For the love of.......please STOP Lamp Post Caches

October 16, 2011

i dont understand whats wrong with them

8.9k · October 16, 2011

The great thing is that Geocaching.com offers many tools through pocket queries and GPX file information to eliminate caches that won't particularly interest you.

In my home area, I pull about 3260 caches on my "on the fly" list. This is a 20 mile radius in a distinct polygon.

3260 ->Exclude all but traditionals (323 non traditional) -> 2887 caches left

2887 ->Exclude anything by regular and large (2409 caches not "regular" or "large") -> 478 caches left

0478 ->Exclude the ones I've found or own (I own or have found 46 of the remaining 478) -> 432 caches left

0432 ->Exclude the ones that don't have a terrain between 1.5 and 3.5 (20 are terrain 1.0 or higher than 3.5) -> 412 caches left

0412 ->Exclude the ones that have a park-and-grab attributes (9 have that attribute) -> 403 caches left

0403 ->Exclude disabled caches (43 are currently disabled) -> 360 caches left

Of those 360 caches, I have also identified 20 caches manually as being in parking lots and put those on an ignore list.

That leaves me with 320 caches out of 3260 - about 10%.

But rather than focusing on the fact that if I'm caching "on-the-fly" I would likely only like about 10% of the caches, I'd rather focus on the fact that I have plenty of caches in a 20 mile radius to keep me finding a lot of caches. Of those, 40 of them have 3 or more favorites, that I could start with before moving on to others. Plus there are ones like Mult-caches that I'd probably include if it wasn't an on-the-fly situation.

As long as Parking Lot caches don't interfere with the type of caches that I like to find, I don't see how they are a problem.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Markwell

October 19, 2011

The great thing is that Geocaching.com offers many tools through pocket queries and GPX file information to eliminate caches that won't particularly interest you.

[...]

As long as Parking Lot caches don't interfere with the type of caches that I like to find, I don't see how they are a problem.

Yup - same with caches requiring boats/kayaks, or climbing mountains, etc.

It 'would' be nice however to distinguish between micros and nanos. Heck, a bison tube nowadays looks huge.

October 19, 2011

LPC's... I hear about them all the time on one of my favorite podcasts.

Should they be banned? I don't think so - Like many others have said, they serve a purpose.

I might have found a dozen or so and I do remember my first on when I realized, "Hey, they lift up".

IMO, there's one thing that really needs to be addressed: STRAY VOLTAGE

On a local board, Planet posted a link to a story to which I followed up on...

That link doesn't work anymore, but I found the same story at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7379271n. I do remember the woman in NYC that got electrocuted while walking her dog.

Excellent advice. I'd prefer not to be a skirt lifter, but I have at times. I remember finding my first one thinking 'I never knew these things slid up'... Another time I found a cache under the plastic sleeve on a guy wire for a high tension power line. I really didn't like that one...

The problem isn't limited to metal poles either. My dad used to work for SNET and before replacing poles, they had a small voltage detector that they would use on the old pole to check for stray voltage. He said it wasn't unheard of to find stray voltage on the wooden poles especially if they were wet.

These tools are fairly inexpensive ~$20. For those who seek this type of cache, it might be a good idea to pack this in your caching kit. I just searched on Amazon for 'voltage detector' and came up with quite a few devices.

Thanks for the good advice, Planet.

Finding a LPC can be a great way to break up a day, but care should be taken in any cache search. A voltage detector might be a good thing to include in your caching bag....

3.8k · October 19, 2011

I used to try to be discrete in finding them, but now frankly I don't bother much with stealth. I'll walk right up with someone standing there and make all the noise I care to. Much less suspicious that way, plus I figure I'm matching the effort that was expended in placing the cache.

That seems unnecessarily rude. I haven't placed skirt lifters before, but if I were a new hider getting my feet wet with LPCs, I'd be dismayed about cachers with such a cavalier and destructive attitude. Rather than openly risk muggling the cache, why not send the CO an encouraging email similar to "nice entry into hiding caches, I look forward to more creative hides in the future!"

So you give up complacency for passive aggressive? Hmm..

9.3k · October 19, 2011

Some people do not have the money to buy Official Bison Tubes, or other "approved" containers.

A bit off topic, but I had to stop by and call "Bunk" on this one.

