> Perhaps, there are some of us who have found so many caches, that
difficulty tends to become > a mark of a 'good' cache, because lower
ranked ones in terms of difficulty/terrain provide
> little challenge.

Perhaps there are. I hope there aren't, but there probably are. I'd
prefer to think that it was originality rather than difficulty that was
setting the standard for "good" caches, because there are good caches at
all difficulty and terrain levels. But if somebody went and put a second
cache on top of Thompson Peak without something else to distinguish it
from the one already there, I don't think I'd have to climb up there to
form an opinion that the cache might not be a "good" one.
 
> Take Team GreenSpeed's 12th anniversary cache.  By the 'standards'
I've read lately, this
> would appear to be a complete waste of time.  However, to them it has
2 special meanings.
> One to signify their 12th anniversary (hence the name), and to also
enjoy the experience of
> watching people find the cache.

I haven't attempted the cache so I can't comment on it. But I'm led to
ask a rhetorical question: For whose enjoyment do we hide caches? And
since I've asked it rhetorically, I can answer it: The hide should
contribute to the enjoyment of both the hider and the finder.

> Please don't take offense to this next statement, but I really hope
that geocaching in
> Arizona doesn't become elitist, where the most seasoned veterans pass
judgement on caches by
> what they perceive as a waste of time or a cached placed with little
thought.

No offense taken by me. In fact, I would share your dismay were that to
happen, Brian. I think most "seasoned veterans" (and I guess I have to
count myself in that group now) ought to have enough experience to be
able to read a cache page and figure out if a cache is going to be a
waste of their time. If they think it is going to be a waste of time,
they shouldn't go after it. And if they say they have to get it "for the
numbers", then the number is all they care about in that case, and they
shouldn't be squawking about their perception of the cache's "quality".
Their goal was met. 

> Urban caches, while often simple in terms of difficulty, provide a
great family bonding
> experience, and entertainment for the younger masses.  It's also
enjoyable for the parents to
> watch their children become excited over finding a cache...those
memories last a lifetime.

You'll get no dispute from me there. But caches don't have to be
difficult to be original. In fact I'd suggest that if people are looking
for a real caching challenge, they should try to hide caches that are
original without being overly difficult.

> Just my .02

As someone on the Groundspeak forums writes, "How come everyone offers
you their two cents, but only offers a penny for YOUR thoughts?"

Steve
Team Tierra Buena