Goldenwattle

The geocaching site can't run without money, and I made this suggestion as another reason for people to pay for membership, to encourage people to support the geocaching site, so that we can all continue to play this game.

If this option was given, it doesn't mean your rating need change. It can still display 1.5T, or whatever you choose. I think it would be good if both ratings were shown, and it could be that the COs rating was the one that counted towards the grid. The other could just be a guide; nothing more. It would be informative to future finders if people were finding it say 3T. Perhaps your rating and the finders rating would be close. But I know I wouldn't be arrogant enough to persist with my initial rating if it was way out from what the finders found it. I take notice now of comments and the number of DNFs and adjust accordingly.

Size is one of my bug bears too, especially when bringing a TB to place in it. Once I had picked up a TB in the UK which wanted to go to Australia, and I brought it back to Australia with me. Then I read that it wanted to be dropped off in a particular suburb in Sydney, so the sender's sister could find it. I thought that wasn't that impossible for me, so I made the 700km drive to do this. Lots of caches in that suburb marked as small size, so shouldn't be hard to find a small cache to fit this (not large) TB. Well, cache after cache marked small, were mintie tines, which are micros. I drove around for some time before I finally found a real small sized cache; getting more and more annoyed at the wrong ratings?. I blame nanos for this wrong ratings by beginners. If nanos are micros, that must mean that anything bigger; minties tins, 35mm film canisters 'MUST" be smalls, sistemers are then regulars???!!!!

No one can expect someone not to change the D/T rating of a cache after it's published. I have, as I do take very seriously D/T ratings and I do my best to get them right, so I gratefully take aboard feedback; both given and with D how many DNFs this cache is getting. I have lowered the D when a cache was being found without difficulty by nearly everyone. I had expected people to have difficulty, but I was wrong; they didn't, so I corrected the rating. If too many DNFs I up the rating. I have moved a cache to a new hide; very close to the old one, but it went from T1 to T3, because of the nature of the geography and the very limited places to hide a cache there. As for your comment, "I don't really find that many incorrectly rated D/T caches", perhaps that is so where you live, but I have visited towns where almost no cache is listed greater than 1.5 for either D or T. When I rechecked the caches (by several COs) recently I notice that many have been changed to 2 D&T. It's so that non-paying geocachers can assess the cache. So, even if a cache requires climbing, it won't be rated over 1.5T, but now 2T. Actually it's a whole region, not just one town. Very annoying?! If we could have the cache have the averaged D&T ratings of finders it would be very helpful. But maybe only displayed after a certain number of finds, say 20 logs or so. Also maybe by only Premium Members with a minimum number of finds.

I doubt I could, even though as a child I used to send in Morse. Would take me longer.

"35 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said: A lot of these are simple field puzzles (count things or read numerals off a sign)" ?That wasn't my comment.

Even so, I would rate these about D1.5, as there is still extra effort needed to find this cache, that a traditional doesn't have.

Okay, maybe I should have said 1D caches that have low T ratings too. I didn't consider T in my comment, but naturally this counts, and I wasn't counting puzzle caches in the comments, as no puzzle cache I have ever seen would be rated (or should be rated) 1.5D or less. The example cache I gave also has low T rating. It's possible that someone in a wheelchair might be able to get to it, but it's not rated 1T because once to the hide, someone in a wheelchair might have difficulty reaching it under the smaller boulder. (Which I wish that some people in rating their caches 1T would 'get', that it's not just a matter of a wheelchair bound person being able to get their chair to GZ, but then they must be able to reach the cache. Example: rating a cache 1T because there is a wheelchair path to the cache, but not then taking into account that the cache is then hidden under the board-walk where a person in a wheelchair can't reach it. Next one of those cruelly marked caches I come upon will get a NM from me, and if the rating is not corrected a NA. That is so nasty to do that to someone who has mobility issues.)

I have seen many 1Ds with no DNFs. Also 1.5Ds with no DNFs. (Not counting the DNFs when the cache has gone missing...muggled, taken by animal, etc) So it's possible to have them correctly rated. I like the definition for a 1D as, 'In full view and/or obvious.' GC64K6J This is one of my caches. A 1.5D (likely I could have made it 1D), as it's 'obvious' where the cache is hidden; under the only pile of rocks in an open space, and it's a good sized small sized cache, not a micro as well. 191 finds and only 1 DNF; that when the cache was muggled and missing. Never a DNF when the cache was not missing. Under your definition I should have had about ten DNFs. If it had that many it wouldn't be a 1.5D, and I would raise its D to 2 or more.

But that wasn't the difficulty that stopped you; that was the terrain. If you couldn't physically get to the cache, you should say that in your log; that way not finding the cache won't reflect on the D.

Naturally common sense has to be used here. DNFs on a D1 when the cache was missing shouldn't be counted. Same with some of the examples you gave, some I would write a note for, rather than a DNF; such as "a muggle sitting right at GZ". But when a D1 has several DNFs from people who have had good searches, even if others find the cache in between the DNFs, the D1 still deserves a DNF if you can't find it, as obviously it's rated incorrectly.

If I hadn't logged that DNF, no one would have.

I don't fully agree with this. Depends on the cache D rating. If a 1D/1.5D cache has half a dozen DNFS in a row, I think it's reasonable to then log a NM. Either the cache is missing, or the rating is wrong. Something needs fixing. But not of it's a 4D. Rating should be a factor here.

Nothing wrong with that, especially with low rated caches. It shouldn't take ages to find a low rated cache. If I can't find a 1.5D cache in a few minutes and I have other caches to find or places to see, I have been known to log a DNF and move on, writing I spent more time than should be necessary for a 1.5D. If it's a 1D I might even consider logging a NM. A true 1D should have no DNFs. I think the last NM I posted on a so called 1D, was a micro hidden in bushland.

Adding to this ...I have been known where others that were with me haven't logged DNFs - some people appear to be allergic to logging DNFs , listed the names in my log of those who I was caching with and then written that none of us could find it. Can be seen then, the non-DNF loggers. I want to add, that there is nothing rude about how I word the log..."I had a lovely day, accompanied by......, but sadly none of us could find this cache." sort of thing. I believe that logging DNFs is a service to the CO, because it assists them to know how hard this is and set the D rating accordingly, and also to let them know there might be a problem. If one person can't find the cache, that's only one person, but if it's several people that begins to appear (at least for a low rated D cache) there might be a problem. It also demonstrates to the CO that some people just can't be bothered (as too cowardly to...what will people think) to log DNFs and that perhaps long times without a log, might mean there have been lots of not logged DNFs, because none of those were brave enough to log the first DNF. It's amazing how after the first DNF there will suddenly shortly after, be a whole string of them. I found one such cache with no logs for six months. I looked at past logging rates for this cache going back over the years and calculated based on that there were up to 20 not logged DNFs during that six months. I logged a DNF and joked to myself that I bet there would soon be another. Yes, , three days later another DNF appeared. Being proud of your DNFs is a good thing. It shows you are not afraid to log them and are thoughtful to the cache CO.

I have logged 1054 DNFs. But I am good at logging DNFs ??, even when with other people and it seems they are incapable of doing this?...

From previous comments, I think that geocacher has moved south, to here. Am I correct?

Not where I live. LOTS of new caches keep getting published. I am getting overwhelmed by the numbers.

I agree. If you don't want the log signed, you need to get out there and remove it. If it's still there they can sign it. Besides, someone might have an old load in their GPS, loaded before the cache was disabled, and they don't know the cache is disabled. Would that really be fair to delete their log when they signed the log? No, it wouldn't.

This link says to freeze the tick to kill it and then wait for it to drop off naturally. https://www.mydr.com.au/first-aid-self-care/tick-removal

I wish some organisations would use this format. I rang to report a small bushfire and gave the coordinates. The fire department didn't know how to use them. Keep asking the name of the road, which I didn't know. Later I realised my GPS map might have had the name, but still it was a long road out in the dark, night-time country with few cross roads and no house lights in view, and it would have taken time (while the fire burnt) for me to explore my map to find a cross road, and then hope it was named. Coordinates were so much easier to tell them. Finally I asked them to bring up Google maps and type in what I told them. This worked and they could see where the fire was.

If I couldn't get a tick out I would go to the emergency department at a hospital to have it removed. They would triage you for how quickly you would be seen to. Although most tick bites don't pose a problem they can, such as tick paralysis. In most western countries (outside the USA) I imagine the hospital visit would be free for their citizens. It is in Australia, and was even for me once in NZ, because of reciprocal arrangements a number of countries have with each other. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-tick-bite-prevention.htm The last time I had a tick on/in me, was in my hair. I woke up in the middle of the night and felt my hair and found a lump. In my half awake state I pulled at it, thinking a seed of something was caught in my hair. Finally I yanked it out, put it on the side table and rolled over to go back to sleep. Suddenly I bolted upright as it had finally dawned on my sleepy mind what that might have been. Tick ?! I turned on the bed light and saw the 'seed' walking across the side table. I grabbed a pair of scissors and cut it in half.

I found $30 in a cache once.

Risky...

I don't think it's that big, but I don't know where to find it quickly to check.