[GeoStL] Re: Lame caches in the GC forums
- From: "Laura D" <festive@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:19:46 -0600
-
<snip> You cannot filter out lame caches. The only
way you find out is show up and lift a lamppost. <snip>
You can read the logs. If most of them just say TNLNSL (or the equivalent),
you could choose to skip it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jim Bensman
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:15 AM
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Lame caches in the GC forums
>
> A lame cache here and there is no big deal. The problem with
> Nashville was
> several people placed a hundred or so lame caches. The area is
> so saturated
> with lame caches (light posts, back of a signs in any old place, etc) that
> it is hard to find fun ones. You cannot filter out lame caches. The only
> way you find out is show up and lift a lamppost. When you go to
> cache after
> cache and all you do is lift a light post or pull a cache off any
> old sign,
> it is not much fun.
>
> I like some nice easy ones now and then too. But easy does not have to
> equal lame. Anyone can drop a hundred film canisters in
> lampposts or stick
> it on the back of any old sign, that requires no creativity or
> imagination.
> If one wants to make an easy cache, one can spend a little more
> time than it
> takes to find a Walmart parking lot and find an interesting place to hide
> it. Or one can take a little time to add an interesting twist.
>
> Is the best we can do for those who are not too mobile is to
> provide them a
> lamppost in a shopping center? Is not it better for someone to take a
> little more time to find something more interesting than a no parking sign
> in an alley or a lamppost in a Walmart?
>
> Numbers are not everything. Quality is important. Thankfully our area is
> not saturated with lame caches. We have so many creative people. Easy
> caches do not have to be lame.
>
> If the only thing you care about is numbers and you want to get
> lots of them
> fast, Nashville is the place to go. If you want to get numbers and see
> interesting places and see lots of creativity, Nashville is not
> your place.
> While they had some really creative caches, they get drowned out
> in all the
> lame caches you have to get through. There are lots of places you can go
> with lots of easy caches that people took the time to find interesting
> locations or added fun twists. Olney IL is a good example.
>
> Jim Bensman
> "Nature Bats Last"
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocaching-
> > bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Griffin
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:54 PM
> > To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Lame caches in the GC forums
> >
> > Amen! I use to think that micros in a lightpole was a lame cache. It was
> > actually Nashville that changed my thinking. I saw many who were not
> > very mobile but really enjoyed the game. That changed my thought about
> > micros in parking lots. I noticed that most of the easy ones were placed
> > by people who didn't get around so well. I can choose which caches I do,
> > that does not give me the right to cut down someone elses fun..
> >
> > Cache On!
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Pam Ekey wrote:
> >
> > >This sounds like much ado about nothing, though I have seen more than a
> > few references to lame Nashville caches from this group. As a matter of
> > fact, one of my recent cache placements is a tongue-in-cheek response to
> > the derisive comments about lame caches. And then I added a
> lame idea from
> > Branson, too.
> > >
> > >Who are we to criticize the quality of caches in another city?
> I for one
> > applaud the creativity of the people who place caches in the St. Louis
> > area, but once in awhile, I also appreciate a totally lame,
> easy find. For
> > me, it's not about numbers, it's about having fun and taking a
> break from
> > school and work. It will take about 10 years to get my first
> 1000, so I am
> > not about to criticize anyone who makes the effort to place a cache. I
> > think we can all be a little more charitable here.
> > >
> > >Pam/Tribble
> > >
> > >GC-RGS <gc-rgs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >-
> > >http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=85962&st=0
> > >Here is some "interesting" reading concerning "lame caches" in
> Nashville,
> > started by a Nashville cacher. St. Louis even has a mention (although I
> > don't think it's true) along with a mention of one of our local cachers.
> > >
> > >Rich
****************************************
Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
****************************************
To unsubscribe from this list:
send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
Subject field
Other related posts:
