I am looking to define a term...

[+Clan Ferguson]

Hello folks it's me again.

 

Once again I am at arms with my Little Brother on Geocaching and Geocaching etiquette. I won't bore you with details but I am looking for a community defination of "Lame Cache"

 

I am not looking for example (e-mail if you really want it off your chest) Nor am I looking for finger pointing or public ridicule.

 

I am looking for what you consider a lame cache.

 

I'll give a couple of choices but feel free to add you own.

 

I define lame as

A poorly thought out and excuted cache. Example blaze orange thermos set on forest floor with no cover/camo of any sort. Single stage with coords that is less the 300 feet from parking lot. or hiding location visiable (un obscured) from home or public gathering spot.

 

Confession: I am guilty of the last one but that because it was a event cache based on our free haunted house.

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

And that term scares away new people from hiding them. There are all sorts of caches, some are difficult, some are easy. Some have neat stuff and others have nothing. I enjoy them all, unless I just can't find it. Those are the only ones I don't like.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+welch]

im not sure i use lame to describe any cache. but as for "bad" caches it depends on the cache, and whats wrong or should be changed to make the cache better. a really "bad" cache would be one like this: it uses a thin gladware(or similar container that is not waterproof), filled with scented items/food that happened to be waterlogged because of the container, is placed next to a rail line, which is across private property, and is in open site, no camo.

i dont see being easy to get to, or being close to parking as always bad, infact the few urban caches ive found have been that way.

 

[+Allen_L]

I also have never found a "Lame Cache". Some of the caches I have found were more fun than others, but so far they were all fun, including the ones I didn't find. For example about the fifth cache I hunted was gone, when I got there, I know I found the correct spot due to the fact a close-up picture of the cache matched a picture I took. The next week the hider, verified it was gone and archived it. But it was a great 1+ mile hike to a great view on the Appalachian Trail and I am glad I went. So I just logged a frowny face, and planned the next hunt.

[+Team Hoijong]

Location is everything!

 

Irresisti

N12º 55.475

E100º 52.865

[HamsterMom & Hamsters of War]

I haven't gone on a cache yet (eTrex is on layawy till end of month) so maybe my opinion doesn't count for much but here it is for what its worth.

 

Geocaching is supposed to be for everyone - including families with young children and although I haven't seen it mentioned - handicapped people too. My husband has Parkinsons and on his good days, he can do a hike into the woods,but some days he needs to use a cane and he can't navigate on uneven surfaces. I like to see a variety of caches. It would be nice if the cache lists and pages could put a little wheelchair icon so a person could tell at a glance that the cache is fairly easy (say within 10 feet of the path or having a paved path )for mobility impaired people.

[HamsterMom & Hamsters of War]

I haven't gone on a cache yet (eTrex is on layawy till end of month) so maybe my opinion doesn't count for much but here it is for what its worth.

 

Geocaching is supposed to be for everyone - including families with young children and although I haven't seen it mentioned - handicapped people too. My husband has Parkinsons and on his good days, he can do a hike into the woods,but some days he needs to use a cane and he can't navigate on uneven surfaces. I like to see a variety of caches. It would be nice if the cache lists and pages could put a little wheelchair icon so a person could tell at a glance that the cache is fairly easy (say within 10 feet of the path or having a paved path )for mobility impaired people.

[+Markwell]

I would think any combination of characteristics of a cache would increase its "Lame-ability"...

• Poor Location - landfill, Native American sacred ground, etc.
• Poor Container - paper bag, single ziploc bag, etc., that won't hold up to elements
• Poor Contents - broken Happy Meal toys, a rock a full Pez dispenser and 3 pennies
• Poor Conception - Someone felt the need to place a cache so they grabbed some stuff and took five minutes placing the cache, 3 of which were spent averaging the coordinates
• Miscellaneous Stuff - Mislabelled terrain and/or difficulty leading to a hunt that was ill suited for young kids, etc.; putting up a cache in your front yard so you can take pictures of people finding it.

 

Pretty much, take the stuff that makes a cache good and find the opposite. Any one of the characteristics on that list may not get it labelled as a lame cache, but put a couple of those together (poor container and poor location, etc.) and you start to get the idea of what I would call a lame cache.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Markwell]

I would think any combination of characteristics of a cache would increase its "Lame-ability"...

• Poor Location - landfill, Native American sacred ground, etc.
• Poor Container - paper bag, single ziploc bag, etc., that won't hold up to elements
• Poor Contents - broken Happy Meal toys, a rock a full Pez dispenser and 3 pennies
• Poor Conception - Someone felt the need to place a cache so they grabbed some stuff and took five minutes placing the cache, 3 of which were spent averaging the coordinates
• Miscellaneous Stuff - Mislabelled terrain and/or difficulty leading to a hunt that was ill suited for young kids, etc.; putting up a cache in your front yard so you can take pictures of people finding it.

 

Pretty much, take the stuff that makes a cache good and find the opposite. Any one of the characteristics on that list may not get it labelled as a lame cache, but put a couple of those together (poor container and poor location, etc.) and you start to get the idea of what I would call a lame cache.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Team StitchesOnQuilts]

I don't think I've seen a lame cache yet. I like caches that are of varying difficulties, and where the cache is of a type that seems appropriate to the location.

 

I recently hunted a cache that was a micro cache, and in its location, it was just the right thing. I hunted another one a couple of weeks ago that I chose deliberately because I was tired, and it was cleverly hidden yet easy to find, and easy to get to. I thought it was really elegantly done.

