Worst Cache?

[sarge76]

What's the worst cache that you've found?

[+Mastifflover]

I refuse to say so that I don't offend anyone's feelings here. Just asking for trouble with this one.

[+Durango!]

I'm feeling frustrated with the whole sport now, from one bad cache. I spent hours in the rain to find... what? To find a silly plastic container in a garbage bag. In the container was plastic McD's junk and other stuff not even worth looking at. What is the point of this?! I remember logging in caches in Alaska, 2000 feet up overlooking the ocean, sharing the experience with pen and paper. I remember finding exciting things in the boxes and following cool themes. Has geocaching cheapened? Anyone can put some junk in a box and through it in a ditch after markign some coords.... geeeesh.

[Keystone]

Sarge asks a legitimate question.... by hearing what folks think is lame, it educates readers on what to avoid when hiding a cache. But Mastifflover has a VERY good point, too. We are a community and we don't bash each other... at least not out in the open.

 

I will offer the same advice as when this topic has come up in the past: please everyone, if you choose to reply, don't mention a cache name, a hider's name or include a link to the cache page. Just describe the attribute that made the cache lame for you. (EDIT: Durango00 beat me to the punch with a perfect example.)

 

I'll start off: cache hidden in logs and debris, covered with thorns, at the edge of a community park's parking lot. Behind the parking lot was a lovely forest and after 100 yards or so, you were on a scenic riverbank. So why hide the cache 50 feet from the car??? (I walked right past it on the first attempt.)

Edited January 24, 2004 by Keystone Approver

[+Huntnlady]

The worst cache I found was one of those "tossed out the window" caches in the bushes near a library. Thats not the worst thing about it- the worst thing was that bums would sleep there at night. They used the bushes to urinate in, and there were numerous complaints in the logs about the smell until the cache was finally archived.

[+robert]

I have one of my own that I thought was a good idea, but now I've disabled it. I'll eventually archive it when I place a new one in that area. I don't know what I was thinking--I'm thoroughly embarrassed at having my name associated with that cache. Live and learn, I guess. Best advice I give people now is really think about it. Don't hide it just to hide it, like was the case with that one. My others are good, but that one just plain stinks.

 

 

My replacement cache will be good, as will all that I hide from now on. No more sticking a film can in a tree for me.

 

I feel so ashamed... I think I deserve a notch in the warn meter for it. I've punished myself enough for it (can't you tell? I take pride in my cache hides and finds) but an official punishment is warranted for it as well.

 

Please Keystone, put me out of my misery with 10-20%. Please, buddy? I'll hold one of the CCCA kids while you pelt him with rubber bands if you want!

Edited January 24, 2004 by mrkablooey

[Moun10Bike]

I remember logging in caches in Alaska, 2000 feet up overlooking the ocean, sharing the experience with pen and paper. I remember finding exciting things in the boxes and following cool themes. Has geocaching cheapened?

No - unfortunately, what you are experiencing is the common difference between urban and wilderness caches. Urban caches are typically not in as spectacular a location as wilderness caches, and because they are closer to population they are hit more often, causing quicker deterioration of contents.

 

Don't let urban caches color your opinion of geocaching - either enjoy them for the hunt that they provide, or be more selective in the caches you choose to seek. There are some pretty nice caches around the Seattle area if you head out of the city (and even some nice ones within the city limits!).

[+Confucius' Cat]

Worst is a hard decision.

 

I can name a few that were bad or at least a let-down or too difficult for the reward.

 

In no particular order:

 

A film can in a tree with no clue and a thousand possible hiding spots within GPS error range. (at least it was dry)

 

A pill bottle on the ground in a heavily ground-cluttered woods where a half acre had to be searched to find it.

 

A water-logged tin can in a stump that fills up with every rain, rusted shut and full of nothing but stinking water and paper pulp.

 

Breath strip containers. (Exception of 1 or 2 that were placed out of weather in interesting places where anything else would have been easily muggled)

 

Hide-a-key boxes, cigarette boxes, various decorative tins, coffe cans and other such never-meant-to-be-waterproof containers placed in unprotected outdoor locations. Found a hide-a-key INSIDE a culvert pipe- HELLO, what do you think the culvert pipe is FOR? Needless to say, I did not sign THAT log book.

 

Big caches that are empty or full of trash.

 

Micros in the woods in general.

 

How to make these better:

 

If you hide a small cache in an area with a lot of ground clutter, put it off the ground and include a clue to indicate that it is unnescessary to search all the ground clutter. Perhaps something like: "grovellers will not find this one"

 

If a cache is going to be on the ground in or near a mess of ground clutter, make it a big one.

