Jump to content

Pointless Caches at Historic Places


Recommended Posts

I like to hide caches in obscure historic sites. Several times I have found spots where there is interesting history but someone has a cache there that has little or nothing to do with the background of the area. A couple of examples: I know of a closed bridge that has a cache beside it called 'Nowhere Bridge' or something like that. The bridge dates back to early 1800's and at one point was an original alignment of Lincoln Highway. Another spot is the property where Ben Franklin flew his kite. Someone put a mystery cache there where you have to guess movie titles.

 

I don't mean to denigrate the other cache hiders by calling their caches 'Pointless' but they have nothing to do with the history of the spot, no doubt because the cacher didn't know about it.

 

Does anyone think it would be impolite for me to email the cache owners and suggest that they could add the history of the area to their cache description? Or would there be another way to deal with it? (Drugs, psychotherapy, complaining on this forum, etc.) :drama:

Link to comment

I know of a closed bridge that has a cache beside it called 'Nowhere Bridge' or something like that.

 

Are you talking about the one in tyler state park that was burnt down and rebuilt? I've been there hundreds of times in my lifetime... I was just there a week ago. Wrightstown PA is right next to there. Small world eh?

 

EDIT: Just noticed you are that guy that is always on my audit log! I thought I knew your name from the forums, but when I saw 2 posts I knew it was for another reason.

Edited by Coldgears
Link to comment

It would not be impolite to contact the current cache owners and request they add the info. But I wouldn't start the conversation off by telling them their cache is pointless.

 

While they may not include the history you are aware of, they obviously had a point to the people who placed them.

 

If you approach them correctly, you may even be able to get them to archive their cache and let you place one based on the history of the area.

Link to comment
...I wouldn't start the conversation off by telling them their cache is pointless.
+1

 

You could tell the CO about the history of the area and suggest they add it, but word your email in a way that makes it sound like it is ultimately up to them.

I would not mind a polite email telling me more about the history of any area. A simple request tot add it to the cache page is well within reason.

Link to comment

....

I don't mean to denigrate the other cache hiders by calling their caches 'Pointless' but they have nothing to do with the history of the spot, no doubt because the cacher didn't know about it.

There is nothing in the guidelines that requires, recommends or even suggests that caches need to have anything to do with the history of the spot.

 

Does anyone think it would be impolite for me to email the cache owners and suggest that they could add the history of the area to their cache description? Or would there be another way to deal with it? (Drugs, psychotherapy, complaining on this forum, etc.) :drama:

Since you have asked what people think, yes I think that that would be extremely impolite.

 

A less impolite way (to me anyway) would be to include the history information in your "Found It" log or in a "Note" to the cache page. If the cache owner feels so inclined to include that information in the cache description, they can go from there. Not everyone cares about the "history of the spot".

Link to comment

I know exactly what you are talking about! I had one... a very tough multi, at a site that was once a part of the famous Rock Island Line railroad (long since abandoned), called Freight Train Blues. Due to repeated muggling, I eventually archived that cache. Last year, a new cache appeared at EXACTLY the same coordinates as the first stage of my multi. Excited about a new cache in the area, I immediately emailed the cache owner about my excitement, and provided a link to my archived cache, hoping that at least some of the historical information would be passed on in the new cache. Nope... one one itoa. The cache is a single stage film cannister within 6 inches of my original first stage, and not one bit of historical information is posted on the new cache's page.

 

Nothing more that I can do about it, though. Its his cache, not mine. I made a suggestion, he ignored it. That's life.

Link to comment

Not everyone cares about the "history of the spot".

 

But those of us who do care, feel ripped off when someone takes a perfectly good culturally significant site, and puts a nuthin' cache there. I for one have discovered many cultural treasures through geocaching, and my life is enriched because of it.

 

Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

bikebill77 I feel your pain. I find valium helps.

Maybe you could ask if you can adopt his cache.

Link to comment
Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

But you are negating your own position with this logic. You agree that not everyone cares about certain aspects of the game/sport/hobby and yet you are in essence arguing that YOUR specific aspect (history) should be respected above someone else's. :drama:

Link to comment

....

I don't mean to denigrate the other cache hiders by calling their caches 'Pointless' but they have nothing to do with the history of the spot, no doubt because the cacher didn't know about it.

