Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 47
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

And just to be clear.  When thebruce0 says "you can report images", then he's referring to reporting to Instagram, not to Groundspeak.

Yes, I should have made that part clear :)

Share this post


Link to post

Irk: When I DNF a cache then a group comes along next and logs finds. 

 

Why: 14 of the 15 group members log finds. One honest member logs a DNF "Many, many eyes looking but no luck on this one." Sure enough, there's a new container at the location. The first name on the log is the group-of-the-day. 

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how many high number cachers are actually legitimate. There is someone in my general area who I am 99% sure that he only has found a tenth of the caches he has logged due to the dnfs surrounding his online logs. 

 

 

Edited by TwistedCube

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, TwistedCube said:

I wonder how many high number cachers are actually legitimate. There is someone in my general area who I am 99% sure that he only has found a tenth of the caches he has logged.

The high number cachers I've seen caching in my area -- including The High Numbered Cacher -- cache a lot, and, from what I've seen, they cache a lot because they like to cache. I can't think of any reason they'd want to pad their numbers.

 

Irk: The idea that the only reason someone would have big numbers, either over all or in a day, is because they're fixated on numbers. Caching is fun! People that enjoy caching find a lot of caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, TwistedCube said:

I wonder how many high number cachers are actually legitimate. There is someone in my general area who I am 99% sure that he only has found a tenth of the caches he has logged.

 

When I'm with a group, especially with "high numbers people", I'm constantly astonished by what they consider a "Find".  But that's only because I've restricted myself to logging it as "Found It" only if I find the real container (generally I assume it is, even a pill bottle called a "Small" unless there's some other clue), and I open it and sign the physical log.  The group does it very differently. I have in the back of my mind, "they have creative ways of counting a cache Found".  Sometimes makes it harder for me when I go try to find it.  But it doesn't bother me much.

 

But I also don't visit thousands of cache sites every year, so whatever floats yer boat. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Cache maggots. 

If you need an ammo can, I have a bunch, and could probably spare one.

 - Just not the one that was at GZ...

 

Edited by cerberus1
Spelling, posts should be after calmed down...

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/24/2013 at 3:54 AM, cerberus1 said:

For an event...

Multiple attended at events.

 

In geocaching, throw downs - when you don't really know it's not there (or can't be bothered to look).

 

On 5/24/2013 at 9:09 PM, hallycat said:

laughing.gif

 

Putting a puzzle solving group on Facebook where anyone can ask for a puzzle to be solved for them.

 

I'm with you on that one - only thing worse is bragging about the puzzles you have solved and telling how on fb pages without even being asked. If it isn't your puzzle, keep your "spoiling" to yourself.

animated-gifs-champagne-bottles-04.gif

Share this post


Link to post

When cache owners log OMs like this:

 

 

Quote

 

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

Dec/10/2018

Maintenance will not be completed until Spring. Enjoy the view in the mean time.

 

 

 

 

 

The cache has 2 NMs dating back to 2015. It has been only the bottom half of a cup for 4 years, no lid and a wad of wet mushy paper. When the NA was posted, the OM was posted by the CO a couple of hours later. 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

When cache owners log OMs like this:

 

 

 

 

 

The cache has 2 NMs dating back to 2015. It has been only the bottom half of a cup for 4 years, no lid and a wad of wet mushy paper. When the NA was posted, the OM was posted by the CO a couple of hours later. 

 

 

 

Since you brought it up in a separate thread.  You appear to be saying that this is an invalid use of the OM log (I agree), but you posted this (below) in response to my point about OM appropriateness.  YOU determined it is an invalid use of the OM log but nowhere in the guidelines you posted below does GS say it is.  In fact, it doesn't even really address use of the OM log (except at the bottom), only the responsibilities to maintain the cache.

 

Also, how would this type of NM be addressed with your proposed Cache Owner Score tracker?  An automated program, which it sounds like what you're advocating for, can't make the distinction that this is an incorrect use of the OM log, only that one was filed.

 

   On 12/7/2018 at 9:48 AM,  coachstahly said: 

Who determines the appropriateness of an OM?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57

7.4. 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.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Since you brought it up in a separate thread.  You appear to be saying that this is an invalid use of the OM log (I agree), but you posted this (below) in response to my point about OM appropriateness.  YOU determined it is an invalid use of the OM log but nowhere in the guidelines you posted below does GS say it is.  

 

7.4. Maintenance expectations

 

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

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

 

 

"After you maintain your cache".  What does it mean to the average finder that sees that an OM has been posted (without reading the content of the OM). I would expect most would see it as defined by GCHQ in the Help Center:

 

Quote

Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. Post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.

 

What does it mean to a reviewer? If the cache were reported would a reviewer disable the cache? In my area? Yes. 

 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

"After you maintain your cache".  What does it mean to the average finder that sees that an OM has been posted (without reading the content of the OM). I would expect most would see it as defined by GCHQ in the Help Center:

But it doesn't say "only".

Like those threads where cachers said it wasn't an absolute requirement to sign the logbook, because the guideline doesn't say "only" after signing the logbook.  :ph34r:

 

But seriously, yes - those non-maintenance types of OM logs are pretty frustrating and not really in "the spirit" of that log type.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It's irksome when a new hider asks for advice, says they appreciate the advice and will get a better container, then in the next breath says they are still going to hide the glass container ("for now").  

Edited by L0ne.R
Added the quotation marks
  • Upvote 4
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

My biggest peeve is throwdowns (why do the people after me get to log a find just because they replaced a container that may or may not have been missing?), but since this has been mentioned many times, I will talk about this guy in St. Louis who either takes the logs, or the containers themselves.  He even notes it in his logs.  "Easy find.  Took log."  People who come after note that the log is gone, and sometimes there's only DNFs after he logs an "Easy find."  Granted, he's sort of new, so maybe he doesn't understand that you're not supposed to actually take the cache or log, but wow, it's annoying.

Edited by Ageleni
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ageleni said:

My biggest peeve is throwdowns (why do the people after me get to log a find just because they replaced a container that may or may not have been missing?), but since this has been mentioned many times, I will talk about this guy in St. Louis who either takes the logs, or the containers themselves.  He even notes it in his logs.  "Easy find.  Took log."  People who come after note that the log is gone, and sometimes there's only DNFs after he logs an "Easy find."  Granted, he's sort of new, so maybe he doesn't understand that you're not supposed to actually take the cache or log, but wow, it's annoying.

 

If you think he's new have you tried to reach out to him?

Granted, it can be tricky initiating contact with someone who's already known for being a little 'off', but maybe it's worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ageleni said:

My biggest peeve is throwdowns (why do the people after me get to log a find just because they replaced a container that may or may not have been missing?), but since this has been mentioned many times, I will talk about this guy in St. Louis who either takes the logs, or the containers themselves.  He even notes it in his logs.  "Easy find.  Took log."  People who come after note that the log is gone, and sometimes there's only DNFs after he logs an "Easy find."  Granted, he's sort of new, so maybe he doesn't understand that you're not supposed to actually take the cache or log, but wow, it's annoying.

I would think he knows EXACTLY what he's doing. It's his little game; taking the logs, and he will continue to do so and laugh. "Can't find it now can you (giggle)"...that sort of thing. Sick individual.

I do Bookcrossing, which are books which are left in the wild for people to find (log online...hopefully), read and then release again. A bit like TBs.  I had one finder who logged the find and said he planned to read the book and then recycle it into a bin. When I wrote to him and said that was selfish as the books are meant to continue to be shared, his reply was, "Whatever rocks your boat." I think the person you described is an anti-social person that is like this example.

Share this post


Link to post

A recent peeve is people who think that just because they saw a cache container up a ways in a tree, that they found it.  They didn't climb the tree and sign the log according to their own admission, but they claim a find. UGH!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, K13 said:

A recent peeve is people who think that just because they saw a cache container up a ways in a tree, that they found it.  They didn't climb the tree and sign the log according to their own admission, but they claim a find. UGH!

 

To add to this, all those people who don't climb a tree but log a find because they watched someone else do it. 

 

cb3f8a530290d3b71b407ee999032fc8.gif.9f3e3ae54add441f24c7699672a5e104.gif

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

To add to this, all those people who don't climb a tree but log a find because they watched someone else do it. 

 

cb3f8a530290d3b71b407ee999032fc8.gif.9f3e3ae54add441f24c7699672a5e104.gif

What about the person who holds the rope for the person to climb? Neither would have got the cache without the other.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

To add to this, all those people who don't climb a tree but log a find because they watched someone else do it.

So I'm not allowed to use a tool to get a cache just because the tool is humanoid?

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

To add to this, all those people who don't climb a tree but log a find because they watched someone else do it. 

 

cb3f8a530290d3b71b407ee999032fc8.gif.9f3e3ae54add441f24c7699672a5e104.gif

What about the person who holds the rope for the person to climb? Neither would have got the cache without the other.

 

Some of the higher terrain caches around here have the "teamwork required" attribute, so the CO wants people to work in groups, and even for those that don't, I'm not aware of any of their COs taking exception to team efforts at finding them as long as everyone claiming the find has signed the log. I have an inner ear problem that's damaged my sense of balance (and now a gammy knee as well), so I often use workarounds on difficult climbs, like lugging my telescopic ladder to GZ to convert a T4 climb into a T2, or participating in team assaults on some of the more difficult caches. On most of them I know the COs anyway and some have encouraged me to do this - they're probably secretly glad that the only caches I've come close to seriously injuring myself on have been my own.

 

And as for my own hides, my only expectation is that finders sign the log, put the cache back the way they found it and let me know of any problems. How they go about getting their signature in the logbook is none of my concern although I often find any such workarounds quite amusing.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What about the person who holds the rope for the person to climb? Neither would have got the cache without the other.

 

If they want to play fair, they can switch and climb both after each other. Why not? It's fun. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

 

If they want to play fair, they can switch and climb both after each other. Why not? It's fun. 

Not if the result is falling. Not everyone can climb, but they can likely hold the rope.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not if the result is falling. Not everyone can climb, but they can likely hold the rope.

 

On the same token, I'm not sure why some people think they are automatically entitled to log find on every cache placed. Whether it's mental or physical, a tough cache is hidden to challenge people in some way. These are not put out as park and grabs for everyone and their dog to log finds on. Coming up with excuses like holding a ladder, I supplied the rope,  or I was with the group, are just excuses to log a cache you didn't really find the way its owner intended.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rikitan said:

If they want to play fair, they can switch and climb both after each other. Why not? It's fun. 

 

Please explain.  What is "playing fair" ?    I've yet to see that in any guideline.  Thanks.  :)

 

I prefer to climb alone, but in some instances, it's just too much to take that chance, so a couple folks may tag along.

I could maybe use a belayer, a photographer,  and someone just to keep gear in order.  On one all-day hike/climb, one was a camp cook.

As a team, we all sign the log... 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Coming up with excuses like holding a ladder, I supplied the rope,  or I was with the group, are just excuses to log a cache you didn't really find the way its owner intended.

Find cache.  Sign log.  Log on-line.  Nowhere in the guidelines does it say:  "find the way its owner intended."

I've had cachers brute force some of my caches.  Certainly not the way I intended, but they signed to log.

And I've found seven multis without finding the first stage.  Not the way the owner intended, but I signed the log.  And that's what the guidelines call for.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

On the same token, I'm not sure why some people think they are automatically entitled to log find on every cache placed. Whether it's mental or physical, a tough cache is hidden to challenge people in some way. These are not put out as park and grabs for everyone and their dog to log finds on. Coming up with excuses like holding a ladder, I supplied the rope,  or I was with the group, are just excuses to log a cache you didn't really find the way its owner intended.

My irk is this idea that there's some kind of magic to what the owner intended. Several times, I've done something stupid and gotten to the cache in a way that was way harder than the owner intended. If I must follow what the owner intended, I shouldn't consider those legitimate finds, either, right? If the owner intended me to park and grab, should I worry that I found a way to walk a mile to get there?

 

The answer is actually pretty simple: the owner is free to request whatever he wants, but I'd advise against taking a hard line. The only effect of saying "you must climb the tree" is insuring people don't honestly admit what their role was when they write their logs. It won't stop them from claiming their legitimate find. Better to ask everyone to climb the tree, but encourage honesty so you can tell how many actually do climb the tree and how many don't. I'd be inclined to climb a tree, if I can, when the owner asks me, but when the owner threatens, I don't worry as much about it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Coming up with excuses like holding a ladder, I supplied the rope,  or I was with the group, are just excuses to log a cache you didn't really find the way its owner intended.

