Pet Peeves when FINDING geocaches

[Ameliaonstage]

My pet peeve is whem there.are muggled caches! Sad stuff!

Edited March 11, 2012 by Ameliaonstage

[+GeoBain]

I hate looking for a regular cache only to discover it's really just a micro.

[+Max and 99]

I hate looking for a regular cache only to discover it's really just a micro.

 

I went after a cache once that was listed as an ammo can. Looked everywhere an ammo can could possibly be, and after 30 minutes gave up and went home. Found out later it was really a micro, and the cache owner had forgotten to change the write-up.

[+lamoracke]

Just don't log it that you blame the last finder. I once was FTF on a cache and the 2nd finders bitched on the cache page that the prior finders (which obviously was me) did not know how to hide it. Well, as I was FTF, I hid it exactly how the CO hid it. So either a, they were complaining bout the CO, or b, they were complaining about a muggle, not me. Either way, such needless blame is hardly warranted. If I have ever said that in a cache log in the past, I should not have.

 

Animals move things. Muggles move things. Other cachers may hide things differently than you think it. Hide it better as found, okay, in some circumstances...but accuse the past finder of not knowing what they are doing? Save your groans and moans to yourself because you may be wrong.

 

So, my pet peeve here is about mean logs.

Edited March 11, 2012 by lamoracke

[+Max and 99]

Just don't log it that you blame the last finder.

 

That's a good one!

[+Chokecherry]

As a finder I hate finding unmaintained caches that are left by people on vacation that end up sitting all a mess until if/when the vacationer comes back.

 

My biggest pet peeve other than that is when people low ball the terrain rating because they got to the cache location on an ATV. I use terrain ratings to find out which caches may be safe for my mobility impaired mother to get to with me and it sucks to show up at the location only to find the hider low balled that rating.

[TheDoctorPH]

the only thing that has ever really bothered me about a cache is when there is litter around GZ from the cache itself.

 

one i found recently had been repaired but the CO left the old pieces of the cache just laying around on the ground.

[+NicknPapa]

I hate looking for a regular cache only to discover it's really just a micro.

 

This. Over and over and over again, this.

Do you get the feeling that happens a lot around here?

[+Team Batpony]

I HATE wet caches. They are just simply disgusting. Even though I have a low find count, a surprising amount of those were WET! I hate it!

[+Isonzo Karst]

Another whine about cache size. A matchsafe is not a small. A film can is not a small. A 12 oz peanut butter jar is not a regular.

I routinely dump all the micros and unknown sizes of terrain 1.5 and below out of my queries. More and more this fails to mean that I'll find anything bigger then a film can.

[+yurkia]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

Edited March 11, 2012 by yurkia

[+T.D.M.22]

When there are 5 or 6 or 10 logs saying the log is full(on an abandoned cache) and people still go find it and complain it's full. I mean that like asking for hot coffee and expecting it to be ice cold, common sense people! It's not gonna magically get a new log, if you want one in there do it yourself....end mini-rant

[+Chokecherry]

Purposely soft coordinates to make it more "difficult."

 

And cache owners who have multis and puzzles out there that lose a step or the key to the puzzle is destroyed and they refuse to either repair the cache/cache page or disable the cache but will tell people if they are e-mailed that they aren't doing anything about it.

[+unabowler]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

 

This would be mine. Still, yesterday I found a bison tube in the middle of nowhere and because of the way it was done it was a good cache.

[+baloo&bd]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

 

Not sure what the issue is on this one.

 

Another whine about cache size. A matchsafe is not a small. A film can is not a small. A 12 oz peanut butter jar is not a regular.

I routinely dump all the micros and unknown sizes of terrain 1.5 and below out of my queries. More and more this fails to mean that I'll find anything bigger then a film can.

 

We have cachers in the area that don't think that the guidelines GC gives are correct so just pu down whatever size they feel like. Caches marked 1.5 and are 10 to 20 feet up a tree are also the norm.

 

In our area it became easy to deal with as most just automatically put their caches on the ignore list.

[+adt1982]

My biggest peeve is people who don't close containers properly!

 

It's also aggravating when people just sign wherever they want on the log and/or the just wad the log up instead of folding/rolling it back up neatly.

[+niraD]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

It isn't necessarily about finding a hiding space. It isn't necessarily about the cost either. I know people who hide smaller containers in remote locations simply because the don't want to haul an ammo can that far. Instead of a single ammo can, they could carry multiple smaller containers, an extra bottle of water, a couple energy bars, and some emergency supplies. As long as the container is waterproof and big enough to hold a log that can last a few years, they're happy.

[+niraD]

Hmm... pet peeves when finding geocaches... I dislike deliberately misleading hints. They're right down there with deliberately inaccurate coordinates. And wet mushy logs. And crumpled, wadded-up log sheets.

[+wimseyguy]

On days when I am doing urban cache runs and know that I'll see my fair share of parking lots, I still don't care for the ones placed close to the dumpsters. I'll log those with 'thanks for sharing your special place with me'.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Inaccurate cache size. I've found matchsticks, magkeys, and preforms as Smalls.

 

Inaccurate D/T ratings. Mostly ones that are too low, though D5's that shouldn't be bug me on principle.

 

Not being told what kind of container I am looking for on any cache with about D3 or less. If you want to make some evil D4 hide where you don't tell me what I'm looking for fine. This especially ties into the inaccurate cache size issue because it leads to wild goose caches.

[+W4G_SOTAGoat]

Purposely soft coordinates to make it more "difficult."

 

And cache owners who have multis and puzzles out there that lose a step or the key to the puzzle is destroyed and they refuse to either repair the cache/cache page or disable the cache but will tell people if they are e-mailed that they aren't doing anything about it.

 

There is one like that near me. Stage 1 has been removed due to construction but the CO ignores NM logs and no one will act on the NA that was logged in hopes to get some action from the CO.

 

Some of my others, in no particular order...

 

• 
   
  
• Leaky containers that aren't maintained/replaced
  
• Micros in places that are perfect for a regular sized cache
  
• COs that ignore NM logs
  
• No parking waypoint where parking is not obvious. Not only does it increase the chances for an accident due to circling around looking for a parking space, it costs the geocacher additional gas.
  
• Seeing other cachers giving our hobby a bad name. I saw someone park illegally blocking a lane of traffic in an urban office park in order to go for a FTF. There was a parking lot about 800' away. Is a FTF really important enough to break the law and possibly cause an accident? We're suspicious enough walking in circles, looking down at our GPSr/phone, and pilfering around in brush, trees, and LP skirts. No need to call extra attention to us.
   
   
  

Edited March 12, 2012 by Clayshooter

[+W4G_SOTAGoat]

Double post

Edited March 12, 2012 by Clayshooter

[+Mitragorz]

I hate not finding the cache!

[+JesandTodd]

I absolutely loath when a CO labels a cache a T=1 when there's no way a wheelchair bound person could make it there. And I will make mention of it in my logs.

 

I don't care how easy it is, if it's a T=1 then it HAS to be WC accessible. Period.

[+edscott]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

 

Cache page says it is a micro?

Aerial Photo shows it is in the woods?

 

You can choose to ignore it.

[+jellis]

Just don't log it that you blame the last finder. I once was FTF on a cache and the 2nd finders bitched on the cache page that the prior finders (which obviously was me) did not know how to hide it. Well, as I was FTF, I hid it exactly how the CO hid it. So either a, they were complaining bout the CO, or b, they were complaining about a muggle, not me. Either way, such needless blame is hardly warranted. If I have ever said that in a cache log in the past, I should not have.

 

Animals move things. Muggles move things. Other cachers may hide things differently than you think it. Hide it better as found, okay, in some circumstances...but accuse the past finder of not knowing what they are doing? Save your groans and moans to yourself because you may be wrong.

 

So, my pet peeve here is about mean logs.

I'll add to that. When the CO blames the last finder after they check their cache. How does the CO know the last one moved it and not one of the others before?

[+Glenn]

Giving a micro in the woods a difficulty rating of 1 or 1.5. diff 1 means that it is in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching. Unless you used bright florescent tape on the container or placed a very bright flashing LED on it or did something else to make it really stand out in the environment I don't see how a diff of less than 2 is justified. But it happens. Most, but not all, are noobs.

[4wheelin_fool]

People that leave containers out in the open because they found it that way.

[+zack_black]

a**hat CO's:

 

Yes I took a picture of your cache container. No I did not reveal the cache location. No my picture is NOT a spoiler. If your container was anything other than a unimaginative 35mm, a pill bottle or Tupperware then I would understand but because they aren't maby you should just suck it up.

 

Yes your log is wet AGAIN. Yes somebody took the baggy that it was in AGAIN. Maby if your container was something other than a pill bottle (or some other non-watertight container) you wouldn't NEED the baggy.

 

Using ALL CAPS for 3/4 of your cache description (which usually is a rant about the "bad" thing other GC'rs did to your cache) just makes you look anal.

 

I might be new but I'm a responsible GC'r. I follow the rules (and cache descriptions/instructions). Please do not accuse me of molesting your cache. Just because I was the last to log the find online and/or sign the log book doesn't mean I was the last to touch it.

 

Some people like swag. If I've got a teeny-tiny little pin (or flat coin) that fits into everything but a nano (or nano-tube) and I put it into your 35mm (and the log still fits and the lid closes as tight as before) then suck it up.

 

Stop power tripping. Threatening to archive a cache simply because something peeves you off doesn't hurt anyone but you. Go ahead and archive it. There will be three more new caches placed by other people tomorrow...

 

You don't seem to be having fun any more. Maby it's time to find another hobby...

 

NOTE: This isn't directed at any one CO. I've (or one of my fellow geocachers that I hang out with locally)encountered all of the above from many different CO's to a greater or lesser degree.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

 

My biggest pet peeve other than that is when people low ball the terrain rating because they got to the cache location on an ATV. I use terrain ratings to find out which caches may be safe for my mobility impaired mother to get to with me and it sucks to show up at the location only to find the hider low balled that rating.

Think that is bad?

 

Try a 'snowmobiler hide'. The ONLY time they (CO) is there is when the snow is 3-4 ft deep. Nevermind the 2 miles of cut-over pine plantation that it is hidden upon, no trail whatsoever. (1.5/1.5) The rest of the year, they are busy living in southern wherever. But then, I guess if they snowmobile, everybody MUST!

 

To be fair, it isn't that they intentionally low-ball it, it's just that they are wearing horse blinders.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+Glenn]

People that leave containers out in the open because they found it that way.

People that take the or better part of "rehide the cache as you found it or better" as a personal challenge to make the cache unfindable. Typically by moving it to a new hiding spot, usually more than 30 feet, away from the original spot.

[+Huntleigh]

Hmm... pet peeves when finding geocaches... I dislike deliberately misleading hints. They're right down there with deliberately inaccurate coordinates. And wet mushy logs. And crumpled, wadded-up log sheets.

Or where the hint is "there is no hint"

 

Then why fill the hint section in??

[+niraD]

Hmm... pet peeves when finding geocaches... I dislike deliberately misleading hints. They're right down there with deliberately inaccurate coordinates. And wet mushy logs. And crumpled, wadded-up log sheets.

Or where the hint is "there is no hint"

 

Then why fill the hint section in??

I'd probably find "no hint" hints more annoying if I decrypted hints by hand. Actually, I've seen hints that initially looked like "no hint" hints, but which turned out to be useful hints involving wordplay. I don't mind those.

 

The ones I find annoying are the ones that deliberately misdirect seekers.

[+power69]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

 

Not sure what the issue is on this one.

 

Another whine about cache size. A matchsafe is not a small. A film can is not a small. A 12 oz peanut butter jar is not a regular.

I routinely dump all the micros and unknown sizes of terrain 1.5 and below out of my queries. More and more this fails to mean that I'll find anything bigger then a film can.

 

We have cachers in the area that don't think that the guidelines GC gives are correct so just pu down whatever size they feel like. Caches marked 1.5 and are 10 to 20 feet up a tree are also the norm.

 

thats to defeat them being filtered out.

[+StarBrand]

Another whine about cache size. A matchsafe is not a small. A film can is not a small. A 12 oz peanut butter jar is not a regular.

I routinely dump all the micros and unknown sizes of terrain 1.5 and below out of my queries. More and more this fails to mean that I'll find anything bigger then a film can.

 

This....

 

The size option is really not telling me much any longer.

[+DragonsWest]

Pet peeves are wet caches. Sometimes because it's a crappy container without adequate shelter, other times it's because cachers don't close them all the way - Decons are quite often victims of poor closing skills.

[+bflentje]

My pet peeve are those that find nothing better to do than complain about the most inane, nitpicky things in some pet peeve thread. Yeah, there's an irony here..

[+Mr.Benchmark]

+1 to most of the other stuff in this thread!

I'll add:

 

Caches placed on private property WITHOUT permission with active, and hostile security. You just haven't cached until you've had to explain yourself to the angry, angry man with a firearm.

 

Also, I really hate throwdowns because of the ambiguity they create. (Did I find the cache or not?) I may start a thread on this...

Edited March 12, 2012 by Mr.Benchmark

[+zack_black]

Also, I really hate throwdowns because of the ambiguity they create. (Did I find the cache or not?) I may start a thread on this...

 

This is why I take pictures of the cache when I find it...

 

...and hate it when the CO P's and M's about it.

[+sholomar]

People that leave containers out in the open because they found it that way.

People that take the or better part of "rehide the cache as you found it or better" as a personal challenge to make the cache unfindable. Typically by moving it to a new hiding spot, usually more than 30 feet, away from the original spot.

 

I don't bother searching forever, if it's not within 20 feet of where the GPS says.. irresponsible to move it anywhere than where one found it in my opinion (within reason)

 

Other then that wet logs and micros in state parks are my only peeves. (State parks and woods are at a premium out here)

 

Anywhoo I plan to be more a cache placer and not so much a cache finder this year. My micros will be 2 liter bottle preforms assuming they keep the moisture out, with a pen cut down to fit, otherwise small to regular containers. I've got 5 preforms, 3 smalls, and 2 regulars sitting in a drawer ready to place right now.

Edited March 12, 2012 by sholomar

[+C8W9]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

 

^ That! Urban - tolerable, Forest - no excuses.

[+niraD]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

^ That! Urban - tolerable, Forest - no excuses.

No excuses? FWIW, one of my Favorites is a micro in the woods. Yes, it's a film canister. No, a larger container would not work.

 

And again, I know people who hide smaller containers in remote locations simply because the don't want to haul an ammo can that far. Instead of a single ammo can, they can carry multiple smaller containers, an extra bottle of water, a couple energy bars, and some emergency supplies. As long as the container is waterproof and big enough to hold a log that can last a few years, they're happy.

[+Scubasonic]

My pet peeve is whem there.are muggled caches! Sad stuff!

 

I just hate looking for a cache and not kinding it.

[+docsigma]

Getting the log out of certain micros/nanos... especially if the thing is just wadded up and stuffed in there. Seems to happen more with bison tubes than with nanos, oddly.

[+terrkan78]

Another whine about cache size. A matchsafe is not a small. A film can is not a small. A 12 oz peanut butter jar is not a regular.

I routinely dump all the micros and unknown sizes of terrain 1.5 and below out of my queries. More and more this fails to mean that I'll find anything bigger then a film can.

 

This....

 

The size option is really not telling me much any longer.

I used to roll my eyes over a Rx bottle being called a small, or a small peanut butter jar being called a regular, but then I realized that what they're doing is rounding up. The Rx bottle is slightly bigger than a film can, so they call it a small. The pb jar is probably bigger (volume-wise) than a sandwich, so they call it a regular. I prefer to round down, but is it wrong to round up?

 

My pet peeve are those that find nothing better to do than complain about the most inane, nitpicky things in some pet peeve thread. Yeah, there's an irony here..

Aw come on. Complaining is fun! Even if I'm just complaining about someone who's complaining about complainers!

 

My answer to the OP: The only thing that gets my knickers completely twisted in unmanageable knots is when I can't find the cache. Happens way too often! I hike for half a day through thick and thin, I got twigs sticking out of my hair, my pants are ripped, and no cache! Yes, I know, I'm supposed to enjoy the hike, etc., but that's cake with no frosting! Blech!

[Ameliaonstage]

Another whine about cache size. A matchsafe is not a small. A film can is not a small. A 12 oz peanut butter jar is not a regular.

I routinely dump all the micros and unknown sizes of terrain 1.5 and below out of my queries. More and more this fails to mean that I'll find anything bigger then a film can.

 

This....

 

The size option is really not telling me much any longer.

I used to roll my eyes over a Rx bottle being called a small, or a small peanut butter jar being called a regular, but then I realized that what they're doing is rounding up. The Rx bottle is slightly bigger than a film can, so they call it a small. The pb jar is probably bigger (volume-wise) than a sandwich, so they call it a regular. I prefer to round down, but is it wrong to round up?

 

My pet peeve are those that find nothing better to do than complain about the most inane, nitpicky things in some pet peeve thread. Yeah, there's an irony here..

Aw come on. Complaining is fun! Even if I'm just complaining about someone who's complaining about complainers!

 

My answer to the OP: The only thing that gets my knickers completely twisted in unmanageable knots is when I can't find the cache. Happens way too often! I hike for half a day through thick and thin, I got twigs sticking out of my hair, my pants are ripped, and no cache! Yes, I know, I'm supposed to enjoy the hike, etc., but that's cake with no frosting! Blech!

 

NO FROSTING!!! WHAT!!!! WHAT HAVE OUR BAKERY'S COME TO??

:blink: :blink: :blink:

[+terrkan78]

My answer to the OP: The only thing that gets my knickers completely twisted in unmanageable knots is when I can't find the cache. Happens way too often! I hike for half a day through thick and thin, I got twigs sticking out of my hair, my pants are ripped, and no cache! Yes, I know, I'm supposed to enjoy the hike, etc., but that's cake with no frosting! Blech!

 

NO FROSTING!!! WHAT!!!! WHAT HAVE OUR BAKERY'S COME TO??

:blink: :blink: :blink:

[+BlueDeuce]

People who place caches by carrying and some emergency supplies.

[+C8W9]

Micro's in the woods! COME ON! 2,000 acres of forest and there is a film canister in a tree. At least give me some tupperware..... if you can't find a hiding spot this big, you are not trying hard enough.

^ That! Urban - tolerable, Forest - no excuses.

No excuses? FWIW, one of my Favorites is a micro in the woods. Yes, it's a film canister. No, a larger container would not work.

 

And again, I know people who hide smaller containers in remote locations simply because the don't want to haul an ammo can that far. Instead of a single ammo can, they can carry multiple smaller containers, an extra bottle of water, a couple energy bars, and some emergency supplies. As long as the container is waterproof and big enough to hold a log that can last a few years, they're happy.

 

If a larger container wouldn't work / fit / whatever at the cache location, then fair enough, don't have an issue with that. On the other hand, if it's placed slap bang in the middle of a wood with many hiding places in trees, next to trees, under fallen down tree, maybe even a make a fake tree! etc. and it turns out to be a film cannister with a scrap of paper, then it seems like the cache placer has taken the cheap option, imo.

 

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm still in the early stages of caching - so enjoy finding all the swag, even "junk" inside a cache - makes it more interesting. To end up with a film cannister containing a scrap of paper, when there are numerous places to hide (even small!) boxes of trinkets, is pretty disappointing!

[+littlegemsy]

New cacher, but the inconsistencies with difficulty ratings are a bit of a problem. If something is a 2 I'd assume that I'd need to look for more than 30 seconds. I suppose that's the issue of subjective ratings!