In my opinion, (which is not at all humble), there really should be some sort of community consensus to avoid containers that are unsuited for their particular hide location and style. Using a container which is unable to protect its contents increases the odds that one of your fellow cachers will get to experience the joys of wet, moldy logs. Personally, I consider every single cacher out there as a friend, and I simply could not take any steps that increase the odds my friends would be subjected to an icky log. If this were really a matter of economics, I might side with Russ, but the reality is, it's not about money. It's about ignorance and/or apathy. The folks who hide containers which do not protect their contents either don't know their chosen container has a history of failure, or they don't care. One can be cured through education, the other cannot be cured by anything.

While there are no "approved" containers that are guaranteed to protect their contents in all geographic regions, in all hide styles, it only takes a few glimpses around these forums, or a few days of caching in varied environments to learn that there are containers which have a much higher success rate, and there are containers which have a much lower success rate, across the board. While it's true that exceptions can be found for containers on both ends of the scale, these exceptions are few and far between.

A good rule of thumb, for me, is: "If you MUST use a baggie to protect your log, your container has already failed at a very basic level". I probably should note that this is not a call for a ban on baggies. Baggies make great secondary barriers. But I feel your cache container should be the primary barrier.

Those containers that have done very well, over extended time frames, in multiple environments and hide styles range from free for a kinda clear film can, (the one with the lid that snaps into the body), $0.60 for a soda bottle preform, $0.88 for a match safe, $2.00 for a Lock & Lock, to $6 to $10 for an ammo can. When someone who has a handheld GPSr, or a smart phone, Internet access and reliable transportation tells me they can't afford a time tested container my "Bunk" meter goes off.

OK, the rant is over... :lol:

5.7k · October 19, 2011

When someone who has a handheld GPSr, or a smart phone, Internet access and reliable transportation tells me they can't afford a time tested container my "Bunk" meter goes off.

You're not the only one.

Mine also goes off whenever the "PMO = elitist" threads surface, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Has AmishHacker come back to this thread since he started it? Or did he just set off the metaphorical fireworks and dash off?

October 19, 2011

Those containers that have done very well, over extended time frames, in multiple environments and hide styles range from free for a kinda clear film can, (the one with the lid that snaps into the body), $0.60 for a soda bottle preform, $0.88 for a match safe, $2.00 for a Lock & Lock, to $6 to $10 for an ammo can. When someone who has a handheld GPSr, or a smart phone, Internet access and reliable transportation tells me they can't afford a time tested container my "Bunk" meter goes off.

OK, the rant is over...

and yet I have found caches with every one of the containers you list there, save the soda bottle, water logged and nasty

8.4k · October 19, 2011

I love the smell of angstyness in the morning errrr afternoon. :laughing: :rolleyes:

8.4k · October 19, 2011

Jumping on the soap box...putting on the asbestos suit. As a noob of sorts, I find all this crap about what is a proper container or hide smells of some type of strange cacher elitism. It would be nice if everyone used such and such container under such and such conditions. The fact is that some seem to forget is this is a hobby everyone can enjoy. Some people do not have the money to buy Official Bison Tubes, or other "approved" containers. They do not have the skill, time or desire to make caches. They do with what they have or can afford, which is pill bottles, tupperware, altoid tins, etc. etc. As for the LPC, have you ever thought they might be one of the easier hides for disabled or young cachers to hide? Yes, we all know LPC are a bit boring...but without a little boring, those special caches wouldn't be so appreciated. As it has been said, if you don't like those type of hides, don't look for them. Why do some feel the need to control the actions of others. Control your own actions and leave others alone. Next I am waiting for the thread about containers only Jesus would use.....

LOL. Good post. Seeee.... We can agree on something.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Snoogans

9.3k · October 19, 2011

Those containers that have done very well, over extended time frames, in multiple environments and hide styles range from free for a kinda clear film can, (the one with the lid that snaps into the body), $0.60 for a soda bottle preform, $0.88 for a match safe, $2.00 for a Lock & Lock, to $6 to $10 for an ammo can. When someone who has a handheld GPSr, or a smart phone, Internet access and reliable transportation tells me they can't afford a time tested container my "Bunk" meter goes off.

OK, the rant is over...

and yet I have found caches with every one of the containers you list there, save the soda bottle, water logged and nasty

Since I included this bit in my rant, your comment seems a tad redundant.

