Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

1.Big parks with no caches and where does one get hidden?In the corner on a tree beside the fence where the neighour and 50 other houses can see you.A 1000 places to hide it away from muggles and that's the best spot you can find?(yes i know i have no hides but i still can opionate!!!)

2.Suburban caches in general.

 

They do it on purpose because they have this James Bond secret agent, us against the muggles idea of the game.

Link to comment

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.

this has long been an issue for me. I once hiked for an hour into the wood where a nano cache was hidden. people that hide micros/nanos in areas that can support a larger cache do so because they are too cheap to spend a few dollars to place a cache. They also lack any imagination when hiding a cache. They are just to lazy to put any effort into cache placement. Now this post may P O any of these hiders of micro/nanos but to bad for them

Link to comment

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.

this has long been an issue for me. I once hiked for an hour into the wood where a nano cache was hidden. people that hide micros/nanos in areas that can support a larger cache do so because they are too cheap to spend a few dollars to place a cache. They also lack any imagination when hiding a cache. They are just to lazy to put any effort into cache placement. Now this post may P O any of these hiders of micro/nanos but to bad for them

The generic response is to query if you knew it was a nano when you started your hike. I figured I'd go ahead and toss it out there before those who love them post it. Personally, I support the axiom of hiding the largest cache an area can reasonably support, so long as it's within your budget. I've had to resort to hiding a measly ammo can in an area which would easily support a 40' shipping container, because I couldn't afford the $2500 price tag, not to mention how much it would cost to fill with swag.

Link to comment

I got to a nice, scenic park the other day...wandered into a wooded area with no trail in search of a 'precious' ammo box. About 250 feet later, I reach a spot with trees, wild undergrowth and rotting stumps. The ammo box was "hidden", as usual, next to a fallen tree and covered by a plank of bark. Ammo boxes can be incredibly unsatisfying in their own way...hidden in an unspectacular area of an otherwise terrific park. I'd've taken a weatherproof match tube hidden in a clever way over the poorly placed ammo box any day.

 

I just don't accept that ammo boxes are always better. There is a place for every type of container...so what irks me is the blanket statements about hide types, container types or locales. Nothing spoils caching more than talking to a cynical cacher.

Link to comment

I got to a nice, scenic park the other day...wandered into a wooded area with no trail in search of a 'precious' ammo box. About 250 feet later, I reach a spot with trees, wild undergrowth and rotting stumps. The ammo box was "hidden", as usual, next to a fallen tree and covered by a plank of bark. Ammo boxes can be incredibly unsatisfying in their own way...hidden in an unspectacular area of an otherwise terrific park. I'd've taken a weatherproof match tube hidden in a clever way over the poorly placed ammo box any day.

 

I just don't accept that ammo boxes are always better. There is a place for every type of container...so what irks me is the blanket statements about hide types, container types or locales. Nothing spoils caching more than talking to a cynical cacher.

 

+1

 

I like CLEVER hides. I don't care if they're big or small as long as they make me think. Getting to the GZ and seeing an URP with an ammo can under it is not nearly as exciting as some of the amazingly creative micros I've found in the woods. I do get that they can hold more toys, but as an adult cacher, I'd like to be presented with a challenge.

 

Thankfully, our smaller hides where I live are mostly very creative containers.

 

I love that the cache page shows me all the attributes I may or may not like so I can narrow my search.

Link to comment

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.

this has long been an issue for me. I once hiked for an hour into the wood where a nano cache was hidden. people that hide micros/nanos in areas that can support a larger cache do so because they are too cheap to spend a few dollars to place a cache. They also lack any imagination when hiding a cache. They are just to lazy to put any effort into cache placement. Now this post may P O any of these hiders of micro/nanos but to bad for them

The generic response is to query if you knew it was a nano when you started your hike. I figured I'd go ahead and toss it out there before those who love them post it. Personally, I support the axiom of hiding the largest cache an area can reasonably support, so long as it's within your budget. I've had to resort to hiding a measly ammo can in an area which would easily support a 40' shipping container, because I couldn't afford the $2500 price tag, not to mention how much it would cost to fill with swag.

not all cache sizes are listed properly and there is a chance that after making a long trek the final location may not support a large container, there is no way to know until GZ is located.

Link to comment

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.

this has long been an issue for me. I once hiked for an hour into the wood where a nano cache was hidden. people that hide micros/nanos in areas that can support a larger cache do so because they are too cheap to spend a few dollars to place a cache. They also lack any imagination when hiding a cache. They are just to lazy to put any effort into cache placement. Now this post may P O any of these hiders of micro/nanos but to bad for them

The generic response is to query if you knew it was a nano when you started your hike. I figured I'd go ahead and toss it out there before those who love them post it. Personally, I support the axiom of hiding the largest cache an area can reasonably support, so long as it's within your budget. I've had to resort to hiding a measly ammo can in an area which would easily support a 40' shipping container, because I couldn't afford the $2500 price tag, not to mention how much it would cost to fill with swag.

not all cache sizes are listed properly and there is a chance that after making a long trek the final location may not support a large container, there is no way to know until GZ is located.

That's true. I've lost count of how many smalls I've gone after only to find a film can or other crappy micro container. These occasions are a perfect opportunity for a Needs Maintenance log, pointing out the inaccuracy on the cache page.

Link to comment

Smartphone era lame logs. Which I will define as two words or less (i.e. "found it"), although they most frequently take the form of "Tftc". Drives me absolutely bonkers. And the handful of people who slip through the cracks, and continue to lame log after hiding caches of their own, and finding several hundred or more. They really drive me bonkers. :mad:

 

Well, that is a result of all the lamp post micros. It's a bit hard to write several sentences about those...dry.gif

Link to comment

There are lots of non-smartphone people who leave TFTC or cut & paste logs. Why the H8erade for smartphone users? :)

I write most of my Cachelog- and forumtexts with a smartphone, including this one. My average cachelog text size is ~70 characters (wirhout copy&paste!). No problem. So I don't understand the issues with smartphone users...but this doesn't really irk me.

 

However, it irks me a bit, how some use the smartphone as bad excuse for lame logs.

 

Additionally: long Copy & Paste logs irk me. I even found some having nothing to do with the logged cache (i.e. on a really nice cache unfortunately in the surroundings of a boring powertrail: "Blabla...made powertrail xy...thanks for the nice trail...blabla.")

 

BTW: it irks me really, how Apple implemented some of the input functions in iPhone. I started handheld computing with a PalmIII and still would prefer that genious user interface regarding text handling and calendar management.

Link to comment

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.

this has long been an issue for me. I once hiked for an hour into the wood where a nano cache was hidden. people that hide micros/nanos in areas that can support a larger cache do so because they are too cheap to spend a few dollars to place a cache. They also lack any imagination when hiding a cache. They are just to lazy to put any effort into cache placement. Now this post may P O any of these hiders of micro/nanos but to bad for them

The generic response is to query if you knew it was a nano when you started your hike. I figured I'd go ahead and toss it out there before those who love them post it. Personally, I support the axiom of hiding the largest cache an area can reasonably support, so long as it's within your budget. I've had to resort to hiding a measly ammo can in an area which would easily support a 40' shipping container, because I couldn't afford the $2500 price tag, not to mention how much it would cost to fill with swag.

 

On a positive note if you did hide a 40' shipping container you could be reasonably sure no muggles would steal the cache. Not only that but despite the size of it, based on some caches out there these days all you'd need is a damp scrap of paper in it with a few signatures.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

Placing a cache in or around poison ivy. I've located two caches lately where the only poison ivy around was right at the GZ. It's easy to get "target fixation", becoming so engrossed in locating a small cache way out in the woods that I fail to notice the evil stuff until I've already walked through it. Then I have to carefully strip and wash everything, including my shoes and laces, the minute I get home. So far, I've been lucky. I recently read a log where a woman had taken her granddaughter to find her first cache. When I later arrived at the GZ, I found poison ivy all around it. That little girl may well remember her first geocaching experience for the wrong reason.

Link to comment

Placing a cache in or around poison ivy. I've located two caches lately where the only poison ivy around was right at the GZ. It's easy to get "target fixation", becoming so engrossed in locating a small cache way out in the woods that I fail to notice the evil stuff until I've already walked through it. Then I have to carefully strip and wash everything, including my shoes and laces, the minute I get home. So far, I've been lucky. I recently read a log where a woman had taken her granddaughter to find her first cache. When I later arrived at the GZ, I found poison ivy all around it. That little girl may well remember her first geocaching experience for the wrong reason.

 

This isn't particularly irksome to me personally (I'm immune to poison ivy and oftentimes don't realize it's there until someone else points it out), but I do find this puzzling. We have a local who seems to find it amusing to bury the container in a patch of poison ivy and thorns, and sees it as kind of a "signature." It's as if the person is saying "Finding it isn't enough, I wasn't you to get injured retrieving it."

Edited by HistDrew
Link to comment

Placing a cache in or around poison ivy. I've located two caches lately where the only poison ivy around was right at the GZ. It's easy to get "target fixation", becoming so engrossed in locating a small cache way out in the woods that I fail to notice the evil stuff until I've already walked through it. Then I have to carefully strip and wash everything, including my shoes and laces, the minute I get home. So far, I've been lucky. I recently read a log where a woman had taken her granddaughter to find her first cache. When I later arrived at the GZ, I found poison ivy all around it. That little girl may well remember her first geocaching experience for the wrong reason.

 

This isn't particularly irksome to me personally (I'm immune to poison ivy and oftentimes don't realize it's there until someone else points it out), but I do find this puzzling. We have a local who seems to find it amusing to bury the container in a patch of poison ivy and thorns, and sees it as kind of a "signature." It's as if the person is saying "Finding it isn't enough, I wasn't you to get injured retrieving it."

 

Keep in mind you can gain or lose "immunity" to urushiol.

Also, simply brushing by the leaf doesn't necessarily mean you've been exposed to the oil...I believe the leaf/stem needs to be damaged or crush to bring that to the surface for exposure. I've walked through PI numerous times in my searches, brushing by it without any effect. Any time I accidentally touch it with my hands, of course I wipe them well with some hand wipes I have in my car and then follow that up with a good hand washing with cold water as soon as possible. I have yet to get the rash, though...but I don't assume I'm immune and I know repeated exposure increases the possibility I will suffer for it.

Link to comment

 

This isn't particularly irksome to me personally (I'm immune to poison ivy and oftentimes don't realize it's there until someone else points it out), but I do find this puzzling. We have a local who seems to find it amusing to bury the container in a patch of poison ivy and thorns, and sees it as kind of a "signature." It's as if the person is saying "Finding it isn't enough, I wasn't you to get injured retrieving it."

 

Keep in mind you can gain or lose "immunity" to urushiol.

Also, simply brushing by the leaf doesn't necessarily mean you've been exposed to the oil...I believe the leaf/stem needs to be damaged or crush to bring that to the surface for exposure. I've walked through PI numerous times in my searches, brushing by it without any effect. Any time I accidentally touch it with my hands, of course I wipe them well with some hand wipes I have in my car and then follow that up with a good hand washing with cold water as soon as possible. I have yet to get the rash, though...but I don't assume I'm immune and I know repeated exposure increases the possibility I will suffer for it.

 

Yeah, I've been warned about all this. I've brushed by the stuff, trampled and kicked it in bare feet, used the vines as handholds when climbing--just about everything short of eating or smoking it. I'm one of the very lucky few. My wife is not. She's very sensitive to it and has gotten it from touching my clothing.

 

It's funny, though, because when I was young I was sensitive to it. That sensitivity seems to have gone away. I've read that while people can become sensitive to it, people can also lose sensitivity as well.

 

I'm sure one day I'll wake up covered in it again. Circle of life.

Link to comment

Placing a cache in or around poison ivy. I've located two caches lately where the only poison ivy around was right at the GZ. It's easy to get "target fixation", becoming so engrossed in locating a small cache way out in the woods that I fail to notice the evil stuff until I've already walked through it. Then I have to carefully strip and wash everything, including my shoes and laces, the minute I get home. So far, I've been lucky. I recently read a log where a woman had taken her granddaughter to find her first cache. When I later arrived at the GZ, I found poison ivy all around it. That little girl may well remember her first geocaching experience for the wrong reason.

 

This isn't particularly irksome to me personally (I'm immune to poison ivy and oftentimes don't realize it's there until someone else points it out), but I do find this puzzling. We have a local who seems to find it amusing to bury the container in a patch of poison ivy and thorns, and sees it as kind of a "signature." It's as if the person is saying "Finding it isn't enough, I wasn't you to get injured retrieving it."

 

Just another reason why the website should allow us to be able to ignore all caches by a particular user.

Link to comment

 

This isn't particularly irksome to me personally (I'm immune to poison ivy and oftentimes don't realize it's there until someone else points it out), but I do find this puzzling. We have a local who seems to find it amusing to bury the container in a patch of poison ivy and thorns, and sees it as kind of a "signature." It's as if the person is saying "Finding it isn't enough, I wasn't you to get injured retrieving it."

 

Keep in mind you can gain or lose "immunity" to urushiol.

Also, simply brushing by the leaf doesn't necessarily mean you've been exposed to the oil...I believe the leaf/stem needs to be damaged or crush to bring that to the surface for exposure. I've walked through PI numerous times in my searches, brushing by it without any effect. Any time I accidentally touch it with my hands, of course I wipe them well with some hand wipes I have in my car and then follow that up with a good hand washing with cold water as soon as possible. I have yet to get the rash, though...but I don't assume I'm immune and I know repeated exposure increases the possibility I will suffer for it.

 

Yeah, I've been warned about all this. I've brushed by the stuff, trampled and kicked it in bare feet, used the vines as handholds when climbing--just about everything short of eating or smoking it. I'm one of the very lucky few. My wife is not. She's very sensitive to it and has gotten it from touching my clothing.

 

It's funny, though, because when I was young I was sensitive to it. That sensitivity seems to have gone away. I've read that while people can become sensitive to it, people can also lose sensitivity as well.

 

I'm sure one day I'll wake up covered in it again. Circle of life.

 

I had a friend that was immune for the first 40 years of his life. He was showing off and pulled a handful of poison oak leaves off a vine and crushed them in his hand. The next day, he discovered that he was no longer immune. The problem was that he had transferred the oil to his face and to all the parts of his body that don't normally see the light of day. Repeated exposure breaks the immunity, not the other way around.

Link to comment

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.

AGREE!!!!! If I'm out n the woods micros are no fun...I love finding creative caches that could only be place in woods, Micros are fine for busy parks but come on people, micros are a waste of space in the woods

Link to comment

Cachers who do not hide the container back properly. The cache is hidden behind a rock to keep the bear away. Please put the rock in front of the cache again. Thank you.

AGREE. I worked hard to place my cache in a great hiding space...only to find someone just throw it into the woods

Link to comment

Wondering where my TB, or one I'm watching, is. Logs such as, "This cache is packed full of trackables, so I decided to take a couple and leave one behind." are maddening. My TB still appears in the inventory, but current logs indicate that there are no TBs in the cache. The simple fix is to mention every TB you put into or take out of a cache. It leaves a nice audit trail!

oh this one irks me the most......please don't take the tb if you only going to keep it....Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......

Link to comment

Oh here's an annoyance I ran into recently

 

As listed on cache description:

 

05/22/2004 5:40 P.M. - Increased difficulty level to 4 due to feedback.

 

05/15/2007 9:00 P.M. - Changed the cache and the location since blah blah...

 

05/22/2007 9:30 P.M. - You can log this cache a second time *IF* you have found it before 05/22/2007.

 

06/14/2007 5:30 P.M. - Increased the difficulty rating from 4.0 to 4.5 due to feedback and added another hint.

 

05/17/2009 2:30 P.M. Due to some recent architectural changes to the environment at GZ, we had to relocate the cache a short distance away. Again.

 

Ok, so time/date stamping all the changes is nice to be able to see the progression of the cache, but a lot of people move the cache, change containers, change hints (in the timestamp notes ONLY), etc... and then just post an ammendment to their listing, making it very confusing on the field when searching. It would be much cleaner and more efficient if they just consolidated all the information and changed the listing accordingly. It's cleaner, neater, more organized, and easier to navigate and understand.

 

Though, I'm not one to tell these people how to cache... they've been around since the beginning.

Link to comment
Micros are fine for busy parks but come on people, micros are a waste of space in the woods
FWIW, one of my Favorites is a micro in the woods. Yes, it's all about the location. No, a larger container would not have worked for this cache.

 

Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......
Maybe something like this?

 

Do not keep me! I'm a

TRAVEL BUG®

Help me travel from cache to cache.

 

Visit www.geocaching.com and enter my tracking

code to find out more about my adventures.

Link to comment
Micros are fine for busy parks but come on people, micros are a waste of space in the woods
FWIW, one of my Favorites is a micro in the woods. Yes, it's all about the location. No, a larger container would not have worked for this cache.

 

I've seen plenty of birdhouses in the woods with peanut butter jar size containers (there are lots of examples of birdhouse caches made to hold large containers). I've seen a hollowed out log with a middle-size ammo can (not the smaller can, the next size up). I've also seen fake rocks with a small lock n lock inside. What forest disguise would be created that couldn't be made to fit at least a small cache container? What was it about that forest location that precluded at least a small swag-size container?

Link to comment

Oh here's an annoyance I ran into recently

 

As listed on cache description:

 

05/22/2004 5:40 P.M. - Increased difficulty level to 4 due to feedback.

 

05/15/2007 9:00 P.M. - Changed the cache and the location since blah blah...

 

05/22/2007 9:30 P.M. - You can log this cache a second time *IF* you have found it before 05/22/2007.

 

06/14/2007 5:30 P.M. - Increased the difficulty rating from 4.0 to 4.5 due to feedback and added another hint.

 

05/17/2009 2:30 P.M. Due to some recent architectural changes to the environment at GZ, we had to relocate the cache a short distance away. Again.

 

Ok, so time/date stamping all the changes is nice to be able to see the progression of the cache, but a lot of people move the cache, change containers, change hints (in the timestamp notes ONLY), etc... and then just post an ammendment to their listing, making it very confusing on the field when searching. It would be much cleaner and more efficient if they just consolidated all the information and changed the listing accordingly. It's cleaner, neater, more organized, and easier to navigate and understand.

 

Though, I'm not one to tell these people how to cache... they've been around since the beginning.

 

Actually, the log on 5/22/07 irks me.

If the cache owner himself thinks that the new placement is so different that he will allow an extra found log, then it's a new cache. It should have been archived and relisted.

Link to comment
FWIW, one of my Favorites is a micro in the woods. Yes, it's all about the location. No, a larger container would not have worked for this cache.
What was it about that forest location that precluded at least a small swag-size container?
It's a very specific location in a state forest; just being somewhere nearby wouldn't be as interesting. There's a lot of muggle traffic, since it's a major stop on a self-guided tour, and since it's a cool place to explore. Adding something like a birdhouse or hollowed out log would really stand out at that location, and there are no existing hiding spots that are much larger than a film canister. So there's been a micro-cache there for 8 years.
Link to comment
Micros are fine for busy parks but come on people, micros are a waste of space in the woods
FWIW, one of my Favorites is a micro in the woods. Yes, it's all about the location. No, a larger container would not have worked for this cache.

 

Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......
Maybe something like this?

 

Do not keep me! I'm a

TRAVEL BUG®

Help me travel from cache to cache.

 

Visit www.geocaching.com and enter my tracking

code to find out more about my adventures.

Perfect. love it. b

Link to comment

Apologies if this has been covered before, but inaccurate co-ords.

Especially if logs say so and CO does nothing; or the Google Map, that the CO can check while building the page, obviously puts the pin in the middle of the road / the wrong side of a wall from where it should be. I just lowers the quality of the game when as a cacher you think "yeah I'm within 50' and it's obviously not in that garden but is it behind that roadsign instead?". Not demanding pinpoint accuracy every time but some are just avoidably sloppy.

Link to comment

Apologies if this has been covered before, but inaccurate co-ords.

Especially if logs say so and CO does nothing; or the Google Map, that the CO can check while building the page, obviously puts the pin in the middle of the road / the wrong side of a wall from where it should be. I just lowers the quality of the game when as a cacher you think "yeah I'm within 50' and it's obviously not in that garden but is it behind that roadsign instead?". Not demanding pinpoint accuracy every time but some are just avoidably sloppy.

I posted a Needs Maintenance log when someone's coords were 45' off. They said they couldn't get back to fix it, so they simply posted a new hint, "On the other side of the road." :blink: I contacted the reviewer, who took action. Lo and behold, the coords got properly updated!

Link to comment

Apologies if this has been covered before, but inaccurate co-ords.

Especially if logs say so and CO does nothing; or the Google Map, that the CO can check while building the page, obviously puts the pin in the middle of the road / the wrong side of a wall from where it should be. I just lowers the quality of the game when as a cacher you think "yeah I'm within 50' and it's obviously not in that garden but is it behind that roadsign instead?". Not demanding pinpoint accuracy every time but some are just avoidably sloppy.

 

What irks me is people that get perfectly good coordinates for their new cache from their GPS, publish the cache and then look at Google Maps and decide that because the pin is in the middle of the street, they better change the coordinates. Now, everyone on the ground is looking at their GPS and it's pointing over a wall into private property. Of course, the cache is on the wall and the original coordinates were good to start with.

Link to comment

Apologies if this has been covered before, but inaccurate co-ords.

Especially if logs say so and CO does nothing; or the Google Map, that the CO can check while building the page, obviously puts the pin in the middle of the road / the wrong side of a wall from where it should be. I just lowers the quality of the game when as a cacher you think "yeah I'm within 50' and it's obviously not in that garden but is it behind that roadsign instead?". Not demanding pinpoint accuracy every time but some are just avoidably sloppy.

I posted a Needs Maintenance log when someone's coords were 45' off. They said they couldn't get back to fix it, so they simply posted a new hint, "On the other side of the road." :blink: I contacted the reviewer, who took action. Lo and behold, the coords got properly updated!

 

Did you give them better coordinates?

 

At any rate, I'm glad that I'm not caching in your area. A NM log and getting the reviewer involved over 45'?

Link to comment
Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......
Maybe something like this?

 

Do not keep me! I'm a

TRAVEL BUG®

Help me travel from cache to cache.

 

Visit www.geocaching.com and enter my tracking

code to find out more about my adventures.

Perfect. love it. b
Good to hear...

b0a03037-dfea-46bb-877e-7c5263342dba.jpg

Link to comment

Apologies if this has been covered before, but inaccurate co-ords.

Especially if logs say so and CO does nothing; or the Google Map, that the CO can check while building the page, obviously puts the pin in the middle of the road / the wrong side of a wall from where it should be. I just lowers the quality of the game when as a cacher you think "yeah I'm within 50' and it's obviously not in that garden but is it behind that roadsign instead?". Not demanding pinpoint accuracy every time but some are just avoidably sloppy.

I posted a Needs Maintenance log when someone's coords were 45' off. They said they couldn't get back to fix it, so they simply posted a new hint, "On the other side of the road." :blink: I contacted the reviewer, who took action. Lo and behold, the coords got properly updated!

 

Did you give them better coordinates?

 

At any rate, I'm glad that I'm not caching in your area. A NM log and getting the reviewer involved over 45'?

 

Wow! 15 people report that the coordinates are off and not one bothers to help the guy out by grabbing and posting a set of coordinates?

 

I won't even mention bad coordinates unless I can provide better ones.

Link to comment

I've recently discovered that what bothers me the most is that when you go to the guidelines for hiding a cache directly under I. Placement Guidelines is this quote: "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

Now don't get me wrong, there are some guardrail caches out there that are near something significant, but then there are some that are just there to be there. This didn't really bother me until last weekend when I discovered a series of caches called Geotopia 68. These are a series of caches that are placed along US 68 from Ohio all the way through KY. Just looking at a map showing all of these is ridiculous. Then to top it off I just saw on another forum that somebody had there hide rejected by the reviewer because it was too close to the location of another cache. Seriously? There are stretches in this series that have multiple caches within distances that you would measure in feet! And to the person who posted that their biggest issue was with people simply logging TFTC, what are you supposed to say to some of these? Thanks for bringing me to a seemingly pointless place to find a magnet on a guardrail.

Link to comment

What really bothers me is when someone can't find one of my caches, so they quickly accuse me of having bad coordinates.

 

"I'd like to know what kind of GPS you're using, because I can't find anything with these coordinates."

 

Doesn't matter that other people found it no problem. All that matters is they didn't find it so automatically, I took bad coordinates.

Link to comment

Did you give them better coordinates?

No, because we cache using a smartphone, which everyone knows gives crappy coordinates anyway. :laughing:

 

At any rate, I'm glad that I'm not caching in your area. A NM log and getting the reviewer involved over 45'?

You bet. The original coords were in trees on private property. When we went, the business was closed, but I can imagine problems occurring if the place were open and people were pawing through their property. And 45' is a lot when trying to find a micro in a roadside stand of young trees and brush. A small or regular? Not so bad. But a micro? You betcha.

 

Got the reviewer involved because the CO said that they didn't live in the area, so they weren't able to fix the coords. That screams of absentee COwnership and maintenance issues to me.

 

Feel free pin the Cache Cop badge on me. :ph34r:

 

EDIT: Typo.

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

Did you give them better coordinates?

No, because we cache using a smartphone, which everyone knows gives crappy coordinates anyway. :laughing:

 

At any rate, I'm glad that I'm not caching in your area. A NM log and getting the reviewer involved over 45'?

You bet. The original coords were in trees on private property. When we went, the business was closed, but I can imagine problems occurring if the place were open and people were pawing through their property. And 45' is a lot when trying to find a micro in a roadside stand of young trees and brush. A small or regular? Not so bad. But a micro? You betcha.

 

Got the reviewer involved because the CO said that they didn't live in the area, so they weren't able to fix the coords. That screams of absentee COwnership and maintenance issues to me.

 

Feel free pin the Cache Cop badge on me. :ph34r:

 

EDIT: Typo.

 

I apologize. That comment was uncalled for.

 

It occurs to me that I did the same thing over 60'. In this case, the cache could be reached without leaving the trail but people were scrambling up the hillside causing erosion damage and the CO refused to correct the coordinates despite being provided with accurate coordinates from several finders.

Link to comment
Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......
Maybe something like this?

 

Do not keep me! I'm a

TRAVEL BUG®

Help me travel from cache to cache.

 

Visit www.geocaching.com and enter my tracking

code to find out more about my adventures.

Perfect. love it. b
Good to hear...

b0a03037-dfea-46bb-877e-7c5263342dba.jpg

wow. can I buy that from geocachi?

Link to comment

Did you give them better coordinates?

No, because we cache using a smartphone, which everyone knows gives crappy coordinates anyway. :laughing:

 

At any rate, I'm glad that I'm not caching in your area. A NM log and getting the reviewer involved over 45'?

You bet. The original coords were in trees on private property. When we went, the business was closed, but I can imagine problems occurring if the place were open and people were pawing through their property. And 45' is a lot when trying to find a micro in a roadside stand of young trees and brush. A small or regular? Not so bad. But a micro? You betcha.

 

Got the reviewer involved because the CO said that they didn't live in the area, so they weren't able to fix the coords. That screams of absentee COwnership and maintenance issues to me.

 

Feel free pin the Cache Cop badge on me. :ph34r:

 

EDIT: Typo.

 

I apologize. That comment was uncalled for.

 

It occurs to me that I did the same thing over 60'. In this case, the cache could be reached without leaving the trail but people were scrambling up the hillside causing erosion damage and the CO refused to correct the coordinates despite being provided with accurate coordinates from several finders.

 

http://coord.info/GC4AFJV is one that springs to mind near me - see logs.

 

So in all seriousness, Don, which am I supposed to trust more - gps on my Sony phone, or Google Maps? I'm a comparative newbie and non-understander of GPS technology.

Link to comment
Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......
Maybe something like this?

 

Do not keep me! I'm a

TRAVEL BUG®

Help me travel from cache to cache.

 

Visit www.geocaching.com and enter my tracking

code to find out more about my adventures.

Perfect. love it. b
Good to hear...

b0a03037-dfea-46bb-877e-7c5263342dba.jpg

wow. can I buy that from geocachi?

 

Um... I thought they all said that. The one I bought off the site did.

Link to comment
Hmmm an idea maybe geo can make water proof. tags that say don't keep. move. to the next cache. .......
Maybe something like this?

 

Do not keep me! I'm a

TRAVEL BUG®

Help me travel from cache to cache.

 

Visit www.geocaching.com and enter my tracking

code to find out more about my adventures.

Perfect. love it. b
Good to hear...

b0a03037-dfea-46bb-877e-7c5263342dba.jpg

wow. can I buy that from geocachi?

 

Um... I thought they all said that. The one I bought off the site did.

 

:anicute::o:lol: Yes you are right TB.... I had " trackable tags/Cachekinz in mind....I've lost/missing a few maybe because they are cute, then I get a cute key chain ect....I still would like the same tag to go with cachekinz :anicute:

Link to comment

Did you give them better coordinates?

No, because we cache using a smartphone, which everyone knows gives crappy coordinates anyway. :laughing:

 

At any rate, I'm glad that I'm not caching in your area. A NM log and getting the reviewer involved over 45'?

You bet. The original coords were in trees on private property. When we went, the business was closed, but I can imagine problems occurring if the place were open and people were pawing through their property. And 45' is a lot when trying to find a micro in a roadside stand of young trees and brush. A small or regular? Not so bad. But a micro? You betcha.

 

Got the reviewer involved because the CO said that they didn't live in the area, so they weren't able to fix the coords. That screams of absentee COwnership and maintenance issues to me.

 

Feel free pin the Cache Cop badge on me. :ph34r:

 

EDIT: Typo.

 

I apologize. That comment was uncalled for.

 

It occurs to me that I did the same thing over 60'. In this case, the cache could be reached without leaving the trail but people were scrambling up the hillside causing erosion damage and the CO refused to correct the coordinates despite being provided with accurate coordinates from several finders.

 

http://coord.info/GC4AFJV is one that springs to mind near me - see logs.

 

So in all seriousness, Don, which am I supposed to trust more - gps on my Sony phone, or Google Maps? I'm a comparative newbie and non-understander of GPS technology.

 

I would prefer any GPS device over Google Maps/Earth, and for hiding a cache, the guidelines require one. The problem with Google has to do with the alignment of the images, which can be imprecise in many areas.

 

I don't own a smartphone but many on the forum have insisted that you can get good coordinates from a phone provided that you have the right software, time and patience. I have no reason to doubt them.

 

In my area, it common to look up a new cache on Google and see the pin in the middle of the street. When you get to GZ, the GPS leads you to an object on the side of the street where the cache is hidden. Obviously, the alignment is off about 40-60'. New cachers will hide a cache and submit perfectly good coordinates, then after the cache is published, they look at Google and think that the coordinates are wrong. They then change them, so when you get there with a GPS, it will lead you 40-60' away.

 

My best advice is to learn how to use and then trust your device. Get your coordinates and then walk away and see if your device will lead you back. Keep doing it from different direction until you are confident that they are good.

Link to comment

Also, don't be afraid to use waypoint averaging, if your device supports it. I only have 2 caches. But each one of them I did several waypoint averages to try to get the best coordinates I could. (One of them was really tricky, because I wanted the particular coordinate to determine the location, rather than vice versa.)

This is one phase of the cache hiding process where I actually like using Google Earth, or some other mapping software which accepts imputing of coordinates. Generally, to average coordinates, I walk up to ground zero and snap a set of coords after a few secnds to let the GPS settle. Then I pick several different cardinal points and walk off a hundred feet or so, returning, and grabbing several more sets of coords. For the most part, this works well, and I'm satisfied with the results. Other times, the results just seem wonky. Maybe it's a poorly arranged satellite distribution? Maybe it's some natural or man made obstruction? Maybe my GPSr is tired? Who knows. When I find myself getting results I am unsatisfied with, (AKA: Wonky), I'll take all these coordinates home, punch them into Google Earth, zoom way in, and pick a point central to all the waypoints. Then I test that one to see where it takes me.

Link to comment

Ah. That's like manually doing waypoint averaging, but allowing you to throw out (what you hope are) wild readings. In some cases, that can be more accurate than the automated function in the GPSr, such as when a tower or building or something keeps confusing the satellite signal bounce, or something. You might be able to recognize the wonky readings, throw them out, then visually pick a mean point. Makes sense.

 

Edit: At any rate, using some kind of averaging is a good idea.

Edited by MountainWoods
Link to comment

I don't know why anyone would rely on Google Maps. Every time I use it the icon keeps jumping around as I move in. Going to caches I have found and know for a fact where they are, the icon never seems to actually be on the cache and it will jump to several locations and be off as much as a couple hundred feet. That doesn't instill confidence in me. It might suggest a place to park and a trail to take once I'm on site with my GPS pointing where I should go but I wouldn't trust it beyond that.

 

On the other hand, GPS had me 2/10 mile in the middle of the woods when I should have been at the edge of the woods the other day. Not sure the prettier half of the team was too pleased about spending our 40th anniversary pointlessly searching the woods for something that wasn't there.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 50
×
×
  • Create New...