Jump to content

Cache in every park ?


KenDawg

Recommended Posts

Do we really need a cache in every park ? NO ! I thought one of the objects of the game was to be secretive and not be seen by every person in NJ. I for one do not see the need to put a cache in every little corner playground with a cache glued under a slide or swing. We already have alot of caches being trashed by muggles. It also might give the NJ legislation the urge to ban us from all the parks, WMA's and forests. I am not calling for a total ban on new caches, but let's use some discretion and some ingenuity. Don't get me wrong I think it's great that someone wants to hide a cache somewhere, but not in every park. What do you think ? Am I right or wrong ?

 

Thanks for letting me vent,

KenDawg

 

============================================================

Well, I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong. It seldom turns out the way it does in a song. (Hunter-Garcia)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Link to comment

I could care less if it was a virtual, a micro or a traditional cache I'm looking for. I go with my kids to do it and have a good time. If I didn't have to drive 30 mins to get to it, it could likely be more enjoyable for everyone involved.

 

We all have different things we get out of caching and why we do this, or started to, in the first place. Some like hiking 5 miles, some like shorter walks, some don't mind looking out the window of their car. For me, it's when my kids have fun that I have fun. If I could hit up 50 caches in 25 nearby towns, my kids (and therefore I) would have a blast.

 

If your concern is that they aren't being properly placed in whatever location is chosen, that's one thing and I certainly can agree with that. If your concern is that you need to drive to some remote area and then hike to get it, or otherwise it's not a good cache, that I can't agree with.

Link to comment

You all know THE MAGICIANS LAW. Every park should have a cache in it! Sooooo you guessed it.

Four tree cache

 

I think the above is the impetus for the concern. So many new caches are being tossed out there right now without concern for the caching experience. One showed up near me that is on private property. It references a cache I hid nearby, but the owner hasn't sought that.

 

Just becasue there are a couple trees somewhere, does not mean a cache needs to be placed.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

caching experience. One showed up near me that is on private property. It references a cache I hid nearby, but the owner hasn't sought that.


 

Which cache is that? If it is known to be on private property then I can skip it and save some driving on my next trip to South Jersey. But more to the point, you could recommend that it be archived.

Link to comment

There are a couple of caches in mind that are in a bush in the middle of an open field with people all over the place. Kinda hard to stealth that. Or, how about a cache that is place under a bush next to a road with traffic buzzing by you. Tell me that doesn't look suspicious. I don't want a cop with a gun drawn telling me to drop it. I don't want to make a mistake and end up dead, all for the sake a find.

 

============================================================

Well, I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong. It seldom turns out the way it does in a song. (Hunter-Garcia)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Link to comment

Ken: I read your last post to be more the issue of placement of the cache that you feel people aren't considering, or if there's no good placement, then maybe it's not the right site for a cache?

 

That I'd agree with. I haven't personally run across a cache like you described but you have way more finds then I do. Plus, up north, we have folks like Brian and many others that put a lot of time into the caches they place. We have some on the side of the road too (Brian's 2 Lame Roadside Caches as an example), but unless you were looking for them (and even when you are they aren't so easy icon_wink.gif) I don't think anyone is going to just stumble on them, and they certainly aren't just thrown into a bush.

 

Maybe you ought to contact the cache owner and/or the site admins and discuss a specific cache with them.

Link to comment

In my opinion a cache should be placed somewhere nice. It does not have to have majestic views or an abundance of wildlife to be enjoyable, but it should not be placed just because there is not one there.

 

Parks are one thing, but to place a cache in a bush along side a road just for the hell of it is stupid and uncreative so I agree with you there. Put a twist on it and bring cachers to a nice safe area if you want to plant caches like this. BrianSnats LRC#2 should be a model for what roadside caches should be like.

 

If you look at my numbers you will see that I speak only from my limited experience, I am far from a roll model for this game or as a cache placer.

 

Kar

Link to comment

My only criticism of geocaching remains to be that some of the players feel everyone should play the game *their* way. They need to realize that this game means different things to different players. Why try to force your assessment of the game onto others? So what if there is a cache in every park? No one is forcing you to go seek them. Go drive 3 states over and hike "5 miles" for a cache, who cares, no one is stopping you either. Put a cache in every park, it’s fine with me...as a matter of fact, why NOT a cache in every park???

Link to comment

quote:
My only criticism of geocaching remains to be that some of the players feel everyone should play the game *their* way. They need to realize that this game means different things to different players. Why try to force your assessment of the game onto others?

 

I think the original point was for people to use good judgment when placing a cache. Otherwise the government may force their assessment of the game onto all of us.

Link to comment

I think it's a valid concern, and nothing to do with park and grabs vs long hikes vs virtuals, etc.

It has to do with cache quality and cache density.

NJ as a state already has the highest density of physical caches in the world. I'm finding more and more caches that seem to be placed strictly for the sake of placing a cache, especially in the area Kendawg caches. There seems to be no thought to the placement or quality of the cache, just adding a hide to your profile. I know the cache Fro speaks of on private property. I attempted it right after it was posted, but turned around and left when I suspected it was on private property. I thought maybe I was mistaken, because other people have logged finds on it without mentioning any problems, but I just looked now and it has been archived for this reason.

I think the problem will only get worse. It will only get harder and harder to find a spot to place a cache that doesn't already have one. Also, as the next wave of newbies finds these caches of broken gladware and leaking coffee cans tossed under a bush surrounded by piles of garbage, this is what they are going to think makes an acceptable cache. When they go to hide one, they are going to hide caches just like they found, because they don't know any better. As more and more of these trash-caches get placed, the odds of non-cachers and land managers finding them and forming a poor opinion of geocaching increases. PA has 1/4 the cache density of NJ, yet they have to go thru a permit proccess to place caches in state parks. MD has 1/2 the density and they have rules in place too. Want NJ to be next?

 

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by StayFloopy:

But more to the point, you could recommend that it be archived.


 

I did, Floopy.

 

The problem is greater than one or two caches. Mopar has made a good point. We all know Tom was instrumental in placing cahing on the South Jersey map. His hides were creative and his locations wonderful. His containers, however, were not durable.

 

Now, when an influx of new cachers come along, they find some of Tom's caches and think, "Hey, I can take any jar and place it somewhere!" They miss the need for the location and the creativity of the hide.

 

With the number of new cachers hiding right now, we are getting a lot of lame placements. Plastic bottles tossed from the window under the nearest bush is not an enjoyable caching experience (and yes, that is a cache that popped up in this area).

 

Bluehook, you are correct in pointing out we don't have to find these. A couple things though . . . we don't know they're lame until we hunt them. And secondly, if the area is overwhelmed with ill-conceived caches, it will eventually take its toll on the entire community.

 

This is not the pick on the new guys thread. The quote in my first post comes from a cacher with nearly 300 finds. What's going on is that, like most things, quality is not adhered to as time goes on, thus lessening the experience for all us.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

How can the approval process be improved to keep the quality up? I haven't yet placed a cache. My kids are dying to do it, but I haven't found the proper nearby location for one yet. I have 2 Army containers all ready if I find a good location though.

 

Since I haven't placed a cache yet, I'm not familiar with the process, so are pics required of the cache, the spot, a far away pic of the area, some other documentation on the location and placement of the cache? Would that even help with making sure the placement or area is appropriate?

Link to comment

My point has been (again) substantiated:

 

Quality cache? The term is intrinsically ambiguous and open to personal interpretation.

 

Gee, just yesterday I found a cache hidden by one of the top cachers in our area. It was a "gladware" container, that could easily be described as "tossed under" it’s cover, and was completely "surrounded by piles of garbage," the area had no historical or notable significance and there was no spectacular view to be had...and yet, you know what, I LOVED it. A true "quality cache"...in my opinion. The previous finders log certainly gave me the impression that he enjoyed the find as well. The notion of "adding a hide to your profile" is something that could only exist within each individual seeker, so again, speak for yourself.

 

I’ve been playing this game long enough and have found enough caches to qualify my experiences and I have never, ever been challenged by any land management or other authority, anywhere. Maybe it’s in the way you "carry" yourself?

 

A high density of caches in NJ is easily justified to correspond to it’s equally high population density. Perfect together. Cache and let cache...it's easy if you try.

Link to comment

Perfect example: This morning I got up to hit a new cache not far from my house. Not only did it not have any redeeming values it too seemed to be on private property. There were surveying steaks all around which lead me to believe this. It was located in the woods behind a small playground in a residencial area. The playground as well as the woods were filthy. The owner asked the finders to cache in trash out. In my log I said I couldn't because I forgot my dumpster today. Why put a cache here. Long Island is becoming kind of dense with caches, but there are still so many places that would be concidered worthy of a cache. Why put a cache here. I have an idea. I would Concider archiving one of my caches if I found a better location for one that was in close proximity to it. Or I would make it a multi-cache. I would hope if I hid a cache that a more experiance cacher thought was unnessessary they would let me know thier opinion.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

 

[This message was edited by J&MBella on September 04, 2003 at 08:37 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by StayFloopy:

Why must the counterexample be a 5-mile hike? I'll submit to you that there are plenty of 0.5 to 1-mile hikes that are far more family-friendly than the urban roadside poking-around-in-places-possibly-containing-used-syringes caches.


 

I'd agree with StayFloopy. The long hikes are nice (and some of my favorites), but one of my most favorites was in a little park near our home that we never knew existed. Fun little spot, out of the way park, not a long hike but we all had a blast and got a bit of a history lesson.

 

For anyone who hasn't found it yet, I'd recommend checking out George Washington's Stairmaster - very neat cache!

 

Different caches appeal to different folks...

 

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Take everything you like seriously, except yourselves. - Rudyard Kipling (1865 - 1936)

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong if it's hidden I'll go find it and probably have fun doing it. It's just that every new place I find that I didn't know was there because of a cache, I seem to find another great place that doesn't have a cache yet. With a litte due diligence I can still find some amazing places on this Island that hasn't been discovered by geocachers yet.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team DEMP:

How can the approval process be improved to keep the quality up? I haven't yet placed a cache. My kids are dying to do it, but I haven't found the proper nearby location for one yet. I have 2 Army containers all ready if I find a good location though.

 

Since I haven't placed a cache yet, I'm not familiar with the process, so are pics required of the cache, the spot, a far away pic of the area, some other documentation on the location and placement of the cache? Would that even help with making sure the placement or area is appropriate?


 

To answer your question about the approval process, no, you don't need to submit a picture or otherwise justify your choice of a hiding place. We go off what we see on mapquest, TopoZone and aerial photos, in addition to what's stated on the cache page. The approver will ask you questions if anything is unclear.

 

I think it would be a bad idea to ask the approvers to pass judgment on whether a cache location is 'appropriate.' This is a subjective determination and would only open the door to more approver-bashing and longer delays in the approval process. If a submission meets the published requirements and guidelines for placing a geocache, then I consider myself obligated to approve it, with rare exceptions.

 

I am already checking for cache density, cache contents, permit areas, off-limits areas like NPS property, proximity to RR tracks, dams, airports, etc., vacation caches, and a host of other things. These are fairly objective standards and still we get into debates all the time. I can't imagine a system where an approver can archive the cache because he or she thinks the spot isn't pretty enough.

 

As a geocacher, rather than a cache approver, I wholeheartedly agree with the "not every park needs a cache" sentiments in this thread. But we should rely on threads like this one, and what is written in the logs of caches we don't like, to self-regulate this aspect of cache placement.

 

--------------------

frog.gif Don't mess with the frog. frog.gif

Link to comment

I'm not going to stand in line and tell a newbie that their excitment is misplaced when they want to place a cache in a cache dense area.

 

If they want to place a cache then by all means do it. Often that may very well mean a lame hide. They will learn and caches will get plundered or archived and then they can step it up a notch in a new take on an old location.

