Is this someting worth contacting a reviewer about?

[+casadelrut]

Cache GC406E

 

First of all, this is listed as a traditional cache, but there is a requirement to have a compass and walk 177 feet from the location in a given direction to find the cache.

 

2nd, the owner is rude to cache finders. He seems to think everyone is out to get him (and his caches), and takes friendly user notes in the worst possible way, attacking them in his own user notes.

 

I know reviewers aren't cache police, and I hate to bother them unless it is warranted, but this one concerns me for multiple reasons.

 

I had no trouble finding this one, but if I didn't have cachemate, I would not have known to walk 177 feet away to find the cache. That doesn't mean its a difficulty 4, just that its a mystery cache.

 

Anyway, just looking for opinions. Thanks in advance.

[+StarBrand]

Actually it is an offset cache. Thus should be listed as a multicache. My opinion.

 

Not worth causing a huge argument over it. Log it and be done with it. Best you can do is make a suggestion to change the type in your log.

 

And IMHO - you should be reading the descriptions - might be some important info about access hours or such that could get you in trouble even on regular caches.

 

edit: The cache is older than the current guidelines (and several past revisions) so anything other than regular just didn't appy - no need to change a thing or even mention it.

Edited January 15, 2008 by StarBrand

[+joranda]

I would think, why worry about it. You found it and it sounded easy. Take the smiley and move on.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I would think, why worry about it. You found it and it sounded easy. Take the smiley and move on.

 

Did you read the listing and log files for the cache. First of all, in the listing he refers to the landscape maintenance people that maintain the property upon which the cache is hidden as idiots and morons and subsequently calls another person that logged that cache a jackass. I think he owner could use an attitude adjustment.

 

As far as using the compass goes, I agree that it probably shouldn't be listed as a "regular cache". At the very least it should be more clearly spelled out the finding the cache requires a compass. There is a similar cache in North Carolina and it clearly states on the listing that a compass is required. Based on that cache I have considered placing a similar cache on the campus where I work that has a maze of pathways that one would have to follow to get to the cache.

[+Kealia]

Sounds like a good one for the ignore list.

[+Difranco]

Aside from the cache owner's attitude ...

 

This cache is just an offset cache and appears to have been listed before offset caches were considered a Multi-Caches thus grandfathered in the traditional category.

 

You need to read cache descriptions, print them to go, or use the PDA in order to find a lot of caches. This type is no different.

 

Enjoy the hunt.

[+steve p]

I think the cache is somewhat creative. There is a cache near me with an almost identical instruction that I have wanted to try. You don't need cachemate to know about the instruction, just read the cache page before heading out or print the page and take with you.

 

That said, what the cache owner wrote on the cache page and in his logs are totally uncalled for. If the same things were said here in the forums it might warrant a warning from a moderator.

[+StarBrand]

BTW - no "need" for a compass - use your GPS to project the waypoint - a functions we should all learn anyway.

 

Or use a program to "project it" before you even go. like geocalc.

[+casadelrut]

BTW - no "need" for a compass - use your GPS to project the waypoint - a functions we should all learn anyway.

 

Or use a program to "project it" before you even go. like geocalc.

 

Well that's what I did. It was pretty easy to approximate the direction (plus there weren't many directions I could go that far in a straight line). I was just looking for an opinion, and I think I'll just personally never look at that cache listing again, since I found it (and there is no point reasoning with the owner).

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Cache GC406E

 

First of all, this is listed as a traditional cache, but there is a requirement to have a compass and walk 177 feet from the location in a given direction to find the cache.

 

2nd, the owner is rude to cache finders. He seems to think everyone is out to get him (and his caches), and takes friendly user notes in the worst possible way, attacking them in his own user notes.

 

I know reviewers aren't cache police, and I hate to bother them unless it is warranted, but this one concerns me for multiple reasons.

 

I had no trouble finding this one, but if I didn't have cachemate, I would not have known to walk 177 feet away to find the cache. That doesn't mean its a difficulty 4, just that its a mystery cache.

 

Anyway, just looking for opinions. Thanks in advance.

First, the cache is an old cache, placed back in 2002. In those days, caches where you needed to project a bearing were listed as Traditional caches, while nowadays such a cache would likely be listed as a multi-stage cache (not a mystery/ALR cache.) No harm done either way, since the cache listing page clearly states that a projection is involved and provides all needed data.

 

Next, I am not sure why your feel that "Cachemate" would be necessary to know that this cache was a projection cache. A simple reading of the cache page would have been sufficient to have told you that, since the requirement was clearly stated on the cache listing page. I am sure that you DID read the cache listing page prior to seeking the cache, but perhaps you forgot about the caveat regarding doing a projection by the time you reached the posted waypoint.

 

And, since you asked: Yes, it does seem that the cache owner is kinda rude to some people and also has a lot of apparently unfounded hostility toward College Station landscape maintenance personnel (especially in light of the fact that other local cachers have pointed that said personnel do not maintain this particular property) and toward some cachers as well, but I am mystified as to you are acting so surprised, shocked and hurt at his/her obvious high level of hostility, since that bristling hostility was obvious to you from the very first moment that you read the cache listing page along with some of the more recent log entries, i.e., before you ever headed out the door to try to find this cache. So, no surprise, no drama: you knew from the start, before ever deciding to seek the cache, that the owner seems to have some major hostility problems, just as you knew from the start that the cache was a projection cache. So, why whine about it all now? Isn't that akin to deciding to seek a 5/5 cache where the cache listing page clearly and explicitly announces that the cache is located in a rattlesnake den -- and the page includes the venemous snake attribute icon as well -- and then complaining afterward that you were almost bitten by a rattlesnake while seeking the cache?

 

My bottom-line advice, offered only since you asked, is that you may wish to simply skip caches owned by this cache owner in the future. It is really as simple as that.

[+Team Cotati]

What would be wrong with using the compass rose in the GPSr? I've done that quite successfully, no big deal.

[bogleman]

If you really have to know

 

I would not waste the time of the VCR in the area, not worth the time and effort.

 

The guy has a problem with the labor and folks stealing his stuff and is just venting his feelings - as my daughter says "WHATEVER"

[+tozainamboku]

 

First, the cache is an old cache, placed back in 2002. In those days, caches where you needed to project a bearing were listed as Traditional caches, while nowadays such a cache would likely be listed as a multi-stage cache (not a mystery/ALR cache.) No harm done either way, since the cache listing page clearly states that a projection is involved and provides all needed data.

 

Next, I am not sure why your feel that "Cachemate" would be necessary to know that this cache was a projection cache. A simple reading of the cache page would have been sufficient to have told you that, since the requirement was clearly stated on the cache listing page. I am sure that you DID read the cache listing page prior to seeking the cache, but perhaps you forgot about the caveat regarding doing a projection by the time you reached the posted waypoint.

Ah, that's the difference between 2002 and now. In 2002 we didn't have Cachemate. We didn't have PQs. You read the cache page before you looked for the cache. It didn't matter if a cache was mis-categorized because you had read the cache page and probably even took the printout with you.

 

Then came PQs and Cachemate and paperless caching. People started loading 500 caches into their GPS and went off looking for them with having any idea if this was traditional cache or something else. All of a sudden it became important for caches to be correctly classified. The paperless people even got the guidelines changed so that ALR caches were classified as Mystery/Unknown. That way they could be sure that a traditional cache was just find it and nothing else. Of course if the cache page says don't search at night or you don't have to leave the trail to find the cache - the paperless cacher may not know. And when the ranger catches them searching when or where they shouldn't be - all geocachers will get a bad reputation.

 

You have to give the old timers some credit. Read the cache page and know before you go and stop complaining about mis-categorized caches.

[+Sand-Man]

I gotta agree that reading the complete listing would have cued you or anyone else in on the fact that you would need a compass. But the other stuff, I would let it go. You have to remember that some folks get there rocks off pissing people off in forums (or logs) and it's real easy to act tough and throw out insults when you are sitting at home at your computer. The more you enter in his log, the more you are going to make him smile. I'd let it ride and move on to the next cache. That'll probably piss him off more than anything....

