Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

I have a few that I would like to rant about…

 

Logs that say only "TFTC."

 

People who get mad at me for requesting the archival of caches that aren't being maintained at all.

 

Cachers who act high and mighty and try to correct everything I do.

 

The Intro App.

 

Yeah, that pretty much sums about everything up that has been bugging me. (I surprisingly feel much better)

Link to comment

I have a few that I would like to rant about…

 

Logs that say only "TFTC."

 

People who get mad at me for requesting the archival of caches that aren't being maintained at all.

 

Cachers who act high and mighty and try to correct everything I do.

 

The Intro App.

 

Yeah, that pretty much sums about everything up that has been bugging me. (I surprisingly feel much better)

I'm not criticizing you for posting NAs, and I'm not defending the sloppy COs. I'm just noting an irony.

 

The people who get mad at you for requesting the archival of caches that aren't being maintained at all probably think that you're a

cacher who acts high and mighty and tries to correct everything they do.

Link to comment

Some of my former irks like power trails no longer irk me.. Id say the only thing that does is caches of importance bring pill bottles... took the route through pierre sd to get one of the oldest caches in the state and it could easily have been an ammo can or 5 gallon pail but was a pill bottle. I did not place my bug there but in a nearby cache from 2003.

 

On the plus side finding all these cheap containers makes me appreciate the ammo cans more... I dont even place those... I came very close to replacing that pill bottle with a PB jar.. I had 3 in the car. I tape them up or sand/spray paint and cut out foam gaskets for the lids.

Edited by sholomar
Link to comment

I think some people see DNFs as both a personal and a community feature. If they see it more as a community feature, a DNF for a non-attempt serves no purpose for the cache owner or the community. It tells them nothing about the cache. But I understand why you would log a DNF for your personal reasons. as part of your cache history.

The "serves no purpose" argument I think is misguided. It is just as purpose-full as any other part of the reporting system. It lets the CO know that people are interested, and are attempting to find it. It lets other cachers know that in the dark, you will probably need a flashlight.

I'm not all that bent out of shape by someone logging a DNF for a non attempt, although I personally don't think a DNF should be logged if you didn't even look! I feel it should be reserved for actually looking for the cache and not being able to find it. Otherwise, a note would serve to keep a record of your visit without putting up a blue face that might indicate a problem of some sort with the cache. However, that's just my opinion and I'd much rather see DNF icons, and then, when I check over the cache page, read that it was a non attempt, than have people not post DNF at all!!!

 

Exactly. Don't post a DNF if you didn't look. It only serves to cast a negative light on the cache. People who post a DNF if they hit 'go' on their GPS 10 miles away, got a flat, then went home are being obsessive to the detriment of the cache. This can lead to the cache getting archived down the road while still being there.

 

I received notice today of an archived cache, http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC18BB6_roller-coaster-road-cache

 

Looking at the logs, I see no reason that cache should have been archived. Sure it had two DNFs and hasn't been found in years. Look at the last 2 DNFs, they admit to not looking thoroughly. Read down further, it has had other DNFs as well then found by others. Just two DNFs can get your cache archived without anyone asking for maintenance or archive.

The bolded text "Irks" me. We all need to get out of our minds that a DNF somehow "casts a negative light on a cache". That has to be one of the crazyest things I have ever heard.

 

I do however agree with you that a DNF is not appropriate if you didn't even look. Walking by and deciding not to look doesn't really seem like a good reason to log a DNF.

Link to comment

I think some people see DNFs as both a personal and a community feature. If they see it more as a community feature, a DNF for a non-attempt serves no purpose for the cache owner or the community. It tells them nothing about the cache. But I understand why you would log a DNF for your personal reasons. as part of your cache history.

The "serves no purpose" argument I think is misguided. It is just as purpose-full as any other part of the reporting system. It lets the CO know that people are interested, and are attempting to find it. It lets other cachers know that in the dark, you will probably need a flashlight.

I'm not all that bent out of shape by someone logging a DNF for a non attempt, although I personally don't think a DNF should be logged if you didn't even look! I feel it should be reserved for actually looking for the cache and not being able to find it. Otherwise, a note would serve to keep a record of your visit without putting up a blue face that might indicate a problem of some sort with the cache. However, that's just my opinion and I'd much rather see DNF icons, and then, when I check over the cache page, read that it was a non attempt, than have people not post DNF at all!!!

 

Exactly. Don't post a DNF if you didn't look. It only serves to cast a negative light on the cache. People who post a DNF if they hit 'go' on their GPS 10 miles away, got a flat, then went home are being obsessive to the detriment of the cache. This can lead to the cache getting archived down the road while still being there.

 

I received notice today of an archived cache, http://www.geocachin...ster-road-cache

 

Looking at the logs, I see no reason that cache should have been archived. Sure it had two DNFs and hasn't been found in years. Look at the last 2 DNFs, they admit to not looking thoroughly. Read down further, it has had other DNFs as well then found by others. Just two DNFs can get your cache archived without anyone asking for maintenance or archive.

The bolded text "Irks" me. We all need to get out of our minds that a DNF somehow "casts a negative light on a cache". That has to be one of the crazyest things I have ever heard.

 

I do however agree with you that a DNF is not appropriate if you didn't even look. Walking by and deciding not to look doesn't really seem like a good reason to log a DNF.

 

Huh? You are implying that I meant that all DNF posts are negative when didn't mean that at all. Only those that really aren't a DNF, such as the type that you seem to agree with. I gladly log all of my DNFs when I actually looked for a cache. Those are quite positive.

 

Frankly, I feel it is a lie to post a DNF when one didn't actually look and it isn't a positive for a cache. These are negative, as in no way helpful to the condition or history of the cache.

Link to comment

Huh? You are implying that I meant that all DNF posts are negative when didn't mean that at all. Only those that really aren't a DNF, such as the type that you seem to agree with. I gladly log all of my DNFs when I actually looked for a cache. Those are quite positive.

 

Frankly, I feel it is a lie to post a DNF when one didn't actually look and it isn't a positive for a cache. These are negative, as in no way helpful to the condition or history of the cache.

The main thrust of Andronicus's response was specifically the DNFs are never negative. They're just descriptive. And sometimes they're important, even if they don't imply a search. "From 200' away I saw a homeless camp at GZ, so I didn't go closer." "The hill was higher than I expected, so I didn't climb up to look." Heck, even "I ran out of time so I walked right past this one." None of them are negative. None of them are a big deal. All of them are reasonable, even if you personally wouldn't consider posting such information or expressing it as a DNF. DNF is all about the seeker: they didn't find the cache. The contents of the DNF tell us how that fact relates to the state of the cache, if at all.

Link to comment

...

The main thrust of Andronicus's response was specifically the DNFs are never negative. They're just descriptive. And sometimes they're important, even if they don't imply a search. "From 200' away I saw a homeless camp at GZ, so I didn't go closer." "The hill was higher than I expected, so I didn't climb up to look." Heck, even "I ran out of time so I walked right past this one." None of them are negative. None of them are a big deal. All of them are reasonable, even if you personally wouldn't consider posting such information or expressing it as a DNF. DNF is all about the seeker: they didn't find the cache. The contents of the DNF tell us how that fact relates to the state of the cache, if at all.

I think you said it better than I could. And yes, that is my point. As long as cachers view a DNF as "cast a negative light on the cache", then these sorts of DNFs would be looked down upon. However, in reality, they are just descriping the cache seekers experience. DNFs are neither negative or possitive, they just are.

Link to comment

.. and then you can go all the way back around to my original post where I show a cache getting archived because it hasn't been found in awhile and has two DNFs. DNFs do have an effect on caches, as they should.

