why won't you defend your point of view, instead of trying to avoid it?

 

And for someone who says, essentially "I don't like them, so I don't see a need for them" - you're accusing those who place them for being selfish? Where's the compassion? Again, I want to point out that you are not referring to the cache owner of the cache the OP found in this case, but to those "stupid" people who place "elitist caches" like those high up in trees.

 

I answered the questions. I just did it in a long written way.

Your new question. "how is it selfish?

We all do this game for our own selfish reasons but to make a cache that is overly elitist (meant to exclude many people) is overly selfish (but that is human nature).

It is selfish because the CO is actually getting enjoyment by knowing that someone spent a long time, and/or a lot of effort, just to sign their little piece of paper all the while knowing some people just aren't up to their challenge.

 

I'm sorry if you can't see the selfish aspect. I would suspect you are one of those who get off making difficult geocaches, but, again, that would be digressing.

 

If my hobby were solving so called impossible puzzles, (which its not btw) and lets say puzzle caches were disallowed because someone like you has his undies in a bunch because you dont like them. Why should I be discrimiated for your conveniance?

 

Likewise a cache in a cliffface. Im not a rockclimber or anything like that and I probably wouldnt go after one. But lets say I know one nearby and after years of looking at it and going "Grumble grumble stupid elitest cacher owner" I actually go out and learn to rockclimb. I think the cache acommplished something that 1/1's will never do. Inspire someone to go out and learn/accomplish something.

 

Niche caches are just that, minorities in the sea of common caches. Are they catering to a certain crowd? Yes. Elitist? Probably not.

 

Are you being selfish because something doesnt cater to you? Yes.

 

Edit: Actually someone taking the time to cater to a minority is probably more generious then you give them credit for.

Edited by herrozerro
Link to comment

 

Well, maybe your online logs tend to be of the TFTC, TNLNSL type, but mine generally tend to be much more interesting than the logs in the cache.

 

OK, so call it a pat on the back, call it a warm fuzzy, or call it an ego-booster... its all the same thing.

 

You focus on only what you want to see. I had several good reasons why i plant caches and i included your reason because i would be lieing if i ommitted it to prove my point.

 

My point is that there is also a physical log, and to me its the ore inportant log. The digital one in my eyes is the one of conveniance. I get a not online when someone logs my finds. but I can also get away form the computer and go out and visit my caches and find outthat my caches are 10x more popular then i thought.

 

We seem to see things differently. Caching is not smilies on a screen. to me its getting out and going places in RL.

Link to comment

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

 

Thats been one of my points all along.

Do the cache owners actually read the written logs? What about the micros? Do the cache owners actually record all the names of people who have found them?

Link to comment

I do prefer people to log on the site. but here is a question for you. have you ever gone out to your cache and just read the logs? Why do you have to have the online log when you know that everyone who visits should have signed the log. Now for micros its gonig to be probably just the names but for largert logs sometimes you get some intresting messages.

 

Thats been one of my points all along.

Do the cache owners actually read the written logs? What about the micros? Do the cache owners actually record all the names of people who have found them?

 

I try to get out and check on my caches for general maintenance and checking logs is one of my favorite things to do. so at least one.

Link to comment

Actually, you have not answered most my questions at all. Let's just boil them down to one : how are they selfish?

 

I have no problem with your original position about the CO denying the find. I agree with your position. If it is my cache, I would allow the find. I'd even sign their name for them into the logbook the next time I do a maintenance run. If you look at my response, way in the beginning of the thread, I said it is between her and the cache owner, instead of a straight "no - because you did not sign the log".

 

You kept deleting the section you wrote that I quoted. In it, you were not addressing the OP's issue at all, but attacking difficult caches as elitist and selfish. If you feel strongly about this, why won't you defend your point of view, instead of trying to avoid it?

 

And for someone who says, essentially "I don't like them, so I don't see a need for them" - you're accusing those who place them for being selfish? Where's the compassion? Again, I want to point out that you are not referring to the cache owner of the cache the OP found in this case, but to those "stupid" people who place "elitist caches" like those high up in trees.

 

I answered the questions. I just did it in a long written way.

Your new question. "how is it selfish?

We all do this game for our own selfish reasons but to make a cache that is overly elitist (meant to exclude many people) is overly selfish (but that is human nature).

It is selfish because the CO is actually getting enjoyment by knowing that someone spent a long time, and/or a lot of effort, just to sign their little piece of paper all the while knowing some people just aren't up to their challenge.

