Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

This doesn't irk me "most," but it IS a minor irk. Here's the Retrieve log from a TB I'm watching:

 

[^] [^] [^] Happy Holidays from your trackable!

Thanks from [GCName], Platinum EarthCache Master, 1700+ hides, and the Hosts of 40+ Geocaching Events, logged 19,700+ trackables. Happy travels!

And We Geocached/Smiled/Lived/Loved/Logged/and Laughter Happily Ever~after [^][^] 44,400+Finds

That irked me a bit, because there's NO info about the trackable or the cache. I went to the cache page to see what they had logged there. So far, they haven't logged the cache the TB was retrieved from. (Their cache logs from that day were all in a neighboring state, though.) Their other cache logs are all generic, aside from posting about TB drops/retrievals/swaps. At least they do that much.

 

I tend to have disdain for anyone who feels the need to advertise like that.

 

Me too. People who feel the need to gloat about their high numbers and/or stats in their logs are particularly irksome to me. Like those copy and paste logs that say something to the effect of "Your cache has become find #13,573 in the caching history of (power cacher). That's 200 finds for today with 0 DNFs. Thanks to all of the COs for placing and maintaining these smilies for all to find!". Hate those logs.

 

Since early on, I have started my logs with my find number, normally with no additional comment unless it is a milestone of some sort. Hopefully this tic doesn't create the impression that I am gloating about numbers. I don't do copy and paste logs, so perhaps that helps.

Link to comment

This doesn't irk me "most," but it IS a minor irk. Here's the Retrieve log from a TB I'm watching:

 

[^] [^] [^] Happy Holidays from your trackable!

Thanks from [GCName], Platinum EarthCache Master, 1700+ hides, and the Hosts of 40+ Geocaching Events, logged 19,700+ trackables. Happy travels!

And We Geocached/Smiled/Lived/Loved/Logged/and Laughter Happily Ever~after [^][^] 44,400+Finds

That irked me a bit, because there's NO info about the trackable or the cache. I went to the cache page to see what they had logged there. So far, they haven't logged the cache the TB was retrieved from. (Their cache logs from that day were all in a neighboring state, though.) Their other cache logs are all generic, aside from posting about TB drops/retrievals/swaps. At least they do that much.

 

I tend to have disdain for anyone who feels the need to advertise like that.

 

Me too. People who feel the need to gloat about their high numbers and/or stats in their logs are particularly irksome to me. Like those copy and paste logs that say something to the effect of "Your cache has become find #13,573 in the caching history of (power cacher). That's 200 finds for today with 0 DNFs. Thanks to all of the COs for placing and maintaining these smilies for all to find!". Hate those logs.

 

Since early on, I have started my logs with my find number, normally with no additional comment unless it is a milestone of some sort. Hopefully this tic doesn't create the impression that I am gloating about numbers. I don't do copy and paste logs, so perhaps that helps.

 

I precede every one of my logs with the find #. I do this specifically for my own purposes so that if anyone asks me about a find (happens quite often), I've got some indication as to when I found it. And if it appears to anyone as bragging or anything other than what I mentioned here? I really don't care and feel no need to conform to whiners or the weak that go out of their way to feel offended.

Link to comment

I precede every one of my logs with the find #. I do this specifically for my own purposes so that if anyone asks me about a find (happens quite often), I've got some indication as to when I found it. And if it appears to anyone as bragging or anything other than what I mentioned here? I really don't care and feel no need to conform to whiners or the weak that go out of their way to feel offended.

 

I use the same method.

 

Found it 02 Jan 16

9 of 9 today. Logged at 2:52:00 PM UTC

 

Logtext.....................

 

TFTC cacheowner's name

Found# 6068

Link to comment

I precede every one of my logs with the find #. I do this specifically for my own purposes...

Just for the record, I think the information's useful for anyone, since it gives an indication of how experienced the log writer was at that point in history, while the system only tells us how experienced they are now.

 

...so that if anyone asks me about a find (happens quite often), I've got some indication as to when I found it.

Wouldn't the date tell you when you found it even better than a sequence number?

Link to comment

I precede every one of my logs with the find #. I do this specifically for my own purposes so that if anyone asks me about a find (happens quite often), I've got some indication as to when I found it. And if it appears to anyone as bragging or anything other than what I mentioned here? I really don't care and feel no need to conform to whiners or the weak that go out of their way to feel offended.

 

I use the same method.

 

Found it 02 Jan 16

9 of 9 today. Logged at 2:52:00 PM UTC

 

Logtext.....................

 

TFTC cacheowner's name

Found# 6068

 

Back in a previous incarnation of these forums (fora?) when we had a designated mechanism for submitting ideas, I had suggested that the log entry be displayed with a two-part 'find-count'; 'this one / total'.

 

So if it says (100/250), it means that the logger currently has 250 finds, and this was the 100th.

 

They never did it, obviously, and I see some complications, like, that's a LOT of database queries for every log on a page, and what do you show for logs other than 'Found'?

 

Oh, well.

Link to comment

Just got a series of logs on my archived GeoArt series. From sometime many months ago. Since I removed the caches, I have most of the logs. I checked several of the logs. Guess what? This many-thousands-of-finds cacher did not sign or stamp any of the ones I checked. Then I noticed that another many-thousands-of finds cacher had not signed nor stamped any of the logs either! I asked for an explanation, but I am not expecting a response. A few dozen logs deleted with tens of thousands of finds does not mean much. I find it really sad that people do this. I checked some other logs and found a really bad photo shop of a webcam. Really bad! Really sad. Guess I'll have to spend some time deleting lots of fake logs.

Link to comment

Just got a series of logs on my archived GeoArt series. From sometime many months ago. Since I removed the caches, I have most of the logs. I checked several of the logs. Guess what? This many-thousands-of-finds cacher did not sign or stamp any of the ones I checked. Then I noticed that another many-thousands-of finds cacher had not signed nor stamped any of the logs either! I asked for an explanation, but I am not expecting a response. A few dozen logs deleted with tens of thousands of finds does not mean much. I find it really sad that people do this. I checked some other logs and found a really bad photo shop of a webcam. Really bad! Really sad. Guess I'll have to spend some time deleting lots of fake logs.

 

I've had a similar issue on some of our hides in Western Kansas. We've gotten several "found it" logs from German cachers where the date is several months before the cache is even published...

Link to comment

I precede every one of my logs with the find #. I do this specifically for my own purposes...

Just for the record, I think the information's useful for anyone, since it gives an indication of how experienced the log writer was at that point in history, while the system only tells us how experienced they are now.

 

...so that if anyone asks me about a find (happens quite often), I've got some indication as to when I found it.

Wouldn't the date tell you when you found it even better than a sequence number?

 

It's the compilation of all available data that I find useful.

Link to comment

Cachers who don't log DNF's: No shame in logging a frown. You're helping the community. I always log DNF's because I want other people to know what they're getting into! Also I might feel frustrated that I couldn't find it- which either means it outsmarted me, or it's not there. If others come along and log DNF's and the cache actually isn't there, that means I wasn't outsmarted! Always log DNF's.

 

Caches hidden in dangerous areas: Sumps, fenced off areas, near interstate highways, etc. That were somehow approved. I have found a few of these and reported them for archival and usually I am ignored. If you have to hop a fence and are 60 feet from an interstate highway shoulder, something is wrong -_-

 

Power Trails: Despite what many people say, I do think that numbers matter a little. The number of smileys you have is sort of a point of honor and, to me, shows how many cool places you've been. After all, that's what geocaching is about- bringing you to cool places you otherwise wouldn't have visited.

 

Power trails on the other hand, defeat this purpose and cheapen the smiley. I can think of nothing more nonsensical than spending hours driving down a road and stopping every tenth of a mile to sign a log. It's a waste of time, it's a waste of gas, and I just don't understand it. If a stretch of road is cool, hide a cache at the beginning, hide a cache at the end, and tell people to drive from point A to point B.

