Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 40
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

Cachers who place caches on road signs within 20 feet of someone's front door or window. Then warning cachers to use extreme stealth so as to not alert those living there. Even though it's public property, doesn't mean it's the smartest place to hide a cache. Found two of these and promptly put the rest on ignore.

 

Or caches that use the "stealth" attribute where stealth is impossible.

 

I found one a few years back that was stuck to the back of a sign with a magnet. The only thing was it required reaching way over my head (and I'm 6'4 so how anyone shorter could have done it is a mystery) and the sign was on a busy footpath beside a busy road, opposite a busy bus stop and also opposite a station.

 

A few of "stealth required" caches of note.

 

For one the coordinates took me to a narrow alley with a newspaper box just inside the alley (about the only place the cache could have been hidden). Less than 5 feet from the newspaper box was a restaurant with a glass wall and people sitting at a table. I didn't even try looking for that one.

 

Another (that I found) was about 25 feet from the indoor tables of a well known coffee chain. I was able to locate a container fairly quickly but it was a hide-a-key box stuck inside a sign that took several minutes to extract and then discovered that it was actually a container for a letter box. The cache was just a foot or so away on the other side of the sign hidden in a similar manner. It also took me a minute or so to extract the container. If a CO wants finders to use stealth, placing a container such that it takes several minutes to extract the container is only asking for it to get muggled.

 

The third one was in bison tube with a magnet attached to it and wrapped in duct tape. It was located in a residential in a sign post. No, it wasn't a stop sign...it looked something like this...

 

sign.gif

 

That last one made me chuckle. Although it did also remind me of a micro in central London that I looked for a few times during my lunch breaks and every time I could see the cache from some distance away but there was no chance of retrieving it without dozens of people passing by that I was up to something unusual.

 

Luckily the next time I stopped for a few drinks after work I passed by the area and it was deserted, so I grabbed the cache without any trouble at all.

 

I remember another cache that was in a small clump of trees, so I found a way to get into the clump of trees only to hear a bell. Yes, there I was, a man on his own lurking in a clump of trees within a few feet of a school's perimeter fence. Luckily it was just the transition between classes as large groups of children appeared and promptly disappeared. Had it been their lunch break I'd have just let that one be for another time.

Share this post


Link to post

Throwdowns

 

Yep, its annoying, particularly by the 5th time you have to go out and remove the throwdown only to find your cache was right were you hid it in the first place.

what is meant by a throwdown???

Share this post


Link to post

Throwdowns

 

Yep, its annoying, particularly by the 5th time you have to go out and remove the throwdown only to find your cache was right were you hid it in the first place.

what is meant by a throwdown???

Throwdown = Assume for argument's sake that you hunt for a cache, and for whatever reason, you failed to locate it. There are some amongst our ranks who would not accept the deserved DNF, and would instead, whip out a film can from their backpack, and plop it down where they think the cache should be, claiming it as a find. This is a throwdown. Many who do this delude themselves into believing they are doing so for the common good.

Share this post


Link to post

- Micros listed as small. Nanos listed as micros. For that matter, most nanos in general.

 

 

By definition, nanos are micros. It irks me when COs list nanos as 'other'.

 

Not disagreeing per se but then what is "other" to be used for?

Share this post


Link to post

Throwdowns

 

Yep, its annoying, particularly by the 5th time you have to go out and remove the throwdown only to find your cache was right were you hid it in the first place.

what is meant by a throwdown???

Throwdown = Assume for argument's sake that you hunt for a cache, and for whatever reason, you failed to locate it. There are some amongst our ranks who would not accept the deserved DNF, and would instead, whip out a film can from their backpack, and plop it down where they think the cache should be, claiming it as a find. This is a throwdown. Many who do this delude themselves into believing they are doing so for the common good.

i see thanks

i have run into that already with a stop sign micro they werent able to find it so they left a new log in a baggie wedged in a crack of the stop sign timber when all they had to do was look on the ground low and behold it was there i replaced the original cache in its place and removed the "throwdown"

Share this post


Link to post

 

Not disagreeing per se but then what is "other" to be used for?

