Jump to content

One thing that REALLY iritates me is...


Delta68

Recommended Posts

...when a cache has a string of DNFs suggesting that the cache is missing and the cache owner makes no comment even though he/she has visited geocaching.com in the meantime.

 

OK, so it might not be convenient to go out and check on a cache but they could at least pretend they have the intention of doing so :wub:

 

Just a note would be reassuring that there is actually someone out there....

 

 

[rant over - for now :)]

Link to comment

...when a cache has a string of DNFs suggesting that the cache is missing and the cache owner makes no comment even though he/she has visited geocaching.com in the meantime.

 

OK, so it might not be convenient to go out and check on a cache but they could at least pretend they have the intention of doing so :)

 

Just a note would be reassuring that there is actually someone out there....

If it really irritates you then you should log a Needs Maintenance on it and if there is no follow up from the owner log a Needs Archived. Then it's up to the reviewers to sort it out with the owner. Be aware you may not be the only one irritated if you take that route though :wub:

Link to comment

I think appyling unreasonable time scales is unfair. I think the ones that geocaching.com stipulate are reasonable but cachers expectations of maybe being resolved within a few days is not, in my opinion, right. For example, quite a few of my caches are high up in Snowdonia. In winter, it could be a fair few weeks before the weather is appropriate to maintain these type of caches.

 

I know most people probably think that - thought I'd just balance out the debate! :wub:

Link to comment

Scott is, of course, correct...

 

However, what we also have to remember is that people have lives outside of caching (mad concept, I know) and cannot always get out "within hours" or even days.

 

I have a few caches temped at the moment, and until I can find time to get out there, they will remain temped!!

Link to comment

.. but cachers expectations of maybe being resolved within a few days is not, in my opinion, right. For example, quite a few of my caches are high up in Snowdonia. In winter, it could be a fair few weeks before the weather is appropriate to maintain these type of caches.

 

 

I didn't say it had to be resolved!

 

Just a note saying "I'll look into it at such-and-such a time" would suffice

Link to comment

.. but cachers expectations of maybe being resolved within a few days is not, in my opinion, right. For example, quite a few of my caches are high up in Snowdonia. In winter, it could be a fair few weeks before the weather is appropriate to maintain these type of caches.

 

 

I didn't say it had to be resolved!

 

Just a note saying "I'll look into it at such-and-such a time" would suffice

I totally agree. I recently was responsible for the archiving of three caches that the owners had lost interest in and, despite one’s logging into geocaching.com on subsequent occasions, they made no attempt to even disable their caches, even though my logs said the physical cache wasn’t there (it wasn’t even a DNF on my part). It’s lazy not to write a note if you’ve actually bothered to log in. Almost as bad as people not replying to emails.

Link to comment

Similarly, I find it irksome when the owner does maintenance but hten doesn't log a maintanence visit, so the cache still has a "needs meintanence" flag on it.

I think most people that do that don't actually realise that they need to log an Owner Maintenance to get rid of the attribute. Not everyone is fully clued up when it comes to cache pages :wub:

Link to comment

I think appyling unreasonable time scales is unfair. I think the ones that geocaching.com stipulate are reasonable but cachers expectations of maybe being resolved within a few days is not, in my opinion, right. For example, quite a few of my caches are high up in Snowdonia. In winter, it could be a fair few weeks before the weather is appropriate to maintain these type of caches.

 

I know most people probably think that - thought I'd just balance out the debate! :wub:

I have mountain caches too and know where you're coming from but in such a situation I'd Temp it and put a note as to when I'd hope to get to sort it out. If that changes I'd log another note and so on until it's sorted. That's just another kind of maintenance IMO

 

(same goes for any kind of cache really, not just one on a mountain top)

Link to comment

By the way have you checked to see if any of the DNF's were logged by the actual cache owners? :wub:

 

I only have one cache, so you would think I'd be able to find it. However a couple of months back I went to check up on it, with the wrong datum set in my GPSR. I was on the verge of giving up ... goodness the landscape here has changed ... must be seasonal ... until I realised. Doh.

Link to comment

By the way have you checked to see if any of the DNF's were logged by the actual cache owners? :santa:

Why would anyone do this? :santa:

 

Sorry, was attempting and obviously failing to inject some humour here! Although i agree it can be very frustrating.

 

been there. done that. twice... On both occasions the cache was in place, so it was a proper DNF by me, the owner...

 

One of them I was with some friends and I thought I'd put the cache somewhere else, and couldn't find it (Heln in Mustardland found it instead!) and the other was the day after I'd placed it - went back to check it and couldn't find it - temp disabled it, and then Edgemaster found it for me instead later that same day!

 

Haven't DNF'd someone else's cache for a while - only my own!

 

Dave

Link to comment

Recently I've been caching with friends and relatives so there have been two or three of us searching for a cache, before agreeing we should give up on it. However, in these cases we've all got home and logged our days activities, resulting in three or more DNF logs being generated for the same cache on the same day. I wonder if we should agree on just one of us logging the DNF rather than all of us? Although I guess the cache owner would realise from the logs that we are in fact all working together and should therefore consider the DNF to be 1 attempt that failed?

 

Jon

Link to comment

Recently I've been caching with friends and relatives so there have been two or three of us searching for a cache, before agreeing we should give up on it. However, in these cases we've all got home and logged our days activities, resulting in three or more DNF logs being generated for the same cache on the same day. I wonder if we should agree on just one of us logging the DNF rather than all of us? Although I guess the cache owner would realise from the logs that we are in fact all working together and should therefore consider the DNF to be 1 attempt that failed?

That's probably a very good idea. The owner may well know the story but somone using GSAK to plan a day's caching may just see the three red squares in the DB and disregard the cache without reading the logs. I don't normally cache with others so never considered a group DNF before :santa:

Link to comment

That's probably a very good idea. The owner may well know the story but somone using GSAK to plan a day's caching may just see the three red squares in the DB and disregard the cache without reading the logs. I don't normally cache with others so never considered a group DNF before :santa:

 

That's interesting, you do that? Disregard a cache based on previous DNF's? I must confess it doesn't put me off trying, although I would probably read the DNF logs for something obvious like "Cache site destroyed by fire" or something - otherwise I'd still give it a go. Much more Kudos to find a cache that several other cachers have failed to find before me :santa:

 

J

Edited by Dakar4x4
Link to comment

That's probably a very good idea. The owner may well know the story but somone using GSAK to plan a day's caching may just see the three red squares in the DB and disregard the cache without reading the logs. I don't normally cache with others so never considered a group DNF before :santa:

 

That's interesting, you do that? Disregard a cache based on previous DNF's? I must confess it doesn't put me off trying, although I would probably read the DNF logs for something obvious like "Cache site destroyed by fire" or something - otherwise I'd still give it a go. Much more Kudos to find a cache that several other cachers have failed to find before me :santa:

 

J

 

I don't often read past logs before setting out for a caching trip and before I went paperless I didn't print the logs to save the paper. On more than one occasion when I've had problems I've gone to read the previous logs only to find a screen full of DNF's. So yes I would like to see some response from the cache owner in these situations, and if it's clearly not there they should temp disable it until they can get round to sorting it out.

Link to comment

That's probably a very good idea. The owner may well know the story but somone using GSAK to plan a day's caching may just see the three red squares in the DB and disregard the cache without reading the logs. I don't normally cache with others so never considered a group DNF before :santa:

 

That's interesting, you do that? Disregard a cache based on previous DNF's? I must confess it doesn't put me off trying, although I would probably read the DNF logs for something obvious like "Cache site destroyed by fire" or something - otherwise I'd still give it a go. Much more Kudos to find a cache that several other cachers have failed to find before me :santa:

I don't do it personally but I'm sure there must be other people out there that do.

 

However, if I'm in a cache rich area with limited time I'm probably less likely to try for a cache with multiple DNF logs.

Link to comment

Drifting of topic, but in the same vein as a 'Group DNF': Being paperless, we have access to to the pevious six logs when out on the hunt. A few months ago we did a day's caching in an area where there had recently been an event and virtually all the previous logs just said 'found in the hands of a fellow cacher' or words to that effect. 35.gif

 

In future we'll stay well away from an event-raided area until the dust has settled and a few 'proper' logs have appeared.

Link to comment

Drifting of topic, but in the same vein as a 'Group DNF': Being paperless, we have access to to the pevious six logs when out on the hunt. A few months ago we did a day's caching in an area where there had recently been an event and virtually all the previous logs just said 'found in the hands of a fellow cacher' or words to that effect. 35.gif

 

In future we'll stay well away from an event-raided area until the dust has settled and a few 'proper' logs have appeared.

 

Why? Do you think the cache will still be in the hands of a fellow cacher? :santa: What's wrong with a fellow cachers hands? :lol:

 

If everyone avoids the cache after event logs it'll never get done again.... :santa:

 

Just curious as to what it is about an event cache having been in the area that puts you off?

 

J

Link to comment

...when a cache has a string of DNFs suggesting that the cache is missing and the cache owner makes no comment even though he/she has visited geocaching.com in the meantime.

...

 

In my area I do that on purpose for a simple reason. I don't want to advertise to the cache maggot who steals all our caches that the cache is ready for their stealing again. Instead when I do the maintance run I email one of the last DNF's (or the one who showed the most interest by emailing me) that the cache has been taken care of. That way at least one person gets to find it before it's gone again.

Link to comment

Scott is, of course, correct...

 

However, what we also have to remember is that people have lives outside of caching (mad concept, I know) and cannot always get out "within hours" or even days.

 

I have a few caches temped at the moment, and until I can find time to get out there, they will remain temped!!

 

Ditto.

 

I have just taken care of one cache recently. Two more remote caches remain on my list to take care of. Spring is when I anticipate having time. It will get taken care of. In time. Just not the time frame antsy finders may wish (who are of course welcome to check it out for me and fix it on my behalf rather than typing out twitchy comments on a keyboard).

Link to comment

By the way have you checked to see if any of the DNF's were logged by the actual cache owners? :santa:

Why would anyone do this? :santa:

 

When the owner can't find their own cache.... I've done that before. It was there but had moved a bit from where I placed it. It is a heavily camo'd micro.... so it served me right, lol!

Link to comment

...when a cache has a string of DNFs suggesting that the cache is missing and the cache owner makes no comment even though he/she has visited geocaching.com in the meantime.

 

OK, so it might not be convenient to go out and check on a cache but they could at least pretend they have the intention of doing so ;)

 

Just a note would be reassuring that there is actually someone out there....

 

 

[rant over - for now :lol:]

 

When people hold on to your travel bugs and don't move them on or respond to your polite emails :laughing:

Link to comment

Quote: "A few months ago we did a day's caching in an area where there had recently been an event and virtually all the previous logs just said 'found in the hands of a fellow cacher' or words to that effect. "unquote

 

:( That simply means there were so many people hunting in the same area they didn't have time to re-hide the cache before the next lot arrived and they got caught cache-handed! :D

 

No one actually walks off with it, (unless they get caught by the locals whilst trying to replace it and have to take it shopping!) :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...