Pet Peeves when FINDING geocaches

[+Bloodheart]

1. Caches that are not accessible by public footpaths.

As many other geocachers dive it means they put caches in places without thinking how a cacher on foot may get to the site, even if there are public footpaths around the site of the cache doesn't mean it's accessible totally on foot (e.g. one locally with lots of footpaths around the area, but to get there you still have to drive via a motorway so totally inaccessible on foot), or it can often mean walking dangerous routes or MILES out of your way to try to find the right access route.

 

2. Water-proof logs.

I know they serve a very important purpose but as I write in gel pens it means my signature gets smudged and I get ink all over my hands - I can't write in biro and although I carry pencils with me there's no guarantee that I can easily dig one out of my bag that's still sharp enough to write with. But then this is more just me being fussy.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Bloodheart

[+MI_CO]

Any cache description that says "Be extra stealthy, high muggle traffic" might just as well say in capital letters, "I HID A CACHE WHERE I SHOULDN'T HAVE."

Edited April 2, 2012 by MIGolfer

[+power69]

Any cache description that says "Be extra stealthy, high muggle traffic" might just as well say in capital letters, "I HID A CACHE WHERE I SHOULDN'T HAVE."

you mean i can't hide a cache under the garbage can by the entrance door to burger king?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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?

 

The way I see it, the size rating is something that potential finders can use to help find the cache, or more specifically, identify possible locations where the cache might be hidden. If a cache is rated as a small, but is actually a micro (and is hidden in a spot where a small would not fit), a potential finder might not search a specific spot because, according to the cache rating, a small size container would not fit. However, a micro hidden in a spot where a small would fit isn't going to cause a problem because a potential finder would look in locations big enough for a micro or a small container. Rounding down might not be an accurate rating but it would be less misleading than rounding up.

[+DragonsWest]

Caches frozen in ice when Geocaching in Michigan during the winter.

[tomowens]

Two things come to mind:

 

1. I don't like it when I happen across the map before searching for GZ. Part of the fun for me is just following the heading and distance readings and trying to figure out how to get there.

 

2. I prefer caches with SWAG, especially when showing the game to new people. It becomes annoying to me when I need to filter out dozens of close-by film cans and the like while a geo-newbie is watching.

[+teadams]

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.

 

I found an 'Ammo Can' last year and it _was_ a micro! There are places you can buy them. I thought I was looking for the full sized one but found this instead, It was then I noticed the size was checked as 'unknown'.

[+Dancing_Duo]

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.

 

I found an 'Ammo Can' last year and it _was_ a micro! There are places you can buy them. I thought I was looking for the full sized one but found this instead, It was then I noticed the size was checked as 'unknown'.

 

I've seen those & thought about buying one

[+boneyard68]

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.

 

Same thing here.. Except the micro WAS an ammo box. And hidden in a fence top cap. The Co had to tell me where to look.. Guess he gets a laugh from all the dnf.

[+Chrysalides]

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!

I found two caches that I can remember that were more disgusting than wet caches.

 

One had a very interesting mold culture growing inside it, filling about half of a small tupperware. The other is a regular, and had some, erm, organic waste, possibly canine in origin.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Any cache description that says "Be extra stealthy, high muggle traffic" might just as well say in capital letters, "I HID A CACHE WHERE I SHOULDN'T HAVE."

 

+2...my wife and I.

[+DragonsWest]

Pulling logs out of little baggies. Have I said this before? I still dislike it.

 

If your cache is large put a notebook in it.

If your cache is small, just put the log sheet in there.

If your cache container is likely to leak then your cache is already doomed and will be a blight on the local caching community and reflect poorly upon you, the first time it gets wet and everything inside turns into soggy, coroded garbage.

If your cache is a micro, WHY are you putting the log in a bag?!?

[+Totem Clan]

Pulling logs out of little baggies. Have I said this before? I still dislike it.

 

If your cache is large put a notebook in it.

If your cache is small, just put the log sheet in there.

If your cache container is likely to leak then your cache is already doomed and will be a blight on the local caching community and reflect poorly upon you, the first time it gets wet and everything inside turns into soggy, coroded garbage.

If your cache is a micro, WHY are you putting the log in a bag?!?

I have to agree here. In fact I use baggies in my small or larger caches but not for protection. It's just a good way to keep the logbook and pen together, and still be easily seen.

[+DragonsWest]

Pulling logs out of little baggies. Have I said this before? I still dislike it.

 

If your cache is large put a notebook in it.

If your cache is small, just put the log sheet in there.

If your cache container is likely to leak then your cache is already doomed and will be a blight on the local caching community and reflect poorly upon you, the first time it gets wet and everything inside turns into soggy, coroded garbage.

If your cache is a micro, WHY are you putting the log in a bag?!?

I have to agree here. In fact I use baggies in my small or larger caches but not for protection. It's just a good way to keep the logbook and pen together, and still be easily seen.

No problem there, using them for organizing within a large cache is a good plan, but those fiddly little bags always end up torn, ragged and, in many cases, keeping water in the log sheet. Yuck.

[+Totem Clan]

Pulling logs out of little baggies. Have I said this before? I still dislike it.

 

If your cache is large put a notebook in it.

If your cache is small, just put the log sheet in there.

If your cache container is likely to leak then your cache is already doomed and will be a blight on the local caching community and reflect poorly upon you, the first time it gets wet and everything inside turns into soggy, coroded garbage.

If your cache is a micro, WHY are you putting the log in a bag?!?

I have to agree here. In fact I use baggies in my small or larger caches but not for protection. It's just a good way to keep the logbook and pen together, and still be easily seen.

No problem there, using them for organizing within a large cache is a good plan, but those fiddly little bags always end up torn, ragged and, in many cases, keeping water in the log sheet. Yuck.

That is too true.

[+firestronaut]

Caches that are hidden in the winter and given no thought for summer brambles and other such growings!

[+Z3ROIN]

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.

 

Agree! Even if the last few feet make it unaccessible to a wheel chair, T=1.5 minimum.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Z3ROIN

[+WRASTRO]

1. Caches that are not accessible by public footpaths.

As many other geocachers dive it means they put caches in places without thinking how a cacher on foot may get to the site, even if there are public footpaths around the site of the cache doesn't mean it's accessible totally on foot (e.g. one locally with lots of footpaths around the area, but to get there you still have to drive via a motorway so totally inaccessible on foot), or it can often mean walking dangerous routes or MILES out of your way to try to find the right access route.

 

2. Water-proof logs.

I know they serve a very important purpose but as I write in gel pens it means my signature gets smudged and I get ink all over my hands - I can't write in biro and although I carry pencils with me there's no guarantee that I can easily dig one out of my bag that's still sharp enough to write with. But then this is more just me being fussy.

Not really on topic, but I get irritated by cachers who think I must change my cache to suit the way they want to cache. Don't like my cache location and hiding style? Don't search for it.

 

Sorry, I know that belongs in a different thread.

 

Probably the most annoying to me, and it is small, is the "not yet" hint, or the "too easy for a hint" stuff. If it was too easy I wouldn't be looking at the hint!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Caches that are hidden in the winter and given no thought for summer brambles and other such growings!

 

But, there can be a good reason for that.

 

An example I have is a cache I hid along a stretch of river in July of last year. When I hid the final, the shrubs and foliage in that spot were lush and green and hid the cache well. I was stunned when I stopped by later in the fall/winter. I thought that someone had come along and pulled all the trees and vegetation out of the ground. There was nothing there any longer to shield the cache. It was barren. I was by there a few days ago and noticed that the shrubs are starting to return, so this spot will be lush and green in the summer but completely open in the fall/winter/spring months.

 

That was a good lesson for me. I'll probably never hide a cache in the woods during the summer. I'll wait until the vegetation has died off and then hide it.

[+me N u]

Our pet hate are cache descriptions that say to the left/right of an object - so much easier to give a compass direction.

[Clan Riffster]

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.

 

As I understand it, since the thread is titled "Pet Peeves when FINDING geocaches", the issue is one of dislikes. Based on reading yurkia's post, it would seem that they don't like finding micros, in an environment where a school bus could be hidden. It goes back to the oft stated, (and oft debated), principle of hiding the largest size cache an area can reasonably support. I happen to agree with yurkia on this, though I'm not sure if my preferences would be strong enough to rate 'Pet Peeve' status.

 

Doesn't seem that difficult a concept to grasp...

 

 

Cache page says it is a micro?

Aerial Photo shows it is in the woods?

 

You can choose to ignore it.

 

Very true. In fact, that's the approach I tend to take.

But ignoring something doesn't change the fact that I dislike it.

It simply means I seldom have to deal with it.

I dislike the concept of micros in the woods for many reasons.

This thread offers a medium to express that dislike.

Along with any other dislike strong enough to rate 'Pet Peeve' status.

[Clan Riffster]

Don't like my cache location and hiding style? Don't search for it.

But if I don't search for it, how will I know your location and hiding style?

[+firestronaut]

Caches that are hidden in the winter and given no thought for summer brambles and other such growings!

 

But, there can be a good reason for that.

 

An example I have is a cache I hid along a stretch of river in July of last year. When I hid the final, the shrubs and foliage in that spot were lush and green and hid the cache well. I was stunned when I stopped by later in the fall/winter. I thought that someone had come along and pulled all the trees and vegetation out of the ground. There was nothing there any longer to shield the cache. It was barren. I was by there a few days ago and noticed that the shrubs are starting to return, so this spot will be lush and green in the summer but completely open in the fall/winter/spring months.

 

That was a good lesson for me. I'll probably never hide a cache in the woods during the summer. I'll wait until the vegetation has died off and then hide it.

 

I'm thinking of one in particular I had trouble with, where I ended up being hurt.

60/70 feet from any kind of footpath, in the middle of a forest with brambles at waist height, holly bushes, slopes and mini-marshes hidden by wild garlic. I couldn't see the ground with all the ivy, and had no idea if it was safe to put my foot down. Plus, CO admitted co-ords were off. And to top it off, it was listed as easy and kid friendly, and my 3 year old ended up COVERED in scratches on her feet, legs, arms and face, scared to death because she kept falling over <_< <_<

 

If it was placed in winter, none of those things would have been an issue, and I would agree with the listing, but come spring/summer, it's almost impossible.

 

I think caches in woods should stray too far from footpaths anyway, especially if listed as child friendly, because the terrain is so different in the seasons.

[ZeekLTK]

I hate it when I get to the GZ and it turns out to be in a very public place (or at least for ones that I do not expect to be in such a place).

 

For example, there was one I tried recently that was suppose to be along a trail that is fairly secluded. There are multiple caches along the trail, and most of them have plenty of privacy to search for them, but when I got to one in particular it was off the path and in a position where cars (from a very busy road) could easily see you looking for the cache as they drove by. I was very upset with that and gave up without ever really even searching because there were just too many cars driving by.

 

I don't understand why the person couldn't just hide it somewhere else along the trail, in a more secluded area (it was a micro too, so there were easily 4-5 other hiding spots along the trail within a 100 feet either direction of the spot they picked).

Edited April 8, 2012 by ZeekLTK

[+rachanel]

It bothers me when logs are in ziploc bags and whoever finds it last doesn't reseal the bag making the log is damp. The CO put the log in a bag for a reason!

[+Chokecherry]

Logs in sealed bags get damp too. If that bag was opened on a moist day and sealed that log becomes a wet moldy mess in no time because it can't breathe.

[+6NoisyHikers]

It bothers me when logs are in ziploc bags and whoever finds it last doesn't reseal the bag making the log is damp. The CO put the log in a bag for a reason!

 

Logs in sealed bags get damp too. If that bag was opened on a moist day and sealed that log becomes a wet moldy mess in no time because it can't breathe.

 

We have two caches - one with the log in a baggie, one without. So far they are both holding up well after being out for almost a year, but they are both hidden in places that don't collect water. So what is the "right" answer for this peeve? Does a bagging the logbook make it better or worse?

[+Totem Clan]

It bothers me when logs are in ziploc bags and whoever finds it last doesn't reseal the bag making the log is damp. The CO put the log in a bag for a reason!

 

Logs in sealed bags get damp too. If that bag was opened on a moist day and sealed that log becomes a wet moldy mess in no time because it can't breathe.

 

We have two caches - one with the log in a baggie, one without. So far they are both holding up well after being out for almost a year, but they are both hidden in places that don't collect water. So what is the "right" answer for this peeve? Does a bagging the logbook make it better or worse?

I've had cachers report on my caches without a baggie and say it had a damp log. One day later the next cacher says they are dry. However, as Chokecherry reported, the ones with baggies seem to collect and hold the condensation.

Now I only use baggies in larger caches to keep the log a pen together and I put a small hole in the baggie to let it breath. I have NEVER had a single wet log in any of them in the 4 years I've been doing that.

[+kycountrymusic]

I agree with several cachers here. I'll add these few items in:

 

Profanity in logs. I've noticed that several in our area has been noted as having such. We've also found some non-kid friendly items in caches before. I will notify the cache owner immediately with a photo of offending items.

 

Travel Bugs Going Missing. I hate seeing listings or new logs that people post making a bug drop recently only to find out that whoever took it never checked it out.

 

Caches On Very Busy Highway: Sometimes I scratch my head when you realize a guardrail cache is on a dangerous curve. There are also the caches that require the cacher to park on the shoulder on a busy highway that is traveled by tractor trailers and other vehicles. For these caches, we usually won't try to hide and will leave a note on the cache page warning that it is a dangerous/busy road for out of town people to know.

[+Totem Clan]

We've also found some non-kid friendly items in caches before. I will notify the cache owner immediately with a photo of offending items.

Swag placed in the cache after the hide is not the CO's fault. Why can't you take out the offending item?

[+sduck]

I hate it when I reluctantly hunt a cache hidden by someone who's known only for lame micros under lamposts, but at least it'll be an easy smiley - and it ends up actually being a really cool walk in the woods to a beautiful location, and a really well hidden ammo can.

[+Z3ROIN]

We've also found some non-kid friendly items in caches before. I will notify the cache owner immediately with a photo of offending items.

Swag placed in the cache after the hide is not the CO's fault. Why can't you take out the offending item?

 

Exactly! Just take it out if you think it's unsuitable. Unless it's part of the cache of course, then you'd have to contact the CO if you disagreed.

[+The VanDucks]

A complicated multi-cache that has only a micro to find at the final in a large wooded area which could accomodate a big box! We've done a few, because the hunt itself was fun and/or challenging, but I wish the CO had thought to provide a nice big container at the end with room to trade or leave TB's!

[Clan Riffster]

A complicated multi-cache that has only a micro to find at the final in a large wooded area which could accomodate a big box! We've done a few, because the hunt itself was fun and/or challenging, but I wish the CO had thought to provide a nice big container at the end with room to trade or leave TB's!

I know this is my stark raving entitlement rearing its ugly head, but I gotta say, I agree with much of this sentiment. My bias leans strongly to caches on the upper end of the size spectrum, for several reasons not worth mentioning in this thread, (and I recognize that many do not agree with my bias), so finding one of the tiny guys, (assuming for some reason I don't know what size to expect going in), is a bit of a let down. Finding one in a spot which a Greyhound bus could hide is a bit more disappointing. Finding one in a spot where a regular could be hidden, following an epic multi or puzzle, is like the trifecta of disappointment.

 

I can't blame the owner, as they were hiding what they wanted to hide.

 

Still, my entitlement grumbles...

[+floydiology]

1.) I hate caches placed in sensitive ecological areas and are getting trampled on by seekers disturbing the natural surroundings.

1a. Caches placed below flood prone areas that get washed away

1b. Caches that are placed in riparian areas that cause "geo-trails" to form in otherwise pristine areas.

2.) Caches that have several DNF's and they are not archived on this site. (Co's even post that it is gone)

3.) Caches that have long drawn out and often convoluted descriptions descriptions and yet are only a 1.5 difficulty, C'mon CO, do we all really care about your story?(yawn)

4.) LP and GR caches...meh

5.) Caches placed along dangerous roads with no nearby safe parking area

6.) Caches placed on ANY private property regardless of permission granted.

 

I would rather find a few quality caches than find a ton of junk caches.

Edited April 10, 2012 by floydiology

[+BCandMsKitty]

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.

 

As I understand it, since the thread is titled "Pet Peeves when FINDING geocaches", the issue is one of dislikes. Based on reading yurkia's post, it would seem that they don't like finding micros, in an environment where a school bus could be hidden. It goes back to the oft stated, (and oft debated), principle of hiding the largest size cache an area can reasonably support. I happen to agree with yurkia on this, though I'm not sure if my preferences would be strong enough to rate 'Pet Peeve' status.

 

Doesn't seem that difficult a concept to grasp...

 

 

Cache page says it is a micro?

Aerial Photo shows it is in the woods?

 

You can choose to ignore it.

 

Very true. In fact, that's the approach I tend to take.

But ignoring something doesn't change the fact that I dislike it.

It simply means I seldom have to deal with it.

I dislike the concept of micros in the woods for many reasons.

This thread offers a medium to express that dislike.

Along with any other dislike strong enough to rate 'Pet Peeve' status.

 

The only problem with filtering out micros, is that you might miss some great containers. A very active hider around here has almost all micros, but they're always described as "a micro disguised as something else". most of his containers are really ingenious, and not small at all, and we've gotten lots of chuckles from them. Filter out micros and we'd miss that.

 

Just to be contrary, My pet peeve is a micro in an urban environment! (unless hidden in a creative container as I mentioned). I find no fun at all in skulking around on a busy street looking for a micro that turns out to be a magnetic bolt head on the steel leg of a bench. We almost always ignore urban micros.

Edited April 10, 2012 by BC & MsKitty

[Clan Riffster]

The only problem with filtering out micros, is that you might miss some great containers.

Very true. But locally, the overwhelmingly vast majority of micros are mindless urban P&Gs placed in uninspired locations, utilizing containers which are not well suited for the environment. Since that is, to me, the crappy cache trifecta, I try hard to avoid them, and consider the few grains of wheat hidden amongst all the chaff worth passing by, especially since I generally hear about those few great micros through word of mouth.

[+TeamTwoStar]

Everyone has some really great..."rants" about their pet peeves. LOL.

 

I personally don't like misleading information in the description.

 

1.) Container Size mislabled, if it only fits a log it is a micro, not a small.

 

2.) The terrain mislabled, when I want to go on a hike I will, but if it is a 1 it should be something I can get out of my car and find in a minute.

 

3.) Difficulty mislabled, if the GPS bounces in the area, D needs to go up. If there is a million places to look, D needs to go up. If there it is a very rare container, like a bolt, the D needs to go up.

 

I try to find geocaches that I am in the mood for the day. Sometimes I feel like a bunch of C&D and sometimes I like hiking, or looking for a challenging one, but if the cache is mislabled it can spoil my day. I know I am not going to find them every time, but I would really like to know what to expect before I drive 30min to get there.

[+Wreck Diver]

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

 

I had a geocache hidden in a woodland conservation area and the cache was hidden about 50 feet off the main trail. There was very little reason for anyone to leave the main trail unless they were geocachers.

 

I got off duty from the fire department and stopped at the cache to discover some of the travel bugs that had been dropped there. When I reached the cache hide, there were half a dozen cigarette butts laying amidst the pine needles and leaves, and there was actually a cigarette butt INSIDE the cache container!

 

As a professional firefighter that deals with brush fires and as a member of a department that has lost firefighters and apparatus to brush fires, I have to admit that my subsequent owner's maintenance log generated a subsequent apology from the chain-smoking cacher that visited my cache, followed by a few months of humorous side stories at geomeets.

 

To add to the growing list:

 

2.) Geocaches that resemble ANYTHING electrical in nature (switches, transformers, outlets, wiring, lamp posts, etc.)

3.) Geocache containers that still bear military munitions markings (20 MM INCENDIARY ROUNDS, HIGH EXPLOSIVE, etc.)

4.) Geocaches that hold multiple logbooks that span the entire life of the cache listing.

5.) Geocaches that are specifically designed to resemble roadside trash like discarded water bottles, crushed Pepsi cans, cigar tubes, etc.

6.) Geocachers that log travel bugs with vague logs that make post-loss tracking impossible ("Took five TBs, left two TBs!")

7.) Geocaches with vague hints in high visibility locations that are impossible to search for without generating unwanted attention.

8.) Pretty much each and every lamp post or guardrail cache that I ever wasted my time, effort, and Double A batteries on.

 

I'm glad I started geocaching when it was about quality, not quantity.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Wreck Diver

[+VikingOlly]

Finding caches that are not managed by the CO. Wet, no room on the log, full. Just rubbish.

And undersized caches. YOU find a grat location for a large cache container with lots of interesting stuff in it!

[+yorelken]

Being told to put the cache back where I found it. Gee, really?

[+power69]

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

 

I had a geocache hidden in a woodland conservation area and the cache was hidden about 50 feet off the main trail. There was very little reason for anyone to leave the main trail unless they were geocachers.

 

I got off duty from the fire department and stopped at the cache to discover some of the travel bugs that had been dropped there. When I reached the cache hide, there were half a dozen cigarette butts laying amidst the pine needles and leaves, and there was actually a cigarette butt INSIDE the cache container!

 

As a professional firefighter that deals with brush fires and as a member of a department that has lost firefighters and apparatus to brush fires, I have to admit that my subsequent owner's maintenance log generated a subsequent apology from the chain-smoking cacher that visited my cache, followed by a few months of humorous side stories at geomeets.

 

To add to the growing list:

 

2.) Geocaches that resemble ANYTHING electrical in nature (switches, transformers, outlets, wiring, lamp posts, etc.)

3.) Geocache containers that still bear military munitions markings (20 MM INCENDIARY ROUNDS, HIGH EXPLOSIVE, etc.)

4.) Geocaches that hold multiple logbooks that span the entire life of the cache listing.

5.) Geocaches that are specifically designed to resemble roadside trash like discarded water bottles, crushed Pepsi cans, cigar tubes, etc.

6.) Geocachers that log travel bugs with vague logs that make post-loss tracking impossible ("Took five TBs, left two TBs!")

7.) Geocaches with vague hints in high visibility locations that are impossible to search for without generating unwanted attention.

8.) Pretty much each and every lamp post or guardrail cache that I ever wasted my time, effort, and Double A batteries on.

 

I'm glad I started geocaching when it was about quality, not quantity.

Sounds like you hated EVERYTHING after the original can of beans.

[+Glenn]

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

 

I had a geocache hidden in a woodland conservation area and the cache was hidden about 50 feet off the main trail. There was very little reason for anyone to leave the main trail unless they were geocachers.

 

I got off duty from the fire department and stopped at the cache to discover some of the travel bugs that had been dropped there. When I reached the cache hide, there were half a dozen cigarette butts laying amidst the pine needles and leaves, and there was actually a cigarette butt INSIDE the cache container!

 

As a professional firefighter that deals with brush fires and as a member of a department that has lost firefighters and apparatus to brush fires, I have to admit that my subsequent owner's maintenance log generated a subsequent apology from the chain-smoking cacher that visited my cache, followed by a few months of humorous side stories at geomeets.

 

I don't know why this is but the smoking culture in the US doesn't seem to see tossing their butts on the ground as littering. I don't think there is a road in the US were you can't find at least a couple of discard cigarette filters every mile. I've know a bunch of smokers over my lifetime that would chew you a new one if they saw you accidentally drop a gum wrapper on the ground then intentionally toss their discarded filter on the ground moments later. IMHO, cigarettes with filters should have a deposit fee, like bottles do in some states.

[+VikingOlly]

Caches that don't contain a pen or pencil when there is clearly heaps of room!

[+cerberus1]

Caches that don't contain a pen or pencil when there is clearly heaps of room!

 

May have had one when placed...

Nearly every time we do a maintenance check on our larger hides (with heaps of room) we need to replace either the pen, pencil and often, the sharpener (?). We keep them in a bag with the log so they stay together.

All swag is in a separate bag.

We realize that people forget to bring a pen sometimes, but for some to think it okay to swipe ours to be safe the rest of the day isn't nice.

[+baloo&bd]

May have had one when placed...

Nearly every time we do a maintenance check on our larger hides (with heaps of room) we need to replace either the pen, pencil and often, the sharpener (?). We keep them in a bag with the log so they stay together.

All swag is in a separate bag.

We realize that people forget to bring a pen sometimes, but for some to think it okay to swipe ours to be safe the rest of the day isn't nice.

 

Putting the pen or pencil in the bag with the log kind of defeats the purpose of the bag wen they puncture it, and they always do.

[+cerberus1]

May have had one when placed...

Nearly every time we do a maintenance check on our larger hides (with heaps of room) we need to replace either the pen, pencil and often, the sharpener (?). We keep them in a bag with the log so they stay together.

All swag is in a separate bag.

We realize that people forget to bring a pen sometimes, but for some to think it okay to swipe ours to be safe the rest of the day isn't nice.

 

Putting the pen or pencil in the bag with the log kind of defeats the purpose of the bag wen they puncture it, and they always do.

Not sure what you're inferring. The "purpose" of the bags are simply to keeps things organized, as most our larger hides are ammo cans. Only replaced one freezer bag so far, so guess we're lucky.

[+Klatch]

I hate it when I reluctantly hunt a cache hidden by someone who's known only for lame micros under lamposts, but at least it'll be an easy smiley - and it ends up actually being a really cool walk in the woods to a beautiful location, and a really well hidden ammo can.

Yep, I can see that would be a real bummer. REALLY?

[+edscott]

I have to agree here. In fact I use baggies in my small or larger caches but not for protection. It's just a good way to keep the logbook and pen together, and still be easily seen.

 

I never put the pen in the logbook bag of my caches. The pen pokes a hole in the bag and makes it useless. I put pens in with the swag and hope no one will take the last one. Based on the signatures in the logs I'd guess that most people carry their own pen and the cache pen is only for emergencies.

 

For the pet peeves I'm torn between mismarked sizes, flimsy containers, and poor coordinates.

Edited July 1, 2012 by edscott

[+magicalhelmet]

I don't have many finds yet, but so far every cache I have found was in decent shape. By "decent" I mean I was able to sign the log. What bothers me more is not finding the cache at all, especially when I have gone far out of my way just to reach the location.

 

But, I can say I hate when a location is more difficult to get to than I expected or I have to search through garbage or heavy brush.