Walmarts As Anchors.

[CoyoteRed]

As some of you know, in a strip mall, regular mall, or similar setting you will generally have one or more brand named store to draw folks to the mall. These are called anchors. Wal-mart is the largest of these, but most all will have a parking lot perfect for placing junk caches.

 

While I haven't seen it mentioned in the forums recently many folks who place mystery caches have to pick some sort of "non-location" for the listed coordinates. Many times it's in the middle of a river or lake. Sometimes in the middle of a pond. It's generally some place folks don't need to be, want to go, or able to get to.

 

For those of you tired of arguing about Wal-mart parking lot caches, I submit the perfect spot for your "non-location"--your nearest Wal-mart parking lot.

 

Of course, it has to be relatively near the final location of your mystery, but I'm sure you could find some sort of "big box" parking lot that would be convenient.

 

Want to grab up more spots? Create a multi that moves through several of the stores. All the better for those that like to tour the area's parking lots, right? That's not to mention the added economy of having to log only once for all of those locations.

 

Just a thought.

[WH]

Give it a rest.

 

There is already one heated discussion in progress over these "so called" lame parking lot micros. There is no need to open a whole new thread.

[+Team Tigger International]

This probably isn't worth going into but , just so you know its already been done (sorta) , but in a Mall . That taught us about some of the people that are actually from the City that it was in . The final stage is across the parking lot from where you have to find the answers to the questions . Seen nothing wrong with it . We had fun .

 

 

Cream of the Crop

 

Star

[+southdeltan]

Give it a rest.

 

There is already one heated discussion in progress over these "so called" lame parking lot micros. There is no need to open a whole new thread.

If you don't like to read CR's posts - you don't have to. You can filter them out. If you see a thread he started, you probably shouldn't open it. Just keep "driving". If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread. If CR, or some other person that has opinions you don't like, has posted - just browse on.

 

If you don't like em, don't read em.

 

 

sd

[WH]

Give it a rest.

 

There is already one heated discussion in progress over these "so called" lame parking lot micros. There is no need to open a whole new thread. 

If you don't like to read CR's posts - you don't have to. You can filter them out. If you see a thread he started, you probably shouldn't open it. Just keep "driving". If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread. If CR, or some other person that has opinions you don't like, has posted - just browse on.

 

If you don't like em, don't read em.

 

 

sd

I have nothing against CR or his posts. I think he does an excellent job and conveying his point of view and his debating skills are top notch. I just happen to feel this particular thread is unnecessary.

[+southdeltan]

Give it a rest.

 

There is already one heated discussion in progress over these "so called" lame parking lot micros. There is no need to open a whole new thread. 

If you don't like to read CR's posts - you don't have to. You can filter them out. If you see a thread he started, you probably shouldn't open it. Just keep "driving". If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread. If CR, or some other person that has opinions you don't like, has posted - just browse on.

 

If you don't like em, don't read em.

 

 

sd

I have nothing against CR or his posts. I think he does an excellent job and conveying his point of view and his debating skills are top notch. I just happen to feel this particular thread is unnecessary.

So stop posting to it. You had a pretty good idea what it was going to be about when you opened it, but you opened it anyway. I wonder why?

 

sd

[WH]

So stop posting to it. You had a pretty good idea what it was going to be about when you opened it, but you opened it anyway. I wonder why?

 

sd

Dont presume to dictate what I do. I will post to any thread I please. If you dont like it, you can <self moderated>.

[JohnX]

Just a thought.

 

Edited: I believe I misunderstood CRs original post.

Edited February 24, 2005 by JohnX

[+mtn-man]

Post on topic please. This discussion is slightly different than the DPM topic (which sort of is going off topic at this point). If you have a comment about the topic then join in. Personal disagreements are best dealt with in email or private messages.

[+Jeep_Dog]

I think this could be an effective way of robbing real estate from parking lot caches.

 

Obviously, other threads debate whether or not this is a good thing. Opinion seems varied and heated.

 

However, also pay attention to what is in the area. There could be a really nice neighborhood park less than .10 mile away that you jam up with a multi in an attempt at fighting back wally world micros.

[WH]

I enjoy all types of caches, even the Wally World ones. I would be just as happy with parking lot micro as I am with a woodland hide in a scenic area.

 

Just as I support the right of people to hide micros in lamposts, I also support the right of others to use these parking lots as jumping off points for nice puzzle or multicaches.

 

If thats how you choose to play your game, then I say go for it and have fun.

[+AtoZ]

Give it a rest.

 

There is already one heated discussion in progress over these "so called" lame parking lot micros. There is no need to open a whole new thread.

I think CR has a great idea. Use junk for junk. But it is not nice to tell some one to PISS OFF just because you don't agree. It is better not to say anything unless your just uping you post count.

THANKS CR, LOL.

cheers

[+sbell111]

...While I haven't seen it mentioned in the forums recently many folks who place mystery caches have to pick some sort of "non-location" for the listed coordinates. Many times it's in the middle of a river or lake. Sometimes in the middle of a pond. It's generally some place folks don't need to be, want to go, or able to get to.

 

For those of you tired of arguing about Wal-mart parking lot caches, I submit the perfect spot for your "non-location"--your nearest Wal-mart parking lot....

I wonder if this idea would work. Perhaps an approver could chime in to let us know whether a bogus coord for a mystery cache will bump a regular cache from that location.

[WH]

There have been quite a few mystery caches hidden locally in recent weeks. Most of them place their bogus coordinates in the middle of a lake or some other location that a physical cache would be unlikely to be placed.

[+carleenp]

Interesting idea. But if the point is to lock out parking lot lamp post micros I would guess that people would need to place a ton of mystery caches. There are a lot of parking lots and light poles in the world! If someone is dead set on placing one, I am sure they will find a pole for one.

[+Honest John & Suzies Jule]

With GPS technology on the rise, indoor caching will be available to cacher's.

Then, when that time comes, caching in malls will be the norm?

Just better find the spot where the cleaning people don't clean up.

 

[+Salvelinus]

Your idea is cleaver...just too difficult to pull off.

 

Shame on me if this is off-topic, but I just think the commercial cache guidelines should be enforced and/or better clarified. IMO...that is exactly what these caches are. If I owned a business, you can bet there would be a geocache right where my "new" potential customers would be parking.

 

However, in order to keep this on topic, what constitutes a commercial cache has been discussed Here. Your comments about what constitutes a commercial cache should be added to that thread.

 

Salvelinus

[+Camo-crazed]

If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread.

cool! I never knew that

[+RuffRidr]

Give it a rest.

 

There is already one heated discussion in progress over these "so called" lame parking lot micros. There is no need to open a whole new thread. 

If you don't like to read CR's posts - you don't have to. You can filter them out. If you see a thread he started, you probably shouldn't open it. Just keep "driving". If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread. If CR, or some other person that has opinions you don't like, has posted - just browse on.

 

If you don't like em, don't read em.

 

 

sd

I have nothing against CR or his posts. I think he does an excellent job and conveying his point of view and his debating skills are top notch. I just happen to feel this particular thread is unnecessary.

Then use your built-in ignore feature (ie. stop posting to it).

 

--RuffRidr

[+Mr. Snazz]

So stop posting to it.  You had a pretty good idea what it was going to be about when you opened it, but you opened it anyway.  I wonder why?

 

sd

Dont presume to dictate what I do. I will post to any thread I please. If you dont like it, you can <self moderated>.

Yet you presume to tell CR what kind of threads he can post. Riiiight.

[CoyoteRed]

Interesting idea. But if the point is to lock out parking lot lamp post micros I would guess that people would need to place a ton of mystery caches. There are a lot of parking lots and light poles in the world! If someone is dead set on placing one, I am sure they will find a pole for one.

The idea came about because Sissy needed an anchor for a mystery cache of hers. We figured a nearby Wal-mart would be as good a place as any considering the distance to your typical non-location.

 

As the idea rattled around in my head I understood that there is no way to grab every lame location--it just isn't possible. That's not to mention some folks' pride and joy are in some of the most non-descript places imaginable.

 

So, in conclusion, I figure if you don't like your typical lamp post cache and you don't like junk caches, just use it as an anchor. Really, any junk location will do.

 

Let's say you've got an idea for a multi, maybe a maze or something. Say the first location gives you 3 choices to the next stage. Each stage after that gives you 3 choices. The fourth level use 27 locations with all but one a dead end and the other takes you to the final. Not including the final location, that's 40 locations you need for each stage. Each of the "right" choices take you a nice area. You wouldn't need waste a nice location on a wrong choice. Simply use a junk location.

 

But that's just one example of using junk locations when you need a "throw away" spot to further your hunt.

Edited February 24, 2005 by CoyoteRed

[+southdeltan]

So stop posting to it.  You had a pretty good idea what it was going to be about when you opened it, but you opened it anyway.  I wonder why?

 

sd

Dont presume to dictate what I do. I will post to any thread I please. If you dont like it, you can <self moderated>.

Yet you presume to tell CR what kind of threads he can post. Riiiight.

Thank you.

 

I thought everybody had missed my point.

 

I like forum posts of all kinds. I've only seen a few I didn't like, they were innapropriate and I used the "report post" feature of the forums.

 

I will defend the rights of anybody to post any view they have.

 

If you don't like the posts they make, you don't have to read them.

 

(If you don't like em, don't find em. )

 

sd

[+fly46]

Hate to bust your bubble, but... *gets out huge pin and sticks it in*

..consider it popped.

 

I had a discussion with my local reviewer yesterday. You can stack as many mystery non-cache cords wherever you want - because there's no container since the cache isn't there.

 

So if somebody wants to put a cache in that wal mart parking lot, they still can.

 

Unless of course you don't let them because you think you're above that type of cache.

 

Oh, and just so you know, the not-cords for a mystery cache are supposed to be no more than about a mile away from the actual cache. My reviewer told me that, too.

[+carleenp]

Let's say you've got an idea for a multi, maybe a maze or something.  Say the first location gives you 3 choices to the next stage.  Each stage after that gives you 3 choices.  The fourth level use 27 locations with all but one a dead end and the other takes you to the final.  Not including the final location, that's 40 locations you need for each stage.  Each of the "right" choices take you a nice area.  You wouldn't need waste a nice location on a wrong choice.  Simply use a junk location.

 

That would be rather amusing. The fact that the dead ends were "junk locations" would make it particularly funny when the final was in an area that was quite a contrast.

Edited February 24, 2005 by carleenp

[CoyoteRed]

Hate to bust your bubble, but... *gets out huge pin and sticks it in*

..consider it popped.

 

I had a discussion with my local reviewer yesterday. You can stack as many mystery non-cache cords wherever you want - because there's no container since the cache isn't there.

 

So if somebody wants to put a cache in that wal mart parking lot, they still can.

 

Unless of course you don't let them because you think you're above that type of cache.

 

Oh, and just so you know, the not-cords for a mystery cache are supposed to be no more than about a mile away from the actual cache. My reviewer told me that, too.

I don't think so.

 

You really think a reviewer would let someone put a physical cache at the location of mystery anchor? I don't think so. If he does, I'm sure the serior reviewers will call his attention to the fact that someone who simply loads his GPS with coords and goes looking for a cache with the coords of that anchor would find a different physcial cache thus causing a situation the proximity rule is set to help prevent.

 

Second, the 1 mile guideline is just that. Besides:

Unless a good reason otherwise can be provided, the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles away from the true cache location.

from here is what the guideline really says. I can provide a good reason, thank you.

 

Consider my bubble still unpopped.

[+wimseyguy]

Most Wal-mart parking lots are so huge that the 528' rule can still be in play; the junk co-ords for the mystery and the actual so-called lame micro will both fit.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Let's say you've got an idea for a multi, maybe a maze or something.  Say the first location gives you 3 choices to the next stage.  Each stage after that gives you 3 choices.  The fourth level use 27 locations with all but one a dead end and the other takes you to the final.  Not including the final location, that's 40 locations you need for each stage.  Each of the "right" choices take you a nice area.  You wouldn't need waste a nice location on a wrong choice.  Simply use a junk location.

 

That would be rather amusing. The fact that the dead ends were "junk locations" would make it particularly funny when the final was in an area that was quite a contrast.

Hmmm...I think I'll start working on something like this

[WH]

Let's say you've got an idea for a multi, maybe a maze or something.  Say the first location gives you 3 choices to the next stage.  Each stage after that gives you 3 choices.  The fourth level use 27 locations with all but one a dead end and the other takes you to the final.  Not including the final location, that's 40 locations you need for each stage.  Each of the "right" choices take you a nice area.  You wouldn't need waste a nice location on a wrong choice.  Simply use a junk location.

 

That would be rather amusing. The fact that the dead ends were "junk locations" would make it particularly funny when the final was in an area that was quite a contrast.

Hmmm...I think I'll start working on something like this

May I incorporate that idea here as well?

 

Very clever

[+Team Perks]

You really think a reviewer would let someone put a physical cache at the location of mystery anchor?  I don't think so.  If he does, I'm sure the serior reviewers will call his attention to the fact that someone who simply loads his GPS with coords and goes looking for a cache with the coords of that anchor would find a different physcial cache thus causing a situation the proximity rule is set to help prevent.

I really think a reviewer WOULD let someone put a physical cache there. I've seen that done many, many times. Someone placed a physical cache 30 feet from one of my own "anchor" coordinates.

 

It makes perfect sense to me--since the mystery cache isn't actually AT the posted coordinates, a traditional cache is fair game. I don't know about you, but when I'm going out caching by coords alone, I filter out everything but the caches that are actually hidden where they say they are...

[+Kit Fox]

Just placing anchor coordinates isn't enough, here is an example. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...&lon=-118.15555

[CoyoteRed]

You really think a reviewer would let someone put a physical cache at the location of mystery anchor?  I don't think so.  If he does, I'm sure the serior reviewers will call his attention to the fact that someone who simply loads his GPS with coords and goes looking for a cache with the coords of that anchor would find a different physcial cache thus causing a situation the proximity rule is set to help prevent.

I really think a reviewer WOULD let someone put a physical cache there. I've seen that done many, many times. Someone placed a physical cache 30 feet from one of my own "anchor" coordinates.

 

It makes perfect sense to me--since the mystery cache isn't actually AT the posted coordinates, a traditional cache is fair game. I don't know about you, but when I'm going out caching by coords alone, I filter out everything but the caches that are actually hidden where they say they are...

You could be right.

 

However, it'd take nothing but a free film can from Walmart and a slip of paper saying "The actual cache is not here. Read the cache page and solve the puzzle to get the actual cache location."

 

That problem solved. It's still not a multi because you don't have to visit the anchor coords. There is a physical stage.

 

Actually, this probably wouldn't be a bad idea, anyway.

[Keystone]

...While I haven't seen it mentioned in the forums recently many folks who place mystery caches have to pick some sort of "non-location" for the listed coordinates.  Many times it's in the middle of a river or lake.  Sometimes in the middle of a pond.  It's generally some place folks don't need to be, want to go, or able to get to.

 

For those of you tired of arguing about Wal-mart parking lot caches, I submit the perfect spot for your "non-location"--your nearest Wal-mart parking lot....

I wonder if this idea would work. Perhaps an approver could chime in to let us know whether a bogus coord for a mystery cache will bump a regular cache from that location.

Exceptions to the 528 foot cache saturation rule are very liberally granted (at least by this reviewer) when the pre-existing cache is just the bogus coordinates for a puzzle cache. I'm more interested in making sure that the actual cache container for the puzzle cache, a mile away in a park, is not too close to any other caches.

 

I can think of several cases where I've listed a traditional cache that's less than 528 feet away from the bogus coords of a puzzle cache. If there were a hidden agenda to the placement of the puzzle cache, I'd be even more likely to grant an exception.

 

Now, if a *multicache* were to start off in a Wal-Mart parking lot, well, that would be different, because those coordinates actually mean something: the clue for part two would be found there.

 

Hint hint.

[+Hemlock]

This whole discussion is silly. Bogus coords used for puzzle caches are not considered when reviewing new caches. I often list caches that are near the bogus coords.

 

Edit: Keystone types faster than me. That's not all he does faster than me

Edited February 24, 2005 by Hemlock

[CoyoteRed]

Just placing anchor coordinates isn't enough, here is an example. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...&lon=-118.15555

Thanks for the example. I guess the idea did need tweaking after all, but is easily remedied.

[CoyoteRed]

Hint hint.

I kind of saw that coming.

 

What about my above suggestion with the physical place holder?

 

What if it contained the hint instead of placing it on the cache page?

[+Hemlock]

What about my above suggestion with the physical place holder?

 

What if it contained the hint instead of placing it on the cache page?

Wouldn't that still be contributing to the number of lame film cans hidden in Wal-Mart parking lots?

[+Team Perks]

However, it'd take nothing but a free film can from Walmart and a slip of paper saying "The actual cache is not here. Read the cache page and solve the puzzle to get the actual cache location."

 

That problem solved.  It's still not a multi because you don't have to visit the anchor coords.  There is a physical stage.

 

Actually, this probably wouldn't be a bad idea, anyway.

Hmm...that's an interesting thought--and I've seen variations of that on tricky multi-caches. (Oooh, that just gave me the most EVIL idea for a multi-cache.)

 

On the other hand, when I hide a mystery cache, I normally just round off to a convenient set of even numbers--and I never check to see what is actually at those coordinates. It could be the railroad tracks, a schoolyard, or the courthouse, for all I know.

 

And I think that Keystone is saying is, in order to prevent people from hiding a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot...you should hide a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot!

[+Renegade Knight]

The idea has merit. I used the local sewage lagoons as my "Crap" spot of choice for fake coords, but the Walmart parking lot would work as well.

 

The larger problem is that you have the fake coords to begin with. You should be able to define an area the cache can be sought from. Something like "Within 100 miles of this coord" Then you don't see a fake coord, just the cache on your nearest list at an undisclosed location.

Edited February 24, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+fly46]

Hate to bust your bubble, but...  *gets out huge pin and sticks it in*

..consider it popped.

 

I had a discussion with my local reviewer yesterday.  You can stack as many mystery non-cache cords wherever you want - because there's no container since the cache isn't there.

 

So if somebody wants to put a cache in that wal mart parking lot, they still can. 

 

Unless of course you don't let them because you think you're above that type of cache. 

 

Oh, and just so you know, the not-cords for a mystery cache are supposed to be no more than about a mile away from the actual cache.  My reviewer told me that, too.

I don't think so.

 

You really think a reviewer would let someone put a physical cache at the location of mystery anchor? I don't think so. If he does, I'm sure the serior reviewers will call his attention to the fact that someone who simply loads his GPS with coords and goes looking for a cache with the coords of that anchor would find a different physcial cache thus causing a situation the proximity rule is set to help prevent.

 

Second, the 1 mile guideline is just that. Besides:

Unless a good reason otherwise can be provided, the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles away from the true cache location.

from here is what the guideline really says. I can provide a good reason, thank you.

 

Consider my bubble still unpopped.

Somehow, I don't think saying "Putting it here because it's the closest walmart" is going to fly too well.

 

Oh, but that's right. You've gone from a cacher who I respected to a cacher that is condecending and who acts like you're better than the rest of us in a couple month's time. Tell me. Did you have to work on that like a twelve step program or did you just wake up one day having morphed?

 

 

And just for kicks: Here's another good example just like I said of it not mattering. this one is posted at the same exact cords as another cache, plus there's a virt 400 feet away.

[Captain Chaoss]

If you don't like to read CR's posts - you don't have to. You can filter them out. If you see a thread he started, you probably shouldn't open it. Just keep "driving". If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread. If CR, or some other person that has opinions you don't like, has posted - just browse on.

 

If you don't like em, don't read em.

 

 

sd

LOL !!! Oh yes !! The perfect example of forums/caching irony !

 

I knew if I waited long enough, it would come, and HERE IT IS !!!

 

Someone whining about parking lot micros, and someone rebutting it, then some brilliant statement about not reading it.

 

Sounds remarkably like, oh, I don't know, maybe " If you don't like parking lot micros, DON"T HUNT THEM !! Leave them for those of us who don't feel like strolling the store bored out of our minds while our wives ask " which shoes go best with this dress ? "

 

By the way, I've enjoyed posts from everyone involved in this example, and I've most likely disagreed wiith a point made by each of you at one time or another as well. Don't take it personally what I've said.

 

Also, heres a local example of an amusing "parking lot micro" that I recently enjoyed:

 

Urban Hike

 

Happy Caching All !

[+carleenp]

<removed personal attack>.

 

I don't view CR that way. I disagree with his points often, but he is one of those that I respect quite a bit because he debates instead of mindlessly (or meanly) rants. That is my perception anyway. I like him just fine.

 

Anyway, I find the idea presented in this thread pretty interesting and I think issues with its feasibility have been pointed out and are still being explored.

Edited February 24, 2005 by carleenp

[+southdeltan]

If you don't like to read CR's posts - you don't have to.  You can filter them out.  If you see a thread he started, you probably shouldn't open it.  Just keep "driving".  If you see a thread that might be controversial - click on the number of posters, this will show you who has posted in the thread.  If CR, or some other person that has opinions you don't like, has posted - just browse on.

 

If you don't like em, don't read em.

 

 

sd

LOL !!! Oh yes !! The perfect example of forums/caching irony !

 

I knew if I waited long enough, it would come, and HERE IT IS !!!

 

Someone whining about parking lot micros, and someone rebutting it, then some brilliant statement about not reading it.

 

Sounds remarkably like, oh, I don't know, maybe " If you don't like parking lot micros, DON"T HUNT THEM !! Leave them for those of us who don't feel like strolling the store bored out of our minds while our wives ask " which shoes go best with this dress ? "

Irony, no. Sarcasm, yes.

 

sd

[CoyoteRed]

Somehow, I don't think saying "Putting it here because it's the closest walmart" is going to fly too well.

Actually, it did.

 

EDIT: removed something

Edited February 24, 2005 by CoyoteRed

[+carleenp]

Leave them for those of us who don't feel like strolling the store bored out of our minds while our wives ask " which shoes go best with this dress ? "

 

You are making an interesting assumption there about who is doing the shopping and who is doing the caching.

 

Not to mention those who shop for shoes AND cache!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Oh, but that's right. You've gone from a cacher who I respected to a cacher that is condecending and who acts like you're better than the rest of us in a couple month's time. Tell me. Did you have to work on that like a twelve step program or did you just wake up one day having morphed?...

This is CR's pet peeve. We all have something that gets our dander up. After going at it with him in the forums on an issue. I've emailed on something completely different and gotten a fast, and courteous answer. He is able to leave it in the thread, and that's a good thing. It lets us work together on the things we do agree on.

 

I'm going to go find a cache now. Someone was kind enough to place one I haven't found yet. Probably a micro.

[CoyoteRed]

I like him just fine.

Why, thank you.

 

I like you, too!

 

(In a non-flirtatious sort of way in case you know who might be lurking.)

[+Team Perks]

Not to mention those who shop for shoes AND cache!   

If only they made waterproof shoe-boxes...the cardboard kind just don't hold up very well when stuffed with trinkets and hidden in the woods.

[+carleenp]

If only they made waterproof shoe-boxes...the cardboard kind just don't hold up very well when stuffed with trinkets and hidden in the woods.

I don't know how waterproof it is (and I apologize that this is rather off topic)

 

I doubt it would fit under a lamp post either......

 

[+SeventhSon]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but your puzzle will be sending cachers to 26 "junk" locations where there is no cache to stop someone else from sending them to that same "junk" location to find an actual cache.

[CoyoteRed]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but your puzzle will be sending cachers to 26 "junk" locations where there is no cache to stop someone else from sending them to that same "junk" location to find an actual cache.

Yes, I know it needs tweaking.

 

However, you wouldn't need to visit all locations. The shortest route would be 4 locations. The longest would be, in fact, 40 locations. (And unlucky in the extreme.)

 

You could reduce the error by answering questions to learn which is the correct route. You wouldn't know if you've gotten one of them wrong until you hit a dead end.

 

Or, as one of the caches we've hunted already, each wrong answer sends you to an immediate dead end and no wasted trips beyond that. It is set in the woods and was actually quite fun.