Pointless caches

[+StarBrand]

I think what some of us are really trying to say here is that we would like to see a little more thought put into both the quality of the cache containers and the locations. I don't deny that some like to find simple, easy cache hides - all I ask is that we as a community should start to expect a bit more out of such a cache than another 5 acres of yellow marked blacktop with light poles. That doesn't seem so hard to understand.

I think that it's not my job to manage your expectations, it's yours.

 

Also, I don't see why the entire game needs to change because you don't care for these caches. Others like them. In fact, they are quite popular.

 

If you don't like these caches (or any other subset of caches) you need to take the responsibility of avoiding them. Asking others to not hide and find caches that they enjoy doesn't seem to be the optimal solution.

Just how did you get from "we" should expect to "I" do expect??!!??

 

But you did make a nice comment after you twisted my statement.

[+briansnat]

What some may consider trivial and pointless may be what the stroller equipped family is looking for.

 

Wouldn't most stroller equipped families like to be able to load their GPS and find caches that are in nice places, rather than in homeless encampments, litter strewn lots, dumpster areas behind strip malls, on guardrails on busy thoroughfares, etc. without spending hours of research before their day of caching?

[+Moose Mob]

What some may consider trivial and pointless may be what the stroller equipped family is looking for.

 

Wouldn't most stroller equipped families like to be able to load their GPS and find caches that are in nice places, rather than in homeless encampments, litter strewn lots, dumpster areas behind strip malls, on guardrails on busy thoroughfares, etc. without spending hours of research before their day of caching?

Yes, and the question has evolved into whether they should select the caches they want to find or if somebody else is supposed to do it for them.

[+StarBrand]

What some may consider trivial and pointless may be what the stroller equipped family is looking for.

 

Wouldn't most stroller equipped families like to be able to load their GPS and find caches that are in nice places, rather than in homeless encampments, litter strewn lots, dumpster areas behind strip malls, on guardrails on busy thoroughfares, etc. without spending hours of research before their day of caching?

I once pushed a stroller and my 6 month old across this field listed as 1 terrain - it was easy enough - no dodging cars or traffic.

[+wildtech]

I'm a fisherman. I hate bass fishing and love trout fishing, so I don't fish for bass.

 

How might you feel if they started stocking your favorite trout pond with bluegill (panfish) because bluegill is cheaper and easier to stock, easier to catch, and it gives those who only have a 'pocket fisherman' something to do?

You don't know much about fishing, do you?

[+bittsen]

I love seeing these debates. Some of the points are so...um.... pointless.

 

If you can't tell a micro is a parking lot micro by looking at the GPS then caching is probably not your thing.

If someone else is enjoying something that you don't and it frustrates you, you might just have a problem in life in general.

 

The ONLY time I'm upset about a "lame" hide is when it gets in the way of hiding a truly spectacular cache. But, EVERYONE is allowed to hide a cache as long as it fits in the guidelines.

 

So people. Give up the angst already. Seriously...

[+Moose Mob]

If someone else is enjoying something that you don't and it frustrates you, you might just have a problem in life in general.

That might make a good sig line.

[+AZ Cache Family]

What some may consider trivial and pointless may be what the stroller equipped family is looking for.

 

Wouldn't most stroller equipped families like to be able to load their GPS and find caches that are in nice places, rather than in homeless encampments, litter strewn lots, dumpster areas behind strip malls, on guardrails on busy thoroughfares, etc. without spending hours of research before their day of caching?

I once pushed a stroller and my 6 month old across this field listed as 1 terrain - it was easy enough - no dodging cars or traffic.

 

I'm not saying that parking lits are the only stroller accessible caches, personally I went a bit overboard in building "the ultimate cache stroller" starting with a jogging stroller (larger wheels for rough terrain), then adding a set of bicycle headlights & taillights (safety & visibility for night caching) and finally a bicycle mount for the GPSr on the handle. A bit overboard yes, but our microcacher can now weather 3+ terrain with ease. But on the more common side of things, an umbrella stroller is a much more limited for terrain. Also, I wasn't referring to homeless encampments or dumpster areas, I was merely shedding some light on parking lot caches, and I personally think that because most of our parking lots are mistaken for Talledega that the difficulty with a stroller should be increased to at least 2...

[+Folenator]

I mean, if the point is only to have fun with friends, then we can randomly go around lifting lamp skirts without the benefit of a cache. One of you go hide a rubber ball at the mall and then let your friends go find it. Hilarity ensues. Makes about as much sense to me.

 

You are crackin' me up and I think fully get the point. It seems like keeping some quality while keeping it easy for the physically challenged should not be mutually exclusive.

[+LandStar]

Let them read their own menu and pick out what they want.

The "if you don't like them then don't hunt them" argument is old and it doesn't answer the question of why place pointless caches.

That's not the question that the argument is supposed to answer, so it's no wonder the answer isn't good enough for you.