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

 

First, the cache is an old cache, placed back in 2002. In those days, caches where you needed to project a bearing were listed as Traditional caches, while nowadays such a cache would likely be listed as a multi-stage cache (not a mystery/ALR cache.) No harm done either way, since the cache listing page clearly states that a projection is involved and provides all needed data.

 

Next, I am not sure why your feel that "Cachemate" would be necessary to know that this cache was a projection cache. A simple reading of the cache page would have been sufficient to have told you that, since the requirement was clearly stated on the cache listing page. I am sure that you DID read the cache listing page prior to seeking the cache, but perhaps you forgot about the caveat regarding doing a projection by the time you reached the posted waypoint.

Ah, that's the difference between 2002 and now. In 2002 we didn't have Cachemate. We didn't have PQs. You read the cache page before you looked for the cache. It didn't matter if a cache was mis-categorized because you had read the cache page and probably even took the printout with you.

 

Then came PQs and Cachemate and paperless caching. People started loading 500 caches into their GPS and went off looking for them with having any idea if this was traditional cache or something else. . .

 

You have to give the old timers some credit. Read the cache page and know before you go and stop complaining about mis-categorized caches.

Thanks for stating that so well! I agree. Frankly, I am still amazed that some people head out to find caches without reading cache listing pages in full. I have, in the past, related some really sick and funny tales in this forum of things that I have seen done by cache hunters who were seeking some of my 5/5 Psycho Urban Caches but who failed to first read the cache listing page. sigh!

[+Harry Dolphin]

Cache GC406E

 

First of all, this is listed as a traditional cache, but there is a requirement to have a compass and walk 177 feet from the location in a given direction to find the cache.

 

2nd, the owner is rude to cache finders. He seems to think everyone is out to get him (and his caches), and takes friendly user notes in the worst possible way, attacking them in his own user notes.

 

I know reviewers aren't cache police, and I hate to bother them unless it is warranted, but this one concerns me for multiple reasons.

 

I had no trouble finding this one, but if I didn't have cachemate, I would not have known to walk 177 feet away to find the cache. That doesn't mean its a difficulty 4, just that its a mystery cache.

 

Anyway, just looking for opinions. Thanks in advance.

 

Okay. Why would you even consider reporting this to a reviewer? The owner has an attitude? You didn't care for it? It's misrated? You actually have to read the cache page? Reviewers aren't cache police. Cachers who report caches for meaningless reasons like that are cache police.

[+KoosKoos]

wow, I haven't seen rants like that since the Ringbone highlight reel! He sure vented some serious frustration about his caches coming up missing. I definitely wouldn't sweat anything on his pages and just chalk it up to misplaced anger.

 

Of course, he is living in Aggieland and that's enough to cause severe bouts of depression in most sane people! Sorry, can't resist picking on a rival school, now can I?

[+TrailGators]

Ah, that's the difference between 2002 and now. In 2002 we didn't have Cachemate. We didn't have PQs. You read the cache page before you looked for the cache. It didn't matter if a cache was mis-categorized because you had read the cache page and probably even took the printout with you.

Good point. Caching is fast food these days. If you don't use a Palm it can actually be more fun. I've been going back to the caching the old way for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason is I've found that nowadays I need to do some homework to avoid caches I probably won't enjoy.

 

I would not contact the reviewer over this. They have enough to do with the voluntary time.

Edited January 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Moore9KSUcats]

We've watched some of his "rants" for quite a while, now. We've also found a few of his caches. One of his caches (not "Old Army") came up missing, and he did his usual rant about maintenance stealing it.... he archived it.

 

Sometime later, an Austin couple actually found the cache... how well did he go search for it? Apparently, not that well.

 

Face it... that guy has a problem... maybe he is a bit paranoid? No telling. We usually just ignore his caches. He's not worth our time of day. I'm just glad I don't have to deal with him... he seems to be associated with the school, since he apparently has a webcam in a nearby office.

 

When we found that cache, the coordinates took us very close, and we looked at the most obvious hiding spot. We found it with just a few minutes of searching. No, I don't feel it is a 4 star cache, either, but it isn't worth arguing with him about it. Heck, you could take a reasonable bearing from what you feel is north, and go 54 degrees from that. Really, a very easy cache. (We did that particular cache in our first 50 caches, probably... I don't remember.)

 

Just ignore the guy... he still has a few caches in the CS area. There are others in CS that have done far more for the sport than he has.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Moore9KSUcats

[+Cav Scout]

Sounds like a great cache to find . I will put it on my list of caches to find when I'm TX.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Cav Scout

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

My bottom-line advice, offered only since you asked, is that you may wish to simply skip caches owned by this cache owner in the future. It is really as simple as that.

 

It looks like everyone took your advice for his Event Cache...nobody showed up.

[Mr.Yuck]

My bottom-line advice, offered only since you asked, is that you may wish to simply skip caches owned by this cache owner in the future. It is really as simple as that.

 

It looks like everyone took your advice for his Event Cache...nobody showed up.

 

Crud. You beat me to it. What if this grumpy cache owner held an event, and no one showed up? I can offer the link though: 2002 A&M Foxhunt event

[+mtn-man]

Ah, that's the difference between 2002 and now. In 2002 we didn't have Cachemate. We didn't have PQs. You read the cache page before you looked for the cache. It didn't matter if a cache was mis-categorized because you had read the cache page and probably even took the printout with you.

 

Then came PQs and Cachemate and paperless caching. People started loading 500 caches into their GPS and went off looking for them with having any idea if this was traditional cache or something else. All of a sudden it became important for caches to be correctly classified. The paperless people even got the guidelines changed so that ALR caches were classified as Mystery/Unknown. That way they could be sure that a traditional cache was just find it and nothing else. Of course if the cache page says don't search at night or you don't have to leave the trail to find the cache - the paperless cacher may not know. And when the ranger catches them searching when or where they shouldn't be - all geocachers will get a bad reputation.

 

You have to give the old timers some credit. Read the cache page and know before you go and stop complaining about mis-categorized caches.

Sorry, but as an old timer, I have to say you are wrong.

 

I've been hunting traditional caches without reading the cache page pretty much from the start. I enjoy the challenge of making the cache hunt as challenging as possible. In the old days before paperless caching, I would print cache pages but generally would not read them. If needed, I would refer to the cache page in the field. I most certainly did not invent this caching method. Plenty of others did this. The creation of paperless caching was a convenience for me and allowed me to be conservative with natural resources, saved me money in the long run and gave me increased efficiency in planning and enjoying caching trips. It most certainly did not suddenly give me the idea that I could look for caches without reading the cache description.

 

To drive my point home, look at the very first log on the cache. It is a DNF. It is because that cacher did not read the cache page. Lots of people cached this way before paperless caching. I know. I was there.

 

Frankly, the mis-categorization of this cache should be corrected. What is the point of having categories otherwise.

[+casadelrut]

Wow, there were way more replies here than I ever wanted or expected. Go spend a couple hours with the family and your thread explodes! Short and simple, I found the cache easily (yes, I did read the page before, but no, I wouldn't have remembered THAT was the one that wasn't where the coords said it would be), the guy has issues, and I'm done with it (maybe I'll read and laugh at him in the future, who knows).

 

Thanks for the opinions and the clarity. I did not know when multi or puzzle caches were invented, so that pretty much clears it up. I do feel bad for any new people who read this guy's ramblings as I do not feel it is a good reflection on this community... but, to each his own.

[+PhxChem]

Good point. Caching is fast food these days.

 

Yes, the halcyon days of geocaching. Every time you met a fellow geocacher, you gave them a big fluffy sepia-colored hug. Why....I remember when we used to get the coordinates on the teletype!! Grandpa would smoke his pipe and tell us marvelous stories about Signal and his friends frolicking in the ionosphere. Back in ole ought-one...

 

And really, who doesn't like a fat can of beans in their cache?

[+whistler & co.]

While I respect the attitude of not reading the cache description before heading out in order to make the whole experience more challenging, I truly feel that people who do this have the potential to create problems where none need to exist. The cache desription may contain critical information, such as coordinates for a right-of-way to landlocked property where the cache owner has permission hide a cache, or hours of operation for a park, or a warning that dogs are not allowed off leashes, etc. One of our cache hides states that the cache is not hidden in the stone wall near GZ. If people did not read the description and began to move rocks around on the wall, not only would the wall be damaged, but the cache would have to be archived. If they are aware of the not-in-the-wall warning, the cache can potentially remain in place indefinitely because the area will not suffer any ill effects from people searching.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Thanks for stating that so well! I agree. Frankly, I am still amazed that some people head out to find caches without reading cache listing pages in full. I have, in the past, related some really sick and funny tales in this forum of things that I have seen done by cache hunters who were seeking some of my 5/5 Psycho Urban Caches but who failed to first read the cache listing page. sigh!

 

Sometimes fully reading a cache page just prior to going out to look for it just isn't feasible. Over the New Years Eve weekend we went out of town about 100 miles away for the weekend. I had a bunch of geocaches loaded in my GPS in the area and cache listings on my Blackberry. We decided, however, to check out early and stay at a different hotel in another city about 60 miles from home. I had a bunch of waypoint in my GPS in that area from a previous visit several months ago and a couple of hours to kill so I went in search of some of them. I ended up spending about 15 minutes search in a mix of rain and snow for a cache in a park that, after getting home, discovered was an offset cache, and about 15 minutes searching for another that had been archived. However, I *did* find 5 others including one I had DNFd on previously. It was in an area that typically has very high muggle activity but 10:00am on New Years Day is a pretty good time to search for urban caches. It was a good thing that there were so few people around since it probably took me five minutes to remove the container after I first put my hands on it.

[+casadelrut]

Edited because I can't read. Nothing to see here, move along.

Edited January 17, 2008 by casadelrut

[+Jumpmaster]

I was actually finished with this thread, but I wanted to comment to say that the cache got archived. It had nothing to do with a mis-categorization, but apparently a combination of rude owner notes, and the fact that it keeps disappearing.

 

Then the owner deleted my find in revenge, and sent me an unfriendly email saying he did not want me to find any of his caches. (okay)

 

My first deleted note. I'll have to write this one down on my calendar in red letters and celebrate the anniversary in future years for nostalgia. This went WAY farther than I ever intended it to.

 

Actually, I didn't delete your note. "MissJenn" did that.

 

While I'm here, I think I should be afforded the opportunity to address this issue and straighten some things out.

 

Apparently, someone or a group of people are misinformed as to the location of this cache. This particular cache has NEVER ONCE been removed by anyone. In fact, that is the reason I placed it on campus -- the City of College Station parks people kept "acquiring" my caches placed in city parks. Because that happened several times, I decided to not place them within the city proper and instead placed this one ON CAMPUS -- WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CITY. This cache has never been stolen or otherwise removed by anyone, yet "MissJenn" is under the mistaken impression that this is the one that was repeatedly stolen and says that's why it was (wrongfully) archived.

 

And the ones that told you this was placed as a traditional cache instead of a multi because of its age are also correct. It was posted years ago, before the current guidelines.

 

No geocachers came to the event cache because I didn't really care if they did or not...I didn't make any effort to promote it by contacting geocachers. I just posted in case they wanted to see what a fox hunt was since we had one scheduled for that date. There were plenty of hams there, just no geocachers.

 

So, you (casedelrut) should try to be better informed before you come here complaining about me or my caches. Since they obviously trouble you, yes -- I asked that you not bother finding any of them in the future. What good could come from it?

 

JM

Edited January 17, 2008 by Jumpmaster

[+Isonzo Karst]

I used the contact@geocaching.com to report the cache as being defamatory yesterday when I looked at the cache page.

 

On your original question, if the type is wrong, I'd bring that to the cache owner's attention (though maybe not this particular cache owner) and possibly to a reviewer's attention.

 

Where the cache page is grotesquely defamatory, as here, I'd use the general inquiries address, contact@geocaching.com. Reviewers are not log/cache police, but Groundspeak staff can be.

