Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

On 11/18/2018 at 12:49 PM, colleda said:

Me too, but I don't need airfare. Almost everytime I go past some of Jeff's caches I'm in motorcycle gear which is not conducive to hikes in the bush. Example today I twice rode past these two near Bumble Hill, a very popular ride for bikers.

GC71QN9

Will have to come back in the Forester more suitably attired.

NC is a loooooong way.

 

Glad to see you got to them yesterday 🙂.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rikitan said:

Count me into this group of owners.

 

irks.png.ab9566554b00b4ab3dd8033a2c29d020.png

*LOL* ... looks like all your other irks are literally vaporized by the big one :D!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/30/2018 at 3:03 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

Challenge caches are different in that completing the challenge is an Additional Logging Requirement, whereas solving the puzzle for a mystery or visiting all the stages of a multi isn't allowed to be and for those, if you sign the logbook you can log the find. If you find and sign the log of a challenge cache but haven't yet fulfilled the challenge, you should log a WN which you can later change to a find when you've qualified.

 

Irksome right now is my inability to figure out how to include all the stuff that got quoted in this post.   I miss the old forums that allowed manipulation of the raw text/links etc.

 

Meanwhile, using notes and then a found-it is irksome.   The time at which the challenge is completed and the found-it is logged might not correlate with the container still being extant.  You end up with spurious found-its in the midst of DNFs:   https://coord.info/GC7HRFX

 

There should be some feature that includes a discrete log type for challenge completion.    This would also eliminate another's irk which I was unable to quote, which was n00bs logging a Found when they haven't completed the challenge requirements. 

 

The only officially-sanctioned Additional Logging Requirement should have an additional unique log type.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, frinklabs said:

Irksome right now is my inability to figure out how to include all the stuff that got quoted in this post.  

You can select everything from a posting, including its quotes, and then click on the little "Quote selection" popup. The "select everything" part is not entirely trivial ;) , because you must take care not to select too much (e.g. the "Posted <some time ago>" headline), because then the "Quote selection" will not appear.

8 hours ago, frinklabs said:

I miss the old forums that allowed manipulation of the raw text/links etc.

So do I.

 

Anyway...

8 hours ago, frinklabs said:

Meanwhile, using notes and then a found-it is irksome.   The time at which the challenge is completed and the found-it is logged might not correlate with the container still being extant.  You end up with spurious found-its in the midst of DNFs:   https://coord.info/GC7HRFX

I've also noticed this, and while it doesn't irk me, it can indeed be irritating, if it leads to misleading find logs when the cache is actually gone. But since the guidelines are unclear here (at least, they're not clear for me :unsure:), I don't blame the cachers for logging this way. My own standard operating procedure in this case is to log another note, stating that I have now completed the challenge, and changing the type of my original note to "Found it". This way, the find appears in my stats for the day on which I actually found the cache, which is the way I prefer it.

 

Interestingly, others sometimes use the "Log a find when I meet the challenge criteria" strategy for padding a find streak for days when they couldn't get out to find their cache-of-the-day :rolleyes:.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Interestingly, others sometimes use the "Log a find when I meet the challenge criteria" strategy for padding a find streak for days when they couldn't get out to find their cache-of-the-day :rolleyes:.

 

That's not so much an issue as EC logs (one viable date being the visit, the other being the homework completion). For a challenge, you cached on the day you found the challenge cache, and you cached on the day you qualified for the challenge. So it doesn't really matter (in the context of cache-a-day challenges) which date is used.  On either date, you cached.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

For a challenge, you cached on the day you found the challenge cache, and you cached on the day you qualified for the challenge. So it doesn't really matter (in the context of cache-a-day challenges) which date is used.  On either date, you cached.

In theory, you are right. But what I meant by "padding the find streak with challenges" is, that some cachers log a find for the completed challenge at an arbitrary date after they completed it. With a log going like "Oh, I just saw that I now fulfill the challenge. I found the box a long time ago, so I'm now logging a find".

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, right, then yeah that's just an arbitrary date, not the date they qualified, which of course would be wrong :P

I wonder how appeals would rule if the log was deleted with the intent to have the person log either of the other dates?  ..probably in favour of the user not the CO, since it'd be another he-said-she-said argument no one could prove, and if the name is in the log, then the CO's at a disadvantage. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post

I have now been irked enough by people who rate their caches as only 1 (or maybe1.5) difficulty and the caches are hard to find. If I can't find a cache of that difficulty (especially the difficulty 1 caches) after a good search, I log needs maintenance, missing.  I did that to two caches recently. I have also placed low terrain rated caches in more realistic locations to match their rated difficulty. Example; a cache with terrain one and the cache was hidden up in the rafters of a building. I left the cache at ground level. The next finder agreed with what I did. Another up in a tree. I left it in the tree, but at a height most people could reach with feet flat on the ground. I wrote appears there was cache creep, as cache no longer matches its terrain.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have now been irked enough by people who rate their caches as only 1 (or maybe1.5) difficulty and the caches are hard to find. If I can't find a cache of that difficulty (especially the difficulty 1 caches) after a good search, I log needs maintenance, missing.  I did that to two caches recently. I have also placed low terrain rated caches in more realistic locations to match their rated difficulty. Example; a cache with terrain one and the cache was hidden up in the rafters of a building. I left the cache at ground level. The next finder agreed with what I did. Another up in a tree. I left it in the tree, but at a height most people could reach with feet flat on the ground. I wrote appears there was cache creep, as cache no longer matches its terrain.

 

Dear Goldenwattle,

Please stay away from my caches.

Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not.

Their placement is also my business. If you don't like where they are, too bad. Go place your own.

There are better, less arrogant ways of handling the two situations you described.

Sincerely, TeamRabbitRun

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not.

 

D/T rating chart. Many finders rely on the tools provided by the site. It's fair and reasonable. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

D/T rating chart. Many finders rely on the tools provided by the site. It's fair and reasonable. 

 

 

And it is up to the CO to determine and adjust. If a finder doesn't agree, they should make the appropriate log type or wording, NOT move the cache. A fundamental part of this hobby is to return the cache to the spot where you found it, not place it qhere you think it should be.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

D/T rating chart. Many finders rely on the tools provided by the site. It's fair and reasonable. 

 

 

Sure, those are the ratings guidelines, but ultimately it's my decision. It's 'fair and reasonable' as you say, but it's not a science; there's an awful lot of leeway in each grade.

Is it OK to file a Needs Maintenance log if you think my cache should be a '2' instead of a '1.5'?

Wouldn't a Note or a message to make the suggestion be a friendlier method than formally stating to the world that the CO is WRONG?

 

And to move the location because 'You Know Better'?...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, K13 said:

A fundamental part of this hobby is to return the cache to the spot where you found it, not place it qhere you think it should be.

Yes, and that's one of my main objections to numbers trails that encourage the use of the three cache monte. Still, there are exceptions.

 

If I find a cache sitting in the middle of the trail, then I'm going to do my best to replace it where it belongs using the information (description, hint, etc.) available to me. (I'll also send the CO email explaining where I replaced it.)

 

And if I find a cache in a location that doesn't match the hint, then I'm going to replace the cache in the location that does match the hint. I've also found caches with spoiler photos inside the cache, to help get misplaced caches put back where they belong.

 

And if I find a T1 cache in a location that is obviously not wheelchair accessible, then I might replace it in a location that matches its description, rather than the location to which it has obviously migrated.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have now been irked enough by people who rate their caches as only 1 (or maybe1.5) difficulty and the caches are hard to find. If I can't find a cache of that difficulty (especially the difficulty 1 caches) after a good search, I log needs maintenance, missing.  I did that to two caches recently.

 

You must be a lot better at searching than I am, as I've logged DNFs on 8 D1s and 10 D1.5s that weren't missing. Most of those I've gone back to with fresh eyes and easily found on my second (or even third) attempt; often because I've assumed something about the cache or its hiding place that turned out to be wrong. Some have been so blindingly obvious on my second attempt I have no idea how I missed them the first time. On some my searching has been restricted by the presence of muggles or I was defeated by the terrain rather than the difficulty. Rarely is it because the rating was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have now been irked enough by people who rate their caches as only 1 (or maybe1.5) difficulty and the caches are hard to find. If I can't find a cache of that difficulty (especially the difficulty 1 caches) after a good search, I log needs maintenance, missing.  I did that to two caches recently. I have also placed low terrain rated caches in more realistic locations to match their rated difficulty. Example; a cache with terrain one and the cache was hidden up in the rafters of a building. I left the cache at ground level. The next finder agreed with what I did. Another up in a tree. I left it in the tree, but at a height most people could reach with feet flat on the ground. I wrote appears there was cache creep, as cache no longer matches its terrain.

 

The rule is ‘put it back where you find it’.  Send a message to the cache owner if you don’t agree with the rating.  How will they maintain it if it isn’t in place?  I wouldn’t want anyone moving my caches without my permission!  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Dear Goldenwattle,

Please stay away from my caches.

Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not.

Their placement is also my business. If you don't like where they are, too bad. Go place your own.

There are better, less arrogant ways of handling the two situations you described.

Sincerely, TeamRabbitRun

 

 

So you are one of those people who don't care about people who might be in a wheelchair or have other physical disabilities and think 'tough' (this is what you are indicating here), who travel a long way to find your (say) one rated terrain cache marked one star and then find it up in the rafters of a building (as per my example) and they can't reach it. Fine, it's your business, but by the same token it's others business if I they manage to knock down the cache with a stick, but can't put it back and so leave it near the ground. Please show some empathy towards those who might not be so physically able. The ratings are there for a reason.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Ewe&Me said:

 

The rule is ‘put it back where you find it’.  Send a message to the cache owner if you don’t agree with the rating.  How will they maintain it if it isn’t in place?  I wouldn’t want anyone moving my caches without my permission!  

Then rate it correctly. Don't do as one example I found, rate the terrain one star, stick the cache up in the rafters, or another one star, expect a walk across sand, a scramble over boulders and then a climb up a small cliff. Those examples show complete lack of respect for others.

It's commonly not possible to put the one star cache back up in the rafters, up on the high tree branch above reach, etc. It can sometimes be got down with a stick, but that doesn't put it back.

What's hard about playing the game fairly and rating it as best as one can, correctly?

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

if you think my cache should be a '2' instead of a '1.5'

Your being silly here and twisting a point. 1.5 or 2 stars there's nothing in it. Naturally I wouldn't change that. My example was pretty obvious what I was talking about. A rated one star cache placed high in the rafters of a building. IE, a four star/five star (needs special equipment to return it) rated as one star cache.

PS. I am the one in our group who most insists that the cache goes back where it was found, so if your cache is really a one star cache, not a four star cache, I will be very careful to return it to where it should be. I am talking about extremes here, as my example showed, not a half or one star difference in opinion, or even a two star difference. Except maybe with one star, which needs to be wheelchair accessible. My only one star terrain cache was not published for a week longer until I could convince the reviewer that it really was accessible, as the case should always be.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Those examples show complete lack of respect for others.

 

Exactly. It's about respect.

If we all follow the intent and the spirit of the guidelines we can create a fun experience for all. 

If we all follow the site's rating guidelines it shows a respect for all players. We can participate on a level playing field. 

D/T ratings use to be a tool and were treated as a tool. But now they have become a point system. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I place the cache back as I found it.

If where I found it doesn't match the hint, I will either A] place it where I found it, state as much in my log, and inform the CO, or B] place it where the hint seems to obviously indicate, state as much in my log, and inform the CO.  Whether A or B, to me, would depend on how obvious the intended location seems to be.  One of A or B because I'm insufficiently certain that the cache is where it is intended to be (my interpretation of a hint could be wrong), so the CO should know. Then it's up to the CO to verify/maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So you are one of those people who don't care about people who might be in a wheelchair or have other physical disabilities and think 'tough' (this is what you are indicating here), who travel a long way to find your (say) one rated terrain cache marked one star and then find it up in the rafters of a building (as per my example) and they can't reach it. Fine, it's your business, but by the same token it's others business if I they manage to knock down the cache with a stick, but can't put it back and so leave it near the ground. Please show some empathy towards those who might not be so physically able. The ratings are there for a reason.

 

Oh, OK, so your 'comeback' response style is to start by painting me as a terrible person: I don't care about disabled people, I have no empathy and no regard for the 'norms' of the game vis-a-vis the rating system.

 

You forgot to mention that I hate kittens, don't stop my car before the crosswalks and intentionally hide caches with fuzzy coords.

 

After reading your note, who could possibly NOT be on your side? OH, you've struck home!

 

Too bad you didn't address what I actually wrote about. I stand by what I said.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Oh, OK, so your 'comeback' response style is to start by painting me as a terrible person: I don't care about disabled people, I have no empathy and no regard for the 'norms' of the game vis-a-vis the rating system.

 

You forgot to mention that I hate kittens, don't stop my car before the crosswalks and intentionally hide caches with fuzzy coords.

 

After reading your note, who could possibly NOT be on your side? OH, you've struck home!

 

Too bad you didn't address what I actually wrote about. I stand by what I said.

Sorry to upset you, but you did come out against the examples I gave of a one star terrain cache up in the rafters of a building and another high in a tree, writing, " Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not. " How else could that be interpreted? As for contacting the CO, occasionally that works, but often it doesn't. I did that once for a cache up in a tree, although this example, marked 1.5 stars, not 1 star. The reply (from a relative beginner ) was that the walk to the tree was flat; read the guidelines. No, I did not move that one, as it wasn't marked one star and it was a very nice hide and I could just reach it. Although I think from memory I couldn't close the lid properly, as the stretch along the branch to the cache was too far for me. Why did I attempt such a cache if it was rather difficult for me? Well because it was marked as 1.5 terrain and I had made the effort to go there, (because it was marked only 1.5 terrain). If the terrain had been more realistically marked, I likely would not have bothered going there. Marking a cache realistically, also helps protect it, as people who can reach it okay (and also importantly, are able to reach to return it), are those then who are more likely to attempt it, and other people not so capable, seeing the rating, less likely too. Correct ratings are important, both for finders, and the owners if they want their caches to remain where they put it, because some people might be able to get the cache (ie with a stick), but not be able to return it. These later people need to know not to bother making the trip to find it, and the example of 1.5 stars up a tree doesn't indicate this.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Seven logs "great area for hiking.........out with xxxxx to cache some smileys.......tftc".  Guess I'll get seven more logs from xxxxx?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Sorry to upset you, but you did come out against the examples I gave of a one star terrain cache up in the rafters of a building and another high in a tree, writing, " Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not. " How else could that be interpreted? As for contacting the CO, occasionally that works, but often it doesn't. I did that once for a cache up in a tree, although this example, marked 1.5 stars, not 1 star. The reply (from a relative beginner ) was that the walk to the tree was flat; read the guidelines. No, I did not move that one, as it wasn't marked one star and it was a very nice hide and I could just reach it. Although I think from memory I couldn't close the lid properly, as the stretch along the branch to the cache was too far for me. Why did I attempt such a cache if it was rather difficult for me? Well because it was marked as 1.5 terrain and I had made the effort to go there, (because it was marked only 1.5 terrain). If the terrain had been more realistically marked, I likely would not have bothered going there. Marking a cache realistically, also helps protect it, as people who can reach it okay (and also importantly, are able to reach to return it), are those then who are more likely to attempt it, and other people not so capable, seeing the rating, less likely too. Correct ratings are important, both for finders, and the owners if they want their caches to remain where they put it, because some people might be able to get the cache (ie with a stick), but not be able to return it. These later people need to know not to bother making the trip to find it, and the example of 1.5 stars up a tree doesn't indicate this.

 

Several things spring to mind here that might in part account for D/T 1.5s that should really be higher:

  • The cache creation page defaults to 1.5/1.5 and if you want it to be something different, you have to consciously go and change it. Default settings in general are one of my pet peeves.
  • People may underrate a cache to allow basic members using the app to see it. The app used to be limited to 1.5/1.5 or less traditionals and events, but apparently that limit has been recently raised to 2/2 although I don't recall ever seeing an announcement to that effect.
  • Tall sinewy 20-year-olds no doubt see the world (and particularly trees and boulders) differently to short-legged balance-impaired 64-year-olds like me. I've seen younger more lithe cachers climb up and step out to reach caches without giving it a second thought where I would've shook my head, trudged back however many kilometres to the car and logged a DNF.
  • The cache rating page is ambiguous regarding tree climbs, as it says to rate terrain based on the physical effort needed to arrive at the coordinates, which will be at the base of the tree. I don't agree with that, but some read it that way and include the climb as part of the D rating.
  • Sometimes people simply make mistakes. One of mine I initially rated T2.5 but the first group of finders reckoned it really should have been T3. When creating the cache I'd bush-bashed my way to the top of the hill, not realising there was a track, and only experienced the track going down. Going up, well yes, it really was a T3 and I changed it accordingly.

I've gotten used to hiking long distances only to find I can't quite get to the cache at the end of it. If it's a T4 or less I'll give it a shot, knowing there's a chance the terrain could defeat me; that's just part of the game. There's a T2.5 I attempted a year or two back, but had to bail out about twenty metres from the cache as there was a vertical rock face that I thought I could climb down easily enough but might not be able to get back up again afterwards. Had it been one of mine I'd have rated it higher, probably T4 or even 4.5, but it doesn't seem to trouble most finders. One of these days I'll go back with some rope which will make it easy-peasy. For me nothing's ever a guaranteed smiley, not even a 1/1, but for me that uncertainty of success is part of the enjoyment, in hindsight at least - at the time I'm usually telling the wildlife what I think of the $%^&* CO.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

People may underrate a cache to allow basic members using the app to see it.

I have never agreed with this. When I started geocaching I found about 180 caches before I became a premier member. It was when I bought a GPS. Suddenly I discovered another set of geocaches near where I lived that I hadn't known about. I was the opposite of pived that I hadn't been able to see them until I paid for a premier membership; I was elated and was pleased suddenly a whole new set of caches had appeared within cycling distance from home. Most people here in Australia from my observation join way before I did. I was pleased I hadn't known about those caches, as it was such a nice surprise.

 

I now make many of my geocaches premium, as there are enough ordinary caches locally already for beginners to try.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have never agreed with this. When I started geocaching I found about 180 caches before I became a premier member. It was when I bought a GPS. Suddenly I discovered another set of geocaches near where I lived that I hadn't known about. I was the opposite of pived that I hadn't been able to see them until I paid for a premier membership; I was elated and was pleased suddenly a whole new set of caches had appeared within cycling distance from home. Most people here in Australia from my observation join way before I did. I was pleased I hadn't known about those caches, as it was such a nice surprise.

 

When I started in 2013 there was a series of ten PMO caches along a local creek, all within walking distance of home, so it was good to be able to do those once I'd decided I was hooked enough to part wih some money. Sadly they've all been archived now and there's not much left within walking or bike range in this area.

 

34 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I now make many of my geocaches premium, as there are enough ordinary caches locally already for beginners to try. 

 

Down my end of the Central Coast (Woy Woy peninsula and Brisbane Water across to about Terrigal), there are only 25 non-PMO traditionals that are 1.5/1.5 or less; the new 2/2 limit has doubled that to about 50 so the basic member app-users have a few more to tempt them now. All but one of mine are T2.5 or higher and I've been accused of intentionally trying to exclude beginners, but I just try to create interesting caches in nice bushland spots and those places nearly all involve a fair bit of hiking and/or rock-hopping. Perhaps if beginners were able to sample some like that, they might realise there's more to caching than just P&Gs and stick with the hobby a bit longer. I suppose I was lucky that I got into the hobby through the website and a GPSr (I didn't even own a smart phone then), so got to experience some higher terrain ones before becoming a PM (my 4th find was a T4 and there's a good assortment of T2.5s and T3s in my pre-PM finds).

Share this post


Link to post

Not really irking me, I just find this log ridiculous.

 

Log: GLXJ0CDG

 

Quote

Once again
Found it
Answers sand it
The rest dots are only for statistics, so do not care about it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . geo KACZOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

Not really irking me, I just find this log ridiculous.

 

Log: GLXJ0CDG

 

 

Here's another one:

 

Found it 3,14 D found 2.gif Airport Park

Friday, 15 June 2018Bulgaria 

At the end of my business trip to Bulgaria, I came to the airport about 2 hours before my flight. After I checked in the baggage, I decided to walt to the park for both caches here. 
It was a sunny afternoon but the park was completely empty. It is sad, because it is the nicest place I saw in Sofia.
It was an easy find after reading the hint, I started to search under the benches at first.
Thanks for showing me the place, an easy chace and for the point #2165

------- random wiki text :)

Най-ранните археологични свидетелства за обитаване на територията на София са от ранния неолит (VI хилядолетие пр. Хр.) – сред тях е Слатинското неолитно селище. Най-ранните данни за заселване на античния център на града – местността около минералните извори на днешната Централна минерална баня – са от бронзовата епоха (II хилядолетие пр. Хр.). Сведенията за това селище са оскъдни, тъй като градът продължава да съществува на това място в продължения на хилядолетия и много от останките са унищожени, но то съществува без прекъсване до наши дни.[15]

Сведения за района на днешна София се появяват в древногръцки писмени източници в средата на V век пр. Хр., като по това време тази част на Балканския полуостров е населена с различни народи от групата на траките. Когато римляните се появяват в региона през II век пр. Хр. източниците наричат местните жители серди, а селището при минералния извор – Сердонполис („Град на сердите“). Почти няма информация за града през тракийския период, но вероятно през IV век пр. Хр., при Филип II, земите на сердите са завладени от Древна Македония, като остават част от същинска Македония и след разпадането на империята на Александър Македонски. С упадъка на царството през III век пр. Хр. то губи владенията си във вътрешността на Балканския полуостров и по време на завладяването му от римляните в средата на II век пр. Хр. Софийското поле вече не е част от него.[16]

Останки от крепостта Сердика
Сердите са подчинени от Римската република през 28 година пр. Хр. от проконсула на Македония Марк Лициний Крас, който завладява земите им, прилагайки големи жестокости и принудителни изселвания.[17] През 45 година Сердика е включена в новосъздадената римска провинция Тракия, като през този период започва и заселването на ветерани от римската армия[18] При управлението на император Марк Аврелий Сердика получава правото да сече собствени монети и около 180 година е укрепена с крепостна стена, която в продължение на столетия очертава ядрото на града.[19]

През Римската епоха активна стопанска дейност се развива далеч извън градските стени, но в днешните граници на София. Пример за това са използваните до съвременната епоха тухларни при днешния квартал „Гоце Делчев“, добивни съоръжения за желязна руда на Витоша и за злато в Горубляне и Дървеница, както и десетките известни извънградски вили – някои от тях включват луксозни жилищни помещения, докато други са изцяло ориентирани към земеделско производство, а някои са оградени и от значителни укрепления. Повечето от изследваните вили възникват между края на II и края на III век и са унищожени при различни нападения между края на III и средата на V век.[20]

Около 271 година Сердика става център на новосъздадената провинция Дакия Аврелиана, а след нейното разделяне през 285 година – на нейната южна част – Вътрешна Дакия. При разделянето на диоцез Мизия на две, тя става столица и на северния диоцез – Дакия. През втората половина на III век град Рим губи мястото си на политически център на Империята и владетелите започват да пътуват между различни градове в провинциите.[21] Един от тези градове е и Сердика, където често пребивават императорите Галерий (роден и починал в града) и особено Константин I.[21] Според Петър Патриций той изразява особени предпочитания към града: „Константин най-напред възнамерява да пренесе управлението в Сардика; и понеже обича този град, често казва: „Сардика е моят Рим“.[22]

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2018 at 9:32 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I have now been irked enough by people who rate their caches as only 1 (or maybe1.5) difficulty and the caches are hard to find. If I can't find a cache of that difficulty (especially the difficulty 1 caches) after a good search, I log needs maintenance, missing.  I did that to two caches recently. I have also placed low terrain rated caches in more realistic locations to match their rated difficulty. Example; a cache with terrain one and the cache was hidden up in the rafters of a building. I left the cache at ground level. The next finder agreed with what I did. Another up in a tree. I left it in the tree, but at a height most people could reach with feet flat on the ground. I wrote appears there was cache creep, as cache no longer matches its terrain.

 

I've DNFed my fair share of 1 and 1.5 D caches to know that I'm not always going to find everything I think I should be able to find, and then have the next cacher, who has less than 100 finds, come along and say, "Easy find."  I'll ONLY file a NM log when the hint leaves only one possibility and that possibility is gone due to removal or some other occurrence.  Otherwise, it's just a DNF.  I hardly ever assume anything is missing because I know I've DNFed enough "easy" caches to know I'm not infallible.

 

I will NEVER move caches to another location to more aptly fit the T rating.  If there's a cache that's obviously out in the open and is out of its hiding spot, I'll put it back, based on the hint, and then email the CO as well as mention it in my log.  Otherwise, I return it to where I found it.  It's NOT my cache, so why should I change the location.  If I have a disagreement with the rating (similar to your 1 T example), I'll contact the CO after I find it but I'll still put it back where I found it.  I've had a couple COs respond to say that they inadvertently flipped the D and T.    If I were to do so, that means I'm assuming I knew what the CO had in mind with this hide.  As noted above, I'm not infallible.  There are really only two people who will ever know, for a fact, what the CO intended with a hide - the CO and the first finder.  Everyone else is just relying on the previous finder to put it back where they found it.  For you to move a cache goes against what is spelled out in the guidelines, even if it appears obvious to you. 

  • If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or email us.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

When I started in 2013 there was a series of ten PMO caches along a local creek, all within walking distance of home, so it was good to be able to do those once I'd decided I was hooked enough to part wih some money. Sadly they've all been archived now and there's not much left within walking or bike range in this area.

 

 

Down my end of the Central Coast (Woy Woy peninsula and Brisbane Water across to about Terrigal), there are only 25 non-PMO traditionals that are 1.5/1.5 or less; the new 2/2 limit has doubled that to about 50 so the basic member app-users have a few more to tempt them now. All but one of mine are T2.5 or higher and I've been accused of intentionally trying to exclude beginners, but I just try to create interesting caches in nice bushland spots and those places nearly all involve a fair bit of hiking and/or rock-hopping. Perhaps if beginners were able to sample some like that, they might realise there's more to caching than just P&Gs and stick with the hobby a bit longer. I suppose I was lucky that I got into the hobby through the website and a GPSr (I didn't even own a smart phone then), so got to experience some higher terrain ones before becoming a PM (my 4th find was a T4 and there's a good assortment of T2.5s and T3s in my pre-PM finds).

 

Agree 100%. I know it's almost darned if you do, darned if you don't,,, but I think it would be better for everyone if the app showed more difficult caches. Two things are happening because of the app restriction. First is that many, i'd bet most, new people trying the app find junk, get bored, and leave the hobby fairly quickly. I imagine few ever get to experience the good stuff that's placed. At the same time, the more creative and difficult caches remain unfound and stagnate, which sometimes leads to their owners leaving the hobby. It's a pretty much no win situation as things are now

 

The app restriction is my irk.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Agree 100%. I know it's almost darned if you do, darned if you don't,,, but I think it would be better for everyone if the app showed more difficult caches. Two things are happening because of the app restriction. First is that many, i'd bet most, new people trying the app find junk, get bored, and leave the hobby fairly quickly. I imagine few ever get to experience the good stuff that's placed. At the same time, the more creative and difficult caches remain unfound and stagnate, which sometimes leads to their owners leaving the hobby. It's a pretty much no win situation as things are now

 

The app restriction is my irk.

 

Spot on. This was part of my feedback in cache quality debate started by HQ in the summer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rikitan said:

 

Spot on. This was part of my feedback in cache quality debate started by HQ in the summer.

 

What IRK me is 4 months and a half later after the poll closed we didn't get any feedback at all on the subject.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Sorry to upset you, but you did come out against the examples I gave of a one star terrain cache up in the rafters of a building and another high in a tree, writing, " Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not. " How else could that be interpreted? As for contacting the CO, occasionally that works, but often it doesn't. I did that once for a cache up in a tree, although this example, marked 1.5 stars, not 1 star. The reply (from a relative beginner ) was that the walk to the tree was flat; read the guidelines. No, I did not move that one, as it wasn't marked one star and it was a very nice hide and I could just reach it. Although I think from memory I couldn't close the lid properly, as the stretch along the branch to the cache was too far for me. Why did I attempt such a cache if it was rather difficult for me? Well because it was marked as 1.5 terrain and I had made the effort to go there, (because it was marked only 1.5 terrain). If the terrain had been more realistically marked, I likely would not have bothered going there. Marking a cache realistically, also helps protect it, as people who can reach it okay (and also importantly, are able to reach to return it), are those then who are more likely to attempt it, and other people not so capable, seeing the rating, less likely too. Correct ratings are important, both for finders, and the owners if they want their caches to remain where they put it, because some people might be able to get the cache (ie with a stick), but not be able to return it. These later people need to know not to bother making the trip to find it, and the example of 1.5 stars up a tree doesn't indicate this.

 

While I appreciate your latest thoughtful and conciliatory reply, I'd like to put it into persective.

 

Everything in your post may sound reasonable, but you're using it and things you posted AFTER our initial interchange to change the subject to "COs should follow the guidelines", and that's not what's being discussed.

 

In fact, you said if you search for an 'easy' cache and can't find it, you assume it's missing because YOU couldn't find it and you'll file a "Needs Maintenance" log.

 

Then, you said that when you find an 'easy' cache in a place that YOU deem incorrect, you'll relocate it to a place more to YOUR liking.

 

In both cases, that's not how I play the game, and if you did either to any of my five caches, I'd be quite annoyed.

 

Someone brought up caches left laying out; of course, in an exceptional case such as that it should be put SOMEWHERE and the CO should be notified, but simply as a course of normal caching activity, I would never consider either of your actions.

 

A message to a CO that says, "Hey, this may be harder than you think," or "Hey, did you consider wheelchair-access in your T1?" are friendly, collaborative ways to SUGGEST something to someone. Unilaterally re-hiding someone's cache isn't.

 

EVEN IF I were to consider every justification you wrote after the initial post, I'd still consider it pretty boorish behavior to announce to the world in a NM log that requires a response (an OM log) that the CO is wrong.

 

By the way, I also suspect that most people reading such a log would not be left with a very high opinion of the logger, but that would be your problem.

 

AND, even if you were 'right', it's STILL the CO's prerogative.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

AND, even if you were 'right', it's STILL the CO's prerogative.

 

CO's prerogative only goes so far. There are guidelines to be followed.

 

COs can't hide a containerless cache (except for earthcaches and virtual rewards). 

COs can't list a sign and ask people to sign the back of the sign. 

COs can't submit a cache with a container then remove that container and ask people to log the cache anyway if they visit the location. 

A cache owner can not list their cache a T1 if it is not wheelchair accessible -- the wheelchair attribute is mandatory when listing a cache as a T1. 

There are limits to what a CO can do. 

It's only fair. Most would not or could not play if they had no idea what to expect and couldn't rely on tools like D/T and cache type if those tools became a free-for-all. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

CO's prerogative only goes so far. There are guidelines to be followed.

 

COs can't hide a containerless cache (except for earthcaches and virtual rewards). 

COs can't list a sign and ask people to sign the back of the sign. 

COs can't submit a cache with a container then remove that container and ask people to log the cache anyway if they visit the location. 

A cache owner can not list their cache a T1 if it is not wheelchair accessible -- the wheelchair attribute is mandatory when listing a cache as a T1. 

There are limits to what a CO can do. 

It's only fair. Most would not or could not play if they had no idea what to expect and couldn't rely on tools like D/T and cache type if those tools became a free-for-all. 

 

Sure, but we're not talking about things like that.

We're talking about a CO using his or her judgment to rate a cache according to how THEY interpret the D&T guidelines, not how some random searcher with a whole different experience set does.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Sure, but we're not talking about things like that.

We're talking about a CO using his or her judgment to rate a cache according to how THEY interpret the D&T guidelines, not how some random searcher with a whole different experience set does.

 

I thought there was reference to a T1 being up in a tree or in some rafters, just before the I'm the CO and it's my cache and my business comments.

 

That's what I seem to remember at least and probabl why it's now being pointed out that there's at least one DT rating that you can't use unless your cache fulfills certain obligations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I thought there was reference to a T1 being up in a tree or in some rafters, just before the I'm the CO and it's my cache and my business comments.

 

That's what I seem to remember at least and probabl why it's now being pointed out that there's at least one DT rating that you can't use unless your cache fulfills certain obligations.

 

Naw, that was after.

The whole thing is about "If I can't find it, I'm filing a NM, and if I don't like the placement, I'm moving it."

Everything else is after-the-fact diversion.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Naw, that was after.

The whole thing is about "If I can't find it, I'm filing a NM, and if I don't like the placement, I'm moving it."

Everything else is after-the-fact diversion.

 

Naw. It wasn't.

 

On 11/25/2018 at 2:32 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Example; a cache with terrain one and the cache was hidden up in the rafters of a building. I left the cache at ground level. The next finder agreed with what I did. Another up in a tree. I left it in the tree, but at a height most people could reach with feet flat on the ground. I wrote appears there was cache creep, as cache no longer matches its terrain.

 

Immediately followed by this:

 

On 11/25/2018 at 4:36 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:

Dear Goldenwattle,

Please stay away from my caches.

Their Terrain and Difficulty ratings are my business, whether you agree with them or not.

Their placement is also my business. If you don't like where they are, too bad. Go place your own.

There are better, less arrogant ways of handling the two situations you described.

Sincerely, TeamRabbitRun

 

If there's any deliberate diversion going on here it isn't from Goldenwattle.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Agree 100%. I know it's almost darned if you do, darned if you don't,,, but I think it would be better for everyone if the app showed more difficult caches. Two things are happening because of the app restriction. First is that many, i'd bet most, new people trying the app find junk, get bored, and leave the hobby fairly quickly. I imagine few ever get to experience the good stuff that's placed. At the same time, the more creative and difficult caches remain unfound and stagnate, which sometimes leads to their owners leaving the hobby. It's a pretty much no win situation as things are now

 

The app restriction is my irk.

 

On the other hand, if there was no restriction on the level of difficulty shown to first time players,  which may not understand what the D/T ratings mean they may get frustrated very quickly if the choose to seek caches with a high D rating.  I've felt that the restriction on the D rating is justified but less so (to a point) restricting based on the terrain rating.  Limiting the terrain to caches with a low terrain rating means they'll only be able to find caches that are mostly park-n-grabs or otherwise close to where one might park a car.  Raising the T rating limitation to a 3 or 3.5 would include caches which demonstrate a greater variety of terrain (yet may still be relatively easy to find) beyond the parking lot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Naw. It wasn't.

 

 

Immediately followed by this:

 

 

If there's any deliberate diversion going on here it isn't from Goldenwattle.

 

 

Are you trying to correct my impression of why I wrote what I wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Are you trying to correct my impression of why I wrote what I wrote?

 

It was more about pointing out why much of what you wrote probably wasn't warranted in the first place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

It was more about pointing out why much of what you wrote probably wasn't warranted in the first place.

 

Let's agree to disagree.

I think in virtually any normal case other than "it's out in the middle of the trail", caches should be left as found. Send a note if you want, but unless you KNOW better, meaning the CO told you so, it's the CO's job and judgment.

 

What's to be done if the CO doesn't change the rating in response to the NM log, and if they go back out and put the cache back where it was? NM and/or move it again? Refer it to a reviewer to override the CO?

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

On the other hand, if there was no restriction on the level of difficulty shown to first time players,  which may not understand what the D/T ratings mean they may get frustrated very quickly if the choose to seek caches with a high D rating.  I've felt that the restriction on the D rating is justified but less so (to a point) restricting based on the terrain rating.  Limiting the terrain to caches with a low terrain rating means they'll only be able to find caches that are mostly park-n-grabs or otherwise close to where one might park a car.  Raising the T rating limitation to a 3 or 3.5 would include caches which demonstrate a greater variety of terrain (yet may still be relatively easy to find) beyond the parking lot.

If this were just a matter of protecting inexperienced newbies, then they could set the default settings to show only caches rated as 2/2 or lower, but let the user change those settings when ready to take on caches that are more of a challenge (either in difficulty or terrain).

 

But this seems more like part of their freemium business plan, offering limited access to basic members, and full access to premium members.

 

Of course, that doesn't prevent the restriction from having unintended consequences...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Let's agree to disagree.

 

Let's not.

 

The post you took issue with was very specific but I get the distinct impression that you missed the point entirely and then got a bit carried away and ended up accusing others of diversion when all I see is attempts to clarify.

 

Edited by Team Microdot
missed a word - bah!

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Let's not.

 

The post you took issue with was very specific but I get the distinct impression that you missed the point entirely and then got a bit carried away and ended up accusing others of diversion when all I see is attempts to clarify.

 

 

Buuut, I think this is a prime example of agreeing to disagree, isn't it?

Because, if you don't agree to disagree, then you force yourself to agree with me, right? <g>

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Buuut, I think this is a prime example of agreeing to disagree, isn't it?

Because, if you don't agree to disagree, then you force yourself to agree with me, right?

 

Well, no.

 

You see, agree to disagree implies that the parties disagree with but tolerate the opposing position but I'm not tolerant of your position because it's just wrong and your agression inappropriate - as proven by what's written above.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Well, no.

 

You see, agree to disagree implies that the parties disagree with but tolerate the opposing position but I'm not tolerant of your position because it's just wrong and your agression inappropriate - as proven by what's written above.

 

Well, sorry you're having a problem with what I've written.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I've DNFed my fair share of 1 and 1.5 D caches to know that I'm not always going to find everything I think I should be able to find, and then have the next cacher, who has less than 100 finds, come along and say, "Easy find."  I'll ONLY file a NM log when the hint leaves only one possibility and that possibility is gone due to removal or some other occurrence.  Otherwise, it's just a DNF.  I hardly ever assume anything is missing because I know I've DNFed enough "easy" caches to know I'm not infallible.

 

I will NEVER move caches to another location to more aptly fit the T rating.  If there's a cache that's obviously out in the open and is out of its hiding spot, I'll put it back, based on the hint, and then email the CO as well as mention it in my log.  Otherwise, I return it to where I found it.  It's NOT my cache, so why should I change the location.  If I have a disagreement with the rating (similar to your 1 T example), I'll contact the CO after I find it but I'll still put it back where I found it.  I've had a couple COs respond to say that they inadvertently flipped the D and T.    If I were to do so, that means I'm assuming I knew what the CO had in mind with this hide.  As noted above, I'm not infallible.  There are really only two people who will ever know, for a fact, what the CO intended with a hide - the CO and the first finder.  Everyone else is just relying on the previous finder to put it back where they found it.  For you to move a cache goes against what is spelled out in the guidelines, even if it appears obvious to you. 

  • If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or email us.

 

 

I have told a number of COs that their rating (especially) on terrain one caches is wrong, and in almost every case I have been ignored. I have explained that a person in a wheelchair couldn't possible reach it. Nothing has changed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51

×
×
  • Create New...