 

I know I don't have to hunt them. I practice that already.

You don't hunt pointless caches? I'd love it if you'd explain to us 1) what Coyotered considers to be a pointless cache, and 2) how you've finally managed to avoid them after complaining all these years that you can't do this.

 

Answer the question of why pointless caches have to darken my PQ in the first place.

Because there are NO pointless caches. As has already been stated, the point to a geocache is for it to be found using a GPS device. If they're being found, they're not pointless.

 

Oblio and Arrow are sent to the Pointless Forest, but soon discover that even the Pointless Forest has a point. They meet curious creatures like giant bees, a "pointed man" pointing in all directions who proclaims "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all", a man made of rock who helps Oblio see that everyone has a point (as in reason) though it might not be readily displayed.

 

Oblio and Arrow spend the night in the Pointless Forest, then awaken to a large stone hand with the finger pointing to their "destination". They take the road indicated by the hand and make their way back to the Land of Point, where they receive a heroes' welcome from the land's citizens, and the King. Oblio begins to tell his story but is interrupted by the furious Count, who is then silenced by the King.

 

Oblio tells the King and the people of the land that everything has a point, including the Pointless Forest, and himself. Unable to stand hearing what he believes is nonsense any longer, the Count pulls off Oblio's cap, but is taken aback when he sees a point on top of Oblio's bare head.

 

Upon this revelation, the points of everyone else in the land disappeared, and pointed buildings became round.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Let them read their own menu and pick out what they want.

The"if you don't like them then don't hunt them" argument is old and it doesn't answer the question of why place pointless caches. I know I don't have to hunt them. I practice that already. Answer the question of why pointless caches have to darken my PQ in the first place.

 

Because then you wouldn't have anything to gripe about in online forums? I mean, why spend so much time on an Internet forum when you could be out caching right?

 

Of course the argument has been made before that there are alternatives, and I guess if they offer the kind of quality and decorum you are after, then geocachers will flock to them... leaving geocaching.com for the PNG crowd.

 

Perhaps there are even better alternatives, which claim to offer a better quality experience... and since there are less placed than geocacing.com then you also get the added bonus of 'GOOD OLD DAYS'™ with added nostalgia of when caches were few and of more quality, and all these micros weren't personally making your life unenjoyable.

 

I don't like gerkins, when I visit a burger place and they put gerkins in my cheeseburger, I open it up, fish them out and give them to the wife. I don't lie awake at night tossing and turning over the existence of gerkins in cheeseburgers the world over. I don't writh in angst and post in online forums insisting that restaurants should remove them all from their cheeseburgers before serving them. Yep it's a tiny modification to enjoy my cheeseburger gerkin-free and my wife gets double helpings of what I don't want - everyone is happy. And since most people are not like me and will eat the gerkins, I can only assume I am in the minority and have no right to insist others should not have gerkins because I don't personally like them.

 

Oh and I'm surprised no-one has called "Ringbone" on the OP yet, I mean one month in and already bitter...? Just seems iffy to me.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Post script: I'm mad at you. You killed Santa!

 

No he didnt.

 

The man who killed Santa Claus

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Let them read their own menu and pick out what they want.

The"if you don't like them then don't hunt them" argument is old and it doesn't answer the question of why place pointless caches. I know I don't have to hunt them. I practice that already. Answer the question of why pointless caches have to darken my PQ in the first place.

 

Others enjoy them. Why should they be forced to give up caches they enjoy because you do not want them around?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Also (and I'm fairly certain that Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking will back me on this one) when it's 115 degrees outside and you want to snag a find to fulfil a need to log a find, you may not want to embark on that 15 mile one way hike as you will likely die of dehydration (which results in a DNF).

 

Oh yea, when its 115 outside, and its been that way for a month, and over 100 for a couple of months, and if you stay inside staring at the walls or watching garbage on tv just one more second you will die of boredom ..... its great to get out and find some easy park and grabs. If only to get you outside and doing something ... anything ... else.

[+traildad]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

For some people a find is a find and that is all that matters to them. Go figure.

[+briansnat]

Also (and I'm fairly certain that Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking will back me on this one) when it's 115 degrees outside and you want to snag a find to fulfil a need to log a find, you may not want to embark on that 15 mile one way hike as you will likely die of dehydration (which results in a DNF).

 

Oh yea, when its 115 outside, and its been that way for a month, and over 100 for a couple of months, and if you stay inside staring at the walls or watching garbage on tv just one more second you will die of boredom ..... its great to get out and find some easy park and grabs. If only to get you outside and doing something ... anything ... else.

 

I don't think the issue is easy park n grabs. You seem to be missing the OP's point.

Edited December 30, 2009 by briansnat

[+GeoRVers]

 

I used to feel the same way. Parking lot caches had no value except to run up your numbers. Then I had my accident. After being an invalid for about 4 months, I finally was able to get out and about in a wheelchair with help. I quickly found that these "worthless" caches were the only ones I could do and it was that way for quite a while. In fact, there are still days that this type are all I am up to.

 

Are they my preferred type? No way. But I am now incapable of going after my preferred type and probably always will be, so if I want to play the game I have to change my attitude and, oftentimes, lower my standards.

 

If you don't want to hunt 1/1's in parking lots and other urban areas, then don't. But, and you can take this to the bank, they DO serve at least 1 purpose I know of!

 

SQ

 

Amen! But then again, do away with all the easy P&Gs and poor "GeoSnob" would be deprived of giggling as he passed one of our wheelchairs mired down in mud trying of participate.

 

Others with disabilities might want to check out: http://www.handicaching.com/

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I don't think the issue is easy park n grabs. You seem to be missing the OP's point.

 

No, I get his point. He thinks all caches need a wow factor. But wow is subjective. What is wow for him isnt wow for others. Ive seen many caches placed in my area, in rural areas, needing a hike or 4WD to get to them, placed solely because "it needed a cache" according to the cache owner. Nothing scenic, it was just a place that they wanted to leave one at. How is that different than a parking lot micro? There is no wow factor. Some folks enjoy parking lot micros and some do not. Some folks enjoy caches you have to work hard to find, some do not. Some folks like unimaginative regular sized caches placed in a boring location yet outside the city, and some do not. We can all enjoy geocaching in our own ways.

 

What I have trouble understanding is why folks who dont like parking lot micros are against anyone else enjoying those caches. They seem to want things their way, no matter how it affects others.

[knowschad]

The physically challenged argument is incredibly patronizing. As if because you are physically challenged you should be satisfied with visiting strip malls, 7-Eleven dumpsters and Wal-Mart parking lots. They deserve the opportunity for better than that.

Patronizing to whom?

To you, who is capable of geocaching for a living? To you who is capable of geocaching 20 mile trails in a deep forest?

Luckily....geocaching isn't just about YOU.

One of the major players in that large retirement community is an 80 year old lady. She hides amazing caches! Many, if not all, of them are level one terrain. See, she KNOWS her community.

She hid a large bolt under the lamp in a walmart parking lot.

Cut it out and carved the bolt. Took her some time doing so, and I bet she was proud as heck to hide that thing.

It was an easy find. Was it easy for her to build? I doubt it. When I commented in her log about how clever the container was, I bet it made her happy.

God forbid this game make anybody happy.

I LOVE that my able body was able to nab that easy walmart parking lot cache, and that I was able to play a role in someone else's happiness. Instead of spending my life focusing on my own happiness. A little selflessness goes a long way.

So, to the 80 year old ladies hiding clever caches, spending their time in Ace hardware looking for more creative ideas, spending their days carefully creating their caches: more power to you.

And I, will happily find, and log your parking lot cache.

And you can continue to ignore them.

Touching story, but one in a million. I'd hardly say that such an extreme situation should be used as an argument, one way or 'tother.

[+brslk]

The physically challenged argument is incredibly patronizing. As if because you are physically challenged you should be satisfied with visiting strip malls, 7-Eleven dumpsters and Wal-Mart parking lots. They deserve the opportunity for better than that.

Patronizing to whom?

To you, who is capable of geocaching for a living? To you who is capable of geocaching 20 mile trails in a deep forest?

Luckily....geocaching isn't just about YOU.

One of the major players in that large retirement community is an 80 year old lady. She hides amazing caches! Many, if not all, of them are level one terrain. See, she KNOWS her community.

She hid a large bolt under the lamp in a walmart parking lot.

Cut it out and carved the bolt. Took her some time doing so, and I bet she was proud as heck to hide that thing.

It was an easy find. Was it easy for her to build? I doubt it. When I commented in her log about how clever the container was, I bet it made her happy.

God forbid this game make anybody happy.

I LOVE that my able body was able to nab that easy walmart parking lot cache, and that I was able to play a role in someone else's happiness. Instead of spending my life focusing on my own happiness. A little selflessness goes a long way.

So, to the 80 year old ladies hiding clever caches, spending their time in Ace hardware looking for more creative ideas, spending their days carefully creating their caches: more power to you.

And I, will happily find, and log your parking lot cache.

And you can continue to ignore them.

Touching story, but one in a million. I'd hardly say that such an extreme situation should be used as an argument, one way or 'tother.

 

It brought a tear to my eye. It seriously made / makes me consider placing a cache near a retirement home.

 

Bruce.

[+JesandTodd]

[Touching story, but one in a million. I'd hardly say that such an extreme situation should be used as an argument, one way or 'tother.

 

Actually, it's far from a one in a million story, but whatever. Anyways, it's better than the, "I hate plc's because I'm a geosnob" like I've been hearing from these boards...

 

Anyway, I met her at an event cache and had a chance to thank her for her good work

[Clan Riffster]

...and a butler to retrieve the cache and bring it to you for your signature...

What? Your butler won't sign for the client? Cheese & Rice! What is this world coming to?

Lazy daggum butlers who are too sorry to sign a freekin' name.

There goes his tip!

[+sbell111]

I think what some of us are really trying to say here is that we would like to see a little more thought put into both the quality of the cache containers and the locations. I don't deny that some like to find simple, easy cache hides - all I ask is that we as a community should start to expect a bit more out of such a cache than another 5 acres of yellow marked blacktop with light poles. That doesn't seem so hard to understand.

I think that it's not my job to manage your expectations, it's yours.

 

Also, I don't see why the entire game needs to change because you don't care for these caches. Others like them. In fact, they are quite popular.

 

If you don't like these caches (or any other subset of caches) you need to take the responsibility of avoiding them. Asking others to not hide and find caches that they enjoy doesn't seem to be the optimal solution.

Just how did you get from "we" should expect to "I" do expect??!!??

 

But you did make a nice comment after you twisted my statement.

Are you actually suggesting that you are not part of the 'we' that you are trying to move to action? Is 'I' not always a subset of 'we'?

 

Perhaps I did not type 'we' because you don't speak for me.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think what some of us are really trying to say here is that we would like to see a little more thought put into both the quality of the cache containers and the locations. I don't deny that some like to find simple, easy cache hides - all I ask is that we as a community should start to expect a bit more out of such a cache than another 5 acres of yellow marked blacktop with light poles. That doesn't seem so hard to understand.

I think that it's not my job to manage your expectations, it's yours.

 

Also, I don't see why the entire game needs to change because you don't care for these caches. Others like them. In fact, they are quite popular.

 

If you don't like these caches (or any other subset of caches) you need to take the responsibility of avoiding them. Asking others to not hide and find caches that they enjoy doesn't seem to be the optimal solution.

Just how did you get from "we" should expect to "I" do expect??!!??

 

But you did make a nice comment after you twisted my statement.

Are you actually suggesting that you are not part of the 'we' that you are trying to move to action? Is 'I' not always a subset of 'we'?

 

Perhaps I did not type 'we' because you don't speak for me.

 

Well I have expectations and I really would like to try to impose them on others but I don't think it would be possible to a large extent. At least allow me to say what caches I like, let others say what caches they like and the ones that most like I'll try for and the ones most don't, I'll avoid.

[Mr.Yuck]

[Touching story, but one in a million. I'd hardly say that such an extreme situation should be used as an argument, one way or 'tother.

 

Actually, it's far from a one in a million story, but whatever. Anyways, it's better than the, "I hate plc's because I'm a geosnob" like I've been hearing from these boards...

 

Anyway, I met her at an event cache and had a chance to thank her for her good work

 

No, I have to agree. Nice story, but the average Wally World Parking Lot cache is not hidden by a little old lady who went to the hardware store and clevery handcrafted a container. You're not the first one to try to go "guilt trip" on us though.

 

I don't "hate" PLC's because I'm a "geosnob". I don't like the fact that I have to study them as their published so I can ignore them. And I disagree with the fact that this website publishes them knowing full well almost all of them are on private property without permission. I don't suppose you're going to tell me she has permission from the Wal-Mart manager to hide something under the lamp skirt in the parking lot, are you?

[Mushtang]

I don't like the fact that I have to study them as their they're published so I can ignore them.

(fixed)

 

Nice try, to make it seem like you have only two choices to either hunt them all, or to study them as they're published in order to ignore them. It's not like you're FORCED to do either of those things. You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published.

 

You're not the first one to play the victim though.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I live just north of a very large retirement community with plenty of physically challenged people. Lots of easy caches are around here for them. They deserve/enjoy to cache too.

 

 

The physically challenged argument is incredibly patronizing. As if because you are physically challenged you should be satisfied with visiting strip malls, 7-Eleven dumpsters and Wal-Mart parking lots. They deserve the opportunity for better than that.

 

Yes.

 

This earthcache is visited by stroller-pushing families and people in wheelchairs every day. Sure it's a paved path, but it's steep, often covered in ice and gains 300 feet on a .5 mile trail. Can we stop regulating non-walking humans and their two-legged propulsion to a certain subset of caches, please?

 

Now if you want to lift a skirt in the parking lot and you happen to roll instead of walk- that's your business.

[+sbell111]

I think what some of us are really trying to say here is that we would like to see a little more thought put into both the quality of the cache containers and the locations. I don't deny that some like to find simple, easy cache hides - all I ask is that we as a community should start to expect a bit more out of such a cache than another 5 acres of yellow marked blacktop with light poles. That doesn't seem so hard to understand.

I think that it's not my job to manage your expectations, it's yours.

 

Also, I don't see why the entire game needs to change because you don't care for these caches. Others like them. In fact, they are quite popular.