There is nothing in the guidelines that requires, recommends or even suggests that caches need to have anything to do with the history of the spot.

You are absolutely right about that, of course. But that doesn't mean that those of us that DO enjoy hiding caches near historically important sites, only to find them taken up by a historically pointless cache should not be frustrated by it. And is there a better place to vent your angst about such travesties as the forums? OF COURSE NOT!! :drama:

 

I suppose (yawn!) that we could always place a (yawn!) Waymark instead, though, when we discover that our favorite historic site has already got an LPC in the parking lot.

Link to comment

I tried that once, and the owner never updated the cache info.

 

Mystery Building :drama:

 

My note:

 

The mystery building was built in 1927 by the Redman School District, and it was known as the 2nd Redman School. It was built on top of the original Redman School (which was built in 1911). The 1933 Long Beach earthquake spurred new state building standards, and the school was condemned until the tile roof was removed. The building was no longer used by the school district when the Eastside School (70th East and H) was built. The Redman School was taken over by the Joshua Tree Grange. The Grange met at the old school until 1990, when building inspectors labled the building "potentially hazardous." The doors were finally closed, and the building was boarded up. In August of 1993 the building was destroyed in an early morning fire.

Link to comment

Coldgears said:

<<Are you talking about the one in tyler state park that was burnt down and rebuilt? I've been there hundreds of times in my lifetime... I was just there a week ago. Wrightstown PA is right next to there. Small world eh?>>

 

Right general area, different bridge. This one is in Benjamin Rush State Park down on Roosevelt Blvd. It's a stone arch bridge from 1805 and is falling apart, though it can still be crossed on foot. You're right, small world!

 

Stupid question - what's an audit log?

Link to comment

One cache in the area was muggled and the CO archived it. I hated to see it go, so I contacted him and offered to place a cache at a better hide locale down the road, could I please use his original page? He was only too happy for someone to do that - so I copied the page, made only slight modifications and placed a new cache.

 

Gotta keep those beautiful caches going, you know.

Link to comment

Coldgears said:Stupid question - what's an audit log?

It's a feature that allows the owners of Premium Member Only caches to see who viewed the page to their cache and when. There was once an incident where a Premium Member viewed the listing for a PMO cache and was emailed by the owner asking why he had looked at her cache page.
Link to comment

It's not really what you ask, but how you ask which would make it impolite. Since you already are thinking of the word "pointless", there might be a very good chance you could blow it. The best way is to treat their cache with enthusiasm, and say that you are a dedicated history buff and mention the history in the spot. If they e-mail you back, then you could request them to add info (depending on how they respond) but you should not expect it. I enjoy historical info when it pertains to a specific area, but not everyone does.

Link to comment

If I would email someone suggesting an addition to their cache description, I certainly wouldn't use the term 'pointless'. That was just for the context of my post. I know if the cacher went to the trouble of setting up a cache, it wasn't pointless to them. Plus, it might be an overall great cache, just lacking some potential historical detail.

 

I like the idea of adding the history to a 'Found' log for their cache. Though a movie mystery cache isn't my cup of tea, which is what I'd have to find in the case of Ben Franklin's kite flying location.

 

After all this venting I feel better already!

Link to comment
Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

But you are negating your own position with this logic. You agree that not everyone cares about certain aspects of the game/sport/hobby and yet you are in essence arguing that YOUR specific aspect (history) should be respected above someone else's. :drama:

 

No, you misread completely.

I never said that one aspect should be ahead of all others. Not at all. No. Please point out where I said that. I'm curious as to which lines you were reading between.

I am saying (I thought pretty clearly) that we all appreciate different aspects, and we should consider others before plastering the whole town with film cans 1/4 mile apart, purely because that what we want ourselves.

 

Part of the fun of caching, is to place your own caches, and have others find them. If you place a cache that the majority of other cachers find "no fun" for whatever reason, then maybe you ought to think what your fellow cachers want to find.

 

Geocaching cannot be done in isolation. It's a people game.

Edited by Crafty Turtle
Link to comment

....

I don't mean to denigrate the other cache hiders by calling their caches 'Pointless' but they have nothing to do with the history of the spot, no doubt because the cacher didn't know about it.

There is nothing in the guidelines that requires, recommends or even suggests that caches need to have anything to do with the history of the spot.

 

Does anyone think it would be impolite for me to email the cache owners and suggest that they could add the history of the area to their cache description? Or would there be another way to deal with it? (Drugs, psychotherapy, complaining on this forum, etc.) :drama:

Since you have asked what people think, yes I think that that would be extremely impolite.

 

A less impolite way (to me anyway) would be to include the history information in your "Found It" log or in a "Note" to the cache page. If the cache owner feels so inclined to include that information in the cache description, they can go from there. Not everyone cares about the "history of the spot".

Another less impolite way(not that I think the other requests are impolite) would be to hide your Cache somewhere else, make it a mystery, and have the false coordinates listed near the historical spots

Link to comment

Coldgears said:Stupid question - what's an audit log?

It's a feature that allows the owners of Premium Member Only caches to see who viewed the page to their cache and when. There was once an incident where a Premium Member viewed the listing for a PMO cache and was emailed by the owner asking why he had looked at her cache page.

How does a PM view that?

 

Edit to add...nevermind, I found out.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

What you could do is put a cache nearby that has the history and isn't breaking the rules. It doesn't have to be that close either, just say "100 metres up stream is a bridge that...." or "Down the road is where Ben Franklin" etc. Call it Electric Kite Road or something witty like that. :drama:

Link to comment

There was once an incident where a Premium Member viewed the listing for a PMO cache and was emailed by the owner asking why he had looked at her cache page.

huh? That's not making sense to me... could be the fact that it's 4:30 am.

 

Why would that "incident" cause PMO to get an audit feature?

Link to comment
...I wouldn't start the conversation off by telling them their cache is pointless.
+1

 

You could tell the CO about the history of the area and suggest they add it, but word your email in a way that makes it sound like it is ultimately up to them.

I would not mind a polite email telling me more about the history of any area. A simple request tot add it to the cache page is well within reason.

 

I probably wouldn't "request" that they add information to the cache page, but instead, write something like "here is some information that I found about the bridge. I though you might want to include it on your cache page."

Link to comment

I probably wouldn't "request" that they add information to the cache page, but instead, write something like "here is some information that I found about the bridge. I though you might want to include it on your cache page."

I would be quite happy to receive such an email. Learning about places is one of the things I enjoy most about geocaching. If someone wants to tell me something about a place I would be glad to hear it, and if I have a cache there I would certainly add it to the cache listing to share with others.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

I think people are mixxing up Waymarking with Geocaching. Putting the history in the cache page is kind of like FTF. It is fun (or whatever it is), but is not actualy part of geocaching. Geocaching is finding hidden containers. If you think the history af a spot is realy important, I am sure there is a Waymarking catagory for that.

 

Edit to add a link to the Waymarking history catagory

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

Not everyone cares about the "history of the spot".

 

But those of us who do care, feel ripped off when someone takes a perfectly good culturally significant site, and puts a nuthin' cache there. I for one have discovered many cultural treasures through geocaching, and my life is enriched because of it.

 

Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

bikebill77 I feel your pain. I find valium helps.

Maybe you could ask if you can adopt his cache.

 

I did a virt in Kansas that seemed pointless to me at the time.

 

You could get the find without even leaving your car, but when I was walking around the spot there was detailed info on the Chisolm Trail with several glass encased displays and diaramas. Cool stuff that I enjoyed.

 

I was of the school of thought that I wouldn't log it since it felt pointless, but I changed my tune and logged the cache, because I realized that the cache owner didn't OWE me anything.

 

After all. I remember that stop more than hundreds of others strictly because I took the time to learn more rather than EXPECTING the history to be spoon fed to me. :drama:

Link to comment

I think people are mixxing up Waymarking with Geocaching. Putting the history in the cache page is kind of like FTF. It is fun (or whatever it is), but is not actualy part of geocaching. Geocaching is finding hidden containers. If you think the history af a spot is realy important, I am sure there is a Waymarking catagory for that.

 

Edit to add a link to the Waymarking history catagory

 

I see your point. Geocaching is fundamentally about finding the cache. So cache pages (for a traditional) do not need any description at all, unless it is specifically about finding the cache.

