Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 44
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

What irks me is the apparent reluctance of cachers to post NM or NA logs.  I'm currently in a new area and have come across many caches that have quite a few DNFs, but no one has suggested that they NM.  I've done so on about a dozen of them so far, and suspect that many of the DNFs are from people who are here on vacation, so have little reason to post a DNF.  Also, most of them are from only a couple of cachers (who have placed a lot of caches), so a friendly reminder might be beneficial.  I just don't want to appear to be the person who is a pain about these things.  

 

This is the reason I stopped planning geocaching vacations. The last two trips were like your experience above. That killed it for me. Saturated with a few prolific hiders who didn't do maintenance. Most were vacation cachers (I recognized a few who live in my area, a 5 hour drive away). One was from a neighbouring country. No NMs and NAs. I posted NMs and NAs on 75% of my visits. And many of my "finds" were throwdowns. What's worse is when finders posted great comments about caches that were a mess. I felt double-dupped. Very frustrating. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This is the reason I stopped planning geocaching vacations. The last two trips were like your experience above. That killed it for me. Saturated with a few prolific hiders who didn't do maintenance. Most were vacation cachers (I recognized a few who live in my area, a 5 hour drive away). One was from a neighbouring country. No NMs and NAs. I posted NMs and NAs on 75% of my visits. And many of my "finds" were throwdowns. What's worse is when finders posted great comments about caches that were a mess. I felt double-dupped. Very frustrating. 

 

Similar to this, I occasionally feel somewhat spoiled. It's much less often I end up with a DNF in my region than when caching in another distant region (whether a couple counties over, province/states, or a different country). Whether it's due to slacking maintenance or a difference in DT expectations, it tends to make me want to go home and find caches again =P

That said, I planned my Iceland trip with geocaching and had very little difficulty at all. Then again most were Earthcaches... but in using geocaching as a vacation planning tool, there's definitely a lot more research that goes in to each cache to determine expectations and whether it's worth the effort to find.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, GrateBear said:

What irks me is the apparent reluctance of cachers to post NM or NA logs.  I'm currently in a new area and have come across many caches that have quite a few DNFs, but no one has suggested that they NM.  I've done so on about a dozen of them so far, and suspect that many of the DNFs are from people who are here on vacation, so have little reason to post a DNF.  Also, most of them are from only a couple of cachers (who have placed a lot of caches), so a friendly reminder might be beneficial.  I just don't want to appear to be the person who is a pain about these things.  

Agreed, sorta.

But to be clear, we've seen this no NA/NM thing in every area traveled, and ever since we started. 

This seems to tell (me) that the majority of cachers either aren't that concerned with "rules" that affect another negatively, or simply "don't wanna get involved...".  

Just a nice day out, maybe with the family, and a carpy container isn't gonna ruin that:)

 - I believe many have seen how some go overboard in these forums, not reflecting the majority of folks we know in this hobby.

I'd like to see a happy medium...

 

Being disliked in my area because of an action log is no longer a big deal (for me - the other 2/3rds is still a bit uncomfortable ;-).

But to travel to a new area for the first time,  called "that @$^*%&# that negatively logged all our caches !" at their next local event is something we think about (if we intend to ever go back).   :D

Share this post


Link to post

A most recent irk, is the utter lack of anything on the main website page to introduce new cachers to the hobby.  The "How to Play" or "For the new geocacher" pages shouldn't be a D3 puzzle hide in the website.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

It irked me not a little when taking time and effort (having so little time) to comply and log this virtual only to read through other finders logs and see that most seem to have just taken a pic and done nothing else to claim their smiley. I think that is a little insulting to a CO who goes to the effort of  setting up such a cache.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, colleda said:

It irked me not a little when taking time and effort (having so little time) to comply and log this virtual only to read through other finders logs and see that most seem to have just taken a pic and done nothing else to claim their smiley. I think that is a little insulting to a CO who goes to the effort of  setting up such a cache.

 

 

Thats almost as insulting to the CO as the caches who logged a find a few days before you, and added a FP, along with photos from their visit in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, colleda said:

It irked me not a little when taking time and effort (having so little time) to comply and log this virtual only to read through other finders logs and see that most seem to have just taken a pic and done nothing else to claim their smiley. I think that is a little insulting to a CO who goes to the effort of  setting up such a cache.

Regarding "effort to log" ... look at Earth Cache GC2NCFR. The first "finders" all claimed a find because they saw the feature while flying over it in an airliner (or not ... most don't even provide a photo, and some are obvious armchair logs). Now compare this to the effort of the CO to create the listing in 4(!) different languages, and to the log of one of the true finders (e.g. in January 2018).

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, colleda said:

It irked me not a little when taking time and effort (having so little time) to comply and log this virtual only to read through other finders logs and see that most seem to have just taken a pic and done nothing else to claim their smiley. I think that is a little insulting to a CO who goes to the effort of  setting up such a cache.

 

It doesn't appear that the CO has done anything to police the logs in the last several years, so I guess they're not taking it too personally.

 

But yes, I agree, it's disappointing to see when folks only care about the smiley and don't put in the effort.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Found a nice section  of an abandoned rail line.  Hid three caches.  And mostly, I get the same the same log for all three.

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A and B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound i t 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C  while out caching in a new area. TFTC!! Left a TB

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find while out caching with B & C, great day to get outside before more snow. TFTC!!

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C on a fun day of caching. TFTC!!

 

Same logs for C.

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Nice sunny day got us out of the house. TFTC.

 

Makes me wonder why I bothered.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Found a nice section  of an abandoned rail line.  Hid three caches.  And mostly, I get the same the same log for all three.

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A and B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound i t 02/17/2019

Found with A & B. Nice day to be out caching. TFTH

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C  while out caching in a new area. TFTC!! Left a TB

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find while out caching with B & C, great day to get outside before more snow. TFTC!!

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Quick find with B & C on a fun day of caching. TFTC!!

 

Same logs for C.

 

Found itFound it 02/17/2019

Nice sunny day got us out of the house. TFTC.

 

Makes me wonder why I bothered.  

I posted something like that some time ago. X posts "found with Y" and Y posts "found with X". Seems to happen quite often around here when two cache together.

Yep, why bother?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, colleda said:

X posts "found with Y" and Y posts "found with X". Seems to happen quite often around here when two cache together.

Yep, why bother?

Hubby and I usually cache together.  He writes very short, terse logs - Find # XXX @time, TFTC  I tend to be more wordy, and describe stuff so I can remember the cache and the hide.  We do mention if we were with each other - or a group - but his logs are short and mine are longer!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

I posted something like that some time ago. X posts "found with Y" and Y posts "found with X". Seems to happen quite often around here when two cache together.

Yep, why bother?

 

It doesn't always pan out that way when a log starts with "Found with X"...

 

Quote

Found itFound it

02/02/2019

Found with X. There really isn't much more I could add to his log below. Was an incredible adventure and a perfect geocache in my eyes. If anyone is watching this cache, go now as you won't be disappointed - just maybe bring 10kg of salt with you to combat the annelids.
Fav point for the unforgettable experience, smoothly put together multi and great final container. Ripper Jeff! Will certainly be returning here for another swim.

 

Found itFound it

02/02/2019

We had an absolute ball on this walk today, and really aren’t sure how so few finds are in the log, or how either Y and I haven’t come up here before!

To start from the beginning, an overcast, muggy day didn’t leave a great deal of options however, I remembered this cache I hadn’t done. Contacting Y, we met at the ‘puddles.’ A series of splashes and foolish decisions involving getting my car acquainted with a tree, I parked the car. Moving through the first few waypoints we could help but realise how full the creek is! The small amount of recent rain must have had some effect! We also noticed that a couple of the photos were a bit different with a decent flow of water. From this point, we were attacked by a continual stream of leeches, all starving for a feed.

A quick dip in a much more lively cascade that what the photo suggested and further toward the falls. There were shrill cries of delight on arrival as we had not expected anything nearly as amazing. I have driven hours away from home for much less that is to say. A succession of swims under the incredibly powerful falls and more shrieks of disbelief that we were actually here in the rain and bath temperature water in something that looked more like SE QLD not even 30mins from home. Of course a no perfect waterfall is complete with out a jump off either! Gingerly swimming out with phones, we got a few snaps before heading up the trail to some more creek. Familiar memories of placing Moon Lillies while checking out the dam. As we missed the first waypoint, it was a guessing game of what our friends from NP hate the least. We decided on something which turned out to be right.

Having a decent search at GZ, I was pleased to turn up the goods in what seemed like an ambiguous location. The trip back was full of leeches, literally I have open wounds from the various ‘blood baths’ on my feet. Despite this, we had an awesome time up here on one of the best caches I have done in a long time. Take the time and the effort to come up here! TFTC!!!!!

 

It's logs like these that make it worth all the effort of hiding the cache.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

COs who won't delete obviously false logs, even when pointed out to them. Also challenge logs where someone is allowed to keep their log when they haven't done the challenge. This is especially bad when it's a difficult challenge, such as example below. To drive this it's thousands of kms. I drove about 12,000kms to fulfil this. To fulfil this challenge a cache in every state and territory of the mainland of Australia (including Tasmania) must be logged within twelve months.

Perhaps some COs don't want to annoy the cacher by deleting their log, but they could be annoying a whole lot more cachers by not deleting it.

 

Found it (Proof supplied)

Found it (Proof supplied) "We concur with (previous cacher's) observations."

Write Note (Photograph of log supplied showing the two below didn't find this cache. No signature for either.) " I include a photograph of the log, which shows who has really found this."

Found it (Proof supplied of caches found in the States & Territories) But they had not visited this cache to sign the log.

Found it (NO proof) 10 finds - I checked their finds and they have only found caches in ONE state.

Found it (Proof supplied)

Found it (Proof supplied)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

COs who won't delete obviously false logs, even when pointed out to them.

 

While I agree with you, and I will always take the side of integrity, it's their cache at the end of the day.  Cheating cheapens the cheaters' finds, but it only taints your find from your perspective.

 

I have one challenge cache on my watchlist.  It doesn't get found much - I'm the fifth to log a find, and sixth to sign the log.  I watch it more out of curiosity as to who else is trying to complete it than anyone else.  I leave it to the CO to check any other finder's homework.

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

To fulfill this challenge a cache in every state and territory of the mainland of Australia (including Tasmania) must be logged within twelve months.

 

Were I the CO, I'd up the difficulty.  I'd say 12,000 km of driving, plus a flight to Hobart, rates a bit higher than 1.5 stars.  That, plus from your log, it looks like a tough hide.  But again, rating a cache, like policing the log, is the CO's responsibility.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

flight to Hobart

I took the car ferry. My one night cruise I joked.

 

You must have taken a lot of searching to find the cache I referred to.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

flight to Hobart

I took the car ferry. My one night cruise I joked.

 

You must have taken a lot of searching to find the cache I referred to.

 

Not really.  I figured if it meant that much to you, it must be a favorite.  Not many challenge caches in your favorites, so it wasn't hard.  Definitely a 1.5 star difficulty, or less.  :laughing:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Oxford Stone said:

GC5BFD9, first search result if you google "to fulfil this challenge..." + "geocache"!

 

That would have been a good way to find it.

 

For the record, the second result in that search, GC6VF7W, is rated at five stars and has no time limit.  So my bigger irk with that challenge would definitely be the low-ball rating.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, hzoi said:

For the record, the second result in that search, GC6VF7W, is rated at five stars and has no time limit. 

 

If we only had started caching a bit earlier. SA and ACT are still on "the list" and NSW/QLD were pre-caching visits. So not so hard to do, even for antipodes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, hzoi said:

While I agree with you, and I will always take the side of integrity, it's their cache at the end of the day.  Cheating cheapens the cheaters' finds, but it only taints your find from your perspective. 

 

Insofar as finding, sure, but false logs can also mislead potential finders. To the original point, COs who don't delete false finds aren't just allowing 'cheating' to perpetuate (that doesn't bother me as much, as you describe), but rather that the CO knows the log's integrity is false and implies an unverified status for potential finders. A Find implies 'findable as of...', but if there's a problem that would have hindered that find (especially if it's actually missing as of that date), then find is then misleading. (as one example)

A known false log should be deleted by the CO. Not for the sake of thwarting cheaters, but for the integrity of the log history accordingo the CO's best knowledge.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I must go log that one when next in the area, as I qualify.

Do I see a flaw in the requirements? "Each state and territory" Australia has ten territories and six states. One territory is in Antarctica which would push the difficulty rate up a tad.

The wording could be amended each state plus ACT and NT.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, colleda said:

Do I see a flaw in the requirements? "Each state and territory" Australia has ten territories and six states. One territory is in Antarctica which would push the difficulty rate up a tad.

The wording could be amended each state plus ACT and NT.

 

Looks like GS mislabels Jervis Bay Territory caches as either NSW or ACT. Looks like an opportunity for another regional souvenir.  

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

Looks like GS mislabels Jervis Bay Territory caches as either NSW or ACT. Looks like an opportunity for another regional souvenir.  

I did not know that there was a Jervis Bay Territory until now. Live and learn.  Australian Antarctica Territory has a Webcam with one find which took 15 years to FTF.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

Jervis Bay

I always thought Jervis Bay was part of the ACT.  I did some quick reading. Apparently it's not, except for electoral purposes. Oh, and the ACT arranges its garbage collection :D .

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/20/2019 at 3:14 AM, Harry Dolphin said:

Found a nice section  of an abandoned rail line.  Hid three caches.  And mostly, I get the same the same log for all three.

Makes me wonder why I bothered.

Out of curiosity: The three caches are lying within 700m, all three listings have the same, short description not giving any clue what could be the difference experience in finding the one or the other. Granted two are smalls, one is a micro.

 

So what is you expectation? How would you write three individual find logs on this three caches?

 

When I happen to visit this area I would log one cache with an individual text describing a bit my experience in the area and maybe the condition of the cache. I might have a look for the other caches out of curiosity but (as I assume from afar) most probably would not log the other caches online since I simply would not know what to write and I will never make a c&p log. And I would have loved to hunt instead for an easy Multi along this short trail.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Hynz said:

I might have a look for the other caches out of curiosity but (as I assume from afar) most probably would not log the other caches online since I simply would not know what to write and I will never make a c&p log.

 

As a CO, I'd prefer a C&P log to no log at all.  And as a future searcher, it's always nice to know the cache is there to be found.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Hynz said:

So what is you expectation? How would you write three individual find logs on this three caches? 

Shouldn't be difficult. There might be a generic somponent, as there's only three, but I'm not keen on repeating the same thing ad nauseum. I might write something like,

 

Cache one: 'I saw these three caches, so I thought I would take the walk and find them. Lovely day, although there are clouds on the horizon. This cache was quickly found and the cache and log are good. Then it was off to number two. TFTC.

 

Cache two: 'After a pleasant walk I arrived at the second cache. It too and its log are in good condition, although only a few spaces left to sign, so the CO might consider a visit to replace the log. The clouds have crept a little closer, so I do think rain is on the way. I spotted an orchid beside the tracks, not where I expected to see one. Off to number three. TFTC.

 

Cache three: Final find, and another log that could do with a replacement. Did I have a fright, a black snake slithered across my path, but after I recovered, I pulled out my camera and followed it to take its photograph (included). A handsome specimen. Now back the way I came. Thank you for this excellent series; I did enjoy the short outing. I felt the first sprinkles of rain as I reached my car. TFTC.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

After my previous one and made up answers I checked an actual short series of caches for the real logs I made. Maybe not as verbose as the made up ones I wrote, but still a different log for each. I had a lot of logging that day and was travelling away from home, to put it into perspective.

I have been known to do generic logs for long power trails, but even then, if something stands out, such as cache needs maintenance, wonderful view from a cache, or that snake; I would add an individual comment for that cache.

 

Real logs:

Cache 1: I found this quickly. This is a great hide and idea. Worth a favourite point. TFTC

 

Cache 2: I searched for AGES for this and was thinking this was going to be a DNF, but then I found it, about 14 metres from where my GPS indicated. (All the others in this series my GPS agreed with the coordinates; just this one it didn't.) TFTC

 

Cache 3: The coordinates were spot on for this one, which made a quick find. TFTC

 

Cache 4: More good coordinates. This walk is good exercise, over the sand. TFTC

 

 Cache 5: The last of the four, and then I sat down to work out the final. TFTC

 

Cache 6: The final coordinates worked out, I set out to claim this one. I had a different number for 'S', but it didn't make sense, so I substituted the logical number, which let me to GZ. This gave me good exercise over the sand and got me out of my car. About a five kilometre walk. Worth a favourite point for the series. TFTC

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have been known to do generic logs for long power trails, but even then, if something stands out, such as cache needs maintenance, wonderful view from a cache, or that snake; I would add an individual comment for that cache.

 

Likewise. The only times I really do a 100% c/p log are literally long stretches of identical caches on a powertrail. And I do those much less often these days as they're typically less interesting.  Since I compose each log individually I often generate a generic 'day' short paragraph (sentence or two) and even that may morph over time, followed by a sentence or more of comments about that particular cache. Rarely is the entire log a duplicate of the others that day.

I think that using the field note Draft Compose page helps to push you into that mentality. But I am seeing more people in my region these days doing many more generic c/p logs.

 

Not many do that multi-paragraph "here how my entire wonderful day went and thank you to all cache owners for contributing to our wonderful day. Find #239847129" impersonal block that probably barely anyone reads at all. (save those for blogs and facebook posts please :P )

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

I don't understand either why people share accounts, because people are not always together. Imagine a power trail. They only find every second one, because their partner is finding the other. I would feel dishonest doing his, but I suspect some at least of joint accounts would do this. No wonder they have such large amounts of finds. I don't like including children either. I think when they are old enough to log a find they should have their own account. I have seen a number of cases of children, now older, logging finds and saying I found this as part of (name) and now I have my own account I am now logging caches I found.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

 Imagine a power trail. They only find every second one, because their partner is finding the other. I would feel dishonest doing his, but I suspect some at least of joint accounts would do this.

This is done by separate accounts too, or cachers going out in teams. Each finds part of the caches and logs for everyone, in the end everyone logs all caches. Nothing to do with shared accounts.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

This is done by separate accounts too, or cachers going out in teams. Each finds part of the caches and logs for everyone, in the end everyone logs all caches. Nothing to do with shared accounts.

 

Our group has always done this cache by cache together. Not that we have done heaps of power trails. One person drives (as sometimes parking is iffy, it's also a safety thing that the driver stays there and watches for traffic), the others hop out and sign. If they can't find the cache the driver gets out too to search, but for power trails the cache is often obvious from the car.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

 

Curious what "double their counts" actually means to anyone.  What do find counts mean to you ?     Are there prizes ? 

I could care less about stats, only looking at my stat page when somebody brings something up. 

If I could change one thing in this hobby,  it'd be "find count". 

I only log finds today because the system can't delete a cache from search without it...

 

A bit different in start times in this hobby, but all caching couples we knew when we started had shared accounts.

We were usually together, most could tell by logs when we weren't.  One of us went solo, the other simply wouldn't cache.

The other 2/3rds doesn't cache anymore ("beta testing" newbies cache placements ...), but did have a basic account to hold her couple-hundred coins.

 - At the time, we had to scroll through that mess of trackables just to log a found it.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I could care less about...

 

I know this is just one of those examples of two nations divided by a common language, and that this is completely normal usage in the US, but it does still irk me!

 

Vive la difference! ;-)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Ageleni said:

Granted, I haven't read all of these replies, but I have not seen mentioned when a couple has a single account for both of them, and they double their counts by caching individually.  I saw one user finding caches in Arizona and Florida simultaneously for weeks on end.  Turns out the husband was visiting family in Arizona while the wife was on vacation in Florida.  This would be compounded if the entire family shares an account, and the parents are caching at home, sister in college in another state, brother at camp, etc.  I get that it's adorable for everyone in a family to have the same caching account, but if you are caching individually, you really should have individual accounts.  (On my end, when my kids got a little older and wanted to go caching with me, I insisted they get their own accounts, so that they would never log a find under my name when I was not there.  Just seems dishonest.)

 

I know a few couples who have a single account; their logs typically make it clear if it was one or the other or both caching.  I have no problem with that.

 

My only caveat...  If (and this is only an if!) a couple were caching separately at the same time, and were to use these finds for ‘dubious’ challenge cache qualification then I’d find that a little disingenuous.

 

Personally, however, the day my other half found her first cache without me (in Vatican City, no less), was the day I set up her separate account.

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

I know this is just one of those examples of two nations divided by a common language, and that this is completely normal usage in the US, but it does still irk me!

 

Vive la difference! ;-)

It may be common usage in the US, but it's still wrong. If everyone said 2+2=5, it'd still be wrong. ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

It may be common usage in the US, but it's still wrong. If everyone said 2+2=5, it'd still be wrong. ;)

 

Room 101 for you! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/23/2019 at 7:28 PM, IceColdUK said:
On 2/23/2019 at 1:02 PM, cerberus1 said:

I could care less about...

 

I know this is just one of those examples of two nations divided by a common language, and that this is completely normal usage in the US, but it does still irk me!

 

Vive la difference! ;-)

 

With you on that.

But I convinced myself that the writer of said phrase knows a reasonable alternative explanation that still allows the phrase make sense by its implied usage. That is: "I could care less, but I'm doing you a favour by caring as much as I am." :laughing:

But yes... otherwise, "couldn't"... couldn't couldn't couldn't... irk irk irk... :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

With you on that.

But I convinced myself that the writer of said phrase knows a reasonable alternative explanation that still allows the phrase make sense by its implied usage. That is: "I could care less, but I'm doing you a favour by caring as much as I am." :laughing:

But yes... otherwise, "couldn't"... couldn't couldn't couldn't... irk irk irk... :P

Here in Oz we say "couldn't care less" but it means the same. Just regional differences as mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Here in Oz we say "couldn't care less" but it means the same. Just regional differences as mentioned above.

Yes, I think the intended expression everywhere, regardless of region, is grammatically correct as "couldn't care less". Which is why it's so irksome when someone says "could care less" =P

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, I think the intended expression everywhere, regardless of region, is grammatically correct as "couldn't care less". Which is why it's so irksome when someone says "could care less" =P

 

Either phenomena is fine with me as long as they are discrete about it.

 

:rolleyes:

 

(yes, I did that on purpose)

Share this post


Link to post

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

Likely an exclusive phone cacher, and thinks everyone uses their phone.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

 

I don't like when COs archive caches just to put new ones on the same area. However, these were archived years ago  (if I'm looking at the right spot) for various reasons, so  I guess that's okay. 

He could have handed the new coordinates on paper for those present, I have seen that happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went to an event yesterday.  The CO archived all the caches in the area before the event, and hid new ones.  Event was 1 PM to 3 PM.  At 2:30, the new caches were published.  Well, they are NOT showing up on my GPS!

 

Back in the days when we set up new caches for events, we'd have a handout for this. 

 

I've seen some COs/event hosts have a laptop or two set up with GPX files.

 

I have started embracing the phone more, now that our phone is somewhat accurate.  But the GPSr is still my primary means of location.

Share this post


Link to post

We see the same around here but caches are archived well in advanced of the (yearly) event. GPX files with the new caches are loaded from laptops to USB sticks or GPS' and by the time the event ends the caches are published. Several events have printed "roadbooks" with all caches in it so all possibilities to have cache info are catered for. I'm not an event goer but I prefer GPX files to be put on an USB stick so I can load the caches to my laptop with GSAK and load my GPS myself. the roadbook then serves as notebook to collect info for waypoints of multis and values for bonuscaches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, papu66 said:

 

I don't like when COs archive caches just to put new ones on the same area. However, these were archived years ago  (if I'm looking at the right spot) for various reasons, so  I guess that's okay. 

He could have handed the new coordinates on paper for those present, I have seen that happen.

Near me a prolific finder and CO archived a series of about 20 caches then relaunched a series of about 20 caches... same ones in same places as we found when we did the walk! Just new log paper. We took the finds and enjoyed the walk, but had to wonder "why did you do that?".

Last week I picked up 3 caches that were fill-ins for archived caches in a series I'd already done several years back, where the CO "was too busy to maintain the caches in 2018" - that was OK I suppose, again a pleasant walk and at least these hides were slightly different from the originals.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Oxford Stone said:

Near me a prolific finder and CO archived a series of about 20 caches then relaunched a series of about 20 caches... same ones in same places as we found when we did the walk! Just new log paper. We took the finds and enjoyed the walk, but had to wonder "why did you do that?".

 

That happens often around here for challenge caches. Once a challenge becomes too "easy", or the CO just wants to do something fresh, they leave the container in place, don't bother checking it or cleaning it or even giving it a new logbook, and publishes a new listing with a new challenge. Clever idea for challenge caching, but not a great idea for the fun of finding containers.

  • Surprised 2

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 44

×