[Right cache, wrong container.]

To the people who leave throw downs, a cache is generic. To them the point of geocaching is to find a cache. some of them are even puritans and insist you sign the log (that's why the name on the top of the throwdown log is probably the person who left the throwdown ). So it isn't important if the cache is a ammo can or pill bottle, it isn't important if the cache is hanging in a bush or under a suspicious pile of rocks, and it is rarely important if the cache was difficult hide or had some special camouflage.

 

The important thing it that they verify the cache is missing and once they know the cache is missing, then it is always better to replace a missing cache, since a missing cache is impossible to find and the point of geocaching is to find a cache.

 

I'm not sure how they can be certain the cache is missing. I suppose they look and see a cache that was being found and now has a number of consecutive DNFs. I've seen comments posted where if some DNFs are from "experienced" cachers the cache must be really missing. Sometimes they will look at the difficulty or at past logs to see if the cache is tricky, but not always. I got a notification last weekend that a person who is known for leaving throwdowns left one at a difficult cache. Apparently there was a string of finds (including a couple of groups where someone had found the cache before) follow by five DNFs. Without looking at the logs of some finders (which indicate it took them multiple visits), or at difficulty (4 stars), he left a throwdown and a note. (This guy always asks for permission before logging the find, but if you don't give it like I didn't on one of my caches, he'll let you know what an ungrateful bastard you are.) I will point out that this guy went on and logged a couple of DNFs later in the day on much easier caches. In these cases there weren't prior DNFs so he was no longer certain that the cache was missing.

 

i am so happy to see that there is a similar experience elsewhere in the geo-world. although i cannot attribute it to one cacher... each individual situation you described has been seen here, some of them on my caches. my favorite is the "experienced" cacher bit - 100 finds to 8,000 finds, everyone is "experienced"

[Time to DNF?]

Hey,

 

Yesterday I had a bad geocaching day, 0 F & 2 DNF. On the way back to the hotel I was thinking about which would be the average time to DNF, I mean how long would you spend trying to find a cache before giving up? And I'm talking about caches, let's say, D<=3,5 and T<=4

 

Personally I think (let's see what your feedback is like) I'm a "quick quitter". I hardly ever spend more than 10-15 min looking for a cache and I believe my absolute record is 30-35 min, but there are a few reasons:

 

- I'm a "georunner", I run almost daily and try to get some caches along the way. Of course the idea is a quick find and keep moving, rather than freeze with my sweaty running clothes on trying to find that *@"!! canister. I may have found over half of my caches while running

 

- I travel very often, so if you are, let's say, 3 days somewhere in Russia, you focus on the easy wins, because you may never get back there again, and if a theoretically easy one takes longer than expected ... I just move on to the next theoretically easy one, rather than spending one hour on the first one.

 

- And when it's not one of the earlier cases, I've learnt that if I don't find a cache in 10-15 min, the chances for me to find it in the next 30 min are considerably lower than the chances to call it a day, and get back tomorrow. A night of sleep can really open my eyes on a second visit.

 

Anyway, I'm talking too much about myself, and I'm really curious to know whether I'm a "quick quitter" or maybe I'm an "average quitter", so what's your "Time to DNF"??

(Remember D<=3,5, and yes I know that D=3 is theoretically supposed to "take up a good portion of an afternoon." .. but still)

 

Thanks in advance

 

14 hours.

 

of course, i also have a rule of not looking for a D1.5 cache more than 5 minutes. this equates to many, many trips to some caches before there is even an online peep out of me.

[Is it okay to put screws into trees?]

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

 

I always thought it wasn't okay to put things into trees. I'm one of those tree huggers who loves trees and doesn't want to harm them, but maybe this doesn't really harm them. Does anyone know? I'm not a botanist.

 

If screwing into trees is okay, then posts must certainly be okay. That would make a lot of caches possible that weren't before. I don't think personally I'd actually screw into a tree, but I certainly would love to put some caches on some posts. That would open up some great possibilities.

 

Can anyone answer these questions for me?

Thanks

 

please don't screw the tree, you might get splinters.

 

 

sorry... it had to be said.

[Will there ever be any more Lost and Found Events?]

I like pie,

 

i like pie too.

 

small world.

[What Irks you most?]

Oh, lest I forget (the "should not be done" category):

 

Inappropriate swag. I personally do not care about it at all and it seems generally less common over here to trade it, but some caches do have som stuff inside. Unfortunately sometimes it's food, alcohol, fire crackers...

 

one time, i saw a cache that was dedicated to a bachelorette party weekend. it was hidden on a road trip between two major metro areas. needless to say, no photo of the swag could be posted on gc.com for ToS violations. it was quite the treat, if you are into that stuff. the cache lasted for about 3 finders, i think.

[Why such negativity towards a NA]

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

 

obviously, i can only speak for my own experience with the NA flag. i had a cache that was a tough find near a parking lot in an urban area not too far from home. it has had some DNFs on it, and i expected that much. however, after being out more than a year, i got a NA flag raised on it because someone saw that a homeless guy had stashed his stuff about 30 feet from the cache (while he was on the corner 300 feet away panhandling). There was no note, no private email, it was just straight to the NA flag. I have understood that the NA flag is an automatic "reviewer attention grabber". It is a hassle that I don't want to really bother with, because it implies that there is something that i can control... a muggle nearby (homeless or not).

 

for the most part, when i see a NA flag thrown on a local cache it is because the cache hasn't been found (after being agressively sought by locals) and there's no action on the part of the cache owner after months and months of requests for refinement or checking on their 1.5/1.5 cache.

[what bugs me]

Was at west bend WI Geocach event. I log my finds on my phone. And I only do this once or twice a year,

just for something different to do.

and this _____ told me I have to sign the log book or he would kick me out

who does he think he is "Geocach police". he totally wrecked my day.

He just wouldn't let up. I feel it is my choice what I do at the event not his.

I will no longer attend this event. One other thing some geocachers

need to obey the traffic laws just because you are caching doesn't mean

you can do what ever you want with your car.

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

And the problem with signing the logbook is?

 

For me it would be choice. I don't log my finds online, so why would I be required to sign the logbook just to attend the event?

 

that right there is the solution to the problem for someone who is only logging stuff online once or twice a year. why bother logging it online at all? you dont' really need a pixel to say you were at an event, right?

[What Irks you most?]

People who cheat on puzzle caches, specifically by getting the final coordinates from another cacher. If you have no desire to do the puzzle, then pass it by. I'm sure there's a film canister out there with your name on it.

 

here, that is referred to as finder number 4.

[What Irks you most?]

When someone is FTF, but then they take an age to post their log online. Then I dash out, get to GZ, feel all excited that I'm going to be FTF; only to find the log is already signed.

 

What irks me? People who think they are entitled to be notified if they are not going to be FTF on a cache. Part of the FTF side game is not knowing if you are first and feeling the rush hit you when you find out you are. I cannot understand how such self-entitlement can motivate a person to think that they must be placated by an immediate FTF log, lest they actually be disappointed if they come in second.

What are you on about, "placated by an immediate FTF log"? If you had read my post correctly, you would see that it said, "they take an age to post their log online".

 

I understand that some people don't have smartphones and so can't post a log until they get home. I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that people will log their FTF within a reasonable amount of time.

 

I enjoy the thrill of seeing if I'm FTF, or if I have just missed out; but not to get there in the evening and find FTF was at 6:30am (as happened to me once).

 

To think of that as "taking an age" really is a first world problem. You know, someone finds a cache on their way to work, logs it when they get home (and most of us have lives over and above jumping on gc.com the very nanosecond we get home from work). Maybe they were out that evening and logged it the following day. Maybe they were caching while on holiday and have limited internet access, or found the cache on the way to the airport or something. Maybe they just felt like leaving a carrot dangling for other FTF hounds. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not log their find as quickly as you might like.

 

It comes back to, if you play the FTF game you have to deal with the fact that a cache with no logs isn't necessarily an unfound cache.

 

sandbagging a log is silly. FTF hounds do NOT have "lives over and above jumping on gc.com". it is the nature of the hound. they get texts sent directly to their phone telling them of the newest cache that just published 10 miles away.

 

i don't enjoy that part of the side game. first world problems, i know. heck, geocaching in general is a first world issue completely.

[What Irks you most?]

 

[*]People posting "Needs Maintenance" because the log book is either a)full or b)wet or destroyed. To my mind, the effort required to carry a few spare logs and replacing where necessary is minimal and yet everyone benefits, logging can continue and no more "Needs Maintenance" logs It takes more time to place a "Needs Maintenance" note than to replace the log. The rosy glow that you helped the cachers behind you is also nice too.

 

 

What really irks me is lazy cache owners who expect everyone else to maintain their cache.

 

expand on your statement

 

What really irks me is lazy cache owners who expect everyone else to maintain their cache with a note on the cache page from day 1 to throw down a replacement as the finder sees fit if it is missing.

 

Occasional maintenance is no problem. Throwing a cache out your window because you felt like that lamp post needed something is just killing my time having to put it on the ignore list.

[couch logging for August souvenirs]

Efficiency of course! That couple of clicks got them a souvenir AND a 5/5 for their grid... Otherwise they'd have to false log 2 caches and that's, like, double the effort!

 

it's easy enough to get a 5/5 on your grid though. someone will post a challenge cache that requires getting all 7 souvenirs of august.

[Where have the Challenge caches gone?]

Years? I was thinking by this summer, we'll get announcement from Miss Jenn about the end of Challenge Caches.

 

i second that opinion. i really like some of the existing challenges (some seem to be at a great distance from my house), but they'll never be duplicated under the current guidelines even though they require much more geocaching ability than doing an online log for a cache every day for a year. the challenges will atrophy on their own under the weight of the guidelines... or they'll just ban them to finish the deal.

[Where have the Challenge caches gone?]

But what is wrong with putting out a yearly challenge cache

 

 

i like the yearly swings of a new challenge being issued, date restrictions and all... BUT i could see where that sort of violates the rule about permanence. caches are supposed to be placed for the long haul, not just a temporary place holder.

[Report a Geocacher]

A tangential reason this stuff goes on, someone mentioned cache owners deleting the non-logs. I know first hand, this is a drama filled undertaking.

 

The drama llama would be a massive beast in the case of a 10k cacher losing 1k worth of finds. Many cachers do not see the usefullness in expending that much time and energy over a pixel or three.

[Not using favourites]

i don't use the feature to parse out any caches, hence i don't slough off a vote for any cache. if i like the cache, i just remember the cache. i don't need to go back to the cache page.

 

or...

 

maybe i am just a numbers hound and eventually all your cache will be mine anyway no matter who favorited them.

[Geocaching in Iraq.]

they might have really good swag in that cache though... so it might just be worth the risk.

 

 

there is several someones local here that cache in afghanistan and iraq... from my brief perusal, it looks as though they are understandably temporary done by military or contractors.

[Smileys with DNF messages]

i have marked caches found that i meant to mark DNF...

 

and i have DNF'd caches that i meant to mark as found.

 

i almost always catch it when i see that next screen and i see the wrong smiley, and i swap it on the spot.

 

also, in the field... i'm notorious for signing where i can find a spot in the log book. for instance, this weekend, i found a cache... and signed in between two logs... one was dated in '04 and the other was dated '08. there were plenty of loggers elsewhere in the book, so it wasn't a cache that went unfound for 4 years. i just happened to add my special little jumble to the mix.

[What is your next milestone?]

my next milestone is 23,195

 

i might buy a round of drinks.

 

[coordinates in oregon 550t]

Hi, Can anyone tell me if I can put coordinates into my oregon 550t by hand?

 

sure you can.

[Finding caches before they are published]

I don't think it is far fetched at all. It is not a "feature", it is "loophole" that GS (and some cachers "in the know") knows about and will hopefully fix in the future. To me a race should start on an even playing field and that field starts at publication, when the finder can make the assumption the cache is safe to be hunted. That is how the "FTF Race" started, right?

 

very many times, on the caches where i can claim FTF, it wasn't even a race. the true "race" happens that first hour after a cache is published. if no one bothers after the cache that day... or the next... or into the next afternoon, what is the sense in making a big to-do about being FTF as if you raced out of your house in your underwear with a flashlight to beat joe-shmo cacher who lives nearby.

 

the caches that i know are in a location to have a serious "race", i won't even bother since we have a pool of admitted speeders here who see nothing wrong with running a red light or three in order to be "first".

[Finding caches before they are published]

"beta tester"... but as with the FTF "race", there seems to be nothing more than a gentleman's agreement between people who may or may not have ever met or discussed the terms of the race.

 

try having a difficult/unique cache, with a prize for the FTF, only to have the beta tester pounce on the final location the instant of publishing.

 

it is all pretty much gray area. you can claim FTF or FTL if it is that important to you. the CO can't even come close to stopping you.

[Remember when you first started geocaching - What Frustrated You The Most?]

my frustration is an ongoing one...

 

i dislike those 1.5/1.5 caches which are stated to be in plain sight or a PnG... which i have to return to over and over (and over and over and over) again just to have it hit me in the face when i finally do find it.

 

[dont You hate Lamp post hides]

i don't like them... but i don't hate them either.

 

what i hate about LPCs is that when one disappears and the cache owner is long gone from caching... and someone within the caching community thinks it is their duty to keep it maintained (although not really a permanent solution).

 

i'm starting to see areas where it would be cool to have a different cache type (like a puzzle or a multi) without using an LPC only to realize that you'd be too close to that LPC that someone who hasn't cached in 3 years put out as a gag 4 years ago.

 

[Pet Peave!]

My pet peeve is bad spelling.

 

Anyone else?

come on, what did this add to the conversation?

Don't be a jerk. If you don't have anything legitimate to add then don't add anything at all.

 

I can understand the OP's frustration but I am pretty sure that the online log does not matter, its only the physical log that matters.

 

legitimate? how is the OP even legitimate?

 

the next thing they are going to complain about is the COs not recognizing them as "FTF" on the cache listing.... or the person that is FTF didn't use enough exclamation marks or smilies in their postings.

[What would you do?]

LOL! Not your profile pic! Forum avatar!

It's there. It just had to propagate.

 

Now to go explain this to my wife.

 

how would one start to explain gender reassignment?