Jump to content

What Irks you most?


Recommended Posts

People making up ways to write coordinates. I just prepared a multi for the weekend and found that every station has the coordinates written as

N 55.34.123. - E 006.34.123.

Argh!
Considering these are all coordinates where I have to solve a puzzle to get the complete coords it's a massive headache to edit this on a phone to get usable coords. Glad I edited it beforehand.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

This is a symptom of a broader irk: people who are poor about attention to detail wandering into hobbies - or professions - where attention to detail is paramount.  They should maybe be artists instead...

 

Well, it's certainly a very creative way to write coords.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, The Jester said:

If they are open, they are trash.  If closed/sealed, what's the problem?

Would you trust that personal products like that had remained sealed and hygienic when stored in a geocache for who knows how long? And that they hadn't been tampered with?

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

If they are open, they are trash.  If closed/sealed, what's the problem?

Would you trust that personal products like that had remained sealed and hygienic when stored in a geocache for who knows how long? And that they hadn't been tampered with?

Just like closed food/candy packages. Still don't really trust if they're unopened (and should still be removed anyway).

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, dealfarms1 said:

Condoms, tampons and toothbrushes, in this case all in the same cache.  Maybe this was a boy scout cache, you know, be prepared?

 

Can't tell who's serious or not in replies, but when we had caches on the AT, thru-hikers would stop for (requested in email) supplies.  :)

 - Covered what you saw and then some.   TP was a godsend to most too.  :D

Odd that not one cacher was ever concerned about what they found inside to mention it in logs. 

Maybe if we left the propane/butane cans in the caches instead of a few feet away...

Link to comment

Tall people, when they say something is easy, and don't appear to acknowledge that not everyone shares their world view on this.

I DNFed a cache, which although I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low. The next finder came along and said, "Despite the last log," it was easy to reach and the terrain rating is fine. It they could reach it without difficulty and found it easy, they must be much taller than my average female height. I didn't have a hope of reaching it without a ladder. My legs are not long enough. Likely they are also younger than me. It wasn't that they are very likely tall that they found it easy (fair enough); it was the condescending way the log sounded, and they referred to my log. It felt personal.

 

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

 

Ratings should be based on the average geocacher, and consider height, age, physical strength, etc. but I don't think that because females are shorter than males on average that ratings should be based upon female averages.  

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

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

 

Would that be in "world-wide" height ?   An average for each country ?  

World-wide height used to be 5'6" for men, 5'2" for women, but North American average height for men is 5'9", and 5'4" in women.

I believe that makes us only the 40th tallest country.  So I'd say there is no "average" height for everyone, everywhere.  ;)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Tall people, when they say something is easy, and don't appear to acknowledge that not everyone shares their world view on this.

I DNFed a cache, which although I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low. The next finder came along and said, "Despite the last log," it was easy to reach and the terrain rating is fine. It they could reach it without difficulty and found it easy, they must be much taller than my average female height. I didn't have a hope of reaching it without a ladder. My legs are not long enough. Likely they are also younger than me. It wasn't that they are very likely tall that they found it easy (fair enough); it was the condescending way the log sounded, and they referred to my log. It felt personal.

 

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

Don't take it personally. I can't believe someone tall would seriously be condescending towards someone not as tall, so I suggest you take it as a joke, since that's almost certainly what it was.

 

You're input on the terrain rating on this cache seems valid, and you expressed that observation in your log. I certainly encourage you to keep making this point to COs, and feel free to talk to them in more detail. And you brought it up here. I think you've done what you can. Please try not to be irked.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low.

I would disagree there - I think if it can be reached standing on the ground by anyone, the terrain component of the tree itself is barely worth adding to the terrain of the trek to get to the tree....

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Tall people, when they say something is easy, and don't appear to acknowledge that not everyone shares their world view on this.

I DNFed a cache, which although I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low. The next finder came along and said, "Despite the last log," it was easy to reach and the terrain rating is fine. It they could reach it without difficulty and found it easy, they must be much taller than my average female height. I didn't have a hope of reaching it without a ladder. My legs are not long enough. Likely they are also younger than me. It wasn't that they are very likely tall that they found it easy (fair enough); it was the condescending way the log sounded, and they referred to my log. It felt personal.

 

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

 

Most of my caches are low to the ground and some are in fairly tight places, so small people will likely have an advantage over larger ones, or at least won't bang their head on the overhanging rock as often. As for climbing caches, either in trees or on rocks, I've DNFed caches that I've seen others scramble up to get without a moment's thought. With my wonky sense of balance, I won't climb more than a metre or two unless there's something I can hold onto, but I don't expect COs to take that into account when rating their hides.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of my caches are low to the ground and some are in fairly tight places, so small people will likely have an advantage over larger ones, or at least won't bang their head on the overhanging rock as often.

 

This is an example of what I mean. It's rated T5 as it has boat-access waypoints but in the description I say that access to the cache itself is about T2.5. I'm of average height and build for an Aussie male but even though I'm the CO and have been there numerous times, I still banged my head on the roof while taking this photo:

 

Crawlspace.jpg.19b2a4133eb38ce5c87b5e2c2450ca08.jpg

 

For someone larger or with difficulty bending and stretching, it could be a lot tougher than a 2.5, whereas for a child it'd be easy-peasy.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Would that be in "world-wide" height ?   An average for each country ?  

World-wide height used to be 5'6" for men, 5'2" for women, but North American average height for men is 5'9", and 5'4" in women.

I believe that makes us only the 40th tallest country.  So I'd say there is no "average" height for everyone, everywhere.  ;)

 

I would think that should be the average height for the local population. From the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Height has been increasing, so now it might be a little taller.

"In 2011-12, the average Australian man (18 years and over) was 175.6 cm tall and weighed 85.9 kg. The average Australian woman was 161.8 cm tall and weighed 71.1 kg. "

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13

I was surprised by those figures, as I always thought I was short, but those figures make me taller than average Australian height. I used to be 165cms, but age catches up.

That makes the average height (F+M)/2=168.7. (about 5'5")

There are sources that rate the average Australian height higher, but I think the Australian Bureau of Statistics is a reasonable source for my local averages. That could vary around Australia too, as different ethnic groups average height varies, and the ethnic percentages vary around the country, most strongly between city and country areas.

(I have also met this when travelling in other countries, my height varying compared to locals, from tall, average to short. I was called shorty in one country, or perhaps that was a sub region in that country.)

If the average height (male + female divided by 2) is used, that would mean it was out of reach still for most females. It's more inclusive if the average female height is used when considering the rating. That does not exclude males, but taking average human height, would exclude many females.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, lee737 said:

I would disagree there - I think if it can be reached standing on the ground by anyone, the terrain component of the tree itself is barely worth adding to the terrain of the trek to get to the tree....

I couldn't reach it from anywhere up in the tree. It was a climb, but height still comes into it, as taller people might be able to reach up from a branch and get the cache, but a shorter person on the same branch can't. And if there are no more branches...

  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It wasn't a joke.

I didn't say it was a joke. I said you should take it as a joke. And I think that's even better advice now that you've posted this response to me.

 

You can choose whether to laugh at it or be annoyed by it. It really makes no difference at all how the person posting the comment is hoping you'd react.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is an example of what I mean. It's rated T5 as it has boat-access waypoints but in the description I say that access to the cache itself is about T2.5. I'm of average height and build for an Aussie male but even though I'm the CO and have been there numerous times, I still banged my head on the roof while taking this photo:

 

Crawlspace.jpg.19b2a4133eb38ce5c87b5e2c2450ca08.jpg

 

For someone larger or with difficulty bending and stretching, it could be a lot tougher than a 2.5, whereas for a child it'd be easy-peasy.

 

 

I can see what you're saying but I don't think the comparison is spot on.  Even if access to a cache comes down to waist size, it's amazing how we can always squeeze that little bit more in.  (Just ask my belt!)  The difficulty increases gradually, maybe to the point where it becomes impossible.  With height, you've either got it or you haven't.  (I haven't.)

 

I had to log a DNF on a T1.5 cache on the back of a London road sign last year.  For anybody just an inch taller than me (or with an inch longer arms): 'easy find'.  For us shorties: impossible ... without a box!  Despite many mentions of 'a bit of a stretch' in the logs, there were only a few DNFs bemoaning a lack of height (3 out of more than a 1000), so I guess the T-rating was fine.  I just accept it, and move on.

 

I do get a little irked though, by the implication that a lack of height must make it easier to get to those low-down caches.  (I'm finding it harder to tie my own laces these days!)  I'd even suggest that short people are more likely to bang their heads in low spaces - it's something we so rarely have to consider! ;-)

 

(I have a feeling that all of this has come up on this thread before...)

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

I had to log a DNF on a T1.5 cache on the back of a London road sign last year.  For anybody just an inch taller than me (or with an inch longer arms): 'easy find'.  For us shorties: impossible ... without a box!  Despite many mentions of 'a bit of a stretch' in the logs, there were only a few DNFs bemoaning a lack of height (3 out of more than a 1000), so I guess the T-rating was fine.  I just accept it, and move on.

 

Accepting your limitations in one area knowing that that you have advantages in others?

How logical of you. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I couldn't reach it from anywhere up in the tree. It was a climb, but height still comes into it, as taller people might be able to reach up from a branch and get the cache, but a shorter person on the same branch can't. And if there are no more branches...

This is starting to devolve into a side discussion, so to bring it back around to universal discussion.... T ratings should be world wide based. A T2 in the Alps should also be a T2 in the Sahara. I understand that regional bias does creep into the ratings, but when I travel, it is nice to have the same expectation everywhere. 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, igator210 said:

T ratings should be world wide based. A T2 in the Alps should also be a T2 in the Sahara. I understand that regional bias does creep into the ratings, but when I travel, it is nice to have the same expectation everywhere. 

 

Alternatively, from the Help Center article Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T):

"Ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in Banff, Canada, is a different experience than a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland. Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area and guidance in the table below."

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

Alternatively, from the Help Center article Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T):

"Ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in Banff, Canada, is a different experience than a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland. Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area and guidance in the table below."

 

I'm firmly with niraD on this.

 

If I were to travel to a far away place where the standards are different, I'd keep that in mind.

 

If I go to Tabasco, Mexico and order chili, and the guy tells me it's "not all that spicy", as a New Yorker I might think twice before I just shovel it into my mouth.

 

I get amused when I read outraged rants like "THIS CACHE SHOULD BE ARCHIVED - IT'S RATED 3.0 WHEN IT'S CLEARLY A 3.5!!!"

 

Wholly smokes - the D/T ratings are GUIDELINES for us, not Manufacturing Specifications!

 

If you're five feet tall and you're caching in Norway, guess what! There'll be low-T-rated caches you won't be able to get!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

If I go to Tabasco, Mexico and order chili, and the guy tells me it's "not all that spicy", as a New Yorker I might think twice before I just shovel it into my mouth.

My wife has no tolerance for spicy heat, which makes certain cuisines a challenge. But we finally figured out how to explain what she wants, after too many examples of "very mild" being too spicy for her.

 

On a scale of one to five, she wants a zero.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
22 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is an example of what I mean. It's rated T5 as it has boat-access waypoints but in the description I say that access to the cache itself is about T2.5. I'm of average height and build for an Aussie male but even though I'm the CO and have been there numerous times, I still banged my head on the roof while taking this photo:

 

Crawlspace.jpg.19b2a4133eb38ce5c87b5e2c2450ca08.jpg

 

For someone larger or with difficulty bending and stretching, it could be a lot tougher than a 2.5, whereas for a child it'd be easy-peasy.

 

Hobbit hole?:P

Edited by colleda
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, on4bam said:

CO's who disable "sharing via API".

We tried to find the bonus of a small (6 caches) series yesterday. Last find date July 17th 2020, no DNFs, notes... but an OM in May. Only, the log by "opted-out-user" reads "Content unavailable. This user has opted-out of sharing certain information with API Authorized Developers."

 

Presumably their log is readable in the official app or on the website? Why is this option even there? Maybe they should archive the lot and find a new hobby??
 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

Probably. Not a lot of good when the GPS is loaded from GSAK when in the field. CO info should always be available, they put it out themselves.

What's the logic behind hiding a CO's name and (important OM, TA, note...) logs on heir own caches. Isn't that exactly the info that SHOULD be viewable to finders? If they really want to hide info they could create a second account just for hiding that doesn't block API access.

 

 

 

 


I certainly get the irk, but my guess is they have no idea of the consequences of their decision.  Not sure about you, but these days, if I see a ‘do not share’ option then my instinct is to check it.

 

I’d send them a friendly message to let them know.

 

I’d also like to see a message pop-up on the website when you check that box, laying out the implications - “Did you know that if you opt out, users of third-party apps like GSAK and Cachly will not be able to see your logs?”

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I certainly get the irk, but my guess is they have no idea of the consequences of their decision.  Not sure about you, but these days, if I see a ‘do not share’ option then my instinct is to check it.

I’d send them a friendly message to let them know.

I’d also like to see a message pop-up on the website when you check that box, laying out the implications - “Did you know that if you opt out, users of third-party apps like GSAK and Cachly will not be able to see your logs?”

 

Agreed.    Sorta...   What "consequences" will I ever see by clicking that box ?    :)

 I simply don't want to be included with others "stats" ratings n stuff worldwide on third-party sites.   

My statistics are open to all, so if someone just has to know how "they compare" ...they just need to look at my profile.  ;)  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, lee737 said:

Presumably their log is readable in the official app or on the website? Why is this option even there? Maybe they should archive the lot and find a new hobby??

 

Curious...  Isn't this the site most folks play on ?   The idea that all must join with third-party sites, or "find a new hobby" I feel is rude.  :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I find in that case, there obviously has to be a threshhold between when the cacher logged the online find, and the CO checks in on the cacher who virtually logged it. Asking for proof 8 months after the virtual log is a bit unrealistic, but asking after a few fews to....say 6 months, I find that acceptable. All cachers should really have proof of logging the find in case they lose their writing utensil or what have you, but I can understand if the user deletes the image on mistake, or loses the fil in a corrupt drive...etc. 

 

In any case, it's up to the CO to be stringent there are no virtual only logs, but also its imperative the finder logs truthfully, and in the case they cannot sign the log, has photographic proof by the very least, or can describe GZ. There are grey areas in my statement which I do acknowledge however.

Link to comment
On 11/5/2020 at 6:06 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

Would that be in "world-wide" height ?   An average for each country ?  

World-wide height used to be 5'6" for men, 5'2" for women, but North American average height for men is 5'9", and 5'4" in women.

I believe that makes us only the 40th tallest country.  So I'd say there is no "average" height for everyone, everywhere.  ;)

 

 

I'm not sure if local high would help. I'm 5'6.5 and way below average for women here. Every cache that mentions 'up' or 'slightly up' requires a ladder. Or at least balancing on my bike and hoping it doesn't roll off :laughing:

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Well then, that's an interesting article on Wikipedia. The averages for many countries are lower than I expected...hm.  I think I tend to rate cache too low for the Terrain rating at times, partly since I'm of average height, well a bit shorter. Tree climbs are easier for me due to my height, although I don't like some of those low-down corner hides as a result.

Link to comment

One from today..... searching for a cache, multiple reports in logs going back years:  'coords way out', 'coords pretty bad', 'coords out a fair way'.... its a trad - put the coords where you found it in your log (or at least an offset for a multi/puzzle).... and CO - fix! We DNFd it, on scouring logs on PC I did find one, at least 30m from 'GZ', and our tracks of course did not intersect it! :mad:

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, lee737 said:

'coords way out', 'coords pretty bad', 'coords out a fair way'.... its a trad - put the coords where you found it in your log (or at least an offset for a multi/puzzle)

That's also a major irk for me. Dozens of finders saying "coordinates way off" but no-one giving any clues as to which approximate direction and distance (let alone their measured coordinates).

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

That's also a major irk for me. Dozens of finders saying "coordinates way off" but no-one giving any clues as to which approximate direction and distance (let alone their measured coordinates).

I have given several sets of coordinates on recent logs, to assist future finders. Also today passed on (spot on) coordinates given by a previous finder. This irks me too. First that people don't bother to take a set of coordinates if they find the cache to assist future finders, instead just say that coordinates are out (oh whoopee do). Second that the CO mostly (some exceptions) takes absolutely no action to correct the coordinates, even when several cachers say the alternative coordinates are good. If the problem is that the CO is lousy at taking coordinates, well, here are a good set of coordinates for them to use, but most don't.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, lee737 said:

One from today..... searching for a cache, multiple reports in logs going back years:  'coords way out', 'coords pretty bad', 'coords out a fair way'.... its a trad - put the coords where you found it in your log (or at least an offset for a multi/puzzle).... and CO - fix! We DNFd it, on scouring logs on PC I did find one, at least 30m from 'GZ', and our tracks of course did not intersect it! :mad:

Or equally annoying, "Found cache 80 feet from ground zero".

 

a) without directional information, 80' often isn't at all helpful.

b) improperly used expression: ground zero is where the cache is, not the posted coordinates.  In its original context, it's where it went boom, not where you tried to aim it.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

That's also a major irk for me. Dozens of finders saying "coordinates way off" but no-one giving any clues as to which approximate direction and distance (let alone their measured coordinates).

I once found a cache where multiple people had said that they found it about 60ft north of GZ. We searched unsuccessfully, read the logs, walked about 60ft north, and found the cache quickly. I figured that I'd post coordinates with my log, except that the coordinates I got there were virtually identical to the published coordinates. I'm not sure why two locations about 60ft apart would yield the same coordinates, when both were on top of a hill with a clear view of the sky.

 

19 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

b) improperly used expression: ground zero is where the cache is, not the posted coordinates.  In its original context, it's where it went boom, not where you tried to aim it.

Ground zero is where I drop my backpack. From there, my search "goes boom" and starts expanding.

 

Eventually I give up, return to my backpack, and find it sitting on top of the cache, but that's a different irk. ;)

  • Funny 4
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, niraD said:

I once found a cache where multiple people had said that they found it about 60ft north of GZ. We searched unsuccessfully, read the logs, walked about 60ft north, and found the cache quickly. I figured that I'd post coordinates with my log, except that the coordinates I got there were virtually identical to the published coordinates. I'm not sure why two locations about 60ft apart would yield the same coordinates, when both were on top of a hill with a clear view of the sky.

Now that would have irked me ;) . Not that my search for the cache took a bit longer, but the strange reading from the GPS. I probably would have spent at least 15 more minutes on location to figure out what's going on.

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

I once found a cache where multiple people had said that they found it about 60ft north of GZ. We searched unsuccessfully, read the logs, walked about 60ft north, and found the cache quickly. I figured that I'd post coordinates with my log, except that the coordinates I got there were virtually identical to the published coordinates. I'm not sure why two locations about 60ft apart would yield the same coordinates, when both were on top of a hill with a clear view of the sky. 

 

I had that happen, and an even greater distance, but the cache was under a large metal bridge.   I was originally search about 100' away from the bridge for a "magnetic" container (according to the hint) on some guy wires for a telephone pole.   My GPS was bouncing around a little but said I was within 20' near the telephone pole.   When I saw that the next nearest metal object  was the bridge I walked about 100' to it and my GPS said I was within 20'.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Or equally annoying, "Found cache 80 feet from ground zero".

a) without directional information, 80' often isn't at all helpful.

 

One in the woods hide nearby has had 31 people say that a cache is anywhere from 85-100 feet off, and none have said "in what direction". :D

A week ago, a started-this-year new cacher actually gave what they had for coordinates.   None of the old-timers did...  ;)

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I had that happen, and an even greater distance, but the cache was under a large metal bridge.   I was originally search about 100' away from the bridge for a "magnetic" container (according to the hint) on some guy wires for a telephone pole.   My GPS was bouncing around a little but said I was within 20' near the telephone pole.   When I saw that the next nearest metal object  was the bridge I walked about 100' to it and my GPS said I was within 20'.  

Just one of the things we have to deal with.  With timing as tight as it must be to make any of this work at all, the distance between the receiver and an object reflecting a signal, even with the astoundingly little time it takes for that signal to make that short additional distance, fouls the fix quite easily.  Not at all difficult to be told 20' at two points 100' apart under those conditions. 

 

I recall my own 'irk' many years ago the first time I tried to find a cache in a metro downtown area with signals bouncing all over the place off of the many nearby buildings.  Multipath - something I had never even considered at the time - had us walking back and forth across a street between two surface level parking lots for 15 minutes - the handheld would keep telling us to go back to the other side again. 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

improperly used expression: ground zero is where the cache is, not the posted coordinates.  In its original context, it's where it went boom, not where you tried to aim it.

I've never heard anyone use GZ as anything other than where the posted or solved coordinates point. You may have a intellectual reason for thinking the term developed in some other way, but current usage has forgotten it. I regularly see "found cache N feet from GZ", but I've never seen "GZ was N feet from the posted coordinates", and I'd be confused if I did.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...