Jump to content

Really difficult cache...


ZeLonewolf

Recommended Posts

I was out of town caching this weekend when I came across a rather unusual listing - a 2.5/1 cache hidden in the back parking lot of a strip mall with 19 DNFs and zero finds since September. We didn't bother to look for it, but I thought it was interesting.

 

Cache Listing: From IL to LI

 

The owner has exactly ONE find. The log history includes several snarky responses from the CO to people that couldn't find it. From reading the logs, I'm wondering if this cache listing is entirely fake, and the CO is "punking" the local cache community? Seems very weird.

Link to comment

someone should ask the CO to accompany them and show them the cache is still there

its very hard to believe that a cache can have so many DNF's

my guess is that coordinates are really off, maybe placed with google maps/earth, or there is no cache there

 

we went out to one cache today placed by an "overnight" cacher

there is only 1 DNF but from the googlemaps we could see it was in the middle of a parking spot, which we confirmed plus its in a parking lot of residential townhowmes

came back home and posted a NA

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Turns out the cache owner has only found ONE cache.

He's been a member since Sept. 2010

 

that explains a lot.

 

The guy has no clue what the ratings mean.

 

He is probably also hiding it with an iphone.

 

It looks to me like a really bad hide with the rating being totally off.

 

Since he's only found one he most likely doesn't even know what a proper cache is.

 

God knows what it is. It's listed as an "other" so it's not a regular container I would guess.

 

Let's hope it has a log sheet of some sort.

 

I know it's been discussed many times,

 

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

Edited by Sol seaker
Link to comment

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

 

Isn't that a little extreme...not letting people do a hide unless they have 100 caches? I might change my mind later, but I am a newbie with under 30 finds, I hid my first cache and I think the results have been pretty good.

 

Brickell By Broadway

 

I don't think it matters if you have 100 or 1000 caches, some people just will never get it.

 

Cheers!

Yogi

Edited by miamiyogi
Link to comment

Turns out the cache owner has only found ONE cache.

He's been a member since Sept. 2010

 

that explains a lot.

 

The guy has no clue what the ratings mean.

 

He is probably also hiding it with an iphone.

 

It looks to me like a really bad hide with the rating being totally off.

 

Since he's only found one he most likely doesn't even know what a proper cache is.

 

God knows what it is. It's listed as an "other" so it's not a regular container I would guess.

 

Let's hope it has a log sheet of some sort.

 

I know it's been discussed many times,

 

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

 

Not a reason to turn the cache page into a discussion forum. Send the guy a PM, but don't post a note to his cache telling him he's doing it wrong.

Link to comment

Not a reason to turn the cache page into a discussion forum. Send the guy a PM, but don't post a note to his cache telling him he's doing it wrong.

 

Agreed. He will probably be much more likely to listen to constructive criticism, or someone 'helping' him if he is contacted privately and kindly. In my experience, because I've done things like that, it's ended much more positively, and I've even made some friends that way.

Link to comment

Seems like someone missed out on the memo explaining that geocaching was meant to be FUN

To some, a tough challenge IS fun. The memo I received said so.

 

lol, i think its a sock puppet. I know around here they use them to hide a really hard one. Dont let the one found fool you.
That was my thought, too. I wouldn't trust that "1 find 1 hide" stuff.
Link to comment

someone should ask the CO to accompany them and show them the cache is still there

its very hard to believe that a cache can have so many DNF's

 

Shelter II: 46 Finds, 196 DNFs

Shelter III: 3 Finds, 206 DNFs

 

Some caches are just hard, and even someone that has never hidden a cache before can create a very hard find. We have one in my area that was also placed by someone that only had one find (four years ago). It took me over three hours and four different attempts to finally find it but it did. It actually has a higher find to hide ratio than the Shelter II/III caches (and I'm sure there are lots of other really difficulty hides with similar ratios), but the local cache I eventually found followed all the guidelines and the coordinates were pretty accurate.

Link to comment

someone should ask the CO to accompany them and show them the cache is still there

its very hard to believe that a cache can have so many DNF's

 

Shelter II: 46 Finds, 196 DNFs

Shelter III: 3 Finds, 206 DNFs

 

Some caches are just hard, and even someone that has never hidden a cache before can create a very hard find. We have one in my area that was also placed by someone that only had one find (four years ago). It took me over three hours and four different attempts to finally find it but it did. It actually has a higher find to hide ratio than the Shelter II/III caches (and I'm sure there are lots of other really difficulty hides with similar ratios), but the local cache I eventually found followed all the guidelines and the coordinates were pretty accurate.

 

 

Of course, Shelter II is a 4.5 star difficulty and Shelter III is a 5.

 

A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) 0 Finds, 133 DNFs (5 star difficulty)

SOABWTFITGDC 1 Find, 134 DNFs (also 5 star difficulty)

Link to comment
Of course, Shelter II is a 4.5 star difficulty and Shelter III is a 5.

 

A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) 0 Finds, 133 DNFs (5 star difficulty)

SOABWTFITGDC 1 Find, 134 DNFs (also 5 star difficulty)

Also worth mentioning:

 

Super fly #30 "Jiendo" 0 Finds, 27 DNFs (5 star difficulty). Along with a somewhat controversial archive notice, if by controversial we mean "something like the 4th or 5th longest thread ever"

Link to comment

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

 

This sort of thing is really becoming a problem. We're having similar problems in my area, some recent trouble included a class of high school kids.....http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=261533&hl=

 

I just don't see any other way around this problem. We may lose a few good COs who aren't interested in finding a few caches but the benefit to the community far outweighs the few potential losses.

Link to comment

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

 

Isn't that a little extreme...not letting people do a hide unless they have 100 caches? I might change my mind later, but I am a newbie with under 30 finds, I hid my first cache and I think the results have been pretty good.

 

Brickell By Broadway

 

I don't think it matters if you have 100 or 1000 caches, some people just will never get it.

 

Cheers!

Yogi

 

Would you have stopped geocaching or planting geocaches if you had to wait until you found 100 caches?

Link to comment

someone should ask the CO to accompany them and show them the cache is still there

its very hard to believe that a cache can have so many DNF's

 

Shelter II: 46 Finds, 196 DNFs

Shelter III: 3 Finds, 206 DNFs

 

Some caches are just hard, and even someone that has never hidden a cache before can create a very hard find. We have one in my area that was also placed by someone that only had one find (four years ago). It took me over three hours and four different attempts to finally find it but it did. It actually has a higher find to hide ratio than the Shelter II/III caches (and I'm sure there are lots of other really difficulty hides with similar ratios), but the local cache I eventually found followed all the guidelines and the coordinates were pretty accurate.

 

 

Of course, Shelter II is a 4.5 star difficulty and Shelter III is a 5.

 

A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) 0 Finds, 133 DNFs (5 star difficulty)

SOABWTFITGDC 1 Find, 134 DNFs (also 5 star difficulty)

 

If this cache is real then the 2.5 star difficulty is way off. The owners refusal to raise it is troubling.

Link to comment
lol, i think its a sock puppet. I know around here they use them to hide a really hard one. Dont let the one found fool you.
That was my thought, too. I wouldn't trust that "1 find 1 hide" stuff.

i thought about that too, but then i figured: why would a sock puppet have a find? you'd think they'd just create an account and post the new cache listing there. why log a find first?

Link to comment

someone should ask the CO to accompany them and show them the cache is still there

its very hard to believe that a cache can have so many DNF's

 

Shelter II: 46 Finds, 196 DNFs

Shelter III: 3 Finds, 206 DNFs

 

Some caches are just hard, and even someone that has never hidden a cache before can create a very hard find. We have one in my area that was also placed by someone that only had one find (four years ago). It took me over three hours and four different attempts to finally find it but it did. It actually has a higher find to hide ratio than the Shelter II/III caches (and I'm sure there are lots of other really difficulty hides with similar ratios), but the local cache I eventually found followed all the guidelines and the coordinates were pretty accurate.

 

 

Of course, Shelter II is a 4.5 star difficulty and Shelter III is a 5.

 

A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) 0 Finds, 133 DNFs (5 star difficulty)

SOABWTFITGDC 1 Find, 134 DNFs (also 5 star difficulty)

 

Exactly. The difficulty ratings are appropriate. This CO insists on keeping the D rating at 2.5

Link to comment
lol, i think its a sock puppet. I know around here they use them to hide a really hard one. Dont let the one found fool you.
That was my thought, too. I wouldn't trust that "1 find 1 hide" stuff.

i thought about that too, but then i figured: why would a sock puppet have a find? you'd think they'd just create an account and post the new cache listing there. why log a find first?

FWIW, the find log predates the account creation date by a few days.

Link to comment

 

But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)

 

I have to disagree with this. My first hides came within my first month of Geocaching. All but one is still active (a squirrel muggle kept on removing the cache) and that is after 16 months.

 

I look at the hides and think they could be better but the logs all give me a positive reviews.

 

I think it all depends on the cacher and the thought put into it.

 

As far as the cache in question, if this is a true '1' terrain it must be wheelchair assessible. Therefore if the cache coords are at the wall pictured in the gallery, it might be a fake stone or something like that. It can't be on top of the wall or the terrain rating should be higher.

 

If this is a legit cache, it would dirve me crazy.

 

There is one cache around here that was published on the same night as an event. They had a huge group all looking for this cache. Everybody came up short. I spent the better part of 2 hours the morning after searching before I talked to the CO. He gave me a clue. It was a very clever find that would not have been found unless you fell on you a** and looked skyward. It was about 30 feet above a trail tie to the top of a very flexible tree. It was great.

Link to comment

Someone posted a picture of area early on. I can just imagine that wall is completly ripped apart by now

e0944430-23ee-4d7f-bf16-231162820ad4.jpg

The difficulty isn't always the issue. There are some easy ones that I just won't bother to spend time on.

 

I DNF'd a cache at a wall very similar to that one recently (though it does have lots of finds). It was behind a theater at a strip mall, maybe a small bottle hidden in the mud behind the retaining wall. Yuck. As mentioned, people love these kinds of hides. Not me. The spot has no redeeming value, the hide isn't interesting to me, and I just didn't wanna play in the dirt again. I gave it a cursory inspection, and left. DNF.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

...A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) 0 Finds, 133 DNFs (5 star difficulty)

SOABWTFITGDC 1 Find, 134 DNFs (also 5 star difficulty)

 

That Muther's Challenge looks crazy. I wish it wasn't 1500 miles away from me, so I could go get a DNF.

 

There's something about a tough hide that you have to keep going back to that's fascinating. Kind of like worrying at a sore tooth...

Link to comment
I was out of town caching this weekend when I came across a rather unusual listing - a 2.5/1 cache hidden in the back parking lot of a strip mall with 19 DNFs and zero finds since September. We didn't bother to look for it, but I thought it was interesting.

 

Cache Listing: From IL to LI

 

The owner has exactly ONE find. The log history includes several snarky responses from the CO to people that couldn't find it. From reading the logs, I'm wondering if this cache listing is entirely fake, and the CO is "punking" the local cache community? Seems very weird.

 

Not nearly as snarky as a lot of the posts by cachers disgruntled that they couldn't find EVERY cache. It was amusing to see people with very few finds saying the cache must not be there, since they couldn't find it.

 

As the CO rightly said, he didn't need to run out and check the hide every time there was a DNF.

 

It does seem like the difficulty must be off, though. If some rather experienced cachers can't find it, it would indicate that the difficulty is a bit higher than stated.

 

Nothing wrong with a tough hide -- just don't mis-label it.

Link to comment

If nothing else, reading the logs was entertaining.

 

I don't get the obsession though. Maybe it's that there are so many hides around me that I’m not even close to running out of caches so that I feel the need to drive an hour to one just to hunt around a bunch of broken glass and crack pipes.

 

Let’s not start the whole 100 finds before a hide thing. Come on, some people don’t live where they can do 100 finds and does doing a power trail and logging 100 lamp post hides really qualify someone as an expert? I just now cracked the 50 find barrier. I have two hides out there that both seem pretty well received.

 

As for the OP, yea I think you kids are getting punked. Is there by chance some kind of webcam nearby? Just wondering if the CO is watching and laughing at this little spectacle he’s created.

Link to comment
Someone posted a picture of area early on. I can just imagine that wall is completly ripped apart by now

e0944430-23ee-4d7f-bf16-231162820ad4.jpg

 

One cannot help but notice the rock wall in the picture, which looks very similar to the rock wall cache that was talked about in this thread and archived because it was believed that no cache actually existed.

 

If the cache was actually there, perhaps it's the same type of hide?

 

7e6e8c21-7b36-41da-bc11-40d804e4ad85.jpg

Link to comment

I haven't looked at the cache page, but judging from what I've read here, the cache owner is active and fairly receptive, checking to make sure the cache is still where s/he left it. If past policy is utilized, the fact that the owner is active, and is responding won't keep it from being archived if enough people complain about it.

Link to comment

One of those rocks slides out - has to be.

 

Somewhere on here is a really entertaining cache that is in a tree above a river. Gosh I wish I could find it, I should have put it on my watch list because there is a lot of back and forth about deleting logs from people who did not actually get up the tree.

Link to comment
Someone posted a picture of area early on. I can just imagine that wall is completly ripped apart by now

e0944430-23ee-4d7f-bf16-231162820ad4.jpg

 

One cannot help but notice the rock wall in the picture, which looks very similar to the rock wall cache that was talked about in this thread and archived because it was believed that no cache actually existed.

 

If the cache was actually there, perhaps it's the same type of hide?

 

7e6e8c21-7b36-41da-bc11-40d804e4ad85.jpg

 

I looked at that cache page and it mentioned something about the water being just a few inches deep and recommended not searching for it when the river is in flood. With all that metal on the bridge my first thought was that the warning was a red herring and the cache is actually up high on the metal portion of the bridge.

 

As others noted the difference between the cache described by the OP and other caches with high DNF counts is that in the latter cases, the CO is actively engaged with those logging DNFs, has rated it accurately, and frequently checks that the cache is indeed where it was placed.

 

In the case of the OP, it might just be a hoax cache. However, it might exist, but the CO had a typo when entering the coords. The coords could, in fact, be accurate, and be hidden such that it fully adheres to the guidelines (...it's not buried...), but the CO still has a bit to learn about how to be a responsible cache owner.

Link to comment

e0944430-23ee-4d7f-bf16-231162820ad4.jpg

It's a hoax or badly rated. Either way, it would probably be a good idea for the local reviewer to step in.

 

The 1 star terrain indicates it HAS TO BE in or right next to the wall. With THAT MANY DNF's I'd be hard pressed to believe that a loose block or cap wasn't checked. If it's really there, then it would have to fall under the EVIL hide category which is 3.5 to 5.0 difficulty range.

 

My bet, based on the logs, is it's a hoax.

Link to comment

e0944430-23ee-4d7f-bf16-231162820ad4.jpg

It's a hoax or badly rated. Either way, it would probably be a good idea for the local reviewer to step in.

 

The 1 star terrain indicates it HAS TO BE in or right next to the wall. With THAT MANY DNF's I'd be hard pressed to believe that a loose block or cap wasn't checked. If it's really there, then it would have to fall under the EVIL hide category which is 3.5 to 5.0 difficulty range.

 

My bet, based on the logs, is it's a hoax.

Third capstone from the left looks loose. Maybe it's on a hinge? Wonder how he got permission for that?

The local reviewer has been involved. CO claims to have checked to make sure it's there, and that ratings are accurate, per the revieer's request. Not sure what else the reviewer can do other than call in the guy in the Nomex suit.

Link to comment
FOUND IT!!! :P

Image2-2.jpg

Too obvious? :P

If that's it, then the difficulty is right, but the terrain is wrong! :)

 

To Ecylram:

The 1 star terrain indicates it HAS TO BE in or right next to the wall.
No, it doesn't. It should be, by the rating system, and by the community opinion, but to say that is HAS to be is incorrect.
Link to comment
Wait, I figured it out. It's an optical illusion. Stare at the black dot on the right for 23 seconds and then look to the left and you'll see the cache. I'm buying plane tickets right after I post. My first FTF, yes!!

Image2-3.jpg

I could swear I checked there! Looked right at it. Probably even had my hands on it. Dang!! :P
Link to comment

Guess I was in a bad mood,

 

I deleted my log.

 

He's probably thriving off of all of this attention.

 

Maybe this is what he was aiming for to start with.

 

If his aim was just a tough hide he would have rated it as such.

 

To insist on leaving it as a 2.5 is either to be totally ignorant of the rating system,

 

or to be doing it to just p**s people off.

Link to comment

Someone posted a picture of area early on. I can just imagine that wall is completly ripped apart by now

e0944430-23ee-4d7f-bf16-231162820ad4.jpg

 

What is odd is the difficulty being left so low. Either it's a "different" container, such as a concrete block itself (with a sheet of rite-in-the-rain paper in it), or it's a reporter doing a story on cache area damage, and there is no container..

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Geeze... the cache is getting pummeled by angry, challenging notes from both locals, and a couple from the forums! I'm sorry, but to my mind, nobody needs to prove the existence of their cache, even if everybody for miles around puts it on their ignore list.

 

This sort of thing is happening more and more often. It's disrespectful. Cache finders are starting to get mad as heck and they're not going to take this anymore.

 

If geocaching doesn't implement something, then cachers will feel it necessary to use the logs to get their message across to COs. The forums don't work, probably only 5% of cachers read the forums. The online logs get the message across to the CO and to future finders.

Link to comment

Geeze... the cache is getting pummeled by angry, challenging notes from both locals, and a couple from the forums! I'm sorry, but to my mind, nobody needs to prove the existence of their cache, even if everybody for miles around puts it on their ignore list.

 

This sort of thing is happening more and more often. It's disrespectful. Cache finders are starting to get mad as heck and they're not going to take this anymore.

 

If geocaching doesn't implement something, then cachers will feel it necessary to use the logs to get their message across to COs. The forums don't work, probably only 5% of cachers read the forums. The online logs get the message across to the CO and to future finders.

 

People need to grow up. Its a geocache... Geez. You find it or not. Life goes on.

Link to comment

Capstone lifters . Had one locally which has a lot of dnfs. Don't like the fact that it is probably private property ,lacking permission of owner. Lift capstone and drop into cavity. We had a difficult like that out in woods, i swore hoax, 10 of us hiked in for one cache after a bunch of dnfs, after an hour we found it. We had a great time, about 5 got stung by bees making it even more fun. Get a group together and go for it.

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...