 

The concept of power trails really angers me <_<

 

BUT- to each their own, I guess. I GUESS. lol. I do believe that each person can play the game the way they want to, so whatever, as long as it doesnt directly affect my experience.

Link to comment

 

Power Trails: Despite what many people say, I do think that numbers matter a little. The number of smileys you have is sort of a point of honor and, to me, shows how many cool places you've been. After all, that's what geocaching is about- bringing you to cool places you otherwise wouldn't have visited.

,

The number of smileys one has isn't necessarily a good indicator for showing how many cool places one has cached.

Someone spending a week or so in the Nevada desert can easily acquire a few thousand smileys. It would be relatively easy to achieve a 5 digit find count without leaving the state of Nevada and many other cache dense areas. By comparison, my 1230 or so finds (in 8 years) is quite low compared to the numbers of a numbers hound that has playing the game a few years, yet I have been to a lot of cool places (finds in 21 countries, on four different continents).

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Decoys.

+1

In our area, we've seen caches with "decoys" as the most with issues .

Removed, or often additional logs placed with, "the cache was missing a log. Fixed it for ya. :) " Found It logs. :laughing:

 

Coming across a cache with decoys makes for a nice change of pace at times. As long as the decoys are marked as decoys, there shouldn't be problems. What irks is the people who "fix it for ya".

Link to comment

Decoys.

+1

In our area, we've seen caches with "decoys" as the most with issues .

Removed, or often additional logs placed with, "the cache was missing a log. Fixed it for ya. :) " Found It logs. :laughing:

 

Coming across a cache with decoys makes for a nice change of pace at times. As long as the decoys are marked as decoys, there shouldn't be problems. What irks is the people who "fix it for ya".

 

I can understand a pile of rocks or sticks, but a decoy cache container? :blink:

Link to comment

I love decoys. I found a cool turtle decoy on a cache I found today. I think they break up the monotony. I have decoys on 3 of my caches and aside from one person, they are all loved. I had to replace 2 decoys. The point is, though, whether you like them or don't...don't mess with them. It's not your cache.

Link to comment

Coming across a cache with decoys makes for a nice change of pace at times. As long as the decoys are marked as decoys, there shouldn't be problems. What irks is the people who "fix it for ya".

I admit, I've enjoyed some well done decoys, but I'm still going to claim they irk me. The absolute most obnoxious was a cache with 3 decoys, each one of which would have been an extraordinarily good hide on its own. With each one, I had a duel reaction: "What a waste!", and "You mean the actual hide is going to be even more clever than that? How am I ever going to find it?!"

Link to comment

I dislike decoys..... especially multi-ones - last weekend we were doing a multi, found WP1, got coords for GZ, and set off (in the rain, with two young kids) - get to 'GZ' to find a note - 'try again!' - went back to WP1, to find you had to open the container a different way to get the real coords..... call me a grinch, but it just pi$$ed me off! Then to get to GZ to find a mouldy/damp tube in the dirt... that's another thing that irks me....

Link to comment

I dislike decoys..... especially multi-ones - last weekend we were doing a multi, found WP1, got coords for GZ, and set off (in the rain, with two young kids) - get to 'GZ' to find a note - 'try again!' - went back to WP1, to find you had to open the container a different way to get the real coords..... call me a grinch, but it just pi$$ed me off! Then to get to GZ to find a mouldy/damp tube in the dirt... that's another thing that irks me....

 

We've had multi's like that. Point is, in our case, we caught it because we tend to read the listing. It clearly said "tags are GC xx.xxx yy.yyy where xx.xxx = North and yy.yyy is East". The "fake" tags were just xx.xxx yy.yyy B)

Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

Link to comment

Can someone list an example of a good decoy? To me, a well-placed decoy can act as a hint or actually save someone time by telling them not to look in a particular location. An example with one I did was when I hid a cache 20-25 feet high in a tree. I placed a decoy in the same tree right at eye level...the first place someone would look, right? Once they found the decoy, they knew to either look higher or look on the ground. Unfortunately, an old guy in my area didn't appreciate it and trashed the decoy. Perhaps he thought I was taunting him. Anyone that would have read the attributes would realize that a cache with a difficulty of 3 wouldn't be able to grab it that easily.

Edited by brookr1
Link to comment
Can someone list an example of a good decoy?
I placed one where the cache container was in an extra piece added to a structure. For symmetry, I needed to add another piece on the other side, which was a decoy of sorts. But it was solid (no container inside), and had a note written on it that encouraged seekers to examine the other one.

 

I've found puzzle caches that had red herring solutions, with decoys at those coordinates, and notes that encouraged seekers to reread the puzzle a little more carefully, to figure out the correct solution.

 

I've found caches with multiple small containers inside a larger container, where the challenge was to figure out which of the small containers held the log. Or at least, that's what the challenge seemed to be. Sometimes, that really was the challenge. But I've never encountered any that had so many small containers that the search for the right one became tedious.

Link to comment

Not logging your DNFs. Some logs say stuff like, "Searched here three times before finally finding it on my fourth try today!", yet they never logged any DNFs

 

Oh yeah, and also bad coords. Kinda ruins the point somewhat, if when you get there you can't even find the thing because the coords are way off.

Edited by mighty_felix
Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

Because then they're just geo-junk.

By leaving the caches active, at least there's a chance the thing will still be there, findable and logable.

If it isn't, the normal process will eventually clean it out. (That means us.)

Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

Because then they're just geo-junk.

By leaving the caches active, at least there's a chance the thing will still be there, findable and logable.

If it isn't, the normal process will eventually clean it out. (That means us.)

 

If they are findable, and not signable they still eventually become geojunk don't they? When is it OK to remove left behind game pieces?

Or should we just keep adding new logs and throwndown caches? I have some remote caches that were disabled by a reviewer once, and I'm a active geocacher. :o

Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

Because then they're just geo-junk.

By leaving the caches active, at least there's a chance the thing will still be there, findable and logable.

If it isn't, the normal process will eventually clean it out. (That means us.)

 

But until the cache has either disappeared, or literally fallen to pieces, it stays active, regardless of its state of disrepair. Or it gets propped up by donated containers/logbooks, all the while the CO hasn't even thought of geocaching for the past 3 years.....

Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

Because then they're just geo-junk.

By leaving the caches active, at least there's a chance the thing will still be there, findable and logable.

If it isn't, the normal process will eventually clean it out. (That means us.)

 

If they are findable, and not signable they still eventually become geojunk don't they? When is it OK to remove left behind game pieces?

Or should we just keep adding new logs and throwndown caches? I have some remote caches that were disabled by a reviewer once, and I'm a active geocacher. :o

 

My sentence "That means us" meant that according to the way the GC 'system' is set up, if a cache is unworkable, WE'RE supposed to file a NM log, then eventually a NA log. MAYBE the person logging the NA will remove the remnants if he or she finds themself back there after the archive. Probably not, but maybe. Maybe the CO of a new cache in the area if they know the history. Maybe.

 

So if the CO takes a powder, eventually we'll cause the bad caches to get weeded out. If you don't auto-archive when a CO goes inactive (which was the point I was answering) and a cache has no problems, it's still available, with a chance of end-of-life activity, instead of an auto-archive which guarantees geo-junk never to be hunted-for again, with no chance of being cleaned up.

 

----

 

Fixed for grammar. Probably wrong, as well.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

Because then they're just geo-junk.

By leaving the caches active, at least there's a chance the thing will still be there, findable and logable.

If it isn't, the normal process will eventually clean it out. (That means us.)

 

But until the cache has either disappeared, or literally fallen to pieces, it stays active, regardless of its state of disrepair. Or it gets propped up by donated containers/logbooks, all the while the CO hasn't even thought of geocaching for the past 3 years.....

 

So what's wrong with that?

