Lame Caches

18.9k · January 26, 2005

I just wanted to bounce an idea here. (I'm standing by for the backlash). I see an awful lot of comments about "lame" caches. I know everybody has a different idea of lame. Some refer to micros, some to urban caches etc..... I even had somebody claim my cache was lame because all it had was McToys for trading - (as tends to happen). So my question is: What is "lame" to you and why (give details). I hope we can all use this to avoid placing any new "lame" caches.

20.7k · January 26, 2005

If they fall and break a hip, they could go lame. :grin:

18.9k · January 26, 2005

If they fall and break a hip, they could go lame.

Boooo Hisssss

20.7k · January 26, 2005

Seriously, different cachers like different things. The best advise is to 1) hide caches that you would enjoy finding, 2) Make sure that the cache is well maintained, and 3) don't worry about what other people say.

24.7k · January 26, 2005

I'll bite. This is my version of lame.

If I stop having fun while looking for a cache. It's lame.

If I realize the prior finders have terraformed the earth in seeking the cache I won't even bother to hunt the cache. I'll walk away, think it's lame, and that it should be archived due to the terraforming.

My personal version of lame has nothing to do with Urban, Remote, Cache size, race creed or cache orientation. If I'm having a bad day I tend to find more lame caches than if I'm having a good day. My own attitude changes my experience.

Another cache I thought lame wasn't the cache so much as the false clue. We have an underpass that goes under the Railroad. There are walkways with drain holes. In one of the drain holes was a false clue for a local cache game. I picked out the broken glass hiding it and got the fake clue and opened it and saw "not here". About then I realized that the smell of urine was strong and the glass had been sticky not with soda... I then walked to the nearest washroom, cleaned up, went back, decided to ignore the walkway and found the real cache. My log reflected my thrill at finding the clues all pointing to the drain holes used as a urinal. Other locals then read the log and wondered what the stick up my butt was all about.

Edited January 26, 2005 by Renegade Knight

January 26, 2005

i found a cache that i found a bit lame - it was a micro attached to the underside of a dog sh*t bin! smelly, not a nice location, wish id worn some gloves!

after a few of us left feedback, the cache was moved!

18.9k · January 26, 2005

My personal version of lame has nothing to do with Urban, Remote, Cache size, race creed or cache orientation. If I'm having a bad day I tend to find more lame caches than if I'm having a good day. My own attitude changes my experience.

I tend to agree wholeheartedly!!! :grin: :grin:

January 26, 2005

To me, lame caches are those that do not offer an interesting experience AND are in a location that is unpleasant.

So:

Boring in a nice place is fine.

A truly novel hide in an unpleasant place is often worth while.

But, if the cache is not interesting to find AND the area is unpleasant, yuck! No thanks. Take a bit more time and either find a nicer place or think of a really novel and interesting way or place to hide the cache.

One caveat, an otherwise boring hide in an unpleasant place could be okay if it has interesting historical significance that is brought to our attention.

But please, give us something positive that is worth remembering about the hunt.

1.1k · January 26, 2005

Seriously, different cachers like different things. The best advise is to 1) hide caches that you would enjoy finding, 2) Make sure that the cache is well maintained, and 3) don't worry about what other people say.

I'd like to respectfully disagree with your items #1 and #3. I think it's very important to listen to and act on constructive feedback when offered respectfully. And to pay attention to what folks may NOT be saying about your caches when all you get are a page full of "TNLNSL" logs with no additional comments.

It's some of the hiders in your very area, sbell, that BOMBED the area (as opposed to just hiding SOME in MODERATION) with lots of "hides like they'd like to find", that are representative of why we keep having all these discussions. Yes, yes, I know, I know there are "mobility-impaired" issues associated with those hides, but it's still about BOMBING the area, as opposed to just placing SOME in MODERATION, with caches that "some people consider lame" (and more to the point, that ENOUGH people consider lame that it's a real issue in terms of your area's reputation - doing (as I always caveat) a DISSERVICE to the EXCELLENT caches and cachers that are also in your area).

Have I made my point yet, with my sledge hammer, that ONE or just a FEW of these "what some consider lame" caches is not as much of an issue as placing a MAJORITY of them in a given area, precisely by "hiding like they'd like to find 'em" and precisely by NOT caring what anyone else thinks?

-Dave R.

Edited January 26, 2005 by drat19

January 26, 2005

There have been a number of threads on lame caches - they keep coming up . . . the net result has been that, when the dust settles - it is in the eyes of the beholder.

It may well be that there are very-very few real lame caches but only different ideas of what qualifies for one on a particular day by a particular individual - this is my thought from reading the threads.

Personally I have yet to find a truly lame cache, though I am not as experienced as many cachers - I love them all (except puzzle caches which are not really geocaches, but puzzles) and I try them all (even the puzzle ones).

I feel one should never label any effort, time, energy & thought put in by someone for the game/sport and benefit of others. My personal opinion is that the labeling is what is truly lame (+ rather arrogant, and rude).

Sorry, not trying at being a being philosophical or at lecturing - I just really dislike seeing the well-meaning effort of fine people who care being judged as lame. There are no lame caches, just different viewpoints.

Edited January 26, 2005 by GRANPA ALEX

1.1k · January 26, 2005

I feel one should never label any effort, time, energy & thought put in by someone for the game/sport and benefit of others. My personal opinion is that the labeling is what is truly lame (+ rather arrogant, and rude).

Sorry, not trying at being a being philosophical or at lecturing - I just really dislike seeing the well-meaning effort of fine people who care being judged as lame. There are no lame caches, just different viewpoints.

That's very true, which is why I've modified my verbiage on this subject to make it "what some consider lame". Perhaps some would still consider that rude, but at least it allows for alternative viewpoints, as you suggest.

-Dave R.

January 26, 2005

In an effort to reduce the number of my lame posts in the forums I've decided to to stop discussing lame caches. :grin:

2.5k · January 26, 2005

In an effort to reduce the number of my lame posts in the forums I've decided to to stop discussing lame caches.

I think that in telling us you weren't discussing them that you discussed them.

January 26, 2005

I feel one should never label any effort, time, energy & thought put in by someone for the game/sport and benefit of others. My personal opinion is that the labeling is what is truly lame (+ rather arrogant, and rude).

Sorry, not trying at being a being philosophical or at lecturing - I just really dislike seeing the well-meaning effort of fine people who care being judged as lame. There are no lame caches, just different viewpoints.

That's very true, which is why I've modified my verbiage on this subject to make it "what some consider lame". Perhaps some would still consider that rude, but at least it allows for alternative viewpoints, as you suggest.

-Dave R.

I agree with your comment here Dave . . . also read the data you provided me a week or so earlier, it all makes sense & I respect your well thought out & stated ideas. I just want people respected & the game enhanced, and as you said of me, for all alternatives & players. We are speaking the same language (I think).

6.5k · January 27, 2005

Could we please stop using the term " lame caches". That is very inconsiderate of their feelings. They are still caches, and caches first. Please refer to them as "caches with a difference." :grin:

January 27, 2005

Being fairly new to geocaching, I think my only contribution to this "discussion" is that some of you who have been caching for a long time may think something is "lame" or non-challenging, and those of us who are only now getting the hang of it, may actually find the "lame" ones as - "whew, thank goodness that was an easy one."

Unless by definition of "lame" you mean soaked log, soaked cache, poor placement, or filled with "trash."

IMO, I think "lame-ness" is dependent on a host of factors, including level of expertise.

Personally, with having only just found my 50th, I praise the lame caches, at least this week.......

38.2k · January 27, 2005

If I wonder why the heck someone brought me to this spot, its lame. Even the greatest puzzle cache in the world is a disappointment if the final stage is attached to a dumpster behind the Walmart.

Unless by definition of "lame" you mean soaked log, soaked cache..SNIP...or filled with "trash."

Those don't make a lame cache. If I hike 5 miles to a beautiful area and encounter all of the above, it still won't be lame.

Edited January 27, 2005 by briansnat

4.7k · January 27, 2005

the lamest cache i ever encountered (or at least the one that springs to mind) was a barely-hidden poorly prepared vacation cache dumped near a parking lot by people who were in the area for LNT training.

to the guy who found it first, it was one of the best caches he's been to, simply because it was his first FF. bless his heart. happily it went missing and now the nearby portions of the TRAIL it was near are open to hiding by the locals.

January 27, 2005

I must confess that I find a lot more caches to be "lame" when they get in the way of me wanting to do what I consider a nice hide in a nice area, while I find fewer lame caches from the standpoint of hunting them. It's very disappointing to go to a beautiful area with beautiful hiding spots for large caches and there is a parking lot micro "hogging" the space.

Of course, a short kind email to the owner of the micro might get it archived so you can place a bigger and more creative cache nearby.

January 27, 2005

Could we please stop using the term " lame caches". That is very inconsiderate of their feelings. They are still caches, and caches first. Please refer to them as "caches with a difference."

How about calling it a cache without an attitude.

I just have to make RK laugh! :unsure:

SF1

January 27, 2005

Lame is in the eye of the beholder.

1.3k · January 27, 2005

To Mastifflover, I say Amen!

1.4k · January 27, 2005

Seriously, different cachers like different things. The best advise is to 1) hide caches that you would enjoy finding, 2) Make sure that the cache is well maintained, and 3) don't worry about what other people say.

Now there's a sure fire way to end up with more lame caches. You're hiding it for others to find so why wouldn't you consider what others would think about it?

A lame cache is one you wouldn't take someone who doesn't know what caching is to get them interested because you know it's lame.

1.4k · January 27, 2005

To me, lame caches are those that do not offer an interesting experience AND are in a location that is unpleasant.

So:

Boring in a nice place is fine.

A truly novel hide in an unpleasant place is often worth while.

But, if the cache is not interesting to find AND the area is unpleasant, yuck! No thanks. Take a bit more time and either find a nicer place or think of a really novel and interesting way or place to hide the cache.

One caveat, an otherwise boring hide in an unpleasant place could be okay if it has interesting historical significance that is brought to our attention.

But please, give us something positive that is worth remembering about the hunt.

I think this is a good post.

January 27, 2005

Another cache I thought lame wasn't the cache so much as the false clue.

Once again, RK, you have nailed one of my pet peaves. I find the use of fake clues, fake caches and decoys to "send me in the wrong direction" detestable. Unfortunately I know 2 local hiders who rutinely use thes tactics, so I have resolved to not hunt any more of their caches.

January 27, 2005

To me, lame is:

Not maintained in one way or another
Not well sealed
Not well thought-out with regards to placement
A small to medium sized cache with nothing but McToys; this goes right back to lack of maintenance.

Many of you think that lame is in the eye of the beholder, citing that as a first find, even a 'lame' cache is interesting. But think of how much more interesting a good, well-maintained cache would be?

I forget who told me this when I asked for advice about placing my first cache, but he said: "Think of how you would want YOUR first found cache to be" and "What is the placer trying to show me?"

1.1k · January 27, 2005

To me a lame cache is one that takes zero imignation to hide. The prime one for this is a micro in a rock pile. One local cache has put out caches resently that are nothing more then pill bottles in differant types or rock. Anything from drainage ditches lined with large rocks to small landscaped sized rocks. The area are BORING too, just in the corner of some parking lot. Okay it lets you go out and look for a few minutes but there is no feeling of fulfillment just relief that it is off the list.

cheers

7.2k · January 27, 2005

I've purposely stayed out of this thread lest someone try to derail it by attacking my definition of "lame." I've been, well, let us say, "impassioned" on the subject of poor quality cache hunts of late. I've butted heads and didn't want that to spill over to here.

I think above are some very good articulations of folks' idea of lame. Many parallel my own.

Thank you, StarBrand, for opening this dialog.

Thank you to the rest for keeping it civil, thoughful, and levelheaded.

1k · January 27, 2005

I responded to a similar inquiry a couple years ago. Here was my answer then:

Characteristics of caches that I considered lame:

Containers inadequate for their environment. If they can't protect the logbook & contents from the elements, they are trash-in-the-making. I've NEVER found a Gladware cache that wasn't ready for the trashbin.
Lack of a decent logbook. Loose sheets (or scraps) of paper, or poorly bound logbooks are shoddy, IMO. Geocaching.com sells decent, durable logbooks. Buy them or something at least as good. If it's a microcache, consider using the letter & logsheet appropriate for the size.
Trashy location. I'm up for a good challenge, and I don't mind getting dirty; but I don't like wading through heaps of trash and other refuse while searching for a cache. Even if the purpose of the cache is CITO, try to find a nice place for the cache.

When I find a cache with these characteristics, I get the impression (right or wrong) that the owner doesn't really care much about the sport or its participants, but has placed it primarily for his own ego gratification.

_____________________________________________

This definition still works for me two years later.

January 27, 2005

Defining "lame" by itself is like defining "darkness" without making reference to light. "Lameness" is an absence of quality. In the case of a Geocache, quality is a reason to exist (other than the placer's desire to own a cache and the seeker's desire for another smiley). This is where it gets tough, because there are lots of possible reasons to set up a cache--

To take seekers to a pretty or interesting place
To challenge seekers mentally (puzzles) or physically (tough hikes)
To surprise or amuse seekers (clever or daring hides)
To impress seekers with skill and/or effort in cache construction

...etc. It's a letdown to find a cache that doesn't have some reason to exist. Such a cache is lame.

January 27, 2005

A lame cache is still better than a lame finder. Hey Horsegeeks, aren't you guilty of a few "lame finds" recently? :unsure:

6.5k · January 27, 2005

Would this be considered lame?

Cache Name: This Cache Sucks!

Traditional lamppost hide at the vacuum station of a very busy 24/7 self service car wash facility on a main street. I have seen people at this location at all hours.

Stealth is paramount! For obvious reasons, it's less than 500 feet from parking to the cache. But once you pull into the lot won't it make you smile? :unsure:

Isn't that the point of hiding caches sometimes?

PS-I know if at least three hides in different states done like this. :unsure:

January 27, 2005

So my question is: What is "lame" to you and why (give details). I hope we can all use this to avoid placing any new "lame" caches.

A micro tossed out the window of your car into the brush alongside of a road where there is no place to park is lame.

Interestingly there is one near me that almost qualifies. It is a micro, it is alongside a road and there is nowhere to park except for a couple hundred feet down the road. That parking spot really isn't a parking spot, it is just the only place where the ground is semi level along this road. Most of those who logged a find stated they parked on the road itself due to there being next to no traffic. The area itself isn't interesting unless one enjoys very rustic, underused roads.

So, lots of folks would consider it lame, but some who logged a find stated they found the drive very enjoyable so...

The next thing I consider lame about a cache is one placed in an area that gets snow in the winter or routine flooding in the spring and the cache page doesn't point this out.

Now, I do not get any joy out of digging through 2' of snow in an attempt to find a micro, but some apparently do from what I have read. I also don't appreciate looking for a cache that a flooded river washed away, but I do enjoy canoeing in flooded out areas since it is often the only time those areas are accessible.

In conclusion the 2 things I listed that make a cache lame all have people who would find the cache not lame.

I would say that if your cache page does a good job of describing the cache you have done a good service as those who would find it lame can then avoid it. Trouble is there are tons of people who just download coords and don't read the cache description, but I tend to think those who operate this way understand the 'risk' they are taking.

20.7k · January 27, 2005

I still think that if a person hides a cache that they would like to find and takes the time to maintain it, its not lame.

All this talk about lameness reminded me of the discussion regarding Nashville awhile back. It was said that all the lamp post micros in Nashville were lame. I remember when Southpaw hid the first one here. It was not at Wally World, it was on a little stretch of underutilized road near a nice ball field. I enjoyed that find.

January 27, 2005

Would this be considered lame?
Cache Name: This Cache Sucks!

Traditional lamppost hide at the vacuum station of a very busy 24/7 self service car wash facility on a main street. I have seen people at this location at all hours.

Stealth is paramount! For obvious reasons, it's less than 500 feet from parking to the cache. But once you pull into the lot won't it make you smile?

Isn't that the point of hiding caches sometimes?

PS-I know if at least three hides in different states done like this.

I agree that this is not a lame cache. The title defeats the lameness. This cache is hidden with thought and the intent to provide a specific experience for the finder. It also states what it is up front so that if the finder is not in the mood for this type of hide, they can avoid it. This cache also appears to have an agenda that is a bit edgy and fun . . . "here I thumb my nose at all those whiny geocachers that trash urban micros and such as lame". I have no problems with this at all.

Therefor, I suggest that this is a very poor example of a lame cache.

18.9k · January 27, 2005

Ok - time for a quick summary - best as I can from comments so far anyway.

# 1) Seems that the only real agreement here is that MOST lamppost caches in Wal-Mart parking lots are considered pretty lame.

#2) A well maintained cache (no junk, good log, dry etc) is rarely considered lame unless it is in a junk pile

#3) A unique hide or Well thought out idea is rarely lame,

#4) Caches with a view are rarely lame (except if anti #1 thru #3 come into play)

#5) A good description with potential "gotchas!!" well described (weather, trail, terrian, parking etc) is well appreciated

#6) Attitude and experience of the visitor are variables beyond our control

Just thought I would summerize from my point of view.......

1.6k · January 28, 2005

Greetings Starbrand!

I agree with some of the earlier posts, in that location and physical condition of the cache and container mean a lot.

To be a lame cache you have to demonstrate a real lack of effort to make your cache something special and or a real lack of effort to make your cache something that would make a great first find for a new player. Think back to your early days in the game. How pumped would you and your kids be if the first cache you found was some moldy tupperware full of trash? How happy would you be to have your kids go dumpster diving for some magnetic key holder behind a Kwik shop? If this is what my first finds were like, I would have found something else to do with my GPS real quick.

I want a cool location, a good walk (especially on a seldom used trail), a cool container (though ammo cans are good too), or something that sets the place apart. You have a cache that is located east of Chimney Rock where you can see the rock and see the viewpoint of a famous painting of the rock. This was for me the only necessary ingredient of a cool cache. I have a cache on a pedestrian bridge over the Platte, I have seen two bald eagles, a great heron, several geese and ducks, and a had many wonderful meditative moments watching the river flow. This is a good cache. This is what I am trying to accomplish with the ones I place from now on. (I am going for fewer, but better ones.)

Cheers!

1.6k · January 28, 2005

Lame is in the eye of the beholder.

Ditto that here , I for one cannot tell you what will be lame to you , or what would be lame to another cacher , I can only give my opinion and you know what they say about opinions..... Everybody's got one ...

Maybe we should all become a little more tolerant , and a lot less critical ?

1.4k · January 28, 2005

Would this be considered lame?
Cache Name: This Cache Sucks!

LOL.... you mean a cache like this:

This Cache Sucks

I have really gotten some cool logs from this hide :blink: The hide itself is kinda lame but the title and description have really fooled some cachers until they got there <_<

1.1k · January 28, 2005

All this talk about lameness reminded me of the discussion regarding Nashville awhile back. It was said that all the lamp post micros in Nashville were lame. I remember when Southpaw hid the first one here. It was not at Wally World, it was on a little stretch of underutilized road near a nice ball field. I enjoyed that find.

SBell, now I *know* you've been paying attention, but just happened to forget, the related point to yours that I've quoted above.

The problem is NOT the first hide in an area of that type (I agree, when you haven't found one before, and/or if you've been stumped by one and then finally "figure it out", it's a really cool technique).

The problem is that some cachers in your area latched onto that concept and BOMBED your area with them, and unlike Southpaw, did NOT take the time to choose worthwhile locations for them. They drove around to any ol' parking lot they could find with lampposts to which one could drive right up (yes, yes, I know, I know, mobility-impairedment factors into this...an acceptable explanation for SOME of these type of hides, but NOT for HUNDREDS of them), or to corners of parking lots with any ol' bush under which to toss a cache, and placed not one, not just a few, but HUNDREDS of them...thus creating the local "standard", and your area's reputation. Other new cachers found these caches, decided that "Oh, this must be what the game is, I can play it too" and hid even MORE and MORE. In the process, as I've stated AD NAUSEUM, they created "white noise" that obscured all the EXCELLENT caches your area has to offer.

ONE or a FEW "what some people consider lame" caches like this is NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is the evolution of the game so that this is now the "norm" in many (and an increasing number of) areas.

Think about ANY article you've read in the media about Geocaching (and the numbers of these articles are increasing...we ARE becoming mainstream, folks). Did ANY of them cite parking lot or bush base micros? NO! They all breathlessly talk about scenic vistas, "hidden gem" locations, long (and not-so-long) hikes among nature, neat containers with cool swag to trade, and family bonding experiences. This WAS an accurate portrayal of our game 1.5 and more years ago. Thanks to "micro spew", it is no longer. In many areas, when a new cacher does a zip code search they get pages and pages (and pages and pages) of urban micros. Some are cool, but most are the same ol' same ol'. Behold the new "norm", and behold the inevitable question: "Is THIS what that article was talking about??"

Bigredmed's post elsewhere on this thread stated the point very well (as WalMart lamppost micros are no better than what he cites, when you factor in the "Security and paranoid onlookers may be watching" aspect):

Think back to your early days in the game. How pumped would you and your kids be if the first cache you found was some moldy tupperware full of trash? How happy would you be to have your kids go dumpster diving for some magnetic key holder behind a Kwik shop? If this is what my first finds were like, I would have found something else to do with my GPS real quick.

-Dave R.

Edited January 28, 2005 by drat19

January 28, 2005

IMO a lame cache is one that is not unique to the finder.

For example: A newbie goes out and finds a perfectly dry ammo box in a crack near a hiking trail in their area. there are hundreds of similar hides in that area. The cacher finds it and is elated. later on, they remember that cache and place another one like it.

then after finding 200 caches similar to the one they found, they get bored and consider that kind of cache lame.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

Am I the only one that wishes they were all 'perfectly dry ammo boxes in cracks near hiking trails in our areas'?

1.1k · January 28, 2005

IMO a lame cache is one that is not unique to the finder.

For example: A newbie goes out and finds a perfectly dry ammo box in a crack near a hiking trail in their area. there are hundreds of similar hides in that area. The cacher finds it and is elated. later on, they remember that cache and place another one like it.

then after finding 200 caches similar to the one they found, they get bored and consider that kind of cache lame.

I hadn't thought of it that way; you make a valid counterpoint.

Having said that (with all sincerity), I would counter by saying that it takes a bit more effort (and cost!) to place x number of hiking trail ammo boxes than it does to drive around town and place y number of 35mm containers with a strip of paper stuffed inside in any/every random shopping center parking lot lamppost and/or bush base in the corner of the parking lot. We're seeing a lot fewer hiking trail ammo boxes than we are seeing parking lot micros, in many areas.

-Dave R.

Edited January 28, 2005 by drat19

20.7k · January 28, 2005

...
Think about ANY article you've read in the media about Geocaching (and the numbers of these articles are increasing...we ARE becoming mainstream, folks). Did ANY of them cite parking lot or bush base micros? NO! They all breathlessly talk about scenic vistas, "hidden gem" locations, long (and not-so-long) hikes among nature, neat containers with cool swag to trade, and family bonding experiences. This WAS an accurate portrayal of our game 1.5 and more years ago. ...

You realize that when a reporter asks ot go out with a cacher that we have always led him to the coolest one we know, right? I get your point, but micros have been plentiful for years now. You probably would have to go back about three years to see urban areas without lots of micros.

Don't get me wrong, I get your point. I merely don't see it as the huge problem that many posters in this thread (and others) see it as.

My position is the same one that I gave in one of the other threads currently running on this topic.

1) Hide caches that you like to find. If that means that your next cache is in a lightpole at Brunos, so be it.

2) Maintain your cache.

3) Do not be affected by what others say.

January 28, 2005

true it would take a lot more effort to place 400 ammo box caches than 400 micro walmart tours, but then thats probably why th micros are more often considered lame.

24.7k · January 28, 2005

...We're seeing a lot fewer hiking trail ammo boxes than we are seeing parking lot micros, in many areas....

Interesting.

I'm seeing a lot more of all types of caches. The ratio of Rural to Urban may be less than what it was but there are still more of all types.

One thing I do see is a lot more recyling of urban caches. They run their course get archived and a newbie places a new one in the same area and you have essentially the same cache experience as before. Of course I enjoy wondering about why they picked this lamp post as opposed to the one 40' over that was used last time.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Renegade Knight

20.7k · January 28, 2005

... We're seeing a lot fewer hiking trail ammo boxes than we are seeing parking lot micros, in many areas.

I wonder if this is due to the fact that there are more parking lots than hiking trails.

Maybe its because, as the hobby goes further mainstream, there is a smaller percentage of hikers in the geocaching population. These non-hikers do not know where the trails are, even if they like off-trail caches.

edit: darn old grammar

Edited January 28, 2005 by sbell111

1.6k · January 28, 2005

true it would take a lot more effort to place 400 ammo box caches than 400 micro walmart tours, but then thats probably why th micros are more often considered lame.

In addition to the effort/cash needed for trads, there is a subordinate problem with micros.

Everyone of us has limited resources. Some more than others, but all have finite resources in terms of free time (and the % devotable to geocaching), money (and the % devotable to geocaching) and imagination when it comes to figuring out where we want to hide something.

Given that there is a limit to cache placement for cacher X of A units of time, B units of money, and that a trad takes 10 times the money that a micro does, and takes 2 times the time, there is a limit function on how many trad caches cacher X can place.

Factor in the survival time for a cache is about 1 year (average), a city could reach an equilibrium between the number of trad caches placed, the number of cache locations that remain unused, and the number that die and are then open for reuse or that open surrounding areas contained in the 0.1 mile radius.

With 10 times less cost, and half the time, this won't happen if micros are factored in, especially as the micros can block all caches within 0.1 miles of themselves.

Bottom line, we can see how a given location with a fixed number of really good cache locations, and a load of micros could really get clogged up if the micros were spewed.

Not to get onto a micro bashing rant, as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with micros, when done well, they can be highly entertaining. The micro format simply has a flaw in that due to their low cost and low time needed, they can be spewed and ruin a city.

If GC and local cache groups would get active and deal with the spew issue, the lame micro would be less common.

1.1k · January 28, 2005

SBell, I respect your counterpoints. I think we agree on some of those points, and respectfully disagree on some of the others. I can live with that.

-Dave R.

1.1k · January 28, 2005

If GC and local cache groups would get active and deal with the spew issue, the lame micro would be less common.

Some of the Nashville'rs seem to be starting to make that effort (joking around about it a bit but not really joking), and in areas such as where I'm based in So. Miss. and where CR is based in Charleston, SC, we're working with local hiders and newbs to try to encourage "cache quality" (yes, I know, some would call it "bullying", but in the end it's still about a well-meaning effort trying to MODERATE the types of hides in a given area...sadly, by sometimes using other areas as examples of what NOT to do).

-Dave R.

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment