Did You Hide Any Lame Caches?

1.5k · July 3, 2004

While I don't have have hundreds of finds under my belt like many of the folks here, I consider myself to be a somewhat "seasoned" geocacher. I've gone out over the past couple of days and snagged a few more caches that have recently been added in my area, and while I appreciate anyone that takes an interest in the hobby - I found myself judging the quality of the caches. Not their content, but their general location as well as their specific hiding spot.

Two caches that I got today were incredibly easy to find, with one of them not even being camouflaged at all - it was just sitting there in the "butt" of a tree, exposed to the world. The other was in a very busy park, right next to several houses, and only a few feet away from the road. Again, I appreciate anyone that comes into the hobby and shows some interest... but to me these caches seemed a little too easy, not very well hidden, and a bit amateurish.

And so... my long introduction brings me to the point of my post. In subconciously judging these other folks' caches, I decided it would only be fair to look back and judge my own caches that I placed when I was n00b-i-er than I am now. <_<

MY LAME GEOCACHES:

Utica Trinket Micro - While not lame in the purest sense of the word, this cache was hidden in a location where I should have assumed it would be quickly looted. The location has proved tempting enough that another cacher has chosen that spot to hide a cache as well.
Foot Level - This one is lame because I should have researched the location (and the rules for being there) a little better. I assumed that people were allowed in a location where they weren't, and this cache had to be archived soon after placement.
The Monster Cache - While I still like the theme of this cache, the placement was less than ideal. Busy park, lots of kids exploring the area, and a hiding spot only a few feet out of view of the muggles. It was begging to be stolen.
The Golden Pineapple - I got a little carried away with this one. A grand idea that was quickly poo'd on due to regulations. I had originally placed this cache in a nature preserve, which is against the rules. The whole situation kind of rubbed me the wrong way, and I never ended up relocating this one.
Foxy Trailroad - This cache was located in the same park as another couple of current caches, but my location was probably not ideal. When I hid it, it was concealed on the edge of the bank of a small lake - but with the foot traffic in the area, it was only a matter of time before someone noticed the path to the cache, or the cache itself.
CITY U CAN C Y - Probably the lamest of all my caches, and also my very first one that I hid. Located right behind a store I used to work at, hidden in the bushes behind a little strip mall. Not only could you find my cache hidden there, but you could often find beer bottles, used syringes, and even homeless people! Yikes. I apologize to all of those that I led behind that building.

I'd be interested in hearing any stories about the lame caches you've placed in your days, now that you can look back on them and wonder wtf you were thinking. :mad:

EDIT: After seeing some of the replies to this post, I realize my use of the word "lame" may have seemed a little inflamatory. I don't intend to flame anyone either, and I just used that word when I found the caches to be too easy, not very well hidden, and susceptible to discovery/theft. If you have a better word, feel free to post a followup.

Edited July 4, 2004 by Rubbertoe

1.5k · July 3, 2004

I'd like to apologize in advance to the people that hid the caches I found today. I don't mean any disrespect... I'm just noticing how once you have a little more time behind you, you look at things differently. Hopefully the caches you've placed will last a while and you'll hang around the hobby... I just worry when they are in such visible areas, under such little cover.

Once you have a few of your easier caches vandalized or stolen, you'll instinctively start hiding them in more creative and less accessable places, too. <_< I hated having my caches looted. *sigh* That actually contributed to my semi-retirment there for a while.

But anyway... glad to have you in the hobby. The more the merrier. <_<

Edited July 3, 2004 by Rubbertoe

July 3, 2004

With my still limited number of finds I consider myself a noobie of sorts. I have in my hides 3 or at one time 3 as it is now 2. One is a Virtual Lost Mission so it hardly counts but is liked by most that find it. The regular Firefighter Cross has been out since January 2004 with 2 finds to date and it has a nice hike with great views and depending on who you are a nice cache location.

My lame hide was my micro just a 100 yards or so from home Bike Paths Begin / End ??? which was painted the exact same color as the pedestrian bridge and slipped into a small void that even I had to look carfully into when checking it. Only problem the area was frequented more than I expected by taggers and others. Simply said I had to replace it several times before giving up on it. Lesson learned.

Edited July 4, 2004 by Cache Viking

July 4, 2004

I was one of those who placed a cache before ever finding one. I read about geocaching and hid The Little Brown Bottle as a lame experiment. It turns out it was also the state's first micro. Everything about it screams early plunder: It's clearly visible from 25 feet away - It's in a very public spot - It's incredibly easy to find (as evidenced by 88 finds and 0 no finds so far).

However, somehow it's survived over 2 1/2 years so far and has been the introductory cache for a large number of locals. Comparing it to others I've hidden and found, it ranks in my opinion as one of the lamest. However, it's popularity seems to speak otherwise.

3.1k · July 4, 2004

I've grown weary over the years listening to people use terms like lame caches. It gets older every time I see such a thread.

Back a couple of years ago people were whining about contents and how some cache they just visited was the worst ever. So I hid the Worlds Worst Cache which does not allow anything of value to be placed in it. In fact if someone puts something nice in there I will expect the next cacher to remove the offending nice trade item. I want broken mctoys and empty cassette tape boxes inside and that's it.

Then the word lame came up again and again. A friend of mine hid a series of 10 lame caches which he entitled Lame Duck caches. If you do a search on lame on the hide and seek page you'll find lots of lame caches.

I enjoy them all and wouldn't think about putting someones cache down. I'll leave that to the elitists on the forums to do that.

No disrespect intended of course. <_<

July 4, 2004

Personally, I don't think any of our hides are lame. A few of ours were meant to be easy for the first-time geocacher. I like to think of ours as 'beginner's caches'. Granted, not all of ours are like that. Some are hard and some of our cache containers are just plain evil. <_<

I don't think it is my place to put down someone else's caches. The only time I will say something is because the cache needs repair or I think it is missing, etc.

This is a hobby that depends on others to make it grow. I appreciate anyone hiding a cache. If it's one that I can go look for, I will go look for it!

I am not trying to turn this thread into a flame fest (and I did keep it on topic) <_< . Let's leave the fireworks for the holiday tomorrow. :mad:

3.9k · July 4, 2004

I still hide a lame cache every now and then. You've got to have balance.

July 4, 2004

Well, my First Cache was pretty lame . . . I had to archive it within just a few days! :mad:

The FTF, almost got a parking ticket . . . and jeez, for some reason, nobody wanted to climb the barbed-wire fence to get to the cache . . . I thought it would be "clever" to hide it in the crook of a large Eucalyptus tree (no wonder it kept being found on the ground in plain sight) . . . and when the wind blew the other way, the tupperware container got pinched between the trunk of the tree and the large branch it was tucked between which crushed and cracked the container and all the contents. <_<

Live and learn, I always say! <_<

Rick

July 4, 2004

Yes...I am sure when I do my first it will be lame...you need to experience some of that I think in order to truly know what works best...even if you have found 100 caches...it's different when hiding them...live and learn as the previous poster said <_<

-Six

Edited July 4, 2004 by SixTen

3.9k · July 4, 2004

Yes...I am sure when I do my first it will be lame...you need to experience some of that I think in order to truly know what works best...even if you have found 100 caches...it's different when hiding them...live and learn as the previous poster said

-Six

There's no reason your first hide has to be lame. There plenty of great hiders in your area plus MiGO seems to be a great organization. Ask questions, email your local caches, find a few more caches and you should be good to go. Just start with a good container. That seems to be the most common thing noobs do, myself included. They use a cheap dollar store container or worse a glad ware disposable type container.

July 4, 2004

There's no reason your first hide has to be lame. There plenty of great hiders in your area plus MiGO seems to be a great organization. Ask questions, email your local caches, find a few more caches and you should be good to go. Just start with a good container. That seems to be the most common thing noobs do, myself included. They use a cheap dollar store container or worse a glad ware disposable type container.

Thanks for having faith in me JMBella!...and yes, MiGO is a great organization!...I am happy to have been introduced to it and to the people there...I guess I was just trying to say that if someones first cache is lame...they shouldn't be turned off by it...just take it as a learning experience <_<

-Six

Edited July 4, 2004 by SixTen

1.1k · July 4, 2004

<shameless plug> Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding </shameless plug>

July 4, 2004

Nice page...very informative!...I have it bookmarked so I can look it over again when I plan to hide one <_<

Edit: spelling

Edited July 4, 2004 by SixTen

July 4, 2004

I hid this microcache in what I thought was a great spot - at one end of Sacramento's river walk, with a great view of the river and the landmark Tower bridge, and very close to an exhibit of historic street lights. Sadly (and lamely), the hiding spot turned out to be a popular public urinal for the local homeless population. Needless to say, the cache is now archived.

1.1k · July 4, 2004

I was just looking over my Cache Hides list, and of the 54 I've hidden, only 32 are still active. The 22 that I've archived are some combination of "early learning experiences" and "caches that I've replaced with others nearby the original locations". I've always tried to hide "thoughtful" caches (I didn't even think about attempting a hide until I had about 50+ Finds under my belt, to learn the ropes with a good cross-section), but I know at least a few were what one would call "lame". Happens to all of us.

The key is learning from the experience, accepting and acting on constructive criticism, and not perpetuating an "obviously lame" hiding style too pervasively just because you "hide 'em like you like to find 'em", and thus making that style the "signature hide style" of a geographic region. Every group of cachers in a geographic area should TAKE OWNERSHIP in making their area one with a POSITIVE reputation as to the quality of caches hidden.

-Dave R.

July 5, 2004

<another shameless plug>Things not to do with caches</another shameless plug>

2.7k · July 5, 2004

Did You Hide Any Lame Caches?, The things we did when we were n00bs...

Hey now, wait just a second... this 'official' n00b hasn't planted any caches at all yet. Which, in addition to being lame, is kinda leech-like...

Still an informative thread though... Thanks.

Huntnlady Actually, hider item #4 indicates a 1=handicap accessible - I don't think that is correct... Seems like someone (briansnat?) said this was a misconception... Just an FYI, not sure of the correct answer my own self. Still, for a shameless plug, it was good stuff!

Edited July 5, 2004 by New England n00b

38.2k · July 5, 2004

I have some lame caches sprinkled among my hides. They were hidden that way on purpose, simply because a lot of people like lame caches.

1.8k · July 5, 2004

Back a couple of years ago people were whining about contents and how some cache they just visited was the worst ever. So I hid the Worlds Worst Cache which does not allow anything of value to be placed in it. In fact if someone puts something nice in there I will expect the next cacher to remove the offending nice trade item. I want broken mctoys and empty cassette tape boxes inside and that's it.

Now, that's a cute idea and a nice quiet little "protest". Like it.

Some time this fall my first four caches will each turn one-year-old. For this cache:http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-09aff7403432, I found old weathered wood off a barn and built a box with a hinged door and put the tupperware inside and stuck it in the fork of a tree where only possibly a maintainance crew would ever look. Later I archived and changed BeaverPond to ex-Beaver Pond, as the beavers had left, and made it a multi. But YOU check the logs...must be too far a walk. You have to go all the way around the reservoir to the back corner. The people who get there appreciate my efforts, those few who do. So recently, I decided that not all caches have to be that much work, and I added this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...91-0b458ac704ef, which, I think, qualifies as lame. It should only be disturbed if ever another work crew dumps another load of broken concrete and bulldozes a little close to my stump. There's not much to see, no reason to go there other than my cache, and it has little redeeming social value. IT JUST ADDS TO THE NUMBERS. The only thing is, now there are four caches with almost "one stop," and it may help my good cache get more visits down by the reservoir.

THE LESSER CACHES, as I call them, serve a purpose sometimes, and I don't mind finding them when I'm out, if I can put them together with a good one.

38.2k · July 5, 2004

Huntnlady Actually, hider item #4 indicates a 1=handicap accessible - I don't think that is correct... Seems like someone (briansnat?) said this was a misconception... Just an FYI, not sure of the correct answer my own self. Still, for a shameless plug, it was good stuff!

Wasn't me. To quote from the established definitions:

Terrain rating: 1

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

Edited July 5, 2004 by briansnat

7.2k · July 5, 2004

THIS is one I'm not too proud of. It's a short hike along the Palmetto Trail that isn't very well maintained. You slog through mosquito infested woods to see, well, more mosquito infested woods. Not much redeeming value except to get you out in the woods. The only reason we've left it is because it's on the trail. Looking to encourage a cache every few miles along the trail.