 

I'm sorry if you can't see the selfish aspect. I would suspect you are one of those who get off making difficult geocaches, but, again, that would be digressing.

Just by writing a lot doesn't mean that you have answered anything. It just means you wrote a lot.

 

I am someone who enjoys creating difficult puzzle caches; I do it because I know that there are a lot of people around here who enjoy a difficult puzzle with a nice hike to the final location. There are people who don't want anything to do with solving a puzzle to find the final location and I'm completely fine with their decision to ignore my caches. Puzzle caching is in no way similar to poodle shaving as the end result of a good ol' fashioned poodle shaving is just a shaved poodle and a pile of hair. The end result of a puzzle is a cache location. It's a natural extension of the challenge much in the same way multicaches are or a clever hide is rather than an unconnected. There is a difference and based on your posts I'm beginning to suspect that you are either unable to conceptually grasp that people might have other interests than you or are stubbornly unwilling to concede that variety in intellectual and physical challenges is a GOOD thing. I am not sure what you're advocating but whatever it is it seems a lot more bland than the current state of affairs.

 

What are you suggesting? I am honestly unsure: uncammoed similar boxes sitting out in the open on a sidewalk? Should there be no creativity in caching? At some level any cache is going to challenge someone and that's part of the fun. I'm not sure you're totally grasping the concept of elitism or selfishness when it comes to cache creation. People who solve puzzles or go after difficult caches don't think that they're better than the next cacher. They're going after the caches because it is satisfying. People who create the caches don't smugly giggle each time someone spends a lot of time and can't solve their puzzle or realize that they don't have the physical skills to attempt the cache. They don't think "I'm glad I deprived that cache to that guy!" The whole basic concept of geocaching is sharing experiences with others whether it be a neat spot in the woods, the thrill of finding a nicely cammoed urban micro, the "aha!" moment that comes with solving a difficult puzzle or the adrenaline surge from finally having the cache container in ones hands at the top of a particularly difficult physical challenge. When that experience isn't shared I don't think it's a cause for celebration; people want their caches to be found and their experience shared.

 

I create caches to be found. If someone is having trouble with the puzzle, I'm more than happy to incrementally walk them through the puzzle all the way to the end; there is nothing more dissatisfying than having someone give up.

 

I understand elitism and abhor and avoid it at all costs. The logic you're using is specious at best and is an affront to those who spend considerable time and effort to create caches that they think people will enjoy.

Link to comment

Actually, you have not answered most my questions at all. Let's just boil them down to one : how are they selfish?

 

I have no problem with your original position about the CO denying the find. I agree with your position. If it is my cache, I would allow the find. I'd even sign their name for them into the logbook the next time I do a maintenance run. If you look at my response, way in the beginning of the thread, I said it is between her and the cache owner, instead of a straight "no - because you did not sign the log".

 

You kept deleting the section you wrote that I quoted. In it, you were not addressing the OP's issue at all, but attacking difficult caches as elitist and selfish. If you feel strongly about this, why won't you defend your point of view, instead of trying to avoid it?

 

And for someone who says, essentially "I don't like them, so I don't see a need for them" - you're accusing those who place them for being selfish? Where's the compassion? Again, I want to point out that you are not referring to the cache owner of the cache the OP found in this case, but to those "stupid" people who place "elitist caches" like those high up in trees.

 

I answered the questions. I just did it in a long written way.

Your new question. "how is it selfish?

We all do this game for our own selfish reasons but to make a cache that is overly elitist (meant to exclude many people) is overly selfish (but that is human nature).

It is selfish because the CO is actually getting enjoyment by knowing that someone spent a long time, and/or a lot of effort, just to sign their little piece of paper all the while knowing some people just aren't up to their challenge.

 

I'm sorry if you can't see the selfish aspect. I would suspect you are one of those who get off making difficult geocaches, but, again, that would be digressing.

Just by writing a lot doesn't mean that you have answered anything. It just means you wrote a lot.

 

I am someone who enjoys creating difficult puzzle caches; I do it because I know that there are a lot of people around here who enjoy a difficult puzzle with a nice hike to the final location. There are people who don't want anything to do with solving a puzzle to find the final location and I'm completely fine with their decision to ignore my caches. Puzzle caching is in no way similar to poodle shaving as the end result of a good ol' fashioned poodle shaving is just a shaved poodle and a pile of hair. The end result of a puzzle is a cache location. It's a natural extension of the challenge much in the same way multicaches are or a clever hide is rather than an unconnected. There is a difference and based on your posts I'm beginning to suspect that you are either unable to conceptually grasp that people might have other interests than you or are stubbornly unwilling to concede that variety in intellectual and physical challenges is a GOOD thing. I am not sure what you're advocating but whatever it is it seems a lot more bland than the current state of affairs.

 

What are you suggesting? I am honestly unsure: uncammoed similar boxes sitting out in the open on a sidewalk? Should there be no creativity in caching? At some level any cache is going to challenge someone and that's part of the fun. I'm not sure you're totally grasping the concept of elitism or selfishness when it comes to cache creation. People who solve puzzles or go after difficult caches don't think that they're better than the next cacher. They're going after the caches because it is satisfying. People who create the caches don't smugly giggle each time someone spends a lot of time and can't solve their puzzle or realize that they don't have the physical skills to attempt the cache. They don't think "I'm glad I deprived that cache to that guy!" The whole basic concept of geocaching is sharing experiences with others whether it be a neat spot in the woods, the thrill of finding a nicely cammoed urban micro, the "aha!" moment that comes with solving a difficult puzzle or the adrenaline surge from finally having the cache container in ones hands at the top of a particularly difficult physical challenge. When that experience isn't shared I don't think it's a cause for celebration; people want their caches to be found and their experience shared.

 

I create caches to be found. If someone is having trouble with the puzzle, I'm more than happy to incrementally walk them through the puzzle all the way to the end; there is nothing more dissatisfying than having someone give up.

 

I understand elitism and abhor and avoid it at all costs. The logic you're using is specious at best and is an affront to those who spend considerable time and effort to create caches that they think people will enjoy.

 

I knew it. ~LOL~

Link to comment

 

Well, maybe your online logs tend to be of the TFTC, TNLNSL type, but mine generally tend to be much more interesting than the logs in the cache.

 

OK, so call it a pat on the back, call it a warm fuzzy, or call it an ego-booster... its all the same thing.

 

You focus on only what you want to see. I had several good reasons why i plant caches and i included your reason because i would be lieing if i ommitted it to prove my point.

 

My point is that there is also a physical log, and to me its the ore inportant log. The digital one in my eyes is the one of conveniance. I get a not online when someone logs my finds. but I can also get away form the computer and go out and visit my caches and find outthat my caches are 10x more popular then i thought.

 

We seem to see things differently. Caching is not smilies on a screen. to me its getting out and going places in RL.

 

The paper logs almost never say anything other than the date and the cacher's name. That's true in my caching area, and in my experience, in the U.P. as well. I don't get much out of reading the paper logs. On the other hand, I LOVE reading the online logs, and that has zero to do with "smilies on a screen"

Link to comment
Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

That takes you down a road to no challenging caches of any kind. Once we start placing all caches for the lowest common denominator then the hobby is truly done. I cache to be entertained. If there are no entertaining caches--or so few it might as well be--then the hobby would not be worth doing.

 

Back to the original point. There was a "normal" cache that was hidden. The CO appeared to place it with the intent that it was easy to get and log. Then the CO denied someone a "find" because, though she found the cache, she was unable to reach it due to a physical "limtation". I personally think the CO was not being a very good person (not to offend you with language). I believe the CO was not acting in the good intent of the "game" and was taking an elitist stance.

I don't know, but the way I'm reading this is you don't want "normal" to actually be "normal," but something less to include everyone. Again lowering the hobby to the least common denominator.

 

I do believe we will be on the opposite sides of this issue. From your statements it sounds like you're the type of person who takes "compassion" to point that it would unduly burden the rest of us. I'm not that type of person. I believe in balance. I believe in signing the log. I don't particularly care if the failure is genetics or showing up sans pen. Sign the log or don't claim the find.

Link to comment

 

Why is it sadistic to hide a cache in a tree? Some people consider caches like that fun. Not all caches have to be easy.

 

Not "in a tree" but "up a tree". And yes, I know there are "some" who would enjoy those caches. I suppose it would be logical to assume, then, that the cache owner would be placing caches for a small majority, as opposed to the general caching community. Sounds a little selfish, and elitist, but its their deal, not mine.

 

If I had a chainsaw, I would welcome the opportunity to use it.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...