 

WATERPROOF WATERPROOF WATERPROOF! (duh!)

 

Check on your caches every so often and make sure they are not empty and do not contain inappropriate items.

 

MY GOLDEN RULE: One should place the largest cache (within reason) that can be well hidden in the area in question. If this rule is violated, as with a film can in the woods 200' off trail, where there are 50 HUGE hollow trees, the cache is BAD IMHO

 

My final vote for the worst I've found so far would probably go to the aforementioned "tin-can rain gauge" in the stump.

 

(edit to add positive improvement comments)

Edited January 24, 2004 by ChurchCampDave

[+Tiwica]

It doesn't matter what worse is. If a cache is lame or trash, it won't last. Simple attrition. Darwinian.....survival of the fittest?

[+SamLowrey]

I can't honestly say I've had any bad ones. I haven't done that many or maybe I'm just selective. There are a couple that have been hidden in bad spots. A few in places I don't want to look because I would look suspicious (may attempt this at some time) and some I found, but realized right away would not last (they didn't).

 

I don't have any crummy ones in my area.

[+Confucius' Cat]

It doesn't matter what worse is. If a cache is lame or trash, it won't last. Simple attrition. Darwinian.....survival of the fittest?

A theory that is easily debunked...

unless you want to wait BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years

[+Ish-n-Isha]

Just our opinion but for us, it was a series.

Immaculate webpages. Perfect. Anyway you go on the hunt and its the same old can thrown in the middle of a sagebrush with the exact 12 same items in it in all the caches. Kind of like 100 hours spent on web pages and 100 seconds on the caches.

 

As Keystone points out, we learned about having expectations from this.

[Keystone]

(edit to add positive improvement comments)

The edit turned a good post into a great post, Churchcamp Dave!

 

Thank you everyone for keeping this topic civil, respectful and constructive.

 

OK... back to the LAME CACHES!

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

OK... back to the LAME CACHES!

As an approver I don't really think you should even begin to encourage this type of topic. Instead I would encourage the belief that every cache has something good to offer. By going down this path you'll create more whiners who feel good about bashing some newbies cache and you'll end up chasing said newbie right out of the hobby.

 

My first cache placed was over 200 feet off in coordinates. That qualifies it as horrible in my book. You know what happened? Instead of the first finder bashing me and people like me in the forums he searched his butt off, found it and emailed me coordinate that he thought "maybe" I'd like to check out. I did and his were right on. Then he emailed me instructions on how to get better readings.

 

The word lame should be struck from the forums as far as I'm concerned and an approver should not ever consider using it in my opinion.

 

But, if you want to see the worlds worst cache I urge you to click on one of my own. It was created for forum whiners everywhere.....

 

Worlds Worst Cache

[Keystone]

Please read my post at the top of this topic (third post down). Hopefully it will place my lighthearted remark into context. My primary purpose in making the second post was to compliment Churchcamp Dave for being constructive. This topic *can* be productive with posts like that one. I am watching this topic very carefully to make sure that no specific caches or owners get flamed.

 

I own a lame cache, too. The easy ones do have their place. And there's a difference between an easy cache and a lame cache. A well-maintained, appropriately rated 1/1 cache in a good location is fine by me.

[+MarcB]

The worst cache I've been to was down a steep, overgrown, embankment, by a filthy river, in the centre of a town, metres away from a main road, opposite a dilapidated industrial estate. I have never seen so much litter in my life and the clue was "it's hidden underneath a traffic cone". Rubbish in the first degree

I feel better now I've got that off my chest!

MarcB

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I read your post and I agree that people, including mods have a right to express disatisfaction. I just hate the concept. I don't think it makes caching better.

 

I'm a scuba instructor. I have a saying that I say everytime someone asks me about my favorite dive. I always say it was my most recent dive. Of course I've done some lame dives but I hate to even put into someones mind that there are lame dives. I feel the same way about caches. What is lame to one person might be any micro, or vitual, or locationless. I happen to enjoy every one of those types. Others might think lame is determined by contents, location or even the container.

 

I have never said any cache is lame for a reason. I think a positive outlook on everything is important. I want all cache hiders to feel good about placing a cache not worrying about a cache getting called so that they don't place a cache again. Again remember, a 1-1 cache in a parking lot or reststop might be all some cachers are capable of getting, that's why I place some of those but to many they'd be considered lame.

 

There is a cache I know of, that I've found that is placed on the side of a road where people toss garbage. It's in the middle of the garbage. There are some positive aspects of the cache though, it offers a gorgeous view of a river that can't be seen from the road. Did it smell? Yep. Was is a lame cache? Maybe? But I mentioned in the log that I loved the view. Positive is important, more important than putting a lame label on it. Because this particular cacher has hidden some fantastic caches and I want him to continue doing this. I don't want him to quit the hobby and archive all his great caches.

[+sbell111]

The worst cache I've seen is a cache that was hidden just off a grocery store parking lot in a filthy, treed area. It was listed as a 4/4 when it should have been a 1/1.5. Inside the box, there was a note stating that if you didn't lie about your experience, your log would be deleted.

 

lame, lame, lame.

[+Confucius' Cat]

<snip>There is a cache I know of, that I've found that is placed on the side of a road where people toss garbage. It's in the middle of the garbage. There are some positive aspects of the cache though, it offers a gorgeous view of a river that can't be seen from the road. Did it smell? Yep. Was is a lame cache? Maybe? But I mentioned in the log that I loved the view.</snip>

Maybe the hider wanted to call attention to the shame of the litter pile?

Or perhaps thinking CITO mission?

[+bob393]

I would never single out a worst cache! However I will share this story.

 

The District 7 cache that I placed last year has had the harshest logs of any of my caches. I placed it in the winter at the base of a tree in the abandon Doodletown on what was the District 7 School Property. It is a theme cache and I put it in a childes lunch box. All the items were in zip lock bags and it should have been fine.

 

This was by far my personal favorite cache yet, of the caches I have placed that is.

 

The first logs were great and everyone seemed to enjoy it. Then spring came and it turned out that the entire area was a grove of pickers. Someone moved the cache slightly and then someone failed to close the logbook bag. From then on the entries just kept getting worse! It got wet, everyone hated the picker field, and the contents went to junk. Not a good thing for a cache.

 

I just got back to change the logbook, upgrade the location, and change the container to ammo can. It should be great again, but without the lunch box I don't think it will ever be the same “District 7” cache that it was.

 

My point is that there are some crap caches out there but I'm sure 99.9% of them started out with the best intentions. I mean that it takes effort by a few of us to make the sport enjoyably for the rest.

 

Three years or so ago in this forum there was talk about a hid to found ratio and what it should be. Back then the consensus was a 1 to 10 ratio was about right. Now with most of us having higher find numbers that ratio is probably to high but perhaps a 1 to 5 might be appropriate. It takes work to plan, prepare, purchase, and hide a cache. I would never lambaste someone’s efforts, I might fix it myself or email them just incase they haven’t kept up with the logs or couldn’t get back to the cache site for repairs. I personally carry a cash first aid kit just incase I need it.

[+bons]

I dunno.

I placed a cache.

It did well.

It even got nominated for cache of the month.

Then I found a sinkhole along one of the routes.

No one has found it since.

I'll be checking it today to make sure all the parts of the multi are still there, but what once made me proud now just makes me wonder.

 

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

 

Reading about the "lie about this cache" I can see why the person who placed it thought it would funny as hell and definately worth it. I can also see why the poster thought it was lame. I guess the truth is the cache was placed for the entertainment of the placer and the cache was searched for for the entertainment of the cacher and neither really wanted to spend their time entertaining the other person.

 

--------

 

I think there's an intersection. The "lameness" of the cache and the "lameness" of the cacher. The common lowpoint is the "lameness" of the trip. A good cache brings joy to even the lamest of cachers. A good cacher brings joy to even the lamest of caches. But when neither brings anything to the party, it's just not going to work.

[Happy Boy]

In my opinion, a bad cache is one that is in a bad location, most bad locations are urban micros. For me, I don't care much about trading, but I have never seen a good item in a micro, and micros have become too common lately. Parking lots and shopping centers are usually not places for a cache. I also do not like trying to search for difficult caches in areas with lots of people. Finding a cache that is well hidden when you are trying to not be noticed is frustrating.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

So a good cache is a good item. Well, I guess if I wanted good items I'd go shopping

[+robert]

A film can in a tree with no clue and a thousand possible hiding spots within GPS error range. (at least it was dry)

Exactly. I need to punish myself with some DNF's for that one.

[+Confucius' Cat]

A film can in a tree with no clue and a thousand possible hiding spots within GPS error range.  (at least it was dry)

Exactly. I need to punish myself with some DNF's for that one.

FWIW

The specific cache that generated that comment wasn't yours.

[inventorjg]

The cache where it was in an area of prescribed burnings that just happened.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The cache where it was in an area of prescribed burnings that just happened.

To me, that would have been an interesting find. Cool to do a post mortem on it (assuming anything was left)

 

Got any pix of that one?

[+RockyRiver]

The worst cache ever was either a micro cache that was a coin tube filled with canadian pennies and a few american ones and a few coins all low in denomination

from mexico and south america. The next was a plastic tupperware bowl that was very wet inside and had a pair of chopsticks (who would want these), baseball cards that were ruined, a few expired coupons, an AOL CD that you get free at the store or in the mail, a rusted box of nails, a mouth piece like a boxer wears( thats a great one to get used?), a soggy log book and a pen that was leaking into all the mess. I went back and freshened up the cache when the owner would not, after several complaints. Even if its not recomended I will freshen caches up if they are abandoned or rain soaked, so as the next JOe will not be disappointed.

Edited January 25, 2004 by RockyRiver

[+RockyRiver]

I just want to say to all that do this "NO CHOPSTICKS"!!!!! Who wants to use old chopsticks found in a damp box out in the woods? If anyone here has ever gotten chopsticks out of a cache and used them I will recant my words and tell those cheap chopstick guys and girls to carry on giving those mildewed pieces of wood out as caches.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Some people use chopsticks for decorative purposes. Ferinstance in the hair.

 

Bet you'd really like a toothbrush, huh?

 

There is anotther thread for "worst items in a cache". Chopsticks probably won't win that contest.

[+robert]

A film can in a tree with no clue and a thousand possible hiding spots within GPS error range.  (at least it was dry)

Exactly. I need to punish myself with some DNF's for that one.

FWIW

The specific cache that generated that comment wasn't yours.

I know. It's still one of those "what was I thinking" moments!

[+TexasMel]

I've been to two caches this weekend where I was required to drive out into a new area of my own town that I had never explored. I was excited because that's why I took this up - to see places I wouldn't otherwise be motivated to see. However, when I got to the cache site, I find that it's just on the side of a (small, but not deserted) road where there is not a safe place to park, and you have to look really conspicuous wandering around on the side of the road.

 

On the first cache, a man stopped to ask if I was ok and needed a ride. On the second, a truck passed and stopped further down the road, probably watching to see what I was up to.

 

In both cases, I decided to bolt after deciding that there was too much traffic passing by, and I looked suspicious. Does anyone else steer clear of this kind of cache? I think I will from now on. I enjoy hunting for treasure, not arousing suspicion.

[+bob393]

I hate these threads!

[+Perrin]

One was just plain boring, tossed behind a tree within projectile vomitting distance from a road. The tree happened to be between that road and the freeway (I could have thrown a rock and hit the passing cars on the freeway from where I parked to get the cache.)

 

The other actually started off well. Nice park with a nice view. And the concept for the cache was a lot of fun. Go to this point, take a bearing of n degrees and go x paces until you reach a ______. Find the next set of directions and repeat. There were 3 or 4 steps like this, but then we got to the cache. It was hidden under the corner of a parking lot where the bank had started to erode. This wasn't too bad, but there was a burned out car nearby, another car that had "homeless person house" written all over it, there was a definite urine and stale beer smell in the area, and to top it all off the cache was hidden under "empty beer can-oflage".

 

I will admit that I don't think this was the way the cache was intended to be since the cache owner disabled it a day later. But there were plenty of other places nearby that it could have been hidden that would have lessened the likelihood of that kind of environment.

[+LeadMagnet]

I'm still a bit choked about a recent experience... note that this is due in no way to the owner, just unfortunate circumstances:

 

Over the past month, my GF and I have been working our way through a series of ten caches in our area. Contained in each cache were clues which, once assembled, would give the cacher coords to find a final cache with some upscale goodies for trade.

 

So a week ago, we find the final cache, we have all the clues, and we're ready to go. I do one last check online to check the status of the 11th mystery cache....

 

...and discover that a development company has clearcut the entire area, as well as fenced it off. A sign indicates that it'll be back open to the public sometime 'round 2007.

 

so, crap.

Edited January 26, 2004 by LeadMagnet

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I went through my list of finds and tried to pick the worst cache. It was a tie. 15 virtuals, 1 multi, 3 traditionals all qualified for my "worst cache". I won't insult the owners by posting the names here.

 

(Of the 21 virtuals I have found, 6 could not host a container nearby, 12 could have easily held a container either on the object or nearby, the rest would depend on hiding skill.)

[+wildearth2001]

I'm still a bit choked about a recent experience... note that this is due in no way to the owner, just unfortunate circumstances:

 

Over the past month, my GF and I have been working our way through a series of ten caches in our area. Contained in each cache were clues which, once assembled, would give the cacher coords to find a final cache with some upscale goodies for trade.

 

So a week ago, we find the final cache, we have all the clues, and we're ready to go. I do one last check online to check the status of the 11th mystery cache....

 

...and discover that a development company has clearcut the entire area, as well as fenced it off. A sign indicates that it'll be back open to the public sometime 'round 2007.

 

so, crap.

that sucks! did you contact the cache owner?

[+JMBella]

Any cache in a used disposable container with broken toys and junk drawer crap in it, a scrap of paper as a log sheet, hidden among dirty diapers, old 40 oz. beer bottles, blankets and unidentified fecal matter. I know it sounds gross, but it's true. For all the newbies out there... Strike that, some of the noobs in my area have recently hidden some really great caches, so this is for anyone that fits this description: Hiding a cache is not as easy as you might think, but it sure as hell isn't that hard either. Just get a good solid container, rubbermaid, ammo box or equivalent, get some decent stuff from AT LEAST your local $ store, a pen, pencil and a log book. Then hide the cache in a NICE AREA. Once you've found many caches and hid a couple of simple ones then you can think about getting creative. It seems like some people get finished eating Chinese food and dump their junk drawer out in the container, driver to the end of the street and discard the "cache" in a patch of sticker bushes and toxic waste. Then they grab the coords as they drive away and are like, ah thats close enough, the admin is 300 miles away he'll never know the difference.

[+Volwrath]

The worst cache I've seen is a cache that was hidden just off a grocery store parking lot in a filthy, treed area. It was listed as a 4/4 when it should have been a 1/1.5. Inside the box, there was a note stating that if you didn't lie about your experience, your log would be deleted.

 

lame, lame, lame.

Hey I know the one you are talking about here. I enjoyed it. People should be able to figure out by the logs that its a big joke. I know I did. Just my opinion.

[+crzycrzy]

Worst one for me was one someone had listed as a difficulty of 1 but put the wrong coordinates intentionally, sans a hint.

Then when I mentioned I couldn't find it, they said it would be no problem for

an 'experienced' cacher.

Kinda <sniffle> <sniffle>

Hurt my feelings.

[+travisl]

The worst ones I've ever found were a pair of them. The first was placed by a cacher with zero finds, two days after signing up. It was a small green leaking tupperware-like container in his front yard, visible from the street. I freaked out his sister when I showed up looking for it.

 

The next one was placed two days later, 00.002 degrees away. It was in the water meter hole in the same front yard. It had already begun to leak, too.

 

Whenever I doubt the 0.1 mile guideline, I remember these two caches, and it reminds me why such a rule exists.

[+Chazman007]

I think the worst caches I have found have been the "GladWare" containers that you use a few times then ditch it. I still don't like it when new cachers feel then need to hide caches first, before they get a few under their belt first. As far as hiding caches in an area that needs to be cleaned up, why not clean it up first then hide the cache. I really like to show other cachers nice clean areas with a view vs. a trashed out part of the woods.

 

A positive suggestion is invest in a Ammo can, they are usually only $4 to $5 and are water proof. For other areas more sensitive to security use a new rubbermaid container.

 

MHO

[+Markwell]

I had a nice list of my six worst caches. And I decided I would sum it up with the generalities. Each cache was a poor choice in location. Something that I wouldn't have stopped for unless I was looking for something - and something I would never stop for again. Virtuals of mundane, ordinary, every day things that have no history or interest. Caches placed "just to place one in the area" without any thought or effort put into them.

 

Posted by Tiwica

It doesn't matter what worse is. If a cache is lame or trash, it won't last. Simple attrition. Darwinian.....survival of the fittest?

However, the Darwinism isn't necessarily true. I had six caches in particular that stand out as the worst ones I've hunted. Three were virtuals, three were traditionals. One of the traditionals has been archived; all the other five are active. A different one of the traditionals was placed in the last four months; all of the other five caches have been around since before Jan 1 2003.

 

Of the ones that are active and have been around for more than four months, my worst caches have been active for an average of 1¾ years. Doesn't sound like the bad ones are going away.

 

edit: typo

Edited January 26, 2004 by Markwell