 

My point, which was lost among the response, is if they are the type that has nothing to do with the cache or the ability to reach it, then they are not helpful. Reviewers do archive caches based on a combination of time not found and DNF rate. I have seen many posts in the past where people claim that this never happens.

Link to comment

.. and then you can go all the way back around to my original post where I show a cache getting archived because it hasn't been found in awhile and has two DNFs. DNFs do have an effect on caches, as they should.

 

My point, which was lost among the response, is if they are the type that has nothing to do with the cache or the ability to reach it, then they are not helpful. Reviewers do archive caches based on a combination of time not found and DNF rate. I have seen many posts in the past where people claim that this never happens.

This never happens.

 

Well, it would never happen in my reviewer's area. Can't say anything about yours. It seems rather bizzar. While I have seen warnings by our reviewer when many cachers post DNFs after extensive serches, archival after two DNFs is almost unbelievable\unforgivable.

Link to comment

.. and then you can go all the way back around to my original post where I show a cache getting archived because it hasn't been found in awhile and has two DNFs. DNFs do have an effect on caches, as they should.

 

My point, which was lost among the response, is if they are the type that has nothing to do with the cache or the ability to reach it, then they are not helpful. Reviewers do archive caches based on a combination of time not found and DNF rate. I have seen many posts in the past where people claim that this never happens.

It wasn't archived after two DNFs. It was archived after two DNFs AND two notes about there being a big bees' nest nearby. Perhaps the reviewer determined that the CO wasn't checking on the bee situation and therefore being irresponsible. *shrug*

 

I'd rather someone ask the reviewer for clarification rather than point out one cache being archived "because of two DNFs" as if it's a common thing.

Link to comment

DNFs do not cast a negative light on a cache, nor do they cast a negative light on the searcher that logs one. I just feel it would be better, and a more descriptive use of the log type, to reserve them for when one actually searched around GZ, and use a note for the times one doesn't search, but was interacting with the cache in some other way, eg. the final area around GZ was flooded. Will have to try another time, and so on..... No actual search.

Anyway, this thread isn't really for discussing everyone's ideas about the use of DNF, as much as our peeves.

 

My biggest one is people not logging DNFs .... for whatever reason!

Link to comment

I don't log a DNF until I've searched for a good amount of time. A lot of the time I simply do not search long enough to bother with it... for example if a person places a micro in a high muggle location and I decide to give it a look but only search for a few minutes.

 

I did notice that when a person posts a NM on a cache it seems the icon stays there forever and does not go away even after everything is good again. I find that a bit annoying.

Link to comment

.. and then you can go all the way back around to my original post where I show a cache getting archived because it hasn't been found in awhile and has two DNFs. DNFs do have an effect on caches, as they should.

I will support any reviewer with almost no reservations, but I will flatly say that a reviewer that archived a cache because of 2 DNFs that both clearly indicated a reason for the DNF that didn't reflect on the cache, I'd be very angry and demand that that reviewer get a clue.

 

My point, which was lost among the response, is if they are the type that has nothing to do with the cache or the ability to reach it, then they are not helpful.

Your point wasn't lost at all. We were correcting you about something else: the attitude that DNFs are negative. They aren't. All logs, including DNFs, are meant to be informative. If they are also helpful (or, for that matter, entertaining or educational), that's great, but it's not their basic purpose.

 

Reviewers do archive caches based on a combination of time not found and DNF rate. I have seen many posts in the past where people claim that this never happens.

If something bad happens to a cache because of the existence of a DNF without any consideration of the DNF contents, then that just shows us another person, in addition to yourself, that has the mistaken notion that DNFs are inherently negative.

Link to comment
I will support any reviewer with almost no reservations, but I will flatly say that a reviewer that archived a cache because of 2 DNFs that both clearly indicated a reason for the DNF that didn't reflect on the cache, I'd be very angry and demand that that reviewer get a clue.

Exactly. Someone out there sees DNFs as a negative and it isn't I so stop trying to correct me and tell me what I am mistaken about.

