What Irks you most?

[+The Jester]

5 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

That ignores reality.  Only one person can be first.

But first what?  In groups various do things that can all be considered "firsts" - which is the real "first"?  I've been the first to see it, but the other person was closer and grabbed it first.  I've also been on hunts where the container was hard to open, the person who grabbed it wasn't able to open it, someone else did that.  The first person to open it may be more interested in the trackables inside and the log is opened by someone else.  Or, as happens around here sometimes, everybody spots the cache but doesn't say anything until everybody has "found" it.  Since we tend to keep searching for a bit so there isn't clues to where it is, who can say exactly who was first to see it?  Because the last to see it is the first to pull it out.

 

I accept your right to an opinion, but don't accept that you insist that it's the only real one.  Besides, it doesn't leave room for ties.  Try and prove who really saw it first.

[Ageleni]

Here's one I am seeing a lot lately.  I will get to a cache that has a bunch of DNFs, from newer players as well as seasoned ones with thousands of finds.  I look around, don't find it, post a DNF and Needs Maintenance.  Come back to look at the listing later, only to discover that some newbies have "Found" it, posting generic things like, "Cute!" and "Great hide, thanks!"  Come on.  If the last half-dozen people couldn't find it, you really want me to believe someone with three finds under his belt did??

[+lee737]

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't agree. If people are searching together, it's a shared FTF. .... To suggest that only the first person to place their hands on a cache is the only FTF, makes geocaching more a game of rugby and a scramble in a scrum, where only the first person to get their hands on the ball can claim it. Not the aggressive game I want to play. ..... I prefer friendly group cooperation, rather than the rugby scrum and first takes all.

 

+1 - this is how we cache, if in a group - FTF is shared.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

That ignores reality.  Only one person can be first.

And only one group can be first. What made you think "first to find" meant "first person to find"?

[+Goldenwattle]

34 minutes ago, Ageleni said:

Here's one I am seeing a lot lately.  I will get to a cache that has a bunch of DNFs, from newer players as well as seasoned ones with thousands of finds.  I look around, don't find it, post a DNF and Needs Maintenance.  Come back to look at the listing later, only to discover that some newbies have "Found" it, posting generic things like, "Cute!" and "Great hide, thanks!"  Come on.  If the last half-dozen people couldn't find it, you really want me to believe someone with three finds under his belt did??

Ha Ha, I once wrote, after some beginners logged - 3 & 5 'find' logs each - following a long streak of DNFs by more experienced finders, " We couldn't find the cache and after the recent many DNFs we suspect it is missing. The last two short logs did not alter that conclusion.""

[+K13]

8 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Here's one I am seeing a lot lately.  I will get to a cache that has a bunch of DNFs, from newer players as well as seasoned ones with thousands of finds.  I look around, don't find it, post a DNF and Needs Maintenance.  Come back to look at the listing later, only to discover that some newbies have "Found" it, posting generic things like, "Cute!" and "Great hide, thanks!"  Come on.  If the last half-dozen people couldn't find it, you really want me to believe someone with three finds under his belt did??

Many times, I have missed a cache because I had preconceived notions as to where and how it was hidden, based on my experience. Newbs don't have that experience obstructing their view when searching.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, K13 said:

Many times, I have missed a cache because I had preconceived notions as to where and how it was hidden, based on my experience. Newbs don't have that experience obstructing their view when searching.

Yep. Some of my longest searches have been for caches that were hidden near multiple "obvious hiding spots", but which didn't use any of those "obvious hiding spots". It took me a while to thoroughly examine the "obvious hiding spots" before finally stepping back, taking another look, and finding the cache that was hidden some other way.

[+cerberus1]

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2013 at 2:42 PM, avroair said:

What irks you most?

 

Newbies who, after only playing a year,  think it’s time to change the hobby into another, lesser version that's already being played elsewhere.  

Sheesh...

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Newbies who, after only playing a year,  think it’s time to change the hobby into another, lesser version that's already being played elsewhere.  

Sheesh...

What do you mean? Is there another version of this game being played where you live, or do you mean simplify geocaching.com?

Edited March 31, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+TriciaG]

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What do you mean? Is there another version of this game being played where you live, or do you mean simplify geocaching.com?

I'm pretty sure they're talking about this:

 

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I'm pretty sure they're talking about this:

 

Okay, I know them. I have seen quite a few.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+L0ne.R]

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Okay, I know them. I have seen quite a few.

 

I've seen a few myself. Like this one,  listed as regular size, 42 favorite votes, write on  the back to the sign:

 

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I've seen a few myself. Like this one,  listed as regular size, 42 favorite votes, write on  the back to the sign:

 

 

 

Hardly 'regular' sized. Where does the person get off with that idea! 'Other' is what it is.

[+colleda]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Hardly 'regular' sized. Where does the person get off with that idea! 'Other' is what it is.

Sooooo, does this meet the definition of a "container" as per guidelines?

[+Goldenwattle]

52 minutes ago, colleda said:

Sooooo, does this meet the definition of a "container" as per guidelines?

Maybe not, but others have argued that a log in a plastic bag behind a magnet sign would, as the bag is the container and a full log can be replaced. This one does not have that bag, although its log could be replaced too. Photograph the old log and then stick a new log over it.

Being called a regular sized cache though, is just following on the (recent?) tradition of wrongly giving the size of the cache. Nanos' fault!

[+hzoi]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:27 PM, WearyTraveler said:

I'll stir it up again...  I was looking at a cache log.  Two FTFs.  So, two catchers are looking and they both claim FTF?  Come on.  There's an FTF and a STF.  Whoever spotted it first was the first to find.  The second set of eyes are just a smiley.

 

Since FTF is an unofficial side game, there aren't really rules to it.

 

It's pretty common for COs to drop a new series for an event and arrange for the reviewer to publish around the event time; the CO shares a sheet with the cache info and the group goes around and finds the new hides.  Or people just get together when new caches drop and go find them as a group.  Most if not all of the group counts it as FTF.

 

My personal approach is to only log FTF if we were no kidding the first ones to find the cache, regardless of whether we are in a group  I have never kept track of second or third to find, though apparently that's a further side game in some areas (definitely here in Germany).

 

I remember one event where about a dozen caches were mass released.  We found a couple with the mass group and then got tired of playing follow the leader, so we broke off and went in another direction, and were the actual first finders on a cache or two.  Half an hour later, the main group came by, and each of them logged that they were FTF.  Not really, in my book, but I didn't bother debating it.  We did not do the same on the caches we later found without the group.

[+Oxford Stone]

On 3/30/2019 at 3:37 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Then someone says, that didn't need a group to retrieve that cache up the tree as one person can do it, and then others say, it did for us old people. There could be a disagreement there too. I am happy to accept a group of people can make a FTF. By group though, I don't mean huge, such as say, 20 or 30. That's a bus tour.

That's not a bus tour - that's a new cache at a Mega event...

 

[+Goldenwattle]

On 3/31/2019 at 2:39 AM, K13 said:

Many times, I have missed a cache because I had preconceived notions as to where and how it was hidden, based on my experience. Newbs don't have that experience obstructing their view when searching.

But after a long row of DNFs I would expect a finder to write more than 'thanks' or 'TFTC' or ':)' , otherwise it's understandable someone would doubt their find; regardless if a newby. I most certainly wrote more than that when I started.

My first log ever.

" I found this easily; my first Geocache. I joined yesterday. A nice easy one to start with. A couple walked by and another person was exercising her dog on the oval, but I was ignored at the tree. "

5th find, and I included a photograph.

" A nice easy find. The paper inside is very tatty and needs seeing to. "

10th find:

" Easy find. I left a plastic solder I found on the ground near a cache in Woden, and a fridge magnet. Took the stickers. "

 

One difference now with more experience; I now rarely write 'easy'. More experienced now I realise that 'easy' should be 'quick', as what might seem easy, be cause the find was quick, often comes down to luck; the way the sun was shining when one happened to visit, the covering had been blown off, etc. Easy can sound smug too, as well as an inexperienced comment.

[+MNTA]

20 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

Since FTF is an unofficial side game, there aren't really rules to it.

 

It's pretty common for COs to drop a new series for an event and arrange for the reviewer to publish around the event time; the CO shares a sheet with the cache info and the group goes around and finds the new hides.  Or people just get together when new caches drop and go find them as a group.  Most if not all of the group counts it as FTF.

 

My personal approach is to only log FTF if we were no kidding the first ones to find the cache, regardless of whether we are in a group  I have never kept track of second or third to find, though apparently that's a further side game in some areas (definitely here in Germany).

 

I remember one event where about a dozen caches were mass released.  We found a couple with the mass group and then got tired of playing follow the leader, so we broke off and went in another direction, and were the actual first finders on a cache or two.  Half an hour later, the main group came by, and each of them logged that they were FTF.  Not really, in my book, but I didn't bother debating it.  We did not do the same on the caches we later found without the group.

Honestly this epitomizes to me geocaching. You play your game I'll play mine. After all I'm only trying to entertain myself. I'm not competing with anyone just getting out and about, killing time, visiting new places, having a challenge here and there.

 

If I'm with a group and off searching in the weeds literally (completely wrong spot) but someone manages to make the find heck yeah I claim a find. But really did I find it by myself. No, but I did manage to sign the log with help. In reality I had a shared experience and had an enjoyable time. 

 

I find it funny when CO's get up in arms about real or perceived slight, you did not solve my puzzle or found my challenging hide the way they wanted you to solve it. But hey I solved it or I found it. Congratulations to me, I get a virtual smiley.    BTW so I don't get in trouble on this thread, that's my irk. Let folks have fun if you don't like hiking caches skip them, if you don't like GRC skip them. I personally don't care for impossible (to me) puzzle caches so guess what I skip them.

 

To all the COs out there that brought me to some amazing spots that I would never have known about thanks! To those who brought me to the corner guardrail on a loud busy street, thanks for the entertainment.

[+rapotek]

22 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

Since FTF is an unofficial side game, there aren't really rules to it.

 

It's pretty common for COs to drop a new series for an event and arrange for the reviewer to publish around the event time; the CO shares a sheet with the cache info and the group goes around and finds the new hides.  Or people just get together when new caches drop and go find them as a group.  Most if not all of the group counts it as FTF.

 

My personal approach is to only log FTF if we were no kidding the first ones to find the cache, regardless of whether we are in a group  I have never kept track of second or third to find, though apparently that's a further side game in some areas (definitely here in Germany).

 

I remember one event where about a dozen caches were mass released.  We found a couple with the mass group and then got tired of playing follow the leader, so we broke off and went in another direction, and were the actual first finders on a cache or two.  Half an hour later, the main group came by, and each of them logged that they were FTF.  Not really, in my book, but I didn't bother debating it.  We did not do the same on the caches we later found without the group.

 

Once I have joined an event just before its end, when the event was set up in purpose of finding new caches prepared nearby by the event owner. I wanted to see how it is to look up for caches in bigger group and there was over 30 people present. I took an active part in searching for three caches, but did not found any of them as the first person - there were better seekers than me in the group. When found, one entry was written in the paper logbook for the whole group and later almost everyone with individual username in GC marked 'found it' online as FTF, even those who did not look up for a cache but stood and talked with each other instead.

I have seen how is it to cache in a big group and I did not like it so I returned home after three caches found by the group. Some days later I took the same trip, writing my own signature in the paper logbooks of the caches I knew where they were already and the remaining once I had to search for. And that trip was a much nicer one.

I do not play FTFs game. I have one FTF gained by myself alone and that is enough. Sometimes I see on the list caches nearby without any find but I prefer not to run there because of FTF but to wait a few days and find the cache without any pressure.

But after all everyone can play the game as they can as long as the main guidelines are followed, so I do not mind if one goes for group caching and FTF-ing, I only do not join it myself.

[+thebruce0]

8 hours ago, rapotek said:

Once I have joined an event just before its end, when the event was set up in purpose of finding new caches prepared nearby by the event owner. I wanted to see how it is to look up for caches in bigger group and there was over 30 people present. I took an active part in searching for three caches, but did not found any of them as the first person - there were better seekers than me in the group. When found, one entry was written in the paper logbook for the whole group and later almost everyone with individual username in GC marked 'found it' online as FTF, even those who did not look up for a cache but stood and talked with each other instead.

I have seen how is it to cache in a big group and I did not like it so I returned home after three caches found by the group. Some days later I took the same trip, writing my own signature in the paper logbooks of the caches I knew where they were already and the remaining once I had to search for. And that trip was a much nicer one.

 

Good for you

We have a similar dynamic in my region with a large monthly geocaching group. Exactly the same as you describe. And a number of people opt to either sign themselves, or split off, or try the event once and don't like (or even understand) the whole group-find mentality, and don't attend them any more. It can certainly be frustrating when the group's mentality is to divide and conquer.  As a CO as well it's very irksome when you get 30+ find logs on your cache(s) and find out that at the end of the day there were 4 people who found it because it was on the target list, but the entire group knows it was found and signed, so you get 30 copy/paste logs from everyone logging all the 'found' caches signed with the group name.

 

I gave up policing that, and just realize that all those people are missing out on the experiences of any cache they didn't at the very least go and see for themselves.  It's more frustrating for high D or T caches in enormous groups like that.

 

There have been COs who know if their cache is on the target list, then go and physically remove their cache and disable it for that day/event, then re-enable it later.  It can be pretty bad sometimes.

But there is a good draw to group caching - it's very social. And not everyone there is of the group-find mentality. If I join them on occasion, I only log the ones I was physically present at to find.  But I have been annoyed when with a few friends about to go down a trail for a cache and someone else in the group comes up and says "don't worry about finding that one we signed the group in" .  yeah but, yeah but... !  Do we now break from the group and find it anyway? Or continue with group? Log it found? Skip it? That person kind of forced us into a difficult decision - lose the group or miss a cache or dishonestly log it found.  argh!

 

Anyway, I'm ranting   I do enjoy group caching - it's awesome and great with friends. There is a size when it gets unreasonable for 'proper' geocaching, but I only like doing it with people of the same mindset: "Let's find these geocaches together"

[+meggypus]

Finding sweets/candy teabags coffee or any food related items in a cache.

Come on, would you consume anything you've found in a cache, not knowing how long it's been there?

Try telling your 6 year old child/grandchild that they can't eat it.

I always remove and dispose of any such items I find - and post that in my log.

So who put it in there? - that last cacher - if they didn't they left it there!

Edited April 3, 2019 by meggypus
Typo

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, meggypus said:

Finding sweets/candy teabags coffee or any food related items in a cache.

Come on, would you consume anything you've found in a cache, not knowing how long it's been there?

Try telling your 6 year old child/grandchild that they can't eat it.

I always remove and dispose of any such items I find - and post that in my log.

So who put it in there? - that last cacher - if they didn't they left it there!

I'll raise you  condoms and cigarettes.  

I'd sorta agree, but we know many who just won't touch anything in a cache to remove it.  Sign log n go.

 - They then have to lug whatever creepy thing it is along with them.   I don't really fault them for that.

I use hand sanitizer afterwards these days, just after signing the log.    

We do have nitrile gloves if any cleaning's needed, and often we're the only one's doing it on lonely hides.

My last couple mentioned that I used a bulk-at-ebay bandana to clean the mucky gasket (which was all that was wrong with them).

[+meggypus]

51 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I'll raise you  condoms and cigarettes.  

I'd sorta agree, but we know many who just won't touch anything in a cache to remove it.  Sign log n go.

 - They then have to lug whatever creepy thing it is along with them.   I don't really fault them for that.

I use hand sanitizer afterwards these days, just after signing the log.    

We do have nitrile gloves if any cleaning's needed, and often we're the only one's doing it on lonely hides.

My last couple mentioned that I used a bulk-at-ebay bandana to clean the mucky gasket (which was all that was wrong with them).

Condoms! not come across that yet (unused I hope) the mind boggles as to what they think you might find useful about that - guaranteed hole free???

As for hands - last week I leaned down to look under a bench and put my hand on the grass - felt squidgy - yep you guessed it lovely doo doos - right in front of a bench!

I now carry a pack of wipes.

I still remove food items and put them in a doggy bag which I always seem to have in my pockets.

[+fuzziebear3]

14 minutes ago, meggypus said:

Condoms! not come across that yet (unused I hope) the mind boggles as to what they think you might find useful about that - guaranteed hole free???

As for hands - last week I leaned down to look under a bench and put my hand on the grass - felt squidgy - yep you guessed it lovely doo doos - right in front of a bench!

I now carry a pack of wipes.

I still remove food items and put them in a doggy bag which I always seem to have in my pockets.

 

This week's find for me, the cache had lip balm and super glue, and the cache was also very wet. 1.) No one is going to use that lip balm, yuck.  2.)  I doubt the superglue was any good anymore, but what a mess if it leaked into the cache or got onto someone.

 

 

[+niraD]

14 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

This week's find for me, the cache had lip balm and super glue

Two items you never want to get mixed up for each other...

[+Fah-Troop]

I guess I wasn't clear on my last post.  it irks me that some caches have been abandoned and not  being maintained by the owner but nothing is done with them, even after many DNF and many attempts to contact the CO with no reply.  some of which are not d3.t4 but 1.5/1.5  I do realize that some are hard to find and very sneaky in the hiding and I enjoy those as much as the next cacher but there are those caches out there that should be checked on and are not either  due to laziness on the CO or just put out there and never checked again. 

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Fah-Troop said:

I guess I wasn't clear on my last post.  it irks me that some caches have been abandoned and not  being maintained by the owner but nothing is done with them, even after many DNF and many attempts to contact the CO with no reply.  some of which are not d3.t4 but 1.5/1.5  I do realize that some are hard to find and very sneaky in the hiding and I enjoy those as much as the next cacher but there are those caches out there that should be checked on and are not either  due to laziness on the CO or just put out there and never checked again. 

 

I agree.  If only those cachers of those multiple DNFs finally had the next guy place a NM on it when they accumulate like that.  

A natural move would be instead of yet-another NM, the next one then places an NA later.

Cachers need to be more open to start the process of archiving caches if no fixes are made.

We realize that some are really no real fault of the CO. 

 -   We've seen enough who had lengthy hospital stays or passed ,  that we don't assume "they're just lazy" unless we really know now.  You started before us, so you may have similar examples. 

[+on4bam]

1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I agree.  If only those cachers of those multiple DNFs finally had the next guy place a NM on it when they accumulate like that.  

A natural move would be instead of yet-another NM, the next one then places an NA later.

Cachers need to be more open to start the process of archiving caches if no fixes are made.

We realize that some are really no real fault of the CO. 

 -   We've seen enough who had lengthy hospital stays or passed ,  that we don't assume "they're just lazy" unless we really know now.  You started before us, so you may have similar examples. 

 

But sometimes this doesn't work.

I recently DNF'd a cache that I knew was gone. I posted a DNF and NM. The CO hasn't been online for at least 1 1/2 year (no web login nor found caches) and lives in another country.

There are 116 NM logs on that cache and 6 NA (I posted a NA a few weeks after the NM). In the mean time there were countless throwdowns that disappeared quickly time after time and yet there's not action at all, not by the CO, nor by a reviewer or anyone else from GS.

 

[+cerberus1]

23 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

But sometimes this doesn't work.

I recently DNF'd a cache that I knew was gone. I posted a DNF and NM. The CO hasn't been online for at least 1 1/2 year (no web login nor found caches) and lives in another country.

There are 116 NM logs on that cache and 6 NA (I posted a NA a few weeks after the NM). In the mean time there were countless throwdowns that disappeared quickly time after time and yet there's not action at all, not by the CO, nor by a reviewer or anyone else from GS.

 

 

That would be my irk.      That doesn't mean one should give up and not continue with proper logging actions.  

[+on4bam]

35 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

That would be my irk.      That doesn't mean one should give up and not continue with proper logging actions.  

 

Maybe it's time for a survey about cache quality.

 

 

[+Clancy's Crew]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:40 PM, meggypus said:

Finding sweets/candy teabags coffee or any food related items in a cache.

Come on, would you consume anything you've found in a cache, not knowing how long it's been there?

Try telling your 6 year old child/grandchild that they can't eat it.

I always remove and dispose of any such items I find - and post that in my log.

So who put it in there? - that last cacher - if they didn't they left it there!

 

While caching in the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, which is known for bears, coyotes, raccoons and other animals with great noses, we have found really cool bite marks in cache containers and, when looking inside, have found, in different caches:

 

1) fruit scented markers,

2) candy,

3) nothing, because several of the caches were destroyed/scattered by the bears.  Note to Reviewer: NA

 

In several of the caches, it was impressive that the bear was not able to crack open the container, although the "canine" teeth marks were obvious.

 

BTW, raccoons are as bad as bears; so are wood rats.  One Poconos cache had us grabbing the container with a 8' aluminum pole from a crevice, and we found that the wood rats had chewed the container and damaged it pretty badly...  They were after the paper that made up the log.  Yum...  I love caches deep in the woods!  You never know what to expect...

 

IMO, people aren't thinking about animal problems when they put smelly stuff in caches; they need to keep the scented chapstick, food, and anything with a smell out of caches.

[+STNolan]

1 hour ago, Clancy's Crew said:

 

While caching in the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, which is known for bears, coyotes, raccoons and other animals with great noses, we have found really cool bite marks in cache containers and, when looking inside, have found, in different caches:

 

1) fruit scented markers,

2) candy,

3) nothing, because several of the caches were destroyed/scattered by the bears.  Note to Reviewer: NA

 

In several of the caches, it was impressive that the bear was not able to crack open the container, although the "canine" teeth marks were obvious.

 

BTW, raccoons are as bad as bears; so are wood rats.  One Poconos cache had us grabbing the container with a 8' aluminum pole from a crevice, and we found that the wood rats had chewed the container and damaged it pretty badly...  They were after the paper that made up the log.  Yum...  I love caches deep in the woods!  You never know what to expect...

 

IMO, people aren't thinking about animal problems when they put smelly stuff in caches; they need to keep the scented chapstick, food, and anything with a smell out of caches.

Alaska checking in here.... caches with food, markers, *anything remotely smelly* do not last between one finder and another. They just don't. They'll disappear, get destroyed etc.

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, STNolan said:

Alaska checking in here.... caches with food, markers, *anything remotely smelly* do not last between one finder and another. They just don't. They'll disappear, get destroyed etc.

Silicon Valley checking in here. We don't have bears here, but we do have racoons, skunks, and other omnivorous critters. I've seen chewed-up cache containers in high-tech office parking lots, just because someone put something smelly in the cache.

[+RobinsonClan56]

On 3/29/2019 at 8:37 PM, WearyTraveler said:

So if a team of 10 is out there gaggling a cache, after the first one to see it screams "there it is - WE found it!"  Then everyone runs over and there are 10 FTFs...  come on...  

 

I know, I'm anal...  I take the term "first to find" literally while some take it to mean "I was in the group too!"

 

This is interesting, because I was with a group that was FTF day before yesterday.  My girls and I headed out, and saw 2 others looking when we arrived.  While we were there, another cacher also came looking for the FTF.  I had been the day before with no luck, the other ladies had been there quite a few minutes searching, so we all took on the mission as a team.  When it was finally found, the lady who physically spotted it rightfully claimed the FTF and we signed along with her.  It ended up being a great story (she actually accused us of being muggles when we first arrived - the horror!) and we made some new friends.  At that point, the FTF was really not the point any more even though it was what got us all to the spot at the same time. And I felt it was just good etiquette that only she claimed as the FTF.

Edited June 3, 2019 by RobinsonClan56
typo

[+Goldenwattle]

On 5/18/2019 at 3:17 AM, Clancy's Crew said:

 

While caching in the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, which is known for bears, coyotes, raccoons and other animals with great noses, we have found really cool bite marks in cache containers and, when looking inside, have found, in different caches:

 

1) fruit scented markers,

2) candy,

3) nothing, because several of the caches were destroyed/scattered by the bears.  Note to Reviewer: NA

 

In several of the caches, it was impressive that the bear was not able to crack open the container, although the "canine" teeth marks were obvious.

 

BTW, raccoons are as bad as bears; so are wood rats.  One Poconos cache had us grabbing the container with a 8' aluminum pole from a crevice, and we found that the wood rats had chewed the container and damaged it pretty badly...  They were after the paper that made up the log.  Yum...  I love caches deep in the woods!  You never know what to expect...

 

IMO, people aren't thinking about animal problems when they put smelly stuff in caches; they need to keep the scented chapstick, food, and anything with a smell out of caches.

Dogs and other members of that family will do that too. I have seen a cache chewed open and the cake of soap inside half eaten.

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 3/30/2019 at 2:32 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I refuse to race in front of someone rudely because I think that's where the cache is when they are heading there. I would say okay, you search there, I will look here, just in case. Keep it friendly. The first person was able to place their hands on it, because of group cooperation.

Exactly this.  I'm very glad that in NZ we have a relatively polite FTF game, with no pushing and shoving to look under *that* bush... 

[+dimwit61]

1) Terrain ratings that are wildly too low. I have seen far too many T1.5s where you have travel 5 km up narrow switchback roads with a 10 percent grades.

2) Poor coordinates. 

3) Cachers who find traditionals with poor coordinates and then don't bother to say where they actually think the cache is. I think this is important both from the point of view as a cacher and as a cache owner.

4) Cachers who sit on their favorite points. 

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, dimwit61 said:

Cachers who sit on their favorite points. 

 

I think some who started well-before favorite points came out (12/'10) might simply have a different view on what makes a favorite, so not in such a hurry to allocate them.   

 - You only get one for every ten found, so I'm a bit more demanding.   

I try to only do caches with terrain over 2.   It's that "get outta town and head for the woods" thing.  I still feel that way, now living many miles from a town.

We skip by hundreds of low D/T, nondescript caches every time out.  Just not what we like.    Usually those "placed because we can" caches are only visited by us now to satisfy some souvenir thing .

To some that may seem like we're sitting on FPs.

[+dimwit61]

 

12 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I think some who started well-before favorite points came out (12/'10) might simply have a different view on what makes a favorite, so not in such a hurry to allocate them.   

 - You only get one for every ten found, so I'm a bit more demanding.   

I try to only do caches with terrain over 2.   It's that "get outta town and head for the woods" thing.  I still feel that way, now living many miles from a town.

 

I agree that you should be demanding on giving out favorites and I usually reserve them for either great locations, creative/unique designs etc., but I talking about people who have collected say 100 favorite points and only used 3. Are they saying that of the 1000 caches they found only three were interesting?

[+kunarion]

39 minutes ago, dimwit61 said:

 

I agree that you should be demanding on giving out favorites and I usually reserve them for either great locations, creative/unique designs etc., but I talking about people who have collected say 100 favorite points and only used 3. Are they saying that of the 1000 caches they found only three were interesting?

 

It may be best to maintain a cushion of extra FPs. Maybe a lot of them.  As I've become more selective of which caches to hunt, I find a higher percentage that I'd consider "interesting", or pretty cool.  I wish I had a FP to give them.  Used up the 100 already.   

 

Also, if I have a bunch and decide to dole some out, there's no hurry.  I can at any time look at the list of previous caches and slap some FPs on them.  Retroactively.

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by kunarion

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, dimwit61 said:

Are they saying that of the 1000 caches they found only three were interesting?

Maybe they spent a weekend on a numbers trail and racked up a hundred FP without spending any.

[+on4bam]

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

Maybe they spent a weekend on a numbers trail and racked up a hundred FP without spending any.

 

Are you suggesting people should go find lots of caches they don't like or normally won't do just to get FP's? I'd rather do nice caches without having FP's to give out than go on a "run of the mill" hunt just to get FP's.

 

[+niraD]

23 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Are you suggesting people should go find lots of caches they don't like or normally won't do just to get FP's? I'd rather do nice caches without having FP's to give out than go on a "run of the mill" hunt just to get FP's.

Not at all.

 

I'm suggesting that if someone did find hundreds of fungible film canisters, then it wouldn't be surprising for them to have dozens of unspent FP.

[+on4bam]

Got another irk yesterday.

I normally read logs before setting out but for yesterday's outing we had set a "main goal" and wanted to pick up a few caches on the way there. The first cache was a very short multi for which I already answer questions at WP1 to calculate the cache location. We arrived at GZ and found the micro at the bottom of a traffic sign post. It was supposed to be attached to the cap covering the post but it had fallen in. While preparing our "to do" list I skipped reading the logs for that easy cache because GSAK had 4 green (=found it) logs. It wasn't until we saw the micro at the bottom that i read these last logs, all of them stating the micro fell in but they logged a find because the CO allowed them too. No NM or DNF was posted so at first sight nothing seemed to be wrong with the cache. Of course I posted a DNF AND NM.

Why didn't the CO TD this cache.. it's been 2 weeks since the first log that mentioned "after contacting the CO we were allowed to log a find".

 

[+cerberus1]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

I'm suggesting that if someone did find hundreds of fungible film canisters, then it wouldn't be surprising for them to have dozens of unspent FP.

Yep.

When many of us received a hefty amount of favorite points based on finds since starting, some already had more than they'd ever use.    

We gave a lot to long-archived caches we've done. Most we know didn't.  They were our favorites.  Still had one heck-of-a-lot left.

We do know a few who hit well-known power trails, with well-over a thousand "finds",  and none of those caches got a FP.

Why would they ?  Mediocre containers placed wherever,  just "for a smiley" and because there's room.

 - Great caches to gather FPs on,  but not worth placing one on.   I feel one-in-twenty is pushing it these days... 

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

9 hours ago, niraD said:

Maybe they spent a weekend on a numbers trail and racked up a hundred FP without spending any.

Are you suggesting people should go find lots of caches they don't like or normally won't do just to get FP's? I'd rather do nice caches without having FP's to give out than go on a "run of the mill" hunt just to get FP's.

Obviously I can't speak for niraD, but I'm going to answer "No", anyway. I thought it was obvious he was saying that once you rule out the 1000 caches on the numbers trail and see that they've only found 30 other caches, then you'd expect only 3 FPs assigned. I'm completely unable to read anything in his post suggesting power trails as a way to get extra FPs. If anything, it's just the oppositeL: he's saying that someone doing a power trail is, statistically speaking, likely to ignore the FPs they get from the numbers run. After all, he's responding to a post complaining about people assigning too few FPs, not a post about people assigning FPs indiscriminately because they have more than they deserve.

[+me N u]

Bumping this thread as we have received this log on an EARTHCACHE - we've added the bold, just love attention to detail.

 

Found it

10/10/2019

What a lovely day in and around Newquay, the weather forecast said it would rain this afternoon, but all we had all day was a bit of light drizzle which did not last long.

We parked up on the road (as it was allowed after 31 sept) and made our way down to the beach. Nice walk over to the cave and in we went. After discussing the questions, taken some photos it was time for us to move out to let others in.

Many thanks me N u for placing and maintaining this cache; We signed the log and replaced as found.

 

The finders knew it was an earthcache as they sent answers to  the logging tasks.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

29 minutes ago, me N u said:

Bumping this thread as we have received this log on an EARTHCACHE - we've added the bold, just love attention to detail.

 

Found it

10/10/2019

What a lovely day in and around Newquay, the weather forecast said it would rain this afternoon, but all we had all day was a bit of light drizzle which did not last long.

We parked up on the road (as it was allowed after 31 sept) and made our way down to the beach. Nice walk over to the cave and in we went. After discussing the questions, taken some photos it was time for us to move out to let others in.

Many thanks me N u for placing and maintaining this cache; We signed the log and replaced as found.

 

The finders knew it was an earthcache as they sent answers to  the logging tasks.

 

Is that you, God?

[garyo1954]

On 10/11/2019 at 11:34 AM, me N u said:

Bumping this thread as we have received this log on an EARTHCACHE - we've added the bold, just love attention to detail.

 

Found it

10/10/2019

What a lovely day in and around Newquay, the weather forecast said it would rain this afternoon, but all we had all day was a bit of light drizzle which did not last long.

We parked up on the road (as it was allowed after 31 sept) and made our way down to the beach. Nice walk over to the cave and in we went. After discussing the questions, taken some photos it was time for us to move out to let others in.

Many thanks me N u for placing and maintaining this cache; We signed the log and replaced as found.

 

The finders knew it was an earthcache as they sent answers to  the logging tasks.

Thankfully they replaced it for others to enjoy!
And you didn't get a NM note!

Win/Win right there!