Jump to content

Pet Peeves as Cache Owners


krymdog

Recommended Posts

And it's even more dangerous to try and block those who wish to exceed the limit.

Moving over to let them pass is less likely to cause an accident than forcing them to pass on the right.

Let them go, it's not your job to enforce the speed limit.

 

I call bs on this one - I'm within my right and the law to obey the speed limit. I'm not getting out of your way just because you don't want to obey the law. If you want to try something stupid like passing me on the right then more power to you. Don't like it? Leave earlier!

 

I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but the California Department of Motor Vehicle, Driver's Handbook states that you must move to the right if you are moving slower than the flow of traffic, or if a line of cars is forming behind you, regardless of your speed, or the speed limit. It states that one of the most dangerous traffic flow situations is when one vehicle is moving slower than the rest. This idea that it is your right to drive the speed limit and block traffic is not only dangerous, it's absurd.

Link to comment
It states that one of the most dangerous traffic flow situations is when one vehicle is moving slower than the rest.

Not only that, but the issue is compounded based upon which lane you travel slower in.

Because of the visual angle involved, blindspot crashes occur at a much greater rate when the lane changer is shifting right, say, from the so called 'fast lane', to the slower traffic lane, because someone ahead of them 'insists' on their right to drive the speed limit in the left lane.

 

Another issue has to do with the mechanics of multi mass movement.

If one car is going faster than the other 20 cars it shares the road with, the interaction is limited to the movement of one person. Each lane change made while weaving through the pack is a separate event which has little if any effect on the other cars in the pack. But if you reverse that scenario, and there are 20 cars going faster than one car, disaster is just a twitch of the steering wheel away, as now there are 20 vehicles which have to interact not only with the slower car, but with the other 19 cars in the pack as well.

 

Safe driving most often involves driving with the flow of traffic, regardless of a number painted on a sign. B)

Link to comment

i own two caches and my biggest peeves are trade-downs and just plain junk that turns up in caches.

 

why would you put an eye contacts container in a cache? seriously? i have also found things like tobacco product wrappers *insert random companies coupon that expired ages ago*

 

and my favorite thing i ever found in a geocache? (sarcasm) A BOWL! are you kidding me? this is a game people take there children to play and you leave paraphernalia in a game piece?!?!

 

(end rant)

 

update: would like to add that i hate "tftc" logs as well that is all.

 

If it was a new contact lens container I would consider trading for it as I will tend to lose those.

those make good micro caches. glue on a magnet and go :laughing:

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

On a similar vein, I was doing a night cache many years ago, which took me deep into an amazing wetland ecosystem. As I was hiking out, basking in the glow of having found the cache, I saw a little green box on my GPSr screen, along my tracklog, indicative of a traditional I had passed on my way in. I get to ground zero, find a wrought iron bench at a trail intersection, where three natural habitats collide. A beautiful spot! I find a soggy log film can wiggled in the leaf litter under the bench. (sigh...) In a fit of pique, with my entitlement raging, I logged "Still there". At the time, the stats collating website INATN kept track of log length, and listed me as second in the state for average word count per log, so that was as bad as an acronym in my eyes. I eventually deleted the log altogether, as I'd rather not have a find on my record like that one.

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

On a similar vein, I was doing a night cache many years ago, which took me deep into an amazing wetland ecosystem. As I was hiking out, basking in the glow of having found the cache, I saw a little green box on my GPSr screen, along my tracklog, indicative of a traditional I had passed on my way in. I get to ground zero, find a wrought iron bench at a trail intersection, where three natural habitats collide. A beautiful spot! I find a soggy log film can wiggled in the leaf litter under the bench. (sigh...) In a fit of pique, with my entitlement raging, I logged "Still there". At the time, the stats collating website INATN kept track of log length, and listed me as second in the state for average word count per log, so that was as bad as an acronym in my eyes. I eventually deleted the log altogether, as I'd rather not have a find on my record like that one.

When I run GSAK stat that one keeps popping up as my shorthest log. I keep wanting to edit it, but even after 2 and half years I can't find anything else to say. <_<

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

dug? drilled? i'd most definately have more to say than tftc.

Link to comment

hope no one minds bringing this old topic up agian but...

