Jump to content

Pointless Caches at Historic Places


Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

I can't comment on the way the games used to be, I've been caching for a year. I can agreee that the cache is more interesting if there is a short story or bit of history attached to the cache location.

 

It would get quite boring if all cache listings simply stated

 

N43 00.000 W 79 00.000

"You are looking for a container"

 

All the logs could be simple

 

"TFTC SL"

Edited by 42at42
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.

 

OK you heard it here. If you want to hide a film can in a light post, don't write in the description "Here's another easy one to get your numbers up." Instead make up some silly historical fact about the location (nobody is going to check on it) and then all the people who have convinced themselves that geocaching has always been about taking you to a neat place will happily find your LPC and think how great it was to find out that some semi-famous person ate dinner here in 1910. Yessir, that will magically make the lamest LPC a good cache.

 

Similarly, the OP seems to feel that if you hide a cache near an old building or an old brige that you thought was an nice place for someone to find a cache, and you don't mention some insignificant historic fact about the place, your cache is pointless.

 

Sorry, I don't buy either of these scenarios. I don't agree that the game is changing all that much from what you remember it as. The point of geocaching has always been to find geocaches. I don't know if you could do an analysis and find any difference in the percent of caches where the cache page was used to present some historical or other interesting fact about a location. You may remember the caches where the cache page had some description like this better but I'm not convinced that there was a higher percentage than there are now.

 

Groundspeak has taken the time to develop another website that is much better suited for sharing interesting locations and for having people write descriptions of the history or other features of the location on the waymark page. I don't see anyone complaining that Waymarking is ruining it for people who like to find film cans in lamposts. Perhaps what really needs to be done is to make it easier for people who want to combine geocaching with Waymarking. If they could use Waymarking to find interesting places and the get a list of geocaches that are hidden at these places, they could read about the history or whatever on the waymark page when then find the cache. Or they could look for caches on Geocaching.com and then see if there is a Waymark nearby with information that would make the trip "worthwhile" for them.

Link to comment

I personally don't want to navigate two sites to just geocache. I can, for one, say I enjoy the historical based geocaches because of the story behind them most of the time. It's just nice to see that the place I went out to has some meaning.

 

Now at the same time like I've said before either here or else where you walk over a historical spot every 20 feet and not every spot needs a cache.

 

And I also enjoy caches in pretty areas, by ruins and so on and so forth. If I can take a picture I'm a happy ducky. If someone doesn't note the historical significance at those caches I'm indifferent to it.

 

End point it is the cache description is well written and gives me a reason to go some place I will. If it's not I won't go.

Link to comment
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. . .

 

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.

 

To me, the cache page is part of the experience of finding the cache. If the page makes me interested in the location, the cache will be more interesting. I will stop for particular caches just because they have creative titles, bring out historical or cultural facts, or offer scenic views. I might stop for a just another lamp post hide in a mall if I am in the area, but I might also wonder why that location could ever have inspired a person to place a cache and keep on going.

 

I agree that there is no way to enforce any kind of "wow" factor, any more than there is a requirement that caches be creative or be filled with swag. All they have to do is provide a container and log. But the places that caching brought me were a big reason why I started this particular game. Although I have found caches just to find caches, the point of caching for me will never be simply to have a cache to find -- if that is all that it is I would have stopped years ago.

 

The OP was not suggesting that any particular standard be applied before caches are published, but was wondering how to approach an owner to offer additional information that might be nice to include at a particular location. A CO can take that information and use it or not. I think it would be good if they used it, or if that information were made available through logs or alternative types of caches.

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment

Ehh. I try to hide caches in pretty or intersting places. (Not all, but most.) Then I get logs like: 'caching in the peasoup fog'. (Then you missed what is probably the prettiest view of New York City!) Or: 'bushwhacked in from the road'. (Then you've missed the historical interest.) Or: 'cache 4 of 6 for the day'. (Sorry that you have no interest in the mining history of New Jersey!)

