Disrespecting Sensitive Camo, by PMs no less!

[+Flintstone5611]

There is a premium cache that was recently published in our area, it is a high difficulty and lower terrain. The cache has been placed by a newer cacher but has been scrutinized to no end. Some love it, others hate it, but due to the high difficulty it is drawing a lot of attention. Since the cache is along a regular route of the CO, they are able to perform maintenance very regularly. It has turned into a little game of sorts, trying to figure out how many fresh tracks are near GZ since the last time without any new logs.

 

Recently, the cache owner has found that some are disrespecting the camo. They aren't putting the cache back the way that they found it. This greatly affects the difficulty and results in logs like: "finding the cache took about 3 minutes. Hated the hiding place"! I know that this is frustrating the CO and is really disrespectful of the efforts and the logs of other cachers.

 

Why do you think that some of these premium members are being such hooligans? Most have been supportive, but there is this unsilent minority that takes shots at the CO and this cache. Why not say nothing at all, rather than giving attitude?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Flintstone5611

[+bittsen]

The greatest thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it.

The worst thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is a premium cache that was recently published in our area, it is a high difficulty and lower terrain. The cache has been placed by a newer cacher but has been scrutinized to no end. Some love it, others hate it, but due to the high difficulty it is drawing a lot of attention. Since the cache is along a regular route of the CO, they are able to perform maintenance very regularly. It has turned into a little game of sorts, trying to figure out how many fresh tracks are near GZ since the last time without any new logs.

 

Recently, the cache owner has found that some are disrespecting the camo. They aren't putting the cache back the way that they found it. This greatly affects the difficulty and results in logs like: "finding the cache took about 3 minutes. Hated the hiding place"! I know that this is frustrating the CO and is really disrespectful of the efforts and the logs of other cachers.

 

Why do you think that some of these premium members are being such hooligans? Most have been supportive, but there is this unsilent minority that takes shots at the CO and this cache. Why not say nothing at all, rather than giving attitude?

 

Some cachers should be whipped on a regular basis, but are you gonna find that in the guidelines?

NOOO!

[oakenwood]

I'm shocked, Flintstone. I truly am.

 

I can understand us freeloaders disrespecting caches. But Premium Members? That's disturbing.

[+BlueDeuce]

I'm shocked, Flintstone. I truly am.

 

I can understand us freeloaders disrespecting caches. But Premium Members? That's disturbing.

 

Quiet you!

 

 

(Just kidding )

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

"Sensitive camo"

"disrespecting the camo"

 

Sounds like your first mistake was you didnt make your container idiot-proof. Combine this with your high-muggle area and yeah, people will complain about the hide, PM or not a PM.

 

Your second mistake was your opinion on PMs. A PM is not a better player, a PM is just anyone that can pay $30 for additional Groundspeak tools for the game.

 

People will complain about a hide no matter what. Make a better container or find a better cache location and move on. And put on your thick skin when reading logs.

Edited March 17, 2010 by bramasoleiowa

[+t4e]

i have great trust in the geocaching community in general, that is mostly composed of people with common sense, nature lovers and respectful of others, but....like anything else in life there's always bad apples around

 

and those bad apples seem to be the ones that really don't get the real meaning/benefit of geocaching

those are the people that make it a competitive game and all they care about is their stats and have a sense of entitlement, people that no matter what they do in life can not deal with or accept any sort of failure, for lack of a better word, to me a challenging hide that makes you go back a few times is not failure, its just part of the fun, but very select few will not view it that way and feel that revenge is in order

 

bottom line is....they are disrespectful, and i feel sorry for them having to spend their life in such state of mind

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

t4e- I doubt its revenge in this case.

He put a lock-n-lock near the intersection of 4 bank buildings. Half the logs say that muggles were watching them.

Most likely the cachers were in a hurry to put the container back while being watched and put the wrong side facing out.

[+Castle Mischief]

The greatest thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it.

The worst thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it.

 

The greatest thing about being a Premium Member is that anybody can pay the $30 and become one... etc, etc.

[hoosier guy]

The greatest thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it.

The worst thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it.

 

That is it in a nutshell. Since I started caching I have been in contact with some really nice folks and some that wold not fit in that description. When you are dealing with this many people there will be a few bad apples.

[+Walts Hunting]

You are aware that there are human beings involved in this hobby. Such conduct should be expected from that group. And your thoughts that Premium members are a class better than the proleteriat such as oakenwood is flawed.

