Jump to content

What Irks you most?

avroair

By avroair
in General geocaching topics

Followers 52

Recommended Posts

SeattleWayne

+SeattleWayne

Posted
Posted
On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:25 PM, niraD said:

Huh... I thought their policy was that cache pages should not be used as a discussion forum, which is what it sounds like was happening. Caches have been archived because the CO didn't/couldn't delete Note logs when the cache page was being used as a discussion forum.

...except people weren't really discussing anything.

Link to comment
SeattleWayne

+SeattleWayne

Posted
Posted
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 9:00 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

I have seen examples in some areas of caches with multiple NAs being ignored, even multiple reviewer notes going on for months even years. Those caches are old pre-2005 and it seems some reviewers don't want to be the guy that archives an old cache. 

Years? Really?

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

Link to comment
Manville Possum

+Manville Possum

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

 

I'd feel worse being the cacher that posted an NA on one of these old community caches. :( Imagine if we as cache owners had to check in once a year or our hides would be set in motion for archival due to inactivity. :ph34r: I love these old community caches too, but maybe a shelf life on cache placements would make the game more interesting and create more active members.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
hzoi

+hzoi

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

It happens.  Owner inactivity is by far the leading cause for archiving a virtual.  For example, I knew that the days were numbered for 16,000,000 Bricks before I even visited Dry Tortuga National Park, which is why I was so keen to get our two earthcaches approved out there.  That CO hadn't been around since 2007.

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:
3 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

 

I'd feel worse being the cacher that posted an NA on one of these old community caches. :( Imagine if we as cache owners had to check in once a year or our hides would be set in motion for archival due to inactivity. :ph34r: I love these old community caches too, but maybe a shelf life on cache placements would make the game more interesting and create more active members.

Seems overly sentimental.

Link to comment
Manville Possum

+Manville Possum

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Seems overly sentimental.

No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

In which case, thank [insert name of chosen deity here] for noobs unfettered by overly sentimental nonsense and shame on those posting presumably offensive comments on the cache page and social media.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
on4bam

+on4bam

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

It happens.  Owner inactivity is by far the leading cause for archiving a virtual.  For example, I knew that the days were numbered for 16,000,000 Bricks before I even visited Dry Tortuga National Park, which is why I was so keen to get our two earthcaches approved out there.  That CO hadn't been around since 2007.

Glad I found that one (2008), don't remember if the CO replied but I did send answers. (It was my 128th find.

 

Link to comment
SeattleWayne

+SeattleWayne

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Seems overly sentimental.

:rolleyes:

3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

That's unfortunate.

Link to comment
Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted

And, sometimes, I just wonder...  Went looking for some P&Gs recently.  Bitter cold wind chill.  Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns.  Did not match the photos from three years ago,  One had a frozen log.  CO has three finds from a few years back.  And 103 owned caches.  74 of which have been archived,  A power trail that  had been hidden, and archived twice.  Hidden and archived.  Now a fourth power trail in the same place!  I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it.  What gives here???  Why is this permitted?  A few other caches archived and rehidden.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
SUV2003

+SUV2003

Posted
Posted
On 5/26/2013 at 9:11 AM, 4wheelin_fool said:

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>

LOL!

Link to comment
noncentric

+noncentric

Posted
Posted
On 1/11/2018 at 9:29 AM, SeattleWayne said:
On 1/9/2018 at 4:25 PM, niraD said:

Huh... I thought their policy was that cache pages should not be used as a discussion forum, which is what it sounds like was happening. Caches have been archived because the CO didn't/couldn't delete Note logs when the cache page was being used as a discussion forum.

...except people weren't really discussing anything.

People weren't discussing anything, but also their logs had nothing to do with the specific cache that the WN logs were posted to. Most of those WN's were posted by cachers that weren't even in the same country as the cache on those days (12/31 and 1/1).

 

That's very odd that it was the Bedazzling View HQ GT cache that received the WN logs. I don't see such WN's on other caches in that GT series, unless they've been deleted. Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's? If they really wanted to send a message of thanks to HQ, then wouldn't the actual GC HQ cache have been a better choice?

Link to comment
Tungstène

+Tungstène

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, noncentric said:

Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's?

Because its GC-code was shown on both 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. :anicute:

I can't believe HQ choose a random number. For some reason, they wanted cachers paying attention to have a look at this cache. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
SeattleWayne

+SeattleWayne

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, noncentric said:

People weren't discussing anything, but also their logs had nothing to do with the specific cache that the WN logs were posted to. Most of those WN's were posted by cachers that weren't even in the same country as the cache on those days (12/31 and 1/1).

 

That's very odd that it was the Bedazzling View HQ GT cache that received the WN logs. I don't see such WN's on other caches in that GT series, unless they've been deleted. Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's? If they really wanted to send a message of thanks to HQ, then wouldn't the actual GC HQ cache have been a better choice?

Yeah, it's some kind of weird geocaching conspiracy.

Link to comment
SeattleWayne

+SeattleWayne

Posted
Posted
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 4:12 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

And, sometimes, I just wonder...  Went looking for some P&Gs recently.  Bitter cold wind chill.  Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns.  Did not match the photos from three years ago,  One had a frozen log.  CO has three finds from a few years back.  And 103 owned caches.  74 of which have been archived,  A power trail that  had been hidden, and archived twice.  Hidden and archived.  Now a fourth power trail in the same place!  I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it.  What gives here???  Why is this permitted?  A few other caches archived and rehidden.

What exactly are you saying shouldn't be permitted?

Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:
On 1/13/2018 at 7:12 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

And, sometimes, I just wonder...  Went looking for some P&Gs recently.  Bitter cold wind chill.  Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns.  Did not match the photos from three years ago,  One had a frozen log.  CO has three finds from a few years back.  And 103 owned caches.  74 of which have been archived,  A power trail that  had been hidden, and archived twice.  Hidden and archived.  Now a fourth power trail in the same place!  I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it.  What gives here???  Why is this permitted?  A few other caches archived and rehidden.

What exactly are you saying shouldn't be permitted?

Just a guess, but a history of placing power trails without any sort of maintenance might be a justification for denying the cache owner the right to create new caches.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

You had also mentioned throw downs so I wasn't exactly sure.

 

It was Harry Dolphin that mentioned throwdowns.  I'm not exactly sure what the official GS policy is on throwdowns, for caches with names other than Mingo.  Personally, I think that a CO that allows other caches to drop a throwdown if they can't find the cache isn't maintaining their caches.  I suspect that most reviewers wouldn't consider a blanket permission to throw down a replacement if the cache can't be found to be a valid maintenance plan. 

Link to comment
noncentric

+noncentric

Posted
Posted
On 1/15/2018 at 9:42 PM, Tungstène said:
On 1/15/2018 at 4:41 PM, noncentric said:

Why did all those cachers choose that cache to post WN's?

Because its GC-code was shown on both 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. :anicute:

I can't believe HQ choose a random number. For some reason, they wanted cachers paying attention to have a look at this cache.

Ah, I hadn't even noticed this. Thanks!

Link to comment
SeattleWayne

+SeattleWayne

Posted
Posted
On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:55 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

It was Harry Dolphin that mentioned throwdowns.  I'm not exactly sure what the official GS policy is on throwdowns, for caches with names other than Mingo.  Personally, I think that a CO that allows other caches to drop a throwdown if they can't find the cache isn't maintaining their caches.  I suspect that most reviewers wouldn't consider a blanket permission to throw down a replacement if the cache can't be found to be a valid maintenance plan. 

Oh, gotcha.

I've briefly skimmed the thrown down policy, and the phrase they used was "not encouraged" if I remember correctly.  

Link to comment
me N u

+me N u

Posted
Posted

Quite happy to place a cache but not very happy to maintain a cache.

Temporarily Disable Listing Temporarily Disable Listing

20/01/2018

This one will remain disabled for the foreseeable. I am quite offended this cache has been left on full view by cachers and as a result has now gone missing, which means I will have to make a hundred mile drive to replace a film pot at the base of a tree. I try to introduce church micros to the lake district and this is how I am repaid.

Link to comment
Team Microdot

+Team Microdot

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, me N u said:

Quite happy to place a cache but not very happy to maintain a cache.

Temporarily Disable Listing Temporarily Disable Listing

20/01/2018

This one will remain disabled for the foreseeable. I am quite offended this cache has been left on full view by cachers and as a result has now gone missing, which means I will have to make a hundred mile drive to replace a film pot at the base of a tree. I try to introduce church micros to the lake district and this is how I am repaid.

1. This is why typically I don't place caches outside a comfortable maintenance radius.

2. Are you sure it was left in full view by cachers? Rain or wind could have caused it to leave its hide - anything really.

3. No church micros exist anywhere in the Lake District? Anywhere? They must do - they are EVERYWHERE

4. A film pot at the base of a tree could easily have been mistaken for litter and cleared away.

5. Maybe just archive it and save yourself 100 mile drive?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Viajero Perdido

+Viajero Perdido

Posted
Posted

I am quite offended this cache has been left on full view by cachers and as a result has now gone missing, which means I will have to make a hundred mile drive to replace a film pot at the base of a tree.

Okay, now I'm irked by people who automatically blame cachers for moving a cache so small a squirrel could run off with it.  A film pot, for zark's sake.

Really now.  Wildlife is a huge disruptor of caches.  In my experience, anything up to, but usually not including an ammo can, can and will be checked out, chewed, and maybe dragged around by wildlife.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
TeamRabbitRun

+TeamRabbitRun

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, me N u said:

Quite happy to place a cache but not very happy to maintain a cache.

Temporarily Disable Listing Temporarily Disable Listing

20/01/2018

This one will remain disabled for the foreseeable. I am quite offended this cache has been left on full view by cachers and as a result has now gone missing, which means I will have to make a hundred mile drive to replace a film pot at the base of a tree. I try to introduce church micros to the lake district and this is how I am repaid.

"This is how I am repaid."

Really? You're bitching about having to maintain your caches? What did you sign up for?

Don't put out a cache 100 miles away!

Don't put out a cache you're not willing to maintain given your life situation!

AND, what irks me is the use of the word "repaid".

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
L0ne.R

+L0ne.R

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
1 hour ago, me N u said:

Quite happy to place a cache but not very happy to maintain a cache.

Temporarily Disable Listing Temporarily Disable Listing

20/01/2018

This one will remain disabled for the foreseeable. I am quite offended this cache has been left on full view by cachers and as a result has now gone missing, which means I will have to make a hundred mile drive to replace a film pot at the base of a tree. I try to introduce church micros to the lake district and this is how I am repaid.

"This is how I am repaid."

Really? You're bitching about having to maintain your caches? What did you sign up for?

Don't put out a cache 100 miles away!

Don't put out a cache you're not willing to maintain given your life situation!

AND, what irks me is the use of the word "repaid".

Wow. :mellow:

If this is what an owner posted after I posted an NM/NA, I'd write a note log with a copy n paste of the guidelines:

Quote

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=204

6.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

 

 

Unfortunately, there are too many owners that feel this way.

 

 

Link to comment
themagician

+themagician

Posted
Posted

I hate searching for ever for a micro in the woods .   I hate caches placed on streets with cars and muggles constantly walking by.  I hate people that hide caches with out any thought of where or how they are placing it, they are more interested in saying " hey I hid 100 caches"  they just want the numbers, I hate people placing caches in areas that they wont visit for another year when they are on vacation, then expect me to keep an eye on it. when I hide a cache people actually enjoy looking for it and they always find it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
LFC4eva

+LFC4eva

Posted
Posted

What irks me the most?

Cachers who hand out the login details to their geocaching account so their friends can help themselves, not only to their own puzzle solutions, but to the solutions to all the puzzles they have the coordinates for, thus rendering the hard work of the puzzle setter a waste of time by turning their puzzles into traditionals.  :mad:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
on4bam

+on4bam

Posted
Posted

Just noticed a highly favorited caches was archived by HQ because it was not available long enough (Halloween themed and thus only available at Halloween).

The listing is locked, I guess TPTB anticipated  "some activity"  from cachers who still had this cache on their to do list :ph34r:

Link to comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

That's not the point. It seems the CO organizes special activities while the cache is (was) available, hence the high favorite percentage of 86% .

So is the point that "special activities" make a temporary cache okay? Or is the point that high favorite percentages make a temporary cache okay? Or is the point something else?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
on4bam

+on4bam

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, niraD said:

So is the point that "special activities" make a temporary cache okay? Or is the point that high favorite percentages make a temporary cache okay? Or is the point something else?

The point is that this once again may be a reason why CO's give up on placing caches. I've seen a few CO's archiving most if not all their caches hinting that "guideline issues" are the reason. "Fed up with nitpicking" is not unheard from.

OTOH, micro's behind an utility pole never seem to have issues (not counting "disappeared, wet,..." and other NM logs).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Oxford Stone

+Oxford Stone

Posted
Posted

An irk of mine is the GPS Arbiters. The people who, because they've spent £$€1,000,000 on a Gremlin Ibex 340Z, feel free to put "coords were out by 6m" etc etc in their logs (A couple of people local to me make a real habit of it). Who's to say that their gadget is more accurate than someone else's older / cheaper unit or (whisper it) smartphone?

Occasionally if I sense coords are a bit off, or if on satellite view (ye, I've seen the current thread about accuracy of these) the icon is pointing to the middle of the path, I'll put "found, wooded side of the track" or similar but I try not to comment on inaccuracy unless multiple people have commented on inaccuracy, supplied alternative coords etc and CO has done nothing - even then I'll put "I got coords ending 234, 876) or similar.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
barefootjeff

+barefootjeff

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, on4bam said:
51 minutes ago, Oxford Stone said:

 I try not to comment on inaccuracy unless multiple people have commented on inaccuracy,

If everybody does that nobody would comment... :rolleyes:

I would rarely say coordinates are inaccurate, well except for one case that was 100 metres out, but I'll often comment on what my GPSr was doing, like for example, "my GPSr had it about 8 metres north of where it was" or "my GPSr was jumping around all over the place" as that might be helpful to others. If others post similar comments, perhaps it's something the CO could look at, but if they don't, it just means I have a crappy GPSr.

Link to comment
on4bam

+on4bam

Posted
Posted

After this week's batch of PQs to update my GSAK database it was time to update the caches that no longer were in the PQs because they got archived. There's an ever increasing amount of caches that get archived after a short time.

Today's update were just 5 PQs containing caches place July 19th 2017 and later. 68 caches were archived of which a series of 31 published December 27th (not even two months ago), a series of 18 published August 24th 2017, a series of 8 published September 15th.

The reason? The series published Dec. 27th has, according to the archive log, been plagued by stolen and destroyed caches, The one published Aug 24th has "time for something new" in the archive log and the series of 8 has 2 "problem caches".

I noticed this trend for a while now, "old" caches seem to be available for many years but "recent" caches (last 2-3 years) are archived a lot faster.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 52
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...