Jump to content

What Irks you most?


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here  said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

How about a cache near a pond, say?  Should that include a warning?

 

Capture.thumb.JPG.91caf5c4f458f98af7d00f7342fcd13c.JPG

 

Sure I'd be disappointed to see a cliff edge cache marked as 'child friendly' - or any other misleading d/t rating or attributes - but otherwise caveat emptor.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

The powers that be clearly see the value in a 'Cache might be missing' NM log.

Capture.JPG.d20c5c288506396eb157f33897a22f71.JPG

That is only for a DNF, as obviously you can't comment on the actual cache condition, because the cache hasn't been sighted. Other options are available when a find is logged, but found it needs maintenance, rather than missing.

Logbook is full.jpg

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Barefoot, I know you are trying to be the big guy representing all the regulars here and I really like your pictures of your bare feet, but geocaching isn't about just you adults. It's also about bringing families together and children learning about geocaching and the fun this treasure hunting brings. And during this time of the coronavirus and staying at home quarantine, it has become a great activity for families to do together. 

 

You've been promoting family friendly geocaching for weeks and I don't recall anyone geocache is *only* for adults.  Nobody is denying that geocaching is a great activity for families.  What I, and many others have said, is that not every single cache placed must be family friendly.   Geocaching is for families *AND* for those that enjoy a difficulty and possibly risky challenge.   Based on my 13 years playing I would say that a very high percentage of caches *are* family friendly, but there are some that are not for those that enjoy that sort of thing.  What I don't understand is why you think other people (cache hiders) should be responsible for the safely of other peoples children.   They're your children.   You should be the one that decides whether it's safe for them to be near railroad tracks, whether there is a cache nearby or not. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Oxford Stone Junior finished his DT grid before his 10th birthday, and learned along the way when and where you might get muddy or scratched, trip over a tree root, bang into a low branch**, fall into water, need to look out for traffic* - all a great education. I can think of a few caches I've done that OSJ would not have been able to do, but only a handful.

*you could be gathering numbers for a 1/1 multi in an unfamiliar town and wander across a street not realising motor vehicles use it, and be in much more danger than abseiling down a cliff. Got to agree with BFJ, it's up to all the cachers including the children, to learn to be safe. 

**by far my worst GRIs (geocaching-related injuries) have been from standing up from a squatting position logging a cache at base of tree and headbutting low branches. Oh Ok and there were the cracked ribs from falling onto a gate (long story...) (no, the cache page didn't warn me that this might happen)

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

If railroad tracks are not sufficient to warn a parent about possible danger then nothing a cache owner does will be.

The fact that geocaching accommodates all ages and parents have the ability and the responsibility to assure their own child's safety while geocaching (and anything else) has been explained over and over ad nauseam. 

 

We can explain it to you. But we cant understand it for you.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here  said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

Based on the way you worded this reply, it appears that you mean to imply that only the CO is responsible for determining the safety of a child when going after a cache. So you're implying that you're abdicating your parenting duties on the hopes that the child friendly cache attribute is marked and it's accurate.  Just because something is marked as child friendly doesn't mean that it's safe for every child.  An LPC is probably safe for children but what if there's a poisonous snake sunning on it?  Are you still willing to let your child go near the cache because it's marked as child friendly? Of course not.  You don't abdicate your parental responsibilities just because a cache is marked as child friendly.  You still need to weigh the inherent risks involved before making a determination.   All of us parents (and I'm lumping you in there as well) don't solely rely on the information provided by the CO when determining whether or not a cache is actually safe for children.  We use the information that the CO provides (but technically isn't required to provide) as well as our own knowledge of our children's limits and knowledge in order to keep them safe when geocaching (or any other activity for that matter).  It's not, and never should be, the sole responsibility of a CO to determine if a place is child friendly or not.  If you believe that, then you've chosen to give up your parental duties and place them in the hands of a cache owner.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

Whoosh. Does it matter? Did it go over your head? In this case it was a small child. I think a three year old. Are you satisfied now? 

 

What's dangerous for one child isn't necessarily dangerous for another child.  Children learn from parents, peers, teachers, friends about what constitutes safe actions vs what constitutes unsafe actions and they learn those things at different ages.  They don't learn it from osmosis, so your point about a child's age not mattering is also not a valid point.  Let's use your railroad example.  Let's say the child caching with you is 15.  By this time, there's a strong likelihood that they realize trains will either severely injure you or kill you if you get too close to them due to their weight, being told by parents and peers, seeing movies/videos, etc...  Now let's look at the 3 year old.  Their exposure to trains is probably limited to Thomas the Train or The Little Engine That Could.  They see familiar faces and trains that talk, are friendly, and are things that have feelings and the ability to do things that people do.  They're not things to be cautious about because they haven't learned that yet.  They see them as things that they can interact with.  The "choo choo" is a friend, not a 300,000 pound engine that can't stop in time to avoid hitting, maiming, crushing, or killing a toddler that doesn't know any better.

 

The same goes for caches near ponds, which was another point brought up.  At some point, the dangers of drowning are learned by a child.  Until that point is learned though, we do what we can to keep them safe.  We have kiddie pools (where drowning can still occur) that are shallow and make sure to watch them.  We provide PFDs.  We teach them how to swim.  There's no specific age for every child where they learn the potential hazards of water.  So let's look at the 15 year old at a cache near a pond.  They see water and they realize that it's something that has the potential to kill them but have learned how to swim, whether or not the body of water is safe to swim in, whether or not there could be potentially dangerous things in the pond (alligators, red tides, jellyfish) and what to look for to determine that, and various other things that they may have learned in order to keep themselves safe.  A 3 year old sees a body of water and associates it with a kiddie pool, even though it may have current, is considerably deeper than the kiddie pool, and may have dangerous animals in or around it.  They haven't learned all the coping mechanisms that the 15 year old has learned so they don't understand the inherent danger like the 15 year old does.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I think a DNF is enough to convince a cache ower to check on it. 

 

A single DNF?  Does that apply across the board for EVERY cache out there?  If you owned a 5D cache, then would you be convinced it wasn't there based on a single DNF and go check on it?  Would you go check on it if it were a tree climb that the DNF said they saw the cache but opted not to climb the tree to sign the log?  Why would you go check on it if the DNF saw it?  I fully understand for some caches that a single DNF might be convincing enough to go check on it but nor for lots of other ones.  The implication of this is that every time someone logs a DNF (regardless of the reason), it's the responsibility of the CO to go check on it to make sure it's OK.  That's not something I want GS to make us do, nor is it something that they actually tell us to do and it's also not something I want to do.  I'll be happy to check on a cache if I think the DNF log tells me something that hints at the possibility that the cache might be missing but I'm not going to go check out every single DNF that comes my way.

Link to comment
On 5/22/2020 at 9:47 AM, Oxford Stone said:

Oxford Stone Junior finished his DT grid before his 10th birthday, and learned along the way when and where you might get muddy or scratched, trip over a tree root, bang into a low branch**, fall into water, need to look out for traffic* - all a great education. I can think of a few caches I've done that OSJ would not have been able to do, but only a handful.

*you could be gathering numbers for a 1/1 multi in an unfamiliar town and wander across a street not realising motor vehicles use it, and be in much more danger than abseiling down a cliff. Got to agree with BFJ, it's up to all the cachers including the children, to learn to be safe. 

**by far my worst GRIs (geocaching-related injuries) have been from standing up from a squatting position logging a cache at base of tree and headbutting low branches. Oh Ok and there were the cracked ribs from falling onto a gate (long story...) (no, the cache page didn't warn me that this might happen)

 

I stood up from a cache under a life-sized hollow bronze moose statue in an office building parking lot in Freeport, Maine.

 

They said you could hear the BONG! from my head hitting the moose's, um, 'undercarriage' as far away as eastern New Hampshire.

 

That was years ago, and my kids are still cracking up over that one.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Funny 5
Link to comment
6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Just because something is marked as child friendly doesn't mean that it's safe for every child.

 

Exactly. I've set the "recommended for kids" attribute on three of my hides because I thought school-aged children might enjoy them, but that doesn't mean they're safe for a 3-year-old to go wandering around unsupervised. One of them is an EarthCache on the rock shelves at the end of the beach and is an interesting place for school-aged kids to explore, and plenty of the local kids do, but only at low tide and when the seas are fairly calm. It's not even a safe place for adults to play when big waves are crashing over the rocks. The other two are fairly easy terrain-2 walks but are in places where snakes could be lurking so parents still need to remain watchful.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I'm a 65+ year old adult that never had kids - am I the best one to decide if one of my caches is kid friendly?  I've worked with our church's teenage programs, so I know that age but have no experience with younger than that.  So, do you want to trust my judgement or your own for your young kids?

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

A single DNF?

I checked a cache recently for a single DNF, but only because I was cycling past it and the person who DNFed it was an experienced cacher with several thousand finds. If it had been a less experienced cacher, I might not have checked it with only one DNF. The cache was still there. There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

I'm pretty serious about maintenance, but I'm not inclined to go for a 50km drive (I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to yet) to check on my multi that was recently DNFed by a newbie who was searching for the cache at the listed coordinates. What matters is not the DNF itself but its context.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance.

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF. There is nothing wrong with a CO checking when there hasn't been a DNF.

 

The issue is when someone states that other cache owners should be expected to do likewise.

Link to comment

I was pleased to see this "Do you guys want a fun geocache to find this memorial day weekend? Find this one. I guarantee you, you won’t be disappointed…" posted to a statewide Facebook group. What irked me was the same geocacher then posted full on video spoilers to Tiktok. ? Why bother to spend hours building field puzzles?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JustFindingOurWay said:

I was pleased to see this "Do you guys want a fun geocache to find this memorial day weekend? Find this one. I guarantee you, you won’t be disappointed…" posted to a statewide Facebook group. What irked me was the same geocacher then posted full on video spoilers to Tiktok. ? Why bother to spend hours building field puzzles?

 

Did you tell him?

Anonymously, of course, keeping your GC ID hidden.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

These types of statements (italicized) need some sort of context because it seems to me that you're saying that a CO who goes out and checks up after each DNF is serious about maintenance (and therefore a better CO) than those that don't do it that way. They're not as serious about maintenance (and are therefore worse COs) and are willing to let DNFs sometimes stand and collect as a matter of record about the seekers' inability to find it, not as a notion that automatically means something is wrong with the cache because it wasn't found.  I don't know if that was your intent or not but that's how it reads.

 

I'm not going to run out every time someone files a DNF on one of my caches unless there's something mentioned in the log that hints at a possible issue with the cache.  You don't provide any leeway with a statement like this because there's absolutely no context - nothing about the cache being a 1.5/1.5 vs. a 4.5/1.5, nothing about information in the log that says they saw the cache but couldn't get to it to sign the log or that they didn't even get to GZ because they were on the wrong side of an impassable natural feature, nothing about it being a CO who has a track record of ignoring their caches - that provides qualifiers.  You've lumped every CO who doesn't go check on their cache after a single DNF into the same category.

 

I have no issue with those COs who choose to go check on their cache after a single DNF but I do have issue with you implying that those who don't do it that way are less serious and somehow worse COs because they don't go check on it after each DNF.

Edited by coachstahly
clarification
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

These types of statements (italicized) need some sort of context because it seems to me that you're saying that a CO who goes out and checks up after each DNF is serious about maintenance (and therefore a better CO) than those that don't do it that way. They're not as serious about maintenance (and are therefore worse COs) and are willing to let DNFs sometimes stand and collect as a matter of record about the seekers' inability to find it, not as a notion that automatically means something is wrong with the cache because it wasn't found.  I don't know if that was your intent or not but that's how it reads.

 

I'm not going to run out every time someone files a DNF on one of my caches unless there's something mentioned in the log that hints at a possible issue with the cache.  You don't provide any leeway with a statement like this because there's absolutely no context - nothing about the cache being a 1.5/1.5 vs. a 4.5/1.5, nothing about information in the log that says they saw the cache but couldn't get to it to sign the log or that they didn't even get to GZ because they were on the wrong side of an impassable natural feature, nothing about it being a CO who has a track record of ignoring their caches - that provides qualifiers.  You've lumped every CO who doesn't go check on their cache after a single DNF into the same category.

 

I have no issue with those COs who choose to go check on their cache after a single DNF but I do have issue with you implying that those who don't do it that way are less serious and somehow worse COs because they don't go check on it after each DNF.

On 5/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, coachstahly said:

A single DNF?

My full answer, not only the bit you picked out, to put this in context: I checked a cache recently for a single DNF, but only because I was cycling past it and the person who DNFed it was an experienced cacher with several thousand finds. If it had been a less experienced cacher, I might not have checked it with only one DNF. The cache was still there. There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

A quick search got the above complete answer to this; not the bit you chose, out of context, to highlight. My answer was a chatty one, giving an example of checking after one DNF. I believe this is up to the individual CO to consider what to do about this, and if they chose to check after a single DNF...it's as I wrote. Nothing weird about it, and I would prefer a CO to check more often than ignore DNFs. Personally I wouldn't normally check after one DNF, but maybe after a couple of DNFs on not hard finds by experienced cachers. As can be read above I only did check in that example, because I was passing (so no great effort) and the person who DNFed it was very experience, not a beginner. I don't see why my example needed to be questioned.

 

In summary, I was riding past, I remembered a DNF from an experienced cacher, so took a quick stop and checked. I didn't need to go out of my way to do this. What do you find strange enough about that to question?

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I checked a cache recently for a single DNF, but only because I was cycling past it and the person who DNFed it was an experienced cacher with several thousand finds. If it had been a less experienced cacher, I might not have checked it with only one DNF. The cache was still there.

 

This is a personal example of what you're talking about regarding checking on a cache with a single DNF.  No problem with this at all.  You provided a specific example that I fully understand and would probably do if I were in a similar situation.

 

23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

This is no longer about a single cache and instead moves to a generalization about COs, NOT about your personal experience you just related.  You even admit to such in your most recent reply.

 

29 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I believe this is up to the individual CO to consider what to do about this, and if they chose to check after a single DNF...it's as I wrote.

 

Sure.  I have no problem with this at all.

 

30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

Here's where the personal judgment comes in that needs some context, at least how it's written.  By saying that checking on a cache after a single DNF is better than letting DNFs pile up, without any context as to why those DNFs might be piling up, it implies that multiple DNFs shouldn't be allowed to accrue because they somehow mean something is wrong with the cache.  Of course it's better to check on a cache than NOT to check on a cache but those of us who choose to allow DNFs to "pile up" do so on some of our caches because there's nothing in any of those logs that indicates there's an issue with the cache.  Why is that worse than someone going to check on a cache after a single DNF?  

 

I have a higher rated D/T cache that's got 4 straight DNFs and 5 of the last 6 are DNFs.  I know how it's hidden, I know that it's virtually impossible to accidentally dislodge it, and I know that there's no way a muggle is going to accidentally discover it and take it.  I did my first maintenance check on it in 2 years and it was right where I placed it.  Does that make me a worse CO than a CO who chooses to go check on a cache that happens to have a single DNF because I let them pile up?  Or do you mean that is worse to let DNFs pile up than it is to check on a cache after a single DNF?  Either way, you're implying that multiple DNFs are somehow bad, even though some caches aren't created to be found regularly.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

This is a personal example of what you're talking about regarding checking on a cache with a single DNF.  No problem with this at all.  You provided a specific example that I fully understand and would probably do if I were in a similar situation.

 

 

This is no longer about a single cache and instead moves to a generalization about COs, NOT about your personal experience you just related.  You even admit to such in your most recent reply.

 

 

Sure.  I have no problem with this at all.

 

 

Here's where the personal judgment comes in that needs some context, at least how it's written.  By saying that checking on a cache after a single DNF is better than letting DNFs pile up, without any context as to why those DNFs might be piling up, it implies that multiple DNFs shouldn't be allowed to accrue because they somehow mean something is wrong with the cache.  Of course it's better to check on a cache than NOT to check on a cache but those of us who choose to allow DNFs to "pile up" do so on some of our caches because there's nothing in any of those logs that indicates there's an issue with the cache.  Why is that worse than someone going to check on a cache after a single DNF?  

 

I have a higher rated D/T cache that's got 4 straight DNFs and 5 of the last 6 are DNFs.  I know how it's hidden, I know that it's virtually impossible to accidentally dislodge it, and I know that there's no way a muggle is going to accidentally discover it and take it.  I did my first maintenance check on it in 2 years and it was right where I placed it.  Does that make me a worse CO than a CO who chooses to go check on a cache that happens to have a single DNF because I let them pile up?  Or do you mean that is worse to let DNFs pile up than it is to check on a cache after a single DNF?  Either way, you're implying that multiple DNFs are somehow bad, even though some caches aren't created to be found regularly.

I repeat what I wrote, " I believe this is up to the individual CO to consider what to do about this, and if they chose to check after a single DNF...it's as I wrote. Nothing weird about it, and I would prefer a CO to check more often than ignore DNFs. Personally I wouldn't normally check after one DNF, but maybe after a couple of DNFs on not hard finds by experienced cachers. As can be read above I only did check in that example, because I was passing (so no great effort) and the person who DNFed it was very experience, not a beginner. I don't see why my example needed to be questioned."

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 5/23/2020 at 11:25 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't see why my example needed to be questioned.

 

I've already said I'm not questioning your example.  It was never about your specific example.  I'm perfectly fine with you checking on a cache of yours after a single DNF because you happened to be right there.  I would probably do the same (and pretty sure I have).  

 

My point was the meaning behind your generalized statement at the end.  Those last two sentences aren't specifically about you and your example anymore.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 9:02 PM, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

Them, they, and those refer to someone other than you (which is why it was never about your specific example).  You're applying your own judgment/values/beliefs to a greater audience than yourself now and that two word "better than" has two basic implications when combined with "those who let the DNFs pile up."  

 

1.  Is the CO who checks on their cache after a single DNF better than the CO who lets their DNFs pile up?

 

2. Is it better to check on a cache after a single DNF than it is to let DNFs pile up?

 

I understood it to mean what #1 means, not #2.

Link to comment

My newest gripe is the new cachers that never rehide the cache properly. Despite clearly saying, "please replace as found" in the description, invariably containers are left in the open, leaving them vulnerable to muggles, the weather and spoiling the challenge or surprise for the next player.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, G0ldNugget said:

Despite clearly saying, "please replace as found" in the description, invariably containers are left in the open, leaving them vulnerable to muggles, the weather and spoiling the challenge or surprise for the next player.

 

That phrase works just as you told. If it is open when I find it, I will leave it open as requested. :)

It is better to tell how the container is supposed to replace.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, G0ldNugget said:

My newest gripe is the new cachers that never rehide the cache properly. Despite clearly saying, "please replace as found" in the description, invariably containers are left in the open, leaving them vulnerable to muggles, the weather and spoiling the challenge or surprise for the next player.

If I see this on a cache page, I'll put the cache back exactly where I found it. Which might not be where you placed it or want it. 

Edit: I just remembered that the last time this happened the geocacher who found the cache after me put on her log that the cache was not replaced where it's supposed to be. 

I messaged her and explained that I 

did exactly what the cache owner asked me to do.

Recently I saw a great description of how the cache should be replaced, so even if we found it elsewhere, we know where to put it after we sign the log. 

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

That phrase works just as you told. If it is open when I find it, I will leave it open as requested. :)

Yep.

We've done similar, where we knew that a cache wasn't supposed to be where we found it.

... But because the CO just had to give more directions, did as told.

Left a  message, " odd place for a cache, went by CO's request, may need maintenance..." in with my Found It. 

 

Remembered a thread where it was maybe 50/50 whether folks even read cache pages anymore.  :)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

It is better to tell how the container is supposed to replace.

I've seen caches with instructions for replacing the cache correctly inside the cache itself. Once you've found it, the instructions aren't a spoiler. And it avoids questions about whether it was in the correct location when you found it.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, niraD said:

I've seen caches with instructions for replacing the cache correctly inside the cache itself. Once you've found it, the instructions aren't a spoiler. And it avoids questions about whether it was in the correct location when you found it.

 

I placed a large laminated card with illustrated instructions under one of mine in a desperate attempt to try to get people to put it back in a manner that doesn't crush the container, but it hasn't worked.

 

image.png.7a00d6f70a64c45d846d75372b0f1e21.png

 

With many of my hides, I'm more likely to go out and check after a find than I am after a DNF, just to make sure it's been put back properly. If someone didn't find the cache, they can't have not rehidden it properly.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You're applying your own judgment/values/beliefs to a greater audience than yourself now

Perhaps I am.

"There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them". Yes, it's up to the greater audience, not me, and I have nothing against them doing so..

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Remembered a thread where it was maybe 50/50 whether folks even read cache pages anymore.

I rarely read the cache description when in the field, unless having trouble finding the cache; then I read description and previous logs. I do read the hint though. Later when logging the find on my computer, if the description looks interesting, I might read it then. A bigger screen is better and more enjoyable to read this on, than on a tiny Garmin etrex30 screen.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I rarely read the cache description when in the field, unless having trouble finding the cache; then I read description and previous logs. I do read the hint though. Later when logging the find on my computer, if the description looks interesting, I might read it then. A bigger screen is better and more enjoyable to read this on, than on a tiny Garmin etrex30 screen.

 

A fair few of the DNFs I get are because people haven't read the description before heading out in search of the cache. They get caught out by things like not realising there's no mobile reception anywhere near GZ, or taking the route I warned against which puts an impassible cliff between them and the cache, or not having a torch when the description and attributes say one's needed. Sometimes the background image contains a helpful hint. Or in the case of the most recent DNF I received, not realising it was a multi and that they need to answer questions at the waypoints to work out where the cache is. There have also been a couple of occasions when I've had to move a waypoint because of muggling but people have been caught out months later using old data they've loaded off-line.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 5/18/2020 at 3:33 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I give my search of a geocache about 20 minutes but usually go beyond that because of my competitive nature. I try to not give a DNF and love revisiting to avenge it. The love of the game!

I commend you for persevering.  I'm not that driven (in geocaching).  Five minutes tops for me, then to greener ground zeroes.  I've said before, I don't like looking for geocaches.  I like finding them.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I rarely read the cache description when in the field, unless having trouble finding the cache; then I read description and previous logs.

I do read the hint though. Later when logging the find on my computer, if the description looks interesting, I might read it then.

A bigger screen is better and more enjoyable to read this on, than on a tiny Garmin etrex30 screen.

 

On low D/T traditionals, we rarely see reason to read the description.  The other 2/3rds though uses a phone, so can in a pinch.    :)

One thing that used to bug her was what amounted to short stories in the descriptions, to find the container/ location  not even matching.

Get enough, and you kinda tune that CO out...

-  But doing single caches mostly, and picking caches I'll do,  when solo I need to read everything.  (Being a dyslexic old fart doesn't help... :-).   :D

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

A fair few of the DNFs I get are because people haven't read the description before heading out in search of the cache. They get caught out by things like not realising there's no mobile reception anywhere near GZ, or taking the route I warned against which puts an impassible cliff between them and the cache, or not having a torch when the description and attributes say one's needed. Sometimes the background image contains a helpful hint. Or in the case of the most recent DNF I received, not realising it was a multi and that they need to answer questions at the waypoints to work out where the cache is. There have also been a couple of occasions when I've had to move a waypoint because of muggling but people have been caught out months later using old data they've loaded off-line.

If I were setting out to do a difficult cache, especially physical, I would read the description. But most caches don't need to have the description read. If the history, geology, etc story is interesting, giving the reason why the cache was placed, as I said, I might read that later when logging.

It does irk me though when people put the hint in the description, rather than where hints are meant to go. "You are looking for a black bison tube," for instance, is a hint, and should be in the hint, as here: Additional Hints: black bison tube

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

 

It does irk me though when people put the hint in the description, rather than where hints are meant to go. "You are looking for a black bison tube," for instance, is a hint, and should be in the hint, as here: Additional Hints: black bison tube

IIRC when listing a cache there was a place in the description for describing the cache container. I often do this in my listing description. e.g "You're looking for a small Sistema containing log, pencil, with room for swaps." Or "naked/camoed bison tube".

My understanding of hints is information for locating the container- you will know what it looks like when you find it.

I remember searching for a micro with a hint "cigar case", and it was, but the hint served no useful purpose for locating it.

One exception was where I used a cryptic hint in the description "375ml small container" 375ml is the most common size soda container here. It was an empty, repurposed, can of "Woodstock Bourbon and Cola". The hint was "Janis, Jimmi and Jo were there, a tree at Yasgur's Farm was their base".

 

Edited by colleda
typo
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Just now, colleda said:

IIRC when listing a cache there was a place in the description for describing the cache container. I often do this in my listing description. e.g "You're looking for a small Sistema containing log, pencil, with room for swaps." Or "naked/camoed bison tube".

My understanding of hints is information for locating the container- you will know what it looks like when you find it.

I remember searching for a micro with a hint "cigar case", and it was, but the hint served no useful purpose for locating it.

One exception was where I used a cryptic hint in the description "375ml small container" 375ml is the most common size soda container here. It was an empty, repurposed, can of "Woodstock Bourbon and Cola". The hint was "Janis, Jimmi and Jo were there at base of tree on Yasgur's farm".

 

Putting say "black bison tube" in the hint, is a BIG hint, as it directs the searcher to where to search. Bison tubes are usually hung, (or they are here), so I would then search say trees first instead of looking under benches. Knowing the colour of the object is a helpful hint too (as long as it can be viewed from the open; not when you lift a lid and there is a red box). In other cases, putting as an example hint, 'sistema', informs the searcher they really are looking for a small size cache, instead of a cache (this happens too commonly these days) listed as a small, where it really should be listed as a micro. Knowing what size the cache is, is a huge hint of where to search.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, colleda said:
55 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

 

It does irk me though when people put the hint in the description, rather than where hints are meant to go. "You are looking for a black bison tube," for instance, is a hint, and should be in the hint, as here: Additional Hints: black bison tube

IIRC when listing a cache there was a place in the description for describing the cache container. I often do this in my listing description. e.g "You're looking for a small Sistema containing log, pencil, with room for swaps." Or "naked/camoed bison tube".

My understanding of hints is information for locating the container- you will know what it looks like when you find it.

 

Yes, I agree with colleda. Anything I need to say about the container goes in the description (e.g. a 500ml Sistema) whereas the hint is intended to narrow down the range of possible hiding places.

 

55 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If I were setting out to do a difficult cache, especially physical, I would read the description. But most caches don't need to have the description read. If the history, geology, etc story is interesting, giving the reason why the cache was placed, as I said, I might read that later when logging.

 

I don't know what you consider a physically difficult cache, but I have a couple of terrain 3 traditionals, where that rating is mostly from the length of the hike (a bit over 3km) rather than other obstacles, where people have come unstuck from not reading the description.

 

With a couple of exceptions (some history in the GC4X42A description since it's at an historical site, but even that description contains a strong warning about where not to search, and my EarthCache which by necessity contains some geology but again has some strong warnings about slippery rocks and only attempting it at low tide and slight seas), my descriptions are themed to the cache, often with a touch of humour, and even my lowest D/T traditional (the 1.5/2 GC6647D) contains guidance about reaching GZ and some precautions to take.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Just now, barefootjeff said:

Anything I need to say about the container goes in the description (e.g. a 500ml Sistema) whereas the hint is intended to narrow down the range of possible hiding places.

With many caches these days with micros being called small and the size rating often not to be trusted, having the type of cache in the hint, eg. 'bison tube', does as a hint "narrow down the range of possible hiding places". It directs to the most likely places to search and can be a far better hint than some cryptic clue. I rarely put the size of my caches anywhere but in the size rating. I am very careful to get that correct, but in reality, how are others to know that?

 

Just now, barefootjeff said:

I don't know what you consider a physically difficult cache

I probably should have included in this, out of the way caches. If I have to walk several kms to a cache I will likely read the description before I leave home. It's the easy to get to caches with low terrain ratings (and they tend to dominate where I live) that I don't bother to read the description of, unless I am having difficulty finding it.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

With many caches these days with micros being called small and the size rating often not to be trusted, having the type of cache in the hint, eg. 'bison tube', does as a hint "narrow down the range of possible hiding places". It directs to the most likely places to search and can be a far better hint than some cryptic clue. I rarely put the size of my caches anywhere but in the size rating. I am very careful to get that correct, but in reality, how are others to know that?

 

About the only time I've encountered micros listed as smalls have been with things that are only slightly smaller than the minimum 100ml for a small, like an Eclipse mint tin. I don't think I've ever encountered a standard-sized Bison tube listed as small, and certainly not a nano. Whether I'm looking for an Eclipse tin or a 100ml box isn't going to make that much difference to the places I search.

 

As for cryptic clues, I avoid them like the plague as the last thing I want to be trying to do when exasperated at GZ is be trying to outsmart some smart alec's idea of being clever. The most cryptic of hints I have on my caches would be something like "A tree well past its prime" where the hiding place is this:

 

Stump.jpg.1f05f13ba434f4fef5bb8c215b0df009.jpg

 

Usually it's just something plain and simple like "Double honeycomb under a rocky prominence" for this:

 

DoubleHoneycombing.jpg.1cb381be9584b333d1568fce78e604ca.jpg

 

That last hint is probably going to be more helpful than if I'd said "a steel cash box" which could be hidden in heaps of places around there.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

About the only time I've encountered micros listed as smalls have been with things that are only slightly smaller than the minimum 100ml for a small, like an Eclipse mint tin.

I've encountered film canisters listed as "small" a couple times. The CO figured that if a blinker is a "micro", then surely a film canister must be the next size up. Yeah, it's a classic example of size creep, which an official "nano" size would help reduce.

 

But when I've pointed out that a film canister should be listed as "micro", not "small", the owners have responded well.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Just now, niraD said:

I've encountered film canisters listed as "small" a couple times. The CO figured that if a blinker is a "micro", then surely a film canister must be the next size up. Yeah, it's a classic example of size creep, which an official "nano" size would help reduce.

Agreed. I've argued that nanos have altered the perception of cache size, and we REALLY,  REALLY NEED that nano size rating. Long overdue, and weird it hasn't happened.

Wrong ratings here are too common. I've done power trails with almost every cache rated small sized, regardless of whether it was a small, or a tiny tube cache that only a small, tightly rolled log would fit in. To be honest, I doubt a nano rating would change that COs ratings, but it might (more than likely would) assist with others.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...