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

[+L0ne.R]

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.)

 

Not really the case. From what I've read in the forums people hide micros, not because they like them but because they are cheap and easy to hide. Many new COs are just dabbling and don't want to invest money in the game until they decide they like being a CO. Some COs have said they started off hiding bigger caches but when those bigger caches got muggled they resorted to micros because they didn't lose money when film canisters were muggled. Others have said they don't hide swag size caches because they don't want to spend the money on swag. So I really think that most COs plant micros because it's cheap, not because they prefer micros or even enjoy them.

[jholly]

 

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.

 

My ammo cans in the woods are not found very often. Guess I'll stop hiding them and plant film cans under a lamp skirt. Probably get more finds that way.

[knowschad]

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.

I spend all afternoon on Sunday caching where the majority of the hides were micros. I ended up "favoriting" almost every one. They were some of the best hides I've seen in years.

Lame caches is what you are against, I'm sure... not micros.

[+bigcall]

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.

 

How's this? Although edited and restored now, that was my actual log - a nice excerpt from War and Peace. It's actually part of the second epilogue where Tolstoy attempts to show that there is a great force behind history. My point was to show how all things produce what becomes history including the LPC. Unfortunately the Cache owner didn't share my enthusiam for the classic works of literature.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

My ammo cans in the woods are not found very often. Guess I'll stop hiding them and plant film cans under a lamp skirt. Probably get more finds that way.

 

People who hide ammo cans in the woods are probably not into geocaching for the numbers. People who hide micros under lamp post skirts are more likely into the smiley count and are motivated by the high find counts on their cache hides. If they only got one find a month they may not be so keen on planting LPCs. Although we'll never know, I doubt that people will stop hunting them, even if they are annoyed by them.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

I spend all afternoon on Sunday caching where the majority of the hides were micros. I ended up "favoriting" almost every one. They were some of the best hides I've seen in years.

Lame caches is what you are against, I'm sure... not micros.

 

True. I too will hunt micros but they have to have a favorite votes. I agree there are some good ones, but I don't recall an LPC in my area with favorite votes.

[jholly]

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.

 

My ammo cans in the woods are not found very often. Guess I'll stop hiding them and plant film cans under a lamp skirt. Probably get more finds that way.

 

People who hide ammo cans in the woods are probably not into geocaching for the numbers. People who hide micros under lamp post skirts are more likely into the smiley count and are motivated by the high find counts on their cache hides. If they only got one find a month they may not be so keen on planting LPCs. Although we'll never know, I doubt that people will stop hunting them, even if they are annoyed by them.

Problem is I hunt ammo cans and tupperware in the woods, micros in the woods, urban micros, power trails, LPC's, GRC's, ziplock bags in a rock wall, nanos stuck on playground equipment, and just about any other type of hide you wish to enumerate. I even went hunting for Easter eggs to find the one with the log so I could get the smiley. I just happen to like hiding ammo cans in the woods.

[+sbell111]

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?

He wasn't getting paid to cache, was he? He did it because he found it enjoyable, right? Therefore, why would he look for and hide caches that he didn't enjoy?

[+sbell111]

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.

You (and others) are apparently missing the fact that these caches are actually enjoyed by many. As such, there is no need to 'discourage them'. They are valid caches that are enjoyed. A better plan is for those who do not enjoy them to put in a little effort to avoid them.

 

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.)

 

Not really the case. From what I've read in the forums people hide micros, not because they like them but because they are cheap and easy to hide. Many new COs are just dabbling and don't want to invest money in the game until they decide they like being a CO. Some COs have said they started off hiding bigger caches but when those bigger caches got muggled they resorted to micros because they didn't lose money when film canisters were muggled. Others have said they don't hide swag size caches because they don't want to spend the money on swag. So I really think that most COs plant micros because it's cheap, not because they prefer micros or even enjoy them.

Just because people in the forums like to argue that noobs who do not enjoy LPCs find them and emulate them doesn't make that argument hold water. Why would anyone keep playing a game if they weren't enjoying it? It is much more likely that a noob who initially finds LPCs and enjoys them will hide similar ones because he is emulating caches that he finds enjoyable while the noob who first finds LPCs and doesn't enjoy them will either quit playing the game or play it long enough to find caches that he does enjoy. These enjoyable caches will be emulated, not the unenjoyable ones.

[Neath Worthies]

As a non American I've never come across one of these (and probably nere will!). From what I understand though the cache is actually hidden underneath a protective "skirt" at the base of the lampost?