 

Bottom line is that where someone places a cache is not your call. It's betwen the hider and the admin for this website. You have exactly two options. Enjoy the hunt. Or not. Though I guess ranting and raving in the case of 'Not' is also valid. That's why we have forums.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

I'm not going to stand in line and tell a newbie that their excitment is misplaced when they want to place a cache in a cache dense area.


As I said above, this is not a newbie. This is an experienced cacher.

 

This cacher also has another new cache in which in the description he wrote I had a major problem with numbers. The listed numbers will get you very close. Close was 200'. After my two-hour drive north, I was unable to find it.

 

Go ahead and label this as a complaint, but the experience held nothing of value for me. I suspect it held nothing for the other person who had been poking around there before me either.

 

quote:
They will learn and caches will get plundered or archived and then they can step it up a notch in a new take on an old location.

When?

 

The cacher has hidden 42 caches . . . 13 have been archived.

 

Sure, nothing can be done. I know, take my ball and go away. It is so nice to participate in these fora.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

I'm not going to stand in line and tell a newbie that their excitment is misplaced when they want to place a cache in a cache dense area


A newbie is one thing, and you have to understand that, especially if they have found only a few caches before hiding, and those were also "lame".

Therin lies a problem though. How does a newbie know what the difference is between a good cache and a lame cache, if all they find are lame ones?

But actually, the cache hiders in this thread are not newbies. They are triple digit finders, with tons of hides. What's the reason there? Can we/should we try to do anything? Bluehook says if you don't like it, don't go find it. That doesn't work. There is some unwritten code of cachers that we don't slam poor caches. The one Fro and I mentioned on private property has a bunch of logs, not one mentioning the no trespassing signs in clear view. Most of the logs for the "garbage pit" caches do not mention how disgusting the location is, so how do we know which ones to avoid?

One of these days, some cacher is going to take an official or media person caching, and unintentionally use one (or more) trash caches for examples of what out game is about. I wonder how many people find out about geocaching, get all excited, then go out and the 1st cache they find is a used codem and broken bottle strewn garbage dump with a coffee can full of soggy beer coasters? I wonder how many ever go again after that? Yea, some family sport, trying to avoid stepping on used syringes.

 

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

I'm not going to stand in line and tell a newbie that their excitment is misplaced.


 

I wouldn't expect anyone to tell me my cache sucks and I should sell my GPS and never attempt geocachiing again. But I would be open to a suggestion on how I could improve my cache if it was nessessary. Other than a cache on private property, at some point do you say, ya know what I'm just not going to hit that cache? Even though I may not agree with a placement, chances are I'm gonna log another visit just becuase it's there. By doing that am I saying to the owner that a dirty-syringe-need-a-20yrd-dumpster-to-trash-out cache is OK?

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by J&MBella:

Even though I may not agree with a placement, chances are I'm gonna log another visit just becuase it's there. By doing that am I saying to the owner that a dirty-syringe-need-a-20yrd-dumpster-to-trash-out cache is OK?


 

If you log the find without mentioning the garbage or anything else that may be dangerous or unhealthy then yes, you are giving an implicit OK.

 

I'm as guilty as anyone of not mentioning garbage or other problems in the area, partly because some cache owners have taken it personally in the past so I don't wish to offend anyone, and partly because on a cache-dash day, there are simply too many logs to write. But allowing poorly placed caches to go without comment is eventually going to kill the activity.

 

[This message was edited by StayFloopy on September 04, 2003 at 02:37 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

...A newbie is one thing, and you have to understand that, especially if they have found only a few caches before hiding, and those were also "lame"....


 

Mopar, you know that I will always defend the right of a person placing a cache. Good bad or ugly.

 

J&MBella, I've emailed cache owners directly when I realized their was a problem with their cache. A problem though isn't how lame it was. Rather it was on a steep riverbank that due to the difficulty would get trampled and torn up and knock tons of soil into the river.

 

Lame is relative. You can have a "Lame" cache and a great day. Or a great cache and a bad day. There is no control over fate. One of my lame caches was among the persons most memorable finds. Not because of the outstanding location but because of everthing else that came together, that wouldn't have without that location. Maybe that's hard to explain.

 

Not everyone knows how to place a good cache. Some like me do both good and bad just for kicks. But kicks is why any cache at all gets placed. Why bite the hand that feeds the hobby?

Link to comment

But dammit if we don't all go get that cache. In some caces we go back a second time if we were not prepared or could not find it the first time. StayFloppy this was #1491 for you. Do you remamber it? It was called Muddy Stream. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ce035505-cd34-44ea-b835-cd8182ec43d8

There are actually some pretty humerous logs on this page. Particlarly by Bayonets4u. Now a newby like myself looks at this and says, hey, if it's good enough for StayFloppy & B4u, then it's good enought for me. I haven't hit it yet, but I plan to. Just waiting for my HAZMAT siut from ebay.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Can we/should we try to do anything? Bluehook says if you don't like it, don't go find it. That doesn't work. There is some unwritten code of cachers that we don't slam poor caches. The one Fro and I mentioned on private property has a bunch of logs, not one mentioning the no trespassing signs in clear view. Most of the logs for the "garbage pit" caches do not mention how disgusting the location is, so how do we know which ones to avoid?


 

I'm all for changing that "unwritten law". When I first started caching, I went looking for a cache in what on the maps appears to be a park. It's public property, all right, but it's a dumping ground for old appliances, stolen shopping carts, dead pets, and emptied crack vials. (I didn't stay long enough to find the cache. I have this visceral fear of junkies.)

 

I didn't know what to do -- who to speak up to -- so I did nothing, and was releived to later learn that the cache had been archived.

 

So what would/should I do if I found a similar situation now? I agree that it's asking too much to want administrators to pass judgement on a site. (Although I did ask just that recently -- another story.)

 

But yeah, I'd log a no-find and describe exactly why. I'd do that as a service to other cachers, especially those caching with small children.

 

(But the cache owner can always delete that log, huh? I have a feeling that a certain problem cache-hider would do just that.)

 

I've never slammed a "poor cache" because that is too objective to be helpful to anyone -- it's more venting, or self-aggrandizing. ("I know more about Geocaching than you do.")

But warning about dangerous situations like a cache hidden in a crack den, or on private property, is a different matter. Maybe we oughtto be doing that.

 

On the other hand, I'm only a 2-digit cache finder, so what do I know?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by J&MBella:

But dammit if we don't all go get that cache. In some caces we go back a second time if we were not prepared or could not find it the first time. StayFloppy this was #1491 for you. Do you remamber it? It was called Muddy Stream. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ce035505-cd34-44ea-b835-cd8182ec43d8


 

Well, good luck with that! I think B4U's log pretty much sums it up. icon_smile.gif

 

Be cautioned though that retrieval may be difficult with the summer growth. Last I heard, the cache was tangled up in some kind of vine.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

I will always defend the right of a person placing a cache. Good bad or ugly.


I agree. Short of it being in my back yard, I would never tell someone you can't hide cache there. My only point is Ipersonally would not be offended if a person who has hunderds or thousands of finds said nice cache but, try this...or you should think about moving it a hundred feet south because...

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

Link to comment

Yes. There should be caches in every park and especially every McDonalds icon_razz.gif cause my pup pup is tired of finding burgerless McToys. icon_eek.gif Just when she finds a toy, dam...no fries. icon_mad.gif Its quite dissapointing for her. icon_wink.gif

 

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

Link to comment

quote:
Ummm....Did I miss something? All of a sudden there are deleted posts and two caches I was looking forward to hunting this weekend are now archived

 

Yeah, what's with that? I was in the area yesterday and didn't have time to bag 'em, so I was gonna head back today and they're archived icon_frown.gif

 

As far as the issue being discussed. I don't see anything wrong with the cache density in this area. It's nice to have a good choice of caches to look for. But I do agree that there are some questionable placements and people should put a little more thought into their caches. A cache I found recently was in a non descript patch of woods in a residential area and there were No Trespassing signs all around (except in the area immediately around the cache, but I'm willing to bet its private property). It was in a container that isn't water resistant and will probably be water filled sooner, rather than later.

 

Another I found was in a narrow, litter strewn strip between a highway and a industrial park's parking lot, hidden under a rotting plywood board. The cache page made it sound so interesting too, so it was a real disappointment for me. This is the cache I have in mind whenever someone says there's no such thing as a lousy cache. Yes there is.

 

I'm sure we've all found our share of caches like these. I agree with Mopar that it's bad form to slam poor caches in the logs, but there must be a way we can warn other geocachers that a cache sucks. I suggest that we use the code phrase "The dead clam dances at midnight" in our logs for poor caches.

 

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on September 05, 2003 at 06:20 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
...but there must be a way we can warn other geocachers that a cache sucks. I suggest that we use the code phrase "The dead clam dances at midnight" in our logs for poor caches.

 

I thought the code was "TNLNSL"? icon_smile.gif

 

I like the idea of a code. Brian's suggestion is a dead giveaway though. I'm going to use the phrase

quote:
The long sobs of the violins of autumn wound my heart with a monotonous languor
which has been field-tested and is an effective code. icon_wink.gif

 

____________________________________________

 

I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused

Link to comment

I've got my thoughts together on this today. I don't beleive there is any problem with cache saturation. It sounds like the problem is the quality in the caches there of. My secret code of saying a cache sucked is as short of a log as possible. Like this little ditty from the worst virt ever, "e-mail on it's way."

 

It's not very hard to read that as " I can't beleive you wasted my time to look a flag pole you turd" The owner of course found one cache, this is their only hide, and hasn't been back to the website since 9/02.

 

All this aside what made Basoonpilot so mad he archived all his caches? Surley not just the opinion of a few individuals?

 

[This message was edited by mogolloyd on September 05, 2003 at 06:42 AM.]

Link to comment

PT, we can't have competing phrases. That will just confuse matters

 

How about we compromise?

 

"The long sobs of the dead clams wound my heart with a monotonous languor as they dance at midnight"

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

Agreed.

To ensure however that this code is indecipherable to all ignorant cache-placers, I propose we use the phrase in its original language, to wit:

quote:
Les longs sanglots des palourdes mortes blessent mon coeur avec un languor monotone pendant qu'ils dansent à minuit
which in turn is encoded in ROT13, to wit:
quote:
Yrf ybatf fnatybgf qrf cnybheqrf zbegrf oyrffrag zba pbrhe nirp ha ynathbe zbabgbar craqnag dh'vyf qnafrag à zvahvg

 

That should throw them!

 

____________________________________________

 

I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Perfect Tommy:

Les longs sanglots des palourdes mortes blessent mon coeur avec un languor monotone pendant qu'ils dansent à minuit


 

I can't type all that, especially when I'm logging away from home at an Internet terminal. How about I shorten it to DPM for 'des palourdes mortes'?

 

For example:

Find #1955 TNLNSL DPM!

Link to comment

quote:
My secret code of saying a cache sucked is as short of a log as possible. Like this little ditty from the worst virt ever, "e-mail on it's way."

 

How about - TN, left travel toliet paper. Indicating it was CRAPPY!! icon_razz.gif

 

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

Link to comment

quote:
How about - TN, left travel toliet paper. Indicating it was CRAPPY!!


 

which can be translated into-TNLTP. I actually have no problem putting in the log that a place was too Dirty for me to search (I haven't experienced a cache like this yet). I will post it in a note however and not take a nofind. But as far a cache in every park, I have no problem with that as it isn't hazardous or dangerous to me or my daughter or as long as it's geo-trash.

 

I'm a NEWBIE and I have more sense than to place a trash cache. I am dying to place a cache, however, I'm waiting til i find the perfect spot.

 

As for cache type/placement. It should be some creativity, for example.The Ticket Booth Sounds like a nice twist, where you need to use stealth. Sounds like fun to me.

 

Just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

 

==========================

 

::::: That was ZEN, This is TAO. :::::

Link to comment

quote:
Has anyone e-mailed BP to see what's up?

 

My guess is that he took offense at Bluehook's post, but I don't see why. The Hook was actually praising his cache...at least the way I read it.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...