Oh, well. I try my best.

Link to comment

My caching is all about the wow factor. I'll do guardrail micros if I'm caching with friends who enjoy that kind of thing, but not by choice.

 

Part of the skill of the hunt for me is sifting the PQ to identify those caches that are going to give me the kind of experience I want: a great long walk, a beautiful location or, yes definitely, a spot with a bit of history.

 

I don't suggest anyone play the game my way, but I have a feeling I'd love the OP's hides.

Link to comment

As the OP, I wasn't expecting this much response! Second, had I to do it over again. I would not have used the term "Pointless'. Maybe 'generic cache' or 'non-relevant cache', etc. The point I was making was that there was a cache near a historical area that didn't mention or completely describe the history, and at the same time blocks others from doing so.

 

You folks came up with good ideas. Probably what I will do is find the caches in question, describe the history in the 'found' log, then maybe send the CO a polite message regarding the history and say I'd be fine with it if they wanted to copy the historical information into their cache description.

 

Using the location as the first part of a multi-stage is a good idea, too.

 

And hey, if you aren't interested in the history of a cache, ignore that part. To me, it enriches the game.

Link to comment

As the OP, I wasn't expecting this much response! Second, had I to do it over again. I would not have used the term "Pointless'. Maybe 'generic cache' or 'non-relevant cache', etc. The point I was making was that there was a cache near a historical area that didn't mention or completely describe the history, and at the same time blocks others from doing so.

 

You folks came up with good ideas. Probably what I will do is find the caches in question, describe the history in the 'found' log, then maybe send the CO a polite message regarding the history and say I'd be fine with it if they wanted to copy the historical information into their cache description.

 

Using the location as the first part of a multi-stage is a good idea, too.

 

And hey, if you aren't interested in the history of a cache, ignore that part. To me, it enriches the game.

You are correct in that it enriches the game. I love history. I just think that getting all worked up because a historic location is taken is silly when the game is not "historycaching".

Link to comment

A pointless cache in a historical spot is not nearly as bad as a cache that is trying to be historic and is only spouting historical inaccuracies and other fiction. I say you quit while you are ahead and let the pointless caches stay as is.

 

Honestly, there's a couple caches I'd love to get archived for being historical inaccurate and propagating false statements. One in particular is a real thorn in my side.

Link to comment
He never used the word pointless. He was responding to Motorcycle Momma's post.
Motorcycle Momma was the person who titled this thread? :blink:

 

Nope. And neither did Crafty Turtle.

 

No - CT was just agreeing with the OP:

 

bikebill77 I feel your pain.

 

And I was pointing out that what is "pointless" to one cacher is very likely meaningful to other cachers.

 

Which was also what CT was pointing out while at the same time seemingly agreeing with the OP who was making the observation that caches at historic places that didn't point out the history of the place to their fellow cachers were "pointless".

 

The logic appeared circular to my eyes. But as you will kindly note, GeoBain, I offered an apology to CT if I had that wrong. So why are you feeling the need to butt into this part of the discussion? Is it just your way of keeping the pot stirred up?

Edited by ThePetersTrio
Link to comment

And hey, if you aren't interested in the history of a cache, ignore that part. To me, it enriches the game.

 

I love history, and appreciate the folks that bother giving some background about the area that I'm caching in.

 

You have a wealth of opportunities ahead. So there's a cache there. Big deal. Puzzles, Multi's or Wherigo are at your disposal. Your only limitation is your imagination.

 

Good luck!

 

editt spelng

Edited by Touchstone
Link to comment
He never used the word pointless. He was responding to Motorcycle Momma's post.
Motorcycle Momma was the person who titled this thread? :blink:
Nope. And neither did Crafty Turtle.
No - CT was just agreeing with the OP:
bikebill77 I feel your pain.
And I was pointing out that what is "pointless" to one cacher is very likely meaningful to other cachers.

 

Which was also what CT was pointing out while at the same time seemingly agreeing with the OP who was making the observation that caches at historic places that didn't point out the history of the place to their fellow cachers were "pointless".

 

The logic appeared circular to my eyes. But as you will kindly note, GeoBain, I offered an apology to CT if I had that wrong. So why are you feeling the need to butt into this part of the discussion? Is it just your way of keeping the pot stirred up?

Believe it or not, you are not the only person I have responded to in this thread.

Link to comment
He never used the word pointless. He was responding to Motorcycle Momma's post.
Motorcycle Momma was the person who titled this thread? :blink:

 

Nope. And neither did Crafty Turtle.

 

No - CT was just agreeing with the OP:

 

bikebill77 I feel your pain.

 

And I was pointing out that what is "pointless" to one cacher is very likely meaningful to other cachers.

 

Which was also what CT was pointing out while at the same time seemingly agreeing with the OP who was making the observation that caches at historic places that didn't point out the history of the place to their fellow cachers were "pointless".

 

The logic appeared circular to my eyes. But as you will kindly note, GeoBain, I offered an apology to CT if I had that wrong. So why are you feeling the need to butt into this part of the discussion? Is it just your way of keeping the pot stirred up?

 

I wouldn't say "pointless", more of a "wasted opportunity". And maybe a frustration to other cachers.

Let's take the case of GC1VRTE. This cache is in a series about Mad Max - places where the movie was filmed. The railway station where this cache is located *could* be part of a rail-fan's tour of historic railway stations across Victoria. It *could* be part of a series of Clunes' post-gold-rush architecture.

Whatever the theme chosen, at least it is something.

Imagine if a cacher came along (who happened to be a rail fan) and decided to place caches along the old railway to cater to people who like this kind of trail/series/etc. Clunes Station is a must to include on this kind of series.

Unfortunately, he is out of luck. He must place his cache 1/4 mile away. That's life. In fact, if Mr Architechture came along, he too would have to be 1/4 mile away too.

 

Now the first person who gets there, naturally, can claim the spot. That's the way it works. Fair enough. But imagine if the area was flooded with theme-less, information-less micros. There'd be no way of getting a cache close enough to the station, so the type of cacher who IS interested in a theme misses out. Now, I'm not talking about an uber-busy city here, Clunes is a very small town.

 

Personally, I am interested in the history and the architecture, but I do not begrudge the CO for choosing the Mad Max theme. Rather, I commend them, because they taught me something, even though I have never seen Mad Max, and am unlikely to.

 

That's my point: If a notable aspect of interest exists, then note it. If several aspects are of note, then pick one. Don't leave it as a "nuthin" cache. Just a few sentences is ok. Who knows, maybe the CO will learn something.

 

If people want to place smileys 1/4 mile apart, I would prefer if they did it out of town. :mad:

 

FYI I have done smileys - one of my "aspects" is "different towns, different states, different countries". If one town has nought but a solitary drive-by 1/1 micro, then I am ever so grateful it is there, and I'll grab it.

 

Granted, there are relatively few spots where these "nuthin" caches actually do interfere with good historical/geographical/cultural/viewpoint/otherwise-themed spots, but all I'm saying is, if the spot has an aspect, then please note it. People are interested.

Link to comment

As one that really appreciates finding your caches and learning about the history in the areas you chose, I would encourage you to at least open up a conversation with the CO's of the caches in those areas of interest.

 

I think you will find that most geocachers share the same interesting in local history that you do and will be responsive. Not that they will out right archive their cache, but I'm sure they may add a paragraph of historic information to the cache page.

 

As other have noted (and you have more or less agreed with), "It's not really what you ask, but how you ask".

Link to comment

Best action is to post your Found It! log as a recap of the history of the area. No need to stir up trouble with other cachers.

 

and after the next five logs is out of sight out of mind

 

i say politely approach the cache owner with the details, maybe telling them that the info may attract more people to their cache too

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...