 

If that is the case who owns the lampost? And how does the CO go about obtaining permission to place it there? Do these lamposts have any kind of information about the owner to help?

[+sbell111]

As a non American I've never come across one of these (and probably nere will!). From what I understand though the cache is actually hidden underneath a protective "skirt" at the base of the lampost?

 

If that is the case who owns the lampost? And how does the CO go about obtaining permission to place it there? Do these lamposts have any kind of information about the owner to help?

The lamp posts in question tend to be in shopping centers and business parks. It's not very hard to find those people responsible for these locations.

Edited October 28, 2011 by sbell111

[Neath Worthies]

As a non American I've never come across one of these (and probably nere will!). From what I understand though the cache is actually hidden underneath a protective "skirt" at the base of the lampost?

 

If that is the case who owns the lampost? And how does the CO go about obtaining permission to place it there? Do these lamposts have any kind of information about the owner to help?

The lamp posts in question tend to be in shopping centers and business parks. It's not very hard to find those people responsible for these locations.

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. I can see how the landowners in these sort of locations are happy to encourage people onto their land!!! Geocache = Potential customer

[+thebruce0]

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. I can see how the landowners in these sort of locations are happy to encourage people onto their land!!! Geocache = Potential customer

Also, accidents or property negligence = potential liability!

[+Team Firenze]

As a non American I've never come across one of these (and probably nere will!). From what I understand though the cache is actually hidden underneath a protective "skirt" at the base of the lampost?

 

If that is the case who owns the lampost? And how does the CO go about obtaining permission to place it there? Do these lamposts have any kind of information about the owner to help?

The lamp posts in question tend to be in shopping centers and business parks. It's not very hard to find those people responsible for these locations.

 

Why do people keep asking about this ownership issue. I don't know how it is with everybody else but locally by me I could almost guarantee that 90% or more of caches do not have owner's permission. (That includes LPCs and ammo cans in woods).

 

It just seems that this is a rule that nobody follows and the reviewers turn a blind eye to. The reality is more like the frisbee rule that I have heard of. This only seems to come up in regard to LPCs, but never for Bison in Pines, guard rails, or ammo cans in parks.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Team Firenze

[TorgtheViking]

This activity should be better known as "Microcaching". Why not?

[+sbell111]

This activity should be better known as "Microcaching". Why not?

Why?

[Mr.Yuck]

As a non American I've never come across one of these (and probably nere will!). From what I understand though the cache is actually hidden underneath a protective "skirt" at the base of the lampost?

 

If that is the case who owns the lampost? And how does the CO go about obtaining permission to place it there? Do these lamposts have any kind of information about the owner to help?

The lamp posts in question tend to be in shopping centers and business parks. It's not very hard to find those people responsible for these locations.

 

Why do people keep asking about this ownership issue. I don't know how it is with everybody else but locally by me I could almost guarantee that 90% or more of caches do not have owner's permission. (That includes LPCs and ammo cans in woods).

 

It just seems that this is a rule that nobody follows and the reviewers turn a blind eye to. The reality is more like the frisbee rule that I have heard of. This only seems to come up in regard to LPCs, but never for Bison in Pines, guard rails, or ammo cans in parks.

 

Scared me for a second that you were a reviewer yourself. Never mind. Yeah, I know I (and many others) have ranted about most LPC's being placed without permission. The difference for me, one of the ranters, is private vs. public property. A guard rail is on the public Right of way. A park housing an ammo can is public. Not enough information to give my opinion on the Bison in a pine, depending on where this pine is.

[+Team Firenze]

As a non American I've never come across one of these (and probably nere will!). From what I understand though the cache is actually hidden underneath a protective "skirt" at the base of the lampost?

 

If that is the case who owns the lampost? And how does the CO go about obtaining permission to place it there? Do these lamposts have any kind of information about the owner to help?

The lamp posts in question tend to be in shopping centers and business parks. It's not very hard to find those people responsible for these locations.

 

Why do people keep asking about this ownership issue. I don't know how it is with everybody else but locally by me I could almost guarantee that 90% or more of caches do not have owner's permission. (That includes LPCs and ammo cans in woods).

 

It just seems that this is a rule that nobody follows and the reviewers turn a blind eye to. The reality is more like the frisbee rule that I have heard of. This only seems to come up in regard to LPCs, but never for Bison in Pines, guard rails, or ammo cans in parks.

 

Scared me for a second that you were a reviewer yourself. Never mind. Yeah, I know I (and many others) have ranted about most LPC's being placed without permission. The difference for me, one of the ranters, is private vs. public property. A guard rail is on the public Right of way. A park housing an ammo can is public. Not enough information to give my opinion on the Bison in a pine, depending on where this pine is.

 

Well I guess that would depend on definition of public. As far as I know, all property is governed by some owner. I have a right of way in the front and back of my property. I am of course still the owner.

 

Furthermore, I would venture to guess that if all the caches out there were brought to the governing body a lot of them would be not allowed.

 

So, back to the original point, placing of caches in LPCs or parks are equally illegal as it pertains to the Groundspeak rules.

 

Oh, and most bisons in pines I find are either in shopping centers, public utility areas, or parks.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Team Firenze

[TorgtheViking]

This activity should be better known as "Microcaching". Why not?

Why?

 

Cause most of the caches out there are micros.

[+OldLog]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

[4wheelin_fool]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

 

They are not easy to filter out.

[+Doctroid]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

 

They are not easy to filter out.

 

Not automatically, but it's easy enough to check Google Maps and cross off your list anything in a parking lot.

[knowschad]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

 

They are not easy to filter out.

 

You're driving into a parking lot. You find yourself approaching a lamp post. Your GPS distance keeps dropping until you're 15 feet from a lamp post. Congratulations! You have found an LPC. If you don't like 'em, leave. Very easy to filter out.

[4wheelin_fool]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

 

They are not easy to filter out.

 

You're driving into a parking lot. You find yourself approaching a lamp post. Your GPS distance keeps dropping until you're 15 feet from a lamp post. Congratulations! You have found an LPC. If you don't like 'em, leave. Very easy to filter out.

 

Filter out means not driving up to it.

[+larryc43230]

Not exactly geocaching and not exactly a lamp post, but...

 

Electric shock kills dog, shocks owner

 

Just to post something almost-relevant to the topic.

 

--Larry

[knowschad]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

 

They are not easy to filter out.

 

You're driving into a parking lot. You find yourself approaching a lamp post. Your GPS distance keeps dropping until you're 15 feet from a lamp post. Congratulations! You have found an LPC. If you don't like 'em, leave. Very easy to filter out.

 

Filter out means not driving up to it.

Sure it is. Its filtering it out after you've done some driving, but since your problem with these caches seems to be fear of electrocution, then better late then never.

[+tozainamboku]

Seems to me if one does not like LPCs then the easiest solution do not hunt them end of frustration LOL

 

They are not easy to filter out.

 

You're driving into a parking lot. You find yourself approaching a lamp post. Your GPS distance keeps dropping until you're 15 feet from a lamp post. Congratulations! You have found an LPC. If you don't like 'em, leave. Very easy to filter out.

 

Filter out means not driving up to it.

You've decided to go urban caching. You load up your GPS with lots of caches. As you drive from one to the next you find that a certain number are LPCs (could've predicted that). Perhaps today you are unlucky and find several LPCs in a row (or a higher percentage of LPCs among the caches you loaded). If you simply avoid turning in to each parking lot that has a cache you are going to avoid these and have more time to look for other caches thtat are probably not LPCs.

 

Now I know you will complain that you are going to miss all those clever parking lot caches that are not LPCs. Just what are you missing? If it's not an LPC isn't it going to be on a green transformer box, or maybe a news rack. If there is something really unique in a parking lot it probably has a few favorite points. (I know this information isn't in your GPS - and I agree that Groundspeak owes us favorite points in the GPX file).

 

I'd say that while you can't filter out LPCs easily, you can avoid them. Or at least not let them bother you so much. You lift the skirt and sign the log. How much of your day has been "wasted"? Get it done and move on to the next cache which hopefully will be more your tastes.

[+gpsblake]

Some people complain like crazy about "lamppost caches". But if you plant a lamppost cache and plant a cache in the middle of the woods, guess which one gets logged much more often? We all know the answer, it's the lamppost cache.

[+CanadianRockies]

Some people complain like crazy about "lamppost caches". But if you plant a lamppost cache and plant a cache in the middle of the woods, guess which one gets logged much more often? We all know the answer, it's the lamppost cache.

I'm okay with my caches receiving fewer finds. I hide them to be enjoyed more rather than found more.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

 

I want to clarify my thoughts on this a bit, as I can see that my wording didn't really express the point I was trying to reach. First, I know that the number of "wheelchair bound" cachers is tiny, at least in comparison to able bodied cachers. I didn't mean to imply that there are hordes of wheelchair cachers racing around parking lots, snapping up LPC's as they go. What I meant was the same fun and satisfaction I get from geocaching (climbing over rocks and wading through streams), a person who struggles with a disability is just as happy to find a micro under a lampskirt or behind a guardrail or behind a sign along a paved path next to the river. We're both geocaching in ways that make us happy.

 

Really, catering to disabled cachers was only a small part of my argument. Mostly what I was driving at is this ever present desire by some to abolish micros/LPC's/nano's (pick your poison). I just don't understand that mindset. If you're someone that hates micros and wouldn't dream of doing them...fine, hate them all you like. Don't ever do them. But why must they be scrubbed from the maps just because you don't like/want them? I've heard the arguments time and again and it always boils down to the same thing "I don't like this kind of cache, let's get rid of it". Most lamp-post, guard-rail and urban micros fill locations that probably aren't going to be used for any other type of hide, so who or what are they hurting by being there? But, of course, to the person who hates them and wouldn't dream of doing them anyway, they simply have to go because they offend their caching sensibilities. I agree that most urban micros tend to be bland, boring hides that are there just to fill in the grid, but they serve their customers well.

 

I think this hits it perfectly.

Edited January 30, 2012 by BAMBOOZLE

[+larryc43230]

Some people complain like crazy about "lamppost caches". But if you plant a lamppost cache and plant a cache in the middle of the woods, guess which one gets logged much more often? We all know the answer, it's the lamppost cache.

Just because LPCs are logged more often than other types of caches, that doesn't necessarily mean they're more popular, as in cachers actually enjoying finding the things. I, for one, log them just to get them out of my Pocket Query results and to get rid of the clutter they create on cache maps. And if I've already used the time and gas to drive to the department store parking lot, I might as well grab the cache and sign the log. If there were a way to filter them out, I would do that in a heartbeat.

 

Unfortunately, avoiding micros isn't a good way for me, because I really like caches in old cemeteries, and many of those are micros. I don't dislike micros, I dislike micros hidden in lampposts.

 

I've logged hundreds of LPCs just to get them off my lists and maps so I can "see" the caches that I actually enjoy looking for. I seriously doubt that I would ever give any LPC a Favorite point, unless it led me to a truly spectacular spot where an LPC is the only possible hide. After six years of caching, I haven't run into that cache yet

 

--Larry

[+CanadianRockies]

I've logged hundreds of LPCs just to get them off my lists and maps so I can "see" the caches that I actually enjoy looking for.

As a Premium Member, you also have the "ignore" option. It accomplishes the same thing.

[+larryc43230]

I've logged hundreds of LPCs just to get them off my lists and maps so I can "see" the caches that I actually enjoy looking for.

As a Premium Member, you also have the "ignore" option. It accomplishes the same thing.

I just checked, and my Ignore List currently includes 747 caches, almost half of which are LPCs. When I can identify an LPC from the cache description, it goes on the list; when I can't be certain what sort of cache it is from the description, it doesn't. That leaves hundreds of caches within 20 miles of my home location that might be LPCs.

 

And they pop up like mushrooms; if I tried to put every one of them on my Ignore List, I wouldn't have enough time to do any actual caching.

 

--Larry

[Mr.Yuck]

I've logged hundreds of LPCs just to get them off my lists and maps so I can "see" the caches that I actually enjoy looking for.

As a Premium Member, you also have the "ignore" option. It accomplishes the same thing.

I just checked, and my Ignore List currently includes 747 caches, almost half of which are LPCs. When I can identify an LPC from the cache description, it goes on the list; when I can't be certain what sort of cache it is from the description, it doesn't. That leaves hundreds of caches within 20 miles of my home location that might be LPCs.

 

And they pop up like mushrooms; if I tried to put every one of them on my Ignore List, I wouldn't have enough time to do any actual caching.

 

--Larry

 

So it sounds like you would still find a parking lot cache if it were on a guardrail, or in the landscaping or something? I ignore all parking lot hides period, and am pretty confident I have a 100% success rate at doing so from the cache pages and sat views.

[+larryc43230]

So it sounds like you would still find a parking lot cache if it were on a guardrail, or in the landscaping or something? I ignore all parking lot hides period, and am pretty confident I have a 100% success rate at doing so from the cache pages and sat views.

I've been referring to these caches as LPCs, but I apply the same rule to almost all been-there-done-that caches in or on the edge of parking lots, in shopping malls, etc. Unless I can detect some reason why I would want to visit that location, or learn from the cache description or logs that the cache is interesting in some other way, I'll try to avoid it and spend my time elsewhere doing something more interesting.

 

When I have time to spend on caching, I'd rather spend it out in the fresh air looking for caches, rather than sitting at a PC staring at maps and satellite images. Unfortunately, it's the geocaching equivalent of Whack-a-Mole.

 

--Larry

[+larryc43230]

I should add that I have lots of friends who go after every LPC and parking-lot cache that gets published, and they seem to have a great time. More power to them. I just wish there was a reliable way to filter them out so I wouldn't have to bother with them.

 

These are the same folks who started caching a lot later than I did, yet their find counts are double or triple mine. They'll also travel hundreds of miles to do power trails, which I don't think I'll ever be interested in. As I've said before, and as I explain in my profile, I'm in this to see new places (new parking lots don't count) and to get exercise, not to see how high I can get my find count.

 

--Larry

[+L0ne.R]

I want to clarify my thoughts on this a bit, as I can see that my wording didn't really express the point I was trying to reach. First, I know that the number of "wheelchair bound" cachers is tiny, at least in comparison to able bodied cachers. I didn't mean to imply that there are hordes of wheelchair cachers racing around parking lots, snapping up LPC's as they go. What I meant was the same fun and satisfaction I get from geocaching (climbing over rocks and wading through streams), a person who struggles with a disability is just as happy to find a micro under a lampskirt or behind a guardrail or behind a sign along a paved path next to the river. We're both geocaching in ways that make us happy.

 

Really, catering to disabled cachers was only a small part of my argument. Mostly what I was driving at is this ever present desire by some to abolish micros/LPC's/nano's (pick your poison). I just don't understand that mindset. If you're someone that hates micros and wouldn't dream of doing them...fine, hate them all you like. Don't ever do them. But why must they be scrubbed from the maps just because you don't like/want them? I've heard the arguments time and again and it always boils down to the same thing "I don't like this kind of cache, let's get rid of it". Most lamp-post, guard-rail and urban micros fill locations that probably aren't going to be used for any other type of hide, so who or what are they hurting by being there?

 

I think this hits it perfectly.

 

Regarding the bolded text....if only that were the case. An example comes to mind. I drove to an urban park and walked along its lovely paved trail. There was a half acre of forested area to my right and where's the cache? To my left, just past the greenspace bushes, in the business centers parking lot under a lamp post skirt. The small wooded area is only about 50 feet away.

[+L0ne.R]

Has anyone requested a Parking Lot attribute in the feedback forums?

[Mr.Yuck]

So it sounds like you would still find a parking lot cache if it were on a guardrail, or in the landscaping or something? I ignore all parking lot hides period, and am pretty confident I have a 100% success rate at doing so from the cache pages and sat views.

I've been referring to these caches as LPCs, but I apply the same rule to almost all been-there-done-that caches in or on the edge of parking lots, in shopping malls, etc. Unless I can detect some reason why I would want to visit that location, or learn from the cache description or logs that the cache is interesting in some other way, I'll try to avoid it and spend my time elsewhere doing something more interesting.

 

When I have time to spend on caching, I'd rather spend it out in the fresh air looking for caches, rather than sitting at a PC staring at maps and satellite images. Unfortunately, it's the geocaching equivalent of Whack-a-Mole.

 

--Larry

 

Well, I looked at your last hide from 2009, and looked at the map of nearby caches. Although I assume that's a zip code in your username, and I just could have searched that way. Yeah, you have a much more cache dense area than I do. Heck all of Ohio is more cache dense than where I come from (Western New York). I don't have the problem where they "pop up like mushrooms". If that ever happens, and it may some day, I will not be a happy camper.

[+thebruce0]

Has anyone requested a Parking Lot attribute in the feedback forums?

 

Considering Parking Lots are technically private property, and the allowance for caches to be placed there is solely on the user checking the "I have adequate permission" box and it being publicly accessible, I don't think Groundspeak would support the feature to add a 'parking lot' attribute. Most parking lot LPCs don't in fact have land owner permission, but because of the very public and easily accessible nature of them, it's not a big deal. But if a dispute comes up, they'll err in favour of the land owner.

Basically, the attribute would only really be effective and legitimate in cases of parking lot caches that have explicit permission, which is perhaps a tiny fraction of them, at best. Otherwise, they'd be promoting what they technically consider private property geocaches.

 

I think the Parking Lot attribute would sort of be like adding a "Buried Underground" attribute. Are there buried caches? yep. Do they have adequate permission/exception? Maybe, maybe not. Would people like to filter them out? I'd presume so. Are they technically against the general guidelines? yep. Would GS add an attribute for them? Pretty sure that would be a resounding no...

[+larryc43230]

Well, I looked at your last hide from 2009, and looked at the map of nearby caches. Although I assume that's a zip code in your username, and I just could have searched that way. Yeah, you have a much more cache dense area than I do. Heck all of Ohio is more cache dense than where I come from (Western New York). I don't have the problem where they "pop up like mushrooms". If that ever happens, and it may some day, I will not be a happy camper.

The few caches I've hidden are all out in the hinterland north of Columbus compared with where I live.

 

That numerical part of my username is indeed my Zip Code; try a search with that as the center.

 

--Larry

[+modhunters]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before. I searched for it and didn't find any reference to mystery or unknown caches where the final is an LPC. We do this quite often as it is our view that our mystery or puzzle caches should be rated by their difficulty of finding the solution, not the difficulty in finding the final. We do have exceptions but we have had very positive feedback about our finals being easy to find after a difficult solve. Nothing is worse in our book, of taking weeks or months to solve a puzzle, travel great distances to sign the log, only to not be able to find the cache.

[+Lil Devil]

... mystery or unknown caches where the final is an LPC. We do this quite often as it is our view that our mystery or puzzle caches should be ... easy to find ...

There are other ways to make a cache easy to find, without resorting to lampstands. Try being creative.

[+L0ne.R]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before. I searched for it and didn't find any reference to mystery or unknown caches where the final is an LPC. We do this quite often as it is our view that our mystery or puzzle caches should be rated by their difficulty of finding the solution, not the difficulty in finding the final. We do have exceptions but we have had very positive feedback about our finals being easy to find after a difficult solve. Nothing is worse in our book, of taking weeks or months to solve a puzzle, travel great distances to sign the log, only to not be able to find the cache.

 

I agree with the easy to find part. And a nice location.

 

When I go to the extra effort to solve a puzzle cache I like to be rewarded with a location and cache that the CO put some extra effort into as well. I've been rather fortunate, in my area most puzzle COs have gone the extra mile to place larger (often ammo cans or authentic lock n locks) in nice locations. If the puzzle looks like fun I may solve it, but if the cache is in a parking lot I won't bother to drive out to find the cache.

[+gpsblake]

 

How's this? Although edited and restored now, that was my actual log - a nice excerpt from War and Peace.

 

Well the problem is that these really logs cause all sorts of problems for the next cacher who comes along, who might have to use their click stick several dozens time to through it to read the next log.

 

My auggestion for caches that suck, use one world "Found" or "TFTC" or something like that.

[+Redfist]

 

How's this? Although edited and restored now, that was my actual log - a nice excerpt from War and Peace.

 

Well the problem is that these really logs cause all sorts of problems for the next cacher who comes along, who might have to use their click stick several dozens time to through it to read the next log.

 

My auggestion for caches that suck, use one world "Found" or "TFTC" or something like that.

 

I still don't understand why people feel compelled to find and log caches that they despise. If you don't like LPCs, don't go after them.

 

For me, LPCs serve a purpose. Not nearly as fun as just about any other type of hide, but they serve a purpose.

1. My 4 year old enjoys them. Give him a break... he's FOUR!

2. They help achieve calendar challenge caches.

3. In a minor way, they relieve boredom when shopping with the wife.

 

What I'll never do is complain that someone actually went out and created a potential activity for me. That's just lame.

[+murrayegger]

Here's one I found: two stage multi and the first stage was under a lamp skirt.

[+supertbone]

I won't stop hiding them. I hid four lamp post caches recently.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Some people complain like crazy about "lamppost caches". But if you plant a lamppost cache and plant a cache in the middle of the woods, guess which one gets logged much more often? We all know the answer, it's the lamppost cache.

 

A cache that gets logged more often doesn't necessarily mean that people like that type of cache. More likely, it's because there are a lot of people that like to see their find count go up, and that's easier to do with a dozen lamp post caches than it is with dozen caches that require a 1/3 of a mile hike into the woods.

[+fbingha]

I take the oath, I have never hidden one and will never do so.