 

I just got a DNF log on my Puzzle/2 stage multi. It said

Multi I am not a fan of multi caches

The fact that it is a 2 stage multi is in the description, so it should be no supprise to someone searching. From the sound of that log, it didn't even sound like the cacher in question looked for the cache, but just logged a DNF when he/she noticed that it was a multi. The cacher was new with only 10 finds, but still, rather strange.

 

I desided to contacted him/her to see what the situation was. When I got no response, deleted the log.

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

On a similar vein, I was doing a night cache many years ago, which took me deep into an amazing wetland ecosystem. As I was hiking out, basking in the glow of having found the cache, I saw a little green box on my GPSr screen, along my tracklog, indicative of a traditional I had passed on my way in. I get to ground zero, find a wrought iron bench at a trail intersection, where three natural habitats collide. A beautiful spot! I find a soggy log film can wiggled in the leaf litter under the bench. (sigh...) In a fit of pique, with my entitlement raging, I logged "Still there". At the time, the stats collating website INATN kept track of log length, and listed me as second in the state for average word count per log, so that was as bad as an acronym in my eyes. I eventually deleted the log altogether, as I'd rather not have a find on my record like that one.

 

I can't see what's so horrible about that hide? At least it brought you to a nice spot. Isn't that kind of the point of geocaching? :)

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

On a similar vein, I was doing a night cache many years ago, which took me deep into an amazing wetland ecosystem. As I was hiking out, basking in the glow of having found the cache, I saw a little green box on my GPSr screen, along my tracklog, indicative of a traditional I had passed on my way in. I get to ground zero, find a wrought iron bench at a trail intersection, where three natural habitats collide. A beautiful spot! I find a soggy log film can wiggled in the leaf litter under the bench. (sigh...) In a fit of pique, with my entitlement raging, I logged "Still there". At the time, the stats collating website INATN kept track of log length, and listed me as second in the state for average word count per log, so that was as bad as an acronym in my eyes. I eventually deleted the log altogether, as I'd rather not have a find on my record like that one.

 

I can't see what's so horrible about that hide? At least it brought you to a nice spot. Isn't that kind of the point of geocaching? :)

 

I'm with Clan Riffster on this one. A bad cache can dampen a nice experience. Like stepping through garbage while having a nice walk on an otherwise beautiful trail.

Link to comment

Seen that blank logs has been mentioned. What about NO online log? Recently did maintenance on one of ours and noticed that it was about 50/50 written log to online log ratio. It's understandable that people get busy and don't log for awhile. It's beyond that though, and it's pretty clear they are never going to log it online. Heck, we would take a TFTC in stride! Lucky for us we get over such things quickly.

 

some poeple don't post their finds online for a lot of different reasons. That is one thing I would not let get to you since there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

As a participant of a challenge cache requiring finds of caches not found for 6+ months I was rather peeved after spending an hour driving to a cache only to discover it had been found 2-3 weeks earlier but not logged online (and still hasn't)... A quick look at the finder's profiles and discovered no finds logged for over a find. Now, I do understand it's not always possible to log immediately, and a find recorded in the logbook is a find (and better than those who don't write) but I feel there should be some limit to the post-find-online-log time delay allowed by the system - say a month? - when it will not except the actual log-date if only for the purposes of these sorts of challenge caches. They still have and will claim their find, and could log it with a post-find date if/when the get around to it, but it won't mess things up for others doing challenges and the like. I think a month is a reasonable if not overly-generous length of time to allow? <_<

 

Another pet peeve as cache owner (and finder) is those who rubber stamp the logbook but don't record a date. It's not so bad when they stamp in place/order so that the chronology can be roughly determined but stamping right in the back of the logbook with no date?... (I have stamps of my own on order, but intend on dating them and only using them of those large, generously spacious ones :) - not micros/nanos!...)

 

As for short logbook records, I don't have a problem with them. As a mostly urban-cacher micros are usually the order of the day so date and name is sufficient, perhaps a quick note or yes, even TFTC, to save paper/space and delay logbook maintenance but a decent online log story is appreciated. I actual prefer that to long cache log, short online log as I see the online logs and only periodically do a quick check up on the cache if there's been no reported issues. Or logbook entries that use up a whole page for date+name... Compact, concise, clear please!

 

Those who write their whole name large and in full over several cells on nano-log-strips even when they are pre-printed "initials only"...

 

Those who FTF my puzzle caches I spent days working on without leaving a respectful hour of time to pass! :P:lol:

Link to comment

What I found annoying with my caches are the weather related complants, the other-cacher damage, and the handholding/"Forrest" complaints.

 

On one, someone tossed a few stepping stones into the water to make a walkway of sorts, then complained the cache was too easy. The current other constantly gets bombed with terrible attempts at rehiding, including dumping massive amounts of sticks and random crap on it. I didn´t make/want the walkway, and I didn´t camo the other because it is simply too big and stands out from it.

 

Weather complaints are on all that I have, and most likely ever will have.

 

The easier one really has alot of handholding complaints, the other not so many. People want to complain because they blindly follow that gps signal, instead of searching the few yards away for that path. I constantly get "That farm field is annoying!", regardless of there being many real paths there. I skipped the 10 or so possible waypoints because too many would ignore them, and still run across that field.

 

"Forrest" complaints won´t be explained at this time, because I think it´s a bit obvious what is meant. Maybe later, or privately.

Link to comment

Probably been said, but I HATE when cachers do not put caches back where they were meant to be hidden. We have one cache that we have found away from its spot say 20 - 30 times now. One time it was 50 feet from its spot! What part of

 

Please replace as found!

 

on the cache page says "put it back where you want to" for some people. :angry:

 

I also hate when the finder thinks they know better than the cache owner. Some examples are when they say that this spot is not a good spot for a cache or that we hid it poorly when we have been getting nothing but compliments from others. I also hate when people post "Needs Maintenance" logs when there has already been a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page and we have posted that we will check on it. WE KNOW IT NEEDS MAINTENANCE ALREADY!!! You don't need to say it again! :tired:

Link to comment

Oh and one more owner pet peeve. CACHE OWNERS NOT ABIDING BY LOCAL PARKS GUIDELINES! There is a park near us that had a few guidlines.

 

1) 20 Cache limit in the Park

2) Had to have the park name in the cache name

3) Had to be less than 25 feet from a marked trail (not enforced well)

4) Had to be approved by the park

 

To our knowledge it broke three out of these four. It might have gotten permission, but I wouldn't have thought so since it was the 21st cache in the park, didn't have the name of the park in the caches name, and didn't say on the page that it had gotten permission.

 

I am just using this as an example where someone didn't seek out permission and thus took a spot that we would have taken had we decided to break guidelines.

 

Oh well, the park has changed its guidelines now so caches have to be .25 apart (so we can't archive any of our old caches without losing the spot)!

Link to comment
Now, I do understand it's not always possible to log immediately, and a find recorded in the logbook is a find (and better than those who don't write) but I feel there should be some limit to the post-find-online-log time delay allowed by the system - say a month? - when it will not except the actual log-date if only for the purposes of these sorts of challenge caches.
Why should the accuracy of anyone's online logs be sacrificed for the convenience of those who play a side game? And as far as I'm concerned, these sorts of challenge caches are a side game.

 

Just as I don't think difficulty/terrain ratings should be subject to the convenience of those who are into grid challenges, I don't think log dates should be subject to the convenience of those who are into lonely-cache challenges. The primary purpose of difficulty/terrain ratings is communicating the nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers. The primary purpose of online logs is to communicate an individual's experience with the cache. Don't sacrifice the primary purpose for the convenience of others who play a side game.

 

</soapbox>

Link to comment

I also hate when people post "Needs Maintenance" logs when there has already been a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page and we have posted that we will check on it. WE KNOW IT NEEDS MAINTENANCE ALREADY!!! You don't need to say it again! :tired:

Me, I hate it when a NM is posted, and the CO posts a note or even an OM that says "I'll check it this weekend", then nothing. Often for months. Those are the times I'll post a 2nd NM.

 

BTW, I think you're being silly to complain about someone saying something perfectly reasonable even though you happen to find it redundant. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that not everyone reads all the old logs before posting each and every find.

Link to comment

I had a cache that had the log book inside one of the eight plastic eggs in the container. The others had a note that said keep looking. My pet peeve was reading logs about people liking the egg swag and that I needed to replace them as there was not enough left! Oh well.

Link to comment

I also hate when people post "Needs Maintenance" logs when there has already been a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page and we have posted that we will check on it. WE KNOW IT NEEDS MAINTENANCE ALREADY!!! You don't need to say it again! :tired:

Me, I hate it when a NM is posted, and the CO posts a note or even an OM that says "I'll check it this weekend", then nothing. Often for months. Those are the times I'll post a 2nd NM.

 

BTW, I think you're being silly to complain about someone saying something perfectly reasonable even though you happen to find it redundant. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that not everyone reads all the old logs before posting each and every find.

I fully agree with the first half and I think that some reviewers would agree. As for the second I can agree. But I remember a cache of ours that got 3 or 4 needs maintenance logs within two weeks and that got annoying. Oh and the OP didn't say the pet peeves had to be logical! :laughing:

Edited by Troutonthebrain
Link to comment

I've left a 'TFTC' log a couple of times. It's pretty much my way of saying 'Thanks for the magnetic hide on yet another guardrail in an unremarkable location'. I mean really... there's just some caches were there is just not much to say other than 'thanks'.

 

I agree with this method. I don't want to be rude and say nothing, but on completely unremarkeable caches I don't feel like praising what isn't there. "Found it" covers it for me.

Link to comment
Now, I do understand it's not always possible to log immediately, and a find recorded in the logbook is a find (and better than those who don't write) but I feel there should be some limit to the post-find-online-log time delay allowed by the system - say a month? - when it will not except the actual log-date if only for the purposes of these sorts of challenge caches.
Why should the accuracy of anyone's online logs be sacrificed for the convenience of those who play a side game? And as far as I'm concerned, these sorts of challenge caches are a side game.

 

Just as I don't think difficulty/terrain ratings should be subject to the convenience of those who are into grid challenges, I don't think log dates should be subject to the convenience of those who are into lonely-cache challenges. The primary purpose of difficulty/terrain ratings is communicating the nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers. The primary purpose of online logs is to communicate an individual's experience with the cache. Don't sacrifice the primary purpose for the convenience of others who play a side game.

 

</soapbox>

 

What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

Well if they don't bother with #3 then they're not playing by the rules. Is it unreasonable to ask that the online logs be made in a timely manner?

Edited by quiet1_au
Link to comment
What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

Well if they don't bother with #3 then they're not playing by the rules. Is it unreasonable to ask that the online logs be made in a timely manner?
I know people who started geocaching before it was possible to log your experience at www.geocaching.com, and they still don't log online. But they do still follow the old rules: "Take some stuff, leave some stuff! Record it all in the log book. Have Fun!"

 

Sure, you can ask that people post online logs in a timely manner. But as it gets easier to load cache data into a device and find caches, it becomes easier for folks to get behind in their online logs. And some of us are not willing to post lame "TFTC" logs from a mobile device.

 

If you're really concerned about online logs, then it makes no sense to prevent people from posting accurate online logs just because some arbitrary period of time has passed.

Link to comment

Ugh, I was the victim of cut-and-paste logging today. I didn't think it bothered me, but it does.

 

I hid an interesting cache container on a gorgeous beach and I get the same log as a nano someone stuck to a park bench.

 

:mad:

 

In this age of phone caching - GET USED TO IT! The only solution I know is to place caches where the phone does not work.

 

There's another option for a cache owner that is getting bother by terse cut-in-paste on a cache they've spend a considerable amount of time in trying to create an above average experience for those that seek it. That option is to archive that cache and stop placing any new caches.

Link to comment

I am a brand spanking new noob to geocaching and i am glad i found this thread. It helps me to see what i should try hard to avoid doing. I am still learning the do's and don'ts. Thanks for teachig me with the mistakes/inconsiderateness of others! I will never trade down. Infact my plan is to leave something at every cache, even if i take nothing.

Link to comment

Copy and paste logs for every single cache you find is one for me.

-Not even for power trails or whatnot. But EVERY single cache you find. There was a group of cachers in my general area that are/were horrible about doing this. It honestly got to the point that I whenever I got multiple logs in my email from them (from caches I was watching), I would just delete all but one because I had seen them log enough that I just knew every one of the logs, word for word, would be exactly the same. I got tired of going through more than one log of the same sentence or paragraph.

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

On a similar vein, I was doing a night cache many years ago, which took me deep into an amazing wetland ecosystem. As I was hiking out, basking in the glow of having found the cache, I saw a little green box on my GPSr screen, along my tracklog, indicative of a traditional I had passed on my way in. I get to ground zero, find a wrought iron bench at a trail intersection, where three natural habitats collide. A beautiful spot! I find a soggy log film can wiggled in the leaf litter under the bench. (sigh...) In a fit of pique, with my entitlement raging, I logged "Still there". At the time, the stats collating website INATN kept track of log length, and listed me as second in the state for average word count per log, so that was as bad as an acronym in my eyes. I eventually deleted the log altogether, as I'd rather not have a find on my record like that one.

 

I can't see what's so horrible about that hide? At least it brought you to a nice spot. Isn't that kind of the point of geocaching? :)

Not for me. If I ever embrace that philosophy, I'll just switch to finding Waymarks. What appeals to me in this game is the trilogy of a beautiful location, a quality container and an interesting write up. A cache that crappy does nothing but add to one's find count. The bench would still be a nice spot without the soggy log film can. It would be an even better spot had there been a quality container hidden there.

Link to comment

I dont have any complaints because if I voiced them on here I would get eaten alive and if I made so much as a wimper the moderators would jump in and finish the job! :( So I just love it when I get a bunch of DNFs (3 is a bunch) and I check and my cache is 30-40 feet from where I hid it! Nope doesnt bother me in the least! Nor does " I DROVE by and there were to many cars,people,monkeys so Im logging a DNF!" HUH? :blink: So nope all is Rosey in my caching world!

Link to comment

My pet peeve is the ever increasing incidence of PaF or "Phone a Friend" - the "hey I'm at this cache and I can't find it so please tell me where it is since you found it already." AND some of them are not content with a hint - they just want to know where it is. Then why are you in this game? Maybe it's just me but I do enjoy the hunt and I log LOTS of DNFs. It's a testimony (in most cases) to the CO that they have successfully done a very cool hide and to just tell folks where it is or what the container is - well what's the point?

 

I haven't ever done this... and I don't actually know any other local cacher's yet.... but I can imagine doing it if my kid was really losing it. There are days to "teach a lesson" about disappointment, and coming back another day, etc.... and there are days you just pray to all the powers that be that you have a good experience, and if there is a way to stack the deck you do.

 

I want to hike. I want to cache. I want to enjoy the process. If my kid hates the whole thing? I don't get any of what I want.

Link to comment

 

Went out yesetrday with a buddy who was going to do some maintenance. After a particular cache had been in place for more than a year and with 50+ 'found' logs and one DNF he received a found log where the cacher stated:

 

Found it but coordinates were more than 120' off. Moved and re-hid cache closer to coordinates.

 

Buddy was confused since this was an ammo can secured with a chain.

 

Turns out the previous cacher DID move it... after sawing through the downed tree it was attached to. Took us about 40 minutes to find were they had moved the box, chain and all, about 90' away from GZ.

 

Pretty funny.

As soon as you think you have made a fool-proof cache, along comes a even more foolish cacher.

 

Just heard my late mothers words in my head reading this. She used to say, "Don't bother fool-proofing it. They always send a better fool!"

Link to comment

This looks like an old thread, but I'll add my two cents anyway.

I really dislike finding business cards in caches. People should not use geocaches for their own personal gain. I typically throw them out.

Of course it is maddening when trackables are not logged. My personal experience has been that it is usually newbies that find five caches, collect trackables, let their kids have them and never Geocache again.

To reduce this I make any cache I hide that is big enough to hold trackables a PREMIUM member only cache. I don't premium the micros.

Link to comment

I use a smart phone and am guilty of using TFTC when I have found it but don't have anything to say about it. For example holes drilled in power pole to hide bison tube; holes dug to hide a cache; obvious damage to surrounding area; nails and wires on trees. Then I simply TFTC

In the cases you mentioned, if you must use an acronym, might I suggest "NA"? B)

I've left one TFTC log. It was in a film can a tree right over a grave. It didn't violate the guidelines so I couldn't NA it. The CO had to know about so a NM or note wouldn't do any good. TFTC was all I could say. (and still be family friendly)

On a similar vein, I was doing a night cache many years ago, which took me deep into an amazing wetland ecosystem. As I was hiking out, basking in the glow of having found the cache, I saw a little green box on my GPSr screen, along my tracklog, indicative of a traditional I had passed on my way in. I get to ground zero, find a wrought iron bench at a trail intersection, where three natural habitats collide. A beautiful spot! I find a soggy log film can wiggled in the leaf litter under the bench. (sigh...) In a fit of pique, with my entitlement raging, I logged "Still there". At the time, the stats collating website INATN kept track of log length, and listed me as second in the state for average word count per log, so that was as bad as an acronym in my eyes. I eventually deleted the log altogether, as I'd rather not have a find on my record like that one.

 

I can't see what's so horrible about that hide? At least it brought you to a nice spot. Isn't that kind of the point of geocaching? :)

Not for me. If I ever embrace that philosophy, I'll just switch to finding Waymarks. What appeals to me in this game is the trilogy of a beautiful location, a quality container and an interesting write up. A cache that crappy does nothing but add to one's find count. The bench would still be a nice spot without the soggy log film can. It would be an even better spot had there been a quality container hidden there.

 

+1. I agree. A bad cache spoils an otherwise nice experience at the location.

Link to comment

I, too, am new to geocaching and was horrified to find out that TFTC was an insult. Well....I have gone back to all of my finds for the last 30 days and edited all of them. Thank you for making this known to those of us who are old but new!

TFTC and other acronyms are NOT insults! It is the way they are used that irks most people. If you write a log either on the paper or online, and insert an acronym or two I don't think anyone takes offence that you saved some space or typing time.

Same goes for signing a small micro log in the field, space there is mostly for your signature but a TFTC can be jammed in if you don't have a big sig.

You can then log what you want online.

 

The problem comes when you have a large log book in the field and a lot of online space... and you get simply a TFTC on a good cache.

or the more normal (on a minimal cache) TFTC written sarcastically on a poor one.

 

Just be honest with what you say and you'll be fine. Even for DNF logs (which if you write them make some of the best reading).

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

Opening up a log to find that some cachers have scrawled their name across several lines/spaces when it would have fitted onto one line, i try to use up as little space as possible when signing to save space. Or seeing a "NM as the log is full".........but the otherside is a complete blank!

Link to comment

If you write a log either on the paper or online, and insert an acronym or two I don't think anyone takes offence that you saved some space or typing time.

It's not really for efficiency. They're just terms of the trade. It's no different than using the term "cache" instead of writing out "the container you hid".

 

The problem comes when you have a large log book in the field and a lot of online space... and you get simply a TFTC on a good cache.

or the more normal (on a minimal cache) TFTC written sarcastically on a poor one.

I know TFTC logs can be disappointing, but there are many reasons for a simple TFTC that don't reflect on the cache. I always just read them at face value. I suppose it helps that I don't know how to identify that something was written sarcastically. Is there a special sarcasm font I've been overlooking all this time?

Link to comment

I've had a problem with a throwdown cacher here of late. I have one cache. One particular cacher has been to the site twice. Both times they have claimed the cache was gone and placed a flim can in it's place. Both times their film can was in plain site. The last time it was within 3 or feet of the cache. Both times I have deleted the find and informed them that the cache was still there.

 

The reply I got back last time was, "Well if it's still there, why can't I find it?"

It didn't have the heart to reply what I was thinking.

 

I'm green as grass at this game and that made me laugh and laugh!

Link to comment

I, too, am new to geocaching and was horrified to find out that TFTC was an insult. Well....I have gone back to all of my finds for the last 30 days and edited all of them. Thank you for making this known to those of us who are old but new!

TFTC and other acronyms are NOT insults! It is the way they are used that irks most people. If you write a log either on the paper or online, and insert an acronym or two I don't think anyone takes offence that you saved some space or typing time.

 

One of the issues that I have with condoning TFTC logs is that different geocachers will just post a TFTC for different reasons. I don't think anyone is really talking about what people write in the the log sheet and the saving space argument doesn't apply for the online log. Some cachers might just write TFTC to save time. Some caches might just write TFTC for every log that they write because they see others doing it and think that's what you're supposed to write. Some cachers will write TFTC when they don't feel the cache deserves anything more. The thing is, TFTC, by itself doesn't convey any information about *why* the person that wrote those four characters did it. It could mean that the finder didn't like the cache or it could means that it's what the finder writes on *all* their logs.

Link to comment

Opening up a log to find that some cachers have scrawled their name across several lines/spaces when it would have fitted onto one line, i try to use up as little space as possible when signing to save space. Or seeing a "NM as the log is full".........but the otherside is a complete blank!

 

As a CO I leave logbooks not a logsheet with a 200 cell table printed on it for barely initials and a date. All I ask is that someone let me know when the logbook is almost full so I can get out there asap to add a new one. I want to encourage people to leave comments while at the location, while they still remember the experience. I feel the logbook is a basic and important part of a complete enjoyable geocaching experience. But it's my experience that many COs feel logbooks are burdensome and would rather not have to deal with them.

 

I've been around a decade and have seen the change. People used to leave comments in the logbook as well as online. My old logbooks are full of notes left by finders. Now it's rare to see a comment in the logbook. I attest this to the rise of micro caches. Logsheets with 200 cell tables started appearing in swag size caches, so finders were getting the impression that all COs didn't care about comments and wanted people to conserve space.

Edited by L0ne R
Link to comment

I own over 170 geocaches in two states. For the most part, it's been an awesome experience. However, I've developed a couple of pet peeves in regards to my fellow cachers. Here they are. Feel free to either flame away or post your own cache-owner pet peeves.

 

- Cachers blatantly trading down on swag. I'd like to think that we ALL know it's about the find itself, not the goodies you get in the container, but that's clearly not the case. I had this one called "The World Bank," which was supposed to hold foreign currency only (plain as day on the cache description). It started out with a bunch of Korean Won, Afghan Afghani, Iraqi Denari, etc. I unfortunately had to archive it because the area was getting clear-cut. When I went to pull the cache, know what I found in it? Rocks. It was STUFFED with rocks . . . not even SHINY ones . . . with nary a foreign bill or coin around. Someone had obviously rationalized, "Well, I'm swapping something, so it's O.K." Because geocaching is secretive by nature, we like to think that all our fellow geocachers are somehow imbued with higher morals than the average bear. Not always the case. It's for this reason that I don't put swag in my caches, anymore.

 

- Cachers who merely post "TFTC" on their logs. I put these things out there because I get a kick out of reading the stories behind the finds, etc. Even if you're getting a bunch of caches in one location at a time, just briefly tell the story behind the find, then use copy/paste. I've even gotten "TFTC" on First to Finds! Incredibly maddening.

 

Your turn.

Link to comment

When I was brand new to GeoCaching, I didn't even know what TFTC was. It took me awhile to find where the acronyms were explained.

 

As another poster wrote some people share TMI (too much information). As for me, I personally prefer to keep my life very private. But now that I know that most cache owners seem to want a note to them, I will try to be responsive to that fact.

 

Additionally, I have not logged all my DNF because I am not very good at finding even level one caches and quite frankly I am quite embarrassed to announce that fact to everyone repeatedly.

 

As far as trading down goes, the swag that I come across is not as nice as you have mentioned. I did go out and buy some items that I thought someone would get something out of, but in visiting more caches, I think that most people take the swag that I leave and leave nothing.

 

I am sorry that you are frustrated and disappointed. Maybe a link to the rules of etiquette should be posted more prominently on the website.

Link to comment

I do not take anything from the cache. For me I just enjoy getting out as I am retired. It keeps me somewhat on the move.

 

Same here! I am 65 years old and retired I now hike for a lot of caches for good old exercise. I bike now and then as well. I do not take anything from caches except TB to pass on. And, I do pass them on. I feel guilty if I hang on to them too long. :)

 

I set up a Trackable Cache near my local airport with the express purpose of getting some TBs moving! I noticed that a lot of them were just moving around town, or nearby rural areas, and not really going anywhere or logging any miles. Out of the 19 that have been placed in my cache, only 4 are in other caches as of yesterday. People get them and then I guess they just start a collection. If it doesn't SAY collectable, move it along! I've been doing this less than two months. I shouldn't even have a pet peeve yet!

Edited by marsha26
Link to comment

I do not take anything from the cache. For me I just enjoy getting out as I am retired. It keeps me somewhat on the move.

 

Same here! I am 65 years old and retired I now hike for a lot of caches for good old exercise. I bike now and then as well. I do not take anything from caches except TB to pass on. And, I do pass them on. I feel guilty if I hang on to them too long. :)

 

I set up a Trackable Cache near my local airport with the express purpose of getting some TBs moving! I noticed that a lot of them were just moving around town, or nearby rural areas, and not really going anywhere or logging any miles. Out of the 19 that have been placed in my cache, only 4 are in other caches as of yesterday. People get them and then I guess they just start a collection. If it doesn't SAY collectable, move it along! I've been doing this less than two months. I shouldn't even have a pet peeve yet!

 

My pet peeve is getting messages from amateur sleuths that accuse me of taking a trackable and not logging 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...