I appreciate the challenge, but.....

[+doc73]

I do not know if a vet would be any better off sometimes. I have found myself a few times where cachers had placed them in bad parts of town. I remember one by an old style looking gas station in NC. I pulled up looked around and realized i was the only blanco nino (LOL) around and did not have any business being here. I few nice persons started to move towards my direction on an intercept course and i was the out!! It happens and I wonder what where they thinking but in 270 caches it's only happened a small number of times.

Edited January 22, 2015 by doc73

[+Zepp914]

It amazes me how something like an old washing machine made it out into the woods. The effort getting it that deep in the woods had to be a lot more work than properly disposing of it.

If I spied a washing machine in the woods, I might clean up around it. But I'd likely try to make it into a Geocache.

 

I thought about that, but I don't want to be the one blamed for putting that junk there to begin with. Also, I don't want cachers to worry about needing a tetanus shot to find my hides.

[+narcissa]

Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, the responses which tell the OP that it is their own fault as they didn't prepare enough don't seem helpful to me. Or at least they seem a bit harsh.

 

The initial suggestion was that, to avoid future issues, he can always look at the details on the cache page. The OP ceremoniously declared that he wasn't interested in that.

 

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

[+Michaelcycle]

It amazes me how something like an old washing machine made it out into the woods. The effort getting it that deep in the woods had to be a lot more work than properly disposing of it.

If I spied a washing machine in the woods, I might clean up around it. But I'd likely try to make it into a Geocache.

 

I found one like that in a swamp last month (It is a PMO cache so I won't list it here)

[+The A-Team]

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

While I haven't agreed with everything said in this discussion, I completely agree with all of the above.

[knowschad]

You know, the beauty of this game is that it's something you can entirely customize to suit your own tastes. If you don't like the look of a place, move on.

 

Sorry, but that "advice" is really offensive to some of us! What is wrong with the OP posting his opinion here? Doesn't posting an opinion like that here in the forums serve to educate other cachers about where they should hide their geocachers?

 

I didn't say anything was wrong with the OP posting his opinion. I was merely responding to his opinion. What's wrong with me having an opinion? Why do some people get to have opinions, and not others?

 

I think you already have plenty of opinions. I don't think you will miss this one all that much.

 

What is wrong is the way that its done. "Just ignore it" (etc, etc) is not opinion... it is advice, and the OP wasn't looking for advice, he was stating an opinion.

[knowschad]

Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, the responses which tell the OP that it is their own fault as they didn't prepare enough don't seem helpful to me. Or at least they seem a bit harsh.

 

The initial suggestion was that, to avoid future issues, he can always look at the details on the cache page. The OP ceremoniously declared that he wasn't interested in that.

 

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

 

By posting against caches in crappy places, you just MAY avert one or two crappy place caches. By keeping quiet, ignoring those caches, and telling anyone else that does complain about them to just keep quiet and ignore them, you are not doing anything about the problem. As MLK Jr said, "If not us, whom? If not now, when?" Speak up. There's an elephant in the room and its called Crappy Caches.

[+narcissa]

Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, the responses which tell the OP that it is their own fault as they didn't prepare enough don't seem helpful to me. Or at least they seem a bit harsh.

 

The initial suggestion was that, to avoid future issues, he can always look at the details on the cache page. The OP ceremoniously declared that he wasn't interested in that.

 

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

 

By posting against caches in crappy places, you just MAY avert one or two crappy place caches. By keeping quiet, ignoring those caches, and telling anyone else that does complain about them to just keep quiet and ignore them, you are not doing anything about the problem. As MLK Jr said, "If not us, whom? If not now, when?" Speak up. There's an elephant in the room and its called Crappy Caches.

 

Keep quiet? Again, pointing out the most rational way to avoid disappointment is in no way inhibiting the OP's right to complain.

 

If we all hesitated to public caches because someone might think they're crappy, there wouldn't be any caches. Not all caches are for all people. Use the site features to customize to your tastes.

Edited January 23, 2015 by narcissa

[Mr.Yuck]

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

While I haven't agreed with everything said in this discussion, I completely agree with all of the above.

 

That's pretty much what she's said in just about every post, with different wording.

 

Hey, the OP mentions the cache being near a honey bucket??? What is that? Is that what we in New Yawk call a Porta-Potty?

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mr.Yuck

[+Ladybug Kids]

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

While I haven't agreed with everything said in this discussion, I completely agree with all of the above.

 

That's pretty much what she's said in just about every post, with different wording.

 

Hey, the OP mentions the cache being near a honey bucket??? What is that? Is that what we in New Yawk call a Porta-Potty?

Honeybucket

 

Not all crappy caches are crappy: Toilet Seat Island

Edited January 23, 2015 by Ladybug Kids

[Mr.Yuck]

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

While I haven't agreed with everything said in this discussion, I completely agree with all of the above.

 

That's pretty much what she's said in just about every post, with different wording.

 

Hey, the OP mentions the cache being near a honey bucket??? What is that? Is that what we in New Yawk call a Porta-Potty?

Honeybucket

 

Not all crappy caches are crappy: Toilet Seat Island

 

That's cute, but I was thinking more along the lines of this:

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Of course you meant this:

[+Malemotives]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience. While I live less than ten miles from the spot, I had no idea how bad it was, Just happen to be taking a detour home and the flag popped up on my iPhone. I've since been learning area to avoid, for health and safety reasons. Others may have a different opinion of my definition. Clearly, urban caching has some unique challenges.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

[+narcissa]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

[knowschad]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

 

What's the point in starting a thread about a bad cache location if everyone is going to whine about it and tell them to just ignore it?

 

I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another.

[+Bubbles&Bonkers]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience. While I live less than ten miles from the spot, I had no idea how bad it was, Just happen to be taking a detour home and the flag popped up on my iPhone. I've since been learning area to avoid, for health and safety reasons. Others may have a different opinion of my definition. Clearly, urban caching has some unique challenges.

 

I feel badly for you, newbie. You learned the hard way that the forums do get too "lively". (mighty nice way to put it) They can chew you up and spit you out.

 

And to stay on topic, I've been to a few sketchy places and I have definitely turned around and left. Especially if I cache alone. I'm not going to take dangerous chances just for a smiley. Have seen several homeless looking places, places with needles, and just over all bad neighborhoods. Not.for.me. There are 2 million + other caches I can get.

[+Bubbles&Bonkers]

The simple fact is that you'll never get people to stop placing crap caches in crap places. The solution to that is to be careful about selecting the caches you search for. You don't need to find every one.

While I haven't agreed with everything said in this discussion, I completely agree with all of the above.

 

That's pretty much what she's said in just about every post, with different wording.

 

Hey, the OP mentions the cache being near a honey bucket??? What is that? Is that what we in New Yawk call a Porta-Potty?

Honeybucket

 

Not all crappy caches are crappy: Toilet Seat Island

 

That's cute, but I was thinking more along the lines of this:

 

 

Is that a Tardis?

[+wmpastor]

The way I see it...

 

The OP was disappointed to find a cache he (I assume he based on the name) thought was in a bad location.

That happens. The advice I would give is

 

- Note it clearly but politely in your log, so others are warned.

- Walk away if you find yourself in an area which you are uncomfortable.

- Where possible look at the logs and location in advance to avoid the bad area.

- Put the cache on your ignore list once you have walked away.

 

Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, the responses which tell the OP that it is their own fault as they didn't prepare enough don't seem helpful to me. Or at least they seem a bit harsh.

 

 

Did I do that, and did it seem harsh? Not my intention. I was just saying how, as a 12 year cacher, I would have never ended up in that location. I realize that newbies, especially in the smartphone era (i.e. turn on your phone anywhere, and look up and go to the nearest cache) are not going to sit at home and Google Sat view a cache location, or, if it's an older established cache, read all the logs as well.

 

This cache was very easy to look up by the way, and several others have before me. It's out back of Rollie's tavern's broken glass and trash filled parking lot. And there's a 99.9999999999999999% chance ol' Rollie himself hasn't given permission for it to be there. I would have never ended up there. If I was local, it would have been ignored when the publication notice was received. If I wasn't local, well, you can see what I just figured out a few sentences prior.

 

There's also a .00001% chance Rollie minds the cache if a few cachers stop in for a soda!

 

By the way, sat-view is possible with a smartphone.

 

Just curious - what time does Rollie have happy hour?

 

Also, I have only once turned around because of issues at GZ. The cache was in a perfectly nice park but GZ was in the midst of a large, dense patch of poison ivy!

Edited January 23, 2015 by wmpastor

[+narcissa]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

 

What's the point in starting a thread about a bad cache location if everyone is going to whine about it and tell them to just ignore it?

 

I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another.

 

I applaud all those who pointed out the numerous features the site offers to help people customize their geocaching experience so they can avoid caches that they, personally, are are not likely to enjoy. Maybe that will stop someone from going after an unsuitable cache in the future.

[Mr.Yuck]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

 

What's the point in starting a thread about a bad cache location if everyone is going to whine about it and tell them to just ignore it?

 

I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another.

 

Unlikely. And where oh where have the defenders of lame (or crappy, in this case) gone around here? You know, those that will tell us "no cache is lame", "every cache is a good cache", "I could never call someone's contribution to the game lame", etc... I'm not imagining this, there used to be dozens of them around here. Don't make me name names.

 

(See my next post)

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mr.Yuck

[+doc73]

I agree they will never stop. Some put out caches because they are in an area that speaks to them. Other put them out for simple numbers and no real reason other than "I noticed their was not enough caches here already." It also is tough to define crappy sometimes. I find a lamp skirt cache or a micro in the woods to be crappy. You may love them. My idea of a dangerous location is very different from yours. In the end how many of the cachers will even see this forum / thread and even care to think harder about their placement.

[+narcissa]

I agree they will never stop. Some put out caches because they are in an area that speaks to them. Other put them out for simple numbers and no real reason other than "I noticed their was not enough caches here already." It also is tough to define crappy sometimes. I find a lamp skirt cache or a micro in the woods to be crappy. You may love them. My idea of a dangerous location is very different from yours. In the end how many of the cachers will even see this forum / thread and even care to think harder about their placement.

 

It's true.

 

The caches that I really love the most - lengthy and difficult multi-caches - have been known to inspire angry rants by people who don't like that. There are people who crusade against puzzles. There are people who hate micros. There are people who think virtuals and Earthcaches and webcams aren't caches. There are people who think that it's elitist to put a cache deep in the woods where you can't take a wheelchair. There are people who think it's boring to find a cache in the suburbs. There are people who can't handle urban caching.

 

And we can all have our little forum threads about the things we hate and the things we love, but ultimately, the best thing about this game is that each cacher can use the site's features to select the geocaches that are best suited to them. And that's really the most useful thing that a new cacher can learn from here.

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree they will never stop. Some put out caches because they are in an area that speaks to them. Other put them out for simple numbers and no real reason other than "I noticed their was not enough caches here already." It also is tough to define crappy sometimes. I find a lamp skirt cache or a micro in the woods to be crappy. You may love them. My idea of a dangerous location is very different from yours. In the end how many of the cachers will even see this forum / thread and even care to think harder about their placement.

 

Thanks! I was thinking about that, I had to go on a half hour drive to pick something up. I've struck out my text in my last post. Big difference between "lame" and "crappy". I too think an LPC in a spotlessly clean Target Parking lot is "lame". Notice I said Target, because Wal-mart parking lots are never spotlessly clean. However, that would not be "crappy" to most people. A garbage filled bar parking lot next to a Honey Bucket, i.e. a Porta-Potty, now that's crappy.

[+doc73]

I see what you did there... LOL

 

Ok, crappie is a bit harsh for lamp shirts.. lame is better. But my point is still relevant I think

[knowschad]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

 

What's the point in starting a thread about a bad cache location if everyone is going to whine about it and tell them to just ignore it?

 

I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another.

 

I applaud all those who pointed out the numerous features the site offers to help people customize their geocaching experience so they can avoid caches that they, personally, are are not likely to enjoy. Maybe that will stop someone from going after an unsuitable cache in the future.

 

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

[+Malemotives]

You really shouldn't feel bad for me bubbles. I don't feel scorched or chew on. I have a tough hide, Been in many a forum in my 70 years. If anything, I applaud free speech. People will feel how they feel and say what they need to say. We will take from that what is useful to us and discard the rest. I may be a newbie at geocaching, but I'm confident that I have life by the short hairs. For me, it will move as I dictate. FOr others.... well, each has his/her own journey.

[Mr.Yuck]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

 

What's the point in starting a thread about a bad cache location if everyone is going to whine about it and tell them to just ignore it?

 

I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another.

 

I applaud all those who pointed out the numerous features the site offers to help people customize their geocaching experience so they can avoid caches that they, personally, are are not likely to enjoy. Maybe that will stop someone from going after an unsuitable cache in the future.

 

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

 

Yeah, I have a much better idea of some of the sentiments around here, thanks for that. I suppose I've "researched" every new cache notification locally to me ever since a gang of then middle-schoolers started dropping film canisters into Quizno's landscaping, or LPC's in the parking lot of a large private employer in like 2005. I could rant and say "how do these things even get published?", but I won't. I dunno though, my research tendencies would never had led me to an urban micro in a bar parking lot for Geocaching purposes. Despite the fact I like beer, and go to bars on occasion. I concede very, very few people do such research.

[+WarNinjas]

I actually found a cache inside of a small wooden bathroom not much better then a porta potty. Well it was a bit nicer but still inside of a bathroom. I didn't mind because it was way up in the woods where I was working and I actually needed to go to the bathroom so I got to kill two birds with one stone!

[4wheelin_fool]

Well this discussion got lively. My only intention was to share a newbie experience.

 

Yeah, there were a few people that were unable to ignore your comments, but yet gave unsolicited advice to ignore the nasty locations.

 

This is a discussion forum. Are we all supposed to read the original post and respond, "Yeah, that is sketchy" and let the thread die? What's the point of having the forum if everyone's just going to whine at the mere fact of someone's response?

 

The third post was a sharp comment seemingly intended to mute the OPs concern. The subsequent posts chimed in to tell him to ignore it and move on. Exactly what is the point of the forum if everyone is going to whine at the OP?

 

There was a significant amount of people defending lame hides many years ago. The presence of a geocache somehow made any place magical, and every one was a special gift. This was after the game came out of the woods and into parking lots around 2005. Any protests about the lousy places were met with resistance from defenders of the lame to filter them out. Today most of those people do not cache anymore, but their cries to be quiet about the nasty places are still a forum meme apparently. Yeah, every cache was magical sometime around 2003 when there wasn't that many.

 

Today some of these cache locations may have an ulterior motive to bring traffic to an area in an attempt to see if anyone notices, so that the CO can go and pilfer whatever is stored behind these businesses. Or to use it as an excuse for being there. I don't feel that these locations should be ignored, but perhaps each one should be put under a scope to determine exactly why. An LPC out front of the business may be for the numbers, but the others behind the building in a crappy spot? Why, exactly? To ignore is the essence of ignorance.

 

The spamming of commercial private property without any permission while Groundspeak winks, is just one gripe that I have about the game.

Edited January 24, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

[+wmpastor]

^^^ Where do you get the idea that COs are placing caches so they can case a business before committing robbery?

 

And is this another consequence of Intro App caching? (After all, thieves prefer that others don't have their verified email addresses. And thieves are experts at stealth!)

[4wheelin_fool]

^^^ Where do you get the idea that COs are placing caches so they can case a business before committing robbery?

 

And is this another consequence of Intro App caching? (After all, thieves prefer that others don't have their verified email addresses. And thieves are experts at stealth!)

 

I'm not going to post the specifics or details, but there have been more than a few incidences in proximity of lousy hides, along with a CO arrest for other reasons. Open to the public doesn't mean lurking behind the business without permission.

 

Also, Cracker Barrel wasn't too happy with objects missing off their porches along with geocachers showing up after the business was closed.

 

Stealing materials such as scrap metal, does not fit the definition of robbery. Tell me, what exactly happened to all of the trackable coins put into circulation?

Edited January 24, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

[+emmett]

.

 

^^^ Where do you get the idea that COs are placing caches so they can case a business before committing robbery?

 

And is this another consequence of Intro App caching? (After all, thieves prefer that others don't have their verified email addresses. And thieves are experts at stealth!)

 

I'm not going to post the specifics or details, but there have been more than a few incidences in proximity of lousy hides, along with a CO arrest for other reasons. Open to the public doesn't mean lurking behind the business without permission.

 

Also, Cracker Barrel wasn't too happy with objects missing off their porches along with geocachers showing up after the business was closed.

 

After considerable search for a cache one day I finally came upon a familiar to geocaching container, a magnetic hide a key. My joy at succeeding in my search was short-lived when I found a key inside. As I wondered, "Where is the log?" an angry man came out of the nearby building. It seems I had discovered the key to his business. Never did fid the cache. A lousy cache, in an uncomfortable to search place, but perfectly legal according to Groundspeak.

 

Now I know another cache not far away. One of the most sought after, enjoyable, creative caches ever placed in this area. It was in the woods, well maintained, praised by every finder and causing zero problems whatsoever. If there was an actual land manager of that site, I am sure he/she would have thought the cache to be wonderful. Then, one day, one finder complained to the Ivory Tower claiming there was a slight slip with regard to the guidelines. I would call it a question of interpretation and not a violation. Every other finder who chimed in felt the same way. The cache owner then had a brief, one-side discussion with a lackey who then abruptly shut the cache down.

 

The first example lies at the heart of what the OP was getting at. The second is something he will discover about Groundspeak after he has been here for a while. He is a new cacher making a comment about quality. The many insulting and/or dismissive comments directed at him reveal why geocaching has become what it is today. You cannot even have a constructive dialogue about quality.

 

.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You cannot even have a constructive dialogue about quality.

 

Well, it's sure tough to get agreement on what constitutes "quality".

 

From your last post, Emmett, it sounds like both of the caches you mention, the hide a key and creative, lacked what I consider the single most important element of cache quality, which is explicit permission. Hard to say for sure on that, based on your post, but it seems likely.

 

After that, decent coords, then a location that I like (which I absolutely understand is not a location that others may like), next a container with the quality of being able to hold a dry log. I'm not particular about cache size.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

And we can all have our little forum threads about the things we hate and the things we love, but ultimately, the best thing about this game is that each cacher can use the site's features to select the geocaches that are best suited to them.

 

That assumes that the sites features can actually adequately select geocaches that are best suited for a specific geocacher. Sure, we can filter on cache size or type and other criteria, but we can't exclude caches from a specific owner, exclude caches that are part of a power trail or series. Heck, we can't even use the sites features to select caches which contain a specific string in the cache name. Since you seem to trot out the "you don't have to find every cache" and "we can use the sites features to select that type of caches best suited" argument frequent, perhaps you can explain how one might use the sites features to exclude the cache the OP specifically mentioned without excluding a lot of other caches one might want to find.

[+emmett]

.

 

You cannot even have a constructive dialogue about quality.

 

Well, it's sure tough to get agreement on what constitutes "quality".

 

From your last post, Emmett, it sounds like both of the caches you mention, the hide a key and creative, lacked what I consider the single most important element of cache quality, which is explicit permission. Hard to say for sure on that, based on your post, but it seems likely.

 

After that, decent coords, then a location that I like (which I absolutely understand is not a location that others may like), next a container with the quality of being able to hold a dry log. I'm not particular about cache size.

 

Might be different in your region but around here most places don't have an actual land manager. That is the case of the great cache I mentioned. Like I said, if there was a manager, my guess is he/she would have thought the cache was great.

 

In the case of the first cache, it may well be on public grounds (sidewalk area). It's been many years and my memory is foggy on where I found the hide-a-key. It was near the sidewalk but probably on private grounds.

 

.

[+dprovan]

And to stay on topic, I've been to a few sketchy places and I have definitely turned around and left. Especially if I cache alone. I'm not going to take dangerous chances just for a smiley. Have seen several homeless looking places, places with needles, and just over all bad neighborhoods. Not.for.me. There are 2 million + other caches I can get.

Let me be clear that I agree with your point, and I certainly have no problem with your actions or attitudes. But it's funny now that I think about it: when I find myself facing a cache search in a sketchy area, I always think about the fact that lots of people have no choice but to be in sketchy areas like that. I'd feel like I'm saying I'm better than them and it's beneath me if I let that stop me, so I typically just wade in. Admittedly, I draw the line when it's actually physically nasty, but when it's only conceptually nasty, I kinda feel obligated to give it a try.

 

Although I'm still against caches in nasty places of any kind, and I encourage people to speak out against them. If some place made me hesitate before I dove in, I'd certainly talk about it in my log.

[+narcissa]

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

 

Your sense of "unfavorable" is subjective. I don't want anybody to think they shouldn't hide a cache because I, personally, won't like it. I don't expect every cache to meet my personal standards and tastes.

Edited January 25, 2015 by narcissa

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

 

Your sense of "unfavorable" is subjective. I don't want anybody to think they shouldn't hide a cache because I, personally, won't like it. I don't expect every cache to meet my personal standards and tastes.

 

That's what forums are for, to discuss personal tastes and opinions.

 

Very frequently people are afraid to mention these things in their logs, and if they do their log gets deleted. So they shouldn't be worried about discussing it here either. It would be nice to avoid these caches by reading the logs, but very often there is no indication about the area, only TFTC and copy and paste logs, such as in this case here.

[knowschad]

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

 

Your sense of "unfavorable" is subjective. I don't want anybody to think they shouldn't hide a cache because I, personally, won't like it. I don't expect every cache to meet my personal standards and tastes.

 

I don't think that I, or anyone, even remotely implied that one person's sense of taste should have a bearing on where to hide a cache. But there is a consensus, I'm sure, and your opinion and the OPs opinion and my opinion and all other opinions help to define that standard.

[+Team Dredd]

There is a place in our community that I thought would be a great spot for a hide. I like caches with a bit of history, and this place has some history about how long it has been here, how it got here and the history of the original owners. We went there and looked around and saw a few interesting spots to put one since it is bordered by woods on two sides. Then got to thinking about the people who now hang out here most of the time near the woods-line, and especially after dark. MrsDredd also said she liked the idea of a cache there, but thought it could create a problem if a cacher showed up and bumped into the wrong person there, especially if something unscrupulous happened to be going on at the time. It is not urban either so it's not like it was an alley cache. Bottom line; we didn't place it just because of the possibility that a cacher may run into trouble while looking for a cache at this spot.

Having said that, there have been several caches that we have pulled up to find (usually urban micros) around the Jacksonville area that we decided against because of the area or the time of day and the muggles hanging around. If we pull up to a cache, especially some urban micro cache and don't like what we see, we just go on to the next one. An area that we may not approve of may not bother another cacher in the least.

[+narcissa]

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

 

Your sense of "unfavorable" is subjective. I don't want anybody to think they shouldn't hide a cache because I, personally, won't like it. I don't expect every cache to meet my personal standards and tastes.

 

I don't think that I, or anyone, even remotely implied that one person's sense of taste should have a bearing on where to hide a cache. But there is a consensus, I'm sure, and your opinion and the OPs opinion and my opinion and all other opinions help to define that standard.

 

But there isn't a consensus. Not even close.

 

I get people whining about one of my caches being in a "sketchy" area because it's in a park next to a school in a slightly less-affluent-than-average neighbourhood. Add a teenager with a hooded sweatshirt and a beer bottle, and suddenly it's a shanty town that I have no business bringing people to. Ridiculous.

 

We have a large greenbelt around the city, with all kinds of trails and mostly blanket permission for cache placement. But the parking lots for those trails happen to be perfect rendezvous spots for people who need a private place to meet for whatever reason. Naturally, it was only a matter of time before someone proclaimed the entire greenbelt "sketchy" because of "the perverts."

 

I regularly see people complaining about caches that are precisely the type of caches I love.

 

I regularly see people enthusing about caches that precisely the type I think are garbage.

 

Since I am the sole arbiter of the caches I choose to seek, I really do not care one bit if someone wants to place a cache in a place that's sketchy. If they have permission and it meets the guidelines, why would I care? I don't have to look for it if I don't like the look of it. Someone braver than I might really enjoy it.

Edited January 26, 2015 by narcissa

[knowschad]

I'm more in favor of educating people not hiding unfavorable caches than in educating them on how to avoid them.

 

Your sense of "unfavorable" is subjective. I don't want anybody to think they shouldn't hide a cache because I, personally, won't like it. I don't expect every cache to meet my personal standards and tastes.

 

I don't think that I, or anyone, even remotely implied that one person's sense of taste should have a bearing on where to hide a cache. But there is a consensus, I'm sure, and your opinion and the OPs opinion and my opinion and all other opinions help to define that standard.

 

But there isn't a consensus. Not even close.

 

I get people whining about one of my caches being in a "sketchy" area because it's in a park next to a school in a slightly less-affluent-than-average neighbourhood. Add a teenager with a hooded sweatshirt and a beer bottle, and suddenly it's a shanty town that I have no business bringing people to. Ridiculous.

 

We have a large greenbelt around the city, with all kinds of trails and mostly blanket permission for cache placement. But the parking lots for those trails happen to be perfect rendezvous spots for people who need a private place to meet for whatever reason. Naturally, it was only a matter of time before someone proclaimed the entire greenbelt "sketchy" because of "the perverts."

 

I regularly see people complaining about caches that are precisely the type of caches I love.

 

I regularly see people enthusing about caches that precisely the type I think are garbage.

 

Since I am the sole arbiter of the caches I choose to seek, I really do not care one bit if someone wants to place a cache in a place that's sketchy. If they have permission and it meets the guidelines, why would I care? I don't have to look for it if I don't like the look of it. Someone braver than I might really enjoy it.

 

Ahhh... I see. So, this is about YOUR caches? Is that what you're telling me? That you have had similar complaints about some of your own caches, and so you are defending the one that the OP is referring to because you own hides in similar places? OK, sorry... I didn't know that I was striking a raw nerve with you. I didn't even know that we were talking about you.

[+narcissa]

Ahhh... I see. So, this is about YOUR caches? Is that what you're telling me? That you have had similar complaints about some of your own caches, and so you are defending the one that the OP is referring to because you own hides in similar places? OK, sorry... I didn't know that I was striking a raw nerve with you. I didn't even know that we were talking about you.

 

It's about everybody's caches. I don't have any caches in that greenbelt so the "pervert" scare affected me as a cache finder and an observer, not as a hider. There were actually people insisting that everybody stop placing caches in large swaths of greenspace with groomed walking trails, because someone spotted a couple of men in a parked car. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

It's extremely problematic to insist that people remove, or not place, caches in certain places because of personal tastes. Once we finish picking off the caches YOU think are sketchy, the ones I think are sketchy, and the ones everybody else thinks are sketchy, the pickings start getting pretty slim.

 

My level of comfort with an urban-core neighbourhood is probably a lot lower than someone who lives in that neighbourhood, but much higher than someone who lives in a small town an hour away. Whose level of comfort do we go on when we decide that a place is just too "sketchy" for a cache?

 

Besides that, it's just not reasonable to expect people to stop placing caches because you don't like them. You can't control other people. The best thing you can do is use the built-in features of the site, in addition to your own common sense, to have the best caching experience you can.

[+Bubbles&Bonkers]

We should discuss this over some Beringer Cabernet Sauvignon and baked brie.

[+bflentje]

Zzzzz Zzzzz Zzzzz

[4wheelin_fool]

It's behind the step along with an empty bottle of Thunderbird and a few needles. CO thought the house was a public area since the city owned it.

 

Edited January 26, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

[+narcissa]

It's behind the step along with an empty bottle of Thunderbird and a few needles. CO thought the house was a public area since the city owned it.

 

So you found it?

[knowschad]

We should discuss this over some Beringer Cabernet Sauvignon and baked brie.

 

2012 vintage?

 

Wake up, Bart?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

It's behind the step along with an empty bottle of Thunderbird and a few needles. CO thought the house was a public area since the city owned it.

 

 

Sooo...keep on driving/walking and ignore it if you wouldn't want to search there. It's not that hard to do. A cache owner gets a very clear message when the cache they placed doesn't get looked for.