Urban Caching

[+briansnat]

I'd be interested in knowing whether that poll allows you to choose all that applies, or just your favorite kind. Also, I wonder how much peer pressure affects the autcome of polls like this one.

 

It onlly allows one choice. Because its totally anonymous I don't see peer pressure coming into play at all.

[+sbell111]

One thing I've noticed about the 'lame' caches is that even if I look for them, they waste very little of my time. I either find them very quickly or I quickly realize that I'm not interested. Either way, there is little energy expended.

 

Some would suggest that the time driving to the 'lamers' is too much to put into it. I would counter that I would be driving regardless of the quality of cache to be found. Further, in my opinion, driving is part of my relaxing geocaching experience. When I am out geocaching, I get to think about the game instead of life's little dramas.

[+sbell111]

I'd be interested in knowing whether that poll allows you to choose all that applies, or just your favorite kind. Also, I wonder how much peer pressure affects the autcome of polls like this one.

 

It onlly allows one choice. Because its totally anonymous I don't see peer pressure coming into play at all.

I think you will agree that the poll in question does not measure whether people like different kinds of caches, it merely measures the kinds of caches they like best. If it measured total 'likes', I would suggest that the individual sort his PQs by size and move on with his life.

Edited January 5, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)]

>>>>The early adopters of geocaching probably had a high percentage of people who liked outdoor activities like hiking, camping, and hunting. They probably already had a GPSr when they began geocaching. There were fewer urban hides. There were probably a higher percentage of hiders who believed that you should take people to a interesting or special place or at least on an interesting hike when they looked for a cache. I believe that now we have a higher percentage of new cachers who fall into what I call the urban cacher category. They view geocaching as a hide and seek game. The object is find caches that have been hidden and where the cache is hidden is not as important. In fact for many, it may be better if the cache is hidden down the street in a parking lot than on a hike in the woods. Many urban caches choose not to hike for various reasons. They may have physical limitations or cache with small children who would get tired on a long hike or may just not have as much free time to spend geocaching. I believe these new cachers are what is driving the increase in urban caches. <<<<<

 

I totally agree with this. We started caching in 4/2002 in Austin, TX. It was not the dawn of caching but not long after it. There were far fewer caches then and a "good" LONG day of caching would net you 3 or 4 finds tops. A "park and grab" would include a minimum half mile hike. Micros were used as parts of multistage and no one thought much about the numbers. Through caching we were shown dinosaur tracks, hidden waterfalls and wooded trails. The primary goal seemed to us more about being outdoors, hiking and the physical challenge and the cache was just an excuse. We were out of caching for more than three years and returned to it this past Summer to find the game totally changed. Numbers rule and a good many hides are far less than interesting. The first parking lot finds pretty much left us cold. That said, it can be fun to challenge ourselves to have a personal best day in numbers. And when one lives in the city what is left to us but the urban cache? Should we wait until we can visit a wonderful wild area two or three times a year? I have come to think of them as two different games with different rules. There is a local series placed along the loop that is very popular and amusing. We have placed several hides in our area that have very low terrain but focus on making the hide challenging and different. I realize that this will never appeal to the mountain bike/marathoner/Triathlete /rock climber/iron man, but it can be fun for some of us. And I will never see the point in being sarcastic or hateful in my cache log. If someone has placed a cache and I have chosen to go find it, I can and will be civil and kind. What is the point of hurting someones feelings? Does it make you feel like a big tough cacher? There is room for all of us in this without this endless debate of who is or what is best. BEST, is what is best for YOU.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Team Rat Pack (led by Miss Bi)

[Dinoprophet]

The early adopters of geocaching probably had a high percentage of people who liked outdoor activities like hiking, camping, and hunting. They probably already had a GPSr when they began geocaching. There were fewer urban hides. There were probably a higher percentage of hiders who believed that you should take people to a interesting or special place or at least on an interesting hike when they looked for a cache. I believe that now we have a higher percentage of new cachers who fall into what I call the urban cacher category. They view geocaching as a hide and seek game. The object is find caches that have been hidden and where the cache is hidden is not as important. In fact for many, it may be better if the cache is hidden down the street in a parking lot than on a hike in the woods. Many urban caches choose not to hike for various reasons. They may have physical limitations or cache with small children who would get tired on a long hike or may just not have as much free time to spend geocaching. I believe these new cachers are what is driving the increase in urban caches.

That's a very interesting point. I've always viewed geocaching as an "outdoors" game, played in parks and wilderness, with the urban stuff being a small variation. While it's common knowledge that some people simply prefer urban micros, it hasn't occurred to me that newcomers to the game might not even think of caching as primarily an outdoors activity.

[+Kit Fox]

Instead of an Agsty "lame" attribute, why doesn't TPTB create a "Park and Grab" or "Power Cacher" icon. This would simply indicate that the cache is a "quick find" requiring little physical effort.

 

Those of that dislike this type of cache can exclude it from our pocket queries.

 

This cache is one of my all time least favorites. Good-times! Thanks for the fun!

 

This is my personal favorite log.

This cache was ill-conceived and ill-received. A 12-billion dollar satellite system overhead, and this is the best hide you could come up with! TNLNSL!

If someone left that on one of my cache's I'd be pretty royally pissed off.

 

Don't hide crappy caches in crappy locations, and you wont get a log like that.

 

For the record, I'm not a big fan of the urban micro's under a lamppost. But at least the person went through some effort to place a hid. If you don't like those, don't freakin' hunt 'em! I don't generally like the micro's, so ya know what I do? I don't go hunting them!

 

Lets see a scrap of paper = free, a 35mm canister = free, and a minute or two for averaging coords.

 

This strikes me as someone who hates chinesse food going into a chinesse resturant, ordering dinner, and then complaining to the chef afterwards that he hated the food.

 

Not for those of us that avoid Chinese Food.

 

Read the description, check out what the size of the cache is... that should let you know 99.9% of the time what type of cache you can expect to find there. Don't yell at someone else for putting out a cache you don't like if you didn't take even 60 seconds to research the cache to find out if it's a type you like or don't like.

 

A lot of cachers are listing the size of their cache as unknown, so weeding out micros doesn't always work. Some cachers also purposely leave out the fact that there cache is hidden in a "pickle park" or hidden in a trashy, dangerous area. If cachers would take the time to write a good description as to what geocachers should expect, i'd be happier.

 

If I knew a cache was in an unpleasant area beforehand I wouldn't have anyone but myself to blame if I found it, and didn't enjoy myself.

 

Geocacher Thudpucker has a whole serious of "Ucky" caches. At least you know in advance what to expect.

[+mudsneaker]

Here in Oly, we've reached that point of saturation where Im not expecting any new caches to be worth going after. Yesterday had 3 pop up (same hider) 1 micro in a bus stop, a altoids tin in a lamppost(listed as small, wtf?) and another altoids tin(listed as a small) in a junky broken concrete block wall on a busy street, where the bums/tweakers hangout.

 

Guess its time to learn how to use the ignore thing, never felt the need before yesterday. Ive begun doing my hides out of town so the quality stays up, rather than just add to the spew.

 

whats frusterating is theres no way of letting the hider know his stuff is lame without offending. So the cycle will repeat itself, if not by him, then other new cachers who are desperate to hide something in a saturated community.

A recent hide was a creative micro by someone else. To bad its just a baggy in a hole, that was promply soaked with water in a day as the hole he drilled filled up. /sigh.

 

I really get the feeling the problem is directly related to saturation. No room to hide caches, but no way to stop caches from being hidden. So all those junk filled pull offs and parking lots are all thats left.

[+sbell111]

Instead of an Agsty "lame" attribute, why doesn't TPTB create a "Park and Grab" or "Power Cacher" icon. This would simply indicate that the cache is a "quick find" requiring little physical effort.

 

Those of that dislike this type of cache can exclude it from our pocket queries.

That was instituted many years ago. It's called a difficulty rating.

 

The rest of your post was clearly only meant to be combative, so I'll ignore it.

[+sbell111]

Here in Oly, we've reached that point of saturation where Im not expecting any new caches to be worth going after. Yesterday had 3 pop up (same hider) 1 micro in a bus stop, a altoids tin in a lamppost(listed as small, wtf?) and another altoids tin(listed as a small) in a junky broken concrete block wall on a busy street, where the bums/tweakers hangout.

A couple quick thoughts:

1. 'Small' is defined as a cache that is large enough to hold a log book and small items. I've seen trade items in a number of altoids tins, so 'small' could definitely be appropriate.
   
2. Many people would have fun finding those three caches. I certainly would, depending on what I was interested in finding that day.
   

[+mudsneaker]

oops, dble post. that was wierd.

Edited January 5, 2007 by mudsneaker

[+sbell111]

Woah! I just had some wicked deja vu.

[+mudsneaker]

Here in Oly, we've reached that point of saturation where Im not expecting any new caches to be worth going after. Yesterday had 3 pop up (same hider) 1 micro in a bus stop, a altoids tin in a lamppost(listed as small, wtf?) and another altoids tin(listed as a small) in a junky broken concrete block wall on a busy street, where the bums/tweakers hangout.

A couple quick thoughts:

1. 'Small' is defined as a cache that is large enough to hold a log book and small items. I've seen trade items in a number of altoids tins, so 'small' could definitely be appropriate.
   
2. Many people would have fun finding those three caches. I certainly would, depending on what I was interested in finding that day.
   

 

1.well, going from past caches in this area, tins have traditionally been listed "micro". I personally think small should be able to hold more than erasers and coins. just my humble opinion.

 

2. great! no one I spoke with while hunting for them was having fun. saw 3 other cachers. and the logs from even folks more seemed to be in line with my thoughts. Lots of DNFs.

 

But really what my point is, saturation in a town leaves no room for quality once it gets to a certain point. All the parks/ places of interest are used up. Most all new caches are going to be lame by default unless an old one gets archived, new park built, ect.

[+sbell111]

Wow. I was going to suggest that there are many locations with greater saturation than yours and that you just need to look harder for good places when I noticed that you placed a cache just a few days ago. I guess all the good spots in your area aren't used up yet, huh?

[+mudsneaker]

hrmm, would that be the cache I placed 75 miles away? if your going to bait someone, check the info.

[+sbell111]

In that case, I'll default to the rest of my post:

there are many locations with greater saturation than yours and that you just need to look harder for good places

[+mudsneaker]

obviously you know Olympia pretty well, I'll be looking forward to your new cache here soon.

[+sbell111]

Vacation caches are no longer listed.

[+sbell111]

Either way, this thread's about urban caches, not caches that may or may not be lame because all the good spots are taken.

 

If you don't like urban caches, I suggest that you use mapping software and GSAK to avoid them.

[+mudsneaker]

Either way, this thread's about urban caches, not caches that may or may not be lame because all the good spots are taken.

 

your so right, thanks for remembering the topic after deciding my first post (#57) needed your dissection. Even though you managed to skip right over the meat of what I was saying. That urban caches get put into bad places due to saturation I feel.

 

to quote the OP:

This is just one example of an urban microcache that just does not fit the whole purpose behind the Geocaching game. There are so many out there as silly as this one. Don't get me wrong, I have found so many others that are very interesting and unuasual, but how do we get cache placers to put a little effort into where and why they are hiding a cache?

 

the where is hard, since there is such a shortage of decient places in a area like Oly with lots of cachers who have been around a long time. So as new folks join in and want to hide, all thats left is the places no one wanted to go.

 

the why they hide a cache would be easier if there was ratings I think. Someone hiding a cache may think about it more if they knew it was going to be publicly judged. Of course the lampposts would still be hidden, but maybe not the one next to the homeless camp with the poo all around. (one of those caches is just down the road from me) But that topic is being covered in another thread.

 

Sure we can filter and map and spend hours figuring out where to go. But due to hides having incorrect dif/terain/size, that isnt the end all of the discussion.

a micro listed as 1 terrain that really was not reachable by wheelchair. A altoids that no one can find being listed as a 1 difficulty. now bumped to a 2 and still no one can find it. (6 logged dnfs with more not posted)

 

the filter only works if the hider actually knows what they have hidden.

[+sbell111]

the where is hard, since there is such a shortage of decient places in a area like Oly with lots of cachers who have been around a long time. So as new folks join in and want to hide, all thats left is the places no one wanted to go.

If you truly believe that there are no good urban places left in your area to place a cache, then you are certainly doing the right thing by ignoring all future urban caches in your area. Given that, I don't understand your problem. You have found your own solution.

the why they hide a cache would be easier if there was ratings I think.

I disagree. The 'why' is self-evident. People hide the kinds of caches that they would enjoy finding.

Sure we can filter and map and spend hours figuring out where to go. But due to hides having incorrect dif/terain/size, that isnt the end all of the discussion.

No, but it does solve your stated problem. In fact, you don't even need the filtering and spindling, since you know where the urban areas are.

a micro listed as 1 terrain that really was not reachable by wheelchair.

Reachable from a wheelchair is not actually a requirement of a terrain rating of 1. Aterrain rating of one is defined as terrain that is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.

A altoids that no one can find being listed as a 1 difficulty. now bumped to a 2 and still no one can find it. (6 logged dnfs with more not posted)

The difficulty rating can be a little subjective. Certainly, it is possible that the difficulty is correct. A difficulty of 2 is defined as: 'The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting'. Average is always a little hard to determine. Also, who hasn't been skunked by a 1/1?

the filter only works if the hider actually knows what they have hidden.

Ummm. OK. I think. Maybe. Edited January 5, 2007 by sbell111

[+Kit Fox]

Instead of an Agsty "lame" attribute, why doesn't TPTB create a "Park and Grab" or "Power Cacher" icon. This would simply indicate that the cache is a "quick find" requiring little physical effort.

 

Those of that dislike this type of cache can exclude it from our pocket queries.

That was instituted many years ago. It's called a difficulty rating.

 

The rest of your post was clearly only meant to be combative, so I'll ignore it.

 

That doesn't always work. Many of the caches that I like to find are hidden in remote areas, with long hikes, but they list the difficulty as One Star.

 

Here is what is causing me angst lately, I'm trying to decide which of these three caches would make the best find #1000.

 

Are you experienced?

 

Stone Sentinel

 

Hat Trick

[+Renegade Knight]

But we'd rather search for a cache, even a 'lame' one, than not search at all.

 

I hope you are speaking for yourself.

 

A "lame" cache is a waste of my time. I'd rather it never even pop up on my radar. Even if I identify it as a lame cache right off the bat, I still have to take the time to ignore it. Instead, I'd rather be preparing for, or hunting, a cache that is worth the effort.

 

After my first reply Jeremy pointed out they are working on a 'i liked the cache' feature. It would then show you other caches you might like based on your own preferences. I think that has a lot of potential as a filter. It won't be perfect but it may be close enough.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't see this as an urban problem. Depending on your definitions of urban versus suburban. But NYC/Northern NJ isn't quite the same as Houston.

NYC is a darned difficult place to hide caches, and there are no WalMart parking lots on Manhattan (and few in the other boroughs.) True, most of the caches are micros, but there are a surprising number of 'small' caches as well. (The one ammo can did get muggled.) Some of the 'non-downtown' parks have some very nice caches. There is a new set of urban cache hiders in the City (and new and olders ones in the outer boroughs) who are dedicated and creative hiders! (And my two favorite caches are in New York City, though I'm a Jersey boy!)

Suburban Jersey, on the other fin, is where I see the problem with the 'micros where better caches could be hidden.' True, as Brian says, there are not a lot of lamppost caches, but there are far too many guard rail caches, and bison tubes in prickly evergreens in manicured parks. And that is where the lack of imagination comes into play. (If Houston has Walmart parking lots, it's not urban! Or certainly nothing like New York City!)

Obviously, I made a grievous error in my one Walmart cache! (It was put out with humor and satire intended.) The lampposts at my WalMart do not have skirts! You can park next to the lamppost and actually see the cache! Horrors. How do I petition my WalMart to put skirts on their lampposts?!? (And, yes, the cache is still there. I checked it last weekend.)

So, my guess is that OP doesn't know what real urban caching is, if he complains about lamppost caches.

[Dinoprophet]

I think "urban" in geocaching terms refers to anything that isn't in a park or natural area. At least, that's how I use it. Inaccurate perhaps, but there it is.

[+niraD]

a micro listed as 1 terrain that really was not reachable by wheelchair.

Reachable from a wheelchair is not actually a requirement of a terrain rating of 1. Aterrain rating of one is defined as terrain that is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.

The version I see says "Handicapped accessible - Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required." What does "Handicapped accessible" mean if not reachable by wheelchair?

 

Around here, 1.5* terrain almost always means a very easy walk, but with minor obstacles that would block a wheelchair.

[+wiseye]

What I find disturbing about the cache the OP speaks of is that a hint is given to help you find it! And WHO are the two people watching it?

[CoyoteRed]

Ok you could give up caching but why?

I almost have and for reasons already mentioned.

 

Fortunately, your statement would be closer to the truth if it said, "Ok you could give up caching here but why?"

 

The wife and I continue to be disillusioned with the offerings presented on Groundspeak. In fact, a while back when the "GPS the Game" was going on she took a trip to NY and she cached all the way up and all the way back. Not a one of them was a Groundspeak cache and she had a fantastic time. The reason she presents as why she didn't even bother with ones listed here? Too much of a hassle to wade through the junk to find the gems.

 

After my first reply Jeremy pointed out they are working on a 'i liked the cache' feature. It would then show you other caches you might like based on your own preferences. I think that has a lot of potential as a filter. It won't be perfect but it may be close enough.

As do I. Hopefully, it will be helpful enough that some of us don't start ignoring Groundspeak as a source of caches. As it is, we used to base our trips and vacations around caches listed here. Now, it's caches listed on a different site.

[Clan Riffster]

As long as there are uninspired people playing this game, there will be uninspired hides. If you take a cacher with Geo-Tourette's Syndrom, and an IQ of 2 digits, and drop them in a cache free area, they will continue to spit out film canisters at every fast food joint they stop at. On the other hand, if you take a cacher who is dedicated to ensuring that every cache they create has a high to moderate "Wow" factor, you could plunk them down in the most cache dense region in the world and they will find creative places to hide stuff.

 

Once you learn who to ignore, caching bliss is not too far off.

[+eosxt]

I like being sneaky, so for me it's kind of fun to grab a micro in a high traffic area without being seen, that's the whole point. Stealth is cool.

[+TrailGators]

You could have saved a few words by simply saying that 'The only reason there are caches under lamppost skirts is because many cachers enjoy them.'

 

This unscientific poll that has been running on the Northern NJ Cachers website seems to say that isn't the case at all.

 

This is good data! I bet we'd have very similar results out here. I wish Groundspeak would conduct a large scale poll like this!

 

 

Your other comment about reserving the right to complain until Groundspeak provides a way for us to easily avoid lame post caches is right on. If the "majority" of people say that a certain type of cache is their least favorite to find then maybe more people will get the hint and start hiding caches that the majority prefer to find. Right now I am ignoring all urban caches unless I know the hider is a creative hider.

[+TrailGators]

Once you learn who to ignore, caching bliss is not too far off.

You are exactly right! Maybe GS should let us ignore all the caches from certain cachers....

[+FourRiverRatz]

the worst I have ever been to was a dumpster behind a chicken restaurant...where they store their used grease...gag me. didn't realize ahaed of time it was somewhere like that, as the town was a very historical one, and thought it might be someplace neat. When I got out of my car, amazed, and realized that yes, my gps was pointing here, I just got back in my car a drove away. Even though I was >this< close, it wasn't worth my time to even add another smiley to my record.

[Mr.Yuck]

I like being sneaky, so for me it's kind of fun to grab a micro in a high traffic area without being seen, that's the whole point. Stealth is cool.

 

I'm trying to think if there has ever been a post in these forums that I've ever disagreed with more, but can't of any right now. But to each his own, hats off to you brotha! (I guess)

Edited January 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[muttz]

Briefly touched on was mentioning how some people may not be physically able to do certain caches. I think it may be prudent to consider that maybe some cachers may have hid a relatively easy cache for people who might not be able to really get out there in the woods.

 

There are so many different types of people who participate in almost any given activity. More people participate if the factors that allow participation are more open to mass participation. If an intimate knowledge of Quantum Mechanics was needed to participate in caching it would most likely severely curtail active participation. Since this activity can be open to almost anyone I would say that we encourage participation to those who just want to enjoy the activity to whatever degree that they can participate.

 

I do believe that some cache hides may be in poor taste or placement, but it shouldn't take too much valuable time to weed out those caches. And if the easy ones inflate the numbers of those who need to compete, then it is an undesirable side-effect, but not that bad.

[Mr.Yuck]

You could have saved a few words by simply saying that 'The only reason there are caches under lamppost skirts is because many cachers enjoy them.'

 

This unscientific poll that has been running on the Northern NJ Cachers website seems to say that isn't the case at all.

 

This is good data! I bet we'd have very similar results out here. I wish Groundspeak would conduct a large scale poll like this!

 

 

Actually, they did (sort of). They sent out a poll to a sampling of users about a year ago, and I was one of the "lucky" ones to be chosen. One of the questions was "do you like micros"? Nothing more, nothing less was asked.

 

But if they put out a large scale poll like you say, I think people like you and myself would be disappointed. Between the smiley ho's and the newbies who come along each and every day, see lame micros all around them, and have no clue geocaching wasn't always like that, you'd probably see the ammo box and micro positions on the quoted graphic reversed.

Edited January 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+TrailGators]

Briefly touched on was mentioning how some people may not be physically able to do certain caches.

I used to buy this. But now the percentage of super easy caches far outweighs the percentage of people that are unable to find anything except a super easy cache. I also think that there a lot of people who could use some more exercise than lifting up a lame post cover in a parking lot.

[+Renegade Knight]

Once you learn who to ignore, caching bliss is not too far off.

You are exactly right! Maybe GS should let us ignore all the caches from certain cachers....

 

GPXSonar lets you do this. It would not suprise me if GSAK also did. Plus GC.com lets you ignore anything. There are a couple of sock puppet accounts that I had taken to ignoring anything they put out. I enjoyed hitting ignore. It was almost as much fun as caching and a lot less effort.

[Clan Riffster]

Briefly touched on was mentioning how some people may not be physically able to do certain caches. I think it may be prudent to consider that maybe some cachers may have hid a relatively easy cache for people who might not be able to really get out there in the woods.

A very good point. Our team, Clan Riffster, often runs afoul of this issue. I have a blown out knee. Because I try to stay active, I can hike about 3 miles before I actually feel bone grinding on bone. Since I'm not a fan of potent narcotics, this effectively limits me to those caches with a round trip hike shorter than 3 miles. Judging by the logs I read, I am missing out on some awesome hides. My wife Viv, on the other hand, had a serious fall about a year ago, and gets severe pains in her side and hip if she hikes more than half a mile. This effectively limits our group finds to what most would consider park & grabs.

 

One thing that deserves comment is that, just because it's a micro in an easily accessible location, doesn't mean it has to be hidden with little or no thought. Creativity can be applied anywhere, even in a Wally World parking lot. All that is required is for the hider to turn off Jerry Springer for a while and to turn on their brains. It really doesn't hurt, once you get used to it, and the end result is a lot fewer "TNLNSL" logs.

[Mr.Yuck]

Briefly touched on was mentioning how some people may not be physically able to do certain caches. I think it may be prudent to consider that maybe some cachers may have hid a relatively easy cache for people who might not be able to really get out there in the woods.

 

I was going to type a long rebuttal, complete with several hyperlinks, but no one wants to read that drivel. Here's the extremely condensed version: Just about every intricate 5 word or less find log I see on the average urban micro appears to come from people who are quite cabable of getting around.

 

I'd also like to say (I guess I am spewing drivel) why should a handicapped (permanently or temporarily) geocacher be relagated to geocaching in a parking lot next to a dumpster? Don't you think they'd deserve a nice cache along a paved nature trail in a park, like this handicap accessable cache which is not a micro, by the way.

Edited January 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+sbell111]

a micro listed as 1 terrain that really was not reachable by wheelchair.

Reachable from a wheelchair is not actually a requirement of a terrain rating of 1. Aterrain rating of one is defined as terrain that is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.

The version I see says "Handicapped accessible - Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required." What does "Handicapped accessible" mean if not reachable by wheelchair?

 

Around here, 1.5* terrain almost always means a very easy walk, but with minor obstacles that would block a wheelchair.

Ummm, handicapped does not necessarily mean 'wheelchair'.

[+sbell111]

Ok you could give up caching but why?

I almost have and for reasons already mentioned.

 

Fortunately, your statement would be closer to the truth if it said, "Ok you could give up caching here but why?" ...

Don't tease us.

[+sbell111]

I like being sneaky, so for me it's kind of fun to grab a micro in a high traffic area without being seen, that's the whole point. Stealth is cool.

I'm trying to think if there has ever been a post in these forums that I've ever disagreed with more, but can't of any right now. But to each his own, hats off to you brotha! (I guess)

You may disagree, but many people would find that eosxt summed it up very well.

[+sbell111]

I'd also like to say (I guess I am spewing drivel) why should a handicapped (permanently or temporarily) geocacher be relagated to geocaching in a parking lot next to a dumpster? ...

A handicapped person is no more relegated to finding a specific cache than anyone else. However, just because you don't like a specific cache doesn't mean that it wouldn't be enjoyed by others. Luckily, you control your own fate. You can find a cache or not. If GC.com doesn't provide you with caches that you like, you are free to follow CR to whatever site does.

[+TrailGators]

a micro listed as 1 terrain that really was not reachable by wheelchair.

Reachable from a wheelchair is not actually a requirement of a terrain rating of 1. Aterrain rating of one is defined as terrain that is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.

The version I see says "Handicapped accessible - Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required." What does "Handicapped accessible" mean if not reachable by wheelchair?

 

Around here, 1.5* terrain almost always means a very easy walk, but with minor obstacles that would block a wheelchair.

Ummm, handicapped does not necessarily mean 'wheelchair'.

I think the point that is being made is that most people are not handicapped in any way. Therefore most caches do not need to cater to a small segment of the population. Look at the data. So a little exercise is a good thing. People can have fun AND get a little exercise. The terrain rating is there so they know how much exercise they will get. Edited January 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mr.Yuck]

A handicapped person is no more relegated to finding a specific cache than anyone else. However, just because you don't like a specific cache doesn't mean that it wouldn't be enjoyed by others. Luckily, you control your own fate. You can find a cache or not. If GC.com doesn't provide you with caches that you like, you are free to follow CR to whatever site does.

 

Whoa Nelly!! How do we go from me giving an example of a full-sized, handicap accessable cache along a paved nature trail in New Jersey, to you, for all intents and purposes, telling me to leave geocaching.com if I don't like it?

 

I can't speak for CR, but I'm not going anywhere. You however are! Back into my blocked posters list. In you go, this won't hurt a bit. *PLONK* Have yourself a nice weekend.

[Mr.Yuck]

a micro listed as 1 terrain that really was not reachable by wheelchair.

Reachable from a wheelchair is not actually a requirement of a terrain rating of 1. Aterrain rating of one is defined as terrain that is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.

The version I see says "Handicapped accessible - Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required." What does "Handicapped accessible" mean if not reachable by wheelchair?

 

Around here, 1.5* terrain almost always means a very easy walk, but with minor obstacles that would block a wheelchair.

Ummm, handicapped does not necessarily mean 'wheelchair'.

I think the point that is being made is that most people are not handicapped in any way. Therefore most caches do not need to cater to a small segment of the population. Look at the data. So a little exercise is a good thing. People can have fun AND get a little exercise. The terrain rating is there so they know how much exercise they will get.

 

Yes, you always need to be careful when pointing out that handicapped geocachers are no excuse for the explosion of urban micros, which are close to 50% of the caches in some major metropolitan areas. Wheelchair bound cachers do exist of course, but are an extremely small percentage of geocachers, probably a fraction of a tenth of a percent. However, if you expand this to what I'll call "mobility impaired geocachers", such as senior citizens, people with various long-term physical ailments (arthritis for example), as well as "temporarily disabled" people, for example people coming off surgery, severe ankle sprains (been there, done that last autumn) etc... Then maybe you might get into double-digit percentages. But they certainly don't need half the caches in say Chicago placed allegedly on their behalf.

 

And I still don't think they should be relagated to dodging traffic in retail parking lots, when there are plenty of interesting pocket parks and paved nature trails around.

Edited January 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+mudsneaker]

Back into my blocked posters list. In you go, this won't hurt a bit. *PLONK*

 

I wasnt aware you could do that....THANK YOU!!!

found it and added that one and only name who needed to it.

 

no more time wasted reading post after post of combative attitude. welcome to ignore! (not you TWU)

 

on topic:

 

I believe urban caching has a finite amount of caches that can be done that have something resembling quality. At some point all the places worth visiting have a cache placed, so by default there is only the less desirable locations left to hide caches at. Its at that point "most" new caches in the city will likely not be worth hunting for unless homeless camps, parking lots, and random empty lots with garbage are what you like to see.

 

My town feels like its just about reached that point. So yes, I'll still be hunting old caches, but its not likely I'll be running out after any new micro/small that pop up, since I know what to expect.

Edited January 6, 2007 by mudsneaker

[+Renegade Knight]

...And I still don't think they should be relagated to dodging traffic in retail parking lots, when there are plenty of interesting pocket parks and paved nature trails around.

 

Don't those already have caches in them? New ones are not always spectacular but most of the better spots already have caches.

 

In the old days you could go to your favorite thinking spot and drop a cache and it was already good. Now you can't just do that. You have to think before you leave your spot to drop a cache. Or make do.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I believe urban caching has a finite amount of caches that can be done that have something resembling quality. At some point all the places worth visiting have a cache placed, so by default there is only the less desirable locations left to hide caches at...

 

I should of read your post before I did mine. Still it was worth it just for that banana.

 

When the environment sucks, you can still go for a technical hide of a high quality. I found one in a parking garage. Not the best view but still one of my favorite caches.

[+stormcloud]

In our area we have less than 150 caches within a 100 mile radius. Sometimes any cache is better than no cache at all. With gas at $4.50 a gallon driving 80 miles to the next nearest cache is not a viable option. I feel like a drug addict jones for a fix. I need a cache any cache even a lame urban cache would help fix my my withdrawl.

 

Now add 20 below and a foot of snow to caching and its another 3 months before some of the creative caching starts to hit our area.

 

Before someone jumps on me about planting some caches i have done that in my area, however due to some of the snow piles i have had to disable them for the winter or archive them due to being worn out.

 

And me with a new Explorist 500 for X-mas and no cache to find. (gift from non-caching wife)

 

Some of you guys in major urban centers are spoilt. You go to a search, and screen out the 1/1 ratings and still have hundreds of caches left to find. What some of you folks have in one square mile would be what the rest of the state or province has combined.

 

When i see numbers of 500 or more caches on some peoples profiles i get envous. I would have to drive 500 miles to get someplace to get that would allow me to start finding that sort of numbers. If you have the option of screening out the lame urban caches then do it.

 

You need to appreciate that alot of those 1/1 s are newbies and X muggles who are putting out there first caches. Some will never get over this others will mature with more time in the sport.