Crappy Cache Locations

24.7k · February 27, 2005

Today, we got busted big time, by campus security while looking for a cache. He had spotted us using that 6th sence that cops seem to have.

The cache actually wasn't that bad for an urban cache. However it was by a gas regulator station or something similar.

After we talk about geocaching he decides that he would like it and has a GPS. Since he had seen my map on my PDA he even points out the next cache location (he nailed it).

As we are all walking away he comments, "you know, if I were going to hide a cache I'd pick a better spot, you know something worth bringing people too..." I think he will do just that.

I thought about all the threads in the forum lately and dadgum near split a gut holding back my laugh. I have a suspicioun the area is bout to see some good caches.

3.8k · February 27, 2005

Cool.

February 27, 2005

I noticed in my area....all the caches are 1/1. this is boring.

I've only done 2, and the two that I've done are boring as hell.

I'm taking it upon myself to add some extreme caches and some incredibly rediculous multi caches that could end up taking a couple days.

If you're in the Hamilton Ont Canada area...check my caches out.

They'll be up and running int he near future.

Han_and_Leia

...i think there should be a stop put to all these simple caches where people rack up a score. lets make something worth seeing!

no more off the trail to the right in a bush!

38.2k · February 27, 2005

I noticed in my area....all the caches are 1/1. this is boring.
I've only done 2, and the two that I've done are boring as hell.

I'm taking it upon myself to add some extreme caches and some incredibly rediculous multi caches that could end up taking a couple days.

If you're in the Hamilton Ont Canada area...check my caches out.

They'll be up and running int he near future.

Han_and_Leia

...i think there should be a stop put to all these simple caches where people rack up a score. lets make something worth seeing!

no more off the trail to the right in a bush!

I'm not sure how you can have such a feel for the caches in your area with only two finds. A quick search of caches closest to one of your finds shows caches rated 3/4, 4/4, 3/2, 2/2.5, 2.5/2, 2/2, 2/3, 4/1, 4.5/2, 3.5/2.5, 2/3, 2/3, 3/2 and 5/1.5 within 5 miles. Not to shabby for a city area.

7.2k · February 27, 2005

I thought about all the threads in the forum lately and dadgum near split a gut holding back my laugh.

Well, we got a visit from an LEO on a hunt for a cache that highlighted of all things four corners of the owner's old neighborhood. You know, four private residences that were just like any other four residences in that neighborhood. Sure, the owner had permission from the property owner, only the coords took you to a different neighbor. Opps!

After explaining the general idea of geocaching, the comment we got from him was something to the effect, "Sounds like something for folks with too much time on their hands." I got the distinct feeling he wasn't impressed in the least. Why should he considering the location?

Now if it had been a decent location he might have come away with a completely different impression.

February 27, 2005

Han_and_Leia said:

"I noticed in my area....all the caches are 1/1. this is boring."

Different strokes... this is not an X-Games sport at all levels. Many people cache prinicipally as a family activity with their children. In fact, I've never gone without my kids! My 4 year old isn't quite ready for stuff much more challenging than a 1/1, even while my 8 year old is. It's the balance that makes it.

6.7k · February 27, 2005

Different strokes... this is not an X-Games sport at all levels. Many people cache prinicipally as a family activity with their children. In fact, I've never gone without my kids! My 4 year old isn't quite ready for stuff much more challenging than a 1/1, even while my 8 year old is. It's the balance that makes it.

Exactly!

This game, for me, has become about the people rather than the cache...I am not sure I will ever cache alone again, but when I do cache I enjoy one about as much as the other.

Yesterday I hosted 4 adults and 3 kids ages 3-7 to a wagon train cache run around Birmingham.

First, we met at 10 a.m. with around 10 adults and 6 or 7 kids who did The Rambler Cache, Afraid of the Dark? Me Too, and other caches on Ruffner Mountain that are pretty good hikes, +400' elevation change, on fairly rugged trails.

Then we set out at ~1 p.m. in three cars and did geocaches - going from nearest to next nearest regardless of cache type, talking and staying together by FRS radio.

We did parking-lot micros, city-park traditionals, a tough seven-stage math multi, traditionals in forest-lands, both easy and evil urban micros - literally every type of container and hide.

I think we did 40+ caches by the time we quit at mid-night! Though on this kind of run I will get you close to the cache, it's up to you to find it - I gave away 1 cache, but only because it was late and they'd spent enough time on it to convince me they'd DNF if I didin't!

Everyone had a ball, and though we had only met that morning by midnight we were friends and will geocache together again soon - we are taking my pontoon boat to a local lake where there are 15 caches hidden on islands all around the lake - a full day's hunt!

I want to invite everyone, especially Sissy-n-CR, to try this aspect of geocaching!

I am hosting a wagon train cache run that will start in Rainbow City, Al. early on April 9th - we'll cache the area, cache our way down I-59 to Birmingham, cache in and around Birmingham then on down I-65 to the AGA Spring Fling Event, then back to Birmingham for as long as anyone has interest / stamina!

Everyone is invited and, if you enjoy people, laughter, new friends and interesting geocaching you'll love this!

See AGA Spring Fling to sign on.

This might give you a whole new perspective on geocache types...if not, at least you'll get to meet some really cool geocachers!

Ed

Edited February 27, 2005 by TheAlabamaRambler

22k · February 27, 2005

As we are all walking away he comments, "you know, if I were going to hide a cache I'd pick a better spot, you know something worth bringing people too..."

You must have explained the point of geocaching to him very well.

Edit: need actually to type words, not just think them.

Edited February 27, 2005 by BlueDeuce

7.2k · February 28, 2005

I want to invite everyone, especially Sissy-n-CR, to try this aspect of geocaching!

Who says we hadn't?

Events are for meeting people.

Wagon trains, cache machines, escorted tours and other angles that keep coming up in support of junk caches are the antithesis of what I like about geocaching and why I was attracted to it. I would dare say it is the same with plenty of other people, as well.

Just like when the cop looked around at where we were and wondered about these fools out in some non-descript neighborhood. That was supposed to be fun? No wonder he wasn't impressed.

We enjoy to occasionally cache with others, but it depends on the company. We enjoy teaching the uninitiated the ropes and watching them discover what caching is all about. But, to us, caching is not about a gaggle of folks traipsing through the woods or piling out of a car in a mad dash to a lamp post. What ever happened to enjoying the environment?

Group caching becomes more about the group and less of why the placer put the cache there to begin with.

6.7k · February 28, 2005

Well, you've been invited, and the invite stays open.

We enjoy to occasionally cache with others, but it depends on the company. We enjoy teaching the uninitiated the ropes and watching them discover what caching is all about.

I expect that's true - it's much easier to instill YOUR "what it's all about" beliefs and practices in newbies that haven't experienced other fun styles of geocaching.

While I do hope to meet y'all at an event one day, I do have a favor to ask in the meantime - you and I agree on nothing and I am tired of the repitition.

I will respond to no more of your posts if you will give me the same break.

Happy trails,

Ed

February 28, 2005

Well, you've been invited, and the invite stays open.

We enjoy to occasionally cache with others, but it depends on the company. We enjoy teaching the uninitiated the ropes and watching them discover what caching is all about.

I expect that's true - it's much easier to instill YOUR "what it's all about" beliefs and practices in newbies that haven't experienced other fun styles of geocaching.

With cheap shots like that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to cache with you.

--RuffRidr

7.2k · February 28, 2005

I expect that's true - it's much easier to instill YOUR "what it's all about" beliefs and practices in newbies that haven't experienced other fun styles of geocaching.

Well, I've yet to see the first complaint about too many caches in decent locations. Nor have I seen to the first complaint about not enough junk caches.

See, I've yet to see the first complaint on caches that fall in line with my beliefs and practices.

But, no, you're right--we agree on nothing. Consider each of your posts from now on ignored.

February 28, 2005

I noticed in my area....all the caches are 1/1. this is boring.
...i think there should be a stop put to all these simple caches where people rack up a score.

I'm sorry you aren't being challenged with this system, use the filters provided. A 1/1 cache for you may be boring, but think about a handicaped cacher. Handicaching[/ It could be the most exciting thing that's happened for them in a while. The system is working well with the 1's and the 5's. I wish you well with placing your own caches at whatever level you choose. There are plenty of us newbies and handicaped that are happy with the 1's, TFTH's

February 28, 2005

I'm sorry you aren't being challenged with this system, use the filters provided. A 1/1 cache for you may be boring, but think about a handicaped cacher. Handicaching[/ It could be the most exciting thing that's happened for them in a while. The system is working well with the 1's and the 5's. I wish you well with placing your own caches at whatever level you choose. There are plenty of us newbies and handicaped that are happy with the 1's, TFTH's

I'm sorry, but "the handicapped" isn't a very good excuse for most of these caches. This is just a spurious argument. It's very possible to place a terrain 1 cache that's more difficult for a person in a wheelchair to retrieve than a better thought out terrain 2 that requires them to roll a few feet off an unpaved, but otherwise level and smooth, trail in the woods. I've seen lots of caches like this - you roll up to the cache on the pavement - and then have to be a contortionist to reach down to find it. (Technically such a cache should be rated a 1.5 then.) The questions I have about such claims is:

1. How many wheelchair bound people are really seeking these caches in your area? (I bet the answer is "few, if any," and totally out of proportion to the number of such caches.)

2. If it's for "the handicapped", then what the heck is with all the terrain 1.5's? A person in a wheelchair is supposed to have difficulties with those. But at least in my area, there's plenty of them.

It's fine to hide caches that are intended to be found by people with handicaps. I think that's a wonderful thing. But it's just not the reason behind most of these types of hides. I really do believe this is a very patronizing attitude towards folks with disabilities.

1.6k · February 28, 2005

We need to get some local groups or additional approvers who can maintain a sense of what types of caches are in a given area.

Sometimes a 1/1 cache is needed to balance out some 3/4's or because that cache's type is under-represented.

If we had a process that allowed approvers to have some simple listing of cache types within a given political entity (city, county) or in a range around the cache (say 5 km around the cache location), we could get some of these pinched off before they get approved.

We need local groups to emphasize good cache hides, clever locations, containers, or cammo. Even just a public pat on the back at the next meeting will get people to hide better caches.

February 28, 2005

Sometimes a 1/1 cache is needed to balance out some 3/4's or because that cache's type is under-represented.

How to accomplish this is a good question, but I think this is a very good point.

3k · February 28, 2005

Sometimes a 1/1 cache is needed to balance out some 3/4's or because that cache's type is under-represented.

So if some overseeing group decides there is some kind of a cache-difficulty-imbalance going on in my area, my new 3/3 cache might be rejected because there aren't enough local 1/1s in the area?

I don't think I'd be happy with such a ruling. I don't really see the need to make this kind of 'balancing' a requirement.

6.7k · February 28, 2005

As a handicapped cacher of some experience I have to agree that the handicap access issue is pretty much a smoke-screen for many hiders to justify easy caches.

Folks, you don't have to justify your caches to anyone! Easy, hard, whatever, I love the diversity, and EVERY cache is fun for many of us!

If someone says your cache is lame tell them "thanks for your input...NEXT!".

Except for a few parking-lot lightpole caches I have seen very few truly accessable caches. I don't make my caches accessable, and I hunt every type of cache in all locations.

I don't often post cache access info to Handicaching because it's a PITA and there's no way to account for all the variables, and, as mentioned, there are there are very few truly accessable caches.

I don't know how many handicapped cachers there are - PyeWacket and I are the only ones I actually know of.

I want to reiterate the tired old phrase "If you don't like 'em don't do 'em".

Also, I think there's a lack of flexibility and some control issues here - I am an avid reader, but expect that I enjoy maybe 10% of the books in my local library.

I don't try to tell the librarian what to buy, though I do make requests, and don't call the books that don't interest me lame - I just don't read 'em!

I would just about bet that you wouldn't like the same books I do - but isn't the freedom to choose grand?!

Ed

February 28, 2005

Sorry, but the problem here is not 1/1s. The subject of the thread is crappy locations. You can place a cache that requires a several miles hike and still have the problem of crappy location- as mentioned earlier in the thread the cache is tossed in a bush right off the trail. That's not much diiferent than a cache tossed in a bush right next to the parking lot.

Look at the OP again. The problem with the placement near a sensitive location. This can occur even with a difficulty 5 cache. Think about it.

38.2k · February 28, 2005

I'm sorry you aren't being challenged with this system, use the filters provided. A 1/1 cache for you may be boring, but think about a handicaped cacher. Handicaching[/ It could be the most exciting thing that's happened for them in a while. The system is working well with the 1's and the 5's. I wish you well with placing your own caches at whatever level you choose. There are plenty of us newbies and handicaped that are happy with the 1's, TFTH's

What makes you think that only caches in crappy locations (a.k.a junk caches) appropriate for handicapped people? Because someone's in a wheelchair, does that mean he won't enjoy a nice view? Because someone has a bad heart, does that mean she can't enjoy an historic site or and interesting sculpture? Because someone has CP, or MS, or MD, does that mean he can't experience the fun of a challenging puzzle cache?

How dare you sentence this segment of the population to a lifetime of film canisters with soggy logbooks next to dumpsters.

I want to reiterate the tired old phrase "If you don't like 'em don't do 'em".

I'd like to reiterate my answer to this, how do I know I won't like it until I get there?

Edited February 28, 2005 by briansnat

7.2k · February 28, 2005

See, I've yet to see the first complaint on caches that fall in line with my beliefs and practices.

Then you did not read my post right here.

I think you need to stop using the terms "junk" and "crappy" when describing other people's caches. As a strong proponent of the "Geocachers Creed", which you link in your signature line, you are going against that creed when you do this.

6. Be Considerate of Others

Treat other geocachers civilly - in the field, in the forums, or wherever your paths may cross.

February 28, 2005

As we are all walking away he comments, "you know, if I were going to hide a cache I'd pick a better spot, you know something worth bringing people too..." I think he will do just that.

That's hilarious, by the way!

I'd have to say that the cache location was crappy because it was in an area with an active security presence, placed without permission of the owner of the site.

I have been stopped by lots of security folks and LEO's while I've been caching. (I just look shifty and suspicious, I guess...) Most have been really nice or at least courteous and professional, like the security officer you encountered. I've definitely gotten better reactions when they found me hiking out of a wooded park than in urban areas, for EXAMPLE. The officers in this case were very friendly and professional, and we chatted about caching for a while.

Then again, there was THIS encounter. I was about half convinced the crazy security officer was going to start shooting if we didn't get the heck out of there. I was completely convinced that the officer and the new cacher he was arguing with were going to get into a fist fight. The guy was flat-out abusive and out of control. My son, who was with me, was totally freaked by this experience. He just flat refuses to cache with me in more.

I'm not sure that hiders are doing anyone any favors placing a cache where there are security officers present, especially when the hider doesn't have explicit permission of the owner of the site. The finder is usually the one who takes the brunt of anything that goes wrong on such a cache.

1.3k · February 28, 2005

We enjoy to occasionally cache with others, but it depends on the company. We enjoy teaching the uninitiated the ropes and watching them discover what caching is all about.

I expect that's true - it's much easier to instill YOUR "what it's all about" beliefs and practices in newbies that haven't experienced other fun styles of geocaching.

It's just as easy for you to instill on newbies that caching is about going out in a large group then, isn't it?

Hearing about these "wagon trains" and "cache machines" makes me think people enjoyed being with other people - not finding the 47th magnetic cache on the back of the stop sign.

sd

7.2k · February 28, 2005

Then you did not read my post ...

No, I didn't before now. However, I didn't miss much except that I see you've not read many of mine or you're still missing the point.

Good for you that you had a good time finding caches with someone that you wouldn't have enjoyed otherwise. Oh, wait. That is kind of my point wasn't it?

I think you need to stop using the terms "junk" and "crappy" when describing other people's caches.

Oh, excuse me. "Caches and cache locations that are completely devoid of WOW or uniqueness." How's that?

24.7k · February 28, 2005

...I'd have to say that the cache location was crappy because it was in an area with an active security presence, placed without permission of the owner of the site....

I don't know one way or the other on the issue of permission. The security officer didn't have any issues with a cache. The spot for much of the season would be very well screened from direct sight, and the view in the area is quite nice. Being screend from muggles is one thing I enjoy in an urban cache.

Security presence is a valid point. It's just not on my personal list of criteria.

For an urban cache it was better than most.

This weekend I did one that seemed to have as it's entire goal laughing at whoever would be stupid enough to seek it out. It's the first cache ever, that I would categorically classify as a universally bad cache. Most people you can tell do think about their hide and do want people to enjoy the hunt though they may use a lamp post. Not this one. Such is life. But now we have a handy ignore feature 

1.6k · February 28, 2005

Sometimes a 1/1 cache is needed to balance out some 3/4's or because that cache's type is under-represented.

So if some overseeing group decides there is some kind of a cache-difficulty-imbalance going on in my area, my new 3/3 cache might be rejected because there aren't enough local 1/1s in the area?

I don't think I'd be happy with such a ruling. I don't really see the need to make this kind of 'balancing' a requirement.

No, the 3/3 cache in a good location would be judged on its own merits, but you might find an email from the approver asking if the cache can be modified so that there would be more variety in your area.

These stats could also be available to us when we plan a cache so that we never bother the approver with a crappy "me-too" cache.

Crappy cache locations are a big issue. If our sport is going to continue to thrive, we need to keep in touch with the roots of the sport, namely cleverly hidden caches in some cool location or hidden in some cool manner.

Once crappy caches get a hold and are even a significant minority of the caches in a location, new players get a taste of these and quit (how many lamppost micros would you have chased after as a new player?). The game starts to get a "game for lame-o geeks" image, marketing related to geocaching ceases as local sporting goods stores are all about selling the sizzle. As long as geocaching is seen as a quirky but cool X-sport, we will get support of REI, and other sporting goods companies, Garmin will keep putting geocaching icons in their GPS units, once the image goes to silly hobby for geeks, all that ends.

Moreover, even if we wave a magic wand and have no problems with new players quitting, and marketing continues, these caches are just freaking boring. How long can you go only doing these? In addition to new players entering the game, we need to keep current players interested. If we have all the older players building filter walls on their cache search page just to keep out the crappy caches, we will see a time where these folks think that its just as easy to do something else entirely, given the hassle/entertainment ratio shifting unfavorably.

Edited February 28, 2005 by bigredmed

1.3k · February 28, 2005

This weekend I did one that seemed to have as it's entire goal laughing at whoever would be stupid enough to seek it out. It's the first cache ever, that I would categorically classify as a universally bad cache. Most people you can tell do think about their hide and do want people to enjoy the hunt though they may use a lamp post. Not this one. Such is life. But now we have a handy ignore feature 

But, based on your logic - isn't that your fault that it's a bad cache? Shouldn't you have found something to make it enjoyable?

Incidentally - what good is the ignore feature now that you've already found the cache? Is it going to erase the memory of that "bad" cache?

southdeltan

Editted to add: I agree most people tend to think out their hides. Imagine if that same hider had hid 10 ore more caches just like that? It's happened around here. We've had several newbies find 4 or 5, then hide 15 micros in junk piles with strips of paper for logs. They don't get maintained and more caches by these hiders get approved.

In many areas, this is becoming a serious problem.

Edited February 28, 2005 by southdeltan

February 28, 2005

...I'd have to say that the cache location was crappy because it was in an area with an active security presence, placed without permission of the owner of the site....

I don't know one way or the other on the issue of permission. The security officer didn't have any issues with a cache. The spot for much of the season would be very well screened from direct sight, and the view in the area is quite nice. Being screend from muggles is one thing I enjoy in an urban cache.

Security presence is a valid point. It's just not on my personal list of criteria.

Universities and locations like that are a tricky situation. My guess is that most people who aren't students that asked for permission to hide something wouldn't get it. Yet most are really very open to the public. I found one like that once - on a university campus in front of an amazing sculpture. I also got spotted, and ended up talking to the security guard about art for a while. The way the cache was placed, I'm not sure any legal action was even possible, even if they'd wanted to do it. (Which they didn't.)

Some of the worst places are probably private neighborhood parks that are owned by an HOA. Some of these in my area will call the police if they see strangers in their park. (And they know who the strangers are.) The bad part is these LOOK just like public parks, except usually they are better manicured. If the finder doesn't spot the "No Trespassing" signs, they can be in for a rude surprise.

11.3k · February 28, 2005

. . . How long can you go only doing these?

Exactly. I've only been doing this since January 17 of this year, but I've already determined I don't want to do micros hidden in a bush that can be reached from my car in its parking spot.

For me, with a cache like that, I say to myself, "What's the point?" I started this because it was a great motivation to get out and get some fresh air, and some exercise.

(That said, I'm about to place my first one that is rated 1.5/2. However, it is near five other ones that are rated much higher. Maybe my easy one will encourage more people to venture out to this rural area.)

February 28, 2005

Then you did not read my post ...
No, I didn't before now. However, I didn't miss much except that I see you've not read many of mine or you're still missing the point.

Good for you that you had a good time finding caches with someone that you wouldn't have enjoyed otherwise. Oh, wait. That is kind of my point wasn't it?

I think you need to stop using the terms "junk" and "crappy" when describing other people's caches.

Oh, excuse me. "Caches and cache locations that are completely devoid of WOW or uniqueness." How's that?

Mr Coyote Red Sir....

I don't believe that your point is being missed. Many of us disagree with it.

Without seeing the cache in the initial post, I probably would agree with him if I did.

Generally speaking, I don't like or hunt, or hide urban caches. I prefer to hunt and hide those out in some place that is different and someplace people might not go to otherwise, that's my choice.

There is NO need to deny those that enjoy playing differently the chance to play. There is NO need to belittle anybody for wishing to do things their way. Your way, my way, and thier way might be different, but no better or no worse, just different. And different is OK.

5.7k · February 28, 2005

Boy oh boy. This series of postings really makes me feel GREAT!!!

7.2k · February 28, 2005

I don't believe that your point is being missed. Many of us disagree with it.

You disagree with my point that we should strive to avoid placing caches that others would not enjoy unless in the company of others?

You disagree with my point that a cache in a decent location can be just as entertaining to anyone as one in a less than desirable location, if not more so? ...and appeal to more people? ...be a better representation of our hobby?

BTW, it's not urban caches that I'm against by any means. Maybe you would enjoy more urban caches if the ones in your area showed you something that interested you. As a matter of fact, Tube Torcher--one of the premier caches around--is an urban cache.

(If TT is legendary and an urban cache, would that mean it was an "urban legend?" )

February 28, 2005

After we talk about geocaching he decides that he would like it and has a GPS. Since he had seen my map on my PDA he even points out the next cache location (he nailed it).

I like it, you can sell snow to a Eskimo!

You have the gift that many people lack in trying to explain Geocaching to property officials or potential new-be's.

Time to bottle up that recipe RK, and pass some out.

February 28, 2005

I don't believe that your point is being missed. Many of us disagree with it.

BTW, it's not urban caches that I'm against by any means. Maybe you would enjoy more urban caches if the ones in your area showed you something that interested you. As a matter of fact, Tube Torcher--one of the premier caches around--is an urban cache.

(If TT is legendary and an urban cache, would that mean it was an "urban legend?" )

You disagree with my point that we should strive to avoid placing caches that others would not enjoy unless in the company of others?

Yup.

If that's how some want to play, then let them.

You disagree with my point that a cache in a decent location can be just as entertaining to anyone as one in a less than desirable location, if not more so? ...and appeal to more people? ...be a better representation of our hobby?

Decent location and desirable location are both very subjective terms. What is decent and desirable to one might not be to another and the other way around. By being inclusive you're including more people, and thereby increasing both the appeal and the number of people participating. By trying to meet some standard for "decent" and "desirable" all you're doing is trying to control. In some activities attempting to control will have exactly the opposite effect. If you don't believe that, you need to read a bit of US history.

24.7k · February 28, 2005

This weekend I did one that seemed to have as it's entire goal laughing at whoever would be stupid enough to seek it out....Not this one. Such is life. But now we have a handy ignore feature 

But, based on your logic - isn't that your fault that it's a bad cache? Shouldn't you have found something to make it enjoyable?...

Given my posts on this on the surface the answer is yes. The situation is a bit more complicated than one cache though. I'm putting every cache by a series of sock puppets in the bozo bin as a result. That part I'm going to enjoy.

1.1k · February 28, 2005

In addition to new players entering the game, we need to keep current players interested. If we have all the older players building filter walls on their cache search page just to keep out the crappy caches, we will see a time where these folks think that its just as easy to do something else entirely, given the hassle/entertainment ratio shifting unfavorably.

I'm rapidly evolving into this camp, I'm afraid. I wonder how many more like me are just quietly fading away (as opposed to posting notes like this one)?

-Dave R.

1.3k · February 28, 2005

Given my posts on this on the surface the answer is yes. The situation is a bit more complicated than one cache though.

Of course it's compilicated. I think many people are blowing off people that would like to see higher cache quality as throwing a blanket "lame" out there. It's not simple. There are many factors - but there are some things that are always lame. I'd rather not get into that - and I'm definetly not going to cite specific examples - but people know what they are when they find them.

I don't mean the "I don't like puzzle caches" or "I can't do a long hike" - I mean the "why in the heck did the person put a cache here?" caches.

I'm putting every cache by a series of sock puppets in the bozo bin as a result. That part I'm going to enjoy.

I'm a bit lost - are you saying that you're ignoring all caches by the hider? If that's the case - I say good for you.

Unfortunately, this hider may influence others and you'll ignore more and more caches.

sd

February 28, 2005

Of course it's compilicated. I think many people are blowing off people that would like to see higher cache quality as throwing a blanket "lame" out there. It's not simple. There are many factors - but there are some things that are always lame. I'd rather not get into that - and I'm definetly not going to cite specific examples - but people know what they are when they find them.

I'm having trouble getting people to agree that even caches that are placed illegally, or that induce people to trespass because of unusually careless placement are not just tip-top quality caches. Apparently the hider has no responsibility whatsoever - it's all up to the finder. Unbelievable.

What I really wonder is why people who have NO OPINION about cache quality are so passionate about this issue. (If you like ALL caches, then you have NO opinion.) There's nothing wrong with having no preference for different types, styles, or executions of caches. But if someone wants to try to convince (not 'coerce', 'convince') other people to hide caches that they feel are somehow 'better', if it's all the same to them anyway, why do they care?

1.3k · February 28, 2005

See, I've yet to see the first complaint on caches that fall in line with my beliefs and practices.

There are many high difficulty caches that I wouldn't even attempt. They don't interest me. However, I don't believe I have the right to complain about them just because I wouldn't enjoy doing them. I realize that there are many people who love these types of caches.

1.3k · February 28, 2005

See, I've yet to see the first complaint on caches that fall in line with my beliefs and practices.

There are many high difficulty caches that I wouldn't even attempt. They don't interest me. However, I don't believe I have the right to complain about them just because I wouldn't enjoy doing them. I realize that there are many people who love these types of caches.

Nobody is complaining because the caches are easy. I think it's also been said that nobody is complaining because there are micros.

I think this is something many won't understand until it hits their area.

Easy caches (1/1 to 2/2) should not indicate that the cache is a bad cache. Neither should the micro size.

There is no way to filter out poor caches. And you certainly can't ignore a cache because it's poor if you haven't found it to determine if it's poor. I look at the ignore feature as a tool for caches you know you can't find - such as high difficulty. Or cache types you don' t like. Or caches by poor hiders. Or. Or. Or - but not as a way to get rid of caches you don't like. You won't know you like it until you've looked for it. I absolutely LOVE people saying "If you don't like it, keep driving". I may just do that - but you can bet I'm gonna be pissed after driving 80 + miles one way to look for a cache.

I suppose some people do like finding a leaky film can with a torn shred of paper in a pile of garbage behind some abandoned buildings. I'm not one of them.

sd

7.2k · February 28, 2005

There are many high difficulty caches that I wouldn't even attempt. They don't interest me.

Kind of like the hideous math puzzles we generally skip.

We're not talking about the ones that don't interest you or me. We're talking about the ones that aren't interesting. We're talking about the ones which don't have any journey or destination that is remotely interesting.

6.7k · February 28, 2005

I'm having trouble getting people to agree that even caches that are placed illegally, or that induce people to trespass because of unusually careless placement are not just tip-top quality caches. Apparently the hider has no responsibility whatsoever - it's all up to the finder. Unbelievable.

I totally agree here - illegal, dangerous, trashy or otherwise unsafe or unwise cache LOCATIONS are and should be discouraged.

I entered this discussion to defend cachers right to hide the type of CONTAINER they like to find, assuming the location to be acceptable. The hider has total liability and responsibility for location.

What I really wonder is why people who have NO OPINION about cache quality are so passionate about this issue. (If you like ALL caches, then you have NO opinion.) There's nothing wrong with having no preference for different types, styles, or executions of caches. But if someone wants to try to convince (not 'coerce', 'convince') other people to hide caches that they feel are somehow 'better', if it's all the same to them anyway, why do they care?

Oh but I definately do have an opinion. I also have a responsibility to the game and to other cachers, and I have a huge investment in this game.

Unlike some, however, I don't promote my preferences and opinions as THE way to play, nor opine that if folks don't see / do things my way the game will die.

My opinion is, assuming location is OK, hide and hunt what you like to find.

The cache page will almost always tell you what you are hunting.

Ed

February 28, 2005

This weekend I did one that seemed to have as it's entire goal laughing at whoever would be stupid enough to seek it out. It's the first cache ever, that I would categorically classify as a universally bad cache. Most people you can tell do think about their hide and do want people to enjoy the hunt though they may use a lamp post. Not this one. Such is life. But now we have a handy ignore feature 

LOL. Renegade, you knew better. When two caches are slammed in by someone new in the area, and their profile shows less than 10 finds, then perhaps reading the logs and as much about the cache owner is appropriate?

Seeing the utter psychotic rants on the cache pages would have been an ignore from the start for me.

1.3k · February 28, 2005

I agree that you can't always determine whether a cache isworth pursuing until you get there, and if (when) I am forced to drive 30-40 miles I might be disappointed by caches that are not maintained or placed behind a dumpster.

However I have read "lame Walmart micros" and "lame lamp post micros" in these forums more times than I can count. I have found a few of these in my limited experience, and I knew where I would be searching before I left the house. Titles like "Wally's Delight" or "Rollback the Micro" kind of make you realize where you'll end up.

My problem is that people complain about these caches even when it is obviously a parking lot/lamp post/guard rail hide. As has been said before, if you don't like these don't find 'em.

I don't LOVE them, but they have allowed me an opportunity to find a cache when I only have a limited amount of time to play.

1.3k · March 1, 2005

I'm having trouble getting people to agree that even caches that are placed illegally, or that induce people to trespass because of unusually careless placement are not just tip-top quality caches. Apparently the hider has no responsibility whatsoever - it's all up to the finder. Unbelievable.

I totally agree here - illegal, dangerous, trashy or otherwise unsafe or unwise cache LOCATIONS are and should be discouraged.

I entered this discussion to defend cachers right to hide the type of CONTAINER they like to find, assuming the location to be acceptable. The hider has total liability and responsibility for location.

What I really wonder is why people who have NO OPINION about cache quality are so passionate about this issue. (If you like ALL caches, then you have NO opinion.) There's nothing wrong with having no preference for different types, styles, or executions of caches. But if someone wants to try to convince (not 'coerce', 'convince') other people to hide caches that they feel are somehow 'better', if it's all the same to them anyway, why do they care?

Oh but I definately do have an opinion. I also have a responsibility to the game and to other cachers, and I have a huge investment in this game.

Unlike some, however, I don't promote my preferences and opinions as THE way to play, nor opine that if folks don't see / do things my way the game will die.

My opinion is, assuming location is OK, hide and hunt what you like to find.

The cache page will almost always tell you what you are hunting.

Ed

Then you have entirely missed my point, Drat19's point and I assume CR's point. (Those aren't the only people who have been involved in similar discussions lately either. Mopar and BrianSnat come to mind).

It's not about micros or any other container.

It's about LOCATION.

Just because you CAN place a cache somewhere doesn't mean you should.

I mean, if people are placing ammo boxes that say "Grenades" in the bushes between the monkey bars and the swings - that's about the container. This is about the location. Micros come up in this because, quite simply, they are easy to hide due to their size.

Micros just happen to be easy to hide and inexpensive. That makes them a favorite container of lazy people. But it's not about the container - it's about putting it in a bad location just because you CAN.

I don't think anybody is trying to dictate that caches must be high quality any more than people are trying to dictate that anything goes. People have a right to voice their opinion. I feel that people suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the cache but instead something wrong with my attitude is offensive, to be honest. I also feel that people telling me to cache the way they do because they enjoy it is dictating to me how I should cache. (IE, "You shouldn't tell people there are bad caches, because if you would go look for them like *I* look for them you would have a good time")

It seems to me that there are more people speaking up on the forums about bad locations. I've seen at least 2 or 3 newbies mention that they are not impressed (that is a discouraging sign) with most of the caches they've found (and they mention poorly hidden caches in innapropriate areas), I can only imagine how many didn't bother to create an account or come back to find more than 4 or 5 caches after seeing the poorly placed ones that are making up an ever increasing percentage of caches. I also know many people that do not post that have the same opinions that CR, myself, and others have. They avoid the forums for fear of being shouted down with "If you don't like em, don't look for them" and "It's not the cache that's got a problem, it's you" and "Who are you to care where a cache is placed?".

I totally disagree that cache pages will always tell you what you're hunting for. I can dress up a cache page and make it look like it's the best cache you'll ever find and it could be a bad cache in the median of the I-20 stack. Then again, I've seen awesome caches with nothing in the description.

This is not a subject one can toss a blanket statement over. I have never intended to present my opinion as one that is totally black and white. It honestly seems to me that many of the people that are arguing that there isn't such a thing as a "lame cache" are arguing a different subject than those of us that see a problem. It's not about containers. It's not about cache types. It's not about personal preferences. It's about people being lazy. It's about people not doing a bit of research OR fixing their problem once it's pointed out to them. It's about people hiding 20 caches exactly the same in a 2 day period - that are all in unsafe, unwise, and/or uninteresting locations (I suppose somebody will argue that the back of abandoned buildings in an illegal dump site is interesting to some - but I doubt it).

It may not be an issue in some areas yet, but you can ask CR if he ever thought it would be an issue in his area.

Nobody is saying all caches have to be difficult. Nobody is saying all caches have to be regulars. Nobody is saying all caches have to be spectacular areas. We're just saying that the majority shouldn't be in TERRIBLE areas. The percentage is getting higher and higher daily.

sd

3k · March 1, 2005

We're just saying that the majority shouldn't be in TERRIBLE areas.

I agree. But based on my own experience, and from discussions with others, I believe the vast majority of caches are NOT in terrible areas.

The percentage is getting higher and higher daily.

I don't see any evidence of this. I believe there are more and more caches being placed every day, which means more caches placed in bad locations and more being placed in good locations. But I don't see any evidence either in my own area, or in other areas that I visit, that this 'things are getting worse' phenomena is what is really happening in general.

In fact, the majority of the responses in this topic would seem to indicate that the overall quality of caches is improving in general, not getting worse.

edit: cleaned up some wording

Edited March 1, 2005 by cache_test_dummies

4.7k · March 1, 2005

There are many high difficulty caches that I wouldn't even attempt. They don't interest me.

Kind of like the hideous math puzzles we generally skip.

We're not talking about the ones that don't interest you or me. We're talking about the ones that aren't interesting. We're talking about the ones which don't have any journey or destination that is remotely interesting.

i am extremely interested in parking lots. i'm a big fan of urban decay. i LOVE entropy.

you can't get me to go to the mall to shop, but if there's a micro in the parking garage, i am ALL over it.

there are not enough caches like this. i repeat: there are not enough of these fascinating little gems.

i've seen enough stupid pretty views for a while. if i want to hike, i'll put on a pack and stay out for a few weeks. if i want an education, i'll read a honkin' BOOK.

i quite pointedly resent it when somebody else takes it upon himself to decide what is interesting to me.

7.2k · March 1, 2005

i am extremely interested in parking lots. i'm a big fan of urban decay. i LOVE entropy.

You mentioned this several times and I fail to reconcil "urban decay" with a Wal-mart parking lot. It just doesn't fit.

Now, if you were talking about abdandoned buildings and urban exploration then I'd believe you. If fact, if you were a true fan of urban decay, urban exploration would fit much better as a hobby.

So, no, I don't buy your argument in the least.

But, let's go check things out. What kind of trophy pix do you take? Ooh, interesting. A whole bunch of "urban decay" pix to say the least. Uh, huh. What? Did I miss your favorite parking lot somewhere, I didn't see it.

Yeah. Right.

38.2k · March 1, 2005

See, I've yet to see the first complaint on caches that fall in line with my beliefs and practices.

There are many high difficulty caches that I wouldn't even attempt. They don't interest me. However, I don't believe I have the right to complain about them just because I wouldn't enjoy doing them. I realize that there are many people who love these types of caches.

Ah, but you get to sort out these caches by checking the terrain/difflcutly rating. How do we sort out the lame caches? We generally don't know until we get there that it was a waste of our time.

1.3k · March 1, 2005

I disagree. I usually know how challenging or intersesting a cache will be before I leave the house based on: Terrain/Difficulty, size, location, description, etc...

I am fairly new to the game and I still have plenty of caches of all kinds that are within a few miles of my home. I prefer regular caches that take me to parks or hiking trails, but I have specifically sought out parking lot caches when time didn't allow for more.

It bothers me that there appears to be a campaign to do away with lame caches. Lame is in the eye of the beholder, and while I may agree with many of the examples of "lame caches" that have been bandied about, I also likely wouldn't have been surprised by the "lameness" after looking at the various attributes of those caches.

I also know that there will be examples of caches that surprise you in there "lameness" once you actually find them, but I believe they are in the minority.

edit: spelling and added "likely"

Edited March 1, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

Crappy Cache Locations

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