Groundspeak Forums: Absolutely Stunned. - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Absolutely Stunned. Outsiders placing lame caches.

#1 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:29 AM

First of all, I know some people are going to disagree with me right off the bat. Two of the reasons are they like lame-*ssed caches and the other is some will disagree with me on principle. Anyway, I got something I absolutely need to get off my chest.

Second, this is not a rant about any other area. If the folks of other areas want to do this to their own area then I believe they have that right.

This is about an outsider, someone who only visits your area, placing caches that the community as seen fit to not place themselves.

We were recently approached by someone who lives outside our area and were asked if we would look after some caches for them. We said it wouldn't be a problem, we'd be happy to. Unfortunately, we didn't ask what kind of caches they were. We just wanted to be able to hunt them like everyone else. We kind of assumed (mistake) they would be like the others in the area. Wrong.

We got a message back they had placed 7 micros and they were up for approval.

Micros? Um, wait a minute. There are only 14 micros in a 30 mile radius of our home. With but one exception they all are either the final of a multi or a puzzle, or they show you something out of the ordinary. This other one can be tricky if you haven't seen the technique before. Heck, we'd seen it before and still took us a few minutes to actually find it. By adding 7 micros, we'd be increasing the micro population by 50%!

Well, we shot off some emails to some our locals asking their opinion. We also asked the placer to send some samples so we can see what kind of micros these were.

Yes, we were concerned because we've seen some the micros other places have and we weren't impressed. Don't get me wrong, I love high-risk micros. We even own a micro. We even sell Bison capsules. We are not anti-micro.

We are anti-lame cache.

Well, we received data on three of the seven, so we went out to look for them. OMG, can you get any more lame? I don't know, but I've not seen any. One, you are at the fence of someone's backyard and it's a plastic water-colors cup or similar stuck up the channel of the street sign. Yes, it took a bit to find because we weren't expecting something that lame. The next was on the corner of two streets with four private residences on each. Knowing what to look for from the first one we searched high and low, couldn't find it, but did have a cop stop to see what we were doing. While it is claimed to have been placed by permission, you don't which property you have permission to be on. We gave up. Not worth getting hassled.

The last one, you might have already guessed, yep, lamppost! Walked right to it. Lifted the cover, shook my head, dropped the cover. Looked around to see if there was anything to see. Nope, office complexes. Whoop-tee-doo.

Three out of three of the caches this gentleman was asking us to do was some the lamest we'd done--ever.

He also mentioned "guardrails," too. Great!

So, we talk to some of our friends and unanimously it was "no, we don't want those kind of caches here." One even mentioned that if the locals wanted those kinds of caches here, don't you think someone would have places some? They were right. I mean how hard is it to toss a film can under a lamppost and call it a day? What does a finder get out of it? None of them get anything out of those kinds of caches. They've been to other places and seen them. It's not as if the placer is showing them something new. We all simply don't want to hunt those kinds of caches and we don't place them.

So, we send our regrets for having to withdraw support for looking after their caches. We tried to explain as tactfully as we could that lamppost/guardrail micros just don't fit in with the type of cache that the locals like. I'm talking Sissy even tried to explain this to them, not just me.

As predicted, they found a inactive cacher to volunteer to look after them and the local reviewer had no choice but to approve them.

Yeah, I know. "Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em." True. But when a new person finds these and thinks this is perfectly acceptable, they might place more. Caching around here is at a much slower pace. If we wanted this junk here, we'd have done it. We like that our caches challenges your mind, exercises your body, or touches your spirit. They show you things worthwhile. Okay, so not every one of them do this, but at least the previous "Charleston's Lamest Cache" allowed you trade a trinket. ...at least, it was owned by a local.

I guess someone woke up one morning and decided, "You know, I visit Charleston sometimes and I don't think they have enough lame caches. I think I'm going to place some."

Yeah, I can also hear the argument, "you are just a control freak and want to control the caches there." Hello! It's the cacher population here that has seen fit to not place these kinds of cache, not just me. I'm just one ranting.

So, here we sit with 7 new caches placed by an outsider and are the lamest in the area. :rolleyes:

Why would anyone knowingly do that? Why would someone knowly place caches that won't be appreciated?

#2 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38099
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:38 AM

Quote

Why would anyone knowingly do that? Why would someone knowly place caches that won't be appreciated?


To add to their numbers


Quote

But when a new person finds these and thinks this is perfectly acceptable, they might place more


That is an issue. Things like that lead to an explosion of these kinds of caches. Its not the micros, its the lame ones...and a LOT of them are lame. I can count the unique and interesting micros I've found on two hands and I can count the incredibly lame real caches on the same hands. As I've said before, the micro tends to attract the lazy cache owners who place caches just because they can and to drive up their numbers.

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


Quote

I guess someone woke up one morning and decided, "You know, I visit Charleston sometimes and I don't think they have enough lame caches. I think I'm going to place some."


Really makes you wonder. I guess one option is to find the things and make sure the locals are all brutally honest in their logs. Maybe the guy will get the picture.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 07 January 2005 - 08:01 AM


#3 User is offline   4x4van 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 05-November 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:45 AM

Yup, I gotta agree with ya on this. I just can't figure out why someone would want to place caches outside their own area that need to be maintained by someone else, micro or otherwise. Okay, so it adds to their "hide" numbers...but wouldn't hiding seven micros in their own area do the same, and be easier, than hiding them out of their area and having to find someone else willing to maintain them?

#4 User is offline   TEAM 360 

  • Lifetime Platinum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 16-November 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:48 AM

Maybe he is a newbie cacher. I placed a few lame-o ones, heck, I think we all have...they won't be around long, I guarantee you that. Just wait a while, and they will drop off the active list...

I even have a lame "guardrail" cache out in the middle of the desert, but at least you get a good view of the lake with it (okay, okay, so I snuck in the Vette with the pic, so shoot me...)

Posted Image

#5 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:55 AM

Well, CR, given my comments in other related threads around here (as well as in my articles), you know where *I* stand on your story, and of course that is in 100% support of your POV on this one.

It's bad enough that the festering sore of "what some consider lame" micros is spread by LOCALS in their own LOCAL areas, but to come to YOUR area and spread the virus, well I'm with you on your comments.

Sheesh!!

-Dave R. in Biloxi (where we have plenty of micros, but thankfully still most are NOT "what some consider lame")

This post has been edited by drat19: 07 January 2005 - 08:08 AM


#6 User is offline   Team Perks 

  • Forum Triclops
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1777
  • Joined: 23-June 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:55 AM

Okay, I'm no fan of lamp post caches...but I'll find them if they're on the way somewhere else. Big whoop--but hey, it's something to do. Micros right outside someone's yard? I'll pass on those. You're right--there's no need to look like a prowler. You're right. Lame.

You did your part by refusing to maintain the hides because they didn't meet your standards--that's your prerogative and a decision which I am willing to throw my support to.

On the other hand...Anyone has the right to place a cache anywhere meeting the listing requirements as long as they can maintain it. For quality control purposes, I personally would never agree to maintain someone else's cache unless it was placed by a friend or was otherwise wildly impressive. If I agreed to maintain the world's crappiest cache, the temptation to just remove it would be strong.

I have one cache that I do not personally maintain. It's in Arizona, and is being maintained by someone with whom I am on good terms and with whom I made the agreement BEFORE I hid the cache.

If they can find some sucker who's willing to do it, I don't know what more can be done...short of making sure the locals are NOT subtle about their finds (i.e., shouting "Look, honey! The geocache is HERE! Right HERE! In THIS lamp post!" when others are in the parking lot) and making sure they disappear on their own. :rolleyes:

#7 User is offline   Cool Librarian 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 742
  • Joined: 06-August 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 07:59 AM

I'm waiting for Mopar to weigh in with his dead horse picture....

But, I think this thread really hits the nail on the micro head - for a lot of us, it isn't about micros, it's about LAME micros, as CR just said.

Recently there have been a few more lame/unnecessary micors to pop up in my general neck of the woods. A comment was made about potetial "micro spew" in our area - a phenom we've been pretty much able to avoid around here.

No, I don't think we need more regulation - we have enough. No, I don't "hate" all micros - some are great.

I guess, generally speaking, I would just like to see common sense prevail - HA! - in cache placing. How about the container fits the location (well-thought out and placed urban micros in groovy areas are fun, a log-only capsule in the FOREST - um, why?), and the location has SOMETHING that makes it worthy of a cache. Is that really so hard?

NOT EVERY VACANT PIECE OF LAND NEEDS A CACHE.

So, I feel for you, CR. But, I guess there isn't much you can do about it. We have a placer in the general area who places the same lame caches in the same lame locations over and over again - in spite of negative feedback and gentle "conversations" about WHY they aren't well-received. And, yes, some people do not even hunt those caches anymore. But, still they get placed, as regularly as clock work.

I can hear the posts now, but I agree with you, CR.
Just my two cents.

#8 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:02 AM

TEAM 360, on Jan 7 2005, 07:48 AM, said:

I even have a lame "guardrail" cache out in the middle of the desert, but at least you get a good view of the lake with it

I wouldn't consider that one to be in the "what some consider lame" category, even if the hide itself is "nothing special". Your cache brings the searcher to a worthwhile location he/she might not have otherwise discovered. To that end, in my book it's a GOOD micro hide.

-Dave R.

#9 User is offline   JohnnyVegas 

  • Back to school
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5308
  • Joined: 05-January 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:02 AM

I have fewer problems micro on a gaurd rail or under a lamp post,
I have a bigger problem with a micro in a park were a large cache would work. At least under a lamp post or on a gaurd rail does not cause some one to trample down plants.

I confess, I hid a lame micro not long ago, but in the cache discription I include in big letters.

A stupid micro cache

In a stupid little spot

:rolleyes:

#10 User is offline   Jamie Z 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 4972
  • Joined: 24-April 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:04 AM

CR,

Wow... we have almost the exact same situation here, minus the local maintainer (that I know of).

I am in an area that is comparatively not very cache dense. I'm pretty happy with the fact that most of the caches around here are not micros or virtuals. We have a handful of very creative hiders.

Sure, we have some lame micros, but the owners of said micros have disappeared, so I expect the micros will go to waste soon an be archived.

So about a year ago, three new micros popped up. They were very close to my place of employment, which is quite out in the middle of nowhere. I wondered why and where anyone would hide micros in a very rural part of the county.

I put off finding them until recently, when a coworker of mine insisted that we find the caches near our job. Just as I suspected. Two lamp pole caches in the same parking lot, and a magnetic keyholder attached to a road sign about 1/2 mile away.

The owner apparently lives out of town. I don't know, perhaps the owner travels here often enough to maintain the caches. But as you stated, I think the local community here doesn't care to have caches like that around here. In fact, most of the finds on the caches are *not* locals. Heh.

There's really nothing one can do. I'm afraid posting in the forums is preaching the the choir.

As BS said, micro containers are cheap (often free) and require no contents, just a slip of paper. One can find an easy place to hide them (it's not too original to hide a lamp pole cache). In fact, I might wager that my friend and I spent more time finding the three caches than the cache owner used in placing all three.

Micros are the cache of choice for lazy hiders. That's unfortunate, because micros can be a pretty cool thing. I have one myself that I'm pretty happy with.

Jamie

#11 User is offline   Cool Librarian 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 742
  • Joined: 06-August 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:06 AM

Yeah, sometimes I think guardrails get a bad "in general" rap. One of my favorite caches is a guardrail cache - although it is a half-gallon container, which sort of adds to its appeal as a guardrail cache. But the location is truly excellent, and the hide fabulous.

Again, common sense.
Groovy location (be it for the view, the hike, the ruins, the sentiment)= good place for a cache.
Groovy location with no room for a regular cache=good place for a micro.

Am I oversimplifying?

#12 User is offline   mtn-man 

  • and J.C. the puppymonster
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 7445
  • Joined: 08-February 01

  Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:12 AM

TEAM 360, on Jan 7 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

(okay, okay, so I snuck in the Vette with the pic, so shoot me...)

Yes, but you were on topic. Thank you. Great view.

#13 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:24 AM

100% agreement.

The only use I see for micros is as a "leader"-cache in a multi (and I prefer trade-itionals on these too) or as a way to place a cache in an open, exposed area where a regular cache will not work, but where there is a significant landmark or geographical feature. I could also see them used in densely populated areas as a sub-category of caching -- not really my flavour of exploration though.

Sadly, I am afraid you are correct about lame caches of any sort making the experience diminished for new cachers. I hate to say it, but the only way I see locals having a "voice" to stop this type of activity is by adding a cache-rating system where finders can give lame caches a "0-star" rating and warn others this way. (of course, I worry it would be abused as a micro-bashing system too -- you are correct in noting that they do have a role in the game) Lame-cache bashing? -- bring it on.

The definition of the word "cache" is very clearly not the same as the definition of the word "item"

edited for spelling and to add a thought.

This post has been edited by Lemon Fresh Dog: 07 January 2005 - 08:33 AM


#14 User is offline   Mopar 

  • Preparing for change
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6692
  • Joined: 27-September 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:25 AM

Cool Librarian, on Jan 7 2005, 10:59 AM, said:

I'm waiting for Mopar to weigh in with his dead horse picture....

Nope, because this topic isn't about banning all micros 'cause they are lame.

CR has brought up a fairly unique topic that I don't think have been openly discussed (I know there have been many private discussions).

Well, it uniquely combines several dead horse topics into something new.
  • Vacation caches
  • lame caches
  • micro caches
  • unmaintained caches
As I see it, CR has a situation where they have all the above combined into 1 (well, 7) caches.
1: Vacation caches. Someone got around the vacation cache ban by getting someone else to look after the cache. Since that someone is really inactive, chances are good it's not REALLY gonna be looked after.
2:Lame caches. We all know that lame is in the eyes of the beholder. Still, there are usually local standards as to what is lame. In some places a lamp-post micros perfectly acceptable to the locals, in others that same cache is not. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of being part of a community. What's acceptable in one community isn't always acceptable in another. That goes for everything, not just geocaches. Usually these things are dealt with by the community. The problem is, the cache hider in this case isn't really a part of that local community.
3: Micro caches. In and of itself, not an issue. Combined with #2 it becomes one. If the locals like to hide and seek micros, that's great. If the local community doesn't like them or any other type, then locals don't hide them. Hmmm, we're back to #1 and #2 again, aren't we?
4:Unmaintained caches. This is a problem. Of course, there is no sure fire way to know these caches won't be maintained, but there should at least be some minor safeguards in place to at least try and ensure a cache will be maintained. Seems to me this goes right back to #1 also. The only way the hider can responsibly ensure that the cache will be maintained is if he is in a position to maintain it.

Seems to me, the long-term solution to the problem CR brings up is to more strictly enforce the no vacation cache rule. If you personally can not reasonably maintain the cache, don't place it. Period. No "my father's uncle's brother-in-law lives 2 miles away and will watch it". No "well, I'll try and find a local cacher to look after it". It doesn't work. I can't think of a single cache offhand where that *has* actually worked (I'm sure there are a few), and I can point to dozens of examples I know of where it hasn't.

#15 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38099
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:29 AM

Quote

I even have a lame "guardrail" cache out in the middle of the desert, but at least you get a good view of the lake with it (okay, okay, so I snuck in the Vette with the pic, so shoot me...)


Quote

I confess, I hid a lame micro not long ago, but in the cache discription I include in big letters.

A stupid micro cache


I have two lame guardrail micros. "Lame Roadside Cache" is even part of both cache's name, but at least there is somewhat of a view by each one.

One micro is behind the guardrail in the foreground of this shot:
Posted Image

And the other is on the guardrail you can barely make out at the top of this shot:
Posted Image

The guardrail cache I think Cool Librarian might be referring to is Walden Run's not so lame guardrail cache. Here is a shot taken standing right at the guardrail that cache is hidden on:
Posted Image


But the issue here really isn't lame, or not so lame guardrail and lampost caches. It's the audacity of someone coming from out of the area, sprinkling them around, then leaving them for the locals to deal with.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 07 January 2005 - 08:35 AM


#16 User is offline   Mushtang 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3917
  • Joined: 13-June 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:34 AM

CoyoteRed, on Jan 7 2005, 10:29 AM, said:

As predicted, they found a inactive cacher to volunteer to look after them ...


So, if the caches were removed they might not be replaced? Hmmm.

Not that anyone would do that just to get rid of them. And not that I'm suggesting anyone do it. But if they did get "muggled", and not replaced, wouldn't the problem go away?

#17 User is offline   ibycus 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2048
  • Joined: 28-March 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:36 AM

I'm surprised nobody has suggested this, not that I'm supporting it, or want to get in to some kind of big philosophical debate about it. But if none of the locals like them, just don't be very careful while hunting them. Bring hoards of newbies out to hunt them. They'll get muggled soon enough.
The caches obviously weren't placed with any respect for the local cachers, so why should local cachers respect the caches? Just make sure to keep a close eye on the caches as a group otherwise just to be able to say definitively when the cache is gone (maybe take a before picture of the cache, and an after once it goes missing, just so there is no doubt that its gone)
Also, put comments on the cache page (nicely worded though) to the effect that most locals don't really appreciate these caches, and you'd be surprised if it stayed around very long. (something like, thanks for getting me out there, but I was a little disapointed with the cache itself. Most people in this area have much more creative hides than this, so I was expecting something different. In the area this is in, I'd be surprised if it stayed around very long). That should discourage newbies, from placing similar caches.

** edit it seems while I was posting this, someone else didn't suggest what I also didn't suggest **

This post has been edited by ibycus: 07 January 2005 - 08:47 AM


#18 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:42 AM

Mopar, on Jan 7 2005, 08:25 AM, said:

Well, it uniquely combines several dead horse topics into something new.
  • Vacation caches
  • lame caches
  • micro caches
  • unmaintained caches
As I see it, CR has a situation where they have all the above

I agree that these are all important topics covered in this post. I'm still relatively new here, but doesn't it really boil down to RESPONSIBILITY?

1) Be RESPONSIBLE for your caches, don't use them as a vacation "leave-behind" (unless it's at your annual vacation cottage that you can maintain).

2) Act RESPONSIBLE when placing a cache to ensure it reflects the hobby in the most positive light -- create caches worth finding. It's about QUALITY not QUANTITY

3) Use micro-caches RESPONSIBLY -- they have an important role to play in the game, don't use them in place of regular caches.

4) When you place a cache you are RESPONSIBLE for that cache. You are the owner, you must maintain, feed, and care for the cache and ensure that it "responds" to changing conditions. You can do this by reviewing the logs of visits, or by physically attending the cache, and by maintaining records of permissions, problems, and solutions.

I respect fellow cachers enough to try and create memorable experiences for them and their families. Why? Guess what I want out of the game?

What's the difference between placing a cache and littering on the road or park? Someone's taking RESPONSIBLITY for it.

That's my rant.

#19 User is offline   ibycus 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2048
  • Joined: 28-March 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:43 AM

Lemon Fresh Dog, on Jan 7 2005, 09:24 AM, said:

The only use I see for micros is as a "leader"-cache in a multi (and I prefer trade-itionals on these too) or as a way to place a cache in an open, exposed area where a regular cache will not work, but where there is a significant landmark or geographical feature.

I prefer traditionals in general to micros, I think most people do, but there are some pretty cool micros in the area here (LFD and I live in the same general area) anyways. Nicolo's Pinocchio - the early years, is really neat (assuming he's updated the coordinates for it since he placed it...) Hanson's Ranch I've heard good things about (although I haven't found it yet). I liked the TNLNSL series, they were hidden almost in plain view, but cleverly so.

#20 User is offline   southdeltan 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1328
  • Joined: 01-February 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:44 AM

CR, I agree with you totally.

I think Mopar has a, while controversial, possible solution. I don't think you should hide a cache if you can't take care of it. It's one thing if it's at your childhood home and your parents are going to look out for it and you will be returning to the area - it's entirely another if you have to go search out somebody you do not know to maintain it.

southdeltan

#21 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:44 AM

I think one of the things CR is concerned about is that as new cachers come aboard, if they start by finding these "what some consider lame" caches (and by the way, I've given this variety of cache this new name in deference to many of the cachers in some of these infested/infected areas who think there's nothing wrong with this sad, pathetic evolution (my opinion and I'm entitled to it!) of our game), they'll think "this is what the game is", and then will fester the sore further by hiding more of the same variety. There is well-documented evidence that this has occurred in many areas, and CR is hoping to try to prevent it from happening to his area as well.

There's nothing he can do to STOP this from happening (as long as approved caches fall within the posted guidelines/requirements), but as a local "leader" he's certainly well within his rights to voice his opinion and work to maintain the "quality" of his area's caches, as a whole, as best he can.

-Dave R.

This post has been edited by drat19: 07 January 2005 - 09:00 AM


#22 User is offline   Doc-Dean 

  • Sight Unseen!!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2362
  • Joined: 28-November 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:48 AM

Living in the sunshine here in Florida, we get a lot of tourists and seasonal visitors.

Invariably, there are caches hidden in the area, and many times, they don't even ask a local to look after them.

Then of course we have the "grand-fathered" vacation caches which are always in poor shape because they have been abandoned by the owners who don't vacation here any longer but refuse to let a local adopt "their" cache.

A good case in point: Seekin the Beakin
This is a large cache in a very nice, high traffic tourist area on Sanibel Island. The cacher in question used to come down annually to visit his grandfather. His grandfather passed or moved away (don't remember which one) and now his family doens't come here any longer. Every log for the past year mentions something about the state of the cache. I had emailed back and forth with the owner and at first, I offered to help maintain the cache but when I heard they don't plan to visit any longer, I offered to adopt the cache. I never received a reply again after repeated emails. Therefore, I withdrew my offer to help maintain the cache.

#23 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:48 AM

Off topic, on topic?

How many local cache groups keep a top X list of caches in their area? While travelling, it would be cool to visit local groups sites and learn about the "must see" vs. the "must miss" caches.

Not a solution to CR's problem, but a bit of a workaround.

#24 User is offline   Mopar 

  • Preparing for change
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6692
  • Joined: 27-September 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:54 AM

On thing that many people say (me included) is "if you don't like them, don't do them."
Well, first if you don't mind micros but do dislike caches placed with no thought or care, it's hard to filter them out.
If you are positive all micros suck, it's STILL hard to filter CR's examples out, because for some reason the hider has chosen to not specify the cache size. Perfectly fine for a puzzle cache or high difficulty cache, but then why start the cache description with:

Quote

PLEASE NOTE: You are seeking a true micro-cache, one that can be somewhat of a quick pick & run. As this game is to bring us joy, if you do not care for micro-caches, please pass this one up rather than lose your joy, this is okay, really.
I don't get it? It's obviously a micro, it says so. It's also obvious he knows there are some that won't like it. Why not list it as a micro so at least the people who don't want micros can filter them out? Seems odd, and maybe a little deceitful.

This post has been edited by Mopar: 07 January 2005 - 08:56 AM


#25 User is offline   DustyJacket 

  • Geo Seeker
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1697
  • Joined: 25-January 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 08:57 AM

4x4van, on Jan 7 2005, 09:45 AM, said:

Yup, I gotta agree with ya on this. I just can't figure out why someone would want to place caches outside their own area that need to be maintained by someone else, micro or otherwise. Okay, so it adds to their "hide" numbers...but wouldn't hiding seven micros in their own area do the same, and be easier, than hiding them out of their area and having to find someone else willing to maintain them?

Exactly.

I think I'll bomb an area with hundred of micros, get locals to maintain them, and show my great statistics for number of hides.

Not.

#26 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:03 AM

Oh like there is anything within 528' of a walmart but strip malls, trailer courts and interstates. Every time you look around for the view you are not going to find it. The only thing lame caches block are other lame caches.

By all means, don't adopt them as they are not your style. While we don't agree on lame caches, I do think you have every right to do your own thing, right down to being disgusted at these caches and refusing to adopt them. There are other people who can do it.

#27 User is offline   Ferreter5 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 29-December 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:20 AM

Doc-Dean, on Jan 7 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

A good case in point:  Seekin the Beakin
This is a large cache in a very nice, high traffic tourist area on Sanibel Island.  The cacher in question used to come down annually to visit his grandfather.  His grandfather passed or moved away (don't remember which one) and now his family doens't come here any longer.  Every log for the past year mentions something about the state of the cache.  I had emailed back and forth with the owner and at first, I offered to help maintain the cache but when I heard they don't plan to visit any longer, I offered to adopt the cache.  I never received a reply again after repeated emails.  Therefore, I withdrew my offer to help maintain the cache.

In a case like this shouldn't someone there tag it with a Should Be Archived log? That'll bring it to the attention of the approvers and if it does end up getting archived, then someone there can go out and remove it as geo-litter.

#28 User is offline   Sissy-n-CR 

  • Sissy of Sissy-n-CR
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 25-August 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:38 AM

In this cache-placer's defense:

-He is from the area, tho no longer lives here. He visits quite regularly, and has found a lot of our area's caches. I believe the person who has agreed to maintain them for him is an old high-school buddy.

-He is from a city where there are quite a few cachers with finds in the 4-digits, and it is celebrated. This type of cache placement is enjoyed by his local community.

-I think he is trying to also become part of our community by placing these. Partly to give something back, and partly to garner goodwill so some of our cryptic hiders will be more forth-coming with clues. (I have communicated with each of them and have been assured THAT will not happen.)

-I think we may have dropped the ball in communication with this person. We tried to help him understand that it was not the size, so much as the 'lameness' that was a factor. There is a cacheless park very near where he has placed these, and hunting for something so tiny in it might be fun. BUT, a gaurdrail in a not-so-nice part of town or a lamppost in an office complex, just leaves me shaking my head and asking 'why?'