 

If you don't like these caches (or any other subset of caches) you need to take the responsibility of avoiding them. Asking others to not hide and find caches that they enjoy doesn't seem to be the optimal solution.

Just how did you get from "we" should expect to "I" do expect??!!??

 

But you did make a nice comment after you twisted my statement.

Are you actually suggesting that you are not part of the 'we' that you are trying to move to action? Is 'I' not always a subset of 'we'?

 

Perhaps I did not type 'we' because you don't speak for me.

 

Well I have expectations and I really would like to try to impose them on others but I don't think it would be possible to a large extent. At least allow me to say what caches I like, let others say what caches they like and the ones that most like I'll try for and the ones most don't, I'll avoid.

That seems very reasonable.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't like the fact that I have to study them as their they're published so I can ignore them.

(fixed)

 

Nice try, to make it seem like you have only two choices to either hunt them all, or to study them as they're published in order to ignore them. It's not like you're FORCED to do either of those things. You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published.

 

You're not the first one to play the victim though.

 

Oh crud, you got me. I admit it. I used the possessive "their" when I should have used "they're". The other stuff I disagree with though.

[+AZ Cache Family]

Post script: I'm mad at you. You killed Santa!

 

No he didnt.

 

The man who killed Santa Claus

 

Actually this holiday season a new suspect is being considered for the death of Santa Claus...

[Mushtang]

I don't like the fact that I have to study them as their they're published so I can ignore them.

(fixed)

 

Nice try, to make it seem like you have only two choices to either hunt them all, or to study them as they're published in order to ignore them. It's not like you're FORCED to do either of those things. You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published.

 

You're not the first one to play the victim though.

Oh crud, you got me. I admit it. I used the possessive "their" when I should have used "they're". The other stuff I disagree with though.

You disagree with the other stuff then? Really?

 

You think you're being FORCED to either hunt them all or study them as they're published?

You don't think you can easily avoid the caches you don't like?

[+L0ne.R]

I don't like the fact that I have to study them as their they're published so I can ignore them.

(fixed)

 

Nice try, to make it seem like you have only two choices to either hunt them all, or to study them as they're published in order to ignore them. It's not like you're FORCED to do either of those things. You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published.

 

You're not the first one to play the victim though.

 

Oh crud, you got me. I admit it. I used the possessive "their" when I should have used "they're". The other stuff I disagree with though.

 

Says a lot about Mushtang's inability to debate without resorting to belitting distraction. Too bad.

 

Regarding....."You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published." How do you do this? I filter out micros but whenever a cache is published near me I get a notification email for all caches regardless of size. The size is not mentioned in the notification. I have to click on the link and go to the cache page to see that it's a micro. Once I'm there I usually read it to see if maybe there's some creativity involved. 99.5% of the time there isn't and then I click the ignore button.

[+Moose Mob]

Let's quit nit-picking at the grammar and keep this on track, OK?

[+sbell111]

I filter out micros but whenever a cache is published near me I get a notification email for all caches regardless of size. The size is not mentioned in the notification. I have to click on the link and go to the cache page to see that it's a micro. Once I'm there I usually read it to see if maybe there's some creativity involved. 99.5% of the time there isn't and then I click the ignore button.

It looks like you have implemented a method that works for you and isn't unduly cumbersome.

 

Kudos.

Edited December 30, 2009 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

Regarding....."You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published." How do you do this? I filter out micros but whenever a cache is published near me I get a notification email for all caches regardless of size. The size is not mentioned in the notification. I have to click on the link and go to the cache page to see that it's a micro. Once I'm there I usually read it to see if maybe there's some creativity involved. 99.5% of the time there isn't and then I click the ignore button.

So you're suggesting that you too are FORCED to read the cache pages? If you see that a cache page is a micro, stop reading.

 

If this is too much for you, then just go with the PQs that you've already set up to filter out micros. You'll never see another one. The 0.5% of micros you claim have "some creativity involved" surely won't be missed with all the other caches available that you will like.

 

Easy Peasy.

[+WebChimp]

What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? ..... Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

Geocaching is far from being one-dimensional. Much like your local public library, geocaching has something for everyone. If romance and fiction aren't your cup of tea, head for the card catalog and find Plato's "Republic" or Wells' "History of Western Civilization". If you don't like parking lot caches, use your Pocket Query feature to filter out the 1/1 caches and see only the ones that will be more demanding. With nearly a million active caches online, and new ones being approved daily, you'll never run out of the caches you like.

 

Geocaching is what you make of it. If you have a preference on what to hunt, don't hesitate to hunt only that style of hide. And, should you ever want a change of pace, you can always pick up a lamp skirt on the way to the next 5/5.

[knowschad]

...and a butler to retrieve the cache and bring it to you for your signature...

What? Your butler won't sign for the client? Cheese & Rice! What is this world coming to?

Lazy daggum butlers who are too sorry to sign a freekin' name.

There goes his tip!

You need to give your butler power of attorney for that, I believe.

[+tozainamboku]

What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? ..... Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

Geocaching is far from being one-dimensional. Much like your local public library, geocaching has something for everyone. If romance and fiction aren't your cup of tea, head for the card catalog and find Plato's "Republic" or Wells' "History of Western Civilization". If you don't like parking lot caches, use your Pocket Query feature to filter out the 1/1 caches and see only the ones that will be more demanding. With nearly a million active caches online, and new ones being approved daily, you'll never run out of the caches you like.

 

Geocaching is what you make of it. If you have a preference on what to hunt, don't hesitate to hunt only that style of hide. And, should you ever want a change of pace, you can always pick up a lamp skirt on the way to the next 5/5.

What a bad analogy. The library has the books classified in the Dewey decimal system (or something equivalent). So I can go right to the classics and skip the romance novels. If it were like geocaching it would all be on the same shelf. Or perhaps the books would be sorted by length. The short books in one area and long books in another. Sure a long book is more likely to be a classic, but there are some short books that are worth reading too. If I skipped all the short books I would miss Camus' The Stranger, Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, or Orwell's Animal Farm.

 

It's alot easier to find flaws in someone's analogy than to make up one's own.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

The ONLY time I'm upset about a "lame" hide is when it gets in the way of hiding a truly spectacular cache. But, EVERYONE is allowed to hide a cache as long as it fits in the guidelines....

There you go. The one and only time a pointless cache is a problem. Most parking lot caches that I've been too, block other parking lot caches and don't block something potentially more interesting.

 

Ironicly it was my refusal to place a parking lot cache that led to a cache being rejected for listing. I listed it on another site. My rule of thumb is that if a spot is worthy of a cache it's going to get a cache. The only time I wouldn't do that is if it's too close to the LPC/PLM etc so that finders would confuse them. That number is different than 528'.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

What a bad analogy. The library has the books classified in the Dewey decimal system (or something equivalent). So I can go right to the classics and skip the romance novels. If it were like geocaching it would all be on the same shelf. Or perhaps the books would be sorted by length. The short books in one area and long books in another. Sure a long book is more likely to be a classic, but there are some short books that are worth reading too. If I skipped all the short books I would miss Camus' The Stranger, Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, or Orwell's Animal Farm.

 

It's alot easier to find flaws in someone's analogy than to make up one's own.

 

Oh, but if we implement the dewey decimal cache rating system people could look at the listings of interest fairly quickly. (Netflix style affinity system) Then you wouldn't miss your short books because someone else will have similar cache tastes.

 

This is the only rating system that I can envision that would at least work for most of us without being too complex to work with (though programming it is another thing).

[+sbell111]

What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? ..... Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

Geocaching is far from being one-dimensional. Much like your local public library, geocaching has something for everyone. If romance and fiction aren't your cup of tea, head for the card catalog and find Plato's "Republic" or Wells' "History of Western Civilization". If you don't like parking lot caches, use your Pocket Query feature to filter out the 1/1 caches and see only the ones that will be more demanding. With nearly a million active caches online, and new ones being approved daily, you'll never run out of the caches you like.

 

Geocaching is what you make of it. If you have a preference on what to hunt, don't hesitate to hunt only that style of hide. And, should you ever want a change of pace, you can always pick up a lamp skirt on the way to the next 5/5.

What a bad analogy. The library has the books classified in the Dewey decimal system (or something equivalent). So I can go right to the classics and skip the romance novels. If it were like geocaching it would all be on the same shelf. Or perhaps the books would be sorted by length. The short books in one area and long books in another. Sure a long book is more likely to be a classic, but there are some short books that are worth reading too. If I skipped all the short books I would miss Camus' The Stranger, Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, or Orwell's Animal Farm.

 

It's alot easier to find flaws in someone's analogy than to make up one's own.

It was a bad analogy, but not for the reason that you gave. You see, unlike the library which only uses the one system to classify books, geocaching uses five - type, size, terrain, difficulty, and attribute (not to mention date placed, distance, et al). These criteria can be searched on in combination so a person can do a really good job of refining his search to weed out the caches that he isn't interested in. Edited December 30, 2009 by sbell111

[+L0ne.R]

Regarding....."You can easily avoid these, and never see another one, without reading the cache pages as they're published." How do you do this? I filter out micros but whenever a cache is published near me I get a notification email for all caches regardless of size. The size is not mentioned in the notification. I have to click on the link and go to the cache page to see that it's a micro. Once I'm there I usually read it to see if maybe there's some creativity involved. 99.5% of the time there isn't and then I click the ignore button.

So you're suggesting that you too are FORCED to read the cache pages? If you see that a cache page is a micro, stop reading.

 

If this is too much for you, then just go with the PQs that you've already set up to filter out micros. You'll never see another one. The 0.5% of micros you claim have "some creativity involved" surely won't be missed with all the other caches available that you will like.

