Absolutely Stunned.

2.3k · January 7, 2005

I challenge you to go through my cache logs and find one cache log that complains about a problem with one of my caches that wasn't addressed promptly.

Okay then....

September 3, 2003 by briansnat (284 found)

Looks like its gone. I will check the area soon to make sure. If it's still there, I'll retreive it and use the contents in another cache. Thanks for checking Magoo!

September 3, 2003 by mr.magoo (466 found)

Well no finds for this one in a while and the last a DNF. I was in the area and remmebered exactly where the cache was. Went there tonight and couldnt find the cache. searched around the immediate area as well. Looks like this one is lost . Sorry Brian.

April 13, 2003 by my2buoys (3 found)

Maybe you should check on the cache. We checked and took an hour. We finally decrypted message and still couldnt find it. Thanx for the awesome hike, nice scenery.

March 19, 2003 by nicholas527 (1 found)

I biked into this catch today. I had some problems with my gps, but eventually found it.

Last found on March 19, with a "no-find" note on April 13, and finally archived by you almost 5 months later, on September 3.

Note to Admins: no, this is not a personal attack or flame. He asked me to find ONE cache, so I did.

Sorry to veer a bit off course, we now return you to your regular programming...

Edited January 7, 2005 by TEAM 360

5.6k · January 7, 2005

Wow...
Elitist snobbery never changes, it just goes hi-tech.

"We don't want your kind in our town" has been around since, well, towns...

Let's see, at least one person in your area thought it was fine to maintain these caches. And he must be a member in good standing of GC.com despite your disparaging discription of him as *sniff* inactive (shudder).

So by "locals" you mean a few of you who all agree with each other and want to dictate standards to everyone else. Geez, dude, get over yourself.

Wow, someone who just doesn't get it. But people like that have been around since, well, since people.

I guess you'll have to make that "two who don't get it". I've watched the game change quite a bit in the last several years. And as we "old-time" cachers keep finding the same type of hides, we suddenly label them "lame". I had heard of of the 'lamp post' hide long before I found one - and I thought it was cute. Yeah, later I found two rather close together, but doesn't make them lame. I mean how often do we find an ammo can/tupperware in/under/behind a log/stump just a couple of feet off the trail? Talk about 'old' & 'done to death', but are they called lame? Not that I've seen (partly, I think, because they are NOT micro's).

Just because you are tired of one type of hide/cache, that doesn't mean everybody is. Especially newcomers.

And it seems a real pity that someone can be so ripped up here in the forums, without a chance to defend themselves (though, I can see why they may not want to reply to a thread like this - you guys are pretty rough). I think I'll drop an e-mail to them to let them know.

January 7, 2005

... it is just WRONG to be away from your home turf and proliferate the area with CRAPPY micros.

Hmm ... I can't decide which was the more egregious act: The "outsider" placing lame caches, or the OP complaining here in these forums about the poor quality of the caches after having graciously agreed, apparently "no questions asked," to "look after" the caches.

Okay; I've decided.

Edited January 7, 2005 by Bassoon Pilot

38.2k · January 7, 2005

I challenge you to go through my cache logs and find one cache log that complains about a problem with one of my caches that wasn't addressed promptly.

Come on, Brian; don't be disingenuous. I very clearly remember your cache called something like "Rising Stars." After someone reported an issue, you ignored it for months. Someone else eventually confirmed it missing for you, and you archived it.

Hmmmm, one DNF by a novice geocacher is not an issue.

38.2k · January 7, 2005

I challenge you to go through my cache logs and find one cache log that complains about a problem with one of my caches that wasn't addressed promptly.

Okay then....

September 3, 2003 by briansnat (284 found)

Looks like its gone. I will check the area soon to make sure. If it's still there, I'll retreive it and use the contents in another cache. Thanks for checking Magoo!

September 3, 2003 by mr.magoo (466 found)

Well no finds for this one in a while and the last a DNF. I was in the area and remmebered exactly where the cache was. Went there tonight and couldnt find the cache. searched around the immediate area as well. Looks like this one is lost . Sorry Brian.

April 13, 2003 by my2buoys (3 found)

Maybe you should check on the cache. We checked and took an hour. We finally decrypted message and still couldnt find it. Thanx for the awesome hike, nice scenery.

March 19, 2003 by nicholas527 (1 found)

I biked into this catch today. I had some problems with my gps, but eventually found it.

Last found on March 19, with a "no-find" note on April 13, and finally archived by you almost 5 months later, on September 3.

Note to Admins: no, this is not a personal attack or flame. He asked me to find ONE cache, so I did.

Sorry to veer a bit off course, we now return you to your regular programming...

I'll say it again, one DNF by a novice geocacher and no subsequent attempts is not an issue. A single DNF does not indicate a problem. The cache was archived the day the problem, i.e. a missing cache, was reported and I followed up several weeks later to confirm the cache was gone.

Edited January 7, 2005 by briansnat

2.3k · January 7, 2005

Coming soon to a thread near you:

January 7, 2005

Well hello gang . . . I am the cacher that placed the 7 caches about which the lead writer created such a furor in unfavorable comment. In doing so, he has defined the parameters of the discusion and others are guided by this poor-for-the-sport oratory.

I would be reduced to a defensive posture in commenting on the original and developing thoughts regarding me - this is not necessary and serves no point but to make it appear it IS necessary to do so - it is NOT.

I do want to say that I dearly love this sport/game and would never do anything to diminish it in the eyes of other players or especially newbies to the game - I want it to grow and bring as much joy & satisfaction to others as I have & do enjoy. I do not believe negative forums are good for the sport - we should all consider WHO may be reading our comments, besides we seasoned players.

I would never had even been here in this negative forum IF some friendly cacher had not notified me of the thread - this is just not good for the/our game.

About me, I am not placing vacation caches, the town in question is where I was born 59 years ago, I am there frequently and have a family home within 1 mile of the caches I have placed. The cacher who is there for me in an emergency is not an 'inactive' but a new cacher who is a friend since we graduated HS together there in 1965. I am a responsible cacher & hider of caches - check my page of hides and you will easily see my hides are NOT numerous, are actively sought and enjoyed by long-term & novice cachers (my goal).

Some of my caches are relative easy finds . . . I see this as good when 'on-the-way' to the next one or to encourage nwe cachers. Some are tough finds presenting a challenge that everyone has said they really enjoy (Read comments of finders on my caches). I am here to give back to the game I get so much from, I feel a variety of caches contruibuted to this.

My idea is NOT a numbers game in placing caches but only to contribute where I play. I cache mainly in two cities/areas - I place caches in these places - both, I am in often & frequently. I have nearly 450 finds, I love the hunt, the challenge and all the people I have met (including the original in this thread). . . geocaching is ALL great, except for negative forums such as this one. I am not going away!

Yes, I gave the original writer some data to seek some of the caches because he asked and I saw/see him as a friend-cacher who I would support in any way I could. I did not give him the challenging ones, only the very easy novice micro caches - he has made a sweeping judgement on my work based upon this, he is very wrong. This individual does not know me.

I heard it said 'who has not seen a lampost or guardrail micro-cache' - that makes as much sense as 'who has not seen an ammo can or tupperware cache' - the container and location are not the question. I really do not believe the container or the location are the real issue, let the reader discern for himself.

Let's all have fun as bring joy to the game/sport and find issues that add to it for novices and expert alike - we can support one another and uplift one another as we smile through these threads that diminish. It is just a game, no one dies and we are all better for what others bring to it . My caches are some easy, some challenging, some micros, some ammo cans AND ALL FUN for most everyone (except CR, maybe - but, he is okay too)

Granpa Alex

January 7, 2005

Even though you are a local, you are not the cache police. It is not YOUR area or YOUR place to decide if a cache is too lame.

All you can do is not support it, and log that you found that cache and it is the lamest you've ever seen. Others will see that post when they're looking for coordinates and get an idea for what lame is.

I can see you point of view though, that someone is polluting our sport and lowering the standards. Without the support of the owner of Geocaching.com, you can't do anything.

Maybe you could at least talk him (the owner of geocaching.com) to put up some guidelines for lameness? I don't think it will fly though.

Being a newby myself, I've only found two caches, both kind of lame by your standards. Just trinkets. One of them was totally abandoned. There was a disposable camera with which to take our picture which has been used up for a long time. The cache-placer didn't bother to follow up.

Still, it was exciting just finding them. When I get to your experience level, I may be more disappointed.

When I do eventually place a cache, I don't want the seasoned cachers to call it lame, so I'm going to wait a bit. It is probably inevitable.

Maybe a new rule could be placed that you have to have logged and verified 20 caches before you place your own? I don't know....

Jeremy Z.

7.2k · January 7, 2005

Well hello gang . . . I am the cacher that placed the 7 caches about which the lead writer created... <snip>

Granpa Alex,

First, I must say thank you for such a well thought out and gracious post.

I must appologize for voicing so strongly my opinion on this matter. At this point, the only thing for us to do is to respectfully agree to disagree.

Welcome to the ranks of the Charleston area cache placers.

(This post pre-moderated by Sissy.)

January 7, 2005

. . . I am the cacher that placed the 7 caches about which the lead writer created such a furor in . . .

Shows you what I know. I was thinking of someone else when I posted earlier. Granpa's hides that I have found have been fun. Some have been very clever containers, some were easy and some were a little trickier. Although I haven't seen the ones in question, I can say that his other hides are not at all what I'd call lame and I'm glad that he's been hiding caches for us to find in our area of NC.

1.2k · January 7, 2005

Well hello gang . . . I am the cacher that placed the 7 caches ...

Well, you have made some good comments that I strongly agree with : a variety of caches for a variety of people.

However, is there a reason why you haven't identified the "Cache Size?" as a Micro? As you said in the text of all seven of your caches :

"PLEASE NOTE: You are seeking a true micro-cache, one that can be somewhat of a challenge. As this game is to bring us joy, if you do not care for micro-caches, please pass this one up rather than lose your joy, this is okay, really. HAVE FUN & THANKS for seeking my caches"

The text above does not allow a pocket query to filter out micro for those who don't search for them, which is possible if you'd correctly identify your cache as a micro.

Edited January 7, 2005 by nicolo

January 7, 2005

If they are really cheesy, why not remove them and the they will get archived hopefully?

January 7, 2005

If I failed to identify my caches in such a way as to allow 'pocket queries' to differentiate among them . . . I am dreadfully sorry - it was not intentional. I have only run a single PQ in my life and that was to ensure new placements met the distance needed to be approved.

No excuse, but I am kinda new to the technology (& sport). One of the caches WAS intentionally not identified because the options did not support the container used . . .

WHAT A GENTLEMAN IS CR (of Sissy-n-CR). . . thanks for your kind response. We can agree to do what is great for the sport if not always bringing a smile to each other. Hope to work WITH you on placing future caches at home, ones we can both love!

Granpa Alex

Edited January 7, 2005 by GRANPA ALEX

2.7k · January 7, 2005

If these are older caches, the size selector may not have been around then...?

January 8, 2005

I'll say it again, one DNF by a novice geocacher and no subsequent attempts is not an issue. A single DNF does not indicate a problem. The cache was archived the day the problem, i.e. a missing cache, was reported and I followed up several weeks later to confirm the cache was gone.

If I am not mistaken, notes (including at least one written by you shortly after the initial DNF, in which you stated you would check on the cache during the following week) were deleted from that cache page. History is often rewritten in such a manner, and often the "revised, final edition" is in no way an accurate representation of fact.

38.2k · January 8, 2005

I'll say it again, one DNF by a novice geocacher and no subsequent attempts is not an issue. A single DNF does not indicate a problem. The cache was archived the day the problem, i.e. a missing cache, was reported and I followed up several weeks later to confirm the cache was gone.

If I am not mistaken, notes (including at least one written by you shortly after the initial DNF, in which you stated you would check on the cache during the following week) were deleted from that cache page. History is often rewritten in such a manner, and often the "revised, final edition" is in no way an accurate representation of fact.

Were they? Then apparently you have a much better memory than I do. I'm glad my cache made such an impression on you that you have committed the entire log history to memory.

Edited January 8, 2005 by briansnat

10.1k · January 8, 2005

'Lame' is, of course, in the eyes of the finder, I should guess. Though there does seem to be some consensus as to 'really lame'.

Four of my six caches are micros. One qualifies as a cache and dash. Sorry about that. I liked the spot, and it was an ignored area (at least, until I started hiding caches in North Hudson County). One has been rather well received. (You should try it sometime, Brian. After I work on improving it.)

Guess what. They get a lot more visits than my 'two-mile hike' ones. Oh, well, can't please everyone.

The other question here seems to be maintaining one's caches. My range seems to be twenty miles or so. I wouldn't set out a cache farther from home than that. Maintenance is a requirement of setting out a cache. I read that in the rules.

Unfortunately, there do seem to be a few absentee cache owners locally. With a few caches on the 'warning' list. Oh, well.

4.7k · January 8, 2005

Its one thing if the locals enjoy the things and place them, but for some bozo to come in from the outside and do it .

huh. scratchin' my head now.

January 8, 2005

Its all about perception, I recently introduced someone to geocacaching, I personally just followed along while they searched and found about 5 different type of caches, (ammo cans, tupperware, film container, bison tuble, even a cleverly hidden rock/painted insulation) all of these was this persons very first experience geocaching ever about 1 hour after it was explained. Guess what got the coolest enjoyment of finding. Yup the lamp post micro.

Now obviously the first one is cool and 10 later may get boring but that one right there probably got a new addict to our sport.

Your perception of lame was the greatest reward for this newbie that day. Sadly I'd hate to see your lame opinion remove that smile from that face when they found it.

Now isnt that what its all about......

4.7k · January 8, 2005

well, this is a dense knot to wade through.

there's the cache-placed-by-outsiders issue. and the we-don't-allow-that-sort-of-cache-here issue.

caches placed by outsiders: more and more people here (read: my area or yours) are becoming cachers. it's so very lovely for someone from away to come in and take the good spots before any of the new locals get there. we all appreciate your assessment that our little backwater doesn't have enough caches.

i was born in NJ (a fact i often go to pains to conceal) but i don't return there to place caches. i put them WHERE I LIVE. when i visit places i know well or places i used to live, i hunt the caches that the locals have left.

we don't allow that sort of cache here: i'm always alarmed when any person or group of persons becomes the adjudicator of what kinds of caches are acceptable in one area. it would be a terrible shame if people in your area saw those lame caches and enjoyed them; then they might put out similar ones and the whole neighborhood would be ruined and the property values would go right down and next thing you know your sister might marry one.

24.7k · January 8, 2005

...and next thing you know your sister might marry one.

What, a muggle?

38.2k · January 8, 2005

Its one thing if the locals enjoy the things and place them, but for some bozo to come in from the outside and do it .

huh. scratchin' my head now.

I know what you're referring to and if the locals ever remotely felt that they were an issue, I'd archive them in a minute. They seem to have been received fairly well though. Kindly advise if I'm mistaken.

January 8, 2005

I really wish I had the cojones to name names, but I know of an approver who listed their sock puppet account as the maintainer for their regular account's caches that were placed 180+ miles from home.

Again, if we'd wanted caches in those locations, we would have hidden them there ourselves. Admittedly, though, none of them could even remotely be considered 'lame' caches...

January 8, 2005

Again, if we'd wanted caches in those locations, we would have hidden them there ourselves. Admittedly, though, none of them could even remotely be considered 'lame' caches...

You actually have the nerve to say this????

LET THE TURF WARS BEGIN.... TOO LATE IT APPEARS THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN.

January 8, 2005

I have a LOT of trouble with people making judgments about caches. Hopefully, geocachers will look around and see that not all of what they eat is five star, that every movie they watch didn't win an Oscar, that every sermon at church (or Temple) didn't change their life for the better, that every book they read didn't deserve the Pulitzer. This is a small sampling of life, it's good, its bad, it appeals to some, it doesn't to others. I'm pretty glad I don't live in an area where people are "rating" caches.

Yesterday I was involved in a thread because a muggle had stolen three of my caches in a row because she "didn't like" geocachers coming through the preserve, on public land, near her house (her house backs up to the preserve). I was blown away by the audacity of this woman to decide it was OK to remove my caches, that I paid for, planned and placed, had people repeatedly go to find them to have them stolen immediately. I want to know... how is it ANY DIFFERENT to suggest that people "remove" caches they don't like? I'd say WORSE because you KNOW what goes into placing caches, the effort and getting a DNF for the searchers. I really was so happy to find this new interest, Geocaching. But I read the venom and hypocrisy and how assumptions were made to Granpa Alex, I am disheartened. And Granpa Alex took the high road. I was so amazed at his compassionate, thoughtful answers. Thanks for restoring my faith! :rolleyes:

Edited January 8, 2005 by mayprod

January 8, 2005

Again, if we'd wanted caches in those locations, we would have hidden them there ourselves. Admittedly, though, none of them could even remotely be considered 'lame' caches...

You actually have the nerve to say this????

LET THE TURF WARS BEGIN.... TOO LATE IT APPEARS THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN.

Yes, I have the "nerve". :rolleyes: There is nothing wrong with that statement when taken in context. Unless a person is the hider in question then it shouldn't apply to them anyway. I was not trying to give offense, as should have been obvious.

It's not a matter of 'turf'. It's a matter of FOLLOWING THE RULES; something that my children were proficient in before they attended kindergarten. The guidelines for cache placement are fairly easy to understand, and are in place for a reason. I would never place a cache 180 miles from my home, even if I visited said area regularly (as I often do in my profession). The solution is to ask a local cacher who knows the scene to place (not maintain, PLACE) a cache in the spot. I've done that myself with a couple of different placements, with mixed results. One idea was immediately adopted and a cache placed. The other was shot down for a legitimate reason, having to do with it's proximity to schools and the attitude of local law enforcement. It would have been a prime brain teaser had it been placed, but it would not have been wise to place it in that location. You can see, I would hope, that hiding a quality cache also means that you know the area and it's peculiarities, not just planting a container in a really neat spot or with a new twist on the hide.

The areas that several of the caches I was talking about are hidden in are not conducive to finding them without seeming suspicious and/or drawing too much attention to the hide, else some of the locals would have already hidden caches there. I myself live 40 miles away from these hides, and would never consider placing a cache in that area, even though I pass it daily on the way to work. The hides themselves are prime. They are just in areas that they shouldn't be, and are too far for the placer to legitimately maintain them.

3.8k · January 8, 2005

...Don't get me wrong, I love high-risk micros

Well, this has been an interesting read.

I only have one question, CR.

What is a high risk micro? :rolleyes:

January 8, 2005

Again, if we'd wanted caches in those locations, we would have hidden them there ourselves. Admittedly, though, none of them could even remotely be considered 'lame' caches...

You actually have the nerve to say this????

LET THE TURF WARS BEGIN.... TOO LATE IT APPEARS THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN.

Yes, I have the "nerve". There is nothing wrong with that statement when taken in context. Unless a person is the hider in question then it shouldn't apply to them anyway. I was not trying to give offense, as should have been obvious.

It's not a matter of 'turf'. It's a matter of FOLLOWING THE RULES; something that my children were proficient in before they attended kindergarten. The guidelines for cache placement are fairly easy to understand, and are in place for a reason. I would never place a cache 180 miles from my home, even if I visited said area regularly (as I often do in my profession). The solution is to ask a local cacher who knows the scene to place (not maintain, PLACE) a cache in the spot. I've done that myself with a couple of different placements, with mixed results. One idea was immediately adopted and a cache placed. The other was shot down for a legitimate reason, having to do with it's proximity to schools and the attitude of local law enforcement. It would have been a prime brain teaser had it been placed, but it would not have been wise to place it in that location. You can see, I would hope, that hiding a quality cache also means that you know the area and it's peculiarities, not just planting a container in a really neat spot or with a new twist on the hide.

The areas that several of the caches I was talking about are hidden in are not conducive to finding them without seeming suspicious and/or drawing too much attention to the hide, else some of the locals would have already hidden caches there. I myself live 40 miles away from these hides, and would never consider placing a cache in that area, even though I pass it daily on the way to work. The hides themselves are prime. They are just in areas that they shouldn't be, and are too far for the placer to legitimately maintain them.

I'm sorry but the very statement. "Again, if we'd wanted caches in those locations, we would have hidden them there ourselves." In contex or out is very offensive. You're claiming rights you don't have. You don't have the right to control what, where, when, and by whom caches are placed, period.

In your explaination you've further indicated that you think the "locals" should control caching in your area. TURF ownership, eh? WRONG.

It appears that you're trying to make RULES for everybody else. Not a good idea, it never works.

So now we've not only got infringment on your turf we have infringment on your rules.

Good think I don't live cloes enough to place a whole bunch of caches in your area. I'd love to iritate this attitude with a lot "lame" caches.

January 8, 2005

...Don't get me wrong, I love high-risk micros

Well, this has been an interesting read.

I only have one question, CR.

What is a high risk micro?

One in a container like this:

Edited January 8, 2005 by E = Mc2

38.2k · January 8, 2005

but I know of an approver who listed their sock puppet account as the maintainer for their regular account's caches that were placed 180+ miles from home.

180 miles is hardly a "vacation cache". Many geocachers do that in an afternoon of hunting.

2.3k · January 8, 2005

I stand corrected, FishPoet...you are right, having a bigger logbook certainly cuts down on needed maintenance...

Mean-spirited sarcasm aside, it IS possible to maintain triple digit hides... :rolleyes:

7.2k · January 8, 2005

...Don't get me wrong, I love high-risk micros

Well, this has been an interesting read.

I only have one question, CR.

What is a high risk micro?

The folks down in Jax turned me on to these. It's a micro--doesn't have to be too well hidden--that is in a spot where you are easily observed. The challenge to these are to find and replace the cache without being busted.

It involves slight of hand, stealth, and having a good cover story.

7.2k · January 8, 2005

Too many people are mischaracterizing what is going on here. This is a local issue of us to work out.

Closing thread.

Absolutely Stunned.

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