So what makes a bad cache?

[+AngelFacedGal]

I have recently placed my first caches and so far so good! But it lead me to question - what makes a bad cache? What is a a bad location? What is a bad container? etc

[+Bear and Ragged]

Bad cache?

A micro -or worse a nano- where there's room for an ammo box.

[+keehotee]

Any cache, any size, hidden just for the sake of putting out a cache - with no thought for location or context.

Applies equally to cacky layby drive-bys, and small pots under stiles to celebrate being 1/10th of a mile from the last small pot under a stile

[+mpilchfamily]

A bad cache is one that is placed without consideration for the guidelines yet is able to get by the reviewer anyway. Found one not long ago that was placed in someones yard and was in a bad container that wouldn't hold up well in the rain and would rust shut. Despite all the black duct ta[e they had wrapped around it.

[+Amberel]

I have recently placed my first caches and so far so good! But it lead me to question - what makes a bad cache? What is a a bad location? What is a bad container? etc

Let's create a couple of lists. It's very subjective, but these are the things I like (with apologies to those who have seen these before):

 

The location - a great walk, a lovely view, unusual or challenging terrain, an interesting or historical place.

The hide - ingenuity, originality, humour, an informative cache page.

The container - of appropriate size and good quality, well maintained, clean and dry, with an original and interesting collection of swaps.

A WOW factor - a surprise, a thrill, something that takes my breath away, makes me struggle, makes me laugh.

 

The things I don't like are:

 

Caches next to busy roads, caches with rubbish all round the area, caches in exceptionally busy areas, wet and dirty caches, nanos or micros where a larger cache would have been possible, caches that are unimaginatively dropped rather than being hidden, series where all the hides are very similar.

 

For me, a good cache will have several from the first list and very few from the second. A very good cache will have LOTS from the first and none from the second.

 

If it has few from the first list it is likely to be a pretty ordinary cache, and if that is combined with some from the second list I would regard it as a poor cache.

 

But remember that other people may have different lists.

 

Rgds, Andy

[team tisri]

Very much a subjective concept, as anything else labelled "good" or "bad".

 

For me a good cache is typically one where I like the route to the location, the location itself is pleasant and so on. Personally I'm not bothered if the actual container is a film pot or an ammo can as long as the location isn't unpleasant to find and doesn't involve drawn out repetitious searching. That said I took eight attempts over four years to find an ammo can in Pennsylvania hidden under a rock among a huge pile of scree, simply because it was in a place I liked to visit anyway to watch the local vultures soaring.

 

For me a film pot in an ivy covered tree can be a "good" cache if the area is pleasant and the clue is precise enough to lead me to the right tree and the right area. A walk/cycle along a rubbish strewn path to a rubbish strewn area where the clue says "ivy covered tree" and there are ivy covered trees as far as I can see in all directions, chances are I won't bother even looking (of course for added points the GPS needs to point me into the middle of the river and leave me genuinely not knowing which side of the river the cache is)

 

A good cache will be well maintained - a good cache can become a bad cache if it's left unmaintained. No matter how good the location, the route to the location and the imagination put into the hide, if the contents are soaked because someone didn't put the lid on properly or because the container isn't as waterproof as the setter hoped, it's not much fun opening a soggy container to find a soggy log book and mouldy contents.

[+Graculus]

I like this quote which is shown at the top of the guidelines page.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

Containers are important. A bad container to my mind is a chinese take away (or similar container) or ice cream tub. They are flimsy and designed to be used just once. They will break and they will leak! Suitable 'click lock' types ones are easily available from supermarkets and are not expensive!

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer cache reviewer for geocaching.com

Resource site the UK & Ireland www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

[+mickyz]

I have just noticed a 'quality street' tin (not a quality cache container )

near a fence panel by a garage has just gone missing,not surprising really as it looked like rubbish.

I just about managed an ok on the log, when I found it !!

 

Just come back from a holiday in Ireland and on top of a hill

with great views is a 1/2 ltr juice bottle as a cache container.

[+burtsbodgers]

The obvious answer is what you like to find.

You are a cacher and i would recommend that you hide what you think would be nice for others to find.

Think back over the caches you have found, which ones really stood out from the others, which made you smile or laugh.

Those are the type that other like to find as well

[+Happy Humphrey]

Obviously a lot of opinions about location, cache size and type are subjective, so it's a bit pointless to list your own preferences.

But a list of more objective "bad points" could be slightly useful...

• the container is too weak to stay waterproof a reasonable time
  
• the container is covered by a tatty old carrier bag covered in slugs and slime
  
• the log book is wet, even before the FTF
  
• the log book seems to have been made out of some discarded toilet paper
  
• there's no pen even though there's room for one
  
• the coordinates are more than 10 metres out
  
• there's every chance that the cache will be muggled within its first week, as it's been placed with no thought
  
• there's a good chance that visitors will cause alarm in the neighborhood, as the location is overlooked
  
• although the cache area might seem OK at certain times of the day, at others it's a gathering place for the locals (pleasant or not). e.g. bus stop, teenagers' hideout
  
• although the cache area might seem OK in winter, in summer it's in the middle of a huge nettle patch.
  
• the cache is hidden really well in an area with sensitive vegetation, poor GPS signal and a vague hint. Much trampling in evidence.
  
• although the cache coordinates might seem to work OK in winter, in summer you can hardly get a signal at all due to leaf cover.
  
• the cache owner thinks that it's a "challenge" that there are ivy-covered trees all around and the cache is a micro hidden "in ivy" (as the hint helpfully mentions). What's not to like about an hour of ivy inspecting?
  
• the cache description looks like it was written by a seven year old in five minutes (or a five year old in seven minutes)
  
• the cache is supposed to be a Mystery, but the puzzle has several alternative answers
  
• the cache is supposed to be a Mystery, but the final location can be deduced quite easily without solving the puzzle
  
• the cache is a Mystery, but after solving the puzzle you unexpectedly get another puzzle at the location and you can't solve it
  
• the cache is a Multi, but it's pretty obvious that you can skip most stages
  

...I'm sure there are more!

[+currykev]

I agree with burtsbodgers. If you like the find then use it as an example.

Forget the tedious anti micro comments as so many micros are in great places.

Size isn't important at all. It's the cache spot and the hunt.(and the hint if a tough hide)

Good Luck

[+Mallah]

Caches I can't find but everyone else can ??? like Saucy Sheffield. I'm sure the co ords are off but loads of people are claiming things like 'nice easy cache on the way home' etc but I just can't find it. The clue is a bit subjective as well.

One Day.

[+BareClawz]

Apart from the previous comments on things I don't like I'd sum up a lot of them by just adding poorly maintained cache or one thats been logged for months as needing maintenance and the owner can't or won't be bothered to do it.

 

Clawz

[+agentmancuso]

Any cache, any size, hidden just for the sake of putting out a cache - with no thought for location or context.

 

 

I think this is the key point. The cache ought to function as a device for attracting people to a worthwhile place they would otherwise overlook.

[+HazelS]

I second everything that's been said above, but think it's important that you, as the cache setter, know the area, and know what's what with it....

 

For example... I work in a town that's not the best area around, and has relatively few caches in and around it. A cacher that lives near me (not in this particular town) and who is new to the area, slung a cache out a few years ago JUST because he'd seen a footpath there, and it "seemed" a good place for a cache...

 

<RANT>

Now, having worked in the area for around 10 years, I know the history - I know that it's a hangout for druggies expecting their next drop (it's close to a main road) and I also know that there was a murder and rape on that footpath only seven weeks prior to the cache being set.... why on earth would anyone, let alone a (possibly) lone female cacher (for example) wish to put herself in danger just for a smiley??

 

I know I wouldn't - and I wouldn't expect another cacher to put me in that possible situation!!

 

I'd like to think that the cache setter has taken me somewhere for a reason, a walk, a view, or just something interesting to see, not "because there's not already a cache there." </RANT>

[+little-miss-naughty]

well said everyone i totaly agree the worse cache for me has to be one found attached to the bottom of a dog poo bin y would anyone want to go near one of those it then wasnt helpped by the very rude and unfriendly people living close by hazel i think u will remember this one as you are "from the council"

 

lmn

[team tisri]

I agree with burtsbodgers. If you like the find then use it as an example.

Forget the tedious anti micro comments as so many micros are in great places.

Size isn't important at all. It's the cache spot and the hunt.(and the hint if a tough hide)

Good Luck

 

So it only took ten posts before someone said "Size isn't everything"... and I suppose it is what you do with it that counts

 

Bonus points to add excitement to a cache are when you make mistakes on the cache page so the hunter is trying to work out a single digit and the answer isn't a single digit. For extra fun make it a negative number so the hunter doesn't even get to figure that the old 10=0 trick might apply. Then for good measure make a typing mistake in the coordinates for the next stage so people are headed for N51 12.ABC W0 32.DEF when it should be W0 23.DEF and to make it even more interesting make sure the incorrect coordinates land the unwary seeker in the middle of a prison or military base. Failing that the garden of a very expensive house bristling with alarms and CCTV will do.

 

On the subject of multis with clues, take the time to figure out if there are other similar objects in the vicinity of the coordinates. I've done a few caches which told me to "count the letters on the sign" but at the coordinates there were three or four signs within range, more than one of which could have been the right one (having discounted the ones that gave A=-3 etc).

 

I'm not a fan of complex calculations in the field - all it does is makes it more likely that I'll make a silly mistake and end up on a wild goose chase. If the question is "how many statues", the answer is 2 and you need to get to the digit 8, tell me to multiply the number by 4 and leave it at that. Saying "A = the number of statues" and then telling me to work out A * 12 - 4 * 6 - 100 / 2 - 2 just complicates it for no benefit. It's also nice to get an indication of the approximate distance from the clue to the cache, especially for simple offsets. At the last cache of the day when I'm cold and tired and having to read the inscription six times to get the letter counts to make sense it's good to have a basic sanity check of the final answer before setting off for something half a mile away only to realise I got the numbers wrong for the seventh time and it was actually 100 yards away.

Edited February 23, 2011 by team tisri

[+Aggrajag]

Caches I can't find but everyone else can ??? like Saucy Sheffield. I'm sure the co ords are off but loads of people are claiming things like 'nice easy cache on the way home' etc but I just can't find it. The clue is a bit subjective as well.

One Day.

Sorry for off-topic... I thought the coords were off for this cache too but the clue made it an easy find. Send me a PM/Email if you want a hint.

[+HazelS]

Hazel i think u will remember this one as you were "from the council"

 

Oh yes... that was funny.... but a DREADFUL cache, and DREADFUL people living in the nearby properties....

 

[+keehotee]

 

So it only took ten posts before someone said "Size isn't everything"... and I suppose it is what you do with it that counts

 

 

...apart from post 3, of course

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm not a fan of complex calculations in the field - all it does is makes it more likely that I'll make a silly mistake and end up on a wild goose chase. If the question is "how many statues", the answer is 2 and you need to get to the digit 8, tell me to multiply the number by 4 and leave it at that. Saying "A = the number of statues" and then telling me to work out A * 12 - 4 * 6 - 100 / 2 - 2 just complicates it for no benefit. It's also nice to get an indication of the approximate distance from the clue to the cache, especially for simple offsets. At the last cache of the day when I'm cold and tired and having to read the inscription six times to get the letter counts to make sense it's good to have a basic sanity check of the final answer before setting off for something half a mile away only to realise I got the numbers wrong for the seventh time and it was actually 100 yards away.

Good points. It's lazy to put the burden of a tricky calculation on the cacher, rather than finding a simpler way to give directions to the next stage.

If you're designing a cache like this; then rather than devising an arithmetical conundrum walk round and find nice, unambiguous items to use as clues. Don't use "number of steps" either (as it's debateable whether to count the top and bottom as steps). Don't try and force people to count dozens of items (it's annoying, and easy to make a mistake - counting railings is a typical one). Be aware that the more significant digits have to be easy to calculate, as a mistake could cost considerable time and effort (so if it could either be N 52 13.456 or N 52 13.356, it could take a while to find out that you got it wrong). Some sort of sanity check is a good idea, as is an estimate of the distance involved.

[team tisri]

 

So it only took ten posts before someone said "Size isn't everything"... and I suppose it is what you do with it that counts

 

 

...apart from post 3, of course

 

Post 3 didn't put it quite as nicely...

[+drsolly]

Directions such as "left" and "right" don't help; it depends on which way you're facing. I might not be facing the way you were.

Don't put a cache just outside a school, or close by a children's playground.

Read your hint from the point of view of a cacher; will it have the effect you're after? Or is it more ambiguous than you intended?

If you're setting a multi, it would be very nice to know the approximate distance I'll have to go, so I can decide if I have enough time to do it.

A puzzle cache, when solved, should either leave you completely sure that you have the right answer, or else provide a geochecker. If I'm, say, 50% sure that I have the right location, I'm unlikely to walk half a mile to see if I'm right.

If you can see several dog poo bags from where you're about to hide the cache, find another location.

Don't hide a cache within 10 meters of a dog poo bin. Especially, don't hide it on, or in, the bin.

If there's a lot of rubbish in the place you're about to hide a cache, find another location.

[+NickandAliandEliza]

Hazel i think u will remember this one as you were "from the council"

 

Oh yes... that was funny.... but a DREADFUL cache, and DREADFUL people living in the nearby properties....

 

 

Are you talking about this one.

[+HazelS]

 

Are you talking about this one.

 

<sarcasm>

Oh Nick... You're hilarious! </sarcasm>

[+squirtchy]

One this that annoys me and this may be deifferent to other people, is when you walk say 4 miles, two there and two back, for a litlle micro or nano. I would at least like something worth walking that distance for.

[+FuzzyBears]

One thing that has been missed in this list is the cache placed in a location frequently used as a dog toilet. I do not want to rekindle the debate on cleaning up but have done a few caches where there are lots of heaps of poo or bags containing it right where the cache is supposed to be. Yuck!

CallieB

[team tisri]

Directions such as "left" and "right" don't help; it depends on which way you're facing. I might not be facing the way you were.

 

Indications of height are usually better in absolute terms (six feet off the ground) than in relative terms (chest height). Although "chest height" makes clear it's not on the ground and it's not way up in the trees it's still pretty vague.

[+Hampk]

Interesting thread..!

 

For me, the problem is too many 'because I can' caches - yes, I logged a cache beneath a dog-poo bin recently - as it was on my way somewhere - and there were plenty of better hiding places nearby. This game has expanded rapidly in recent times, and there are many caches, certainly in my area, where the CO has logged a few finds - 10 or so - and maybe 40 hides.

 

I guess what I'm driving at is that to place a good cache, you have to find many good caches. Sticking a pot in a hole in a wall is not a good reason for placing a hide - put some thought into it and you can only enhance the experience!

 

Happy caching..

Edited February 27, 2011 by Hampk

[+Mark+Karen]

Caches I can't find but everyone else can ??? like Saucy Sheffield. I'm sure the co ords are off but loads of people are claiming things like 'nice easy cache on the way home' etc but I just can't find it. The clue is a bit subjective as well.

One Day.

 

LOL! I've found that one before, assuming it's still there of course. Took me about 5 minutes to figure it out but I got there in the end. Send me a message if you really want to know where it is.

[lajwa]

I don't really care for the caches that are hidden under the covers that protect the anchor bolts on light poles in parking lots. One of these days, if it hasn't already happened, someone will get electrocuted. In toronto this is a common occurence where there are electical shorts on poles.

Just sayin

[+Ean369]

The only bad cache is one not looked after by the owner.

[+Louis Lovers]

For me generally it's all about the dog walk! If there's a good dog walk involved I'm happy. You'll get away with a terrible dog walk only if you've brought me to a hidden gem (I'm not talking about the cache itself!) or have amused me in some way. And I agree with Bulldog, above - COs need to look after their caches. There's a cache I found recently in Windsor Great Park that has a list of TBs currently housed there, none of which are, and two of which have logs going back to 2009 stating the TBs have disappeared. Likewise wet, mouldy or missing caches. Flippin' annoying. If you're not going to maintain both cache and listing then withdraw the cache so someone else who cares can place one nearby!

[+Newenglandah]

Bad cache ideas to me are any caches that are placed in areas that would cause a security alert. I personally will not cache any near airports, public/government buildings, schools and bridges. Way to may stories of bomb squads being called in, cops questioning etc. When you are in the woods, state parks, city parks walking a dog you aren't often questioned why you reached into a log. The other is when caches are placed right near a house etc. I hear these stories and say what was that cacher thinking whe they placed that cache.

 

Did they really think in a time where everyone is freaked out by the littlest things that a pvc pipe shaped cache on a bridge was going to not freak some non cacher out? An ammo can in downtown Disney wasn't going to attrack concern? That micro near the dumpster of the police dept was going by not noticed.

[team tisri]

One this that annoys me and this may be deifferent to other people, is when you walk say 4 miles, two there and two back, for a litlle micro or nano. I would at least like something worth walking that distance for.

 

(I know this is an old thread but it got dug up so what the heck)

 

I don't mind going to look for a nano as long as I know what to expect before I set off. If it's a traditional nano on a long rail I probably won't bother with it at all. If it's a nano with a puzzle to solve first then if I enjoyed the puzzle I'll probably go and find the nano.

 

I've been known to make a 20-mile round trip on the bike to find a single nano after finally breaking the puzzle.

[donvanvliet]

Bad

Caches opposite people's sitting room windows, outside pubs, suspicious places.

Nano's stuck up/down pipes / fallen into inaccessible places.

Near where kids play at weekends

Caches placed just because its a good spot, even though theres already a cache there.

Caches listed as difficult terrain, when they are at the roadside ???

Caches listed by finders as difficult terrain when its an easy flat walk of 20 mins..but maybe not in ballet pumps? : /

Caches next to or attached to safety barriers on motorways/dual carriageways.

In busy laybys.

Where I cant find them : ))

Good

A beautiful spot far from a motorway layby next to the burger van and 20 truckers..: ))

[team tisri]

I remember one cache I found years ago, it was in a car park which usually makes me uneasy anyway as people are understandably anxious if they see someone apparently looking for something near cars. It turned out to be in a dark corner, a film pot under a pile of rubbish. I was so pleased I made the effort to go and find that one.

[+ShaunEM]

I experienced a cache that was under a pee soaked piece of art downtown next to a pub. This art also had used needles shoved under it.

 

Thats a bad micro!

 

It may have been good to start with.. but it hung out with a bad crowd I am afraid.

 

Shaun

[+Akumos]

I'm placing my first cache on Monday, this topic has really helped! A good read!

Edited February 24, 2013 by Akumos

[+L0ne.R]

Forget the tedious anti micro comments as so many micros are in great places.

Size isn't important at all. It's the cache spot and the hunt.(and the hint if a tough hide)

Good Luck

 

Size does matter. It matters to at least half of the contributors to this forum topic.

 

Plant a water tight, well-maintained, swag-size cache and you make everyone happy. You've made the people who just want a log to sign happy and you made the folks who want the full "cache" experience happy too. A win-win.

Edited February 24, 2013 by l0n3 r

[+L0ne.R]

 

I don't mind going to look for a nano as long as I know what to expect before I set off.

 

I filter out micros because I'm not excited by logsheet-only caches, and I especially don't like rolling up tiny scrolls, so generally I wouldn't look for nanos. But I have looked for "?" size caches only to be disappointed that it's a button magnet nano behind a sign. I wish people wouldn't be mysterious about the nano size and choose the appropriate micro size and also mention the nano size in the description. Leave ? size for clever container hides where giving away the size spoils the unique quality of the cache.

 

If it's a traditional nano on a long rail I probably won't bother with it at all. If it's a nano with a puzzle to solve first then if I enjoyed the puzzle I'll probably go and find the nano.

 

I've been known to make a 20-mile round trip on the bike to find a single nano after finally breaking the puzzle.

 

Not me. If it's only about the puzzle, then once I've solved it, I'm done. I'll post a note on the cache log that I solved the puzzle and put that cache page on my "Solved Puzzle" bookmark list. There's no point wasting my time and gas money on a micro or nano that will likely irritate me. If I have to work harder for a puzzle cache I expect the CO to reward me with a pleasant geocaching experience.

[team tisri]

 

I don't mind going to look for a nano as long as I know what to expect before I set off.

 

I filter out micros because I'm not excited by logsheet-only caches, and I especially don't like rolling up tiny scrolls, so generally I wouldn't look for nanos. But I have looked for "?" size caches only to be disappointed that it's a button magnet nano behind a sign. I wish people wouldn't be mysterious about the nano size and choose the appropriate micro size and also mention the nano size in the description. Leave ? size for clever container hides where giving away the size spoils the unique quality of the cache.

 

Sure, if the CO is open about what the container is then you can make an informed decision. Although technically anything about the size of a 35mm film pot or smaller is considered a micro cache, since there is no specific option for nano it seems to have become a de facto standard that "?" as the size means it's a nano.

 

I don't much like rolling up tiny log books so usually I just write TT on the very outside, over the top of another log if needs be. Otherwise I'd still be there half an hour later trying to get the roll of paper back into the container.

 

If it's a traditional nano on a long rail I probably won't bother with it at all. If it's a nano with a puzzle to solve first then if I enjoyed the puzzle I'll probably go and find the nano.

 

I've been known to make a 20-mile round trip on the bike to find a single nano after finally breaking the puzzle.

 

Not me. If it's only about the puzzle, then once I've solved it, I'm done. I'll post a note on the cache log that I solved the puzzle and put that cache page on my "Solved Puzzle" bookmark list. There's no point wasting my time and gas money on a micro or nano that will likely irritate me. If I have to work harder for a puzzle cache I expect the CO to reward me with a pleasant geocaching experience.

 

If that's the way you prefer to cache that's your call. If I know what to expect I can make the judgment call whether to travel out for the cache. Truth be told a lot of the time it's more about the cycling than the geocaching when I do make a reasonable journey by bike to pick off a nano, so if I get there and find it's a magnetic nano on a railing that stretches as far as I can see and has a lot of prickly undergrowth all around it I can just abandon the search, write a CBA log and still enjoy the cycling to get to it.

 

Unless I particularly enjoyed driving (which I don't, at least not urban driving) I wouldn't make a special journey by car to pick off a single cache, for the same reasons you've listed. But I do enjoy cycling so even if the cache isn't one I rate highly, and even if it's a cache I log CBA and abandon, I'll still have enjoyed the ride out there.

[+oxford comma]

I drove to a hide at night , last year, and realized it was in the parking lot of our local post office . I just turned around and left. these days I wouldn't have even looked for it in the daylight. GC1ZHMK has since been archived , but not for location reasons. it was on the P.O side of the area.

the attributes were what got me. creeping around the post office at night? not the best idea IMHO.

I was surprised no other loggers seemed to mind.

Edited February 24, 2013 by oxford comma

[+ShaunEM]

A good cache: One that makes you think while searching, twist around to look under and around, needing to step back and think again before the cache gives up it's location.

 

A bad cache: A micro cache placed in a spruce tree right next to an office/living room window without their knowledge.

 

A good cache: One that is maintained by the Cache Owner, and checked up on when needed/requested.

 

A bad cache: a margarine container chewed on by animals, filled full of random garbage, and never ever visited again by the CO.

 

A good cache: A container that has the owners name and email clearly labeled internally, as well as a clear indication from the outside that this is in fact a cache.

 

A bad cache: A cache that is not water tight and placed inside a garbage bag, attracting dew, bugs, and god knows what else.

 

If you don't know yet, you might want to find a few more caches. You will become an expert on both in no time.

 

Shaun