 

Easy Peasy.

 

Sorry, you mentioned an easy way to never see another one so I wondered if I was inadvertently overlooking a feature that filtered out micros from my notifications. Looks like there is no feature where I can "easily avoid [micros] and never see another one".

[Mushtang]

Looks like there is no feature where I can "easily avoid [micros] and never see another one".

Oh, but there is. And I've already told you about it.

 

In fact, you're already doing most of that already. You're filtering out micros from your PQs, so if you use them, you'll never have to see a micro.

 

If you get an instant notification and click on the link to see the size, as soon as you see that it's a micro close it. Don't read it.

 

If you're actively reading cache pages that you KNOW are micro caches, or if you go search for caches that you KNOW are micro caches, are you really surprised that you're still seeing micro caches????

[+fizzymagic]

You see, unlike the library which only uses the one system to classify books, geocaching uses five - type, size, terrain, difficulty, and attribute (not to mention date placed, distance, et al). These criteria can be searched on in combination so a person can do a really good job of refining his search to weed out the caches that he isn't interested in.

 

Really? This may be the single most absurd thing you've ever written. And that's saying a lot.

 

How, precisely, are you able to tell whether a cache is lame from the size, type, difficulty, terrain and attributes? Since you keep telling us all how it's possible, I am quite eager to hear. Please be specific.

 

(Since I know that you can't answer the question, I'll just add that the features you have mentioned are nearly independent of cache quality. Thus, they provide no useful information about it, and your point is entirely wrong. I know, because I have found both good and bad caches with all different sizes, difficulties, terrains, and types.)

[+tozainamboku]

You see, unlike the library which only uses the one system to classify books, geocaching uses five - type, size, terrain, difficulty, and attribute (not to mention date placed, distance, et al). These criteria can be searched on in combination so a person can do a really good job of refining his search to weed out the caches that he isn't interested in.

 

Really? This may be the single most absurd thing you've ever written. And that's saying a lot.

 

How, precisely, are you able to tell whether a cache is lame from the size, type, difficulty, terrain and attributes? Since you keep telling us all how it's possible, I am quite eager to hear. Please be specific.

 

(Since I know that you can't answer the question, I'll just add that the features you have mentioned are nearly independent of cache quality. Thus, they provide no useful information about it, and your point is entirely wrong. I know, because I have found both good and bad caches with all different sizes, difficulties, terrains, and types.)

If these features are independent of what people say is a quality cache then I wonder why there are so many complaints about micros

 

However, I will concede that there are people like fizzymagic that like all sized caches, all levels of difficulty, all levels of terrain, and all types of cache (after all someone made a challenge cache based on this and named it for fizzymagic). Yet these people still find some caches to be lacking is some quality that is not so easy to define.

 

I think the biggest issue is attitude. First , they have an expectation that what they like is what everybody else likes. Just from reading logs and seeing how frequently these caches are hidden (I almost wrote how popular these caches are) I can tell many people do seem to enjoy finding these caches. Second, they have an expectation that somehow they are owed a method to avoid the caches they don't like. This is particularly prevalent among those who have been around longer. They seem to have a memory of a time when most caches were the ones they like and the "lame" caches were very few and far between. Geocaching may have changed some as it became more widely played (I almost wrote became more popular) and the demographics changed. But I think what people remember was that there were fewer caches. You basically found all of them. People who liked to hike would hunt urban caches from time to time as there were not so many as to take away from the time they could spend hiking. And people who liked urban cache would hike from time to time as there were not enough urban caches to keep them busy. Now there are more of every kind of cache. All cachers have to be more selective about what they find. Filtering on the qualities that sbell mentions is one way to select what cache you find. Urban cachers may have it easier as they can stick to caches with low terrain ratings that are close to the city or suburb. Other cachers could limit themselves to hiking caches and a few easier caches near trailheads or along the road to the trailhead. But they may still want to find a few urban/suburban caches when they don't have time for a hike. They want to be able to select those that have the subjective and hard to define qualities they think makes a cache good. While the ratio of urban hides in "interesting" places or with "creative" camouflage or hiding technique to those that seem to be just put out for some to increment their number fluctuates from place to place and over time, I find that it isn't much different than when I started caching. When I go urban caching I know I will find some LPCs and some newsracks hides but I'll also see where someone created some great camouflage that allows a cache to be hidden in plain sight or find some hidden in a neat little park that I didn't know about or near some public artwork I'd have never noticed if not for the cache. And if I find too many cache that seem lame to me, I either stop caching because I'm not having fun or I move to a different area and look for caches there.

Edited December 31, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+fizzymagic]

Second, they have an expectation that somehow they are owed a method to avoid the caches they don't like. This is particularly prevalent among those who have been around longer.

 

Annoyance at those who say "just don't hunt the ones you don't like" is not the same as feeling some kind of entitlement to an automated method for filtering out bad caches. It's just annoyance at people who say stupid things.

 

Many proposals have been made to help people select the types of caches they would like. A small but vocal group has been successful at blocking them. Once again, annoyance with that group does not imply a sense of entitlement. It's just annoyance at mindless obstructionism.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Many proposals have been made to help people select the types of caches they would like. A small but vocal group has been successful at blocking them

 

I'm lost here, who has blocked what?

 

Periodically, going back for some years, Groundspeak has made assorted noises about ratings. The most recent post on this was by OpinioNate in October

 

I doubt if forum posts or a "vocal group" are preventing implementation of ratings; I'd guess it's just time and money. Every time they do a site update, they're fixing things I didn't even know were broken. Just one darn bug after another. Someday perhaps there will be the opportunity for implementation of new stuff.

[+Team Cotati]

Many proposals have been made to help people select the types of caches they would like. A small but vocal group has been successful at blocking them

 

I'm lost here, who has blocked what?

 

Periodically, going back for some years, Groundspeak has made assorted noises about ratings. The most recent post on this was by OpinioNate in October

 

I doubt if forum posts or a "vocal group" are preventing implementation of ratings; I'd guess it's just time and money. Every time they do a site update, they're fixing things I didn't even know were broken. Just one darn bug after another. Someday perhaps there will be the opportunity for implementation of new stuff.

 

This business is a technology based business. In all likelihood, it is run by people who understand the need to both fix technology based issues and since it also appears to be being run to make a profit, they also realize the need for making improvements and adding features that are appealing to customers.

 

My theory is that this business will continue to make both technical fixes and customer friendly enhancements when those things suit their business plan. "Someday" doesn't typically fit well with businesses that are being effectively and efficiently and profitably run.

 

Now I'll be the first to acknowledge that having a degree of effective competition would have a big impact upon this but I still doubt that this business uses "someday" as their beacon for change and improvement.

[+AngelWolf93]

My two cents:

 

I usually will only go after caches that involve a hike. I have a specific PQ set for only caches with terrain 4+. However, I do also have a number of other PQ's set to collect all the caches within 100 miles of my home. This way I have a list of all of them, and I can choose whether to go after them or not. I can guarantee that at least 35% of them are placed in parking lots, although the LPC thing got old here a while ago, so there aren't that many of them.

 

Some days, I'm just in the mood to find a cache close to home. Some days I drive my wife around on her errands (she can only use 1 eye at a time and has no depth perception at all so she doesn't drive) and I just want to find a couple caches while she's in looking at her stuff. It gives me something to do where I otherwise might have been bored. However, I pretty much always avoid PLC's.

 

I HATE being stealthy. I always feel like I'm doing something wrong, or that some muggle is going to find the cache and it's going to be my fault because they saw me grabbing it, so if it's a busy place and I have to be stealthy to get it, I pass it by. I can tell usually before I even have to pull into the parking lot.

 

I injured my knee this summer and temporarily joined the ranks of handicachers, but I have to add my opposing view. Even though I couldn't go after my hiking caches, I didn't spontaneously lower my standards to wally world parking lots. Crutches and all, I sought out parks and other nice places to find caches. Parks with wheelchair ramps, paved paths and creative hides. If I was injured in such a way that I could only find the Wally World PLC's, I'd sell my GPS and find another hobby. Easy and handicapped accessible do not have to mean acres of asphalt or nano's on guard rails overlooking the local homeless sewer.

 

Pointless, to me, is a cache placed solely "because there wasn't a cache here."

 

I understand that some people like to hunt "pointless caches." Around my area, quantity matters more to a lot of players than quality. They like their numbers, and hide their caches appropriately for their style of the game. It's what they like, and I generally ignore them. Fortunately, there are still a number of cachers in my area who feel as I do, and continue to hide caches in the woods or in Interesting Urban Areas (areas of historical or cultural significance, or areas that have a special meaning to the hider).

 

The main problem I have with "pointless" caches is when they take up cache saturation space from really interesting or at least nicer caches. Putting a nano in the LPS in the parking lot at a local park instead of finding a decent location within the park less than 500 feet away, thereby sucking up gobs of good caching real estate is what really toasts my cookies. Mostly it seems that the hiders (and finders for that matter) of these caches are just too lazy to get out of the car and walk the (handicapped accessible) 100 feet to the park and find a good place to put the cache.

 

It all boils down to different strokes for different folks, but easy and handicapped accessible doesn't have to mean flat pavement outside your local big box. And pay attention to where you're placing caches - don't suck up good cache real estate by placing parking lot micros where a city park micro hide would only be 100 feet off. My $0.02, and I expect some folks to disagree. Se a vida e.

[Mushtang]

Really? This may be the single most absurd thing you've ever written. And that's saying a lot.

How are you allowed to continually be this rude on the forums?