 

Hey Blue Duece, why the new avatar.

[+sbell111]

You are aware that there are human beings involved in this hobby. Such conduct should be expected from that group. And your thoughts that Premium members are a class better than the proleteriat such as oakenwood is flawed.

 

Hey Blue Duece, why the new avatar.

The minute hand moved.

[+dfx]

too bad it's not possible to put any other visibility clauses into a cache listing, for example "show this cache only to members with at least 300 finds" etc

[+SooMukwas]

It doesn't take much to show some respect when caching. To respect the owner's wishes on this cache so the next cacher can experience it the way it was intended, is not asking much at all. You are disrespecting not just the cache owner but the next cachers to come along too.

 

Oh no, so you have to take a few extra seconds out of your life to replace the camo properly? Isn't it the same for any cache you find?

 

I think the owner must have put a ton of time into creating this cache for OUR enjoyment. The least we can do is show our thanks by enjoying the find and replacing it back properly.

 

I am so glad the we found it early after it was published and got the full experience of what a high difficulty rated cache should be. We spent an hour at GZ and area scouring the area like we were Horatio and company. After given a vague hint, we still had to ponder it and then finally figured out the hide.

 

This was one of the most memorable caches and the first one I have seen of this kind. So, honestly, I get pissed also when I see it being disrespected.

[+Too Tall John]

too bad it's not possible to put any other visibility clauses into a cache listing, for example "show this cache only to members with at least 300 finds" etc

I suspect in this case, the filter that would work would be "Show this cache only to members with less than 300 finds."

[+t4e]

t4e- I doubt its revenge in this case.

He put a lock-n-lock near the intersection of 4 bank buildings. Half the logs say that muggles were watching them.

Most likely the cachers were in a hurry to put the container back while being watched and put the wrong side facing out.

 

its more a general comment

 

however, none of the details you provide now about the hide are not mentioned in the original post, nor has a link to the cache been posted to read the logs

[+Castle Mischief]

Recently, the cache owner has found that some are disrespecting the camo. They aren't putting the cache back the way that they found it. This greatly affects the difficulty and results in logs like: "finding the cache took about 3 minutes. Hated the hiding place"! I know that this is frustrating the CO and is really disrespectful of the efforts and the logs of other cachers.

 

So are the people that hate the hiding place supposedly saying this because the previous finder has allegedly disturbed the camo or is it the camo-disturbers that hate the hiding place? I'm a little confused.

 

Could it it be that the hiding-place-haters and the camo-disturbers are two different unrelated groups?

 

I'd have to know exactly what the camo in this case is. Is the camo some really well-thought-out natural mimicry or is it a giant pile of fake dog poo? I don't know this is the case, but I have seen cases where "camo" really meant giant pile of garbage and trash.

[+StarBrand]

I'm not so sure you can blame the finders a lot here. It sounds as if Muggles may have made them want to hurry up some.

 

I haven't a clue what 'disrespecting camo' involves on any level but I can speculate that finders maybe didn't fully understand the camo technique or the hider made it difficult to replace the container.

 

In the same way that a few of my caches experience cache migration over time - it is easy to believe that a cache can be slightly altered by perception when beign replaced.

 

I am having a hard time getting real upset over this issue at any rate.

[+Casting Crowns]

I have learned that truly NEAT/CLEVER hides don't last long. People tend to have a "scorched Earth" attitude at GZ looking for a cache. I had a really neat acorn hide using one of the HUGE acorns (don't know the tree) that we have down here. Just wouldn't last....people kept tearing it apart and I grew tired of replacing it. It even wasn't TOO difficult because I hung it in a generic "landscaping" tree so it wasn't really a frustrating hide....just neat camo. The ten people who found it absolutely loved it. I just wanted to offer something different from all of the film cans.

 

And, before people get their feelings hurt, yes....I would believe someone who PAYS for a membership would have more respect for geocaching. That respect even extends to PAYING for the amount of work Groundspeak puts into this game even though it's offered for free.

[+Too Tall John]

Why do you think that some of these premium members are being such hooligans? Most have been supportive, but there is this unsilent minority that takes shots at the CO and this cache. Why not say nothing at all, rather than giving attitude?

Hrm. . . Found the cache. Unless the OP knows of a reason why it shouldn't be posted, I think they should post a link. I'll leave it to them. For those curious enough, look in their profile for MOC's with a high difficulty & low terrain. It's easy to find.

 

Anyhow, aside from the log mentioned in the OP, other logs include:

My chauffeur pulled alongside the cache zone let me out; he met up with the cache owner to enjoy watching the lab rat squirm. . .I hope to be on “display” for you at another of your excellent caches

. . . Pretty clever, I would say.

Anyways it was a super and very creative hide and you definitely had us fool for awhile even though I kept checking the hiding spot several times. I look forward to any more of your creative hides. Well done.

These are the caches that make caching fun! Wish there were more like this. Can't wait to see more from you . . . keep it up.

Nice job

Interesting camo job on the container . . .

Final thoughts: Ingenius!

I loved your actual hide!! I have never seen a camo like that before.

Had to check a couple of places before I found the cache - in the first place I looked! Just had to look a little closer I guess.

Out of the 17 "Found It" logs, 9 give it high praise, one says "Hated the hiding place" and the rest vary between neutral to positive tone.

 

While I understand that the real issue is with replacing the container & camo properly, I don't see how this ". . . results in logs like: 'finding the cache took about 3 minutes. Hated the hiding place.'" It resulted in one log with someone saying they hated it. Reading the log in context with the rest of the logs, I have to wonder if it was an attempt at sarcasm.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

t4e- I doubt its revenge in this case.

He put a lock-n-lock near the intersection of 4 bank buildings. Half the logs say that muggles were watching them.

Most likely the cachers were in a hurry to put the container back while being watched and put the wrong side facing out.

its more a general comment

 

however, none of the details you provide now about the hide are not mentioned in the original post, nor has a link to the cache been posted to read the logs

Not sure where bramasoleiowa is getting their info, but I see no mention of muggles watching cache seekers in the listing with the log quoted by the OP. Only

The location was extremely quiet and muggle free to give me time.

[+Mare & Care]

While I understand that the real issue is with replacing the container & camo properly, I don't see how this ". . . results in logs like: 'finding the cache took about 3 minutes. Hated the hiding place.'" It resulted in one log with someone saying they hated it. Reading the log in context with the rest of the logs, I have to wonder if it was an attempt at sarcasm.

 

The problem is not with the logs, you are correct, there has been only one negative log. The problem lies with he fact that 8/10 of the cachers (with the exception of the first 3) have left the cache in disarray. They failed to put it back as they had found it. And before you say that caches migrate, this one is idiot proof (or so I thought) you cannot get it wrong or migrate it. There is only one way to put it back. The problem is some of the people just don't put the "effort" needed in putting it back the same way they found it.

 

I have had to perform maintenance after nearly every find. Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

Edited March 17, 2010 by Mare & Care

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I have had to perform maintenance after nearly every find. Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

 

Even if 3 minutes to find it is an exception with 17 finds and only 1 DNF it looks to me that the cache is way overrated for difficulty.

 

I have no idea what the actual hide is like but I'm not sure I would even consider 3 minutes an exception. Sometimes you just get lucky.

 

There was a cache I sought a few years ago in an area where I've often gone for vacations. The first time I looked for (after geocaching for only a few months) I probably spent 20 minutes searching for it before I gave up. I was back in the area a year later and this time, with a years more experience geocaching and a lot more geosense I found it in less than a minute.

[+Mare & Care]

 

I have had to perform maintenance after nearly every find. Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

 

Even if 3 minutes to find it is an exception with 17 finds and only 1 DNF it looks to me that the cache is way overrated for difficulty.

 

I have no idea what the actual hide is like but I'm not sure I would even consider 3 minutes an exception. Sometimes you just get lucky.

 

There was a cache I sought a few years ago in an area where I've often gone for vacations. The first time I looked for (after geocaching for only a few months) I probably spent 20 minutes searching for it before I gave up. I was back in the area a year later and this time, with a years more experience geocaching and a lot more geosense I found it in less than a minute.

 

Yes there is only one posted DNF, however one thing that I have learned while geocahing is that this sport/game has a weird effect on some people. They loose all sense of humility, they feel that logging a DNF is giving them self an "F". If you could only see GZ, people are definitely having a hard time with it. In fact one cacher even started a forum page dedicated to trying to find this one as they have been back several times. And for the record this cacher has not logged a DNF, however that being said I don't think he falls into the category of those with a lack of humility as he went even to the point of starting a thread.

[+Too Tall John]

They failed to put it back as they had found it. And before you say that caches migrate, this one is idiot proof (or so I thought) you cannot get it wrong or migrate it.

There is only one way to put it back. The problem is some of the people just don't put the "effort" needed in putting it back the same way they found it.

 

I have had to perform maintenance after nearly every find.

Glad to hear from the CO.

 

Well, your first statement disproves the second part of the quote, especially the last bit.

 

I can truly empathize with you and your frustration, but if you want to make this truly idiot-proof, you might need to reconsider either the hide method or your expectations.

Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

Sorry, but I've gotten just plain lucky before on tough caches. The CO was amazed at my skill, but the truth was, it was dumb luck. It is well within the realm of possibilities that the logger in question found the cache that quickly.

 

Of course, it is also within the realm of possibilities that the 3 min find time falls back under my theory about them stating that they hated the cache: They are messing with you.

[knowschad]

Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe

Did you notice that your cache is not showing up in that cacher's list of finds? At any rate, I sure don't see it. The most recent find I see for him is dated March 13, and he logged yours on March 15! Odd!!

[+Mare & Care]

They failed to put it back as they had found it. And before you say that caches migrate, this one is idiot proof (or so I thought) you cannot get it wrong or migrate it.

There is only one way to put it back. The problem is some of the people just don't put the "effort" needed in putting it back the same way they found it.

 

I have had to perform maintenance after nearly every find.

Glad to hear from the CO.

 

Well, your first statement disproves the second part of the quote, especially the last bit.

 

I can truly empathize with you and your frustration, but if you want to make this truly idiot-proof, you might need to reconsider either the hide method or your expectations.

Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

Sorry, but I've gotten just plain lucky before on tough caches. The CO was amazed at my skill, but the truth was, it was dumb luck. It is well within the realm of possibilities that the logger in question found the cache that quickly.

 

Of course, it is also within the realm of possibilities that the 3 min find time falls back under my theory about them stating that they hated the cache: They are messing with you.

 

I sent you a PM Tall John. However I'm not sure it came through o.k. Could you let me know if you got it? Thanks

[+Too Tall John]

I sent you a PM Tall John. However I'm not sure it came through o.k. Could you let me know if you got it? Thanks

Got the message. Apparently, there's some trick to sending PM's to people with "&" in their name, because it won't let me reply.

 

Anyways, I couldn't see the pics, Flickr says "Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo."

 

In response to

I couldn't explain in detail what is happening with the cache as it would give it away. However the reason I feel that 3min is unlikely is that (top secret info deleted )

 

I was able to (top secret info deleted ). So in order for someone to find this in 3 min (top secret info deleted ).

Without giving more away, this would not have been an issue for me. To say more would (top secret info deleted ).

 

Edit to add: I sent a message through your profile. That worked.

 

Also, I added an additional thought or two in my message I thought would be worth sharing with the thread readers as a whole:

Your description does sound like there are fewer and fewer ways to put this back wrong, but they managed. The only problem with calling something "foolproof" is that we keep on creating bigger and better fools.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

Having seen pics of the hide, a couple things have become more clear.

 

First, I can understand Mare & Care's frustration. It isn't a matter of cache migration. It would take little additional effort to put this cache back the way the CO wants it, and it is pretty self-explanatory. Seeing a broad view pic of the cache area, I find it hard to believe that cachers are worried about muggles and so are hurrying to put the cache back the way they found it. I've sent M&C a suggestion that might help make this hide even more idiot-proof, but . . .

 

Second, I can understand the "hated the hiding place" comment a bit more. I have been a part of several discussions about this general type of hide, and it is a pretty polarizing subject. The seeker who said this is obviously on the "Don't Like It" side of the argument. If the varying opinions I've seen during these discussions is an indicator of actual preference, I'm surprised that there aren't more negative comments. No, it isn't an LPC.

 

What to take away from all this?

• People can be lazy. They just want their name in the log so they can get their smiley. To suggest they need to spend time replacing your cache? How dare you?
  
• Some people won't like this hide. Know that those who don't like it are going to be the ones who spend the least amount of time replacing it properly, maybe out of disgust, but more likely just a general sense of unease at the site.
  
• If you can make putting this back appropriately simpler, not only will seekers be happier, but you will be happier. This applies to both groups.
  

M&C, let me know if you want further thoughts on my suggestion, or if you want my opinion on the hide type in general.

 

Edit: (top secret info deleted )

Edited March 17, 2010 by Too Tall John

[Luckless]

Sounds like your first mistake was you didnt make your container idiot-proof.

 

My first thought exactly. This is high on my list involving hiding a cache. I've forgone several places because it didn't meet the above criteria (although I never actually had a name for it). Like it or not people aren't always going to do what they should with the cache to get it back to the way you had it. I learned this the hard way with muggled caches so I always take this into consideration when hiding and camoflaging my container. Still learning...

[+niraD]

Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

Sorry, but I've gotten just plain lucky before on tough caches. The CO was amazed at my skill, but the truth was, it was dumb luck. It is well within the realm of possibilities that the logger in question found the cache that quickly.

In my experience, a high difficulty rating sometimes makes it easier to find a cleverly camouflaged cache. You can ignore the obvious 1-star hiding spots, and spend your time looking for something much more interesting.

 

And I've also seen dumb luck in action. Sometimes, the first thing you touch just happens to be the cache.

[+StarBrand]

Sounds like an electrical (something or another) box type cache.

 

Some cachers I know would head straight for those at ground zero.

[+SooMukwas]

They failed to put it back as they had found it. And before you say that caches migrate, this one is idiot proof (or so I thought) you cannot get it wrong or migrate it.

There is only one way to put it back. The problem is some of the people just don't put the "effort" needed in putting it back the same way they found it.

 

I have had to perform maintenance after nearly every find.

Glad to hear from the CO.

 

Well, your first statement disproves the second part of the quote, especially the last bit.

 

I can truly empathize with you and your frustration, but if you want to make this truly idiot-proof, you might need to reconsider either the hide method or your expectations.

Also saying that they found this one in 3 min is very hard to believe, unless they were told where it is by a previous cacher who found it. And that is fine however the log should read "with the help of a previous cacher we made the find in a few min"

Sorry, but I've gotten just plain lucky before on tough caches. The CO was amazed at my skill, but the truth was, it was dumb luck. It is well within the realm of possibilities that the logger in question found the cache that quickly.

 

Of course, it is also within the realm of possibilities that the 3 min find time falls back under my theory about them stating that they hated the cache: They are messing with you.

 

If you can find this cache in under 3 minutes without any help then you should go directly to the closest corner store and buy yourself a lottery ticket.

 

The difficulty rating is rated for the average cacher not the rare Indiana Jones or Lara Croft out there.

[+StarBrand]

....

If you can find this cache in under 3 minutes without any help then you should go directly to the closest corner store and buy yourself a lottery ticket.

 

The difficulty rating is rated for the average cacher not the rare Indiana Jones or Lara Croft out there.

You might be surprised. There was a local nano under a train caboose with no clues. It took me 3 trips to find it. Most of the other logs indicated 40 minutes to several hours of search.

 

I took my wife just to show it to her - she found it in a bit under 2 minutes. Just luck.

[+SooMukwas]

....

If you can find this cache in under 3 minutes without any help then you should go directly to the closest corner store and buy yourself a lottery ticket.

 

The difficulty rating is rated for the average cacher not the rare Indiana Jones or Lara Croft out there.

You might be surprised. There was a local nano under a train caboose with no clues. It took me 3 trips to find it. Most of the other logs indicated 40 minutes to several hours of search.

 

I took my wife just to show it to her - she found it in a bit under 2 minutes. Just luck.

 

Sorry, I meant THIS cache. One of our favourites we have found lately.

[+Flintstone5611]

Your second mistake was your opinion on PMs. A PM is not a better player, a PM is just anyone that can pay $30 for additional Groundspeak tools for the game.

 

People will complain about a hide no matter what. Make a better container or find a better cache location and move on. And put on your thick skin when reading logs.

 

I would have to disagree. When people invest more into something they tend to cherish it that much more. You would have to admit that there are far more cachers with 500+ that are PM rather than not.

[+Mare & Care]

You might be surprised. There was a local nano under a train caboose with no clues. It took me 3 trips to find it. Most of the other logs indicated 40 minutes to several hours of search.

 

I took my wife just to show it to her - she found it in a bit under 2 minutes. Just luck.

 

Let me guess when you did that cache you didn't log any DNF's just the find, right?

[+StarBrand]

You might be surprised. There was a local nano under a train caboose with no clues. It took me 3 trips to find it. Most of the other logs indicated 40 minutes to several hours of search.

 

I took my wife just to show it to her - she found it in a bit under 2 minutes. Just luck.

 

Let me guess when you did that cache you didn't log any DNF's just the find, right?

Wrong - I log all my DNF's - about 1 for every 6 finds is my average.

[+Flintstone5611]

t4e- I doubt its revenge in this case.

He put a lock-n-lock near the intersection of 4 bank buildings. Half the logs say that muggles were watching them.

Most likely the cachers were in a hurry to put the container back while being watched and put the wrong side facing out.

 

Did you foolishly look at my hides thinking that I was talking about myself?

[+Mare & Care]

You might be surprised. There was a local nano under a train caboose with no clues. It took me 3 trips to find it. Most of the other logs indicated 40 minutes to several hours of search.

 

I took my wife just to show it to her - she found it in a bit under 2 minutes. Just luck.

 

Let me guess when you did that cache you didn't log any DNF's just the find, right?

Wrong - I log all my DNF's - about 1 for every 6 finds is my average.

 

That's excellent to hear, you are among the few out there who do log DNF's. It was meant to be a joke but I realized this wasn't the forum I thought it was. I'm sorry if I offended you.

[+Flintstone5611]

....

If you can find this cache in under 3 minutes without any help then you should go directly to the closest corner store and buy yourself a lottery ticket.

 

The difficulty rating is rated for the average cacher not the rare Indiana Jones or Lara Croft out there.

You might be surprised. There was a local nano under a train caboose with no clues. It took me 3 trips to find it. Most of the other logs indicated 40 minutes to several hours of search.

 

I took my wife just to show it to her - she found it in a bit under 2 minutes. Just luck.

With all due respect (which sounds kinda disrespectful) this cache is nothing like the cache you are talking sbout!

[+Keith Watson]

I don't what the cache is, but I did find this on a cache and was not very impressed with it.

 

Note for those that are opposed to Premium Member only caches : The reason I have listed this cache as Premium Member only is due to the sensitivity of the camo. I did not want to risk a "newbie" not replacing it properly and spoiling the experience for the next cacher.

 

Apparently premium members can't be trusted to play nice with others toys either.

[+bittsen]

Sensitive camo is a really bad idea with a geocache.

Design your cache to last and it will.

[+dfx]

Apparently premium members can't be trusted to play nice with others toys either.

as i explained in the other thread, it might've been a cacher who actually DNF'd the cache and inadvertedly disturbed the camo without knowing it. it depends on the nature of the hide if this is actually possible in this case or not.

[+Too Tall John]

Sensitive camo is a really bad idea with a geocache.

Design your cache to last and it will.

I think sensitive is the wrong word to describe the cache in question.

 

It won't break, it just needs to be put back right.

[GOF and Bacall]

Sensitive camo is a really bad idea with a geocache.

Design your cache to last and it will.

 

How dare anyone complain about ANY cache out there that is placed within the guidelines?

[+Mare & Care]

I don't what the cache is, but I did find this on a cache and was not very impressed with it.

 

Note for those that are opposed to Premium Member only caches : The reason I have listed this cache as Premium Member only is due to the sensitivity of the camo. I did not want to risk a "newbie" not replacing it properly and spoiling the experience for the next cacher.

 

Apparently premium members can't be trusted to play nice with others toys either.

 

I see that now Keith and have since removed the PMO status. I didn't mean to insult anyone. A friend of mine at the time was being harassed by another local cacher about his listing being PMO only so I put that up to prevent any e-mails from him.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Mare & Care

[+bittsen]

Sensitive camo is a really bad idea with a geocache.

Design your cache to last and it will.

 

How dare anyone complain about ANY cache out there that is placed within the guidelines?

 

Have a point to make or are you just trying to be inflammatory?

[+GeoTrailGuy]

I'm planning another attempt for this cache on Friday and to be honest, this thread has got me rev'd up for it.

 

For the record, I'm someone who has searched twice for this cache without logging a DNF yet. My 2 failed attempts so far have been quickies - i.e. lacking real effort on the search. I'm averaging about 1 DNF log for every 6 finds.

 

.. which reminds me.. I have another DNF to log for the newest Mare&Care cache. I need to get better at this...

[+Mare & Care]

I'm planning another attempt for this cache on Friday and to be honest, this thread has got me rev'd up for it.

 

For the record, I'm someone who has searched twice for this cache without logging a DNF yet. My 2 failed attempts so far have been quickies - i.e. lacking real effort on the search. I'm averaging about 1 DNF log for every 6 finds.

 

.. which reminds me.. I have another DNF to log for the newest Mare&Care cache. I need to get better at this...

 

LOL! Which one did you try?