Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

I’m a firm believer in 'writing the logs that you would like to receive'; so I strive to write longer logs for my benefit and the cache owner’s enjoyment. However, when over half of the caches of your mystery series ends in a stop sign base; my creativity starts to run dry. :sad:

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!

 

Nailed It!

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!

 

Nailed It!

 

You only have 9 in your top 10. What about new message center ?

Link to comment

Not a whole lot irks me, but if I had to come up with a couple, they'd be:

 

-LPCs that are in extremely high muggle areas. I'm not a fan of LPCs anyway, but I'll still grab them if I'm out for a day of caching. But there's one near my house that is in the parking lot of a fitness gym that has all glass outer walls. The entire time you're there getting the cache, just about everyone working out inside can see you the whole time, and it's pretty uncomfortable having them watching you constantly from inside the building.

 

-WarNinjas mentioned this, and I guess it's one of my pet peeves, too. Caches that are on a busy country road with absolutely no parking around anywhere, but with a cache description that says "parking is available near ground zero". There are several of these near where I work. I've driven to them and had nowhere to park, then checked the overhead satellite view on Google maps just to make sure I wasn't missing something, and nope, no parking anywhere near, not even a shoulder drive off area big enough for a car.

Edited by hall-explorers
Link to comment

So I had a really frustrating day today, finding only one of six attempts. (and I found the most difficult one. Go figure.)

 

So here is my pet peeve from today: No hint, though this is surpassed by hints that aren't any help. One hint I had today was "nothing is just black or white." Maybe if I had found the cache, this would've made sense, but since I didn't, it was no help at all.

 

Also, I think the difficulty on nanos needs to be at least a 2.5. I was looking for a "small" cache rated with 1.5 difficulty. Turned out to be a nano, and I never would've found it without the CO letting me know. He has, however, fixed the size and difficulty rating on the entry, so that's good.

 

Hides in urban places with no parking. There is one near me on a stop sign in a busy intersection. There is no way to get this without being seen, and also you'd have to walk to a place where, really, no one is going to be walking.

 

AND FINALLY, I was in a park and there was a beautiful fountain with a nice quote from Longfellow on it and I thought it would be a great place for a cache. But I can't put one there, because someone decided that putting one 200 feet from it in a mosquito infested overgrowth would be better.

 

I feel better now.

Edited by princess leppard
Link to comment

CO's who consistently list the wrong container size which inevitably lead to cachers looking in the wrong place. How hard is it to read and then apply the guidelines? Not hard at all and yet where I cache, there are some serial offenders. What makes it worse is that sometimes gardens get trampled by cachers no matter how carefully they tread because they're looking where a specific size container is most likely to be hidden. :(

Link to comment

Power trails!

 

I've been scouting for a "Fly Fishing" series of Traditional/Multi Caches I hope to place in western Nevada... but I'm finding a number of locations are completely blocked out by "power trail" caches. For instance, there's a section of a river known as the "Miracle Mile" which happens to have a highway running along side it (the river is generally within .1 miles from the road) for the entirety of this river section. That highway has a PT on it. So not only will I have some difficulty finding a suitable locations, nobody can place caches at any of the "points of interest" along this highway.

 

And they seem to be placed with little to no concern about the safety of the finders and the general public... caches on blind turns on roads with guard rails, no shoulders, and fair amount of bicycle traffic.

 

I wonder what I would find in a sampling of these PT caches? My guess is a near empty log in an improperly marked container.

Edited by CV Kurt
Link to comment

I have a couple of pet peeves, on both sides of geocaching, cachers and hiders.

 

The first is a combination of things. Saturation of an area, with poor cache sizes. A bison tube on a tree in a forest? Come on. There is nothing interesting at this location, its just another cache 50 feet off a trail. Go 20 feet more, and place an ammo can between two rocks. It still doesn't improve the 'wow' factor, but at least it gives the kids (or grandkids in my case) something to look forward to.

 

The second is CO's that don't stay on top of cache maintenance, and let the reviewer handle archiving caches. I know a very prolific hider in my area that seems to ignore NM logs, and doesn't respond when the reviewer asks them what is going on with the cache. I know the CO is active, I see him at events, and he still has caches being published.

 

The third is cachers that literally destroy an area while searching. I went to find a multi-cache in a local state park. When I got to the first waypoint, there was (note the use of the past tense) a low rock wall. Not any more. Rocks everywhere. I've seen massive piles of needles under trees left by geocachers. It was like they were using rakes.

 

Skye.

Link to comment

I have a couple of pet peeves, on both sides of geocaching, cachers and hiders.

 

The first is a combination of things. Saturation of an area, with poor cache sizes. A bison tube on a tree in a forest? Come on. There is nothing interesting at this location, its just another cache 50 feet off a trail. Go 20 feet more, and place an ammo can between two rocks. It still doesn't improve the 'wow' factor, but at least it gives the kids (or grandkids in my case) something to look forward to.

 

The second is CO's that don't stay on top of cache maintenance, and let the reviewer handle archiving caches. I know a very prolific hider in my area that seems to ignore NM logs, and doesn't respond when the reviewer asks them what is going on with the cache. I know the CO is active, I see him at events, and he still has caches being published.

 

The third is cachers that literally destroy an area while searching. I went to find a multi-cache in a local state park. When I got to the first waypoint, there was (note the use of the past tense) a low rock wall. Not any more. Rocks everywhere. I've seen massive piles of needles under trees left by geocachers. It was like they were using rakes.

 

Skye.

 

"Skye"? The "SKYE" is one of your pet peeves?

 

Are you only a night cacher?

 

And, you spelled it wrong.

 

(Playful jab, of course.) :P

Link to comment

I have a couple of pet peeves, on both sides of geocaching, cachers and hiders.

 

The first is a combination of things. Saturation of an area, with poor cache sizes. A bison tube on a tree in a forest? Come on. There is nothing interesting at this location, its just another cache 50 feet off a trail. Go 20 feet more, and place an ammo can between two rocks. It still doesn't improve the 'wow' factor, but at least it gives the kids (or grandkids in my case) something to look forward to.

 

The second is CO's that don't stay on top of cache maintenance, and let the reviewer handle archiving caches. I know a very prolific hider in my area that seems to ignore NM logs, and doesn't respond when the reviewer asks them what is going on with the cache. I know the CO is active, I see him at events, and he still has caches being published.

 

The third is cachers that literally destroy an area while searching. I went to find a multi-cache in a local state park. When I got to the first waypoint, there was (note the use of the past tense) a low rock wall. Not any more. Rocks everywhere. I've seen massive piles of needles under trees left by geocachers. It was like they were using rakes.

 

Skye.

 

"Skye"? The "SKYE" is one of your pet peeves?

 

Are you only a night cacher?

 

And, you spelled it wrong.

 

(Playful jab, of course.) :P

 

The sky is pretty terrible, though.

Link to comment

I have a couple of pet peeves, on both sides of geocaching, cachers and hiders.

 

The first is a combination of things. Saturation of an area, with poor cache sizes. A bison tube on a tree in a forest? Come on. There is nothing interesting at this location, its just another cache 50 feet off a trail. Go 20 feet more, and place an ammo can between two rocks. It still doesn't improve the 'wow' factor, but at least it gives the kids (or grandkids in my case) something to look forward to.

 

The second is CO's that don't stay on top of cache maintenance, and let the reviewer handle archiving caches. I know a very prolific hider in my area that seems to ignore NM logs, and doesn't respond when the reviewer asks them what is going on with the cache. I know the CO is active, I see him at events, and he still has caches being published.

 

The third is cachers that literally destroy an area while searching. I went to find a multi-cache in a local state park. When I got to the first waypoint, there was (note the use of the past tense) a low rock wall. Not any more. Rocks everywhere. I've seen massive piles of needles under trees left by geocachers. It was like they were using rakes.

 

Skye.

 

"Skye"? The "SKYE" is one of your pet peeves?

 

Are you only a night cacher?

 

And, you spelled it wrong.

 

(Playful jab, of course.) :P

 

Maybe it's an aversion to cachers whose geodog is a Skye Terrier? Or, maybe I cannot find caches on the Isle of Skye? Or maybe I don't like agents of S.H.I.E.L.D?

 

(Jab taken in the manner intended. :-) )

 

Skye.

Link to comment

I have a couple of pet peeves, on both sides of geocaching, cachers and hiders.

 

The first is a combination of things. Saturation of an area, with poor cache sizes. A bison tube on a tree in a forest? Come on. There is nothing interesting at this location, its just another cache 50 feet off a trail. Go 20 feet more, and place an ammo can between two rocks. It still doesn't improve the 'wow' factor, but at least it gives the kids (or grandkids in my case) something to look forward to.

 

The second is CO's that don't stay on top of cache maintenance, and let the reviewer handle archiving caches. I know a very prolific hider in my area that seems to ignore NM logs, and doesn't respond when the reviewer asks them what is going on with the cache. I know the CO is active, I see him at events, and he still has caches being published.

 

The third is cachers that literally destroy an area while searching. I went to find a multi-cache in a local state park. When I got to the first waypoint, there was (note the use of the past tense) a low rock wall. Not any more. Rocks everywhere. I've seen massive piles of needles under trees left by geocachers. It was like they were using rakes.

 

Skye.

 

"Skye"? The "SKYE" is one of your pet peeves?

 

Are you only a night cacher?

 

And, you spelled it wrong.

 

(Playful jab, of course.) :P

 

The sky is pretty terrible, though.

 

Much worse if you fall through it and land with a thud. IMHO

Link to comment

I have a couple of pet peeves, on both sides of geocaching, cachers and hiders.

 

The first is a combination of things. Saturation of an area, with poor cache sizes. A bison tube on a tree in a forest? Come on. There is nothing interesting at this location, its just another cache 50 feet off a trail. Go 20 feet more, and place an ammo can between two rocks. It still doesn't improve the 'wow' factor, but at least it gives the kids (or grandkids in my case) something to look forward to.

 

The second is CO's that don't stay on top of cache maintenance, and let the reviewer handle archiving caches. I know a very prolific hider in my area that seems to ignore NM logs, and doesn't respond when the reviewer asks them what is going on with the cache. I know the CO is active, I see him at events, and he still has caches being published.

 

The third is cachers that literally destroy an area while searching. I went to find a multi-cache in a local state park. When I got to the first waypoint, there was (note the use of the past tense) a low rock wall. Not any more. Rocks everywhere. I've seen massive piles of needles under trees left by geocachers. It was like they were using rakes.

 

Skye.

 

"Skye"? The "SKYE" is one of your pet peeves?

 

Are you only a night cacher?

 

And, you spelled it wrong.

 

(Playful jab, of course.) :P

 

The sky is pretty terrible, though.

 

Much worse if you fall through it and land with a thud. IMHO

 

Painful memories of my night jump at Airborne school. I could swear I was going left, not backwards...oof. Twenty years on, I can still remember that hard landing.

Link to comment

Im a relative newb and I have no defeatist attitude over a dnf I just don't have the confidence that I have done everything right I cache with a phone and generally im pretty happy with it I haven't cached with anyone who has a gps to see the difference but my lack of dnf s is much more a reflection on my doubt in my caching skills than machismo for sure

Link to comment

Im a relative newb and I have no defeatist attitude over a dnf I just don't have the confidence that I have done everything right I cache with a phone and generally im pretty happy with it I haven't cached with anyone who has a gps to see the difference but my lack of dnf s is much more a reflection on my doubt in my caching skills than machismo for sure

Where is the doubt? If you searched and didn't find the cache, log a DNF. Tell the story of your "adventure" or fristration of trying to locate the cache.

Link to comment
Im a relative newb and I have no defeatist attitude over a dnf I just don't have the confidence that I have done everything right I cache with a phone and generally im pretty happy with it I haven't cached with anyone who has a gps to see the difference but my lack of dnf s is much more a reflection on my doubt in my caching skills than machismo for sure
Where is the doubt? If you searched and didn't find the cache, log a DNF. Tell the story of your "adventure" or fristration of trying to locate the cache.
+1

 

My DNF logs have never meant that I did everything right. They just mean that I reached GZ, searched for the cache, and did not find the cache. Or in some cases, that I reached what I thought was GZ, searched for the cache, and did not find the cache.

Link to comment

Im a relative newb and I have no defeatist attitude over a dnf I just don't have the confidence that I have done everything right I cache with a phone and generally im pretty happy with it I haven't cached with anyone who has a gps to see the difference but my lack of dnf s is much more a reflection on my doubt in my caching skills than machismo for sure

Where is the doubt? If you searched and didn't find the cache, log a DNF. Tell the story of your "adventure" or fristration of trying to locate the cache.

 

Yeah, this whole idea that a DNF is a reflection of your geocaching skills (or lack thereof) is a stigma that needs to go away. It's just a log that says "I didn't find the cache". That's it. Even if there are 1,000 smileys in a row and you're the first person to DNF a cache, it doesn't reflect on you in any way. We all have great days when we find everything quickly and days when we just can't seem to find anything. Log it and tell your story.

Link to comment

While we're on the subject of DNF's, it irks me to see caches get disabled by reviewers after a string of DNF's without regard to the cache itself.

 

A 1.5/1.5 cache that has a string of DNF's and a CO that doesn't seem to do anything about it: sure disable it. Chances are that kind of cache is gone, the owner isn't maintaining it and keeping it active just wastes time for those looking for a cache that isn't there.

 

But, a 5/5 cache that I've been working on for the past few years was disabled about a month ago. I must be the only person searching for this cache as I'm the only one posting DNF's on it. The reviewer disabled it because of those DNF's. Unless someone privately emailed the reviewer about an issue I'm not aware of, it certainly looks like my string of DNF's triggered the reviewer disabling the cache.

 

It's supposed to be hard and a true 5* difficulty cache should rack up many DNF's. But, because of the reviewer disabling the cache, from here on out, I will only post notes when I look for the cache/stages and not find them. It's not a huge deal, but it does irk me to not post a "truthful" log.

Link to comment

I used to think people writing in my logs "TFTC" and that's it. Especially on my extremely creative caches. But I recently experienced a cheater, who had over 10,000 finds just come through with a blanket log saying the exact thing on a 1/1 cache as a 5/5 cache. So I checked my physical logs and there is no signature from this cacher. Integrity is very important to me, people that steal geocaches, and cheat to have big number finds but not actually try on find them, and some of them are simple PnGs I mean common...really How insecure does a person need to be to fake a find...I am left wondering of all those finds, if the cacher even found 100.

Link to comment

It really irks me when I see that people have done incredibly dangerous and stupid things - like parking illegally on the side of a major, multi-lane highway - instead of planning ahead and figuring out the correct way to get to a cache. Not only have they put their own lives at risk with their stupidity, they make us all look bad by acting that way.

Link to comment

While we're on the subject of DNF's, it irks me to see caches get disabled by reviewers after a string of DNF's without regard to the cache itself.

 

A 1.5/1.5 cache that has a string of DNF's and a CO that doesn't seem to do anything about it: sure disable it. Chances are that kind of cache is gone, the owner isn't maintaining it and keeping it active just wastes time for those looking for a cache that isn't there.

 

But, a 5/5 cache that I've been working on for the past few years was disabled about a month ago. I must be the only person searching for this cache as I'm the only one posting DNF's on it. The reviewer disabled it because of those DNF's. Unless someone privately emailed the reviewer about an issue I'm not aware of, it certainly looks like my string of DNF's triggered the reviewer disabling the cache.

 

It's supposed to be hard and a true 5* difficulty cache should rack up many DNF's. But, because of the reviewer disabling the cache, from here on out, I will only post notes when I look for the cache/stages and not find them. It's not a huge deal, but it does irk me to not post a "truthful" log.

 

Yeah...normally I side with our reviewer when he disables because nine times out of ten it's an abandoned cache. There's one, however, that makes no sense. It stands out because this cache in particular is the only one of its kind in this part of the state: it qualifies folks for a particular "back to school" challenge based on its name and placement date. Not only that, though...it's a really cool puzzle that takes people to two pretty interesting locations on the Emory University campus.

 

http://coord.info/GCJ1W6

 

So it lives for years and years until a few months ago when somebody with ONE find to their name posts a NM log instead of a DNF. It's a D2.5 cache and a relatively tricky hide. So this is one of those "one in ten" scenarios when the reviewer jumped the gun. That in itself is not normally that big a deal, but the CO is still active and it's a great cache...so I'd hate to see this get taken down based on one inexperienced cacher's mistake. I'm also quite disappointed in how slow the CO is to take action...but alas, if he doesn't care, I suppose it's meant to happen, no?

Link to comment

While we're on the subject of DNF's, it irks me to see caches get disabled by reviewers after a string of DNF's without regard to the cache itself.

 

A 1.5/1.5 cache that has a string of DNF's and a CO that doesn't seem to do anything about it: sure disable it. Chances are that kind of cache is gone, the owner isn't maintaining it and keeping it active just wastes time for those looking for a cache that isn't there.

 

But, a 5/5 cache that I've been working on for the past few years was disabled about a month ago. I must be the only person searching for this cache as I'm the only one posting DNF's on it. The reviewer disabled it because of those DNF's. Unless someone privately emailed the reviewer about an issue I'm not aware of, it certainly looks like my string of DNF's triggered the reviewer disabling the cache.

 

It's supposed to be hard and a true 5* difficulty cache should rack up many DNF's. But, because of the reviewer disabling the cache, from here on out, I will only post notes when I look for the cache/stages and not find them. It's not a huge deal, but it does irk me to not post a "truthful" log.

 

Yeah...normally I side with our reviewer when he disables because nine times out of ten it's an abandoned cache. There's one, however, that makes no sense. It stands out because this cache in particular is the only one of its kind in this part of the state: it qualifies folks for a particular "back to school" challenge based on its name and placement date. Not only that, though...it's a really cool puzzle that takes people to two pretty interesting locations on the Emory University campus.

 

http://coord.info/GCJ1W6

 

So it lives for years and years until a few months ago when somebody with ONE find to their name posts a NM log instead of a DNF. It's a D2.5 cache and a relatively tricky hide. So this is one of those "one in ten" scenarios when the reviewer jumped the gun. That in itself is not normally that big a deal, but the CO is still active and it's a great cache...so I'd hate to see this get taken down based on one inexperienced cacher's mistake. I'm also quite disappointed in how slow the CO is to take action...but alas, if he doesn't care, I suppose it's meant to happen, no?

 

I would be more upset with the owner. He's active. The NM gets posted in April and he does nothing until the reviewer disables the cache and two people post notes.

Looking at the other 2 of his cache hides he disabled them and then never did anything. Months later the reviewers have the task of archiving them.

Not a particularly responsible owner.

But I agree that the reviewer disable after an NM log is unusual, I have a feeling it may have something to do with the CO's reputation. The cache was unlikely to be replaced. I'll be surprised if this one gets replaced even though the CO responded with "I hope to find some time in the next month to make a trip down to the area to place it."

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

While we're on the subject of DNF's, it irks me to see caches get disabled by reviewers after a string of DNF's without regard to the cache itself.

 

A 1.5/1.5 cache that has a string of DNF's and a CO that doesn't seem to do anything about it: sure disable it. Chances are that kind of cache is gone, the owner isn't maintaining it and keeping it active just wastes time for those looking for a cache that isn't there.

 

But, a 5/5 cache that I've been working on for the past few years was disabled about a month ago. I must be the only person searching for this cache as I'm the only one posting DNF's on it. The reviewer disabled it because of those DNF's. Unless someone privately emailed the reviewer about an issue I'm not aware of, it certainly looks like my string of DNF's triggered the reviewer disabling the cache.

 

It's supposed to be hard and a true 5* difficulty cache should rack up many DNF's. But, because of the reviewer disabling the cache, from here on out, I will only post notes when I look for the cache/stages and not find them. It's not a huge deal, but it does irk me to not post a "truthful" log.

 

Yeah...normally I side with our reviewer when he disables because nine times out of ten it's an abandoned cache. There's one, however, that makes no sense. It stands out because this cache in particular is the only one of its kind in this part of the state: it qualifies folks for a particular "back to school" challenge based on its name and placement date. Not only that, though...it's a really cool puzzle that takes people to two pretty interesting locations on the Emory University campus.

 

http://coord.info/GCJ1W6

 

So it lives for years and years until a few months ago when somebody with ONE find to their name posts a NM log instead of a DNF. It's a D2.5 cache and a relatively tricky hide. So this is one of those "one in ten" scenarios when the reviewer jumped the gun. That in itself is not normally that big a deal, but the CO is still active and it's a great cache...so I'd hate to see this get taken down based on one inexperienced cacher's mistake. I'm also quite disappointed in how slow the CO is to take action...but alas, if he doesn't care, I suppose it's meant to happen, no?

 

I would be more upset with the owner. He's active. The NM gets posted in April and he does nothing until the reviewer disables the cache and two people post notes.

Looking at the other 2 of his cache hides he disabled them and then never did anything. Months later the reviewers have the task of archiving them.

Not a particularly responsible owner.

But I agree that the reviewer disable after an NM log is unusual, I have a feeling it may have something to do with the CO's reputation. The cache was unlikely to be replaced. I'll be surprised if this one gets replaced even though the CO responded with "I hope to find some time in the next month to make a trip down to the area to place it."

I kinda agree, but the Reviewer's TD is months after that one NM log...

I'd believe that there just may be more to that story. :)

Even this one, the Co's cavalier attitude of maybe stopping by a month after the Reviewer's time frame (to me) kinda shows he could care less.

 

Edited to add... I particularly found it amusing that one was embarrassed to be called a geocacher from that state (over a nm from another ?), yet didn't think anything of turning the cache page into a forum - a good way to get it archived and locked itself. :laughing:

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment

While we're on the subject of DNF's, it irks me to see caches get disabled by reviewers after a string of DNF's without regard to the cache itself.

 

A 1.5/1.5 cache that has a string of DNF's and a CO that doesn't seem to do anything about it: sure disable it. Chances are that kind of cache is gone, the owner isn't maintaining it and keeping it active just wastes time for those looking for a cache that isn't there.

 

But, a 5/5 cache that I've been working on for the past few years was disabled about a month ago. I must be the only person searching for this cache as I'm the only one posting DNF's on it. The reviewer disabled it because of those DNF's. Unless someone privately emailed the reviewer about an issue I'm not aware of, it certainly looks like my string of DNF's triggered the reviewer disabling the cache.

 

It's supposed to be hard and a true 5* difficulty cache should rack up many DNF's. But, because of the reviewer disabling the cache, from here on out, I will only post notes when I look for the cache/stages and not find them. It's not a huge deal, but it does irk me to not post a "truthful" log.

 

Yeah...normally I side with our reviewer when he disables because nine times out of ten it's an abandoned cache. There's one, however, that makes no sense. It stands out because this cache in particular is the only one of its kind in this part of the state: it qualifies folks for a particular "back to school" challenge based on its name and placement date. Not only that, though...it's a really cool puzzle that takes people to two pretty interesting locations on the Emory University campus.

 

http://coord.info/GCJ1W6

 

So it lives for years and years until a few months ago when somebody with ONE find to their name posts a NM log instead of a DNF. It's a D2.5 cache and a relatively tricky hide. So this is one of those "one in ten" scenarios when the reviewer jumped the gun. That in itself is not normally that big a deal, but the CO is still active and it's a great cache...so I'd hate to see this get taken down based on one inexperienced cacher's mistake. I'm also quite disappointed in how slow the CO is to take action...but alas, if he doesn't care, I suppose it's meant to happen, no?

 

I would be more upset with the owner. He's active. The NM gets posted in April and he does nothing until the reviewer disables the cache and two people post notes.

Looking at the other 2 of his cache hides he disabled them and then never did anything. Months later the reviewers have the task of archiving them.

Not a particularly responsible owner.

But I agree that the reviewer disable after an NM log is unusual, I have a feeling it may have something to do with the CO's reputation. The cache was unlikely to be replaced. I'll be surprised if this one gets replaced even though the CO responded with "I hope to find some time in the next month to make a trip down to the area to place it."

I kinda agree, but the Reviewer's TD is months after that one NM log...

I'd believe that there just may be more to that story. :)

Even this one, the Co's cavalier attitude of maybe stopping by a month after the Reviewer's time frame (to me) kinda shows he could care less.

 

Edited to add... I particularly found it amusing that one was embarrassed to be called a geocacher from that state (over a nm from another ?), yet didn't think anything of turning the cache page into a forum - a good way to get it archived and locked itself. :laughing:

 

Yeah...I thought that was a bit over-the-top. I think it had more to do with the reviewer, though. Our particular reviewer does these sweeps every couple of months and, like I stated, generally does a good job of clearing out the abandoned and poorly maintained caches. That gets under a lot of peoples' skin, though. There are a LOT of people around here that think that just because a cache is a few years old, that it should be allowed to live on even when the CO couldn't care less about keeping up with it. Whenever I debate that point, I get a lot of angry or mean-spirited responses such as that.

Link to comment

It really irks me when I see that people have done incredibly dangerous and stupid things - like parking illegally on the side of a major, multi-lane highway - instead of planning ahead and figuring out the correct way to get to a cache. Not only have they put their own lives at risk with their stupidity, they make us all look bad by acting that way.

 

Hate to sound cold but it wouldn't be so bad if the incredibly stupid things people did only affected them. But more often than not, their actions usually cause problems for people around them. Parking on the side of a busy roadway not only endangers that one cacher, it also endangers his passengers, sometimes children, and other drivers who happen to be passing by at the time.

 

I do wish common sense was alive and well but unfortunately,, it's not. :(

Link to comment

1. Finding food, broken or disgusting items in a cache once you find it. (I've heard of some pretty interesting stories about this, believe me!) ;)

2. Being in the middle of a geocaching Adventure, when all of a sudden your GPS dies, and you have no batteries!!!

 

Unfortunately, number 1 has been going on since before i started caching in early 2002. Not much you can do about it. :(

 

On number 2, no doubt you've remedied the problem so it won't happen again. B)

Link to comment

Dishonest post edits.

Narcissa, my last post only talked about about how it irked me when people did not trade up and even. There was no need to to be rude about it. And the only reason that i had edited my post was because i thought of better things that annoyed me when geocaching about that. Please understand that everyone has there own right to their own opinions and thoughts, and their is no need for judgement. Thanks!

Link to comment

When you seriously can't find a cache after a good look, when most of the previous logs say "Easy find!", "Quick park and grab!"..... then the day after your DNF, the "Obvious spot! TFTC" logs start again..... embarrassing....even worse when it is a large cache.

Edited by lee737
Link to comment

When you seriously can't find a cache after a good look, when most of the previous logs say "Easy find!", "Quick park and grab!"..... then the day after your DNF, the "Obvious spot! TFTC" logs start again..... embarrassing....even worse when it is a large cache.

 

This.

 

And even worse, when you go back for another look and find it immediately and you are CERTAIN you looked there last time. That happens to me more often than I should be willing to admit.

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.

 

Very well said!!!! Here in the Reno, NV area, we have what they call "power trails". No thought went into these at all, just put out a bunch of micros along any trail or highway. Some go as far as placing hundreds just so it makes a outline of an animal or some kind of symbol. Complete waste of my time and very unimaginative and not clever at all. Some cachers have a thousand or more caches placed!!! How can they possibly maintain that many?

Link to comment

Power trails!

 

I've been scouting for a "Fly Fishing" series of Traditional/Multi Caches I hope to place in western Nevada... but I'm finding a number of locations are completely blocked out by "power trail" caches. For instance, there's a section of a river known as the "Miracle Mile" which happens to have a highway running along side it (the river is generally within .1 miles from the road) for the entirety of this river section. That highway has a PT on it. So not only will I have some difficulty finding a suitable locations, nobody can place caches at any of the "points of interest" along this highway.

 

And they seem to be placed with little to no concern about the safety of the finders and the general public... caches on blind turns on roads with guard rails, no shoulders, and fair amount of bicycle traffic.

 

I wonder what I would find in a sampling of these PT caches? My guess is a near empty log in an improperly marked container.

 

I'm with you on this CV. The "power trail" is an epidemic here in Northern Nevada!! Absolute garbage!!

Link to comment

Power trails!

 

I've been scouting for a "Fly Fishing" series of Traditional/Multi Caches I hope to place in western Nevada... but I'm finding a number of locations are completely blocked out by "power trail" caches. For instance, there's a section of a river known as the "Miracle Mile" which happens to have a highway running along side it (the river is generally within .1 miles from the road) for the entirety of this river section. That highway has a PT on it. So not only will I have some difficulty finding a suitable locations, nobody can place caches at any of the "points of interest" along this highway.

 

And they seem to be placed with little to no concern about the safety of the finders and the general public... caches on blind turns on roads with guard rails, no shoulders, and fair amount of bicycle traffic.

 

I wonder what I would find in a sampling of these PT caches? My guess is a near empty log in an improperly marked container.

 

I'm with you on this CV. The "power trail" is an epidemic here in Northern Nevada!! Absolute garbage!!

 

Come to southwestern Ontario where we have lots and lots of power trails on roads, and power trails on trails. We have power trails of challenge caches, we have power trails of puzzle caches.

We have angry neighbours who get the PT cache near their house archived. We have geo-art (most of which have deteriorated). Almost all our power trails are not maintained, so you can expect a lot of missing caches and containers with black moldy wet full logsheets.

Link to comment

Power trails!

 

I've been scouting for a "Fly Fishing" series of Traditional/Multi Caches I hope to place in western Nevada... but I'm finding a number of locations are completely blocked out by "power trail" caches. For instance, there's a section of a river known as the "Miracle Mile" which happens to have a highway running along side it (the river is generally within .1 miles from the road) for the entirety of this river section. That highway has a PT on it. So not only will I have some difficulty finding a suitable locations, nobody can place caches at any of the "points of interest" along this highway.

 

And they seem to be placed with little to no concern about the safety of the finders and the general public... caches on blind turns on roads with guard rails, no shoulders, and fair amount of bicycle traffic.

 

I wonder what I would find in a sampling of these PT caches? My guess is a near empty log in an improperly marked container.

 

I'm with you on this CV. The "power trail" is an epidemic here in Northern Nevada!! Absolute garbage!!

 

Come to southwestern Ontario where we have lots and lots of power trails on roads, and power trails on trails. We have power trails of challenge caches, we have power trails of puzzle caches.

We have angry neighbours who get the PT cache near their house archived. We have geo-art (most of which have deteriorated). Almost all our power trails are not maintained, so you can expect a lot of missing caches and containers with black moldy wet full logsheets.

 

Shame on those powertrail finders for not maintaining those caches like the owners requested!

Link to comment

I had something that kind of Irked me today. Probably shouldn't but for some reason today it did. I had a very long day at work driving all over with over 200 miles. It was now dark and I was far from home. I wanted to get a few quick caches in a area I am not at very often so some easy ones would be great! There was 2 1 Difficulty 1 terrains nearby. Perfect those should be as easy as any! The first one was outside of a dinner with tables to eat at outside and on the corner of a very busy street, Also workers inside could look out the window to see you. Then to top it off there was no hint. There was a teenage kid hanging out right at GZ. I took a walk around and to the stop sign that the coords took me to. I searched it with no luck. Then I noticed a lamp post not like your regular ones there. I looked around at everything and no way I could lift the lamp post without being noticed. I went back to my truck and the kid eventually left but workers could still see. I went and lifted the skirt but nothing was there.

OK I moved onto the next 1D 1T. It was in front of a museum. It said it was fine day or night. There were cars parked all around and the logs stated how much others had struggled with it. I looked for about 10 min with a flashlight feeling way to exposed with no luck so decided to move on to more difficult hides. I had no problems with any of the difficult hides I looked for. The second one was definitely not wheelchair accessible. And with the muggle factor at the first one that I have driven by before with no way to look I just feel they should be rated higher if there are times you will not be able to find them. Sorry for the rant!

Link to comment

when a TB is taken from a cache and the cacher who takes it does not note it on the site that they have it. You think there are a number of TB's in a cache when looking online only to find non in it when you get to the cache, also signatures scrawled across a log especially if the log is tiny. ?

Link to comment

when a TB is taken from a cache and the cacher who takes it does not note it on the site that they have it. You think there are a number of TB's in a cache when looking online only to find non in it when you get to the cache, also signatures scrawled across a log especially if the log is tiny. ?

 

...to add to the first part:

When they are obviously missing, many have noted it and a sufficient amount of time has passed, yet neither the CO nor the owner of the trackables mark them missing. Sometimes trackables will be listed in inventory of caches for years and years, even through the cache getting muggled and replaced! MARK. THEM. MISSING!

Link to comment

I'm with you on this CV. The "power trail" is an epidemic here in Northern Nevada!! Absolute garbage!!

Would there be more better caches if the people hiding power trails didn't hide anything? In other words, are power trails in the way of better caches?

 

Oh, sorry, not expressed as an irk. Try this: it irks me when people assume that if there weren't 1000 power trail caches in an area, then there'd be 1000 good caches, instead. It strikes me as more likely that if the power trail wasn't there, nothing would be.

Link to comment
Oh, sorry, not expressed as an irk. Try this: it irks me when people assume that if there weren't 1000 power trail caches in an area, then there'd be 1000 good caches, instead. It strikes me as more likely that if the power trail wasn't there, nothing would be.
I don't think many people assume that 1000 fungible numbers run caches would be replaced with 1000 good caches. But I have heard of cases where people archived good caches that were subsumed by a trail of fungible numbers run caches. And I have heard of cases where people wanted to hide good caches but a trail of fungible numbers run caches had saturated the area. So I think it's reasonable to think that if there weren't 1000 fungible numbers run caches, then there would be at least one good cache, and perhaps more.

 

That sounds like a fine exchange to me, although I'm sure fans of fungible numbers run caches would disagree.

Link to comment

I am with those with a dislike for power trails.To me they seem totally designed to boost find counts with the minimal amount of effort.

I don't think they positively contribute the Geocaching at all because mostly containers are hastily prepared with little creativity and not much regard to camouflage and weather suitability.

As mentioned they have the effect of blocking out large spaces in a particular area that would be better served with even just a few well thought out and constructed hides.

Not far from where I live is a power trail with each cache(about 30)named after a particular year and model of car that has no relevance to the area in which it is hidden other than maybe the CO preference for that brand of vehicle.

For this cacher this is a pointless exercise and I won't be chasing numbers just for the sake of it.

I should point out that I have no desire to hide a cache in the area so I have no motive for bagging this particular PT.

Similarly I,m not big on caches that require you to enter commercial premises that while not overtly advertising the enterprise I think that the positioning of the hide has that effect and probably contravenes placement guidelines.

Link to comment

 

Not far from where I live is a power trail with each cache(about 30)named after a particular year and model of car that has no relevance to the area in which it is hidden other than maybe the CO preference for that brand of vehicle.

 

 

I have also seen some pretty absurd "themes" for a large series of caches where the theme only exists in the naming of the caches and has nothing to do with the location or type of containers used. As I see it, the theme is just an excuse to put out a lot of caches to increase the find count for others. There's a small PT in California with 80 or so caches with titles related to duct tape.

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...