Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

Link to comment

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

In this case, it's time for an ammo can under a fake rock or a tree hide with a lock&lock in a leafy camo basket! :D

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

I remember years ago, (maybe '09), hiking a trail and stopping at three spots to admire the views. At all three, I investigated the area trying to figure out a way to place a cache that met my expectations of what a cache was and would also not be a muggle target. There wasn't a good spot, not even for a micro, so I passed these spots up. A few months later, another cacher came by and dropped prescription bottles at all three locations. He simply gathered up rocks and piled them on top. They didn't last long but he got a lot of great comments about the views. Personally, I don't mind a micro if you are working with the features of the environment and it is not intentionally designed to be evil, or worse, needle in a haystack. Hiding a pill bottle in a man made rock pile just lacks imagination, imo.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

Like Don J, I too had found a spot that I felt needed a cache to bring people to admire, in this case, fantastic coastal views. I decided that, although it was a bush/scrub setting, that I would use a magnetic nano attached to a steel railing - why? The spot I chose is regularly subjected to bushfire and, at the time of placing, a fire had recently been through. The place was almost moonscape, hard clay ground, no hidey holes, nothing. Old stumps and dead trees had long since been burned out. A plastic container would have melted. Ammo can? Too big. (The area does quickly regenerate).

In addition, I made sure of accurate coordinates (no tree cover), and a hint. The site of this nano cache has received many favorable comments which I think justified its use. So, yes, there can be a place for a nano in the bush. (See GC44R51). Also, this cache was part of a series that, with the exception of one other micro (not in bush) were small or regular containers.

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

I remember years ago, (maybe '09), hiking a trail and stopping at three spots to admire the views. At all three, I investigated the area trying to figure out a way to place a cache that met my expectations of what a cache was and would also not be a muggle target. There wasn't a good spot, not even for a micro, so I passed these spots up. A few months later, another cacher came by and dropped prescription bottles at all three locations. He simply gathered up rocks and piled them on top. They didn't last long but he got a lot of great comments about the views. Personally, I don't mind a micro if you are working with the features of the environment and it is not intentionally designed to be evil, or worse, needle in a haystack. Hiding a pill bottle in a man made rock pile just lacks imagination, imo.

 

Yes. I agree with Chief and Don. I want to enjoy the location AND I would like the cache to enhance that experience, not detract from it.

Link to comment

Winter.

 

It's dark. No more stopping off for a quick jaunt across a field for the daily fix on the way home from work.

 

It's muddy. On Monday I was third to find a cache 4 feet up a tree and it was muddy! How does that happen?

 

...yet there are STILL nettles!

 

Time for urban caches of course - explore a new town get some caches maybe even some Xmas shopping! And / or just take a few days off and come back fresh; or, what the hell, just get muddy, cold and stung; or emigrate to the Southern Hemisphere?

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

I remember years ago, (maybe '09), hiking a trail and stopping at three spots to admire the views. At all three, I investigated the area trying to figure out a way to place a cache that met my expectations of what a cache was and would also not be a muggle target. There wasn't a good spot, not even for a micro, so I passed these spots up. A few months later, another cacher came by and dropped prescription bottles at all three locations. He simply gathered up rocks and piled them on top. They didn't last long but he got a lot of great comments about the views. Personally, I don't mind a micro if you are working with the features of the environment and it is not intentionally designed to be evil, or worse, needle in a haystack. Hiding a pill bottle in a man made rock pile just lacks imagination, imo.

 

Yes. I agree with Chief and Don. I want to enjoy the location AND I would like the cache to enhance that experience, not detract from it.

 

I agree, both are what i like to find as well. But, sometimes we just can't have both. In this case, i would at least get to experience the special location the micro brought me to. There probably wouldn't be any experience at all if not for the cache listing getting my attention in the first place.

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

I remember years ago, (maybe '09), hiking a trail and stopping at three spots to admire the views. At all three, I investigated the area trying to figure out a way to place a cache that met my expectations of what a cache was and would also not be a muggle target. There wasn't a good spot, not even for a micro, so I passed these spots up. A few months later, another cacher came by and dropped prescription bottles at all three locations. He simply gathered up rocks and piled them on top. They didn't last long but he got a lot of great comments about the views. Personally, I don't mind a micro if you are working with the features of the environment and it is not intentionally designed to be evil, or worse, needle in a haystack. Hiding a pill bottle in a man made rock pile just lacks imagination, imo.

 

Yes. I agree with Chief and Don. I want to enjoy the location AND I would like the cache to enhance that experience, not detract from it.