"While it's true that exceptions can be found for containers on both ends of the scale, these exceptions are few and far between."

9.3k · October 19, 2011

Next I am waiting for the thread about containers only Jesus would use.....

Jesus told me he only uses ammo cans...

He mentioned that failing to use ammo cans can cause you to spend eternity in some fiery lake.

Hey, it's Jesus! Who am I to argue...

8.4k · October 19, 2011

Next I am waiting for the thread about containers only Jesus would use.....

Jesus told me he only uses ammo cans...

He mentioned that failing to use ammo cans can cause you to spend eternity in some fiery lake.

Hey, it's Jesus! Who am I to argue...

Yah. That would be South Park Jesus riiight?

9k · October 19, 2011

ok, enough of the religion talk.

eta: please.

Edited October 19, 2011 by thebruce0

9.3k · October 19, 2011

South park Jesus, Surveillance Jesus, Ninja Jesus, Lego Jesus...

They are all Jesuses... Don't mess with Jesus!

Edit to add: Bruce is right. Back on topic.

Let's not ban LPCs. Many folks like them, and they mostly meet the guidelines.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Clan Riffster

8.4k · October 19, 2011

Don't mess with Jesus!

October 20, 2011

<snip, of a well written, and logical comment.>

OK, the rant is over...

In general, I agree with your comments. However, smart phones and internet are no longer a "luxury." In fact, you don't need separate internet and a computer per se to cache, just a phone data plan with 3G which is pretty standard. A lot of people around the poverty level or below have smart phones with data, as their only communication device. I certainly understand the desire for good cache containers, which contain dry logs and swag etc. I want that too. I hate soggy logs, and containers that fall apart. I agree some faulty containers are probably related more to education and apathy then economics. However, a significant amount faulty containers are simply COs not taking care of their business. What difference does the container really make if the CO takes care of the cache (as long as it is environmentally safe etc)? If it serves it purpose, I don't really care if it a sock and a baggy, if the log is dry etc. I guess that is really one of my points. For me, it about the CO monitoring and doing their job with their property. Certainly, a sealed bison tube, ammo box etc is easier for a CO to maintain. I am not going to pass judgement on any container if it's maintained. Personally, I prefer non-traditional containers which related to the cache story etc, I find them more enjoyable to find.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Russ!

October 20, 2011

LOL. Good post. Seeee.... We can agree on something.

I knew there was a reason, I was sleeping better....

BTW...way off topic here...but great sticky about TB longevity.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Russ!

1.4k · October 20, 2011

AmishHacker if you are tired of the LPC maybe you should work on a series... I have found a fun one...Oh wait look at the hints. :laughing: Sorry no offense to the hider as I have found 3 already in the area and like having them there but it just reminded me of this thread.

Here is one of a series of 15.

My link

Looks like the end one if you find them all might be cool!

-WarNinjas

October 20, 2011

I am sorry.. I did not read all the posts in here. I was looking for something else and this thread caught my eye. There is nothing wrong with LPC's. In fact I think they are great. They are a perfect way for newbies to start hunting. I didnt know those things even moved before I started caching. And I have seen people get creative. They dont all have to be the same lift the cover up and there it is. So far I have only hidden one cache and it is a LPC. I wanted to hide one and didnt have the creativity at that point to do anything much more difficult. I am working on my second one tho.

Oh and people who dont like LPC's dont have to look for them. Not always, but a lot of times it is obvious that they are LPCs.

October 20, 2011

I am sorry.. I did not read all the posts in here. I was looking for something else and this thread caught my eye. There is nothing wrong with LPC's. In fact I think they are great. They are a perfect way for newbies to start hunting. I didnt know those things even moved before I started caching. And I have seen people get creative. They dont all have to be the same lift the cover up and there it is. So far I have only hidden one cache and it is a LPC. I wanted to hide one and didnt have the creativity at that point to do anything much more difficult. I am working on my second one tho.

Oh and people who dont like LPC's dont have to look for them. Not always, but a lot of times it is obvious that they are LPCs.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that LPC's are the perfect caches for newbies. Yes, we can all agree that there are some fine ones out there, but wouldn't you really have someone's first found cache be of generally higher quality, with some nice swag and a log that you can actually write in? Plus it sets a better example for them to place there own first cache and not further proliferate the style.

October 20, 2011

LP caches have bored me except for that infamous first one which had me questioning my GPSr. However, the other day I found a LPC with 12 favorite points. One of them is mine. I don't want to give it away, but it IS possible to use the "expected boringness" of LPCs to your advantage if you are a clever hider!

3.7k · October 21, 2011

I am sorry.. I did not read all the posts in here. I was looking for something else and this thread caught my eye. There is nothing wrong with LPC's. In fact I think they are great. They are a perfect way for newbies to start hunting. I didnt know those things even moved before I started caching. And I have seen people get creative. They dont all have to be the same lift the cover up and there it is. So far I have only hidden one cache and it is a LPC. I wanted to hide one and didnt have the creativity at that point to do anything much more difficult. I am working on my second one tho.

Oh and people who dont like LPC's dont have to look for them. Not always, but a lot of times it is obvious that they are LPCs.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that LPC's are the perfect caches for newbies. Yes, we can all agree that there are some fine ones out there, but wouldn't you really have someone's first found cache be of generally higher quality, with some nice swag and a log that you can actually write in? Plus it sets a better example for them to place there own first cache and not further proliferate the style.

Yep, although I do enjoy the odd LPC, they're not for newbies. 1st one we tried to find, we had no idea what a LPC is, so it was a DNF. If I'm introducing geocaching to someone, I'll take them for a nice walk in the forest to find a medium/large-sized cache. That, for me, is the best part of geocaching.

19k · October 21, 2011

LP caches have bored me except for that infamous first one which had me questioning my GPSr. However, the other day I found a LPC with 12 favorite points. One of them is mine. I don't want to give it away, but it IS possible to use the "expected boringness" of LPCs to your advantage if you are a clever hider!

I'd love to know more about that LPC! This one has 14 favorites as of today: http://coord.info/GC2YQ0J

October 22, 2011

Next I am waiting for the thread about containers only Jesus would use.....

I am assuming that would have been the egg.

(Get it? Easter... Egg... Hiding... Tip your waitresses, I'll be here all weekend!)

October 22, 2011

I wold have a problem with it except for I live in Colorado. I would have a problem with it if I didn't live in a state that gets snow or rain. But since I live in Colorado I can't complain because we get snow and rain. But I still like your ideas.

October 22, 2011

Here's a cache we're watching. It is a LPC (of sorts) and a Puzzle Cache. It has been in place for more than two years and FTF is still available as of now. The logs on it are hilarious! GC1Y4WW

Edited October 22, 2011 by TXHooligans

October 23, 2011

The thrill is GONE...the thrill is GONE?!?!

Edited October 23, 2011 by TorgtheViking

October 26, 2011

LP caches have bored me except for that infamous first one which had me questioning my GPSr. However, the other day I found a LPC with 12 favorite points. One of them is mine. I don't want to give it away, but it IS possible to use the "expected boringness" of LPCs to your advantage if you are a clever hider!

I'd love to know more about that LPC! This one has 14 favorites as of today: http://coord.info/GC2YQ0J

I've found a couple of caches by the hider you just mentioned, knowschad. He actually has gotten pretty clever with the LPC concept. I was impressed at the creativity. Haven't found the one you just pointed out though...

20.7k · October 26, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

Therefore, we can only conclude that these caches are merely not your cup of tea, but are perfectly fine to others. As such, the solution is not to do away with these caches, but for you to merely change your own behavior. In other words, put more effort into not going after these caches if they cause you so much unhappiness.

20.7k · October 26, 2011

The only thing I've noticed is that geocaching didn't start in a parking lot and then had to move out into the woods due to lack of available hide locations. I think LPCs are convenient, accessible and popular. Like top 40 music. Here today, gone tomorrow and barely worth remembering.

The game didn't start in the woods, either. It started with a roadside cache that was buried and soon full of water. It was placed without permission and unmaintained to the point that eventually turned into rusty goo. Once it was archived, it remained in place to further rot. Form this noble beginning, geocaching spread worldwide both into the woods and the urban areas. Edited October 26, 2011 by sbell111

20.7k · October 26, 2011

handicaching.com

Yep. No disabled cachers. Not like they even have their own website or anything to help each other find the accessible caches.

Nope. None of them.

I'm sure when I injured my back so I couldn't walk more than 50 feet for 3 months, I was the only one who suddenly LOVED LPC's so I could keep caching.

That would have SUCKED 3 whole months without finding a cache.

Agreed.

I was pretty anti-LPC until I had my accident. Nothing like being unable to walk without pain to make you appreciate the park-and-grab.

9k · October 26, 2011

The game didn't start in teh woods, either. It started with a roadside cache that was buried and soon full of water. It was placed without permission and unmaintained to the point that eventually turned into rusty goo. Once it was archived, it remained in place to further rot. Form this noble beginning, geocaching spread worldwide both into the woods and the urban areas.

I want to *like* this so much. :laughing:

20.7k · October 26, 2011

I respectfully disagree with the idea that LPC's are the perfect caches for newbies. Yes, we can all agree that there are some fine ones out there, but wouldn't you really have someone's first found cache be of generally higher quality, with some nice swag and a log that you can actually write in?

Many people could care less about swag. Swag also turns to junk amazingly fast. Therefore, the noob might just open up the box to be given a bad impression of the game when he finds nothing but broken mctoys and old business cards. It should also be noted that most people haven't waxed eloquently in a paper log in many years. Therefore, there is little difference in a micro log or a larger logbook.

Plus it sets a better example for them to place there own first cache and not further proliferate the style.

As previously touched on, this is a faulty argument as it makes two bad presumptions, in my opinion. It first presumes that everyone feels as you do about LPCs, when this is obviously not the case. Second, it logically doesn't follow that someone would tend to hide a cache just like one that he/she didn't enjoy. A more realistic conclusion would be that the noob who didn't enjoy the LPC and thought that all caches were similar would simply no longer participate in the game. Edited October 26, 2011 by sbell111

10.2k · October 26, 2011

The game didn't start in teh woods, either. It started with a roadside cache that was buried and soon full of water. It was placed without permission and unmaintained to the point that eventually turned into rusty goo. Once it was archived, it remained in place to further rot. Form this noble beginning, geocaching spread worldwide both into the woods and the urban areas.

I want to *like* this so much.

Don't bother. It was the first one. And maybe you could say Mingo was (sort of still is) a Park-n-grab. So like 2 out of the first 1,000.

And by the way, the first one was "in the woods". Just not very far.

19k · October 26, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

More likely, I think the problem has to do with new cachers coming into the game that find those LPCs or magnetic keysafe caches and think, "Ahhhh... so that's what a cache is!" It has nothing to do with their disliking the cache, but hiding one just like it. They simply don't know better, because we set the standard so low.

9k · October 26, 2011

The game didn't start in teh woods, either. It started with a roadside cache that was buried and soon full of water. It was placed without permission and unmaintained to the point that eventually turned into rusty goo. Once it was archived, it remained in place to further rot. Form this noble beginning, geocaching spread worldwide both into the woods and the urban areas.

I want to *like* this so much.

Don't bother. It was the first one. And maybe you could say Mingo was (sort of still is) a Park-n-grab. So like 2 out of the first 1,000.

And by the way, the first one was "in the woods". Just not very far.

uh... I meant the comment, not the cache. :blink:

eta: though I'd probably like the cache too =P

Edited October 26, 2011 by thebruce0

20.7k · October 26, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

More likely, I think the problem has to do with new cachers coming into the game that find those LPCs or magnetic keysafe caches and think, "Ahhhh... so that's what a cache is!" It has nothing to do with their disliking the cache, but hiding one just like it. They simply don't know better, because we set the standard so low.

It has everything to do with whether they like or dislike the cache because if they dislike it, they won't emulate it and if they like it there really isn't a problem with their hiding one like it. (The best indicator as to whether a potential cache is 'good' is if the cache owner would enjoy finding it, after all.) Edited October 26, 2011 by sbell111

8k · October 26, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

More likely, I think the problem has to do with new cachers coming into the game that find those LPCs or magnetic keysafe caches and think, "Ahhhh... so that's what a cache is!" It has nothing to do with their disliking the cache, but hiding one just like it. They simply don't know better, because we set the standard so low.

That would make sense if only newbies hid LPCs. I don't know about Minneapolis but around here most of the LPCs are hidden by experienced geocachers with 1000s of finds.

19k · October 26, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

More likely, I think the problem has to do with new cachers coming into the game that find those LPCs or magnetic keysafe caches and think, "Ahhhh... so that's what a cache is!" It has nothing to do with their disliking the cache, but hiding one just like it. They simply don't know better, because we set the standard so low.

It has everything to do with whether they like or dislike the cache because if they dislike it, they won't emulate it and if they like it there really isn't a problem with their hiding one like it. (The best indicator as to whether a potential cache is 'good' is if the cache owner would enjoy finding it, after all.)

I know one cacher that started hiding many caches shortly after he began caching. About 90% of his caches were film cannisters hidden in spruce trees, because that is what he found most of when he started. He figured that was what we liked, and he wanted to please, so he hid many more of them. That lasted about a year, before he had become so sick of looking for that sort of hide, that he changed all of his out for other styles.

1.2k · October 26, 2011

I enjoy finding just about every cache I find...they at least get me outdoors. More often then not, it has more to do with the company I keep then the "Quality" of the cache...

20.7k · October 26, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

More likely, I think the problem has to do with new cachers coming into the game that find those LPCs or magnetic keysafe caches and think, "Ahhhh... so that's what a cache is!" It has nothing to do with their disliking the cache, but hiding one just like it. They simply don't know better, because we set the standard so low.

It has everything to do with whether they like or dislike the cache because if they dislike it, they won't emulate it and if they like it there really isn't a problem with their hiding one like it. (The best indicator as to whether a potential cache is 'good' is if the cache owner would enjoy finding it, after all.)

I know one cacher that started hiding many caches shortly after he began caching. About 90% of his caches were film cannisters hidden in spruce trees, because that is what he found most of when he started. He figured that was what we liked, and he wanted to please, so he hid many more of them. That lasted about a year, before he had become so sick of looking for that sort of hide, that he changed all of his out for other styles.

So he liked a hide style and hid several of them. Later, he no longer liked that hide style and stopped hiding them.

Thanks for arguing my point so well.

October 27, 2011

The bigger problem in my mind is that it's become the new accepted "normal" - the low entry cost, numbers generating potential, and relative staying power of these caches makes them an attractive option for many. Unfortunately, imitation isn't usually very flattering. I had a very brief conversation with someone who must have attempted caching at some point in the past describe it as "that game where you find film cannisters in lightpoles." Kinda sad...

I'll just go back to this point - is this what we want geocaching to be know as?

8.3k · October 27, 2011

The bigger problem in my mind is that it's become the new accepted "normal" - the low entry cost, numbers generating potential, and relative staying power of these caches makes them an attractive option for many. Unfortunately, imitation isn't usually very flattering. I had a very brief conversation with someone who must have attempted caching at some point in the past describe it as "that game where you find film cannisters in lightpoles." Kinda sad...

I'll just go back to this point - is this what we want geocaching to be know as?

Of course not, a much better image of geocaching is a 5 gallon bucket buried up to it's top along side a road in a forest.

8k · October 27, 2011

The bigger problem in my mind is that it's become the new accepted "normal" - the low entry cost, numbers generating potential, and relative staying power of these caches makes them an attractive option for many. Unfortunately, imitation isn't usually very flattering. I had a very brief conversation with someone who must have attempted caching at some point in the past describe it as "that game where you find film cannisters in lightpoles." Kinda sad...

I'll just go back to this point - is this what we want geocaching to be know as?

So what did you tell him when he said that geocaching was about finding film canisters in light poles?

Did you explain that these were many geocaches in parks or at interesting locations? Did you explain there are caches hidden in the woods that you have to hike to? Did you explain that some people hide adventurous caches that require overnight backpacking trips or scuba diving?

Did you explain all kinds of people geocache: families with small children, families with teenaged children, retired people, outdoorsy people, busy urban dwellers, people without cars, people with disabilities, etc.? Did you explain how different people hide different kinds of caches in different locations because these are the types of caches they enjoy finding or because time an other constraints limit the areas when can look for caches?

Did you explain how the Geocaching.com website has tools for identifying caches with different terrain, difficulty, cache size, and other attributes so you can select the caches that are best for you?

Edited October 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

10.2k · October 27, 2011

Never mind, see next post.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

10.2k · October 27, 2011

The bigger problem in my mind is that it's become the new accepted "normal" - the low entry cost, numbers generating potential, and relative staying power of these caches makes them an attractive option for many. Unfortunately, imitation isn't usually very flattering. I had a very brief conversation with someone who must have attempted caching at some point in the past describe it as "that game where you find film cannisters in lightpoles." Kinda sad...

I'll just go back to this point - is this what we want geocaching to be know as?

Not only did someone say that to me once, it was in like 2006!! The guy owned a handheld GPS as he was a backwoods ATV enthusiast, and told me (after seeing mine on my belt at a picnic that I cached on the way to) that he wasn't interested because "all the caches near him were in parking lots". I definitely remember he was from Connecticut, but I don't know where.

I almost entered this before reading Mr. T's response. Of course I told him they're not all in parking lots, and that I myself was a notorious anti-parking lot caching extremist. Ok, I probably didn't call myself an extremist.

October 27, 2011

The bigger problem in my mind is that it's become the new accepted "normal" - the low entry cost, numbers generating potential, and relative staying power of these caches makes them an attractive option for many. Unfortunately, imitation isn't usually very flattering. I had a very brief conversation with someone who must have attempted caching at some point in the past describe it as "that game where you find film cannisters in lightpoles." Kinda sad...

I'll just go back to this point - is this what we want geocaching to be know as?

So what did you tell him when he said that geocaching was about finding film canisters in light poles?

Did you explain that these were many geocaches in parks or at interesting locations? Did you explain there are caches hidden in the woods that you have to hike to? Did you explain that some people hide adventurous caches that require overnight backpacking trips or scuba diving?

Did you explain all kinds of people geocache: families with small children, families with teenaged children, retired people, outdoorsy people, busy urban dwellers, people without cars, people with disabilities, etc.? Did you explain how different people hide different kinds of caches in different locations because these are the types of caches they enjoy finding or because time an other constraints limit the areas when can look for caches?

Did you explain how the Geocaching.com website has tools for identifying caches with different terrain, difficulty, cache size, and other attributes so you can select the caches that are best for you?

The very brief conversation didn't allow it - I guess I should have pointed him to the forums here where all is explained. <_<

I was able to get into other forms of caches that are out there but first impressions are hard to overcome.

19k · October 27, 2011

I believe quality caches beget more quality caches and crappy caches beget more of the same. Set the bar low and we get what's coming to us.

This argument gets dragged out pretty frequently, but it is not a good one, in my opinion. You see, it's not reasonable to assume that someone will find a cache, dislike it, and then hide one just like it. A person would only hide a similar one if he/she enjoyed finding that LPC. I can think of few better reasons to choose a specific hide style than because the hider likes that kind of cache.

More likely, I think the problem has to do with new cachers coming into the game that find those LPCs or magnetic keysafe caches and think, "Ahhhh... so that's what a cache is!" It has nothing to do with their disliking the cache, but hiding one just like it. They simply don't know better, because we set the standard so low.

It has everything to do with whether they like or dislike the cache because if they dislike it, they won't emulate it and if they like it there really isn't a problem with their hiding one like it. (The best indicator as to whether a potential cache is 'good' is if the cache owner would enjoy finding it, after all.)

I know one cacher that started hiding many caches shortly after he began caching. About 90% of his caches were film cannisters hidden in spruce trees, because that is what he found most of when he started. He figured that was what we liked, and he wanted to please, so he hid many more of them. That lasted about a year, before he had become so sick of looking for that sort of hide, that he changed all of his out for other styles.

So he liked a hide style and hid several of them. Later, he no longer liked that hide style and stopped hiding them.

Thanks for arguing my point so well.

You love to put words in people's mouths, don't you? Where did I say that he liked them?

7.5k · October 27, 2011

Where does it stop? If you don't like them, then don't look for them.

I wish more folks would filter out micros. If micros weren't found so much maybe COs would plant fewer. But I realize many cachers feel compelled to look for them in order to get them off their list of local caches. Many cachers are averse to using the ignore list.

The only other way to discourage LPCs is criticism in the logs but maybe that's a little unfair if the CO is upfront in their cache description that it's a parking lot hide. If they hide the fact that it's a LPC, and you have no idea until you get to the plaza, then I say (without being overly harsh) make note of your disappointment/concerns in your log.

For the love of.......please STOP Lamp Post Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment