Dear Mr Irish..

[+CO Admin]

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

[+wildearth2001]

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Hey nice NORM there Co Admin!! And yes, a well needed post as well.

[ghOzt]

How arrogant! But then Wisconsin is somewhat of a Lefty state. Folks up there like to have a hand in running other peoples lives (one reason it's a great place to be FROM). Guess the politics just pours over into their hobbies as well.

 

Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "I don't care how they do it up north"

Unbelievable.

 

 

IceCreamMan, do you really want your name to be associated with a statement like that???

 

This thread has become completely ridiculous and Lil Otter's intent has been, I think, completely misconstrued beyond repair. I guess that's the danger of expressing your opinion.

Edited May 1, 2004 by ghOzt

[+JMBella]

Have I read you right?

 

Basically, Yes you have read me right. I don't think placing a cache in a light poll ever 528 feet is a good thing. My only point is that I don't like the idea of making more guidelines, especially where the approvers need to make a judgment call. The light poll behind the old dirty factory is the lesser of two evils. Certainly I don't agree with the scenario I spelled out in my last post, but it falls within the guidelines and if I don't like it I won't go find it. And don't think I don't practice what I preach either. There were two cache within 15 miles of me that were easy, traditional, regular sized caches. Every single one of the logs complained that the locations were disgusting. While I travel 100 - 200 miles to go caching sometimes, I never did attempt these two caches. Recently the admin posted a note asking someone to trash one of them out. I was all to happy to do so. The other has since been archived also.

[+drat19]

Have I read you right?

 

Basically, Yes you have read me right. I don't think placing a cache in a light poll ever 528 feet is a good thing. My only point is that I don't like the idea of making more guidelines, especially where the approvers need to make a judgment call. The light poll behind the old dirty factory is the lesser of two evils. Certainly I don't agree with the scenario I spelled out in my last post, but it falls within the guidelines and if I don't like it I won't go find it. And don't think I don't practice what I preach either. There were two cache within 15 miles of me that were easy, traditional, regular sized caches. Every single one of the logs complained that the locations were disgusting. While I travel 100 - 200 miles to go caching sometimes, I never did attempt these two caches. Recently the admin posted a note asking someone to trash one of them out. I was all to happy to do so. The other has since been archived also.

Cool. Thanks for responding respectfully.

 

-Dave R.

[+drat19]

This thread has become completely ridiculous and Lil Otter's intent has been, I think, completely misconstrued beyond repair. I guess that's the danger of expressing your opinion.

There still plenty of merit in this thread. For such a spirited discussion, this thread has been surprisingly tame in terms of personal attacks, as compared to some of the behavior we've seen on these forums over the past 9-12 months.

 

I'm not sweating the one or two personal attacks we've seen...enlightened readers who have taken the time to do so, and respond/comment thoughtfully, know how to read through the wheat for the chaff. (Hopefully some of my long-winded posts have been more "wheat" than "chaff" to most readers!)

 

-Dave R.

[+The Lil Otter]

Understood.. that's why I have not closed this forum.. because I already knew I'd have some PERSONALLY attacking me.. misundering me.. twisting my words around as well and trying to find someway to get back at me.. but trust me.. it's hard to read some of this without wishing to REPEAT and CONSTANTLY explain my personal thoughts and words.. It's really odd how my words at the CITO have been twisted.. not just once but several times.. even my own state attacked when it wasn't good enough to just do a personal attack on me.

 

With that said.. I'll prove how hard it is to actually sort and figure out what is not just a drive up mall/parking lot/diner/business/guardrail etc type that offers nothing but the search..

 

My Jacksonville .gpx 35miles area that I received before my trip now to weed out the ones I need to study/read - (35 miles south brings in a bit of St Augustine's caches.. heading north GA's caches..)

 

500 locationless already removed prior to receiving .gpx

Remove these:

486 14 sent already archived/disabled

485 1 knock down terrain from 5 to 4.5 (brought no special gear)

485 0 remove event caches (can't hunt them until that day/time)

485 0 remove CITO cache in trash out events (can't hunt them until that day)

478 7 virtuals (almost always historical/special interests)

476 2 webcams

470 6 Mystery type caches

468 2 Letterbox (almost always placed in parks/trails)

449 19 Multi's (usually in parks)

 

now just dealing with these remaining caches.. let' refine our list of those to study by:

 

448 0 drop Terrain rating to below 4.5

448 1 drop Terrain rating to below 4

446 2 drop Terrain rating to below 3.5

439 7 drop Terrain rating to below 3

427 12 drop Terrain rating to below 2.5

 

still further refining of searchs:

 

420 7 placed prior to my 1st trip last year that I did not find or didn't yet do

418 2 LARGE containers (these are usually in parks/trails/woodland)

308 110 REGULAR containers (though this area now hides them in micro settings)

299 9 drop Terrain rating to below 2

269 30 drop Terrain rating to below 1.5

 

254 15 remove UNKNOWN size caches

 

252 2 Using Gsak do a search on "Histor"

249 3 Georgia caches with the 35 mile radius

 

249 rated 1 Terrain Micros to wade through now to find if there are any historical/special interest or reason besides the hide to sort through..

 

~The Lil Otter

 

(corrected the terrain 5 rated cache removed.. typo of 0 changed to 1)

Edited May 2, 2004 by The Lil Otter

[+Teach2Learn]

Well done, Li'l Otter--your examples clearly illustrate why the idea of a better filter or icon for historical caches is needed. The downloadable filter does not do a thorough job and reading logs does not take care of the problem in a few hours. I hope those responded earlier will see your evidence and realize you never intended to attack one area, just propose a solution to a problem.

[+drat19]

With that said.. I'll prove how hard it is to actually sort and figure out what is not just a drive up mall/parking lot/diner/business/guardrail etc type that offers nothing but the search..

(Stealing another poster's signature line from this thread...)

 

"Can I get an AMEN?!?" You tell it, Otter...

 

-Dave R.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

 

 

I don't want to play a game where I need to ask permission and explain the worthiness of every single one of my caches. If you don't like what's playing on the radio, change the station. There are already enough guidelines. If a cache is placed within those guidelines it should be approved. That doesn't mean you need to go find it.

There ya go, simple enough for almost everyone to understand and simple enough that I didn't only understand it, I agree with it.

[runner_one]

A lot of interesting points have been made but let me add one more.

My 22 year old son has recently been diagnosed with cancer and we are taking him to the Sarah Cannon cancer center at Centennial medical center in Nashville for treatments. Even though he has developmental cerebral palsy and is disabled he has been an avid cacher for as long as I have been involved in it.

He is very limited to what kinds of caches he can look for though. When caching we have often spoke of how many caches there are in Nashville and when he found out that we were going there for his treatments his eyes lit up and he said “Nashville has a lot of caches can we find some?” Even though he has been having doctors poking and prodding him every day he still doesn’t want to come home without finding some caches.

I have been very thankful for the “lame” caches because they allow my son to have a little bit of sunshine in his otherwise cloudy life right now. When we drive up and one is going to be a long or difficult walk he sits down and says “I’ll wait here.” Sometimes it’s very hard for me to go after the cache and leave him sitting but he gets his feelings hurt if he thinks he is interfering so he waits patently. In his condition the lame caches are the ones he can’t get to. I won’t call a guard-rail or a light pole cache lame any more but easy. I am happy for all the easy caches in Nashville like the Steeplechase or Dalmatian series. My son can always count on a short walk on these. I also now have a lot of time to kill during the days while he is getting his treatments, which can take up to eight hours each. I find that instead of just sitting and dwelling on his illness, I can take my mind off his condition by finding a few caches. This game is for the enjoyment of everyone and I am thankful for Nashville’s caches, easy and hard alike. Remember not everyone can even walk a short distance from a hard surface. If you drive up to a area where a cache is hidden and think it’s lame, just drive on.

[+Torry]

Thanks runner one for pointing out a significant part of the fun of this game. Caching is available for everyone with a variety of caches that allow many to play. I hadn't thought about the special needs folks that want to play and you've made the case clearly that a variety is vital to this game's continued existence.

 

I do most of my caching while on the job driving all around in my big box truck. I don't have time for tedious multis or 2 mile hikes through the woods.

 

Thanks for chiming in.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

... And don't think I don't practice what I preach either. There were two cache within 15 miles of me that were easy, traditional, regular sized caches. Every single one of the logs complained that the locations were disgusting.  While I travel 100 - 200 miles to go caching sometimes, I never did attempt these two caches.  Recently the admin posted a note asking someone to trash one of them out. I was all to happy to do so.

I find it interesting that it was "beneath" that individual to look for the cache until there was an approver-condoned opportunity to remove it. (From the post, the cache owner's position and/or opinion are unclear.) How did the opportunity to remove the cache make the location suddenly "acceptable?" Did the act of removing the cache improve the area in any significant way?

 

I don't want to play a game where I need to ask permission and explain the worthiness of every single one of my caches. If you don't like what's playing on the radio, change the station. There are already enough guidelines. If a cache is placed within those guidelines it should be approved. That doesn't mean you need to go find it.

 

I find those two quotes (by the same individual) make an interesting juxtaposition. As I read it, it is being stated "that doesn't mean you need to go find it" unless an approver has granted permission to indulge in "cache vigilantism." The second quote states that the individual "doesn't want to play a game where (one) needs to ask permission ... "

 

A different individual recently wrote something to the effect that "Darwin would sort things out." It would appear so, and those days of "fire and brimstone" appear to be fast approaching.

Edited May 2, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+briansnat]

The best solution I have heard is to limit the number of caches any one person can hide. It could be a fixed limit such as x number of hides or a dynamic limit such as x hides per month.

 

I believe that this would improve the quality of hides dramatically.

 

How? I've found a lot of "lame" caches hidden by people with one or two hides and a lot of fantastic caches hidden by people with 40, 50 and more hides. One example is Jonboy

who has over 50 hides and not a "lame" urban micro in the bunch. In fact many are the among best in the region. There are others like him, so why penalize geocachers by cutting down on these great hides because of the practices of a few?

[+sbell111]

Thank you, Lil Otter, for breaking out a cache search so completely. I had thought of doing that, but I was much too lazy (lets call it 'busy' ).

 

From reviewing the thread, I notice three points of view repeated often.

• Different cachers like different caches. If you don't like it, don't search it.
  
• We don't need any more rules. Don't make the approvers decide what's a 'good' cache.
  
• It would be great to have more options for sorting out the caches that one would like to find (or not find).
  

Are there any among us that do not agree with every one of these viewpoints?

Edited May 2, 2004 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

...

How? I've found a lot of "lame" caches hidden by people with one or two hides and a lot of fantastic caches hidden by people with 40, 50 and more hides. ... There are others like him, so why penalize geocachers by cutting down on these great hides because of the practices of a few?

You then have cachers who place some great caches and some dreadful ones.

 

Number of hides is not an indicator of whether a specific cache is going to be enjoyable. Hide numbers should not be limited for this reason, nor should caches be added to a search list (or removed from it) just because a cacher has hidden many caches.

[+Quest Master]

It's a small thing but maybe this would help a tiny bit. Has anybody else noticed that the "Guide to Hiding a Geocache" (in the "About Geocaching" section) has been lost from the "Hide & Seek a Cache" section. There is a link only to the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" which is just a bunch of boring rules. I think it would wise to also include a link to the "Guide to Hiding a Geocache" which includes such guiding principals as "location, location, location!" that some people seem to have forgotten about.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

If you drive up to a area where a cache is hidden and think it’s lame, just drive on.

[+sbell111]

If you drive up to a area where a cache is hidden and think it’s lame, just drive on.

If you just paid $2.50 per gallon to drive 50 miles to this cache, drive on sadder.

Edited May 2, 2004 by sbell111

[+JMBella]

... And don't think I don't practice what I preach either. There were two cache within 15 miles of me that were easy, traditional, regular sized caches. Every single one of the logs complained that the locations were disgusting.  While I travel 100 - 200 miles to go caching sometimes, I never did attempt these two caches.  Recently the admin posted a note asking someone to trash one of them out. I was all to happy to do so.

I find it interesting that it was "beneath" that individual to look for the cache until there was an approver-condoned opportunity to remove it. (From the post, the cache owner's position and/or opinion are unclear.) How did the opportunity to remove the cache make the location suddenly "acceptable?" Did the act of removing the cache improve the area in any significant way?

 

I don't want to play a game where I need to ask permission and explain the worthiness of every single one of my caches. If you don't like what's playing on the radio, change the station. There are already enough guidelines. If a cache is placed within those guidelines it should be approved. That doesn't mean you need to go find it.

 

I find those two quotes (by the same individual) make an interesting juxtaposition. As I read it, it is being stated "that doesn't mean you need to go find it" unless an approver has granted permission to indulge in "cache vigilantism." The second quote states that the individual "doesn't want to play a game where (one) needs to ask permission ... "

 

A different individual recently wrote something to the effect that "Darwin would sort things out." It would appear so, and those days of "fire and brimstone" appear to be fast approaching.

Holy crap did you read into that way too much.

 

First: I didn't say it was beneath me to find those caches, I just chose not to. Isn't that the whole point here. I chose not to, just like anyone can choose not to find a cache in a light pole.

Second: The cache owner hadn't signed on to the site in over a year. No maintenance was being done and the cache was nothing more than a bucket of water with a dirty golf ball and the remains of a logbook.

Third: The opportunity didn't suddenly make the area acceptable, an admin asked if the cache could be removed so he could archive it. So you see, I didn't ask permission nor was permission" granted", the Admin simply asked for it to be removed. Do you understand the difference or do I need to explain it to you more slowly.

 

And to answer you other question, Did the act of removing the cache improve the area in any significant way?

 

Not significantly no, but there is one less piece of trash in the area. Plus, what if someone decided to make that cache there first find? It wouldn't have been very good representation of geocaching.

[+JMBella]

The best solution I have heard is to limit the number of caches any one person can hide. It could be a fixed limit such as x number of hides or a dynamic limit such as x hides per month.

 

I believe that this would improve the quality of hides dramatically.

 

How? I've found a lot of "lame" caches hidden by people with one or two hides and a lot of fantastic caches hidden by people with 40, 50 and more hides. One example is Jonboy

who has over 50 hides and not a "lame" urban micro in the bunch. In fact many are the among best in the region. There are others like him, so why penalize geocachers by cutting down on these great hides because of the practices of a few?

Limiting the number of caches someone can hide is the worst "solution" yet. It's the experienced hiders, for the most part, that hide the best caches. They've tried several different containers and found the best ones, they usually have decent trade items and they usually find great places to hide them. It's the cachers that have 1 or 2 hides that are going to use Gladware containers wrapped in plastic or, in their excitement, run out and hide a few drive and dumps.

[+drat19]

It's a small thing but maybe this would help a tiny bit.  Has anybody else noticed that the "Guide to Hiding a Geocache" (in the "About Geocaching" section) has been lost from the "Hide & Seek a Cache" section.  There is a link only to the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" which is just a bunch of boring rules.  I think it would wise to also include a link to the "Guide to Hiding a Geocache" which includes such guiding principals as "location, location, location!" that some people seem to have forgotten about.

Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding

Edited May 2, 2004 by drat19

[+sbell111]

I like this one better.

[+drat19]

I like this one better.

Yep, that one is a little less "editorialized" than mine. Mine was originally written about 6-8 weeks ago, and has been modified here and there since (including this morning), as a result of frustrating caching visits to Nashville, and Mobile, AL (which is within 60 miles of my home here in Biloxi and is thus part of my "home turf").

 

Couple of points:

 

(1) Filtering tools such as what Lil Otter proposed at the outset of this thread could have helped ease that frustration in Nashville...I could have focused on the "more interesting" caches and still cranked my numbers there.

 

(2) The result of constructive criticism toward the dominant hider in Mobile (an area where, since it's within my "home turf", I will tend to try to locate ANY cache) has been that he has slowed his pace of hides recently, and his recent hides have indeed been in more desirable locations. It CAN be done.

 

-Dave R.

Edited May 2, 2004 by drat19

[+sbell111]

I just thought it was nice and brief. People would be more likely to read it. I can think of some changes I would make, but I'm pretty lazy.

[+CO Admin]

I have to say the following and it is off topic so I shall also warn myself

 

(yes this is sappy and is you want to agree or disagree someone start a thread so we dont derail this thread)

 

I wish to thank the community for a well though out thread. Good points have been made by all. This thread it now 6 pages long and the off topic comments and personal attacks have been kept to a minimum. It's nice to see a spirited thread that has remained civil.

 

Thank you.

CO. Admin

Edited May 2, 2004 by CO Admin

[Find Now, Log Later?]

The opportunity didn't suddenly make the area acceptable, an admin asked if the cache could be removed so he could archive it.

 

Unless the admin. specifically requested that you personally visit the site and remove the cache, then my statement is accurate. You chose not to provide a link, so any facts surrounding the situation, specifically those of site and cache condition, remain unclear. Your earlier post appears to suggest site conditions were the major concern (the location was described as "disgusting"), while the latter post suggests cache condition was the problem. From the lack of information, I don't think it has been reasonably established that the cache/location was unsalvageable.

 

So you see, I didn't ask permission nor was permission" granted", the Admin simply asked for it to be removed. Do you understand the difference or do I need to explain it to you more slowly.

 

Please explain it to me more slowly. But before you go to all that effort, you should take a second to rethink your statement ... If a site administrator requests an action to be taken, (in this case, the removal of a cache), permission to take such action is implicit.

 

... what if someone decided to make that cache there first find? It wouldn't have been very good representation of geocaching.

 

Those two sentences come off as being somewhat disingenous because the new-found concern with the possible impression of a "first-timer" is grossly misplaced: No such concern apparently existed during the entire time the individual (who chose to take no action until he removed the cache) was aware of the cache and its problems.

Edited May 2, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[Find Now, Log Later?]

It's the experienced hiders, for the most part, that hide the best caches.

I disagree with that statement. Many of the very best caches I've found were very early efforts (often the first or second hide) by cache placers who had found barely a handful of caches, if ANY.

 

It is heartening to see that a fair number of them have, over the years, maintained the high quality of their hides, but I have observed that most of the best hiders eventually "lower the bar" in order to get more people to visit their caches. Others simply stop placing caches.

Edited May 2, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+The Lil Otter]

It also might amuse you with this breakdown..

 

Ck book entries from Mar 29 to April 26 - van related

 

54.22 - oil change and wipers

18.83 - gas

27.96 - gas

28.03 - gas

25.06 - gas

27.74 - gas

29.35 - gas

21.06 - gas

223.52 - set of new tires

27.24 - gas

27.95 - gas

30.75 - gas

29.02 - gas

23.82 - gas

26.27 - gas

30.97 - gas

25.01 - gas

25.48 - gas

21.91 - gas

29.45 - gas

28.26 - gas

19.95 - oil change

 

Miles traveled 5,774 for my geo-trekkin' adventure

 

Perhaps this might be a reason why those that live in big cities wish not to travel far for caches and wish not to limit or change or care less where a cache is hidden.. as long as they enjoy the "hide". I'm not just after the hide.. I'm after memories. Even cute "Rock" painted as soccer balls I get a kick out of.. so don't think I am so jaded. I save up and only do major geocaching trips if/when I have enough money to do it. So can you please try to understand that I didn't expect to find myself in parking lots or other odd places. Geocaching last year down in Florida was consistently showing off beautiful places and cute/intersting locations.. I expected no less from them this year. So with only having 7 undone showing up from last year in that area.. I really was excited to think of what new cool spots/historicals etc that they now found to show off (500 new caches within 35miles) I was like a kid on Christmas morning. But after being able to 'find' 3 geocaches hidden without even having to get back on a street.. but by just driving through parking lots.. really left a sour taste in my mouth. I kept hoping that soon some 'gem' would pop up. I got excited reading cache pages that said "wow, I can't believe that this place hasn't been taken yet.. just had to place a cache here"... I won't tell you how disappointed I felt when it turned out to be another parking lot/street corner etc type hide. I make very elusive caches sometimes.. because I wish for a 'surprise' to happen in other's adventures.. There were some beautiful/creative/amazing hides but the backdrop sometimes really didn't suit the talents of those hiders that took all that time to be creative.

 

I'm not anti-micro.. I'm not against easy accessible locations .. I'm very supportive of handicapped and older cachers etc.. I've never used the word 'lame' cache. I've always tried to create positive logs even in the worst conditions.. I don't cut and paste.. but on many of those caches (yes I did visit almost every Jacksonville cache while I was waiting for the CITO event) I really don't know what I'm going to write for my memories on some of them. I'm still wrestling in my mind if I'll even log them.. Because if I was after the numbers.. I wouldn't have wasted all my gas money to come hunt in parking lots/gas stations/business/mall etc all the way down to Florida ..

 

For all those that gave great thought to the placement of your caches.. I commend you.. you helped show off your city in its best light and gave a traveler a good memory to take back with them.

 

~The Lil Otter

Edited May 2, 2004 by The Lil Otter

[+JMBella]

The opportunity didn't suddenly make the area acceptable, an admin asked if the cache could be removed so he could archive it.

 

Unless the admin. specifically requested that you personally visit the site and remove the cache, then my statement is accurate. You chose not to provide a link, so any facts surrounding the situation, specifically those of site and cache condition, remain unclear. Your earlier post appears to suggest site conditions were the major concern (the location was described as "disgusting"), while the latter post suggests cache condition was the problem. From the lack of information, I don't think it has been reasonably established that the cache/location was unsalvageable.

 

Check out the logs. Is it reasonably established now?

 

So you see, I didn't ask permission nor was permission "granted", the Admin simply asked for it to be removed. Do you understand the difference or do I need to explain it to you more slowly.

 

Please explain it to me more slowly. But before you go to all that effort, you should take a second to rethink your statement ... If a site administrator requests an action to be taken, (in this case, the removal of a cache), permission to take such action is implicit.

 

... what if someone decided to make that cache there first find? It wouldn't have been very good representation of geocaching.

 

Those two sentences come off as being somewhat disingenous because the new-found concern with the possible impression of a "first-timer" is grossly misplaced: No such concern apparently existed during the entire time the individual (who chose to take no action until he removed the cache) was aware of the cache and its problems.

Link. You decide for yourself. Does this cache seem to have any redeeming qualities. When the admin asked for someone to trash it out I simply obliged. Nothing more nothing less. You can keep trying to make an issue out of this but there isn't one.

 

I disagree with that statement. Many of the very best caches I've found were very early efforts (often the first or second hide) by cache placers who had found barely a handful of caches, if ANY.

 

Your experiences have differed than mine. Why do you feel the need to try and make that an issue. God forbid someones experience should differ from THE BassoonPilot. Or is it Bassoon Pilot? Don't you need to catch up on logging your caches from when you were banned?

 

And why do you keep flipping back and forth between saying "you" and "the individual"?

Edited May 2, 2004 by JMBella

[+bons]

Link. You decide for yourself. Does this cache seem to have any redeeming qualities. When the admin asked for someone to trash it out I simply obliged. Nothing more nothing less. You can keep trying to make an issue out of this but there isn't one.

I think that cache should be placed on a special page for "things gone wrong".

 

6/24/2001:

Good cache items for the trading, 128MB PC100 SDRAM, Intel 10MB PCI Ethernet card, 2 CD set of BAD Company, Pocket World Atlas, Pocket PC Reference Guide, US Robotics PCMCIA 56K X-jack Modem, AOL I.D. Lanyard, H2K Red Hacker 2000 Layanard Keychain (from the convention, in NYC last year), Black AOL pull Keychain. The AOL pull Keychain is a traveler!

 

5/10/2003 - the first(?) signs of trouble:

I cannot believe this one is still here. If I lived there I would have been hanging out back there having a good time. This was #4 today - the cache was soaked inside and the coords were off. After some searching I found it. I covered it better than it was just incase someone wandered back there. I really enjoyed traversing the little stream. I took TB Amelia's Scooby and dropped off my CC army parachute guy. Thanks for then hunt!

 

12/21/2003 - Descent into madness:

Location is a litter strewn wooded area of a school yard. There is someone living in the woods, as evidenced by a giant umbrella and lawn furniture less that 200 ft from the cache. Fortunately the resident was not home.

Found cache fairly easily and coordinates appeared to be correct. Cache was exposed - covered it as best I could. Contents of the cache are a soggy mess, with the exception of the log book which is protected by a Ziplock bag. Cache needs some serious maintenance or should be archived.

 

04/17/2004 - The horror:

What a horror it was. Nearly impossible to find the way in and then from there it just got worse. Especially the smell. Something smelled REALLY bad... like made me sick smelled bad. And the place is pretty much a dumping ground for the neighborhood. But the smell... oh Lord, the smell. Nearly tripped over the source, a cat which was cut open. Have you ever seen the insides of a dead cat? You don't want to. Not that this is the cache owners fault... but it was still gross. And definitely not a natural death. Finally found the cache and it's soaked. I'm out on Long Island until Sunday, so if I have time I will go back and get rid of it.

TNLNSL

 

It looks like the only maintainence done was a run to pick up the Blue Man Group cd that was left there (and that was within the first month). After that, well, things just went downhill.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

If you drive up to a area where a cache is hidden and think it’s lame, just drive on.

If you just paid $2.50 per gallon to drive 50 miles to this cache, drive on sadder.

I'm sad too, but it still counted as a find. Maybe a new techinque to combat caches you don't like is, after finding them, not logging them at all. Or just log a note. That would really teach that hider a lesson.

[+Renegade Knight]

If you drive up to a area where a cache is hidden and think it’s lame, just drive on.

If you just paid $2.50 per gallon to drive 50 miles to this cache, drive on sadder.

I'm sad too, but it still counted as a find. Maybe a new techinque to combat caches you don't like is, after finding them, not logging them at all. Or just log a note. That would really teach that hider a lesson.

Sadder? Ha! That's only 50 miles in a 400 miles loop and forward leads to the rest of the caches on my route. I'm not out anything and needed to strech my legs anyway.

 

Lame or not I've not been there and there is often something worth enjoying even if it's only the stretch.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Your experiences have differed than mine. God forbid someones experience should differ from THE BassoonPilot.

You wrote:

 

It's the experienced hiders, for the most part, that hide the best caches.

 

Those are your exact words, sweetheart. I don't see anything that says "in my experience" or "in my opinion." You may not be a terribly accurate writer, but you certainly do demonstrate an impressive ability for writing platitudes.

[+CO Admin]

Thats what I get for opening my mouth. I should know better.

 

Basson Pilot, JMBella. take your part of the topic private or to e-mail its becomming a squabble and non-productive or better yet drop it. I have no desire to close this thread however you know that I have no problem doing so. Lighten it up. make it less personal. Personal shots will not be tolerated in this thread.

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

[+JMBella]

Those are your exact words, sweetheart.  I don't see anything that says "in my experience" or "in my opinion."

One last post then I'm out of here. So sorry CO but I gotta get this one out.

 

It's the experienced hiders, for the most part, that hide the best caches.

 

Disclaimer: The preceding OPINION was formed using my own personal EXPERIENCE.

 

I didn't think I needed to spell out the obvious.

 

And don't call me sweetheart, you're not my type.

 

I'm moving on now. You can choose to do the same or not, I really don't care.

Edited May 2, 2004 by JMBella