 

Shannah

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

Generally, the lame caches I have visited are in areas that are covered with briars and poison ivy. The geocache location has little scenic value. The cache location does not stand out (the hider just placed it in the bushes). These caches are a waste of time to locate.

 

Accessibility

 

There should be all types of caches for all types of people. Some of the lame caches I have found are not wheelchair accesible, nor are they easy. They are not challenging in a meaningful way either. I don't know who these caches are designed for.

 

Hiding fever

 

I think people who enjoy hiding caches more than finding them sometimes have the urge to just hide a cache. The location of the cache is not the prime consideration.

 

Contents

 

I don't think the contents make a cache lame. The original contents almost always degrade. I never expect to find anything worthwhile in a cache. Sometimes, I am pleasantly surprised.

 

Proximity to other caches

 

There are some newer caches that are placed very close to other caches. One person even placed two separate caches within .25 mile of each other. Why not make it a multi-cache?

 

I guess the point I'm making is that IMHO caches should be placed with some thought and planning. The mega hiders tend to place a bunch of junky caches that they can't possibly maintain. Newbies should wait and find a few high-quality caches before deciding to hide one of their own. There are many examples of fine, quality caches out there! Just read the logs!

 

Peer Pressure Can be Good

 

As a community, we should encourage the placement of quality caches. Obviously, there will be some variation on the definition of quality. I think there is enough group consensus to point hiders in the right direction. I know a finder's rating system has been discussed before...It might help encourage hiders to improve their caches. I wish the "Hide A Cache" page would stress the idea of a thoughtful placement more.

 

Lame caches could hurt the reputation of geocaching

 

If fewer high-quality caches were placed, as opposed to more lame caches, I feel this activity would gain more acceptance by the land managers.

 

The Bottom Line : Quality, not quantity.

 

See this thread for a related discussion.

 

[This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on July 09, 2002 at 07:45 AM.]

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

Generally, the lame caches I have visited are in areas that are covered with briars and poison ivy. The geocache location has little scenic value. The cache location does not stand out (the hider just placed it in the bushes). These caches are a waste of time to locate.

 

Accessibility

 

There should be all types of caches for all types of people. Some of the lame caches I have found are not wheelchair accesible, nor are they easy. They are not challenging in a meaningful way either. I don't know who these caches are designed for.

 

Hiding fever

 

I think people who enjoy hiding caches more than finding them sometimes have the urge to just hide a cache. The location of the cache is not the prime consideration.

 

Contents

 

I don't think the contents make a cache lame. The original contents almost always degrade. I never expect to find anything worthwhile in a cache. Sometimes, I am pleasantly surprised.

 

Proximity to other caches

 

There are some newer caches that are placed very close to other caches. One person even placed two separate caches within .25 mile of each other. Why not make it a multi-cache?

 

I guess the point I'm making is that IMHO caches should be placed with some thought and planning. The mega hiders tend to place a bunch of junky caches that they can't possibly maintain. Newbies should wait and find a few high-quality caches before deciding to hide one of their own. There are many examples of fine, quality caches out there! Just read the logs!

 

Peer Pressure Can be Good

 

As a community, we should encourage the placement of quality caches. Obviously, there will be some variation on the definition of quality. I think there is enough group consensus to point hiders in the right direction. I know a finder's rating system has been discussed before...It might help encourage hiders to improve their caches. I wish the "Hide A Cache" page would stress the idea of a thoughtful placement more.

 

Lame caches could hurt the reputation of geocaching

 

If fewer high-quality caches were placed, as opposed to more lame caches, I feel this activity would gain more acceptance by the land managers.

 

The Bottom Line : Quality, not quantity.

 

See this thread for a related discussion.

 

[This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on July 09, 2002 at 07:45 AM.]

[+welch]

using icons for handicap accessable caches as well as for other use have been discussed before but as yet have not been added in.

but the rating system a cache with a terrain rating of 1 should be easy enough for a person in a wheelchair to find, and depending on how/where its hidden to open and log.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HamsterMom:

I haven't gone on a cache yet (eTrex is on layawy till end of month) so maybe my opinion doesn't count for much but here it is for what its worth.

 

Geocaching is supposed to be for everyone - including families with young children and although I haven't seen it mentioned - handicapped people too. My husband has Parkinsons and on his good days, he can do a hike into the woods,but some days he needs to use a cane and he can't navigate on uneven surfaces. I like to see a variety of caches. It would be nice if the cache lists and pages could put a little wheelchair icon so a person could tell at a glance that the cache is fairly easy (say within 10 feet of the path or having a paved path )for mobility impaired people.

---

 

[+welch]

using icons for handicap accessable caches as well as for other use have been discussed before but as yet have not been added in.

but the rating system a cache with a terrain rating of 1 should be easy enough for a person in a wheelchair to find, and depending on how/where its hidden to open and log.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HamsterMom:

I haven't gone on a cache yet (eTrex is on layawy till end of month) so maybe my opinion doesn't count for much but here it is for what its worth.

 

Geocaching is supposed to be for everyone - including families with young children and although I haven't seen it mentioned - handicapped people too. My husband has Parkinsons and on his good days, he can do a hike into the woods,but some days he needs to use a cane and he can't navigate on uneven surfaces. I like to see a variety of caches. It would be nice if the cache lists and pages could put a little wheelchair icon so a person could tell at a glance that the cache is fairly easy (say within 10 feet of the path or having a paved path )for mobility impaired people.

---

 

[+sbell111]

I second everything that OUTSID4EVR wrote.

 

There is a cache for everyone, but some caches are really only for the hider.