Actually the original gist was about caches hidden on private property,
whether micro, large or in between.
In Arizona, the tendency seems to be for the caches hidden in
questionable area to be micros.
Many cachers seem to have the idea that areas with public access are
perfectly fine for caching, without permission from the property owner.
I'm sure the lack of time or effort invested (at both ends!) is what
makes the parking-lot lamp-skirt micro so popular.
The secondary issue is how to tactfully let the placers of these caches
know that these types of caches are really not so wonderful, and that if
permission was not sought and received, they are dangerous to the
seekers, and the activity in general.
Tim Gunderson wrote:
> I disagree. Number of finds doesn't necessarily indicate popularity.
> It probably indicates accessability and ease of finding. It is much
> easier to run out at 7 pm and nab a few micros hidden around town
> (especially in a large city) than to venture out of town and hike 0.25
> miles or more to a cache.
>
> By the same token, it is much easier to place a few mindless micros
> which require little gear, little investment, and little thought, than
> hiding a box of swag off the beaten path. I have found and hidden
> both types.
>
> Remember that the original idea in this thread, as I interpret it, was
> about micros that are not thought out or hidden well. A well thought
> out and well hidden micro can be challenging. I do think you miss the
> point of "popular". If cachers were asked to list their top 5 caches I
> doubt if many urban micros would show up on the list.
> tgundy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* noshdoo tsoh <mailto:geocaching@deepsouthwest.com>
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com <mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!!
>
> /"Trust me, just because there are more micros than rural caches,
> doesn't mean they're more POPULAR."/
>
>
>
> It's not the number of caches that makes them popular, but the
> number of finds on each cache. The fact that they are found at a
> rate exponentially higher than other caches does indicate
> popularity. Or am I missing the definition of 'popular'? Back it
> up with numbers? ;-)
>
> / /
>
> /"We're trying to encourage good micros and urban caches and
> discourage the placement of bad ones."/
>
>
>
> A noble cause, indeed. Can I see you're scientific study on what
> is good and what is bad? You are the decider? Oh, that's right,
> */trust you/*.
>
>
>
> Back to you're regularly scheduled rant...
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
(text/plain)