Personally, I feel you can label caches as "lame." Looking at AHD for the definition of LAME you will find "3. Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time. " This certainly can describe plenty of caches I've seen.

Plus, a cache designed to indoctrinate a beginner into the wonderful hobby of caching doesn't have to lame. "Lame" does not mean easy. (Unless the cache is supposed to be ultra hard and everyone finds it within seconds of arrival.) IMNSHO, a beginner's cache should be just challenging enough to pique one's interest, yet easy enough to not be frustrating. I have two (1,2) and they are in a nice little park.

So, yes, I do feel you can label a cache as "lame" just as you can label a cache as "good." While, you can't please everyone, I do think that most people don't appreciate a cache that has no redeeming value; no challenge to the hide, no imagination to the hide, no physcial or mental exertion, and nothing interesting to look at other than what others have discarded. Add to that the cache contents are lackluster, the container leaks, and the log is wet.

Yes, that is what I'd call a lame cache.

2.7k · July 5, 2004

Huntnlady Actually, hider item #4 indicates a 1=handicap accessible - I don't think that is correct... Seems like someone (briansnat?) said this was a misconception... Just an FYI, not sure of the correct answer my own self. Still, for a shameless plug, it was good stuff!

Wasn't me. To quote from the established definitions:

Terrain rating: 1

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

I stand corrected... The more I think about it, I believe the discussion was specfically about -wheelchairs-, not necessarily generally handicapped... Anyway, thanks Brian.

3.9k · July 5, 2004

<shameless plug> Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding </shameless plug>

Let's be frank here.... Why do we have to keep being Frank, I wanna be Joe. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Edited July 5, 2004 by JMBella

1.1k · July 5, 2004

<shameless plug> Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding </shameless plug>

Let's be frank here.... Why do we have to keep being Frank, I wanna be Joe. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ugh, friggin' NY'ers.

-Dave R. in Biloxi (and ex-Jamaica, Queens!)

P.S. Hey JMB, you'll appreciate this totally OT digression: I went to Pace U. in downtown NYC back 20 yrs ago. A good majority of the student population there was from Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. That means that you had more than your fair share of your Italian "Franks" and your Irish "Franks" (read: "Francis Xavier"). (Nod to Political Correctness: NOT AN ETHNIC SLUR HERE! Just an absolute FACT of the ethnic make up of the populations from those areas at the time, folks!). So anyway, I had a running joke going...that turned out to be TRUE pretty much ALL THE TIME: You could walk into ANY room, hall, class, office, lab, whatever, on the Pace campus, and yell out "Hey Frank!" and GUARANTEED at least 2 guys would turn around and answer. I couldn't make this up.

So: "Let's Be Frank!"

2.3k · July 5, 2004

I'd be interested in hearing any stories about the lame caches you've placed in your days, now that you can look back on them and wonder wtf you were thinking. :rolleyes

HA! Lemme tell ya...

3.9k · July 5, 2004

<shameless plug> Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding </shameless plug>

Let's be frank here.... Why do we have to keep being Frank, I wanna be Joe. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ugh, friggin' NY'ers.

-Dave R. in Biloxi (and ex-Jamaica, Queens!)

P.S. Hey JMB, you'll appreciate this totally OT digression: I went to Pace U. in downtown NYC back 20 yrs ago. A good majority of the student population there was from Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. That means that you had more than your fair share of your Italian "Franks" and your Irish "Franks" (read: "Francis Xavier"). (Nod to Political Correctness: NOT AN ETHNIC SLUR HERE! Just an absolute FACT of the ethnic make up of the populations from those areas at the time, folks!). So anyway, I had a running joke going...that turned out to be TRUE pretty much ALL THE TIME: You could walk into ANY room, hall, class, office, lab, whatever, on the Pace campus, and yell out "Hey Frank!" and GUARANTEED at least 2 guys would turn around and answer. I couldn't make this up.

So: "Let's Be Frank!"

That's funny and true. Nothing politically incorrect about it.

1.5k · July 5, 2004

Personally, I feel you can label caches as "lame." Looking at AHD for the definition of LAME you will find "3. Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time. " This certainly can describe plenty of caches I've seen.

Plus, a cache designed to indoctrinate a beginner into the wonderful hobby of caching doesn't have to lame. "Lame" does not mean easy. IMNSHO, a beginner's cache should be just challenging enough to pique one's interest, yet easy enough to not be frustrating.

So, yes, I do feel you can label a cache as "lame" just as you can label a cache as "good." While, you can't please everyone, I do think that most people don't appreciate a cache that has no redeeming value; no challenge to the hide, no imagination to the hide, no physcial or mental exertion, and nothing interesting to look at other than what others have discarded. Add to that the cache contents are lackluster, the container leaks, and the log is wet.

Yes, that is what I'd call a lame cache.

Well said.

I'm not particularly good at explaining myself without unintentionally stepping on people's toes sometimes. Nice job.

Edited July 5, 2004 by Rubbertoe

July 6, 2004

Every once in a while, I take a look at my caches and archive the one I like the least.

So far, my lame caches that I have archived (even though some folks have told me how much they liked them) are:

Ozark Foothills Restful Spot - Yep. A Rest stop micro..

Shelby Farms Micro: ITW - Ummm... ITW stood for In The Woods. I hate looking for a micro in the woods where you could hide a VW Microbus.

Green Persimmon Pucker - The park didn't really suit itself to a full-sized cache, but I grew to dislike this cache even though I liked the name I gave it.

Pisgah Micro - A micro in a historic cemetary. I had high hopes for this one, but was disappointed that the container and hiding technique never really worked as planned.

1.1k · July 6, 2004

There's not much to see, no reason to go there other than my cache, and it has little redeeming social value. IT JUST ADDS TO THE NUMBERS. The only thing is, now there are four caches with almost "one stop," and it may help my good cache get more visits down by the reservoir.
THE LESSER CACHES, as I call them, serve a purpose sometimes, and I don't mind finding them when I'm out, if I can put them together with a good one.

Robespierre offers a good counterpoint. I'm ALL FOR the "easy (uh, "lame") micro on the way to another cache" concept. Gives searchers a chance for a 2-fer (3-fer, 4-fer, etc.) on one visit, probably a nice hike, and incentive for searchers to make the hike for the "premium" cache while they're in the area. I even made reference to this concept in my Geocache Hiding document that I published.

The key here, which you're effectively addressing, is that the "lame micros" are not ALL THERE IS.

-Dave R.

Edited July 6, 2004 by drat19

24.7k · July 6, 2004

Most of my lame caches are archived. My first cache wasn't lame and the only reason it's still not around is I moved.

Alas I still get the urge to hide lame ones every now and then but not nearly as much as I used too. The big problem is that my new ideas take a lot more work than my old ones did. Lame caches are so much simpler to get out there while you are working on the 'thinking stage' of the newer cooler hide.

1.1k · July 6, 2004

Lame caches are so much simpler to get out there while you are working on the 'thinking stage' of the newer cooler hide.

RK...you know that you and I agree on almost everything on these forums (seriously), so I'm going to take that quote above with what I think is the proper grain of salt...that you might throw ONE OR TWO "lame" caches out there - and not BLANKET your area with 50 or 100 (can you spell "Dalmatian"???)

-Dave R.

Edited July 6, 2004 by drat19

July 6, 2004

Every cache that I have hidden is lame to someone, and every lame cache that I have found does not necessarily mean it was lame , only lame to me.

Every cache that has been hidden by someone had fun either finding it or placing it,

So in my humble opinion they are all lame or fun, or whether the glass is half full or half empty …………… JOE

:blink:

Edited July 6, 2004 by JoGPS

July 6, 2004

drat19 , said :...you know that you and I agree on almost everything on these forums (seriously), so I'm going to take that quote above with what I think is the proper grain of salt...that you might throw ONE OR TWO "lame" caches out there - and not BLANKET your area with 50 or 100 (can you spell "Dalmatian"???) (That's a non-so-veiled reference to a certain metro area elsewhere in the USA pretty far east of your position in Idaho, RK!).

Those Dalmatian were logged over one thousand times this past weekend and you have even found a few of them, so get off your high horse, and play the way you want to and stop bashing Nashville……………… JOE

1.1k · July 6, 2004

Every cache that has been hidden by someone had fun either finding it or placing it,
So in my humble opinion they are all lame or fun, or whether the glass is half full or half empty …………… JOE

Those Dalmatian were logged over one thousand times this past weekend and you have even found a few of them, so get off your high horse, and play the way you want to and stop bashing Nashville……………… JOE

Joe: You personally know EXACTLY where I stand on this, and WHY - it's not about whether there are ANY so-called "lame" caches, it's about BLANKETING a metro area with them. I was totally NOT surprised to see a response from you re my last post, given the reference I made.

What's fascinating about your chiming in at this particular time is the fact that I KNOW that a whole BUNCH of people had a blast doing those "numbers runs" during the GeoStock there this past weekend...so from that standpoint, OK, I'll grant you there's value in that regard...but that's folks who went into it WITH THAT INTENT. You know that when I made my run there in December, it was a "numbers run", but I never expected to come away with the disappointing taste in my mouth that I did (not from the dinner we met for (that was great!), but from the caching in your area). Maybe if I'd had an advance scouting report I could have cranked just as many numbers on better caches than the large number of parking lot/dumpster micros that I did, but I didn't have such a report - I only had cache listings - and that's where my impression (call it my "high horse" if you want) came from.

You also know that YOU PERSONALLY are one of the people I ALWAYS make reference to when I talk about "hiders in an area whose GOOD caches get fewer visits because of the white noise generated by the "lame" proliferators".

I also (sincerely and with no sarcasm) have a lot of respect for the fact that you and Brad and other "leaders" there are quick to defend those hiders, and explain the reasons why they hide as they do, etc. You take OWNERSHIP in your area's reputation - much as I do the same for my area here on the Miss. Gulf Coast. However, I also know that you know EXACTLY WHERE I'M COMING FROM in terms of trying to protect the impression that cachers from other parts of the country have of your area...100+ Dalmatians AFFECT that, and you know it. EVERYONE needs to take ownership in their areas' reputations. There's a REASON why your area is held up as an example (but certainly not the ONLY example) of the effect that "not-great-placement-of-micros proliferation" (notice I didn't say "ALL Micros") is having on our game. C'mon, that's GOTTA frustrate you...because you of all people know how many REALLY GOOD CACHES (including GOOD micros) in REALLY GOOD LOCATIONS around Nashville get overlooked because of this. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Respectfully as always,

-Dave R.

Edit: My post crossed your second one above - we were both typing at the same time.

Edited July 6, 2004 by drat19

July 6, 2004

I am very proud to say that I am from Nashville where a geocacher can hide any type of cache that will be welcomed by the geocaching community …………… JOE

nuf said, at least from me

1.1k · July 6, 2004

I am very proud to say that I am from Nashville where a geocacher can hide any type of cache that will be welcomed by the geocaching community …………… JOE

nuf said, at least from me

(Humble pie being swallowed)... That's a good comeback, Joe, seriously. Not sure I can top/improve on that.

I still stand by my concerns about your area's (and other similarly-affected metro areas') reputation(s) in the caching community that get created by the "proliferation" situation that I'm talking about.

Since the caches are already out there in your area, and since we certainly don't want to exclude anyone from playing (in my area, I try to encourage the new players in my area to hide "fewer, but of quality" caches...even those who might be mobility-impaired), maybe more advance scouting reports (private, of course) for traveling cachers (as in "If you like thus-and-so type of caches/hides, do this hider's caches, and if you don't like thus-and-so type, don't do that hider's caches, etc.") can help mitigate and improve things, you think?

Frankly, I don't think any cacher traveling to an area should have to get an advance scouting report (case in point: I like to think that any cacher coming to the Miss. Gulf Coast area can count on a quality caching experience no matter whose caches he/she attempts), but if that's what we've come to in certain areas, then I guess that's what it is.

-Dave R.

Edited July 6, 2004 by drat19

July 6, 2004

This one hasn't gone over too well, but I rather enjoy it!

24.7k · July 7, 2004

Lame caches are so much simpler to get out there while you are working on the 'thinking stage' of the newer cooler hide.

RK...you know that you and I agree on almost everything on these forums (seriously), so I'm going to take that quote above with what I think is the proper grain of salt...that you might throw ONE OR TWO "lame" caches out there - and not BLANKET your area with 50 or 100 (can you spell "Dalmatian"???)

-Dave R.

This RASH has a more universal appeal than can be compartmentalized. Odds are my lame caches are the same as what you consider lame. But what's lame exactly? I can put a lot of time and energy into one hell of a puzzle that will catch someones imagination but the final cache is nothing more than the equivilent of a CIA drop point. A lame cache ending a cool puzzle. Is that lame or does the puzzle save it?

I've seen easter egg hunts that toddlers do where all the eggs are laying around on the lawn. Not too much of a hunt in my book and if it was me having to hunt them I'd call it pretty lame. However you can picture the look of estatic joy on those kids faces.

Every now and then someone does something that you haven't seen before. When they do it will bring a smile to your face. Maybe it took a lot of lame caches to get to that point.

What it comes down to is that lame is not definable in any meaninful way or everyone could agree on what the virtual WOW factor was. More importantly for the small price of the occasional lame cache we get fresh blood in this hobby, we get enthusiasm, we get something to do at lunch, we get creative ideas, and we get to invent games to play with those caches some of which are fun. All in all it's not much of a price to pay. Besides lame has a lot to do with a persons outlook. I'd be pretty lame if I actually tried to sign up for that easter egg hunt.

P.S. I don't blanket my area.

Edited July 7, 2004 by Renegade Knight

1.1k · July 7, 2004

Never said it was YOU on the "blanket" comment, RK. I'm sure you saw the (hopefully respectful) debate with JoGPS that followed.

-Dave R.

24.7k · July 7, 2004

Never said it was YOU on the "blanket" comment, RK. I'm sure you saw the (hopefully respectful) debate with JoGPS that followed.

-Dave R.

Ironicaly one of my cache ideas is called "Breeder Reactor". You don't want to know...

1.3k · July 7, 2004

The first cache I hid was, in retrospect, lame. It was a Gladware container maybe 15 feet off a jogging path behind some tennis courts in a suburban park. However, it did last pretty long in spite of its lameness and most of the local geocachers have visited it.

1.1k · July 7, 2004

The first cache I hid was, in retrospect, lame. It was a Gladware container maybe 15 feet off a jogging path behind some tennis courts in a suburban park. However, it did last pretty long in spite of its lameness and most of the local geocachers have visited it.

...and since I've heard about your sterling reputation all the way here in Biloxi, obviously you LEARNED from the experience and applied it to your subsequent hides, instead of perpetuating that first hide style/experience. That's the point I'm trying to make (with my sledge hammer) here.

-Dave R.

1.1k · July 7, 2004

Odds are my lame caches are the same as what you consider lame. But what's lame exactly? I can put a lot of time and energy into one hell of a puzzle that will catch someones imagination but the final cache is nothing more than the equivilent of a CIA drop point. A lame cache ending a cool puzzle. Is that lame or does the puzzle save it?

A cache doesn't have to have a complex puzzle or whatnot to be "not lame". A simple 1/1 cache can be GREAT if only a little thought were put into the location...something better or more interesting than yet another lamppost base or base of a bush on the side of the road, and then 100 MORE of them just put out so folks will say "thanks" for the opp'y to run up their stats, with no thought to what the proliferation of those "thanks" caches are doing to the overall reputation of a given metro area/region, and the DISSERVICE they're doing to the hiders of GOOD caches in those areas.

-Dave R.

1.8k · July 7, 2004

I've seen easter egg hunts that toddlers do where all the eggs are laying around on the lawn. Not too much of a hunt in my book and if it was me having to hunt them I'd call it pretty lame. However you can picture the look of estatic joy on those kids faces.

Yea, but what's the terrain rating, and do they use gps units???

7.2k · July 7, 2004

Well said.

Thank you.

Did You Hide Any Lame Caches?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation