Hiding caches: The Personal "Why?"

[+uxorious]

Second, I'm not sure how hiding a "lame cache" is a service to the community or helps build the world we would like to see or why you think that is what we plan to do. I think you are reading some of your own biases into what I wrote and it isn't justified.

 

It appears I misunderstood what you were saying, and I'm sorry about that. It appears though that you also misunderstood me. I never meant to infer that you would hide a lame cache, only that people who hide, because they are told they must, are more likely to hide lame caches. If you hide because you want to, you are more likely to hide better caches. (the use of the word "you" doesn't mean to refer to you in particular, but in the generic sense.)

 

I hope you really do not leave the forums because of some misunderstanding. The one thing I have learned about the forums is that it is very hard to communicate when you are not face to face. Misunderstandings are common.

[+Nalarangka]

The Personal "Why?"...because it is fun.

 

How about geocaching.com change the log your visit page to only allow you to check a box for found it, did not find it, or needs maintenance....then if you really wanted to leave some kind of great log you would have to go to the cache owner's profile and send a message that way. That would fix the "deterioration of log quality" (I love that phrase) problem real easy because if all I am gonna write is TFTC SL then I would not bother going to the CO's profile page.

[knowschad]

The Personal "Why?"...because it is fun.

 

How about geocaching.com change the log your visit page to only allow you to check a box for found it, did not find it, or needs maintenance....then if you really wanted to leave some kind of great log you would have to go to the cache owner's profile and send a message that way. That would fix the "deterioration of log quality" (I love that phrase) problem real easy because if all I am gonna write is TFTC SL then I would not bother going to the CO's profile page.

 

Oddly enough, a similar suggestion came up in another thread only yesterday. (link)

[+Nalarangka]

The Personal "Why?"...because it is fun.

 

How about geocaching.com change the log your visit page to only allow you to check a box for found it, did not find it, or needs maintenance....then if you really wanted to leave some kind of great log you would have to go to the cache owner's profile and send a message that way. That would fix the "deterioration of log quality" (I love that phrase) problem real easy because if all I am gonna write is TFTC SL then I would not bother going to the CO's profile page.

 

Oddly enough, a similar suggestion came up in another thread only yesterday. (link)

 

Thanks for the link...I had not read that thread yet.

[+Frank Broughton]

What is so distasteful about being a power cacher? I see this time and again and I don't get it.

 

CCCooperAgency now caches incognito because of attitudes like yours and worse. Lynn is a good friend of mine and she never deserved the outright loathing that was heaped on her when she was the top cacher in finds here.

 

Help me understand............

 

I simply do not get it either. Let me be me, you be you, and me be me tomorrow when I want to be like you and not me today. The ya gotta do it this way.... well don't know what to call it but is is just not right. We have a good amount of older - 'er retired people, cachers in our area. They enjoy playing with their GPS and getting to what many of us call lame caches (for us). BUT THAT IS ALL THEIR BODY WILL ALLOW!

 

Snoogan's, very sad to hear what you said about CC.

 

Now to the original post - I am in neither camp mentioned. I love reading good interesting logs on the cache log page and in the log book that I have hidden. I love more to write the best log I can on the caches I find. I log every one I go to (DNF & Finds) if I find a cache in a ditch with garbage, you are going to get a "found cache, signed the log - thanks" log. Sorry that is all I could muster up. Make a cache that fires me up and you will get a great log ie: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...66-56533d14f307

 

What my beef was on that thread was with those that get angry at a "short" log. Get over it. What comes around goes around, you just write the best logs you can on others and the big geocacher in the sky will see you get your fill. In no way was I saying I liked the idea of a TFTC log - I do not, but so what if ya get one. That is all

 

So, CoyoteRed there ya have it.

[+Frank Broughton]

How dare someone with thousands of finds assume they have more experience than someone with 85. I'm going to march up to HR right now and demand I get paid at the senior engineer rate (7-10 yrs exp) even though I only have 2 years... And while I'm at it, I'm going to go tell the senior engineer that he is belittling me because he *DARED* offer me guidance because of his additional 7 years of experience...

 

The only thing bizarre here is your issue with taking critical feedback from someone with more experience.

 

As a thinking man I say this - perhaps it is a second job to the man on your job with the two years experience. Perhaps with his other job he has designed the glass for storing nuclear waste and has been at it for much more time - having much more experience. Or what I have seen many times: just because you have done something for a long time means you are good at it. Just the opposite, especially if you work in the government sector.

 

Users can have multiple accounts here ya know. So phooey on that pooey

[+flask]

 

How about geocaching.com change the log your visit page to only allow you to check a box for found it, did not find it, or needs maintenance....then if you really wanted to leave some kind of great log you would have to go to the cache owner's profile and send a message that way. That would fix the "deterioration of log quality" (I love that phrase) problem real easy because if all I am gonna write is TFTC SL then I would not bother going to the CO's profile page.

 

that'd suck.

 

often the audience for whom i write the log is not the CO, but whomever reads it.

[+Unkle Fester]

Very good points on all sides but there may be a different angle... What about growth? Meaning that as a person gains in experience, through time or finds they grow and change from the time they started. You cannot convince me that every person has the same philosophy from day one that they do today.

 

Some people like the good hide and maybe their expectations have gotten higher.

Maybe the numbers hound wants more numbers

Maybe the numbers hound decides to go for more eclectic hides.

Maybe the person with 200 finds in 5 years wants to power cache for a while...

 

I look at my caches, the ones with NRV (No Redemning Value) are great for the power cachers. The density of placement is good and none are very tough. But I have some that require a drive, thought or some other method of gettig a little effort from the cacher. A couple are placed on our regular driving route and we can see people hunting on our way home (those are my favorite).

 

I see my hides as being able to please both groups a little but I will never please every one. That is not why I hide. I like Carolyn's post about giving back.

 

As stated in the other threads, I am begining to put more effort and thought into my hides to make them more enjoyable to more people. But again, I know I will never make everyone happy.

 

Looking at myself as a finder, I still do big runs, but right now I'm trying to drop my caching centroid into the middle of the annual Champoeg Campout coming up, just to be silly about it.

 

I'm also working on the Fizzy and the Oregon Delorme challenge, which will require a lot of driving (big state), but I intend on going for the tougher hides on the far end of the state or ones at great points of interest so we can learn things about this awesome state at the same time. Not to mention a few coin challenges coming up too... is that wrong?

 

I get a kick out of it, but don't expect anyone else to understand my motivation.

[+Unkle Fester]

 

How about geocaching.com change the log your visit page to only allow you to check a box for found it, did not find it, or needs maintenance....then if you really wanted to leave some kind of great log you would have to go to the cache owner's profile and send a message that way. That would fix the "deterioration of log quality" (I love that phrase) problem real easy because if all I am gonna write is TFTC SL then I would not bother going to the CO's profile page.

 

that'd suck.

 

often the audience for whom i write the log is not the CO, but whomever reads it.

Agreed: Suckage factor 5

[+WebChimp]

My friend was right to tell me to stay away from the forums, that they suck the fun out of geocaching.

 

Your friend has confused matters by suggesting that these forums are the same as geocaching.. It's not so.

 

You can geocache, log finds, hide caches, and do all the fun stuff without ever reading a word of what is said in the forums.

 

You can take part in the forums, and never touch a GPS.

 

Don't let the activity in this part of the site have an effect on the fun you have otherwise with your GPS. If this part of the site isn't fun for you, then ignore it.

 

The forums aren't the same as geocaching. (Thank goodness!)

[+Unkle Fester]

 

The forums aren't the same as geocaching. (Thank goodness!)

Yes, if it were they would have to change the name to full contact caching. Wear the big pads and everything. Helmet, mouth gard, cup...

 

Yeah, way cool. Then it would make a great reality TV show.

 

"there goes Frank into the bushes for the find... Oh, Big Timmy Johnson just came out a tree to deliver an elbow to the head..."

 

Call the WWE.

[+KBI]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

[+bittsen]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

 

+5!

[+Harry Dolphin]

Back to the original question: Hiding caches? Why?

I hide caches because I enjoy finding caches. Other people enjoy finding caches too. I know some places that I think are very pretty. I am hoping that other people will enjoy them too. That's why I hide caches. I have ammo cans in the woods, and micros with spectacular views.

I am not noted as an efflusive log writer. If I enjoyed the cache, I'll probably write "Enjoyed the cache." I don't expect others to be efflusive either. If you enjoyed the cache, good. If you didn't, Oh Well. I tried. If you went to the spectacular view in the fog, that's your prerogative. But you did miss the view.

That's why I hide caches.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

 

+5!

 

-6!

 

(my font was bigger, that makes it more correct, no?)

[+ReadyOrNot]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

 

If your preference is to hunt LPC's, all the more power to you! If you prefer long hikes, yippee skippy!

 

My preference is for caches that make me think. I don't care so much for long hikes. So what? RK is saying that an LPC is less challenging than a long hike or a puzzle. That's an accurate statement, not a caching preference.

 

If I go to the local swimming pool and make an observation that the less experienced swimmers tend to hang out in the 2 foot end of the pool and the experienced swimmers go out to the deep end, does that mean I am belittling the inexperienced swimmers? I don't know how to swim very well and it's my choice not to learn. But I don't go around telling the swimmers in the deep end how to swim.

[+KBI]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

If your preference is to hunt LPC's, all the more power to you! If you prefer long hikes, yippee skippy!

Lamp post caches are not my preference. Neither do I specifically go out of my way to make long hikes ...

 

... but your tolerance is refreshing.

 

 

RK is saying that an LPC is less challenging than a long hike or a puzzle. That's an accurate statement, not a caching preference.

Not true.

 

Saying that "most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond" not only clearly describes the preference of a subset of cachers, but it does so with a disdainful tone.

 

His wording sounded pretty snarky to me. Why else would he have chosen condescending terms like "kiddie pond," "real challenge" and "popcorn & chum" unless he was feeling superior to those who don’t share his preference?

 

Maybe his post didn’t sound condescending to you. If it didn't, then yippee skippy!

[+Kit Fox]

If I wanted a thousand emails a day, I could easily fill the desert around me with 100s of easy park and grabs, and become a "smilie" hero to power cachers. I don't want to be idolized by power cachers, I would rather my reputation be "that guy that hides great caches in great locations."

 

No power cacher am I, (702 finds in 7 years) but your implied dissent begs a question.....

 

What is so distasteful about being a power cacher? I see this time and again and I don't get it.

 

CCCooperAgency now caches incognito because of attitudes like yours and worse. Lynn is a good friend of mine and she never deserved the outright loathing that was heaped on her when she was the top cacher in finds here.

 

Help me understand............

 

While CCCooperAgency may be a super nice person, I was alway suspect of her logging methods (which goes for many of the top ten finders). Things like logs stating:

 

"I made it to the trailhead, but the gate was closed, so i'm logging it as a smiley."

 

"I couldn't find your nicely camouflaged cache in two minutes flat, so i'm going to throw down a 35mm canister, with my name on it so I can call it a found cache."

 

"I got my log deleted by the cache owner because he won't allow me to fake log his cache, therefore i'm going to log my own cache as a find to get my smiley."

 

There have been many examples of power cachers being too lazy to hike 100 feet, so future cachers end up finding Jeep tracks leading directly to the cache. I'm not naming names.

 

Logs relating to a cache series that has nothing to do with my cache, but that is all they post because they have 125 more caches to log.

 

Power cachers have been known to share the final location of puzzles, and multis, to "give them quicker finds, with less effort."

 

I don't want to be idolized by power cachers, I would rather my reputation be "that guy that hides great caches in great locations."

I hear ya, Brother! If I should ever earn a reputation as a power cache hider, I hope someone will shoot me in the foot to wake me from my stupor. Locally, I am known as "that guy who hides caches nipple deep in alligator infested swamps", which is just how I like it.

 

I have a very biased view of what cache types I enjoy, and I hide the type of caches I like to find.

The "Why" is, perhaps, twofold, and both could easily be considered as self serving:

 

1 ) I get a tremendous amount of satisfaction from reading the logs that come from folks finding my caches. These caches typically take a vast amount of effort to reach, and that is often expressed in the form of longer than usual logs, even from those folks who typically only peck in a few acronyms.

 

2 ) Many folks who find my caches are inspired to reciprocate, giving me even more caches of the type I enjoy the most.

 

You and I are 100% in agreement.

[knowschad]

often the audience for whom i write the log is not the CO, but whomever reads it.

 

Agreed. For those yet to hunt the cache, for the cache owner, and even for those that look back on their caching history, which I do at times. Sometimes I'll put a watch on a cache that I've found, so I can keep an eye on future finds, just to see their reactions. Sometimes I'll put a watch on a cache that I DNF'd or haven't even hunted yet, just to keep an eye on the reactions.

 

Seeing a reaction like "#34 of 85 for me and my friend Max today. Dang, we're good!" doesn't really tell me much about the cache that I'm watching. It does, however, tell me plenty about Max and his buddy.

Edited June 19, 2009 by knowschad

[+mrbort]

often the audience for whom i write the log is not the CO, but whomever reads it.

 

Agreed. For those yet to hunt the cache, for the cache owner, and even for those that look back on their caching history, which I do at times. Sometimes I'll put a watch on a cache that I've found, so I can keep an eye on future finds, just to see their reactions. Sometimes I'll put a watch on a cache that I DNF'd or haven't even hunted yet, just to keep an eye on the reactions.

 

Seeing a reaction like "#34 of 85 for me and my friend Max today. Dang, we're good!" doesn't really tell me much about the cache that I'm watching. It does, however, tell me plenty about Max and his buddy.

 

If one I'm watching a cache that I DNF to see if it's still there and was just missed, that log tells me a lot Just sayin! Of course I'd rather it be: "We found this cache after a lot of looking and wow, we never thought to look at the actual location. Great hide!" but just the find itself tells me that it's there for the finding. I have a cache on my to do list right now that a lot of people have found after me, often with unhelpful/uninformative logs... I'll get it one of these days!

 

Also, Friend of Chad, I don't think I can ever call you the same thing twice in a row and it will never be your cacher name sorry!

[knowschad]

 

While CCCooperAgency may be a super nice person, I was alway suspect of her logging methods (which goes for many of the top ten finders). Things like logs stating:

 

"I made it to the trailhead, but the gate was closed, so i'm logging it as a smiley."

 

"I couldn't find your nicely camouflaged cache in two minutes flat, so i'm going to throw down a 35mm canister, with my name on it so I can call it a found cache."

 

"I got my log deleted by the cache owner because he won't allow me to fake log his cache, therefore i'm going to log my own cache as a find to get my smiley."

 

There have been many examples of power cachers being too lazy to hike 100 feet, so future cachers end up finding Jeep tracks leading directly to the cache. I'm not naming names.

 

Logs relating to a cache series that has nothing to do with my cache, but that is all they post because they have 125 more caches to log.

 

Power cachers have been known to share the final location of puzzles, and multis, to "give them quicker finds, with less effort."

 

 

I have met and exchanged emails with Lynn, but I don't know her well enough to personally vouch for her. Yet I have caches many times with a friend, who, in less than two years, is well within the top 100 and soon to be in the top 50 worldwide, and believe me... NONE of those things are true for that masochist! Sometimes, when caching with him, I wish that it were. He will hike the hard way into any cache on "The List", he will remember the experience and log it, he will NOT "throw down" a lame cache just because he couldn't find the cache, but I have been with him when we found caches that were obviously strewn all over the place (swag, log, and pencil) and he was the one with a spare with him.

 

I could continue, but you've got the point. I'm sure what you say is very true of many power cachers, but it is far from true about others. You are not really complaining about power cachers, but about cheats and lazy cachers.

 

 

My point here is not to praise one particular numbers cacher, but to remind all to not stereotype.

[+George1]

If I wanted a thousand emails a day, I could easily fill the desert around me with 100s of easy park and grabs, and become a "smilie" hero to power cachers. I don't want to be idolized by power cachers, I would rather my reputation be "that guy that hides great caches in great locations." smile.gif

Exactly my sentiments!!

Edited June 19, 2009 by George1

[+Kit Fox]

 

I have met and exchanged emails with Lynn, but I don't know her well enough to personally vouch for her. Yet I have caches many times with a friend, who, in less than two years, is well within the top 100 and soon to be in the top 50 worldwide, and believe me... NONE of those things are true for that masochist! Sometimes, when caching with him, I wish that it were. He will hike the hard way into any cache on "The List", he will remember the experience and log it, he will NOT "throw down" a lame cache just because he couldn't find the cache, but I have been with him when we found caches that were obviously strewn all over the place (swag, log, and pencil) and he was the one with a spare with him.

 

He sounds like a stand-up guy.

 

I could continue, but you've got the point. I'm sure what you say is very true of many power cachers, but it is far from true about others. You are not really complaining about power cachers, but about cheats and lazy cachers.

 

 

My point here is not to praise one particular numbers cacher, but to remind all to not stereotype.

 

While I agree with your statement that not all powercachers are cheaters, and lazy, but 99.95% of the examples I mentioned were the acts of powercachers. I hope this clarifies my thoughts.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Kit Fox

[knowschad]

 

I have met and exchanged emails with Lynn, but I don't know her well enough to personally vouch for her. Yet I have caches many times with a friend, who, in less than two years, is well within the top 100 and soon to be in the top 50 worldwide, and believe me... NONE of those things are true for that masochist! Sometimes, when caching with him, I wish that it were. He will hike the hard way into any cache on "The List", he will remember the experience and log it, he will NOT "throw down" a lame cache just because he couldn't find the cache, but I have been with him when we found caches that were obviously strewn all over the place (swag, log, and pencil) and he was the one with a spare with him.

 

He sounds like a stand-up guy.

 

I could continue, but you've got the point. I'm sure what you say is very true of many power cachers, but it is far from true about others. You are not really complaining about power cachers, but about cheats and lazy cachers.

 

 

My point here is not to praise one particular numbers cacher, but to remind all to not stereotype.

 

While I agree with your statement that not all powercachers are cheaters, and lazy, but 99.95% of the examples I mentioned were the acts of powercachers. I hope this clarifies my thoughts.

 

Yes, he is. He also has become one helluva hider, having caused me a rash of recent DNFs.

 

Not sure about your 99.95% stats, but I get your drift, for sure.

[+Snoogans]

If I wanted a thousand emails a day, I could easily fill the desert around me with 100s of easy park and grabs, and become a "smilie" hero to power cachers. I don't want to be idolized by power cachers, I would rather my reputation be "that guy that hides great caches in great locations."

 

No power cacher am I, (702 finds in 7 years) but your implied dissent begs a question.....

 

What is so distasteful about being a power cacher? I see this time and again and I don't get it.

 

CCCooperAgency now caches incognito because of attitudes like yours and worse. Lynn is a good friend of mine and she never deserved the outright loathing that was heaped on her when she was the top cacher in finds here.

 

Help me understand............

 

While CCCooperAgency may be a super nice person, I was alway suspect of her logging methods (which goes for many of the top ten finders). Things like logs stating:

 

"I made it to the trailhead, but the gate was closed, so i'm logging it as a smiley."

 

"I couldn't find your nicely camouflaged cache in two minutes flat, so i'm going to throw down a 35mm canister, with my name on it so I can call it a found cache."

 

"I got my log deleted by the cache owner because he won't allow me to fake log his cache, therefore i'm going to log my own cache as a find to get my smiley."

 

There have been many examples of power cachers being too lazy to hike 100 feet, so future cachers end up finding Jeep tracks leading directly to the cache. I'm not naming names.

 

Logs relating to a cache series that has nothing to do with my cache, but that is all they post because they have 125 more caches to log.

 

Power cachers have been known to share the final location of puzzles, and multis, to "give them quicker finds, with less effort."

 

I don't advocate any of these practices, but then, individual cache logging ethics really don't concern me. I can quietly disagree with someone's cache logging ethics and STILL appreciate that person on their own merit and contribution to the geocaching continuum.

 

I get that people do care about such things but I can't personally fathom whyyyy someone would want to tax a brain cell to feel negative about it or to let it color a person's other positive contributions.

 

When a power cacher's questionable logging practices start to erase my own cachin' accomplishments, then I'll be able to burdon a few brain cells to care how someone else tends to their garden......

 

To summarize our "Geocaching Tree of Angst" so far:

 

We have an atmosphere rich with CO2 that is represented by one atom of "Entitlement" ( C ) and two atoms of "Expectation." (O2)

 

We have a rich medium for the growth of angst in our soil, which is represented by a common/general, "unawareness that this hobby is intrinsically linked to other people."

 

The water (H2O) that nourishes the tree is either actual or perceived (H2) negative interaction (O) between geocachers.

 

Our tree is furtilized by misconception, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding (MMM) whether actual or deliberate.

 

The roots of our tree are based in actual participation and experience in geocaching as an activity.... Hiding, finding, & moving trackables.

 

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about."

 

From there our "Tree of Angst" branches out in many directions. Some branches sprout from the trunk and some branches think they are attacking the trunk from the other side, but are seemingly unaware that they are part of the same tree.

 

The named branches of our tree so far:

 

The Theory of Geocaching Evolution

 

Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF

 

Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame (P.S.D.E.P.L.)

 

Geocaching was so much better way back when

 

The Theory That It's the "OTHER GUY" Who Is Just Sucking the Fun Out of Geocaching

Edited June 19, 2009 by Snoogans

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Mrbort emailed me as did WebChimp and suggested I come back to see what he wrote (both of which were lovely, well-written, and intelligent). Then I saw what Briansnat wrote:

 

 

The forums are a great place to share information, as you can see from your thread asking about how to find good places for caches. There are also some topics that you know right from the get go will generate heated debate. Stay away from those and you'll avoid most of the ugliness. You've been a great addition here in your short time, we'd hate to see you go.

 

Your best bet is to avoid any thread that mentions "micro", "logging", "lamp post", "cemetery", "numbers" in the title or starts with "Why do people...."

 

I'm glad to see that there are standard rules I can apply to avoid trouble since it is clear that I am too thin-skinned to be in the scary parts of the forum. I'm hoping the hiking area doesn't talk about micros, logging, lamp posts, cemeteries, or numbers. I think that might be a gentle place for me to hang out, kind of midway between the beginner's forum and the general topics discussion. (Are there any trigger-topics in the hiking area I should avoid? Any scary debates about "real hikers" vs wimpy hikers? Do the barefoot hikers occasionally sling smelly organic glop at the shod hikers? Any ugly debates comparing mountain hiking to swamp hiking? Anything I should be aware of before I spend time there?)

 

You are quite right that I found the thread on finding beautiful places to place caches far more useful than I ever imagined a forum thread could be. Even my beloved found it useful. He has promised to hit up his colleagues for materials on historic spots and I'm happily pouring over maps. He used to have connections with gov doc repositories and is thinking about how to get old topos to view. (He loved that idea, btw.)

 

I will probably be spending a bit less time here and a bit more time with topo maps, which is all to the good I think. I've decided not to leave (but to discontinue participation in this thread). So thank you and I apologize for the unnecessary drama.

 

Carolyn

Edited June 19, 2009 by Steve&GeoCarolyn

[+bittsen]

Mrbort emailed me and suggested I come back to see what he wrote (which was lovely, well-written, and intelligent). Then I saw what Briansnat wrote:

 

I'm glad to see that there are standard rules I can apply to avoid trouble since it is clear that I am too thin-skinned to be in the scary parts of the forum. I'm hoping the hiking area doesn't talk about micros, logging, lamp posts, cemeteries, or numbers. I think that might be a gentle place for me to hang out, kind of midway between the beginner's forum and the general topics discussion. (Are there any trigger-topics in the hiking area I should avoid? Any scary debates about "real hikers" vs wimpy hikers? Do the barefoot hikers occasionally sling smelly organic glop at the shod hikers? Any ugly debates comparing mountain hiking to swamp hiking? Anything I should be aware of before I spend time there?)

 

You are quite right that I found the thread on finding beautiful places to place caches far more useful than I ever imagined a forum thread could be. Even my beloved found it useful. He has promised to hit up his colleagues for materials on historic spots and I'm happily pouring over maps. He used to have connections with gov doc repositories and is thinking about how to get old topos to view. (He loved that idea, btw.)

 

I will probably be spending a bit less time here and a bit more time with topo maps, which is all to the good I think. I've decided not to leave (but to discontinue participation in this thread). So thank you and I apologize for the unnecessary drama.

 

Carolyn

 

Until you have hiked the complete Oregon Trail, you aren't a real hiker!!

 

Ha, just kidding. Seriously, just kidding.

[+mrbort]

Mrbort emailed me and suggested I come back to see what he wrote (which was lovely, well-written, and intelligent). Then I saw what Briansnat wrote

 

Carolyn, I'm glad you've decided to give the forums another shot. To be clear for others, in my email, I was saying that I've really appreciated your posts for their thoughtfulness and tact and wasn't trying to get ya to come read my post -- my posts aren't works of art but thank you for the compliment Briansnat really said it well.

 

Glad you're back in whatever capacity you feel comfortable and I hope you increase your overall experience by participation in whatever way you feel appropriate!

 

yay

[+mrbort]

Until you have hiked the complete Oregon Trail, you aren't a real hiker!!

 

I tried but my oxen died and then entire family died of dysentery since I was a Banker and then my raft broke up on the rapids Then I died of dysentery.

 

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Mrbort emailed me and suggested I come back to see what he wrote (which was lovely, well-written, and intelligent). Then I saw what Briansnat wrote

 

Carolyn, I'm glad you've decided to give the forums another shot. To be clear for others, in my email, I was saying that I've really appreciated your posts for their thoughtfulness and tact and wasn't trying to get ya to come read my post -- my posts aren't works of art but thank you for the compliment Briansnat really said it well.

 

Glad you're back in whatever capacity you feel comfortable and I hope you increase your overall experience by participation in whatever way you feel appropriate!

 

yay

 

Thank you. I've corrected my post. You and WebChimp both wrote me and I appreciated both messages very much. I meant to mention you both but got mixed up. Clearly I need someone to escort me around today and watch to ensure that I don't make any mistakes. It has been that sort of day. (Or it could be that my beloved is right and I should spend some quality time sleeping to recharge my brain.)

 

Carolyn

Edited June 19, 2009 by Steve&GeoCarolyn

[+bittsen]

Until you have hiked the complete Oregon Trail, you aren't a real hiker!!

 

I tried but my oxen died and then entire family died of dysentery since I was a Banker and then my raft broke up on the rapids Then I died of dysentery.

 

 

Ah, the oregon trail game. Circa 1988, if memory serves me correctly.

I played that game a LOT after an OLD computer was given to me in 1999.

(No, I had a top of the line machine at home but this was my work, goof off machine)

That computer had a HUGE hard drive. I think the disks were 8 inches in diameter and there were 9 of the things. I still have the magnet from that hard drive. It's the most powerful magnet I own (and I own a LOT of magnets)

[CoyoteRed]

I find it refreshing that there are a number of folks who place caches to entertain others and without regard for some artificial construct. They put out caches and look for the feedback to see how well they've done. They also seem to have a healthy outlook on circumstances when they got less than pleasant feedback. Not everyone is in the camps of either "give me feedback I like or else" or the "I don't give a darn what feedback I get because I only place caches for me."

 

For a cacher to label someones cache as "trash" takes an elitist mind. I can guarantee that if all urban caching (ie LMP type caches) were banned, then this sport/hobby/game would suffer in a great way.

I find it interesting that you're equating "trash" with urban caching. (I don't know what a LMP is. Maybe you meant LPC?) I don't equate urban caches with trache. I don't even equate it with micros. True, a lot of the trache does happen to be urban, micros, or both. But just because a cache is urban, micro, or both doesn't mean it's trache.

 

Can't argue with the statement that if urban caches were banned the hobby would suffer. I'm positive is would for most of us.

 

However, if the trache was eliminated...

[+bittsen]

I find it refreshing that there are a number of folks who place caches to entertain others and without regard for some artificial construct. They put out caches and look for the feedback to see how well they've done. They also seem to have a healthy outlook on circumstances when they got less than pleasant feedback. Not everyone is in the camps of either "give me feedback I like or else" or the "I don't give a darn what feedback I get because I only place caches for me."

 

For a cacher to label someones cache as "trash" takes an elitist mind. I can guarantee that if all urban caching (ie LMP type caches) were banned, then this sport/hobby/game would suffer in a great way.

I find it interesting that you're equating "trash" with urban caching. (I don't know what a LMP is. Maybe you meant LPC?) I don't equate urban caches with trache. I don't even equate it with micros. True, a lot of the trache does happen to be urban, micros, or both. But just because a cache is urban, micro, or both doesn't mean it's trache.

 

Can't argue with the statement that if urban caches were banned the hobby would suffer. I'm positive is would for most of us.

 

However, if the trache was eliminated...

 

Can you give me an example of "trache" then?

 

Remember, one mans trache is another mans treasure.

 

(and yes, I meant LPC)

[+Entropy512]

Until you have hiked the complete Oregon Trail, you aren't a real hiker!!

 

I tried but my oxen died and then entire family died of dysentery since I was a Banker and then my raft broke up on the rapids Then I died of dysentery.

 

 

Ah, the oregon trail game. Circa 1988, if memory serves me correctly.

I played that game a LOT after an OLD computer was given to me in 1999.

(No, I had a top of the line machine at home but this was my work, goof off machine)

That computer had a HUGE hard drive. I think the disks were 8 inches in diameter and there were 9 of the things. I still have the magnet from that hard drive. It's the most powerful magnet I own (and I own a LOT of magnets)

A classic "kid's" "educational" game.

 

Where, at least on the version I played in elementary school, the winning strategy was to buy a gun and as much ammo as you could and shoot everything (whether for food or defense).

 

Real good values taught there!

 

As I understand it, more recent revisions don't have such a clear-cut strategy.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Can you give me an example of "trache" then?

 

How about my opinion of "trache".. Otherwise there will be a flood of responses about me being some kind of geocaching biggot.

 

1) A micro placed in the woods

2) A micro placed somewhere with no value other than provide an easy smiley

3) Any cache that is detrimental to the game, ie: against the rules, etc.

4) Any cache where the owner deletes logs for stupid reasons, such as incorrect choice of words or insufficient word count

 

If every cache was eliminated that fit into those categories, I don't think the game would be hurt at all.

[+Snoogans]

Since this is the reason for the last couple of posts, I'll address it:

 

(mmmmussst nnnnot envoke Godwin)

 

However, if the trache was eliminated...

 

Some folks could really get behind this I'm sure.... It's the same mentality that fueled book burnings way back when. :rolleyes:

 

A set of guidelines for cache publications already exists. Each cache that passes muster becomes a choice.....

 

Uhhh, in alllll things, I'd rather have more CHOICES than less.

 

(whew, I think Godwin is safe... for now)

[+flask]

i can't define trache categorically, but i know it when i see it.

 

interestingly, i have to go there and look before i can judge.

 

a wet and cracked gladware tossed behind a junkpile on posted property qualifies for me. since these qualities are not in the description, i have to go to a lot of little traches.

 

it's kind of the price for going to see, though. ya pays yer nickle, ya takes yer chances.

[Team CDCB]

Here's my feelings on the matter... I give them to you freely, so take 'em for what they are worth!

 

As a cache owner, I feel good when I know others enjoyed my cache. How do I know that? By the log they leave. If it's an interesting story, if they comment about it in a positive way, if they take time to leave something more than just a "TNLNSL."

 

Now, it's certainly possible that the person who left the TNLNSL enjoyed my cache just as much as the person who wrote to say that they had fun or left a little story about the interesting thing that happened. But I have no way of knowing that. And so when I get a "TNLNSL, TFTC" I feel a little let down. Not earth shattering, mind you, but a little let down just the same.

 

I suspect that the far majority of cache owners feel, to varying degrees, the same way. Some owners may really hate getting just the default log. To some they may not mind it much at all. But I'm quite confident in saying that 99.9% of owners would prefer some thought behind a log rather than the default. So, why does this matter to finders? Simply this: Who's more likely to hid more caches? The person who's received enjoyment from interesting logs, or the person who's got nothing but default logs?

 

So, if you enjoy a cache, if you had fun doing it, show your appreciation by leaving an interesting log. This makes the owner more likely to put more caches out, which makes your enjoyment of the sport better. Terribly self-serving really, but I do firmly believe that it's true. So in short to the finders: If you liked a cache and would like to see more like it, then leave a good log. (And if you thought the cache was stupid, well, you can always just: TNLNSL TFTC)

 

And now for you cache owners out there, here's the most important part: Practice what you preach!! Take the time to leave some comments about the cache if you enjoyed it. Let the owner know what happened, or that funny thing your caching buddy said just before you found it, or how unique and interesting the cache/find/location was. These things will prompt those owners to put more caches out as well.

[+Renegade Knight]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

 

My philosophy is straight forward.

I will defend a persons right to place a crappy cache.

I will suggest (rules of thumb you often argue against) ways to make more people happy about your cache, than less that don't impact your caches inspiration.

I also have my own preferneces on how I go about this activity.

 

So what you have is that I will directly defend your right to place popcorn, I will suggest a way to step it up a notch, and independatly of that I will enjoy that cache or not. I do think there is such a thing as lame, chum, and popcorn in a persons approach to placing, but that only a few caches would be so universally loathed as to be worth the label.

 

What you can't find in what you quoted is anything at all about what that preference is or what exactly I'm calling chum.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Can you give me an example of "trache" then?...

 

I can't. My own enjoyment is eclecic. It's based on all kinds of things. A crappy cache I'd hate on monday, may be just the ticket when after a long day of DNF's I'm drying of thirst and need an easy find to end the day on.

 

I can define popcorn and it's likely what the trache person had in mind. A cache hidden enitlry for the purpose of padding anothers find total. Not so long ago I found a cache whos stated purpose in life (as in that cache descriptoin said so) was to do just that. Gimme that same cache hidden by a 3 year old who doesn't know any better and is enjoying themselves thinking we ar going to have a good time and I can enjoy the cache.

[Team CDCB]

Can you give me an example of "trache" then?

1) A micro placed in the woods

Generally agree, however I can think of exceptions. What if it's a micro stuffed into an interesting rock formation?

2) A micro placed somewhere with no value other than provide an easy smiley

Generally agree, however I can think of exceptions. What if it's the spot where a couple first met and they want to commemorate the location?

3) Any cache that is detrimental to the game, ie: against the rules, etc.

Generally agree, however I can think of exceptions, especially where the rules are fuzzy or it's not clear that the rules were/are broken. What if the cache is below grade but the below grade hole was caused by rabbits trying to get under the fence into my yard and putting a cache here solves not only the problem of keeping the rabbits out but also of a great place to put a cache? I found another cache that was below grade once on private property (with permission). Bugger to find, but when we did find it, it was immensely rewarding. It was a fun cache.

4) Any cache where the owner deletes logs for stupid reasons, such as incorrect choice of words or insufficient word count

Generally agree, however I can think... well, okay, in this case, I don't know that I can think of exceptions.

If every cache was eliminated that fit into those categories, I don't think the game would be hurt at all.

See, here's the problem. Many of the caches that find into those categories, if you actually visited them, you might find very interesting. And some of the other ones, others might find very interesting. I dislike micros as a rule, but two of favorite caching days are when my brother and I did a series of 28 caches along a major business street in our town. Each cache, in and of itself, was a pretty meaningless micro under a lamp skirt, or magnetized to something metal. But on the whole it was fun as we worked from one end of the city to the other.

 

I, personally, would hate to try to find a micro in the woods. But some really experienced cachers might find the challenge fun.

 

We already talked about caches that do or seem to break the rules.

 

Look, we have the choice here. When I plan a time to go caching, I skip it if it's a micro. I know I'm probably not going to enjoy it, so I don't do it. If I do a bunch of caches from Joe Cacher and I find them all pointless or in bad locations, or poor containers and I'm not having fun, well, then I'm not going to find Joe's caches anymore.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Team CDCB

[Team CDCB]

Sorry... double post.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Team CDCB

[+ReadyOrNot]

Can't believe I forgot this one... this is BY FAR the worst violation

 

5) A micro placed in a pointless location NEAR an interesting location which renders the interesting location un-placable. For instance, placing a micro in a parking lot next to a park. <slapping forehead>

[+ReadyOrNot]

See, here's the problem. Many of the caches that find into those categories, if you actually visited them, you might find very interesting.

 

How do I determine a) placed somewhere with no value or detrimental, against rules, without visiting? In order to fulfill my criteria, I would need to actually visit the cache.

 

And as far as the couple placing a cache at the location they met, how does that apply to "no value". Are the caches not placed for the seekers?

 

Here's where we met.... SO WHAT? Here's where I broke my leg when I was 6... WHO CARES? Unless you happen to break your leg on an interesting rock formation...

[+sbell111]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

 

My philosophy is straight forward.

I will defend a persons right to place a crappy cache.

I will suggest (rules of thumb you often argue against) ways to make more people happy about your cache, than less that don't impact your caches inspiration.

I also have my own preferneces on how I go about this activity.

 

So what you have is that I will directly defend your right to place popcorn, I will suggest a way to step it up a notch, and independatly of that I will enjoy that cache or not. I do think there is such a thing as lame, chum, and popcorn in a persons approach to placing, but that only a few caches would be so universally loathed as to be worth the label.

 

What you can't find in what you quoted is anything at all about what that preference is or what exactly I'm calling chum.

I would argue that it doesn't matter. Rudeness for rudeness sake seems kind of pointless.

[Team CDCB]

How do I determine a) placed somewhere with no value or detrimental, against rules, without visiting? In order to fulfill my criteria, I would need to actually visit the cache.

You don't. However, as I mentioned above, you can build up an idea. For instance, if I see a that's it's a micro in the city, close to a parking lot, I'll probably avoid it. I can choose to do that. If I've visited this person's other caches and I didn't enjoy them, I can choose to skip his future ones.

 

Another thing that I've found to often be true: Did the hider take the time to put in a decent description? If it's just a sentence or two saying: Here's a cache, hope you like it. I've found that more often than not, I won't.

And as far as the couple placing a cache at the location they met, how does that apply to "no value". Are the caches not placed for the seekers?

Yes... and no... but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Someone should start a thread on that sometime... maybe a title along the lines of The Personal Why of hiding a cache... but I digress...

 

The point is that value, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Absolutely there are caches out there where the hider is only interested in spewing out a lot of hides. I often wonder, sometimes, if a real power numbers person might register with a different ID so that he or she could hide a bunch and then 'find' them later under the first ID. But again, I digress. What I'm saying is that sometimes are very interesting to some people, and have "no value" to others. If a micro took me to an building of very interesting architechture, I would enjoy it. My wife would consider it pointless. If a cache took me on a hike through woods and then to a scenic location, I would love it. My wife would be ho-hum. If a cache took us to a little arts and craft shop in a downtown district of a small town, my wife would love it. Me, I'd pull out my phone and play a couple of games of Text Twist while she shopped. If a cache took me to the location that a couple who are friends or family first met, I'd find it interesting and cool. Someone who didn't know 'em wouldn't. To each their own. What if some of your favorite cache finds others didn't care for? Should they have been removed before you had a chance to do them because others found little or no value in them?

Here's where we met.... SO WHAT? Here's where I broke my leg when I was 6... WHO CARES? Unless you happen to break your leg on an interesting rock formation...

Again, you like that cache you found? So what! I didn't. Therefore, it should be removed because I, as a finder, didn't like it and all must conform to my way of doing it.

[+StarBrand]

....

My philosophy is straight forward.

I will defend a persons right to place a crappy cache.

I will suggest (rules of thumb you often argue against) ways to make more people happy about your cache, than less that don't impact your caches inspiration.

I also have my own preferneces on how I go about this activity.

 

So what you have is that I will directly defend your right to place popcorn, I will suggest a way to step it up a notch, and independatly of that I will enjoy that cache or not. I do think there is such a thing as lame, chum, and popcorn in a persons approach to placing, but that only a few caches would be so universally loathed as to be worth the label.

 

What you can't find in what you quoted is anything at all about what that preference is or what exactly I'm calling chum.

I must say - my philosophy is rather similar in this matter.

 

I know what I like and I know what most cachers like in a cache placement. I feel free in commenting how to make a cache more geared toward the majority. But I will also defend your right to place anything that fits within the guidelines - even if I do comment on how to make it more appealing.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Again, you like that cache you found? So what! I didn't. Therefore, it should be removed because I, as a finder, didn't like it and all must conform to my way of doing it.

 

Who said if I don't like it, the cache should be removed? I simply gave my opinion that geocaching would be better if a sense of "Quality" were restored to the game as opposed to "Quantity". That's all I'm saying. Removing the caches is not the answer, changing certain aspects of the game that push "Quantity" over "Quality" would be a better approach...

 

If I don't like a porn shop near my neighborhood, I change the laws/regulations that allowed them to put it there in the first place... I don't go and burn the place down. Don't disallow crappy caches, but create an environment that doesn't foster the placement of crappy caches... That's all...

[+KBI]

Apparently most cachers now fish at the kiddie pond. That's fine. There is room enough for the rest of us to walk down the creek and try a real challenge, and enjoy something other than popcorn & chum.

... and also, apparently, to insult and belittle anyone whose caching preference is different from yours.

My philosophy is straight forward.

I will defend a persons right to place a crappy cache.

I will suggest (rules of thumb you often argue against) ways to make more people happy about your cache, than less that don't impact your caches inspiration.

I also have my own preferneces on how I go about this activity.

 

So what you have is that I will directly defend your right to place popcorn, I will suggest a way to step it up a notch, and independatly of that I will enjoy that cache or not. I do think there is such a thing as lame, chum, and popcorn in a persons approach to placing, but that only a few caches would be so universally loathed as to be worth the label.

 

What you can't find in what you quoted is anything at all about what that preference is or what exactly I'm calling chum.

No, but what I CAN find – cannot ignore, really – is your plainly condescending and outspoken attitude toward whatever caches you are describing in those insults.

 

Maybe you, and certain others, truly cannot hear the slant in your words. Sometimes that happens; we all filter the world through our own biases, and the level of self deafness depends on the quality of one’s open-mindedness.

 

My only intent was to make an observation from my point of view: that you have an unmistakable contempt for certain types of cache hides, caches that certain of your fellow cachers nevertheless clearly enjoy, and you don’t seem at all reluctant to blatantly insult those cachers and their preferences. You can admit that much, can’t you?

 

Like you, I will defend a person’s right to place a crappy cache. I will also defend a person’s right to post a boorish post. That doesn’t mean I have to like it, or agree with it.

 

Just an observation. Please carry on.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Like you, I will defend a person’s right to place a crappy cache. I will also defend a person’s right to post a boorish post. That doesn’t mean I have to like it, or agree with it.

 

The fact that you will defend a person's right to place a crappy cache is evidence that you feel some cache placements are crappy. Welcome to the dark side KBI! Noone has said that the person didn't have a right to place the cache.. We're simply saying certain placements are crappy... And it appears you concur.

 

Ahhh.. Peace and harmony at last...