 

Other is simply defined as "See the cache description". Usually I've seen it used for a container which is unusual and doesn't clearly fit. For example a 30 litre trash can filled with micros; and one of those micros is the cache. Rather than list it as Large or Micro the owner may decide on "other".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Not disagreeing per se but then what is "other" to be used for?

 

Other is simply defined as "See the cache description". Usually I've seen it used for a container which is unusual and doesn't clearly fit. For example a 30 litre trash can filled with micros; and one of those micros is the cache. Rather than list it as Large or Micro the owner may decide on "other".

 

Which brings me to another irk, cache owners who list the outter container size as the cache size. Example, a coghlan match container in the hollowed out portion of a log that is 12" long and 6"'wide. The cache is not a regular or small size. It"s a micro. But the "other"'option would work well here too.

Share this post


Link to post

Which brings me to another irk, cache owners who list the outter container size as the cache size. Example, a coghlan match container in the hollowed out portion of a log that is 12" long and 6"'wide. The cache is not a regular or small size. It"s a micro. But the "other"'option would work well here too.

 

I'm cool with that. In the scenario you describe I wouldn't see the match container until I'd found the correct 12" long 6" wide log - so I'd rather base my initial search on that outer container than completely miss it because I'm looking for something much smaller.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Which brings me to another irk, cache owners who list the outter container size as the cache size. Example, a coghlan match container in the hollowed out portion of a log that is 12" long and 6"'wide. The cache is not a regular or small size. It"s a micro. But the "other"'option would work well here too.

 

I'm cool with that. In the scenario you describe I wouldn't see the match container until I'd found the correct 12" long 6" wide log - so I'd rather base my initial search on that outer container than completely miss it because I'm looking for something much smaller.

 

Usually how it's explained in the forums is....if you place a nano in an abandoned old car in the forest, would it make the cache size a Large? Cache size has been about the volume of the cache, what will fit in the cache. Perhaps because when geocaching began it was about a cache of items in the container. But "Other" covers those confusing disguised cache situations where giving away the size might spoil the experience for the finder.

Share this post


Link to post
Which brings me to another irk, cache owners who list the outter container size as the cache size. Example, a coghlan match container in the hollowed out portion of a log that is 12" long and 6"'wide. The cache is not a regular or small size. It"s a micro. But the "other"'option would work well here too.
I'm cool with that. In the scenario you describe I wouldn't see the match container until I'd found the correct 12" long 6" wide log - so I'd rather base my initial search on that outer container than completely miss it because I'm looking for something much smaller.
I'd rather base my initial search on the fact that I'm looking for a micro-sized match container. Finding a regular-sized log does me no good unless I notice the micro-size container hidden on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches in big piles of concrete rubble fill. I'll look for them, but I don't enjoy it.

 

Worse than that is when you get a magnetic nano on a metal railing that stretches for a good 100 yards either side of GZ, ranges from about three inches off the ground to seven or eight feet, and has prickly or stinging plants growing through it. For bonus points provide a hint that says something really helpful like "it's on the metal fence"

Share this post


Link to post

It pretty much boils down to a trend towards a smaller percentage of geocachers agreeing to the principle that "it's not about the numbers" and that's manifested in many ways

 

- Quantity is becoming more preferable to quality

- The amount of though cachers put into online logs is less, and justified with "when you find 80 caches in a day you don't have time to write a story"

- Cache owners that *do* put in extra effort are rewarded with cut-n-paste "One of 65 finds out caching with FindMoreGeocaches"

- Power trails and series have become so common place that they're overwhelming PQs that might contain some real gems (and potential placements of quality caches)

- the community aspect of geocaching is degrading and being replaced with a competing to find more caches, get more FTFS, more, more , more

- and much more...

Share this post


Link to post

People who cheat on puzzle caches, specifically by getting the final coordinates from another cacher. If you have no desire to do the puzzle, then pass it by. I'm sure there's a film canister out there with your name on it. :rolleyes:

Edited by The_Incredibles_

Share this post


Link to post

The last one I ran into was marked D1/T1. No way on either of those!!

 

That's another big time irk! Cache owners that don't use the GC rating system when choosing their D/T ratings. Sometimes it seems like the CO pulled the numbers out of a hat. The link to the rating system is pretty obvious on the online form. Some people with mobility issues rely on accurate T ratings. It's frustrating and a waste of time and gas money when a T2 or under geocache turns out to be a T3 (or over) cache - steep slope, rock pile, bushwack through trees and logs, tree climb.

 

I'm 100% on board with poor D/T ratings as my #1 irk.

 

My son and I cache together & he is physically disabled (so yes there are cachers in wheel chairs). We have some CO's in our area that hide great caches in spectacular area's including awesome multi's and puzzles, that just blow it when it comes to D/T ratings. I've learned to talk to other finders of high quality potential caches, to really understand what we are getting into. We'll do 3 & 4 terrain caches, but need to plan ahead and bring along help for the rough spots.

 

BTW - If you asked my son what irks him, he'd say LPC's!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The last one I ran into was marked D1/T1. No way on either of those!!

 

That's another big time irk! Cache owners that don't use the GC rating system when choosing their D/T ratings. Sometimes it seems like the CO pulled the numbers out of a hat. The link to the rating system is pretty obvious on the online form. Some people with mobility issues rely on accurate T ratings. It's frustrating and a waste of time and gas money when a T2 or under geocache turns out to be a T3 (or over) cache - steep slope, rock pile, bushwack through trees and logs, tree climb.

 

I'm 100% on board with poor D/T ratings as my #1 irk.

 

My son and I cache together & he is physically disabled (so yes there are cachers in wheel chairs). We have some CO's in our area that hide great caches in spectacular area's including awesome multi's and puzzles, that just blow it when it comes to D/T ratings. I've learned to talk to other finders of high quality potential caches, to really understand what we are getting into. We'll do 3 & 4 terrain caches, but need to plan ahead and bring along help for the rough spots.

 

BTW - If you asked my son what irks him, he'd say LPC's!

 

Do you find caches with pointlessly high D/T ratings annoy you as well?

 

I remember one I found in Pennsylvania that was rated something like 2.5/3 and turned out to be at ground level within about 30 feet of the parking, along a flat gravel path. As an able-bodied cacher I was left puzzled why the terrain was as high as 3 and reading your post I wondered if caching with your son would have left the two of you expecting a challenge and allocating time/resources/etc only to find you could park the car and realise the cache is at the foot of the tree over there.

Share this post


Link to post

The last one I ran into was marked D1/T1. No way on either of those!!

 

That's another big time irk! Cache owners that don't use the GC rating system when choosing their D/T ratings. Sometimes it seems like the CO pulled the numbers out of a hat. The link to the rating system is pretty obvious on the online form. Some people with mobility issues rely on accurate T ratings. It's frustrating and a waste of time and gas money when a T2 or under geocache turns out to be a T3 (or over) cache - steep slope, rock pile, bushwack through trees and logs, tree climb.

 

I'm 100% on board with poor D/T ratings as my #1 irk.

 

My son and I cache together & he is physically disabled (so yes there are cachers in wheel chairs). We have some CO's in our area that hide great caches in spectacular area's including awesome multi's and puzzles, that just blow it when it comes to D/T ratings. I've learned to talk to other finders of high quality potential caches, to really understand what we are getting into. We'll do 3 & 4 terrain caches, but need to plan ahead and bring along help for the rough spots.

 

BTW - If you asked my son what irks him, he'd say LPC's!

 

Do you find caches with pointlessly high D/T ratings annoy you as well?

 

I remember one I found in Pennsylvania that was rated something like 2.5/3 and turned out to be at ground level within about 30 feet of the parking, along a flat gravel path. As an able-bodied cacher I was left puzzled why the terrain was as high as 3 and reading your post I wondered if caching with your son would have left the two of you expecting a challenge and allocating time/resources/etc only to find you could park the car and realise the cache is at the foot of the tree over there.

Yes.

 

It seems to me that the way the new cache rating icons are displayed while using the cache listing tool are pretty clear. I can see how we all could be off by a 1/2 a point in either direction, but full point or more seems rediculous.

 

For terrain ratigs: I also find that some CO's who do use the grade factor only do not always take into account things such as rocks, roots, thorns, slippery surfaces like the shale creek beds we have in my area.

 

IMO - The problem starts with some CO's not recognizing a 5 D or T for the general population. There are certain criteria that makes a 5 a 5, once this criteria is met there may be additional difficulty to the find or the terrain, but it's still just a 5. If a CO has found that crazy hard 5/5 hide (i.e. a nano disguised as a twig hidden 20' up a tree that's growing 100' up a 200' sheer cliff face, after solving a backwards Baconian cypher puzzle to get to leg 1 of a 12 part multi to get to this final) Every cache that is slightly easier does not become a 4 1/2D x 4 1/2T or less.

 

Oops... I just explained my next hide that I'll release next April fools day as a 1/1 with leg 1 being a LPC in a Walmart parking lot. [:b]

 

Sorry for the long winded explanation. I have lots of thoughts on this subject because it irks me so much.

Share this post


Link to post

Nanos listed as "other" or "not chosen" and micros listed as small.

 

Improperly rated terrain and difficulty including 1 star terrain that isn't handicap accessible. And an even bigger annoyance are those caches purposefully rate wrongly in order to fill some hard to find combination in a Fizzy challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

The last one I ran into was marked D1/T1. No way on either of those!!

 

That's another big time irk! Cache owners that don't use the GC rating system when choosing their D/T ratings. Sometimes it seems like the CO pulled the numbers out of a hat. The link to the rating system is pretty obvious on the online form. Some people with mobility issues rely on accurate T ratings. It's frustrating and a waste of time and gas money when a T2 or under geocache turns out to be a T3 (or over) cache - steep slope, rock pile, bushwack through trees and logs, tree climb.

 

I'm 100% on board with poor D/T ratings as my #1 irk.

 

My son and I cache together & he is physically disabled (so yes there are cachers in wheel chairs). We have some CO's in our area that hide great caches in spectacular area's including awesome multi's and puzzles, that just blow it when it comes to D/T ratings. I've learned to talk to other finders of high quality potential caches, to really understand what we are getting into. We'll do 3 & 4 terrain caches, but need to plan ahead and bring along help for the rough spots.

BTW - If you asked my son what irks him, he'd say LPC's!

 

Nice to hear from an active-lifestyle wheelchair cacher that the "wheelchair cachers enjoy LPCs" myth put out by able-bodied cache owners who plant them, is not true.

Share this post


Link to post

1. People who send mean emails because you requested maintenance on a couple of caches

 

2. Wasp nests, spider webs, or any kind of animal/habitat under a lamp skirt

 

3. Any cache that turns into a field day for the bomb squad

 

4. Garbage covering GZ, might as well go dumpster diving

 

5. Event stackers or multiple attended logs on an event by the same person

Share this post


Link to post

People who cheat on puzzle caches, specifically by getting the final coordinates from another cacher. If you have no desire to do the puzzle, then pass it by. I'm sure there's a film canister out there with your name on it. :rolleyes:

 

And then go on to hand out the coordinates to as many other people as possible to show everyone how clever they are :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
How many wheelchair cachers do you know about in your area?
I know one geocacher who uses a wheelchair, but he hasn't really done much geocaching since he started using a wheelchair.

 

I know several geocachers who have used crutches temporarily while recovering from injuries. Some of them were more limited during their recovery than some of the wheelchair users I've known. But they still managed to find all the T1 caches they could.

 

Ya' know, I think I've been flamed in the past for suggesting a miniscule percentage of Geocachers are confined to a wheelchair. :unsure: It is true though, right? I just don't like when people attempt to justify the tens of thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands by now) lame parking lot micros as being placed on their behalf. That doesn't make me an insensitve meanie, does it? I hope not.

 

The once frequent poster Geobain is confined to a wheelchair. I don't believe we'll ever see him around here again though due to disputes with the moderating team. :o

 

Wheelchair Use in the United States

An estimated 1.6 million Americans residing outside of institutions use wheelchairs, according to 199495 data from the National Health Interview Survey on Disability (NHIS-D).

 

Population of US 314 million.

 

If my math is right that's .5%

 

How many estimated cachers in the US? 10,000? That would mean 50 wheelchair cachers. One per state (if my math and geo population guesstimate is right).

 

Well, according to project-GC.com, there are 200,000 active cachers in the USA so far this year (and that feeds in from the API so I'd take that over any estimate.)

 

But if you think of only those cachers who use wheelchairs, then you're neglecting those who use walking frames, buggies, sticks, or who consider their mobility to be impaired for all kinds of reasons.

 

I would say you're wildly underestimating all round.

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

I'm brand new to Geo-Caching. In fact, this is my first post. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned a lot! :)

 

I think the one thing that this newbie finds frustrating is when I go bounding off on foot for five miles, over hill & dale, through swamps and pricker bushes to finally find the cache, then discover a 65 foot trail to get back to my car.

 

.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

I'm brand new to Geo-Caching. In fact, this is my first post. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned a lot! :)

 

I think the one thing that this newbie finds frustrating is when I go bounding off on foot for five miles, over hill & dale, through swamps and pricker bushes to finally find the cache, then discover a 65 foot trail to get back to my car.

 

.

:D Yes, I've done that way too much myself...bushwhacked through some pretty awful stuff only to find a perfectly nice trail that any sane person would have used.

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

I'm brand new to Geo-Caching. In fact, this is my first post. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned a lot! :)

 

I think the one thing that this newbie finds frustrating is when I go bounding off on foot for five miles, over hill & dale, through swamps and pricker bushes to finally find the cache, then discover a 65 foot trail to get back to my car.

 

.

:D Yes, I've done that way too much myself...bushwhacked through some pretty awful stuff only to find a perfectly nice trail that any sane person would have used.

 

Why is that frustrating? I consider it an adventure.

Edited by Roman!

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

I'm brand new to Geo-Caching. In fact, this is my first post. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned a lot! :)

 

I think the one thing that this newbie finds frustrating is when I go bounding off on foot for five miles, over hill & dale, through swamps and pricker bushes to finally find the cache, then discover a 65 foot trail to get back to my car.

 

.

 

At least that kind of mishap is on you rather than the cache setter. I remember finding a cache that involved fighting through half a mile of mud six inches deep then finding a way over a six-foot chicken wire fence, only to realise there was a tarmac path from where I'd parked to within a few yards of the cache. That was annoying but only because I messed up.

 

What was more annoying was going to look for a cache, hunting among prickly gorse and hawthorn bushes that smelled of dog urine until I got bored of getting prickled only to subsequently find the cache owner updated the D/T combo, the coordinates and the clue because all three were wrong. Wrong coordinates are one thing but I did wonder how anyone could get the clue wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

People who cheat on puzzle caches, specifically by getting the final coordinates from another cacher. If you have no desire to do the puzzle, then pass it by. I'm sure there's a film canister out there with your name on it. :rolleyes:

 

Sign log, get smiley. Sort of the way it works he3re.

Share this post


Link to post

.

 

I'm brand new to Geo-Caching. In fact, this is my first post. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned a lot! :)

 

I think the one thing that this newbie finds frustrating is when I go bounding off on foot for five miles, over hill & dale, through swamps and pricker bushes to finally find the cache, then discover a 65 foot trail to get back to my car.

 

.

:D Yes, I've done that way too much myself...bushwhacked through some pretty awful stuff only to find a perfectly nice trail that any sane person would have used.

 

Why is that frustrating? I consider it an adventure.

Most of my adventures are frustrating at the time. As I'm cussing my way through the brush...crawling because it's too thick to get through up top...I swear to myself that next time I'll look at the sat map before I go, or I'll get a smart phone with maps, or something, anything.

 

Then when I get back home and survey the damage - cuts, bruises, jammed fingers, another ripped shirt - I ask myself, "was it worth it?" The answer is always, "Are you kidding? That was freakin awesome!" :D

Share this post


Link to post

Cachers that place caches with 10 log sheets stuffed in a pill bottle with narrow opening so you actually have to dig them out. So many log sheets, are they not planning on coming back to this cache to check on it for a while?

 

Cachers that just stuff the log sheet back in a cache without folding or rolling neatly. Then you have to leaf through and straighten out to find where to sign it. Why not fold or roll it so its ready for the next cacher to sign?

 

Cachers that leave nasty things in caches. I have found rubbers, (unused thankfully) And no I don't think it was a muggle. Three caches in the same day in different areas of town. Highly unlikely that it was a muggle.

 

Cachers that find a cache and then don't replace it like they found it hidden. Have had to go "find" my own caches sometimes. If I wanted it hid I a stump 50 ft from where I originally placed it I would have put it there in the first place.

 

Cachers who leave TFTC for a log.

 

Then all the ones mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches that NA but haven't been. It always feels a bit grouchy to log a NA but someone has to.

 

Caches replaced so that the hint no longer makes sense - I blame cachers not COs for that.

 

Non-differentiating hints.

 

"Camouflage" that makes it blindingly obvious where the cache is. As above I suspect it's cachers more than COs doing this, but not always. I recently found a cache on the day of publication and it was in the fork of a tree covered in live twigs that had been ripped from the tree. Only about three days later a log read "camo wilting, will soon be very visible from path". In all these cases poking the cache round the back of the tree or wherever, negating the need for stickoflage, has to be the sensible option? I've also seen a nice key-holder on the back of a stone that was hidden IN a tree. Ooh, I wonder what that stone's doing in a tree??? Likewise a cairn of stones in the fork of a tree. Why???

 

Lastly - the premium-only, c:geo-hating, 528-feet puritans that roam this forum. (fuse lit...)

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely HATE when I'm 2 miles into the woods on hiking trails and there is precious caching space wasted on micros. You could successfully hide a car in some of the places I hike, yet I repeatedly find my self searching for incredibly long periods of time for a film container. Put some thought into your cache and make it truly worthwhile for those who are willing to make the journey to it.

 

Oh, don't get me started! Lol

A film canister with the clue 'at the base of a tree' in the middle of a wood as chino said, I could hide a much larger object and it would never be found, nano in a wood is waisted opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Garbage left in caches. Saturday we found one with an open artificial sweetener packet and a bottle cap in it.

 

+1 just yesterday we found a shard of glass, (yes you read correctly) and a boiled sweet.

I don't know what these people are thinking, balloons are another, do they honestly believe we want want to put put that thing near our mouths. (don't be rude!)

Share this post


Link to post

I've read through this topic laughing as most echo all my gripes with this game, but...

We've not played this for nearly a year thanks to the British weather being what it is. It just wasn't worthwhile dragging the family out on wet days through parklands and woodland to find nanos and caches with crappy swagg. The kids can not take anymore McDonald toys or erasers/bouncy ball. How many time I have cleared rubbish and I mean rubbish ie wrappers/bottletops/ glass (yes, glass. I'm still fuming about this). Also wet logs (I'm going over to the week log topic now, as I'm in 2 minds as what to do. I always logged a NM, lol)

But as the sun has finaly moved into the UK . We've got the bug again, and this time I'm going to take things as they are.

1-There will be rubbish in cache boxes. So what, I'll clear it out. That way the next person doesn't have to see it.

2-There are nanos in the middle of the woods, I just won't go for them today

3- There will be crappy feedback on my hidden cache 'TFTC'. they must have been in a rush trying to find another 500 that day. I may try and disguise my cache better to slow them down ;-) & enjoy mine more

I think if Iplay the game the way I want to, and the way my family like! We will enjoy it as much as we did on our first few hunts, or I can turn into a grumpy old man.

Share this post


Link to post

- Micros listed as small. Nanos listed as micros. For that matter, most nanos in general.

 

 

By definition, nanos are micros. It irks me when COs list nanos as 'other'.

There could be a separate size listing for "nano", though "micro" covers it (anything smaller than a "small"). At least, most nanos I've found mentioned in the description that it was a nano. One even (that I didn't find) had it in the title (Are you serious....A Nano in the woods???? (15 finds, 16 dnf, to date)). That was why I couldn't find it (I figured).

I don't like all the "Other" size caches out there. Some, I know, are somewhat vague as to what constitutes the cache, but for the most part, caches fall into one of the 4 sizes.

 

There could be a separate size, in fact, we were told that there would be a separate size over two years ago.

Share this post


Link to post

The last one I ran into was marked D1/T1. No way on either of those!!

 

That's another big time irk! Cache owners that don't use the GC rating system when choosing their D/T ratings. Sometimes it seems like the CO pulled the numbers out of a hat. The link to the rating system is pretty obvious on the online form. Some people with mobility issues rely on accurate T ratings. It's frustrating and a waste of time and gas money when a T2 or under geocache turns out to be a T3 (or over) cache - steep slope, rock pile, bushwack through trees and logs, tree climb.

 

I'm 100% on board with poor D/T ratings as my #1 irk.

 

My son and I cache together & he is physically disabled (so yes there are cachers in wheel chairs). We have some CO's in our area that hide great caches in spectacular area's including awesome multi's and puzzles, that just blow it when it comes to D/T ratings. I've learned to talk to other finders of high quality potential caches, to really understand what we are getting into. We'll do 3 & 4 terrain caches, but need to plan ahead and bring along help for the rough spots.

 

BTW - If you asked my son what irks him, he'd say LPC's!

 

Do you find caches with pointlessly high D/T ratings annoy you as well?

 

I remember one I found in Pennsylvania that was rated something like 2.5/3 and turned out to be at ground level within about 30 feet of the parking, along a flat gravel path. As an able-bodied cacher I was left puzzled why the terrain was as high as 3 and reading your post I wondered if caching with your son would have left the two of you expecting a challenge and allocating time/resources/etc only to find you could park the car and realise the cache is at the foot of the tree over there.

Yes.

 

It seems to me that the way the new cache rating icons are displayed while using the cache listing tool are pretty clear. I can see how we all could be off by a 1/2 a point in either direction, but full point or more seems rediculous.

 

For terrain ratigs: I also find that some CO's who do use the grade factor only do not always take into account things such as rocks, roots, thorns, slippery surfaces like the shale creek beds we have in my area.

 

IMO - The problem starts with some CO's not recognizing a 5 D or T for the general population. There are certain criteria that makes a 5 a 5, once this criteria is met there may be additional difficulty to the find or the terrain, but it's still just a 5. If a CO has found that crazy hard 5/5 hide (i.e. a nano disguised as a twig hidden 20' up a tree that's growing 100' up a 200' sheer cliff face, after solving a backwards Baconian cypher puzzle to get to leg 1 of a 12 part multi to get to this final) Every cache that is slightly easier does not become a 4 1/2D x 4 1/2T or less.

 

Oops... I just explained my next hide that I'll release next April fools day as a 1/1 with leg 1 being a LPC in a Walmart parking lot. [:b]

 

Sorry for the long winded explanation. I have lots of thoughts on this subject because it irks me so much.

 

I am a big advocate of using the rating system and making small adjustments as needed, always! Per the rating system, I am capable of getting to a 4T cache, and would have to use my judgement on a 4.5T. What messes things up is when our local guy who hikes 40 miles each and every week of his life and has bagged the 200 highest peaks in the US, places a 4.4T and rates it as a 2.5T based on his abilities, instead of the rating system.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenges that are more about "homework" then they are about discovering/accomplishing something...

Edited by ArcherDragoon

Share this post


Link to post

What irks you most?

Cachers who deliberately log a find when they didn't find the cache.

 

Throwdowns: because they should have logged a DNF and with the throwdown very likely are spoiling the real cache.

 

Useless hints.

 

EarthCache CO's would don't respond when I sent the answers (yes, I really would like to know what I got wrong and what it should be instead.)

 

Cachers who keep placing new caches, but at the same time neglect to maintain their existing hides.

 

Challenge caches where the challenge is something the CO accidentally managed to do and only can be achieved 'by accident' as well.

 

The inconsistencies of geocaching.com.

 

Not being able to 'Favourite' a DNF.

 

Cheers,

 

Mr. Terratin

Share this post


Link to post

Throwdowns

 

Yep, its annoying, particularly by the 5th time you have to go out and remove the throwdown only to find your cache was right were you hid it in the first place.

 

What is a "throwdown"?

Share this post


Link to post

Throwdowns

 

Yep, its annoying, particularly by the 5th time you have to go out and remove the throwdown only to find your cache was right were you hid it in the first place.

 

What is a "throwdown"?

 

Nevermind... Should have read more posts lol

Share this post


Link to post

Im fairly new to geocaching, 3+ months.

 

My biggest complaint is CO's that don't take care of their cache with MULTIPLE NM logs. I will still go out to hunt any cache even the ones with several DNF's. I have discovered which CO's in my area don't maintain their caches. Those I will not add a fresh log to when the log is full or wet, nor will I add some duck tape to patch the holes. Other caches I will do this, as long as it's a simple repair. For example, I don't replace their pill bottle with a new one if it's crushed or in really bad shape.

 

My other hate is trash or food in the cache. I take it out and toss it.

 

One more is crayons in the caches in Texas!! Those will melt in the summer when our temps are 105 in the shade and make a mess!!! lol

 

I do note what I've done in my logs so the CO and other know what I've done.

 

Forgot, I am really sad when I go to a cache to pick up a TB and find that there are none of them there even though they are still listed... Now I know to check the TB page to see when the last post was....

Edited by etphoneme2plz

Share this post


Link to post

People who cheat on puzzle caches, specifically by getting the final coordinates from another cacher. If you have no desire to do the puzzle, then pass it by. I'm sure there's a film canister out there with your name on it. :rolleyes:

 

Puzzle caches irk me, the point of Geocaching is to get outside not to sit in on my butt in front of a computer googling random quotes, images or ciphers or just trying to get into some random persons head to try and figure out what he/she was thinking.

Share this post


Link to post

People who cheat on puzzle caches, specifically by getting the final coordinates from another cacher. If you have no desire to do the puzzle, then pass it by. I'm sure there's a film canister out there with your name on it. :rolleyes:

 

Puzzle caches irk me, the point of Geocaching is to get outside not to sit in on my butt in front of a computer googling random quotes, images or ciphers or just trying to get into some random persons head to try and figure out what he/she was thinking.

 

Magnetic key boxes, nano's and urine sample containers stuffed into dirty telephone kiosks and advertised as an ideal way to spend a rainy afternoon with your kids :blink:

 

If I crave a caching fix and the weather's keeping me indoors I'll merrily solve and bookmark a few puzzles ready for collection when the weather improves B)

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah...people who complain about - and don't understand the point of - puzzle caches irk me...especially if those same people get excited about monotonous power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah...people who complain about - and don't understand the point of - puzzle caches irk me...especially if those same people get excited about monotonous power trails.

 

Could you explain the point of puzzles then?

Share this post


Link to post

Cachers that log finds on garbage found near the cache, then post a Needs Maintenance because it has no logsheet. Its happened twice so far that I know of.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches because they make this recreational activity about numbers/statistics. And because it's a cache that you can find but not log.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 40

×