Link to comment

I did notice that when a person posts a NM on a cache it seems the icon stays there forever and does not go away even after everything is good again. I find that a bit annoying.

The icon will go away if the CO posts an Owner Maintenance log after checking / repairing / replacing the cache. Too many people will just post a note, or just enable it stating all is well. That doesn't clear the icon.

Link to comment

I did notice that when a person posts a NM on a cache it seems the icon stays there forever and does not go away even after everything is good again. I find that a bit annoying.

The icon will go away if the CO posts an Owner Maintenance log after checking / repairing / replacing the cache. Too many people will just post a note, or just enable it stating all is well. That doesn't clear the icon.

I did have one that I did the maintenance, posted an Owners Maintenance note, and went about my caching business.

The next cache I was building I got the message that I have one that needs maintenance. I went and saw that even though there was an owners Maintenance log after the NM, it still hadn't cleared. I edited my Maintenance Log and ran it again and it cleared as it should have the first time.

So .. I wonder if the OP has come across one like that of mine, where the NM didn't clear for some reason.

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

I have a quick question. I've been wanting to hide a cache in a park for some time now, and have finally found a good place to put it. The reason I didn't put it there previously was because there was a preexisting cache already there, to which I requested the archival of due to an inactive CO and the fact that the playground equipment it was on is completely gone.

 

Would it be in poor taste to submit a new cache to be hidden there? I don't want people to think I requested it be archived just so I could hide one there.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

What Irks me most is Mystery Caches! I have spent a lot of time researching a suitable area to lay a tricky cache, only to have it rejected later on because its too close to a mystery cache which didn't appear anywhere near my original location on the map.

I like Mystery Caches, but I understand where they could be frustrating, like you say. There should be a system to automatically tell you if the coords you post for a new listing interfere with another cache or not, prior to submitting it for review.

 

What irks me is Mystery Caches with no way of checking your solution before searching for the cache. I tried one yesterday, searched for a while in the area my coords took me to, and finally read prior logs that pointed to an entirely different type of GZ. I also realized later that the final for another puzzle was within 100' of where I had been looking, so it obviously wasn't there. If I could have used a geochecker, I could have found out before I searched.

Link to comment

I have a quick question. I've been wanting to hide a cache in a park for some time now, and have finally found a good place to put it. The reason I didn't put it there previously was because there was a preexisting cache already there, to which I requested the archival of due to an inactive CO and the fact that the playground equipment it was on is completely gone.

 

Would it be in poor taste to submit a new cache to be hidden there? I don't want people to think I requested it be archived just so I could hide one there.

 

Thoughts?

Kinda off topic, but ....

do it

No one will even notice and if they do,so what?

I did the same a couple of years ago

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

I have a quick question. I've been wanting to hide a cache in a park for some time now, and have finally found a good place to put it. The reason I didn't put it there previously was because there was a preexisting cache already there, to which I requested the archival of due to an inactive CO and the fact that the playground equipment it was on is completely gone.

 

Would it be in poor taste to submit a new cache to be hidden there? I don't want people to think I requested it be archived just so I could hide one there.

 

Thoughts?

Kinda off topic, but ....

do it

No one will even notice and if they do,so what?

I did the same a couple of years ago

Thanks so much. :)

 

I shall now get back on topic.

 

I have recently gotten really mad a cachers who archive caches, but don't ever remove the container.

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.

 

Agreed!

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.

 

Agreed!

 

I guess I may be in the minority, but I don't see the advantage of one size over another in the example given. Isn't it all about the journey to the cache? Are you really getting a "better" experience when you find an ammo can tethered to a tree instead of a bison tube tucked into a knothole in the same tree? Is all of one's enjoyment of the hunt wrapped up in the size of the container? In my mind, the greater challenge involved in finding a smaller container can actually add to the experience...and the greater the challenge, the more satisfaction I get from finding it.

