[GeoStL] Re: December 31st, 2010,terracaching will shut down

  • From: lane634@xxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:42:35 +0000

We certainly do. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from U.S. Cellular

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mr. President" <mogamoga2010@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:36:23 
To: Geocaching Newsgroup<geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [GeoStL] Re: December 31st, 2010,terracaching will shut down



I think we need more cow bell!  :-D



> From: junkmailno@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: December 31st, 2010,terracaching will shut down
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:14:17 -0600
> 
> -
> Caching was much more fun back in the early days when the cache placers
> would take the time to find an interesting location or hide a cache in a
> creative or sneaky way.  My preference would be for cache places to return
> to this way of hiding caches instead of the if you can throw a cache
> somewhere, it is OK or thinking of easier and lamer ways to get numbers
> (like the video I posted the link to).  In those days, we would describe
> caching as looking for tupperware in the woods.  Now it is lifting lamppost
> covers to put a sticker on a log in a film canister.  
> 
> I agree few cachers would label their caches "lame" and what constitutes a
> quality cache is in the eye of the beholder.  But when you talk about a lame
> cache most experienced cachers know the kind of caches you are talking
> about.  "Caches that do not take you to an interesting location or are not
> hidden in a creative or challenging way" is objective criteria and is a
> reasonable way to describe lame caches. If these kinds of caches are
> allowed, there should be a way to filter them.
> 
> It would be interesting to conduct a survey, but I bet while there are some
> cachers who think numbers are everything, I bet the vast majority of cachers
> would rather find an easy cache at scenic/historic spot than pick up a
> lampskirt in a Walmart parking lot or pull a key holder off a guardrail by a
> busy highway.  While that video I posted the link to shows some people enjoy
> relaying cache containers from one highway marker to the next, my bet is
> they are in the minority.  Instead of having quantity caches overwhelm
> quality caches, why not set up numbers courses where the numbers hounds can
> go in circles finding the same caches over and over again.  Its just as easy
> to find the same cache over and over again as finding a cache on these
> number runs.     
> 
> Jim Bensman
> "Nature Bats Last" 
> 
> PS Puzzle caches cannot be filtered by ? - other types of caches are also ?.
> But unlike the overwhelming numbers of numbers caches, you can generally
> deal with them.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocaching-
> > bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Senger
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:50 PM
> > To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [GeoStL] Re: December 31st, 2010,terracaching will shut down
> > 
> > -
> > I think you fail to see Mike's point, which is that Jim's idea of a
> > good cache isn't necessarily my idea (or your idea, or Mike's idea) of
> > a good cache. The point of the filters is to find caches that meet a
> > certain criteria that anyone would agree is a good description of the
> > cache. To add a "lame" criteria would be impossible to judge
> > objectively.
> > 
> > As someone else mentioned, a rating system would be the best idea.
> > However, rating systems are flawed, too.
> > 
> > Andrew Senger
> > asenger@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.yawetag.net
> > "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. He's also
> > postmaster and probably traffic cop, too. All the jobs for sports
> > referees are probably filled, though." --Lemel Hebert-Williams
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Mike Lusicic <lusicic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > -
> > > It may be that he does grasp your point. Perhaps he agrees that he
> > will only
> > > do the kind that he likes, but the problem is that there is no
> > facility
> > > provided by GC.COM to differentiate the kind he likes from those that
> > he
> > > doesn't. For example, there is a puzzle type, and he can successfully
> > > identify those. There is no "lame" tag that he can use to filter out
> > the
> > > ones that are what he considers lame. A difficulty of 1 could apply
> > to a
> > > good cache in the woods as well as a lamp post cache, so it isn't a
> > very
> > > good indicator.
> > >
> > > I do see that finding a category that doesn't seem demeaning to the
> > numbers
> > > people might be difficult. But then again, it may be easier for them
> > if they
> > > can identify the easy numbers oriented caches.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I don't mean to speak for you Jim, but am I correct in my
> > > assessment. Sometimes just saying it differently might help things
> > along.
> > 
> > 
> >  ****************************************
> > For List Info or To make_ANY_ changes to your account, including
> > unsubscribing from this
> >  list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > 
> >  Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived  http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
> >  Missouri Geocaching land policies --> http://tinyurl.com/lgyy84
> >  Missouri Geocachers Forums -->  http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php
> >  Missouri Geocachers Calendar --->
> > http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=calendar
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  ****************************************
> For List Info or To make_ANY_ changes to your account, including 
> unsubscribing from this   
>  list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>  
>  Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived  http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>  Missouri Geocaching land policies --> http://tinyurl.com/lgyy84
>  Missouri Geocachers Forums -->  http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php
>  Missouri Geocachers Calendar --->  
> http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=calendar

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocaching
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2010