 

If people want to fix it, it's still in play. I would not, and countless entries in these forums admonish people NOT to prop up old caches. Mostly, it's to keep from rewarding lazy COs, but in this case, they're gone. That's not rewarding them; they're completely unaffected. The 'fixers' are not enabling anybody. In order for a bad CO to be enabled, he or she would have to still be in the game, and therefore getting away with other people doing their work. That would be bad.

 

If the CO is gone and it's falling to pieces, then the end-of-life process takes over. "NM" log, "NA" log, "Archive".

 

Again, let me stress that I would never advocate keeping an ex-CO's caches alive. I'd rather let someone else in who will maintain their cache, but an old cache's existence, in itself, is not a problem if it's in good shape.

Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

Because then they're just geo-junk.

By leaving the caches active, at least there's a chance the thing will still be there, findable and logable.

If it isn't, the normal process will eventually clean it out. (That means us.)

 

I too find geo-junk ownerless caches irksome.

 

The normal process isn't working very well (however, it's a good process in my opinion). It relies on the community to embrace the NM and NA system. The majority do not. The amount of geojunk is growing. The acceptance of geo-junk is growing.

 

More people are willing to prop up geo-junk caches then are willing to have the listing archived. The database is full of geo-junk listings. It's getting hard to weed through the junk to find maintained caches.

 

 

I also find it irksome when ownerless caches (often geo-junk) block a place to hide a cache. I had that problem last month when looking for a good spot to hide a cache in a narrow stretch of woods along a creek.

 

I've found a few caches that were planted too close too other caches (3 too close to my caches, 4 too close to other caches (the last one I found was left by a girl scout group)). The owners don't go back to pick them up, so I expect that had the cache been published, they were not intending to ever go back to maintain the cache. There are likely quite a few abandoned caches that never made it to publication, and were left to turn in to geo-junk.

 

When finders do log NAs and the cache listing finally gets archived, the cache will still be geo-junk because it's unlikely to be picked up anyway. May as well archive inactive owner caches.

 

Link to comment

The normal process isn't working very well (however, it's a good process in my opinion). It relies on the community to embrace the NM and NA system. The majority do not. The amount of geojunk is growing. The acceptance of geo-junk is growing.

Speak for your own community: the normal process works fine in my community. I'd go so far as to say poorly maintained caches are at an all time low in my area, certainly proportionally but possibly even in absolute terms.

Link to comment

The normal process isn't working very well (however, it's a good process in my opinion). It relies on the community to embrace the NM and NA system. The majority do not. The amount of geojunk is growing. The acceptance of geo-junk is growing.

Speak for your own community: the normal process works fine in my community. I'd go so far as to say poorly maintained caches are at an all time low in my area, certainly proportionally but possibly even in absolute terms.

 

I couldn't resist the challenge to see what caches are like in your area.

 

First I want to say I admire your cache ownership. I looked at one of your cache hides and see quick attention to any issue that arises. Many OM logs. You look after both your cache and its listing.

 

I did a quick search of caches near one of your hides. There were 4 red wrenches on the first page of caches, 5 red wrenches on the second page of caches (I didn't look beyond page 2). I first had a look at Nearly Wet 1. Odd thing about that cache, it was being looked after regularly by the CO (who is still active), but then they stopped maintaining their listing and eventually the cache was archived by the reviewer, Mysteriously it was unarchived by the reviewer but there was no OM log or any log from the CO. The second one I looked at was Foothills. The cache is owned by a CO deemed officially "inactive". They planted the cache in 2012 and stopped logging in 2 weeks later. Lots of found it logs going back to 2013 that say the cache is cracked and wet, and now there's apparently no container just a log in a baggie. Finders aren't logging NMs. Last NM was May 2013.

Link to comment

I did a quick search of caches near one of your hides.

Fun!

 

There were 4 red wrenches on the first page of caches, 5 red wrenches on the second page of caches (I didn't look beyond page 2).

Red wrenches prove my point, n'est-ce pas? Of course, as it happens, in these two cases, all the red wrenches prove is that red wrenches aren't always cleared when the problem is resolved.

 

I first had a look at Nearly Wet 1. Odd thing about that cache, it was being looked after regularly by the CO (who is still active), but then they stopped maintaining their listing and eventually the cache was archived by the reviewer, Mysteriously it was unarchived by the reviewer but there was no OM log or any log from the CO.

I can't explain the archive/unarchive, but from the logs, the cache is fine now.

 

The archive itself back in 2014 demonstrates how the system works: NM posted 2 months after the DNFs started piling up, NA posted 2 months after that, then archived 2 months after that.

 

The second one I looked at was Foothills. The cache is owned by a CO deemed officially "inactive". They planted the cache in 2012 and stopped logging in 2 weeks later. Lots of found it logs going back to 2013 that say the cache is cracked and wet, and now there's apparently no container just a log in a baggie. Finders aren't logging NMs. Last NM was May 2013.

No complaints since 10/9/2013 when it was replaced by A-JerseyThing, so also not a counter example.

 

Is this what you consider proof of geojunk growing? I was assuming you were complaining because you actually find a lot broken caches in the field.

Link to comment

The second one I looked at was Foothills. The cache is owned by a CO deemed officially "inactive". They planted the cache in 2012 and stopped logging in 2 weeks later. Lots of found it logs going back to 2013 that say the cache is cracked and wet, and now there's apparently no container just a log in a baggie. Finders aren't logging NMs. Last NM was May 2013.

No complaints since 10/9/2013 when it was replaced by A-JerseyThing, so also not a counter example.

 

Is this what you consider proof of geojunk growing? I was assuming you were complaining because you actually find a lot broken caches in the field.

 

The cache was geojunk, just a baggie with a log. The proper procedure is to archive the ownerless broken cache, not to throw a cache down.

Link to comment

The cache was geojunk, just a baggie with a log. The proper procedure is to archive the ownerless broken cache, not to throw a cache down.

It was geojunk. Now it's not. Being a throwdown has nothing to do with my claim that the culture in my area is such that the existing procedures work to eliminate junk caches.

Link to comment

I guess I shouldn't let anything irk me about geocaching. Most of the stuff discussed really doesn't bother me in any real way. In general, thievery and vandalism irks me. I guess what really gets under my skin is seeing the amount of times a cache like Auschwitz - The forgotten cemetery GC2WJXG gets muggled. Really?? What's going through the head of someone standing at the site of the most horrific crime in human history that they feel this solemn site of genocide needs to be a site of pilfery also?

Link to comment

I guess I shouldn't let anything irk me about geocaching. Most of the stuff discussed really doesn't bother me in any real way. In general, thievery and vandalism irks me. I guess what really gets under my skin is seeing the amount of times a cache like Auschwitz - The forgotten cemetery GC2WJXG gets muggled. Really?? What's going through the head of someone standing at the site of the most horrific crime in human history that they feel this solemn site of genocide needs to be a site of pilfery also?

 

Or that such a solemn site should be insulted by the presence of a game piece..

Link to comment

I guess I shouldn't let anything irk me about geocaching. Most of the stuff discussed really doesn't bother me in any real way. In general, thievery and vandalism irks me. I guess what really gets under my skin is seeing the amount of times a cache like Auschwitz - The forgotten cemetery GC2WJXG gets muggled. Really?? What's going through the head of someone standing at the site of the most horrific crime in human history that they feel this solemn site of genocide needs to be a site of pilfery also?

 

Or that such a solemn site should be insulted by the presence of a game piece..

That is also a legitimate concern.

Link to comment

I guess I shouldn't let anything irk me about geocaching. Most of the stuff discussed really doesn't bother me in any real way. In general, thievery and vandalism irks me. I guess what really gets under my skin is seeing the amount of times a cache like Auschwitz - The forgotten cemetery GC2WJXG gets muggled. Really?? What's going through the head of someone standing at the site of the most horrific crime in human history that they feel this solemn site of genocide needs to be a site of pilfery also?

 

Or that such a solemn site should be insulted by the presence of a game piece..

 

I completely agree with you. If I lived next door, I would not seek that cache.

 

However, by denying the cache for that reason alone, GS would be promoting an agenda.

 

Either the concepts apply, or they don't.

 

For example, here in the USA we can burn our national flag as a statement of our displeasure with how things are being run. Most people would be incensed, but it's important that we be allowed to say ANYTHING we want.

Link to comment

I guess I shouldn't let anything irk me about geocaching. Most of the stuff discussed really doesn't bother me in any real way. In general, thievery and vandalism irks me. I guess what really gets under my skin is seeing the amount of times a cache like Auschwitz - The forgotten cemetery GC2WJXG gets muggled. Really?? What's going through the head of someone standing at the site of the most horrific crime in human history that they feel this solemn site of genocide needs to be a site of pilfery also?

 

Did you know that the cache breaks the guidelines? It's a plastic pvc pipe in an augered hole.

 

Regarding caches in cemeteries or historical areas. I really like them, next best thing to a cache in a forest. I have planned day trip vacations around pioneer cemetery caches. But I think they should not appear to be disruptive or disrespectful to the area. I feel embarrassed about geocaching when I see caches that make the pastime look bad i.e. make geocachers look vandalous by deliberately destroying or damaging public property for fun, then encouraged by others to do so with lots of favorite points.

 

f3c9bf10-d03e-4156-b22b-4004d01dd862_l.jpg

 

 

Link to comment

My comments here are colored by the fact that we enjoy caching as a family with young kids. That said, I don't get micros. There's nothing fun or rewarding in finding a tube hanging from a tree branch. Along those lines...it's a pet peeve when a CO classifies a cache as "Regular" size and it turns out to be a cigar tube/film canister/pill bottle w/ a wet log and no room for anything else. "Phantom" TBs are annoying too...

Link to comment

My comments here are colored by the fact that we enjoy caching as a family with young kids. That said, I don't get micros. There's nothing fun or rewarding in finding a tube hanging from a tree branch. Along those lines...it's a pet peeve when a CO classifies a cache as "Regular" size and it turns out to be a cigar tube/film canister/pill bottle w/ a wet log and no room for anything else. "Phantom" TBs are annoying too...

 

What's a "Phantom" TB?

Link to comment

My comments here are colored by the fact that we enjoy caching as a family with young kids. That said, I don't get micros. There's nothing fun or rewarding in finding a tube hanging from a tree branch. Along those lines...it's a pet peeve when a CO classifies a cache as "Regular" size and it turns out to be a cigar tube/film canister/pill bottle w/ a wet log and no room for anything else. "Phantom" TBs are annoying too...

 

What's a "Phantom" TB?

I guess it's a TB or GC which is listed in the cache inventory, but it's not really there.

Link to comment

My comments here are colored by the fact that we enjoy caching as a family with young kids. That said, I don't get micros. There's nothing fun or rewarding in finding a tube hanging from a tree branch. Along those lines...it's a pet peeve when a CO classifies a cache as "Regular" size and it turns out to be a cigar tube/film canister/pill bottle w/ a wet log and no room for anything else. "Phantom" TBs are annoying too...

 

What's a "Phantom" TB?

I guess it's a TB or GC which is listed in the cache inventory, but it's not really there.

 

Oh, yeah, thanks.

 

Duuuuuh, that's a pet peeve of mine, as well.

Link to comment

There are far too many caches out there that are nothing more than neglected junk.

 

Yes, and the ownerless caches. I came across a neglected cache a few days ago and was going to leave a note to the cache owner and the send message feature is disabled because the account is inactive. Why not archive caches that belong to inactive accounts?

 

This one irks me, there is a cache like this in my area that has a few recent DNF, the CO is inactive and has been since early 2011 and doesn't respond to e-mails. I messages the publishing reviewer some months back asking that it be archived but they haven't done it yet.

Edited by Luckyone80
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...