-He enjoys finding these (I assume), and is maybe trying to get our area to more closely mirror his.

One or two of the seven might have redeeming value, but I think CR and I will forgo logging any of them as a find. Now where is that ignore button?

Sissy

#29 User is offline   Semper Questio 

  • Hunters of Feral Tupperware
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2589
  • Joined: 21-January 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:44 AM

I'll just jump in and out real quick. I placed what many would call a lame cache. Just a simple log-only 35mm can tucked in some ladnscaping. Why? Well, I wanted to bring people off the main drag (it is near a downtown area) and near a one of the access points to a lakeside bike/hike/run trail. I also wanted something simple (but not TOO simple) for some of the new cachers I intro'd to the game who work with me in the very nearby building. I also use it as an easy-to-get-to cache to give some folks a little tast of cachng at its simplist form.

Will I place any more like this? Maybe if the mood strikes, but I don't plan to. That's why I've not placed any more. I want my caches to bring someone somewhere I think is special for whatever reason or I want them to challenge the finder in some way.

On the other hand, and back to the topic, this sounds like a lesson learned. Don't accept responsibility for someone else's caches without checking them and their caches out first.

#30 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:48 AM

Sissy-n-CR, on Jan 7 2005, 09:38 AM, said:

This type of cache placement is enjoyed by his local community.

<snip>

-He enjoys finding these (I assume), and is maybe trying to get our area to more closely mirror his.

Sigh.

This is precisely what I've been gnashing my teeth and keyboard about. It's not enough that the sore festered in his own area, now he seems to want it to fester to other areas not yet infested/infected. This is also why I went from my first 1500 finds taking only 24 months, to my next 100 finds taking over 4 months. I've got " 'what some consider lame' micro fatigue".

I know, I KNOW, I JUST KNOW that I'm not alone in my frustration of this evolution of our game. Does this have to happen to EVERY area now??

End of another rant...
-Dave R.

This post has been edited by drat19: 07 January 2005 - 09:50 AM


#31 User is offline   fly46 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2499
  • Joined: 04-June 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:48 AM

Personally, it sounds to me like you should get that residential cache that has you wandering confused around people's yards archived in bad taste. It's one thing to feel uncomfortable because there's a cache in a nice park, but a homeless guy happens to be there the day you go visit it. It's entirely different to feel uncomfortable because of poor cache placement.



Occationally vacation caches work, but in order for them to really work you have to go to the area frequently, and you have to put it somewhere with really easy access to your muggle helper. Like, put it in your father's front yard if you want him to keep his eye on it. (Hey, it works for me)

#32 User is offline   Team Perks 

  • Forum Triclops
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1777
  • Joined: 23-June 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:55 AM

southdeltan, on Jan 7 2005, 08:44 AM, said:

CR, I agree with you totally.

I think Mopar has a, while controversial, possible solution. I don't think you should hide a cache if you can't take care of it. It's one thing if it's at your childhood home and your parents are going to look out for it and you will be returning to the area - it's entirely another if you have to go search out somebody you do not know to maintain it.

southdeltan

While I personally oppose this proposal, there is certainly some merit to it. It would certainly cut down on SOME of the problems...

Perhaps the approvers could look more closely at "vacation" caches and ask the following simple questions:

1. Does the cache hider have a good history of maintaining their local hides?

2. Is the local maintainer an ACTIVE cacher with a similarly clean history of maintaining their own caches?

If either of them can't be trusted to adequately take care of their own caches, then the cache shouldn't be approved. I know that's the general process already, but tightening it up a little bit could certainly take care of some of the problems.

There is, as usual, no solution that will resolve 100% of problems such as this.

#33 User is offline   NoLemon 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 318
  • Joined: 01-February 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:08 AM

deleted

This post has been edited by NoLemon: 07 January 2005 - 10:33 AM


#34 User is offline   Byron & Anne 

  • Stump Pin Creator USR #7301 AK7EE
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 557
  • Joined: 13-April 01

  Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:10 AM

I think there is a real problem here. NOT with the person placing caches the locals don't "approve" of, rather the "locals" thinking they should be able to control an area. This sounds like the beginning of "turf wars". Is this what geocaching is turning into?

If you were asked to help maintain, and don't like the cache, then don't agree to help maintain. If somebody else wishes to help maintain, good for them. If nobody maintains them GC.com will archive them. If they are maintained, then they're valid caches.

#35 User is offline   Snoogans 

  • The Snoog Abides
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8682
  • Joined: 02-March 03

  Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:10 AM

TEAM 360, on Jan 7 2005, 07:48 AM, said:

I even have a lame "guardrail" cache out in the middle of the desert, but at least you get a good view of the lake with it

I kinda liked one of your OTHER lame guardrail caches in Laughlin.

#36 User is offline   The Leprechauns 

  • A Frog in Hamster's Clothing
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 8825
  • Joined: 02-June 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:10 AM

I agree entirely with Coyote Red's approach to this issue; it is best handled by the local community. I also know that he and Sissy will handle these caches in a manner consistent with the Geocacher's Creed. Ignoring them is one way to do that. Exposing them to muggling isn't.

I would also like to compliment Team 360 on what looks to be an excellent guardrail cache placement. If I got to the area, my log would read "Wow! Thanks for making me stop and take a picture."

So, ummm, what crazy parallel universe did *I* teleport to?

#37 User is offline   nicolo 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1237
  • Joined: 14-August 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:13 AM

ibycus, on Jan 7 2005, 08:43 AM, said:


I prefer traditionals in general to micros, I think most people do, but there are some pretty cool micros in the area here (LFD and I live in the same general area) anyways. Nicolo's Pinocchio - the early years, is really neat (assuming he's updated the coordinates for it since he placed it...) Hanson's Ranch I've heard good things about (although I haven't found it yet). I liked the TNLNSL series, they were hidden almost in plain view, but cleverly so.

Wow, two of my caches mentioned here, and with praise. Thanks, I'm blushing!

BTW, I did update my coordinates for "Pinocchio - The early years" - I think j2d2 gave me updated coordinates for it, he's da man!.

#38 User is offline   hukilaulau 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1980
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:30 AM

Wow...
Elitist snobbery never changes, it just goes hi-tech.
"We don't want your kind in our town" has been around since, well, towns...
Let's see, at least one person in your area thought it was fine to maintain these caches. And he must be a member in good standing of GC.com despite your disparaging discription of him as *sniff* inactive (shudder).
So by "locals" you mean a few of you who all agree with each other and want to dictate standards to everyone else. Geez, dude, get over yourself.

#39 User is offline   TEAM 360 

  • Lifetime Platinum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 16-November 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 10:33 AM

The Leprechauns, on Jan 7 2005, 11:10 AM, said:

I would also like to compliment Team 360 on what looks to be an excellent guardrail cache placement. If I got to the area, my log would read "Wow! Thanks for making me stop and take a picture."

So, ummm, what crazy parallel universe did *I* teleport to?

Thanks, Lep...you know, for a long while, I just wanted to place caches out there, I didn't care where...now, I am alot more cautious where I put them...for me, it has to be a great view, or a fun or historic place...somewhere with MEANING, not just behind the nearest WalMart dumpster.

As for cachers with triple-digit hides, I CANNOT believe for one second they are capable of maintaining them. In fact, about 10-15 good quality caches should be the limit. To ease the maintenance on mine, I always put in the biggest log sheet I can (usually for over 100 finders), so it will be a while before it needs to get replaced.

Back to the original topic, though, it is just WRONG to be away from your home turf and proliferate the area with CRAPPY micros. I have nothing against a well-done cache being placed in another area, but I am not going to drive across Texas, throwing 35mm film canisters out the window from El Paso to Texarkana and call them caches...

Like I said, those types of micros will be archived soon enough. They will just end up being geo-trash.

#40 User is offline   Robespierre 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 20-August 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:01 AM

Someone close to me recently visited another city to sample power caching. Mostly, not appreciated. I'd sample too, if the situation arose, but it's not my style. If, however, it became the pattern locally, I would realize that I'm not the caching sheriff. I could certainly avoid cooperation with the effort. But that's all.

#41 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:08 AM

I might not be reading the post incorrectly, but I really don't feel that there was any negative attitude to the placement of new caches, nor to micros. The way I read the original post was that it seemed to express frustration with caches of low percieved quality. (lame caches)

This, of course, then becomes a perception issue -- "what is a low-quality cache? what is a high-quality cache?". As the approval process is location-based only, quality issues cannot be resolved through the approval process (banning, limiting, etc, etc). Security and some issues can and are. (no National Parks, not too close to the railway tracks - I was asked this once by an approver - good!)

There are also widely divergent views of what quality is. It appears that to some folks, a cache is a cache. Their motivation for hunting it is there own business. (my goal is to find 7 caches -- 1/1 2/2 3/3 4/4 5/5 and 2 "odds"- one on each continent -- of course, I suspect there will be several hundred found in this pursuit). Some folks are number driven, some are not -- its a personal journey.

So... to my way of thinking, the issue is a Qualitative concern. Given the divergent opinions on what quality is, the only way I can see the issue resolved is through a peer-group rating system developed either locally or for the communtity as a whole. Informally, this is done through the notes on each cache ("found cache, lame"). Does it need to be formalized to benefit new people and those looking to cache for quality?

Most creative endevours (of which cache placement is one) have ranges of skill (developing, developed, devoid) -- we do not presumably wish to exclude people from placing caches, but I would rather support cache owners that are clever, considerate and with some creativity. I like a cache that isn't a Mozart, but really like the Mozart. I don't like poor caches of any type.

The area I live in has been GREAT! and even in this forum I have been given two "recommended" caches! It's fine to say skip micros, or only hunt traditionals. Earlier I stated I prefer traditionals -- I was wrong. I like good caches! Should ratings be an option? Would this solve CR's immediate problem? (a bad cache taking-up space where a good cache could go is a whole other discussion)

#42 User is offline   nittany dave 

  • tough decisions
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 619
  • Joined: 01-August 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:18 AM

I'm pretty sure I know where and who you're talking about. If so, let me clarify a couple of points.

Sissy-n-CR, on Jan 7 2005, 12:38 PM, said:

-He is from a city...
Actually, he does not live here, but frequents this area - as he does your area

Quote

...This type of cache placement is enjoyed by his local community.
Not really, but we find them anyway. :rolleyes:
Speaking for myself only, like most who have commented I would prefer to find a micro that is in an area with a nice view or interesting history. I also like micros that are hidden in such a way or place that makes finding them very difficult. I don't care for some of the "lame" hides by a dumpster. However, like I said I'll still go find it. It's a disease I have! :unsure:
As a percentage, I think our area has a great ratio of creative and challenging micros compared to the lame variety. I hope it stays that way and I hope your area does also.

#43 User is offline   FishPOET 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:23 AM

Team360 said:

As for cachers with triple-digit hides, I CANNOT believe for one second they are capable of maintaining them.


Actually it is quite easy to maintain a large number of caches. I have 75 ammo box hides that are waterproof, with large log books, hidden where they get visited 10-15 times a year. How much maintenance do they need?

75 lame altoids tin hides would be a different story.

#44 User is offline   fly46 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2499
  • Joined: 04-June 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:33 AM

hukilaulau, on Jan 7 2005, 10:30 AM, said:

And he must be a member in good standing of GC.com despite your disparaging discription of him as *sniff* inactive (shudder).

Not even remotely true.. There was a vacation cache in Ohio that the cache owner claimed his brother - NOT A CACHER - was watching, and got it approved. Neither him nor his brother were paying a darn bit of attention to this cache. (Keep the strap on the container cause it leaks less that way is not how you maintain a cache) The cache was notoriously wet, dirty, etc... Emails to said cache owner went unanswered every time.

You don't need to be in good standing to convince someone you'll watch a cache.

#45 User is offline   TEAM 360 

  • Lifetime Platinum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 16-November 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:34 AM

FishPOET, on Jan 7 2005, 12:23 PM, said:

Team360 said:

As for cachers with triple-digit hides, I CANNOT believe for one second they are capable of maintaining them.


Actually it is quite easy to maintain a large number of caches. I have 75 ammo box hides that are waterproof, with large log books, hidden where they get visited 10-15 times a year. How much maintenance do they need?

75 lame altoids tin hides would be a different story.

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

#46 User is offline   adampierson 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 22-June 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:45 AM

If the caches are truly lame, then I would refuse to adopt them. If you want to be more proactive and risk the ire of the hider, you can write a note to your local approver telling them that these may be "vacation caches". Or you can simply do nothing because lame caches will eventually disappear either by geo-muggles or your local cache police and the caches will eventually have be archived.

#47 User is offline   New England n00b 

  • Ack!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3161
  • Joined: 10-September 03

Posted 07 January 2005 - 12:06 PM

You know, I guess we must be blessed here in New Hampshire/Massachussets. I have yet to find a cache that the community here would refer to as lame. So I guess I cannot complain.

That said, however, I don't think I'd undertake maintaining someone elses cache if it seemed to me to be lame... (indeed, I don't have any hides of my own as I cannot guarantee that I can maintain them at this time).

I guess I'd just say a polite "Thank you" and suggest they consult their regional forum for takers. I surely wouldn't go to an area to place caches just to do it. I'm all for the lamp-pole caches and such that allow variously handicapped people to participate in the hobby. As long as they are quality containers, of course.

#48 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38099
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 12:15 PM

Quote

As for cachers with triple-digit hides, I CANNOT believe for one second they are capable of maintaining them. In fact, about 10-15 good quality caches should be the limit.


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

Quote

Wow...
Elitist snobbery never changes, it just goes hi-tech.
"We don't want your kind in our town" has been around since, well, towns...
Let's see, at least one person in your area thought it was fine to maintain these caches. And he must be a member in good standing of GC.com despite your disparaging discription of him as *sniff* inactive (shudder).
So by "locals" you mean a few of you who all agree with each other and want to dictate standards to everyone else. Geez, dude, get over yourself.


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

This post has been edited by briansnat: 07 January 2005 - 12:18 PM


#49 User is offline   Find Now, Log Later? 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 31-December 02

Posted 07 January 2005 - 12:28 PM

Quote

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


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

This post has been edited by Bassoon Pilot: 07 January 2005 - 12:37 PM


#50 User is offline   Salvelinus 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 797
  • Joined: 20-December 01

Posted 07 January 2005 - 12:35 PM

Sorry I'm posting late. Busy day.

Its ironic this thread exist because I had the exact same thing happen in my hometown over Christmas when I saw this cache pop up.

These are Florida cachers who placed four caches in Central PA recently. These are the only caches they have ever hidden. They even mention on the cache page that they felt the area didn't have enough caches...so they decided to place some while visiting on vacation. I thought that was quite arrogent, considering this community is just beginning to get into geocaching. None of the local cachers that I know of even has 100 finds yet. The worst part is that these Florida cachers have placed a cache in one of the city parks and now a local cacher cannot place one there. That stinks! B)

I wanted to respond to this but felt out of line since this was not my local caching area. You can bet that if something like this happens in my local area...I will make my opinions well know.

BTW, the cache I highlighted is a micro hidden on a Stop sign on the corner of Walnut and Cherry streets...right in the middle of the city. I didn't even use my GPS to find it. If this sounds like an exciting place....this is a cache for you. I haven't seen the other three they have placed but I know one is in a City Park.

I refuse to log the one I highlighted here.

Salvelinus

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked