What Irks you most?

[+Jake81499]

Power trails have been listed here dozens of times, but I'll add it again. It's not so much the power trails themselves as it is not having any way to filter them out without using the ignore list. We need a PT attribute and the people who set them need to use it. My ignore list is at 23932 caches, all power trails.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Jake81499

[+Meow&Purr]

I've been stalking a cache with close to a year and a half of DNFs. I've been in communication with the CO as they moved to the other side of the country.

Suddenly someone with less than 30 finds logs it as "Found It" with nothing else, no words of their own. Some of the most prolific cachers in the area logged it as DNF.

I know there the cache 'should be' from talking to the CO. I messaged the finder and inquired how they found it. Their answer tells me they never went out. So their 'Found It' log just skews the legit DNFs - and now the CO messaged me saying "someone found it, I told you it was still there, no reason to adopt it out, no reason to archive it, I don't need to watch it" etc.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Meow&Purr

[+TriciaG]

I've been stalking a cache with close to a year and a half of DNFs. I've been in communication with the CO as they moved to the other side of the country.

Suddenly someone with less than 30 finds logs it as "Found It" with nothing else, no words of their own. Some of the most prolific cachers in the area logged it as DNF.

I know there the cache 'should be' from talking to the CO. I messaged the finder and inquired how they found it. Their answer tells me they never went out. So their 'Found It' log just skews the legit DNFs - and now the CO messaged me saying "someone found it, I told you it was still there, no reason to adopt it out, no reason to archive it, I don't need to watch it" etc.

Log a NA and explain objectively in the log what the issue is (nothing personal against the CO). That gets the reviewer involved. Once archived, someone can put a new cache there.

[+J Grouchy]

I've been stalking a cache with close to a year and a half of DNFs. I've been in communication with the CO as they moved to the other side of the country.

Suddenly someone with less than 30 finds logs it as "Found It" with nothing else, no words of their own. Some of the most prolific cachers in the area logged it as DNF.

I know there the cache 'should be' from talking to the CO. I messaged the finder and inquired how they found it. Their answer tells me they never went out. So their 'Found It' log just skews the legit DNFs - and now the CO messaged me saying "someone found it, I told you it was still there, no reason to adopt it out, no reason to archive it, I don't need to watch it" etc.

Log a NA and explain objectively in the log what the issue is (nothing personal against the CO). That gets the reviewer involved. Once archived, someone can put a new cache there.

 

If the CO has moved away and has no method of maintaining the cache, it needs to be archived. Post an NA.

[+Jake81499]

I've been stalking a cache with close to a year and a half of DNFs. I've been in communication with the CO as they moved to the other side of the country.

Suddenly someone with less than 30 finds logs it as "Found It" with nothing else, no words of their own. Some of the most prolific cachers in the area logged it as DNF.

I know there the cache 'should be' from talking to the CO. I messaged the finder and inquired how they found it. Their answer tells me they never went out. So their 'Found It' log just skews the legit DNFs - and now the CO messaged me saying "someone found it, I told you it was still there, no reason to adopt it out, no reason to archive it, I don't need to watch it" etc.

Log a NA and explain objectively in the log what the issue is (nothing personal against the CO). That gets the reviewer involved. Once archived, someone can put a new cache there.

 

If the CO has moved away and has no method of maintaining the cache, it needs to be archived. Post an NA.

 

Agreed. I'd post what the last cacher who claimed he found it said and why you think he didn't. IN fact, if you can ask that cacher to show you where it is it might get more exciting.

[+NanCycle]

When cachers mistreat other peoples caches and make it necessary for the CO to do this:

 

I had to come out east today to fix my 3 different ________ series' that someone leapfrogged and scrambled all the containers and clues for... again. It took us about 3.5 hours to fix it all up, not including travel time to and from the ________ area which is south and east of here.

 

Not my caches, but ones that are on my to-do list. Hey, power cachers, not every series is a Power Trail, and not every cache in the area is even part of the series.

 

Here's my log on another result of the misuse of Power Trail tactics:

 

Imagine my surprise when I saw my sig on the log in this cache dated 1-19-14! All the caches I had found that day were from 5.7 to 8.2 miles from here, on a line from "A" to "B". Makes me wonder how this container and log migrated from there to here.

 

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches. That's why my series cache pages say:

Throwdowns and Power Trail tactics are not welcome and if discovered will not be tolerated.

[+narcissa]

When cachers mistreat other peoples caches and make it necessary for the CO to do this:

 

I had to come out east today to fix my 3 different ________ series' that someone leapfrogged and scrambled all the containers and clues for... again. It took us about 3.5 hours to fix it all up, not including travel time to and from the ________ area which is south and east of here.

 

Not my caches, but ones that are on my to-do list. Hey, power cachers, not every series is a Power Trail, and not every cache in the area is even part of the series.

 

Here's my log on another result of the misuse of Power Trail tactics:

 

Imagine my surprise when I saw my sig on the log in this cache dated 1-19-14! All the caches I had found that day were from 5.7 to 8.2 miles from here, on a line from "A" to "B". Makes me wonder how this container and log migrated from there to here.

 

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches. That's why my series cache pages say:

Throwdowns and Power Trail tactics are not welcome and if discovered will not be tolerated.

 

+100000000000

 

Love it.

[+Jake81499]

When cachers mistreat other peoples caches and make it necessary for the CO to do this:

 

I had to come out east today to fix my 3 different ________ series' that someone leapfrogged and scrambled all the containers and clues for... again. It took us about 3.5 hours to fix it all up, not including travel time to and from the ________ area which is south and east of here.

 

Not my caches, but ones that are on my to-do list. Hey, power cachers, not every series is a Power Trail, and not every cache in the area is even part of the series.

 

Here's my log on another result of the misuse of Power Trail tactics:

 

Imagine my surprise when I saw my sig on the log in this cache dated 1-19-14! All the caches I had found that day were from 5.7 to 8.2 miles from here, on a line from "A" to "B". Makes me wonder how this container and log migrated from there to here.

 

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches. That's why my series cache pages say:

Throwdowns and Power Trail tactics are not welcome and if discovered will not be tolerated.

 

+100000000000

 

Love it.

 

I was wondering what that was called or if there was a name for it. Throw Downs. LOL... Thank You... Unfortunately, as the PT abuse gets worse and worse I'm sure it will become more and more common and spill more and more into real caching. PTs aren't geocaching.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Jake81499

[+Harry Dolphin]

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches.

 

Yes. I hated that on my Geoart series. The MKH on 15 was missing. I found it on the next one, which was supposed to be a nano (It was on a bench.) Which explains why no one could find the fake bolt on the walkway over the river. Very frustrating! It was not meant to be a power trail! It was a four mile walk, or bike ride, on a nice walkway along the river. Beautiful views. But too many cachers thought it was a power trail.

[+fuzziebear3]

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches.

 

Yes. I hated that on my Geoart series. The MKH on 15 was missing. I found it on the next one, which was supposed to be a nano (It was on a bench.) Which explains why no one could find the fake bolt on the walkway over the river. Very frustrating! It was not meant to be a power trail! It was a four mile walk, or bike ride, on a nice walkway along the river. Beautiful views. But too many cachers thought it was a power trail.

 

It's geoart. That sounds pretty close to a power trail to me. The point is to get them ALL in one outing as much as possible.

 

I'm not defending the PT antics, but I do see why it would happen with geoart.

[+narcissa]

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches.

 

Yes. I hated that on my Geoart series. The MKH on 15 was missing. I found it on the next one, which was supposed to be a nano (It was on a bench.) Which explains why no one could find the fake bolt on the walkway over the river. Very frustrating! It was not meant to be a power trail! It was a four mile walk, or bike ride, on a nice walkway along the river. Beautiful views. But too many cachers thought it was a power trail.

 

It's geoart. That sounds pretty close to a power trail to me. The point is to get them ALL in one outing as much as possible.

 

I'm not defending the PT antics, but I do see why it would happen with geoart.

 

Not necessarily. The point of geo art is that it makes a picture. They aren't always easy to solve or placed in a line all together.

[+Harry Dolphin]

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches.

 

Yes. I hated that on my Geoart series. The MKH on 15 was missing. I found it on the next one, which was supposed to be a nano (It was on a bench.) Which explains why no one could find the fake bolt on the walkway over the river. Very frustrating! It was not meant to be a power trail! It was a four mile walk, or bike ride, on a nice walkway along the river. Beautiful views. But too many cachers thought it was a power trail.

 

It's geoart. That sounds pretty close to a power trail to me. The point is to get them ALL in one outing as much as possible.

 

I'm not defending the PT antics, but I do see why it would happen with geoart.

 

Not necessarily. The point of geo art is that it makes a picture. They aren't always easy to solve or placed in a line all together.

 

Yes. Pretty sad that some cachers equate Geoart with Power Trails. Some of my puzzles were 5* difficulty. (I doubt that very many actually solved it after it showed up on that Facebook page.) My containers varied a bit. (Ah! Cachers had problems with the large bison tube in the bush because someone replaced it with the previous MKH?) Some cachers complained that some of the caches were not along the walkway. They were 200' up the cliff! The puzzles varied from very easy to very difficult, and all the puzzles were different. Many of the hides/containers were similar, but a fair number were not.

But, the Dolphin in the River was handsome! (Created on a challenge from my brother-in-law.) But with the attitude that Geoart is the same as a Power Trail, I will not create another one.

[+Jake81499]

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches.

 

Yes. I hated that on my Geoart series. The MKH on 15 was missing. I found it on the next one, which was supposed to be a nano (It was on a bench.) Which explains why no one could find the fake bolt on the walkway over the river. Very frustrating! It was not meant to be a power trail! It was a four mile walk, or bike ride, on a nice walkway along the river. Beautiful views. But too many cachers thought it was a power trail.

 

It's geoart. That sounds pretty close to a power trail to me. The point is to get them ALL in one outing as much as possible.

 

I'm not defending the PT antics, but I do see why it would happen with geoart.

 

Not necessarily. The point of geo art is that it makes a picture. They aren't always easy to solve or placed in a line all together.

 

Yes. Pretty sad that some cachers equate Geoart with Power Trails. Some of my puzzles were 5* difficulty. (I doubt that very many actually solved it after it showed up on that Facebook page.) My containers varied a bit. (Ah! Cachers had problems with the large bison tube in the bush because someone replaced it with the previous MKH?) Some cachers complained that some of the caches were not along the walkway. They were 200' up the cliff! The puzzles varied from very easy to very difficult, and all the puzzles were different. Many of the hides/containers were similar, but a fair number were not.

But, the Dolphin in the River was handsome! (Created on a challenge from my brother-in-law.) But with the attitude that Geoart is the same as a Power Trail, I will not create another one.

 

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail. They both need an attribute, both are annoying, both ruin Pocket Queries. I ignore GeoArt just as quickly as I ignore a PT. If you own one, you might as well expect a lot of 4 hour walks to fix whatever someone else messed up.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Jake81499

[+Harry Dolphin]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail. They both need an attribute. I ignore GeoArt just as quickly as I ignore a PT. If you own one, you might as well expect a 4 hour walk to fix whatever someone else messed up.

 

Yup. That's the attitude that has dissuaded me from ever creating another one. There is/can be a major difference!

[PhillyRiver]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail. They both need an attribute, both are annoying, both ruin Pocket Queries.

 

Newbie CO question, sorry: What do you mean "need an attribute"? Thought we were supposed to include attributes. Or are you saying that some people launch their cache series without the proper attributes...? Thanks

[+Jake81499]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail. They both need an attribute, both are annoying, both ruin Pocket Queries.

 

Newbie CO question, sorry: What do you mean "need an attribute"? Thought we were supposed to include attributes. Or are you saying that some people launch their cache series without the proper attributes...? Thanks

 

They need an attribute or a method within the cache creation table to show they are part of a power trail so those of us who can see the damage they are doing can opt out of receiving them in our API downloads or Pocket Queries. It's been brought up many many times by many cachers but the problem is being ignored by those in charge. Look at the cache creation page, there is a full list of current attributes listed there. Currently all we can do is find and ignore PTs which can be a little time consuming. I currently have about 25,000 caches ignored in my ignore list, all power trails and so called GeoArt. I did a states API tonight on Nevada and received another 750 power caches, all set by the same group. Another post in this thread states that Nevada has been devastated by Power Trails. The person who wrote it was absolutely correct. They often totally ruin the API and PQ downloads. An attribute would eventually help remedy the problem. It's a HUGE irk to many of us.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Jake81499

[+on4bam]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail.

 

There is. A lot of geoart is not a PT when solved. GA CAN be a PT but not always is.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail.

 

There is. A lot of geoart is not a PT when solved. GA CAN be a PT but not always is.

 

All the more reason to have an attribute that would tell others that when on the ground, actually finding the caches whether or not the experience is or is not distinguishable from a power trail.

 

 

[+Jake81499]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail.

 

There is. A lot of geoart is not a PT when solved. GA CAN be a PT but not always is.

 

It sounds like you're talking about a puzzle cache or something. GeoArt is a bunch of caches placed close together, often the minimum distance from one cache to the next and often 100 or more caches, placed to make some sort of painting or writing on the ground. It's a no different from a PT. There are many good examples of these. One called 'run horses run' (I think)above rock springs Wyoming. That one was placed by a friend of mine but it got ignored anyhow, just because it's a PT and a waste space in a PQ.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Jake81499

[+Jake81499]

I was going to add something that was kinda an irk. The slowness of the website due to ads. But it looks like the geofathers may have removed the ad from the area I was thinking about. It works great now.

[PhillyRiver]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail.

 

There is. A lot of geoart is not a PT when solved. GA CAN be a PT but not always is.

 

It sounds like you're talking about a puzzle cache or something. GeoArt is a bunch of caches placed close together, often the minimum distance from one cache to the next and often 100 or more caches, placed to make some sort of painting or writing on the ground. It's a no different from a PT. There are many good examples of these. One called 'run horses run' (I think)above rock springs Wyoming. That one was placed by a friend of mine but it got ignored anyhow, just because it's a PT and a waste space in a PQ.

 

I had not heard of GeoArt before this thread, so I researched it. Looks like there are two kinds. In England they have Geo Art Cache and it is not a pattern on the map, but actual art that you find, made by artists. Pretty cool actually, check it out here.

[+L0ne.R]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail.

 

There is. A lot of geoart is not a PT when solved. GA CAN be a PT but not always is.

 

It sounds like you're talking about a puzzle cache or something. GeoArt is a bunch of caches placed close together, often the minimum distance from one cache to the next and often 100 or more caches, placed to make some sort of painting or writing on the ground. It's a no different from a PT. There are many good examples of these. One called 'run horses run' (I think)above rock springs Wyoming. That one was placed by a friend of mine but it got ignored anyhow, just because it's a PT and a waste space in a PQ.

 

I had not heard of GeoArt before this thread, so I researched it. Looks like there are two kinds. In England they have Geo Art Cache and it is not a pattern on the map, but actual art that you find, made by artists. Pretty cool actually, check it out here.

 

Geocaches created by artists. Fantastic. Thanks for the link.

[+dprovan]

It sounds like you're talking about a puzzle cache or something. GeoArt is a bunch of caches placed close together, often the minimum distance from one cache to the next and often 100 or more caches, placed to make some sort of painting or writing on the ground. It's a no different from a PT. There are many good examples of these. One called 'run horses run' (I think)above rock springs Wyoming. That one was placed by a friend of mine but it got ignored anyhow, just because it's a PT and a waste space in a PQ.

In areas without a lot of open space, people sometimes do geoart with puzzle caches so the art shows on the map, but the actual cache locations are not so constrained.

 

Anyway, why argue about it? If it's a power trail, it's a power trail. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not it could also be called geoart. The characteristic people want flagged with an attribute is that it's a power trail. Those people could care less whether it paints a pretty picture on the map except when, like you, they mistakenly believe there's some kind of correlation and that people putting out power trails that draw pictures will for some odd reason want to hide the fact that their power trail's a power trail.

[+narcissa]

There's no difference between a GeoArt and a Power trail.

 

There is. A lot of geoart is not a PT when solved. GA CAN be a PT but not always is.

 

It sounds like you're talking about a puzzle cache or something. GeoArt is a bunch of caches placed close together, often the minimum distance from one cache to the next and often 100 or more caches, placed to make some sort of painting or writing on the ground. It's a no different from a PT. There are many good examples of these. One called 'run horses run' (I think)above rock springs Wyoming. That one was placed by a friend of mine but it got ignored anyhow, just because it's a PT and a waste space in a PQ.

 

I think this type of geo art is uncommon because you need a wide open space that's accessible to geocachers and isn't already taken up with geocaches.

 

All of the geo art I have encountered involved a series of puzzles with posted coordinates that create a picture on the map. Once they are solved, the final locations may be along a road or trail in a "power trail" type of formation or they might be place more thoughtfully. It depends on the cache owner.

[+Jake81499]

It sounds like you're talking about a puzzle cache or something. GeoArt is a bunch of caches placed close together, often the minimum distance from one cache to the next and often 100 or more caches, placed to make some sort of painting or writing on the ground. It's a no different from a PT. There are many good examples of these. One called 'run horses run' (I think)above rock springs Wyoming. That one was placed by a friend of mine but it got ignored anyhow, just because it's a PT and a waste space in a PQ.

In areas without a lot of open space, people sometimes do geoart with puzzle caches so the art shows on the map, but the actual cache locations are not so constrained.

 

Anyway, why argue about it? If it's a power trail, it's a power trail. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not it could also be called geoart. The characteristic people want flagged with an attribute is that it's a power trail. Those people could care less whether it paints a pretty picture on the map except when, like you, they mistakenly believe there's some kind of correlation and that people putting out power trails that draw pictures will for some odd reason want to hide the fact that their power trail's a power trail.

 

Not arguing it at all, it's a power trail, no argument.

 

The issue is this, people use the API and PQs to download caches to put in their GPS. The limits for a PQ are 1000 caches in a 500 mile radius. I always set my PQs to 1000 caches and 500 miles. If I'm going to Reno Nevada for example, I would normally expect to get about a 50 to 100 mile circle of caches in the Reno area. But it doesn't work that way in areas where people have placed PTs and GAs. Especially in areas where the PTs and GAs have become cache dense. You might be lucky to get a 3 to 5 mile circle simply because of the PTs in that area. So you end of doing a lot more PQs to cover the same amount of area than you would even expect to do in a cache dense area like Denver where there aren't any PT's of GeoArt. I would suggest you did a State API of Nevada over a period of three days just to see how bad the PT's have become abused.

 

Another good example would be Rock Springs Wyoming. A PQ of 1000 in 500 centered in Rock Springs would bring up a circle with a radius extending almost all the way to Rawlins. But now there is a PT called Ghost Rail and the Run Horse Run GA/PT. Now in the circle you can hardly get all even get all of Ghost Rail just because of the size of those two chains.

 

So adding an attribute for PT's and requiring people to use them, or extending the PQ limit to 5000 in 500, or adding a type of cache (PT) to the PQ creation tables are needed so that we can ignore them without having to use the ignore list function.

 

PTs/GAs are a numbers game, they have little to do with Geocaching. They are a Heaven for the Armchair Cacher who can now set in the comfort of his or her home and easily collect thousands of caches. If a newbie with zero caches went to almost any part of Nevada today he could easily have several thousand caches by next Saturday and not have to drive more than 30 miles. That's so impressive. LOL! If all you want is numbers, go set and find PTs and GAs. If you're not chasing numbers, go Geocaching.

 

But do us a favor, post the names of those PTs/GAs you set or find so we can look them up and put them on the ignore list. It would really help the rest of us out.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Jake81499

[+TheAuthorityFigures]

When cachers mistreat other peoples caches and make it necessary for the CO to do this:

 

I had to come out east today to fix my 3 different ________ series' that someone leapfrogged and scrambled all the containers and clues for... again. It took us about 3.5 hours to fix it all up, not including travel time to and from the ________ area which is south and east of here.

 

Not my caches, but ones that are on my to-do list. Hey, power cachers, not every series is a Power Trail, and not every cache in the area is even part of the series.

 

Here's my log on another result of the misuse of Power Trail tactics:

 

Imagine my surprise when I saw my sig on the log in this cache dated 1-19-14! All the caches I had found that day were from 5.7 to 8.2 miles from here, on a line from "A" to "B". Makes me wonder how this container and log migrated from there to here.

 

This is what I hate about Power Trails, not the PTs themselves, but the spillover attitude toward all caches, at least all series caches. That's why my series cache pages say:

Throwdowns and Power Trail tactics are not welcome and if discovered will not be tolerated.

 

+100000000000

 

Love it.

Yep. +1

[+dprovan]

So adding an attribute for PT's...

I'm all for the PT attribute.

 

...and requiring people to use them

I think requiring people to use the PT attribute would be a big mistake and entirely unnecessary.

 

Oh, shoot, I just realized this is the irks thread. Let's continue this conversation on the thread calling for a PT attribute.

[+Jake81499]

Here's one: Morons who hide ammo cans on mountaintops.

 

First off, they are such a pain to get to. Do you think I have the friggen energy to climb all the way up there? What is wrong with the parking lot at the bottom? Second, being able to look out for several miles can make one dizzy, causing vertigo. Do you even care about the welfare of your fellow cachers? Thirdly, they very rarely need maintenance. This condition breeds lazy owners. A nice film can will draw water on a consistent basis, giving attentive owners a chance to show that they care. They also stimulate other cachers into performing maintenance, showing that they care also. Plus, why hide an ammo can anywhere, when a micro will do? </rant>

 

You're kidding right? (I'm sure you are, it made me giggle.) There are PTs and GAs just for cachers and armchair cachers who think that way.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Jake81499

[+noncentric]

Something that irks me.

 

When forum topics are taken off-topic to discuss the same thing that's already being discussed in other active topics.

[+Pond Bird]

It irks me that people are always quick to judge others based on hearsay. I don't think the Power Trail attribute would be helpful since most people forget to set attributes anyways or use them improperly. I always hate to see a cache have a "park n grab" attribute when it really isn't.

[+ramblingduck]

My biggest irk is that the flag includes the word GEOCACHING instead of just the logo. Flags are supposed to be symbolic and words just make them look silly. The logo actually looks pretty cool to me and I would probably get a flag if it wasn't plastered with text.

[+on4bam]

Something that irks me.

 

When forum topics are taken off-topic to discuss the same thing that's already being discussed in other active topics.

 

Might be due to OPTD (Obsessive Power Trail Disorder)

[+Jake81499]

Something that irks me.

 

When forum topics are taken off-topic to discuss the same thing that's already being discussed in other active topics.

 

Might be due to OPTD (Obsessive Power Trail Disorder)

 

LOL, that might be true. But the more we talk about it and complain about it, the sooner someone might do something about it. It's right on track with the subject matter. It's a major irk.

[+Pond Bird]

My biggest irk is that the flag includes the word GEOCACHING instead of just the logo. Flags are supposed to be symbolic and words just make them look silly. The logo actually looks pretty cool to me and I would probably get a flag if it wasn't plastered with text.

 

The logo says "GEOCACHING" but the flag does not. At least not the flag I see.

[+The Leprechauns]

[+NanCycle]

When cachers mistreat other peoples caches and make it necessary for the CO to do this:

 

I had to come out east today to fix my 3 different ________ series' that someone leapfrogged and scrambled all the containers and clues for... again. It took us about 3.5 hours to fix it all up, not including travel time to and from the ________ area which is south and east of here.

 

 

I went back in the logs and found the group of cachers that obviously did the leapfrogging and scrambling (the caches were fine before they blew through and were messed up immediately after). They were a group of 6 in 2 (or more) cars; I don't know how many finds they had last year when they did this, but as of today they have an average of 47,325.

[+ramblingduck]

My biggest irk is that the flag includes the word GEOCACHING instead of just the logo. Flags are supposed to be symbolic and words just make them look silly. The logo actually looks pretty cool to me and I would probably get a flag if it wasn't plastered with text.

 

The logo says "GEOCACHING" but the flag does not. At least not the flag I see.

I would very much like to see this textless flag, perhaps you have a link?

[+CFphoto]

My personal irk: nanos, micros, and basically anything smaller than it absolutely needs to be to be hidden in the area it's in. So, for example, a micro hidden in the woods. If you can't find a decent place to hide at least a small size container in the woods, you shouldn't be placing a cache IMO.

 

Nanos and micros should be reserved for urban areas where space is at a huge premium.

[+bflentje]

Nanos and micros should be reserved for urban areas where space is at a huge premium.

 

No, nanos should be banned, period.

[+CFphoto]

Nanos and micros should be reserved for urban areas where space is at a huge premium.

 

No, nanos should be banned, period.

 

Fair enough. Actually, more than fair, I hereby second the motion.

[+cheech gang]

 

No, nanos should be banned, period.

 

That train left the station long ago. Maybe placing a penny on the tracks will derail it.

[+niraD]

If you can't find a decent place to hide at least a small size container in the woods, you shouldn't be placing a cache IMO.

The goal isn't always to find a place for a larger container. Sometimes the goal is to hide a cache at a specific location.

 

For example, one of my Favorites is a micro-cache in the woods. It's all about the location, and no, a larger container would not work for that location. And while it would be perfectly possible to hide a larger container nearby (and indeed, there are larger containers hidden in the area), the appeal of that specific location would be lost.

 

FWIW, YMMV, and all that...

[SicilianCyclops]

My personal irk: nanos, micros, and basically anything smaller than it absolutely needs to be to be hidden in the area it's in. So, for example, a micro hidden in the woods. If you can't find a decent place to hide at least a small size container in the woods, you shouldn't be placing a cache IMO.

 

Nanos and micros should be reserved for urban areas where space is at a huge premium.

 

I'm a babyface to this game, but I already see this as an issue. I usually cache with my 6-year-old son, and he has already told me that the "little ones are boring to find." I know you can pick which types of containers you want to look for, but when you don't have a lot of free time to drive distances to caches, you're limited to the surrounding areas. Urban micros are fine, even fun, but a pill bottle in a wooded area just isn't interesting.

[+IOError]

What irks me the most are people who can't take the extra 30 seconds to put the log back in the baggie and then seal it and fold it and put it in the cache like someone fully in possession of opposable thumbs. Instead all I find are crumpled logs in an unsealed baggie stuffed in the cache like you left a toddler to do it. Other than that pretty laid back about the whole thing, so far.

Edited May 19, 2016 by IOError

[BFG99]

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with camouflaged microcaches in heavily forested areas. I once found a microcache (after a LOT of searching) that was a tiny twig sticking out of the side of a live tree, after searching an 80 foot radius circle because both of my GPSs' signals were bouncing all over the place. And the difficulty was hilariously rated 2.5 stars. I probably could have found 4 caches in the time that one took.

[+niraD]

What irks me the most are people who can't take the extra 30 seconds to put the log back in the baggie and then seal it and fold it and put it in the cache like someone fully in possession of opposable thumbs. Instead all I find are crumpled logs in an unsealed baggie stuffed in the cache like you left a toddler to do it.

A variation I've encountered a few times is when a log sheet fits nicely into a container when folded, but someone rolls the log sheet up and stuffs the roll of paper into the (relatively flat) container, preventing the container from closing properly.

[+Jake81499]

Nanos and micros should be reserved for urban areas where space is at a huge premium.

 

No, nanos should be banned, period.

 

I wish we had a LIKE button. LOL

[+colleda]

Cachers who log a so-so Found It log, then ENCRYPT it!?

[+noncentric]

Cachers who log a so-so Found It log, then ENCRYPT it!?

If this was not on one of your caches, then it's possible it was actually the CO that encrypted the finder's log.

 

If it was on your cache, or if you saw the encrypted text via a cache notification, then nevermind because you'd see that the finder was indeed the encrypter.

[+CFphoto]

My personal irk: nanos, micros, and basically anything smaller than it absolutely needs to be to be hidden in the area it's in. So, for example, a micro hidden in the woods. If you can't find a decent place to hide at least a small size container in the woods, you shouldn't be placing a cache IMO.

 

Nanos and micros should be reserved for urban areas where space is at a huge premium.

 

I'm a babyface to this game, but I already see this as an issue. I usually cache with my 6-year-old son, and he has already told me that the "little ones are boring to find." I know you can pick which types of containers you want to look for, but when you don't have a lot of free time to drive distances to caches, you're limited to the surrounding areas. Urban micros are fine, even fun, but a pill bottle in a wooded area just isn't interesting.

 

Yeah, similar here. There's a cache around here that my son and I tried to find three times. Third time we finally found it. It was labeled a small but was actually a micro. Anyway, when we found it my 6 year old said, 'that's stupid, why would anyone want to hide something so tiny anyway?'

 

I couldn't come up with an answer that made sense to a 6 year old.