No-find hiders. There ought be a law...

[+NeverSummer]

This discussion is talking about extremes. As with any issue, it could be graphed on a bell curve. The new cachers who place "bad" caches make some upset. The seasoned cachers with hundreds of caches which are "bad" make some upset.

 

The qualification seems to be that people have an easier time dealing with the seasoned cacher putting out "bad" caches because they are "giving to the game" more than someone with no/few find and a couple "bad" cache listings. The vast majority of caches that are found have good coords, an intact container, and a dry logbook. I literally went through every cache I have found and was able to note that a huge majority have no issues about cache condition or listing quality. I was able to find them with the info in the listing, and I could move on.

 

The key is, still, to set a good example by placing and maintaining "good" caches, and to help notify the community and the cache owner if their cache has issues.

 

I lived in proximity to a very, very prolific hider for a while. Their caches were, for the most part, derelict. The sheer number of caches and the vast distances between them made it virtually impossible to respond to maintenance issues in a timely fashion, yet the hides continue in perpetuity. Did it irk me? Yup. But, the overall impact on the whole of my game was minimal. So, I learned to report if one needs maintenance, or archival and move along.

[+Don_J]

YES, we are many who are driven mad by all those clearly bad ones, most of them are made by new people,

I really welcome new people to start,

but please learn a few basis things, BEFORE making caches,

 

Most of the clearly awful caches I've encountered were from hiders with extensive experience. It's getting to the point that when I see someone with a huge amount of hides, I'm fairly certain it's going to be a poor quality container in a lousy location.

 

I strongly disagree. I know of one guy in North Jersey with over 340 hides who uses decent containers and has them placed in scenic locations and interesting locations.

 

And I know a guy with over 400 hides that is placing and getting caches published on the same day that the reviewers are archiving one of his caches for neglect and lack of communication. He drives past a cache that is on a 30 day reviewer warning and places a new identical cache a .1 mi down the road.

 

There's no rhyme or reason here. You are either a good cache owner or you're not. Being a bad cache owner certainly doesn't stop one from hiding as many as they can.

[+Redfist]

 

I started in November 2010. I started using by using a smartphone (introduced me to the game) and now I use a Garmin Oregon 450t and have a 450 as a backup.

 

My first hide was a lamp post hide. However, not under the skirt. I spray painted a metal electrical cover to match the post and attached it magnetically to the post. Most people post positive things about it.

 

I only have a few hides that are on/near lamp posts and you know what? I like them. Why? They give accessibility to those that my other caches don't. I have some really hard puzzles, I have some no brainers. I have some hill peak climbs, I have a few lamp post hides (not skirt lifters).

 

My toughest puzzle is a terrain 1. I did that intentionally so someone in a wheelchair could get it.

 

Tramonto, right? I see you adopted a few. I can't tell exactly what business it is, too many trees in the way in street view. Did you have permission to hide it in their parking lot? Your cache page mentions nothing about it if you did. Just because Groundspeak has a "look the other way and publish" policy on caches in store parking lots on private property, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Thus an embarassment to the game, in my opinion.

 

I'm really not being combative, even if it sound like it. Your low terrain caches are admirable. But I could think of about 10 miles of public paved bike trail within 10 miles of my house where a 1/1 handicap accessable cache could be hidden for someone in a wheel chair.

 

EDIT: A day later. Boy that, does sound kind of combative, and it sounds like I'm calling RedFist's first hide an embarrassment to the game. I don't think my stance on parking lot micros on private property is too extreme. And keep in mind, I'm not from one of the top 15 Metro area's in the U.S. with thousands of parking lot micros. I'm from one of the (barely) top 50 metro area's in the U.S. with 200 of them if at best. And I've been around to pre-date the first parking lot LPC in my area. I kid you not, it was placed February, 2005 at a coin operated car wash. I ignored it from day one and never found it. Hey, it's like the 8 year anniversary this month, maybe we can have a celebration?

 

Actually yes. I did get permission.

 

My bad then. And of course I assume you mean 2 years ago, and not just now.

 

I cannot fathom why someone wouldn't indicate permission for a cache on private property on the cache page. My last find was one, in front of a cupcake shop. I will find such caches on occasion, if it's stated on the cache page. I even remember crawling around in the bushes of a ladies hair salon in rural Ohio a couple years ago. On a Sunday morning of course, I probably wouldn't have otherwise. Anyways, it's right there in the guidelines:

 

If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

 

So sorry for the accusation, if you will. Feel free to respond, although we're both dangerously off-topic here.

 

I just assume that getting permission is the norm. I also don't mention "my hide has a container and a log" because I assume that's the norm. *shrug*

 

(and yes - I got permission 2 years ago )

[+Renegade Knight]

...There really should be a minimum of finds before allowing a cacher to hide one. That's my opinion ...

Nope.

 

Caches in an area tend to be of the same style. Why? Most people find before they hide and they start thinking inside the local cache hide box.

 

Hiding first may result in a bad hide, but it also gives you better odds of something original.