 

However - many cache pages mention points of interest related to the cache location, and I do think this enhances the geocaching experience. So it's still about finding a box, but you can also learn something along the way. Any historical significance is just one type of interesting information which can be included. Not mandatory of course, but something I appreciate and I think improves the "game".

Link to comment

I think people are mixxing up Waymarking with Geocaching. Putting the history in the cache page is kind of like FTF. It is fun (or whatever it is), but is not actualy part of geocaching. Geocaching is finding hidden containers. If you think the history af a spot is realy important, I am sure there is a Waymarking catagory for that.

 

Edit to add a link to the Waymarking history catagory

 

I see your point. Geocaching is fundamentally about finding the cache. So cache pages (for a traditional) do not need any description at all, unless it is specifically about finding the cache.

 

However - many cache pages mention points of interest related to the cache location, and I do think this enhances the geocaching experience. So it's still about finding a box, but you can also learn something along the way. Any historical significance is just one type of interesting information which can be included. Not mandatory of course, but something I appreciate and I think improves the "game".

 

I definatly aggree with you. I love getting a history lesson (if it isn't rediculously biased to one political perswastion (unless it is my political perswasion)). My point was that that is a nice extra, and realy should not be expected.

Link to comment

I tried that once, and the owner never updated the cache info.

 

Mystery Building :drama:

 

My note:

 

The mystery building was built in 1927 by the Redman School District, and it was known as the 2nd Redman School. It was built on top of the original Redman School (which was built in 1911). The 1933 Long Beach earthquake spurred new state building standards, and the school was condemned until the tile roof was removed. The building was no longer used by the school district when the Eastside School (70th East and H) was built. The Redman School was taken over by the Joshua Tree Grange. The Grange met at the old school until 1990, when building inspectors labled the building "potentially hazardous." The doors were finally closed, and the building was boarded up. In August of 1993 the building was destroyed in an early morning fire.

 

So here's what you do -

 

1. Place a final in a free spot away from this cache.

2. Create a multi cache

3. Fill the multi cache page with all manner of history & photos

4. Place the start for the multi cache right next to the offending one.

5. ???

6. Profit!

Link to comment

I definatly aggree with you. I love getting a history lesson (if it isn't rediculously biased to one political perswastion (unless it is my political perswasion)). My point was that that is a nice extra, and realy should not be expected.

 

Ok - we are in agreement, it is not mandatory and can't be expected (but is nice).

Link to comment
Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

But you are negating your own position with this logic. You agree that not everyone cares about certain aspects of the game/sport/hobby and yet you are in essence arguing that YOUR specific aspect (history) should be respected above someone else's. :drama:

 

No, you misread completely.

 

Really? Ok.

 

I guess when you use the word "pointless" and then suggest that fellow cachers who do care (people care about other aspects too, right?) not be forgotten it seems pretty easy to see what you are suggesting.

 

I think the word "pointless" is what really hit your philosophy home with me. Sorry if I got that wrong.

Link to comment
Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

But you are negating your own position with this logic. You agree that not everyone cares about certain aspects of the game/sport/hobby and yet you are in essence arguing that YOUR specific aspect (history) should be respected above someone else's. :drama:

 

No, you misread completely.

 

Really? Ok.

 

I guess when you use the word "pointless" and then suggest that fellow cachers who do care (people care about other aspects too, right?) not be forgotten it seems pretty easy to see what you are suggesting.

 

I think the word "pointless" is what really hit your philosophy home with me. Sorry if I got that wrong.

 

He never used the word pointless. He was responding to Motorcycle Momma's post.

Link to comment
Sure, not everyone cares about historical or cultural sites. But I could argue that not everyone cares about geographical sites either. Or family-friendly caching. Or the numbers. Or FTFs. Not everyone cares about swaps. Or their centre-of-finds. Or travel bugs. Geocaching encompasses all these things and more. So let's not forget our fellow cachers who do care about these things.

 

But you are negating your own position with this logic. You agree that not everyone cares about certain aspects of the game/sport/hobby and yet you are in essence arguing that YOUR specific aspect (history) should be respected above someone else's. :drama:

 

No, you misread completely.

I never said that one aspect should be ahead of all others. Not at all. No. Please point out where I said that. I'm curious as to which lines you were reading between.

I am saying (I thought pretty clearly) that we all appreciate different aspects, and we should consider others before plastering the whole town with film cans 1/4 mile apart, purely because that what we want ourselves.

 

Part of the fun of caching, is to place your own caches, and have others find them. If you place a cache that the majority of other cachers find "no fun" for whatever reason, then maybe you ought to think what your fellow cachers want to find.

 

Geocaching cannot be done in isolation. It's a people game.

 

I'm just wondering what statisitical analysis you would be able to use to even draw a conclusion like this?

Do most of the logs read-'wish I knew more about the history of this place instead of just finding a film can in the guard rail?' Or something like that?

 

Personally I agree that something interesting on the cache page is nice, and a cache placed for a reason other than a quick PnG is often desirable. But I won't force my aesthetics on anyone else, they can hide when their muse motivates them to, and I will find the caches that satisfy my particular tastes at that time. Sometimes that taste may simply be to find a bunch of easy finds and spend 6 hours in the car laughing with friends. Sometimes that taste may be more complex, and require a long solo hike to a scenic location.

 

Don't presume that everyone else has your priorities in mind when they are hiding their caches. Instead, go find the caches that satisfy your needs. You will be a lot happier in this game that way.

Link to comment

So here's what you do -

1. Place a final in a free spot away from this cache.

2. Create a multi cache . . .

 

I know that it can be frustrating when interesting places are blocked by seemingly random caches stuck in juniper bushes. I have worked around some of that with puzzles, multis, and wherigos that highlight the history I want to share.

 

But if there is particular background information relevant to a cache, I include that in my log. One cache was placed next to a historical site that had been on my "to do" list for awhile. The first few loggers asked questions about the name of area. I was happy to include the information I had collected, and a few historical photos, in my log. Generally I just do that. If the owner wants to pick up on it and provide additional information in the cache description, fine.

 

One of my side interests is the musical history of my area -- Janis, the Dead, Otis Redding, Jefferson Airplane, and Metallica are among those who have contributed to it. There are a number of caches near significant points, so I made a public bookmark list to highlight some of what occurred there.

 

Creating a multi is a good idea if the location has information that could be used for an offset. There is a spot near where I work that is taken by another cache. I have thought about using that spot as part of a multi or letterbox, with the final taking visitors to a spot that remains open. I will probably end up with a Wherigo cache that will provide a brief historical tour. Its a great format for that type of information.

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment

I think people are mixxing up Waymarking with Geocaching. Putting the history in the cache page is kind of like FTF. It is fun (or whatever it is), but is not actualy part of geocaching. Geocaching is finding hidden containers. If you think the history af a spot is realy important, I am sure there is a Waymarking catagory for that.

 

If it's not part of geocaching then I wouldn't be geocaching. It's not just about containers, it's about the interesting places you find, historical sites, long hikes, weird roadsigns, whatever does it for you. Some people like the numbers, and I do too sometimes, but it's not just about that either. Since people object to calling the hide in question "pointless", let's come up with something more accurate, say "smiley only hide". There are plenty of places to put a smiley only hide. There's no reason for that smiley only hide to get in the way of a hide that may give cachers a geocaching experience that provides more than a smiley.

Link to comment

 

Since you have asked what people think, yes I think that that would be extremely impolite.

 

A less impolite way (to me anyway) would be to include the history information in your "Found It" log or in a "Note" to the cache page. If the cache owner feels so inclined to include that information in the cache description, they can go from there. Not everyone cares about the "history of the spot".

 

I think it would be extremely impolite and neglectful not to send an email to the CO.

 

There could be many reason that the history was omitted from the cache description.

 

1. he/she is a newcomer to the area.

2. our education system is lacking on local history.

3. there is no signage to explain the historical significance of the area.

4. he/she doesn't care about the history

 

If the reason is one or more of the first 3 listed, then the CO may be very interested in the history and be very willing to add it to the cache description.

 

If the reason is number 4, then there is nothing you can do.

 

I have added many historical photos to caches and the CO's are very happy to see them. If I have any information I think would make the description more interesting and educational I email them. I have never recieved a negative reponse.

 

Not everyone cares about the "history of the spot".

 

That said why deny someone who is interested the opportunity to learn.

 

As I said above if the CO is the one who doesn't care, nothing can be done about that.

Link to comment
since people object to calling the hide in question "pointless", let's come up with something more accurate, say "smiley only hide".

Why can't it just be because someone really liked the old bridge and wanted others to see it. That's not pointless. Maybe they have no idea of the history. It still doesn't make the hide pointless. It doesn't make the hide just for the numbers either.

 

The other one was described as a puzzle cache based on movies. I see nothing that indicates it is a "smiley only" hide. In fact, if it was a "smiley only" hide, it would not be a puzzle.

 

Again, maybe that cache owner simply does not know about the history. That does not make the cache pointless.

 

I am a huge fan of history based caches. I have a series of them based on historical markers. I love them. But I imagine a lot of folks would just as likely consider them pointless if they weren't into history. Some would think they should just be waymarks on Waymarking.com.

 

I see nothing in the OP's post that indicates these caches are thrown down caches just for numbers. They just don't happen to include the history of the area.

Link to comment

I think people are mixxing up Waymarking with Geocaching. Putting the history in the cache page is kind of like FTF. It is fun (or whatever it is), but is not actualy part of geocaching. Geocaching is finding hidden containers. If you think the history af a spot is realy important, I am sure there is a Waymarking catagory for that.

 

If it's not part of geocaching then I wouldn't be geocaching. It's not just about containers, it's about the interesting places you find, historical sites, long hikes, weird roadsigns, whatever does it for you. Some people like the numbers, and I do too sometimes, but it's not just about that either. Since people object to calling the hide in question "pointless", let's come up with something more accurate, say "smiley only hide". There are plenty of places to put a smiley only hide. There's no reason for that smiley only hide to get in the way of a hide that may give cachers a geocaching experience that provides more than a smiley.

 

I understand that some people enjoy geocaching because in the course of looking for hidden containers you will sometimes be taken to an interesting place. There may be a nice view, some interesting artwork, or something historic about the location that you enjoyed learning about. But primarily Geocaching is about finding hidden containers using GPS. If you ask for more that that from hiders, you will wind up with disagreements about what makes a location "Wow" enough to deserve a cache. So instead the guidelines say nothing about having to have a view, an historic site, or a weird roadsign. If someone is moved to hide a cache and it meets the guidelines, they can hide a cache. Plenty of geocachers understand this and don't insist on some subjective "Wow" requirement for caches. The point of the cache is to have a cache to find. Anything else is a bonus.

 

If you object to a cache without a bonus as being a "smiley only" hide, then perhaps you shouldn't log any of your finds. If the sole enjoyment you get is from visiting interesting places you don't really need a smiley anyhow. Oh, you say you use the find log to keep track of where you have been? I've always felt that Waymarking should ld be much more popular than geocaching based on people saying ithey geocache to be taken to interesting places. With Waymarking you can even select just the categories you find interesting and hide the rest so you know that every waymark you do visit will be interesting. And never will have to spend time searching for some pointless hidden box which you might not even find.

 

I find this whole discussion pretty silly because of these two caches:

GCPV78

GC1HF2V

 

The first cache page gives a long story of the history of the location. It doesn't make the location any more interesting except perhaps to a member of the Burbank Historical Society. There really is nothing to see here. It is just a parking lot at supermarket with a few light posts (guess where the cache was hidden). If you want to see the building that was here you have to go to Knott's Berry Farm. As far as I was concerned the history made a nice cache page but really didn't add anything to the experience of finding the cache. When the cache finally went missing and was archived, another cacher hid the second cache (in a different light post). You can seen on the cache page that it was hidden "to help increase the cache density in the area". The experience of finding the second cache was the same as finding the first cache.

 

Now this example is a bit dfferent than the OP. In my example you have a cache at totally uninteristing location where someone wrote about the history. The OP claims there is a cache at an interesting location where someone fails to write anything about the history. It is possible that if there were something to see at the caches above, I would have appreciated more the cache page that described what I was seeing rather than leave it a mystery. On the ohter hand, I have been to caches were the cache owner put nothing, but a few cachers who are inteterested in local history either wrote a note on the cache page or said something in their found log. Sometimes the lack of a description allows those that are more interested in finding out to their own research and describe better that the cache owner could what I am looking at. I wouldn't want to force every hider to be an historian, geologist, art critic, or whatever and make them research and write a description of every place they hide a cache. Waymarking asks for the people who list the waymark to write up a description and provide this kind of information. Geocaching simply asks you to have container with a logbook for someone to find.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I think there's a right and a wrong way to do it. You can contact the owner the right way and ask if they are familiar with the history of the site. If they don't know, they may appreciate a history lesson. Then again, they may not.

 

If the irrelevant cache gets the finder to a historical location but the finder is able to look around and discover the history of the site (via plaque or marker) then maybe there's nothing wrong with the log page. There are a lot of various scenarios that could go either way. Keep an open mind.

Link to comment

 

I find this whole discussion pretty silly because of these two caches:

GCPV78

GC1HF2V

 

The first cache page gives a long story of the history of the location. It doesn't make the location any more interesting except perhaps to a member of the Burbank Historical Society.

 

I think that bringing people to places they didn't know existed is a great thing. Keep the history lesson short and sweet.

 

I good example of this is my Battle of Beaverdams cache. GC1TY3K.

 

At this site there is an empty field to the east highway to the south, canal to the west and another empty field to the north. No signage whatsoever. But I have received thanks for the history lesson. If you only want a smiley, that is fine too.

 

As for your second cache, what does that have to do with the historical conversation?

Link to comment

Coldgears said:

<<Are you talking about the one in tyler state park that was burnt down and rebuilt? I've been there hundreds of times in my lifetime... I was just there a week ago. Wrightstown PA is right next to there. Small world eh?>>

 

Right general area, different bridge. This one is in Benjamin Rush State Park down on Roosevelt Blvd. It's a stone arch bridge from 1805 and is falling apart, though it can still be crossed on foot. You're right, small world!

 

AGGH, as an outsider looking into this issue... I think you have got yourself some very good proof now. I was never planning on going to that cache, it seemed like a waste of time going that deep into benjamin rush state park for a micro. I was there the other day for the Benjamin Rush State Park Community Gardens cache. I looked at my GPS to see about the other caches nearby, none of them seemed like a really cool location, I wanted to go home as I had something to do. To be honest I was planning on going for every cache in the park EXCEPT that one. The other ones were all smalls, and regulars and weren't that far into the woods. If you would have hidden the cache I probably would have went for it that day. It seems like a really cool place! Thanks for the heads up... Now I know what I'm missing out on... Much more then a crappy micro deep in the woods! You have a great point...

Link to comment

I think people are mixxing up Waymarking with Geocaching. Putting the history in the cache page is kind of like FTF. It is fun (or whatever it is), but is not actualy part of geocaching. Geocaching is finding hidden containers. If you think the history af a spot is realy important, I am sure there is a Waymarking catagory for that.

 

Edit to add a link to the Waymarking history catagory

Actually, that kind of Cache write up was quite popular in the years before you started playing. Unfortunatle tha game has devolved into what it is now, a bunch of micros with no real connection to the places where they are hidden.

 

Reading your post makes me really sad, I guess if anyone want's to do anything with their Cache listing other than a film can and a log sheet, then they are out of place in this game?

Link to comment

 

I find this whole discussion pretty silly because of these two caches:

GCPV78

GC1HF2V

 

Well, if the sum of the experience is to scribble your name in a film can, then you are right. I wish that more players were looking for a greater experience. As for me...if I was visiting that area, panning the map for Caches to look for, I'd be very disappointed to see a bunch like the new one, and might even give up for the day. Once I saw a listing like the old one, I'd put it right on my list, and hope to find others nearby like that. It's really disappointing that for me comparing those two Caches is proof of how much better the game used to be, and for so many others it's proof that there's no point in striving to reach a higher standard.

 

Well, anyway, keep on playing the way you like, I'm not going to shoot you down but always remember in the back of your head that you're ruining the game for the people who wish to play the way is used to be. It certainly could not possibly harm anyone to make the description more interesting, but omiting the details certainly harms those players who would like to know them.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...