 

I agree, both are what i like to find as well. But, sometimes we just can't have both. In this case, i would at least get to experience the special location the micro brought me to. There probably wouldn't be any experience at all if not for the cache listing getting my attention in the first place.

 

Maybe it's because I think of geocaching as multifaceted - a good caching experience includes not just a good location but also a nice cache find. For me, as a CO and finder, that means a fuller experience, geocaching game is 50% geo, 50% caching.

I would not hide an unimaginative, poor quality cache with an iffy lifespan, just to bring someone to a spot. If I had the time and inclination I might make multiple trips to figure out a decent multi or puzzle that incorporated the view.

 

I'm agreeing with Chief and Don because if a cache hide can't be an overall good quality experience I would skip the location. In my experience people are too quick to drop a poor quality micro in scenic lookouts just because it's the easy thing to do.

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

I remember years ago, (maybe '09), hiking a trail and stopping at three spots to admire the views. At all three, I investigated the area trying to figure out a way to place a cache that met my expectations of what a cache was and would also not be a muggle target. There wasn't a good spot, not even for a micro, so I passed these spots up. A few months later, another cacher came by and dropped prescription bottles at all three locations. He simply gathered up rocks and piled them on top. They didn't last long but he got a lot of great comments about the views. Personally, I don't mind a micro if you are working with the features of the environment and it is not intentionally designed to be evil, or worse, needle in a haystack. Hiding a pill bottle in a man made rock pile just lacks imagination, imo.

 

Yes. I agree with Chief and Don. I want to enjoy the location AND I would like the cache to enhance that experience, not detract from it.

 

I agree, both are what i like to find as well. But, sometimes we just can't have both. In this case, i would at least get to experience the special location the micro brought me to. There probably wouldn't be any experience at all if not for the cache listing getting my attention in the first place.

 

Maybe it's because I think of geocaching as multifaceted - a good caching experience includes not just a good location but also a nice cache find. For me, as a CO and finder, that means a fuller experience, geocaching game is 50% geo, 50% caching.

I would not hide an unimaginative, poor quality cache with an iffy lifespan, just to bring someone to a spot. If I had the time and inclination I might make multiple trips to figure out a decent multi or puzzle that incorporated the view.

 

I'm agreeing with Chief and Don because if a cache hide can't be an overall good quality experience I would skip the location. In my experience people are too quick to drop a poor quality micro in scenic lookouts just because it's the easy thing to do.

 

Again, i agree with you in that i don't wish to see a poor quality, limited lifespan cache placed. I like caches that provide both, a creative hide AND a nice location. There are times when this is hard to put together.

 

I would not place a cache that consisted of a pile of rocks and pill bottle. If the location was one that i thought people might enjoy, then i would try to find a way to place a good watertight container of some type that would not be prone to muggleness. If i couldn't figure out a way to do that, then i might try incorporating it into a multi somehow. If none of the above, then yes, no cache needs to be placed there.

Link to comment

The indiscriminate use of the "Scenic View" attribute.

 

I am trying to plan a trip for visitors from Europe and hoped to include geocaches at particularly scenic locations. I tried a PQ that included this attribute and unfortunately many hides that include this attribute in my PQ are along mundane power trails (e.g. rails to trails) with no view.

 

As a side note I would love to see a "Power Trail" attribute that could be applied by a CO and then I could use to exclude/include this type of cache with a PQ.

Link to comment

This irks me....large groups that treat every cache they find that day as if it were a power trail cache. 25 or more log entries on a cache page and all of them are cut n paste logs thanking the organizer for the hike. Most of cachers probably never even saw the caches, well perhaps the geocache they were assigned to go find then sign for everyone else. The logs provide no information specific to the cache so if you are out in the field and check the logs, the last 5 logs are no help at all.

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

That's a darn good question. Just yesterday I scouted out a spot where I'd like to put a new cache...a lone pecan tree in a sugar cane field, easily accessible but far enough off the road to be picturesque. I thought it would be a good location but on inspection there was just no decent hidey hole to be found to conceal at least a Small container. I could have easily found a spot for a Micro, but it just didn't feel right for the location...I felt like it would have been lame. Maybe that's just me, though.

 

Micros have their place, especially in an urban environment, but out in the wilds a micro is just annoying :(

 

In your case, there were not tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a small or regular. I admit that regular sized caches are what i prefer to find but in this case, a micro would have been fine because of the location. For me, the special location would have definitely trumped the size of the container placed there.

 

I remember years ago, (maybe '09), hiking a trail and stopping at three spots to admire the views. At all three, I investigated the area trying to figure out a way to place a cache that met my expectations of what a cache was and would also not be a muggle target. There wasn't a good spot, not even for a micro, so I passed these spots up. A few months later, another cacher came by and dropped prescription bottles at all three locations. He simply gathered up rocks and piled them on top. They didn't last long but he got a lot of great comments about the views. Personally, I don't mind a micro if you are working with the features of the environment and it is not intentionally designed to be evil, or worse, needle in a haystack. Hiding a pill bottle in a man made rock pile just lacks imagination, imo.

 

Yes. I agree with Chief and Don. I want to enjoy the location AND I would like the cache to enhance that experience, not detract from it.

 

I agree, both are what i like to find as well. But, sometimes we just can't have both. In this case, i would at least get to experience the special location the micro brought me to. There probably wouldn't be any experience at all if not for the cache listing getting my attention in the first place.

 

Maybe it's because I think of geocaching as multifaceted - a good caching experience includes not just a good location but also a nice cache find. For me, as a CO and finder, that means a fuller experience, geocaching game is 50% geo, 50% caching.

I would not hide an unimaginative, poor quality cache with an iffy lifespan, just to bring someone to a spot. If I had the time and inclination I might make multiple trips to figure out a decent multi or puzzle that incorporated the view.

 

I'm agreeing with Chief and Don because if a cache hide can't be an overall good quality experience I would skip the location. In my experience people are too quick to drop a poor quality micro in scenic lookouts just because it's the easy thing to do.

 

Again, i agree with you in that i don't wish to see a poor quality, limited lifespan cache placed. I like caches that provide both, a creative hide AND a nice location. There are times when this is hard to put together.

 

I would not place a cache that consisted of a pile of rocks and pill bottle. If the location was one that i thought people might enjoy, then i would try to find a way to place a good watertight container of some type that would not be prone to muggleness. If i couldn't figure out a way to do that, then i might try incorporating it into a multi somehow. If none of the above, then yes, no cache needs to be placed there.

I think we all see eye to eye on this. A beautiful spot should not be marred by a crappy cache. By utilizing our past experience, with a heavy dose of creativity, we can usually come up with a way to create a great cache in just about any awesome location. Personally, I don't hide micros. Just not my thing. The obvious downside to this is, when I find such a spot, I either have to kick my creativity up several notches, so I can bring folks to the beloved ammo can, or forgo the hide altogether. Thankfully, I have friends in social networks who don't mind hiding micros, and it is not unusual, after I post pics of such locations, to see a match safe or preform pop up there soon after.

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

2) SL TNLN TFTC Logs. If someone has went to the effort to hide a cache and successfully submit a listing ... surely the least you can do is write a few lines about your experience.

Link to comment

It drives me crazy when a CO disables a cache, says they will get back to it, and six months later there it sits....still disabled. Take care of it or archive it! :mad:

 

We like to offer to help out on caches we've already found so we send a message to the CO and they write back: "No, don't worry, we'll be down there next weekend, thanks anyway!" then it sits for another six months. Pah.

 

In the meantime, the same CO puts out another half dozen caches...

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

2) SL TNLN TFTC Logs. If someone has went to the effort to hide a cache and successfully submit a listing ... surely the least you can do is write a few lines about your experience.

 

I forgot about this one. Yes, it happened on one of my caches placed in a tree in the middle of a creek that hadn't been tried for in a while. Someone took it upon themselves to log a needs archive on it just because of the length of time since the last found log. I always try to hide my caches so that they last and on this one, i made sure to tie it so that it wouldn't go anywhere. Because of this, and the fact that it's hidden in a spot no muggle would probably ever go, i figured it would still be in place. Went out to check on it and sure enough, it was in place.

 

Needless to say, i posted a note on the cache page stating my displeasure with the armchair log.

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

2) SL TNLN TFTC Logs. If someone has went to the effort to hide a cache and successfully submit a listing ... surely the least you can do is write a few lines about your experience.

 

I forgot about this one. Yes, it happened on one of my caches placed in a tree in the middle of a creek that hadn't been tried for in a while. Someone took it upon themselves to log a needs archive on it just because of the length of time since the last found log. I always try to hide my caches so that they last and on this one, i made sure to tie it so that it wouldn't go anywhere. Because of this, and the fact that it's hidden in a spot no muggle would probably ever go, i figured it would still be in place. Went out to check on it and sure enough, it was in place.

 

Needless to say, i posted a note on the cache page stating my displeasure with the armchair log.

 

LOL, I learned long ago that "the spot that no muggle would probably ever go", is usually the spot where they go to pee.

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

 

Yabbut . . . .

 

I know this area of my state *very* well. And there have been more than a few times that I have DNFd a cache where the CO hasn't logged on in a long time (>1 year), or where I know the CO isn't an active cacher any more. So I put the cache on a watchlist. After a few more DNFs, if nobody else has, I'll put a NM on it without another visit. And then an NA. But that's only if I'm certain of the situation.

 

Out of my area, though, never.

 

Add to "irks," newbies who put a NA on a virtual that can still be logged. Saw that, where the newbie noticed the CO hadn't logged on for several years and the virtual had some nearby construction that made it temporarily unavailable.

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

 

Yabbut . . . .

 

I know this area of my state *very* well. And there have been more than a few times that I have DNFd a cache where the CO hasn't logged on in a long time (>1 year), or where I know the CO isn't an active cacher any more. So I put the cache on a watchlist. After a few more DNFs, if nobody else has, I'll put a NM on it without another visit. And then an NA. But that's only if I'm certain of the situation.

 

Out of my area, though, never.

 

Add to "irks," newbies who put a NA on a virtual that can still be logged. Saw that, where the newbie noticed the CO hadn't logged on for several years and the virtual had some nearby construction that made it temporarily unavailable.

 

You did visit and try for the cache so you do know that something may be amiss. The irk i'm getting at is when someone posts a NA even though they havn't ever visited ground zero or performed a search.

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

 

Yabbut . . . .

 

I know this area of my state *very* well. And there have been more than a few times that I have DNFd a cache where the CO hasn't logged on in a long time (>1 year), or where I know the CO isn't an active cacher any more. So I put the cache on a watchlist. After a few more DNFs, if nobody else has, I'll put a NM on it without another visit. And then an NA. But that's only if I'm certain of the situation.

 

Out of my area, though, never.

 

Add to "irks," newbies who put a NA on a virtual that can still be logged. Saw that, where the newbie noticed the CO hadn't logged on for several years and the virtual had some nearby construction that made it temporarily unavailable.

 

You did visit and try for the cache so you do know that something may be amiss. The irk i'm getting at is when someone posts a NA even though they havn't ever visited ground zero or performed a search.

 

I post armchair NA's all the time. If there's a string of 12 DNFs from experienced cachers, there's no way I'm going to get a different result if I go to GZ. I'm good, but I'm not that good.

Link to comment

1) Armchair Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived Loggers. I'd never dream of logging same unless I'd actually went out and tried to find the cache.

 

Yabbut . . . .

 

I know this area of my state *very* well. And there have been more than a few times that I have DNFd a cache where the CO hasn't logged on in a long time (>1 year), or where I know the CO isn't an active cacher any more. So I put the cache on a watchlist. After a few more DNFs, if nobody else has, I'll put a NM on it without another visit. And then an NA. But that's only if I'm certain of the situation.

 

Out of my area, though, never.

 

Add to "irks," newbies who put a NA on a virtual that can still be logged. Saw that, where the newbie noticed the CO hadn't logged on for several years and the virtual had some nearby construction that made it temporarily unavailable.

 

You did visit and try for the cache so you do know that something may be amiss. The irk i'm getting at is when someone posts a NA even though they havn't ever visited ground zero or performed a search.

 

I post armchair NA's all the time. If there's a string of 12 DNFs from experienced cachers, there's no way I'm going to get a different result if I go to GZ. I'm good, but I'm not that good.

 

You've been around long enough to know better so i know you're just kidding with us. Ha Ha,,, good one! :laughing:

Link to comment

 

I post armchair NA's all the time. If there's a string of 12 DNFs from experienced cachers, there's no way I'm going to get a different result if I go to GZ. I'm good, but I'm not that good.

 

You've been around long enough to know better so i know you're just kidding with us. Ha Ha,,, good one! :laughing:

 

Our reviewer doesn't have a problem with it. In fact, in response to 99% of my NA logs, she typically disables the cache and gives the CO a 30-day warning. When I started posting NAs, there were many caches in our area that were disabled for 9 months or more. One of the first ones I did had been festering for a good 18 months.

 

Experienced cachers posting armchair NAs are not any different than a reviewer doing a periodic 'sweep' of the area, like many reviewers do. Reviewers do not need to visit GZ to see there is a problem. Cleaning up the gameboard benefits everyone. I have seen many new caches published after missing caches get archived, either by the reviewer or the cache owner.

 

A 30-day warning gives the cache owner a chance to check on things. On the rare occasion that a cache may still be there, despite a long string of DNFs, the cache owner can always request the cache to be unarchived (this happened once here).

Link to comment

 

I post armchair NA's all the time. If there's a string of 12 DNFs from experienced cachers, there's no way I'm going to get a different result if I go to GZ. I'm good, but I'm not that good.

 

You've been around long enough to know better so i know you're just kidding with us. Ha Ha,,, good one! :laughing:

 

Our reviewer doesn't have a problem with it. In fact, in response to 99% of my NA logs, she typically disables the cache and gives the CO a 30-day warning. When I started posting NAs, there were many caches in our area that were disabled for 9 months or more. One of the first ones I did had been festering for a good 18 months.

 

Experienced cachers posting armchair NAs are not any different than a reviewer doing a periodic 'sweep' of the area, like many reviewers do. Reviewers do not need to visit GZ to see there is a problem. Cleaning up the gameboard benefits everyone. I have seen many new caches published after missing caches get archived, either by the reviewer or the cache owner.

 

A 30-day warning gives the cache owner a chance to check on things. On the rare occasion that a cache may still be there, despite a long string of DNFs, the cache owner can always request the cache to be unarchived (this happened once here).

 

I know that reviewers post "needs maintenances" from time to time. This sends the word to a CO which gives them some time to check and correct any problems. It may not be mandatory for a reviewer to do this but i have a feeling that most of them see it as part of their duties.

 

I also realize that there are times when we cachers need to police our own. Imo, this is not one of those times. There can be a multitude of reasons why a cache accrues DNFs. Because of this, i wouldn't dream of getting involved from my armchair. A person needs to actually search for a cache and get a "feel" for themselves of what might be going on before they post a NM or NA log.

Link to comment

 

I also realize that there are times when we cachers need to police our own. Imo, this is not one of those times. There can be a multitude of reasons why a cache accrues DNFs. Because of this, i wouldn't dream of getting involved from my armchair. A person needs to actually search for a cache and get a "feel" for themselves of what might be going on before they post a NM or NA log.

 

I agree, we do need to take care of our local area as much as possible. You have to know the area, and know the cachers. My brother has a cache with 20+ DNFs and two finds [two people working together, logged it at the same time] in the middle of the DNFs. The cache has been there the whole time, and it's a 5-star difficulty for a reason. He told me how he hid it, and I think I'd still have trouble finding it. After the first dozen DNFs one might be tempted to armchair NM or NA it. Unless you know him and the area.

 

Checking to see when the CO logged in last is a big part of it.

 

As for reviewers, you have to know the reviewer, too. When I lived in England I posted a NA on a cache with a string of DNFs and the CO hadn't been on in over a year. The reviewer archived it the next day, no warning time. Not a big deal in this case, but I learned that the local caching culture there was a bit different than where I had lived before.

Edited by HistDrew
Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

I have placed several micros in the woods that people seem to enjoy. ( 6 single caches, 19 multi stages and 1 multi final) They are in obvious spots once you get there and hunters aren't likely to see them and trash them or carry them away. My first ones have not been as well received as my newer ones with only 10 favorites in 522 visits. Better planning on my others seems to have paid off with 53 favorites from 381 finds. If the cache provides an interesting walk and a reasonable searching experience at GZ, I don't think size really matters. It helps to be up front about what is involved in the description. All caches aren't for everyone. If you can weed out those that probably won't enjoy the experience you are offering, everyone ends up happier.

Link to comment
Why do people hide micros in woods, when there are tons of perfect hiding spots to hide a regular?

 

I have placed several micros in the woods that people seem to enjoy. ( 6 single caches, 19 multi stages and 1 multi final) They are in obvious spots once you get there and hunters aren't likely to see them and trash them or carry them away. My first ones have not been as well received as my newer ones with only 10 favorites in 522 visits. Better planning on my others seems to have paid off with 53 favorites from 381 finds. If the cache provides an interesting walk and a reasonable searching experience at GZ, I don't think size really matters. It helps to be up front about what is involved in the description. All caches aren't for everyone. If you can weed out those that probably won't enjoy the experience you are offering, everyone ends up happier.

 

Nice bottle cap container, it looks well made. Those are a fun find especially when you see one for the first time. Found a bottle cap container for the first time this summer. It was painted silver and attached with a magnet to the back of a sign, near an old schoolhouse. However, I'm not understanding the motivation to hide a micro where a small Lock & Lock™ could fit (maybe even an ammo can in a larger crevice among the boulders). A larger cache would appeal to a wider audience - the people who don't care about size enjoy the find and the people who prefer a swag size container get to enjoy a fuller experience (challenging climb, nice location, quality cache, swag-size cache to paw through, trade trackables, leave signature items, etc).

 

d4abfc10-53ae-41e8-b104-455d3d969995.jpg

 

Link to comment

Looking at a local 'power trail'. 278 caches hidden along a highway. By GPS 52 miles between the first and last. "Along sections of the road with adequate parking." They are all listed as 'small', though most seem to be MKH or pill bottles. Sorry. Those are 'micros'!

Looked for a few today (before the heavy rain and near-freezing temps sent us home.)

Umm... Those two have nine DNFs, and they're still active?!? Others with several DNFs. Seems like a major maintenance issue! And a permanence issue.

And those are micros!!! Not 'small'.

Link to comment

i wouldn't dream of getting involved from my armchair.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

There are very few things in this hobby which irritate me more than armchair NA logs. I consider an individual cache to be pretty important. Enough so, that, if I feel the need to post such a log, the very least I can do is pay a visit to ground zero. I like to think that I am a reasonably experienced geocacher. But even I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim a cache needs to be archived based on the observations of someone else. In my opinion, posting armchair logs, of any kind, is what gives a bad smell to the phrase "cache police".

Link to comment

i wouldn't dream of getting involved from my armchair.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

There are very few things in this hobby which irritate me more than armchair NA logs. I consider an individual cache to be pretty important. Enough so, that, if I feel the need to post such a log, the very least I can do is pay a visit to ground zero. I like to think that I am a reasonably experienced geocacher. But even I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim a cache needs to be archived based on the observations of someone else. In my opinion, posting armchair logs, of any kind, is what gives a bad smell to the phrase "cache police".

 

+2 (1 to each of you)

Link to comment

It irks me when some people are too proud to log a DNF, so they write a note about it instead.

 

Food in the cache, or moldy crayons (just bad not-worth-the-hassle swag altogether)

 

Also, I find it funny how some people find 2, maybe 3 caches and they're like "oh I love geocaching, I'm hooked!" then they never log into the site again

Link to comment

It irks me when people have a 2-3 paragraph log entry telling all about their cross-country journey to visit Aunt NearDeath, thanking everyone for all the caches they found along the way, NEVER mentioning the specific cache they are logging. I find this just as bad as a TFTC log.

Link to comment

It irks me when some people are too proud to log a DNF, so they write a note about it instead.

 

As a finder, I will on-purpose not record a DNF and leave a Note instead, if it looks like the cache owner placed the cache in order to get a lot of DNFs. Example, the rock pile cache under a heavy tree canopy with no hint and a 2 star difficulty. Or the cache that can't be found, where the CO taunts the finders to the point you start to wonder if the cache was actually placed. Logging a DNF plays right into the CO's hands. I don't cache to get frustrated with a hunt and I sure don't want to encourage more of that type of cache hide.

 

As a CO doesn't matter to me if someone posts a Note instead of a DNF. Anything is fine with me, I want the finder to report any issues. If they prefer a Note instead of a DNF that's OK. I wouldn't want to discourage them, otherwise they may decide it's better to not post even a Note to avoid irking a CO.

 

Link to comment

It irks me when some people are too proud to log a DNF, so they write a note about it instead.

 

As a finder, I will on-purpose not record a DNF and leave a Note instead, if it looks like the cache owner placed the cache in order to get a lot of DNFs. Example, the rock pile cache under a heavy tree canopy with no hint and a 2 star difficulty. Or the cache that can't be found, where the CO taunts the finders to the point you start to wonder if the cache was actually placed. Logging a DNF plays right into the CO's hands. I don't cache to get frustrated with a hunt and I sure don't want to encourage more of that type of cache hide.

 

As a CO doesn't matter to me if someone posts a Note instead of a DNF. Anything is fine with me, I want the finder to report any issues. If they prefer a Note instead of a DNF that's OK. I wouldn't want to discourage them, otherwise they may decide it's better to not post even a Note to avoid irking a CO.

 

Thanks for the input. It doesn't bother me under those circumstances, it makes sense. I just dislike when someone writes a note instead of a DNF because they think their failing to find a cache is so unthinkable.

Link to comment

It irks me when some people are too proud to log a DNF, so they write a note about it instead.

 

As a finder, I will on-purpose not record a DNF and leave a Note instead, if it looks like the cache owner placed the cache in order to get a lot of DNFs. Example, the rock pile cache under a heavy tree canopy with no hint and a 2 star difficulty. Or the cache that can't be found, where the CO taunts the finders to the point you start to wonder if the cache was actually placed. Logging a DNF plays right into the CO's hands. I don't cache to get frustrated with a hunt and I sure don't want to encourage more of that type of cache hide.

 

As a CO doesn't matter to me if someone posts a Note instead of a DNF. Anything is fine with me, I want the finder to report any issues. If they prefer a Note instead of a DNF that's OK. I wouldn't want to discourage them, otherwise they may decide it's better to not post even a Note to avoid irking a CO.

 

Thanks for the input. It doesn't bother me under those circumstances, it makes sense. I just dislike when someone writes a note instead of a DNF because they think their failing to find a cache is so unthinkable.

 

Doesn't irk me when people log a note instead of a DNF but it does get me to performing an eyeroll sometimes. It's like a DNF is one of the most horrific things in the world. It's amazing the excuses people come up with for not logging one.

Link to comment

Doesn't irk me when people log a note instead of a DNF but it does get me to performing an eyeroll sometimes. It's like a DNF is one of the most horrific things in the world. It's amazing the excuses people come up with for not logging one.

 

I just logged DNF #500 the other day, believe me, it was horrific!

I always post DNFs just on the off chance its s missing. But generally it's just my blindness.

Link to comment

It drives me crazy when a CO disables a cache, says they will get back to it, and six months later there it sits....still disabled. Take care of it or archive it! :mad:

 

We like to offer to help out on caches we've already found so we send a message to the CO and they write back: "No, don't worry, we'll be down there next weekend, thanks anyway!" then it sits for another six months. Pah.

 

In the meantime, the same CO puts out another half dozen caches...

 

For all the discussions about the question "should there be a minimum find count before you can hide a cache" I'd really like to see a discussion regarding how many caches a single user can have archived by the reviewer for non-maintenance before they are prohibited from placing any more.

 

As you say it's annoying when they keep placing new caches when they have demonstrated they can't maintain the ones they already have. The reason I haven't been out placing caches (despite many ideas) is simply because I'm not in a place to commit to maintaining them at a level I'd consider acceptable.

Link to comment

It drives me crazy when a CO disables a cache, says they will get back to it, and six months later there it sits....still disabled. Take care of it or archive it! :mad:

 

We like to offer to help out on caches we've already found so we send a message to the CO and they write back: "No, don't worry, we'll be down there next weekend, thanks anyway!" then it sits for another six months. Pah.

 

In the meantime, the same CO puts out another half dozen caches...

 

For all the discussions about the question "should there be a minimum find count before you can hide a cache" I'd really like to see a discussion regarding how many caches a single user can have archived by the reviewer for non-maintenance before they are prohibited from placing any more.

 

As you say it's annoying when they keep placing new caches when they have demonstrated they can't maintain the ones they already have. The reason I haven't been out placing caches (despite many ideas) is simply because I'm not in a place to commit to maintaining them at a level I'd consider acceptable.

 

I have noted a certain CO obviously drive past his cache that has five DNFs in a row and a NM, and hide an identical cache .1mi up the road. That cache gets published, and the reviewer archives the other one a few months later after the eventual NA.

Link to comment

What irks me is spending 15 minutes of my life marking 39 trackables as missing from our second oldest cache GCHC56 (Volunteer Park). They were dropped off on the 23rd and by the 28th they had completely disappeared. Yeah, I am between careers right now so 15 minutes is not going kill me. That's over $200 (with an average sales tax of 6%) lost and then the cost of the items they are attached to that could double the money lost. Some of these were barely out on their journeys before they were hoarded. We personally no longer release trackables-the financial cost outweighs the "perceived benefit" of providing a trackable hoarder with shiny baubles to ogle at. I feel bad for these other cachers, some are kids who get a thrill out of seeing something they created move along from place to place.

 

That is what irks me most.

(Now we will go back into the shadows)

Link to comment

Cachers who find the time to go out and find or place caches, yet don't maintain the caches they already have out.

 

+1 - This really is one of the deadly sins to me.

 

I recently ran across a P&G where a cacher posted a NM for a full wet log. Next day the CO posts a maintenance log saying "You really don't expect me to replace the log, do you?". Seriously? Might as well just through his cache in the nearest waste bin, in my opinion.

 

This ties in with the geocachers who just care about numbers. They seem to be the COs that care least about their hides. It's a "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" mentality by placing countless P&G to pump up each others numbers. Completely boggles my mind.

Link to comment

Cachers who find the time to go out and find or place caches, yet don't maintain the caches they already have out.

 

+1 - This really is one of the deadly sins to me.

 

I recently ran across a P&G where a cacher posted a NM for a full wet log. Next day the CO posts a maintenance log saying "You really don't expect me to replace the log, do you?". Seriously? Might as well just through his cache in the nearest waste bin, in my opinion.

 

 

I'd post a NA to that cache, right from the comfort of my armchair, much to the 'Riftster's dismay. Just like the one not to far away from me that had five NM logs saying that there was no lid on the container and that someone had pee'd in it.

 

Of course, I wouldn't post a NA from my armchair because a cache has DNFs, without looking for it it myself and posting my own DNF log first, but a cache that is in place that has obvious maintenance issues reported, and is abandoned or being ignored by the CO, or in this case a flat out declaration that the CO will not do the required maintenance, I'm notifying the reviewer through a NA log.

 

Sure would be nice if we had a "Needs Reviewer's Attention log".

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment
I'd post a NA to that cache, right from the comfort of my armchair, much to the 'Riftster's dismay. Just like the one not to far away from me that had five NM logs saying that there was no lid on the container and that someone had pee'd in it.

 

Of course, I wouldn't post a NA from my armchair because a cache has DNFs, without looking for it it myself and posting my own DNF log first, but a cache that is in place that has obvious maintenance issues reported, and is abandoned or being ignored by the CO, or in this case a flat out declaration that the CO will not do the required maintenance, I'm notifying the reviewer through a NA log.

+1. At the risk of being labeled a Cache Cop, I'd do the same thing!

Link to comment

It's been mentioned, but I really hate the "numbers" oriented caches and cachers, and everything that comes with that. There are roads in my area which have micro caches placed every .3 miles. There is nothing interesting about the road, the cache, or each location, it's just a way for someone to bag a zillion caches without having to put forth much effort. I wouldn't care if some people want to play that way, except these caches flood search results, clutter up the map, and degrade the game overall in my opinion. Ignoring micro caches isn't really a solution either because I have enjoyed finding many "good" micros and they do have their place.

 

Along the same lines, I recently placed a new TB in a remote cache that typically sees only a handful of visits per year. Within a few days at least two dozen people had "discovered" it, many from other countries. I can't really understand the fun in logging a TB that I didn't find. The fun isn't clicking the "found it" button, it's the hunt and discovery, seeing where it's been, and deciding where to take it next.

 

While I am on TB's, I was annoyed the other day when I found 3 caches that supposedly contained TB's - only to find ALL of them were missing and upon further investigation, some had been missing for over a year. Apparently that has become fairly common.

 

In spite of those annoyances, I still think caching is super fun and has helped me discover a lot of neat places I would have never discovered otherwise!

Link to comment
Along the same lines, I recently placed a new TB in a remote cache that typically sees only a handful of visits per year. Within a few days at least two dozen people had "discovered" it, many from other countries. I can't really understand the fun in logging a TB that I didn't find. The fun isn't clicking the "found it" button, it's the hunt and discovery, seeing where it's been, and deciding where to take it next.

Did you happen to post a photo of the TB and accidentally show the tracking number? I don't see any recent TB's in your profile, so I wasn't able to check for myself. :)

Link to comment
Along the same lines, I recently placed a new TB in a remote cache that typically sees only a handful of visits per year. Within a few days at least two dozen people had "discovered" it, many from other countries. I can't really understand the fun in logging a TB that I didn't find. The fun isn't clicking the "found it" button, it's the hunt and discovery, seeing where it's been, and deciding where to take it next.

Did you happen to post a photo of the TB and accidentally show the tracking number? I don't see any recent TB's in your profile, so I wasn't able to check for myself. :)

 

Yes I had a photo with the number visible which I deleted after doing a little investigating on this forum. I used to find TBs and log photos and that was never a problem. But I guess there are people out there now with nothing better to do than troll the image galleries looking for TB tracking numbers so they can falsely log it. It may now show up as recent because I bought the TB several years but only recently put it in the wild.

 

Too bad the TBs have gone extinct more or less... that was always one of my favorite components of caching.

Edited by Shortleaf
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...