[+mtn-man]

I am sure you were not the only one to report that cache. The text in the description is about the most abusive I have ever seen. That cache description is a textbook case on how not to win friends and not sway land managers. The sad thing is that the abusive description ends up hurting cachers in your area by turning off the local land managers.

[+MissJenn]

Then the owner deleted my find in revenge, and sent me an unfriendly email saying he did not want me to find any of his caches. (okay)

 

Actually, I didn't delete your note. "MissJenn" did that.

 

JM

I deleted an abusive note and 2 other notes that refer to the one I just deleted, so they no longer had context. Anyway, even if they had context, discussion belongs in the forum, and not on cache pages.

 

I did not delete Found It logs here.

 

Log owners do receive a notification of exactly who deleted their log and when.

[+PhxChem]

No geocachers came to the event cache because I didn't really care if they did or not

 

Well there you go......

[+eagletrek]

I was actually finished with this thread, but I wanted to comment to say that the cache got archived. It had nothing to do with a mis-categorization, but apparently a combination of rude owner notes, and the fact that it keeps disappearing.

 

Then the owner deleted my find in revenge, and sent me an unfriendly email saying he did not want me to find any of his caches. (okay)

 

My first deleted note. I'll have to write this one down on my calendar in red letters and celebrate the anniversary in future years for nostalgia. This went WAY farther than I ever intended it to.

 

Actually, I didn't delete your note. "MissJenn" did that.

 

While I'm here, I think I should be afforded the opportunity to address this issue and straighten some things out.

 

Apparently, someone or a group of people are misinformed as to the location of this cache. This particular cache has NEVER ONCE been removed by anyone. In fact, that is the reason I placed it on campus -- the City of College Station parks people kept "acquiring" my caches placed in city parks. Because that happened several times, I decided to not place them within the city proper and instead placed this one ON CAMPUS -- WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CITY. This cache has never been stolen or otherwise removed by anyone, yet "MissJenn" is under the mistaken impression that this is the one that was repeatedly stolen and says that's why it was (wrongfully) archived.

 

And the ones that told you this was placed as a traditional cache instead of a multi because of its age are also correct. It was posted years ago, before the current guidelines.

 

No geocachers came to the event cache because I didn't really care if they did or not...I didn't make any effort to promote it by contacting geocachers. I just posted in case they wanted to see what a fox hunt was since we had one scheduled for that date. There were plenty of hams there, just no geocachers.

 

So, you (casedelrut) should try to be better informed before you come here complaining about me or my caches. Since they obviously trouble you, yes -- I asked that you not bother finding any of them in the future. What good could come from it?

 

JM

 

Just another reason to avoid TAM.

Edited January 24, 2008 by eagletrek

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

BTW - no "need" for a compass - use your GPS to project the waypoint - a functions we should all learn anyway.

 

Or use a program to "project it" before you even go. like geocalc.

 

It's called "range and bearing"... off a known point...

and just about every GPS will do that...

we have found many caches like this...

Edited January 24, 2008 by Peconic Bay Sailors

[+PilotMike]

BTW - no "need" for a compass - use your GPS to project the waypoint - a functions we should all learn anyway.

 

Or use a program to "project it" before you even go. like geocalc.

It's called "range and bearing"... off a known point...

and just about every GPS will do that...

we have found many caches like this...

 

Probably the easiest (no button pushing, no compass) way to end up 177' towards 54 degrees is to walk until your GPS says you are 177' away and need to go 234 degrees to get there...

[+casadelrut]

BTW - no "need" for a compass - use your GPS to project the waypoint - a functions we should all learn anyway.

 

Or use a program to "project it" before you even go. like geocalc.

It's called "range and bearing"... off a known point...

and just about every GPS will do that...

we have found many caches like this...

 

Probably the easiest (no button pushing, no compass) way to end up 177' towards 54 degrees is to walk until your GPS says you are 177' away and need to go 234 degrees to get there...

 

lol. Hey, haven't seen your name lately. I see you on a lot of old caches and benchmarks around here. But anyway, thats off topic.