What Irks you most?

[+lee737]

 

I had a DNF last month that had 5 prior DNF in a row. The cacher that logged the last DNF also logged a find on the same day with the comment "M", why bother? A simple period would have had the same meaning and would have saved the hassle of shifting into upper case.

 

I was so irked with a log like that on one of mine once, that I deleted it....

[+Scaber]

Mortal Sin is claiming a find when you did not find the cache AND sign the log.

What irks me the most is when hiders do not maintain their caches. They allow DNF, after DNF, after DNF, and do not disable or check on the cache.

[geostorm321]

What would you consider a Deadly Sin in geocaching? What irks you most? I'm compiling a list for an event...

 

I'm a newbie but trash in caches is very annoying also so is cache that are listed a easy but then you're either bushwaking in poison ivy or hiking up a 80-90 degree hill, also listed NANOS as small and I've brought swag with me that I wanted to drop off. Not cool at all.

[+MysteryGuy1]

Another thing that frustrates me is getting reasonably close to a cache and then being unable to figure out how to get any closer.  Two similar examples from my recent adventures...

I followed a trail from the parking coordinates to a stream.  All indications were that the cache was on the other side of the stream, but there was no obvious way across.  All of the recent logs suggested that it was a quick grab from the trail.  Nobody said anything about having trouble crossing the stream.  And the location of the parking coordinates rules out the possibility that I was supposed to start somewhere else.  So I left frustrated.

A few weeks later, I came across the same situation somewhere else.  This time, there was a very unstable looking log going across the stream, but that was it.  I couldn't decide if the log was supposed to serve as a "bridge" and had perhaps been destroyed by weather, but there seemed no other way across and it looked too risky to climb on the log.  And yet, after I was there someone logged a find and didn't mention having trouble.

[+*GeoPunx*]

Since this is an old thread; I only read the first 2 pages and the last two pages. So, my Deadly Sins(more like Pet Peeves) may have been mentioned numerous times.

1. I will preface this one with: I love puzzle caches(solving/finding/hiding). But I really, really dislike when the CO does not put a Geochecker on the cache page and then does not answer messages looking for confirmation of final coords. I am guilty of doing this once myself, and am now ashamed. Going out on a blind hunt, while aggravating, can also prove to be dangerous.

2. Geo-Trails that are nothing more than Bison tubes every 528 feet down a lonely Highway. Not my style. Not saying they shouldn't be allowed, though.

3. I dislike that people(around my area at least), will not try and find a Multi of any kind, and will not go for any caches that are not accessible from a parking lot.

YMMV

 

[+cerberus1]

6 minutes ago, *GeoPunx* said:

 I dislike that people(around my area at least), will not try and find a Multi of any kind, and will not go for any caches that are not accessible from a parking lot.

 

Not just your area, seems it's everywhere today.

Just this past weekend, an Event took place within two miles of brand-new caches that are less than 4 in terrain (one also a multi).

Odd that all the older, local 1.5s got hit, yet not one of those new ones did (they did hit a new set of 2+s though...).

[+RufusClupea]

On 7/8/2017 at 11:26 AM, geostorm321 said:

 

I'm a newbie but trash in caches is very annoying also so is cache that are listed a easy but then you're either bushwaking in poison ivy or hiking up a 80-90 degree hill, also listed NANOS as small and I've brought swag with me that I wanted to drop off. Not cool at all.

 

  Likewise (newbie). I'm sure what'll irk me most hasn't happened yet, but the above just happened to me today.

 

Also as a noob, I've been binge-watching GC vids on YT, and there are definitely some irksome things (and personalities) there.  When I started watching (and getting curious about/interested in GC) I was watching just about everything.  It wasn't long before I began reading the listings more carefully for length, who they were made/posted by, etc...  

[+Spacemann Spiff]

Here's something I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned yet (but I'm not going to read 37 pages of posts to find out)--  :-)

It bugs me that the reviewer/publishers for my area (Maine in the summer; Tampa Bay, Florida in the winter) almost ALWAYS post new caches first thing in the morning (generally 5:00 am - 7:00 am).  Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who don't get up at the crack of dawn, and would still like a chance to be FTF once in a while.

Yes, I understand the reviewers are volunteers, and yes I appreciate their time & dedication, and I understand they have their routines.  And yes, I understand it might not be a good thing to publish new caches in the late evening or at night, which might encourage over-enthusiasts to wander around in the woods in the dark and perhaps hurt themselves.

But why not vary the publishing times at least somewhat during the day, such as around 10:00 am?  11:00 am?  12:00 noon?  3:00 pm?  5:00 pm?  As I said, some people have schedules other than 9 to 5 and would like a chance to be FTF.  But the publishing "schedule" is biased toward those who get up early in the morning.  Whenever there's a new cache published in my area, someone has almost always already found the cache before I even get out of bed.

OK, rant over.  Thanks.

[Keystone]

As you noted, many reviewers (including me) are reluctant to publish caches late at night, when the cache is hidden in a cemetery, a park with posted hours of dawn to dusk, etc.

So, any caches like that which I review in the evening wait until the next morning for publication.  Mornings are also a good time to finish up any reviews that arrived in the queue after the last time I looked at it the day before.  It's a great way to wake up: coffee, the morning news, and cache reviews.

Between 7:30 and 8:30, I need to get on the road to commute to my paying job downtown. Due to the high IT security standards at work, I cannot use many of the tools I need in order to review caches, such as Greasemonkey scripts.  And, my employer isn't paying me to review geocaches.  So, most of the work has to get done at home. 

When Geocaching HQ offers to match my current salary and benefits, I'll happily quit my job as a business finance lawyer, so that I can be in a position to publish caches all throughout the day.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Keystone

[+Mama514]

What irks me most is inconsiderate, self absorbed, sloppy human beings.  

[+Mama514]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

 

When Geocaching HQ offers to match my current salary and benefits, I'll happily quit my job as a business finance lawyer, so that I can be in a position to publish caches all throughout the day.

Thank you, I had a good laugh!

[+niraD]

I heard that Groundspeak doubled the salary of all the volunteer reviewers last year.

My salary wasn't doubled last year.

That irks me.

Edited August 6, 2017 by niraD
typo

[+SeattleWayne]

On 7/18/2017 at 9:22 AM, MysteryGuy1 said:

Another thing that frustrates me is getting reasonably close to a cache and then being unable to figure out how to get any closer.  Two similar examples from my recent adventures...

I followed a trail from the parking coordinates to a stream.  All indications were that the cache was on the other side of the stream, but there was no obvious way across.  All of the recent logs suggested that it was a quick grab from the trail.  Nobody said anything about having trouble crossing the stream.  And the location of the parking coordinates rules out the possibility that I was supposed to start somewhere else.  So I left frustrated.

A few weeks later, I came across the same situation somewhere else.  This time, there was a very unstable looking log going across the stream, but that was it.  I couldn't decide if the log was supposed to serve as a "bridge" and had perhaps been destroyed by weather, but there seemed no other way across and it looked too risky to climb on the log.  And yet, after I was there someone logged a find and didn't mention having trouble.

You should've signed the "unstable looking log" and called it good.

 

Aside from wet feet, streams seem safe enough to walk through, no? 

[+SeattleWayne]

13 hours ago, Spacemann Spiff said:

Here's something I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned yet (but I'm not going to read 37 pages of posts to find out)--  :-)

It bugs me that the reviewer/publishers for my area (Maine in the summer; Tampa Bay, Florida in the winter) almost ALWAYS post new caches first thing in the morning (generally 5:00 am - 7:00 am).  Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who don't get up at the crack of dawn, and would still like a chance to be FTF once in a while.

Yes, I understand the reviewers are volunteers, and yes I appreciate their time & dedication, and I understand they have their routines.  And yes, I understand it might not be a good thing to publish new caches in the late evening or at night, which might encourage over-enthusiasts to wander around in the woods in the dark and perhaps hurt themselves.

But why not vary the publishing times at least somewhat during the day, such as around 10:00 am?  11:00 am?  12:00 noon?  3:00 pm?  5:00 pm?  As I said, some people have schedules other than 9 to 5 and would like a chance to be FTF.  But the publishing "schedule" is biased toward those who get up early in the morning.  Whenever there's a new cache published in my area, someone has almost always already found the cache before I even get out of bed.

OK, rant over.  Thanks.

It seems you already have a clear understanding as to why caches in your area are published at those times. Read Keystones reply, and that should give you a more solid reason other than reviewers are just biased. 

[+LFC4eva]

Bullying CO's who have a tantrum, either on their cache pages or on social media, because someone dares to post a NM on their cache even though it really does *need maintenance*..

[+Manville Possum]

19 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

Bullying CO's who have a tantrum, either on their cache pages or on social media, because someone dares to post a NM on their cache even though it really does *need maintenance*..

Yep, the cache page gets used to hurl accusations at the other players.  It happens to me too.

[+TheVoytekBear]

My newest irk: caches under trash can covers (small micros fit there). Especially when there are other options available (and most of the times they are).

[+on4bam]

3 minutes ago, TheVoytekBear said:

My newest irk: caches under trash can covers

Easy to solve. Don't do them and when doing one by mistake log a DNF and mention "found it but don't like going through trash". If you're using GC-vote to rate caches give it 1 star (poor).

 

[+terratin]

The weather! Weather was fine all day as I walked around my home extinct volcano. Then decided to go to the top for an EC there. As soon as the ground got more slippery it started to pour down. Managed to answer the questions but my phone got pretty wet (I know, I know...), walked down again, slipping a few times along the way and banging my knee. Rain stopped and sun came out the moment I set foot on a road.

[+hzoi]

On 8/5/2017 at 10:52 PM, Spacemann Spiff said:

It bugs me that the reviewer/publishers for my area (Maine in the summer; Tampa Bay, Florida in the winter) almost ALWAYS post new caches first thing in the morning (generally 5:00 am - 7:00 am).  Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who don't get up at the crack of dawn, and would still like a chance to be FTF once in a while.

So, you want to be first to find, but you want it to be on your schedule.  Cool.  Perhaps you could try emailing your reviewer with the most convenient time for you so that they can better plan their publication times. 

 

Might also help if you announce to the other cachers in your area where it'd be most convenient for them to hide caches for you to find first, so you can maximize your efficiency.

 

[+Mudfrog]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

So, you want to be first to find, but you want it to be on your schedule.  Cool.  Perhaps you could try emailing your reviewer with the most convenient time for you so that they can better plan their publication times. 

 

Might also help if you announce to the other cachers in your area where it'd be most convenient for them to hide caches for you to find first, so you can maximize your efficiency.

 

Yep, that entitlement attitude is a bit irksome at times.

[+dubidubno]

23 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

It seems you already have a clear understanding as to why caches in your area are published at those times. Read Keystones reply, and that should give you a more solid reason other than reviewers are just biased. 

I don't, because surely publication time can be scheduled? It should be easy enough for Groundspeak to implement.

[+mvhayes1982]

3 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

I don't, because surely publication time can be scheduled? It should be easy enough for Groundspeak to implement.

What would be the purpose of scheduling publication time? Reviewers publish caches when they have the time to review and publish them. To schedule publication to accommodate an individual (or a particular group) of cachers would only invite MORE claims of bias (and perhaps claims with actual basis, unlike the claims made here).  

[+SeattleWayne]

4 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

What would be the purpose of scheduling publication time? Reviewers publish caches when they have the time to review and publish them. To schedule publication to accommodate an individual (or a particular group) of cachers would only invite MORE claims of bias (and perhaps claims with actual basis, unlike the claims made here).  

The purpose of scheduling publication times would be so dubidubno can be the first to find a cache. 

[+SeattleWayne]

10 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

I don't, because surely publication time can be scheduled? It should be easy enough for Groundspeak to implement.

Entirely not so. Reviewers are volunteer basis which means they give their free time to the game. Caches get published when reviewers have the time to get them published. 

 

Besides all of that, there is no real reward for being first to find. Except bragging rights. And in my experience so far, there aren't too many people who really care about any of that. 

[+on4bam]

No idea if publication can be or is scheduled but in any case after larger events here in Belgium we see the new caches being published right after the event ends. That means that reviewers actually set their alarmclocks to publish these caches or there is some kind of automated publishing possible. Anyway, this kind of automation should be possible but not for the reason given (FTF hunt)

 

 

[+dubidubno]

43 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Entirely not so. Reviewers are volunteer basis which means they give their free time to the game. Caches get published when reviewers have the time to get them published. 

 

Besides all of that, there is no real reward for being first to find. Except bragging rights. And in my experience so far, there aren't too many people who really care about any of that. 

I'm sorry, is Groundspeak's IT department staffed by volunteers?

 

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

The purpose of scheduling publication times would be so dubidubno can be the first to find a cache. 

Let's give credit where credit's due -- while dubidubno seems interested in a time shift, the possibility of a FTF concierge service was proposed by Spacemann Spiff. 

[+Viajero Perdido]

24 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

I'm sorry, is Groundspeak's IT department staffed by volunteers?

They're professionals on a salary, of course.  Which means Groundspeak needs to find something useful for them to do, something that can create more value than the cost of their salaries + other overhead.

Clearly, Groundspeak doesn't see that much value in being able to queue up ready-to-publish caches for automatic release, otherwise they'd probably have already done it.  Bigger fish to fry.

And based on my own professional experience, I can guess the effort is high enough - and risk of creating new bugs high enough - that it's just not worth it.

TLDR: Irk = "it should be easy"

[+Team Christiansen]

If there is a valid reason for a CO to request a specific time for the cache to be published (after review is complete) such as something consistent with the cache theme, or to coincide with a future holiday or local celebration or event, maybe the reviewers' end of the website could be updated to include a feature for the reviewer to set for auto-publishing at a specific upcoming date and time, assuming the reviewer has completed the review process without any potential hiccups. This way, upon completing the review process, the reviewer can set the cache to auto-publish even during a time the reviewer is asleep, on vacation, or otherwise engaged in life other than reviewing. Again, this is assuming the cache owner's timing request is reasonable and not too far out in the future.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Team Christiansen
grammar

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, dubidubno said:

I don't, because surely publication time can be scheduled?

FWIW, this has been suggested before:

 

 

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

If there is a valid reason for a CO to request a specific time for the cache to be published (after review is complete) such as something consistent with the cache theme, or to coincide with a future holiday or local celebration or event, maybe the reviewers' end of the website could be updated to include a feature for the reviewer to set for auto-publishing at a specific upcoming date and time, assuming the reviewer has completed the review process without any potential hiccups. This way, upon completing the review process, the reviewer can set the cache to auto-publish even during a time the reviewer is asleep, on vacation, or otherwise engaged in life other than reviewing. Again, this is assuming the cache owner's timing request is reasonable and not too far out in the future.

And let's not forget that reviewers could also use scheduling. Remember Keystone's post?

On 8/5/2017 at 8:57 PM, Keystone said:

As you noted, many reviewers (including me) are reluctant to publish caches late at night, when the cache is hidden in a cemetery, a park with posted hours of dawn to dusk, etc.

So, any caches like that which I review in the evening wait until the next morning for publication.  Mornings are also a good time to finish up any reviews that arrived in the queue after the last time I looked at it the day before.  It's a great way to wake up: coffee, the morning news, and cache reviews.

Keystone seems to enjoy getting up in the morning and publish the caches manually, but from his description of what he's doing, it would make just as much sense for him to look over and approve the cache in the evening, but then schedule it for the next morning to avoid an inappropriate rush for FTF in the middle of the night.

Anyway, the point is that scheduling publication has many advantages, so I don't think it has to be justified. The only question is one of priority, and so far GS has not considered it important enough, and I have no reason to question them. I agree it would be nice, but apparently the reviewers aren't clamoring for it, either for their own purposes or to satisfy CO requests, and they're the ones that would use it if it were made available.

[+TheVoytekBear]

That's strange. I've heard people actually posting caches for scheduled publish. The conditions were submitting at least 7 days before planned publish and listing/coordinates lock for the time the cache is in the queue...

[+IhideUseek]

I've started geocaching with my kids this summer.  I've been really disappointed in the SWAG.  I've got 3 kids, and most times there isn't really anything in the container - even ammo cans.  If there is, it is stuff even my 3 year old doesn't want (dirty, used, junk, etc.).  Every once in a while will be 1 thing that might be ok and then my kids fight over it.

 

I love taking my kids out on "adventures", but I'm worried they will loose interest because the SWAG has been terrible.

 

And yes - I have been leaving more SWAG behind than I am finding.  I'm hoping to leave a good example for others to see.

[+cerberus1]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:52 PM, Spacemann Spiff said:

Here's something I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned yet...

 - snip -

...But why not vary the publishing times at least somewhat during the day,

Play the odds, maybe head out for caches with a bit higher terrain.   Those don't seem to get hit as quickly as 1.5s.    

All the ftf monsters here,  I still got one today (posted yesterday) that's a T3, but only a little over a half mile from parking.  

[+AB&JB]

On 8/5/2017 at 10:52 PM, Spacemann Spiff said:

It bugs me that the reviewer/publishers for my area (Maine in the summer; Tampa Bay, Florida in the winter) almost ALWAYS post new caches first thing in the morning (generally 5:00 am - 7:00 am).  Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who don't get up at the crack of dawn, and would still like a chance to be FTF once in a while.

 

On 8/7/2017 at 1:27 PM, Viajero Perdido said:

On 8/7/2017 at 0:56 PM, dubidubno said:

I'm sorry, is Groundspeak's IT department staffed by volunteers?

They're professionals on a salary, of course.  Which means Groundspeak needs to find something useful for them to do, something that can create more value than the cost of their salaries + other overhead.

 

With this being said, it doesn't make sense for them to spend any time on FTF related projects. As far as I know, "First to find" is still an unofficial side game.

[2WildBill]

I'm newly irked, that is, I've just returned home from Vermont where I could not find a few geocaches. Upon going to the cache log, I discover that the coordinates are different from what I downloaded to my GPS. I can't help but think that the ease with which anyone can edit the cache coordinates, opens the opportunity for malicious individuals to mess up the game. Actually, this isn't the first time. I just now recall bushwhacking to coordinates on a Pennsylvania mountain top, where there was nothing to indicate anyone else had ever been there, ever.  That episode created a few anxious thoughts, as I entered a beeline course to a way point I entered on the way up, in order to  get out of the woods before sunset. Then also, I found that someone again changed the coordinates. With the new coordinates I might make the trip back up, or so I thought at the time, but now I'm not so sure

How common is this alteration of coordinates?

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, 2WildBill said:

 I just now recall bushwhacking to coordinates on a Pennsylvania mountain top, where there was nothing to indicate anyone else had ever been there, ever. 

How common is this alteration of coordinates?

It's not very common. You were not trying to find a mystery on it's bogus coordinates, were you?

 

 

[+hzoi]

10 minutes ago, 2WildBill said:

I'm newly irked, that is, I've just returned home from Vermont where I could not find a few geocaches. Upon going to the cache log, I discover that the coordinates are different from what I downloaded to my GPS. I can't help but think that the ease with which anyone can edit the cache coordinates, opens the opportunity for malicious individuals to mess up the game. Actually, this isn't the first time. I just now recall bushwhacking to coordinates on a Pennsylvania mountain top, where there was nothing to indicate anyone else had ever been there, ever.  That episode created a few anxious thoughts, as I entered a beeline course to a way point I entered on the way up, in order to  get out of the woods before sunset. Then also, I found that someone again changed the coordinates. With the new coordinates I might make the trip back up, or so I thought at the time, but now I'm not so sure

How common is this alteration of coordinates?

Only the cache owner (or a reviewer or Groundspeak lackey) can alter the coordinates of a geocache throughout the system.

 

If another geocacher mentioned alternate coordinates in their log, those may or may not be more accurate than the ones provided in the cache description -- but other cachers can't change them.

 

edit to add: would you mind posting the caches to which you're referring?

Edited August 8, 2017 by hzoi
to add

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, 2WildBill said:

How common is this alteration of coordinates?

I don't think it's very common. Only the CO can edit the coordinates, and most edit the coordinates only when they discover that their original coordinates were inaccurate (usually early in the cache's history), or when they hide a replacement cache in a slightly different location from the original (for example, when the original hiding location is damaged/destroyed, or when the original hiding location becomes known to cache vandals).

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, on4bam said:

You were not trying to find a mystery on it's bogus coordinates, were you?

That would irk me...

[+AB&JB]

58 minutes ago, on4bam said:

It's not very common. You were not trying to find a mystery on it's bogus coordinates, were you?

Cache owners can only move coordinates about 500 feet at a time. They need a reviewer to drastically move coordinates.

[+jellis]

Not sure if I said this. I have a lot of pet peeves.

Lately on caches over 40ft from posted coords, sometimes over 100ft. Why cachers don't look at the map to see if it is correct or have someone ( a friend) beta test it with a gps and smartphone. I know because  I had cachers after me when I first started. I use a Garmin now and triple check and check a map before releasing it. .

[+SeattleWayne]

11 hours ago, jellis said:

Not sure if I said this. I have a lot of pet peeves.

Lately on caches over 40ft from posted coords, sometimes over 100ft. Why cachers don't look at the map to see if it is correct or have someone ( a friend) beta test it with a gps and smartphone. I know because  I had cachers after me when I first started. I use a Garmin now and triple check and check a map before releasing it. .

Laziness. 

[SicilianCyclops]

I'm sure it's been mentioned in these myriad pages, but something that irks me, which I've seen more than once, are hints that are not helpful when searching and only make sense AFTER finding the cache. This is particularly irksome when you're in the woods with gps bounce and there are hundreds of hiding spots. Basically, some cache owners simply try to get too cute or tricky with their hints. 

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, SicilianCyclops said:

I'm sure it's been mentioned in these myriad pages, but something that irks me, which I've seen more than once, are hints that are not helpful when searching and only make sense AFTER finding the cache. This is particularly irksome when you're in the woods with gps bounce and there are hundreds of hiding spots. Basically, some cache owners simply try to get too cute or tricky with their hints. 

Yeah, I agree that's irksome, but I try to be more amused than annoyed. Even worse are the hints that would be helpful, but say the opposite of what they mean. "Don't be stumped." Shouldn't that mean it's not in the stump?

[+RufusClupea]

39 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Yeah, I agree that's irksome, but I try to be more amused than annoyed. Even worse are the hints that would be helpful, but say the opposite of what they mean. "Don't be stumped." Shouldn't that mean it's not in the stump?

If I saw that particular hint--depending on my knowledge of/experience with that particular CO--I might search the stump first (stumps are actually pretty limited/narrowed down areas to search, IME) and then if unsuccessful, I'd look around to see what else the hint might be hinting at.

I think I would understand SicilianCyclops' gripe point if he would give an example.

 

[+cerberus1]

"Cachers" who rarely (or don't) even cache, yet come here, looking to turn a profit off the hobby.

[+Cachez]

What has irked me this weekend is doing a six mile trail of 15 caches and finding five of them were either missing or in need of attention. I got to a point where I could do the last two and risk them being DNFs too or give up. I gave up. Posted all my logs and very shortly after, the CO disabled the lot saying they would be reworked. I'm possibly being slightly unreasonable about this but I was irked that they appeared to have let maintenance slide, but been jogged into action by my logs. It feels like I wasted the better part of a day looking for a bunch of caches which weren't there. 

I realise that part of my irkedness is related to my own expectations - I have had a difficult time at work recently and was looking forward to a satisfying and isolated caching walk to clear my mind a bit. 

[SicilianCyclops]

2 hours ago, RufusClupea said:

If I saw that particular hint--depending on my knowledge of/experience with that particular CO--I might search the stump first (stumps are actually pretty limited/narrowed down areas to search, IME) and then if unsuccessful, I'd look around to see what else the hint might be hinting at.

I think I would understand SicilianCyclops' gripe point if he would give an example.

 

Well, I don't want to single any one co out, but there was one in which the first stage was near an historical marker sign on a path in the woods. The hint was something like, "If you're reading (the sign), you can see it (the cache)." Now that would lead you to believe that perhaps that stage would consist of a magnetic nano on the sign. However, I know for a fact it was not on the sign. So what could that hint mean? From that vantage point my eyes could see a whole wooded area with thousands of hiding spots. One log even stated that the hint was misleading and there has been no shortage of DNFs.