 

I really am over the "swag" game. Nine times out of ten the stuff inside is complete junk or at one time might have been decent but after a damp Georgia summer it ends up moldy, smelly and just an obstacle to dig through in order to sign the log.

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.

 

Agreed!

 

I guess I may be in the minority, but I don't see the advantage of one size over another in the example given. Isn't it all about the journey to the cache? Are you really getting a "better" experience when you find an ammo can tethered to a tree instead of a bison tube tucked into a knothole in the same tree? Is all of one's enjoyment of the hunt wrapped up in the size of the container? In my mind, the greater challenge involved in finding a smaller container can actually add to the experience...and the greater the challenge, the more satisfaction I get from finding it.

 

I generally agree with you up to the point that it becomes a needle in the haystack hide. In a densely wooded area the potential number of hiding spots for a bison tube increases significantly to the point that it no longer becomes fun.

 

However, caches 2 miles into the wood are less likely going to have proximity issues so I wouldn't really characterize their hiding spots as precious caching space. If I'm going to annoy someone with a challenging hide, I'd rather annoy park-n-grab cachers with a challenging hide 100 feet from a parking spot then cachers that prefer 2 mile hikes into the woods. ph34r.gif

 

 

Link to comment

What is starting to be irksome is defending the game against those who say we are not environmentally friendly. And in trying to prove that point running a PQ of caches needing maint and coming up with 500 within 10 miles that need maint and having to listen to my friend cackling NEENER< NEENER< NEENER as he talks about geolitter.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

What is starting to be irksome is defending the game against those who say we are not environmentally friendly. And in trying to prove that point running a PQ of caches needing maint and coming up with 500 within 10 miles that need maint and having to listen to my friend cackling NEENER< NEENER< NEENER as he talks about geolitter.

 

Maybe visit all those cache pages and show your friend how many of those NM posts are about wet logs or are just logs that the COs didn't clear out with an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

I'd genuinely be curious to know what percentage of NM logs are about containers that are actually damaged.

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.

 

Agreed!

 

I guess I may be in the minority, but I don't see the advantage of one size over another in the example given. Isn't it all about the journey to the cache? Are you really getting a "better" experience when you find an ammo can tethered to a tree instead of a bison tube tucked into a knothole in the same tree? Is all of one's enjoyment of the hunt wrapped up in the size of the container? In my mind, the greater challenge involved in finding a smaller container can actually add to the experience...and the greater the challenge, the more satisfaction I get from finding it.

 

I really am over the "swag" game. Nine times out of ten the stuff inside is complete junk or at one time might have been decent but after a damp Georgia summer it ends up moldy, smelly and just an obstacle to dig through in order to sign the log.

 

I don't think you're in the minority. I suspect most don't care about swag.

 

But there are some of us who want a fuller experience that includes stuff in the cache. It's fun to paw through the stuff (if the cache is not a moldy mess - - I would slap an NM or NA on one of those in a second, but I digress). Kind of an anthropological thing for me - what did people leave for others to find. And personally, I've found stuff I thought was really cool, so every time I open up a swag size cache there's the anticipation that something unique and interesting may be inside.

 

Usually in a swag size container you're going to find a logbook or logsheet that is easier to handle then the tiny scroll in a bison tube. I find BT scrolls a hassle and don't add to the enjoyment of the find. So for me a bison tube in the woods is a P.I.T.A. - because I have to fumble with the tiny tube, it's got a little scroll that's a pain to unroll and scroll up to fit back in the tube, if it's older then a month it's almost always damp or wet, and it's almost always a needle-in-a-haystack find in the woods - not an enjoyable caching experience.

Link to comment

Replying to the last post it made me think of something that seems to be happening more and more with these young kid cachers lately; at least to some of my cachers anyway. It Irks both of us when someone hunts down one of our caches and then takes a picture of the container IN IT'S HIDING SPOT!! I think pictures are cool, and I don't mind a picture of the container so much, but don't take a picture of the container in its hiding spot in a way that shows every future cacher exactly how and where to find it. If I wanted that done I would do it myself and then make the difficulty a 1.

 

Does anyone else delete those kind of pictures from there cache page? We do on some of our caches and always put a very nice explanation in the delete log so the person who posted understands why.

 

What's even more fun is when people post a picture from near the final coordinates of a multi or puzzle. Most cellphones these days seem to take geotagged pictures, so all you need to do is feed the picture into one of many online tools to get the coordinates. From there you know the cache won't be far away.

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.

 

Agreed!

 

I guess I may be in the minority, but I don't see the advantage of one size over another in the example given. Isn't it all about the journey to the cache? Are you really getting a "better" experience when you find an ammo can tethered to a tree instead of a bison tube tucked into a knothole in the same tree? Is all of one's enjoyment of the hunt wrapped up in the size of the container? In my mind, the greater challenge involved in finding a smaller container can actually add to the experience...and the greater the challenge, the more satisfaction I get from finding it.

 

I really am over the "swag" game. Nine times out of ten the stuff inside is complete junk or at one time might have been decent but after a damp Georgia summer it ends up moldy, smelly and just an obstacle to dig through in order to sign the log.

 

... which comes back to a cache that's suitable for the conditions, and maintenance that's suitable for the cache and the conditions. If people don't put out weatherproof containers and then don't maintain the caches they have put out there's not much point putting them out at all.

 

The reason I never put any caches out of my own was because I wanted to put something in an interesting area, that was at least Small sized, and was close enough to home that regular maintenance wasn't going to be a big enough hassle I'd stop doing it. Sadly that didn't leave me with anywhere I liked the look of, but I'd still rather not hide a cache than hide something that was going to fall into disrepair.

Link to comment
Is there a problem with leaving a personal item in each cache along with signing the log. For example I would like to leave a specific type of bead as another way to say I was there. Is there anything wrong with this?
That sounds like a personal signature item. There's absolutely nothing wrong with leaving them. Some of us trade from personal signature items left by other geocachers.
Link to comment

I think some people see DNFs as both a personal and a community feature. If they see it more as a community feature, a DNF for a non-attempt serves no purpose for the cache owner or the community. It tells them nothing about the cache. But I understand why you would log a DNF for your personal reasons. as part of your cache history.

The "serves no purpose" argument I think is misguided. It is just as purpose-full as any other part of the reporting system. It lets the CO know that people are interested, and are attempting to find it. It lets other cachers know that in the dark, you will probably need a flashlight.

I'm not all that bent out of shape by someone logging a DNF for a non attempt, although I personally don't think a DNF should be logged if you didn't even look! I feel it should be reserved for actually looking for the cache and not being able to find it. Otherwise, a note would serve to keep a record of your visit without putting up a blue face that might indicate a problem of some sort with the cache. However, that's just my opinion and I'd much rather see DNF icons, and then, when I check over the cache page, read that it was a non attempt, than have people not post DNF at all!!!

 

Exactly. Don't post a DNF if you didn't look. It only serves to cast a negative light on the cache. People who post a DNF if they hit 'go' on their GPS 10 miles away, got a flat, then went home are being obsessive to the detriment of the cache. This can lead to the cache getting archived down the road while still being there.

 

I received notice today of an archived cache, http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC18BB6_roller-coaster-road-cache

 

Looking at the logs, I see no reason that cache should have been archived. Sure it had two DNFs and hasn't been found in years. Look at the last 2 DNFs, they admit to not looking thoroughly. Read down further, it has had other DNFs as well then found by others. Just two DNFs can get your cache archived without anyone asking for maintenance or archive.

Well, there's two things there. Usually, reviewers give a grace period for the owner to respond to (like a month), before archiving. Also, that reviewer said that they'd be willing to unarchive the cache page if the cache was fixed and the cache still met the guidelines.

 

I don't think that people should be afraid to post a dnf if their dnf standards don't match other people's standards. That just leads to dnfs not being posted, which can also have negative affects.

A Note seems the perfect solution for the "no search" situation - the CO sees the interest, but it's not like a DNF causes the CO and cachers start to worry needlessly that the cache is missing.

Link to comment
Is there a problem with leaving a personal item in each cache along with signing the log. For example I would like to leave a specific type of bead as another way to say I was there. Is there anything wrong with this?
That sounds like a personal signature item. There's absolutely nothing wrong with leaving them. Some of us trade from personal signature items left by other geocachers.

 

Okay great! I thought it was an okay practice but figured I'd ask first :) Thank you!

Link to comment

I'm not the best when it comes to HTML, so I like it when creating a cache page that there are handy formatting tags along the top of the summary and description windows. Cool!

What irks me is that when I view the proposed cache, I quite often will go back to fine tune things, and when you edit the page there are no longer formatting aids!

Pretty poor if you ask me!

Link to comment

I'm not the best when it comes to HTML, so I like it when creating a cache page that there are handy formatting tags along the top of the summary and description windows. Cool!

What irks me is that when I view the proposed cache, I quite often will go back to fine tune things, and when you edit the page there are no longer formatting aids!

Pretty poor if you ask me!

 

The issue here is that when creating the initial cache page using the wysiwyg editor to produce the HTML works fine, but it's less reliable for editing existing HTML. There are probably hundreds of thousands of cache listing which have HTML that were created prior to the existence of the wysiwyg editor. Opening up one of those pages into the wysiswg editor then just saving it can sometimes change the formatting and would likely produce a lot of complaints when the editor has broken the formatting the CO created.

 

 

Link to comment

I'm not the best when it comes to HTML, so I like it when creating a cache page that there are handy formatting tags along the top of the summary and description windows. Cool!

What irks me is that when I view the proposed cache, I quite often will go back to fine tune things, and when you edit the page there are no longer formatting aids!

Pretty poor if you ask me!

 

The issue here is that when creating the initial cache page using the wysiwyg editor to produce the HTML works fine, but it's less reliable for editing existing HTML. There are probably hundreds of thousands of cache listing which have HTML that were created prior to the existence of the wysiwyg editor. Opening up one of those pages into the wysiswg editor then just saving it can sometimes change the formatting and would likely produce a lot of complaints when the editor has broken the formatting the CO created.

Maybe their wys...whatever editor needs to be improved. All the online editors I have used open existing html just fine.

 

This issue drives me nuts too.

Link to comment

ok I didn't read everything, good long thread, so this or something similar might have been mentioned, but, a TINY peeve of mine is when the hint says 'on the right/left' of the path, or something along those lines mentioning right or left: unless a trail is one-way, the CO has no way of knowing which way I approached GZ from. if I approached from the other direction then the hint is exactly backwards. I hardly care, it just makes me smile and say to myself 'oh this again', and maybe I won't even need the hint, but it always sticks in my mind as a funny thing for a CO to neglect.

 

tr

Link to comment

I came across a similar situation where the description said if you cross the creek you've gone too far. But, it didn't say from what direction. As it turns out I DNF'd this one due to the coordinates being so far out that true GZ was on the opposite side of the creek to the posted coordinates. And I crossed the creek from a different direction to what the CO was intending. :mad: :mad: :mad:

BTW after a few NMs the CO still hasn't corrected the coordinates (as determined by another cacher who had found it but the log didn't show on my GPSr as it had been a while ago and only showed the last 5)

Link to comment

ok I didn't read everything, good long thread, so this or something similar might have been mentioned, but, a TINY peeve of mine is when the hint says 'on the right/left' of the path, or something along those lines mentioning right or left: unless a trail is one-way, the CO has no way of knowing which way I approached GZ from. if I approached from the other direction then the hint is exactly backwards. I hardly care, it just makes me smile and say to myself 'oh this again', and maybe I won't even need the hint, but it always sticks in my mind as a funny thing for a CO to neglect.

 

tr

 

I agree this is a tiny peeve for me too. So on my own caches, I tend to use directions such as "North side of the path", or "left hand side if you are facing North".

 

And I've had logs complaining they didn't know where North was!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I agree this is a tiny peeve for me too. So on my own caches, I tend to use directions such as "North side of the path", or "left hand side if you are facing North".

Please say, "On your left side if you are facing North." When I see a hint "left side of boulder", my reaction is always, "My left? Or the boulder's left?" since that's an ambiguity that isn't resolved even when it's crystal clear where I should stand to evaluate "left".

 

And I've had logs complaining they didn't know where North was!! :rolleyes:

Speaking of peeves, just last week I read a hint that said "on the north side of the road". It puzzled me when we found the cache on the south side of the trail, since I assumed they were casually calling the trail a road. We discovered later that there actually was a road that we couldn't see a couple hundred feet south of the trail, so the hint was true but completely useless, since the coordinates already told me which side of that road the cache was on, even assuming we knew about the road to begin with.

Link to comment

...Speaking of peeves, just last week I read a hint that said "on the north side of the road". It puzzled me when we found the cache on the south side of the trail, since I assumed they were casually calling the trail a road. We discovered later that there actually was a road that we couldn't see a couple hundred feet south of the trail, so the hint was true but completely useless, since the coordinates already told me which side of that road the cache was on, even assuming we knew about the road to begin with.

Ya, it Irks me when hints just tell me what I already know. Eg. "at Riely Park". Well ya, the coordinates are in the middle of the park...

Link to comment

Not maintaining and then not archiving a log. Me and TheGman my fiance were out caching and a cache that had been found 2 months prior but hadn't been maintained in a year became a rather dangerous issue. There was a nest of yellow jackets and we got into them poor TheGman got the worst of it and it really put us off caching for a bit we finished that day but we didn't go for a month after that. Even after this we have been really careful about anything that either isn't maintained or is off in the woods. The only other problem we have had with this is running into a black snake who wasn't happy wasn't happy with the disturbance but we never got bit.

The only other peeve I have is that some caches will think there is no cache and will "Replace" it I have found 4 caches in the same place before because they get replaced..... not only is this aggravating but I find it rude ask before you replace it if you don't get a email then go ahead!

Link to comment
I have found 4 caches in the same place before because they get replaced..... not only is this aggravating but I find it rude ask before you replace it if you don't get a email then go ahead!

Hmm. No, ask before you replace it. If you don't get an email, post a Needs Maintenance or a Needs Archived. :)

Link to comment

Then there are those who don't adequately close the cache container so it then leaks and soaks the stuff inside, including the log in a baggie that wasn't completely zipped. Often the screw-on cap is loose or cross threaded or one side/corner of a snap-on cap is not pushed down completely. In either case the "leak proof" cache leaks.

 

I, too, have problems finding my caches when they tend to migrate away from the original GZ. Others are too easy to find because they aren't in their hidey hole, instead they are lying on the ground right out in the open.

Edited by bUTCH46
Link to comment

Things that IRK? Really...a chance to rant on your pet peeves? Not a new topic but always temporarily cathartic.

-- Non-waterproof containers

-- LPCs

-- Powertrails

-- Challenge caches

-- Laconic logs

-- Broken toy bits as swag

-- Micros eating up valuable woodland real estate

-- New search system

-- TB Hotels with restrictions placed by experienced cachers who should know better!

Link to comment

I am thankful for all the caches out there but the ones that I would say bother me the most if I had to pick some is the ones on country roads that there is no where to park. No where that is practical and if you did find somewhere the walk would be fairly unsafe. I guess the most likely way is to park on the road and hope no one comes driving by while you are looking. The other would be in front of a busy store or coffee shop where there are people sitting outside most all day and it is right in there view.

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...