 

I'd kinda agree if any caches we did ever had the CO say what he "intended" on the cache page .  Guess it's different elsewhere...

A blanket statement of "intended" rarely fits.  On a simple trad, the second-to-find often doesn't see a cache as intended...

Our two remaining 5T hides merely state that we check that they sign the log.    That's Geocaching 101.   :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote
4 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Coming up with excuses like holding a ladder, I supplied the rope,  or I was with the group, are just excuses to log a cache you didn't really find the way its owner intended.

 

I'd kinda agree if any caches we did ever had the CO say what he "intended" on the cache page .  Guess it's different elsewhere...

A blanket statement of "intended" rarely fits.  On a simple trad, the second-to-find often doesn't see a cache as intended...

Our two remaining 5T hides merely state that we check that they sign the log.    That's Geocaching 101.

 

Indeed. The rule for logging a find is is NOT that you must find the cache as the owner intended; rather, the rule is that you must sign the log.

 

Control-freak owners get their knickers in a knot all the time over this fact, but,  for me,  one of the most fun aspects of geocaching is in coming up with clever ways to log caches without jumping through all the owner-intended hoops.  And as a CO, I enjoy seeing how people apply cleverness to what amounts to the problem I set.  If you can't handle the idea that people will find your cache in ways you did not envision, then you probably shouldn't be a CO.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/3/2019 at 10:45 AM, L0ne.R said:

It's irksome when a new hider asks for advice, says they appreciate the advice and will get a better container, then in the next breath says they are still going to hide the glass container ("for now").  


I too remember that thread. It's frustrating as a whole when someone seeks advise and then ignores it; doubly so when, (because they are new and there's a decent chance they'll give up the hobby after a bit), there's a strong possibility that container may be left out in the world forever until it fails.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

the rule is that you must sign the log.

 

1. I thought there are no rules, only guidelines. ;]

2. I agree, "you" must sign the log, not someone else who acts as a surrogate. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

2. I agree, "you" must sign the log, not someone else who acts as a surrogate. 

 

I agree that you the cacher must put ink (or graphite) to paper. However the manner in which you get to that log is immaterial.

 

ON THE CONDITION that the cache is also replaced in the same manner. For instance: I don't think it's fair to log a T-5 tree climb cache when you used a stick to knock the container down like a pinata, sign the log and then leave it in a T-1 condition. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, STNolan said:

I agree that you the cacher must put ink (or graphite) to paper.

I haven't seen anything official from Groundspeak (maybe this thread will call it to my attention), but informal team names are fairly common around here, and as Kelux and ChileHead indicated, it saves space in the log, and postpones the need for the CO to replace the log.

 

But different groups handle this differently. I've been in groups where the log was passed around, and everyone signed his/her own name. I've been in groups where one person signed everyone's names. I've been in groups where one person signed a team name. And I've been in groups where one person insisted on signing his/her own name, but everyone else did it some other way.

 

For reference:

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, niraD said:
I haven't seen anything official from Groundspeak (maybe this thread will call it to my attention), but informal team names are fairly common around here, and as Kelux and ChileHead indicated, it saves space in the log, and postpones the need for the CO to replace the log.

 

But different groups handle this differently. I've been in groups where the log was passed around, and everyone signed his/her own name. I've been in groups where one person signed everyone's names. I've been in groups where one person signed a team name. And I've been in groups where one person insisted on signing his/her own name, but everyone else did it some other way.

 

For reference:

 

 

One of our local cachers expressed this pretty well when he said that you should either sign the log yourself or, in the case of a group signing, been close enough to have done so.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, niraD said:
I haven't seen anything official from Groundspeak (maybe this thread will call it to my attention), but informal team names are fairly common around here, and as Kelux and ChileHead indicated, it saves space in the log, and postpones the need for the CO to replace the log.

 

But different groups handle this differently. I've been in groups where the log was passed around, and everyone signed his/her own name. I've been in groups where one person signed everyone's names. I've been in groups where one person signed a team name. And I've been in groups where one person insisted on signing his/her own name, but everyone else did it some other way.

 

For reference:

 

 

NYPaddleCacher's log sums it up for me. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

One of our local cachers expressed this pretty well when he said that you should either sign the log yourself or, in the case of a group signing, been close enough to have done so.

That works for me. But the hardline attitude that "you the geocacher must mark the log personally" doesn't fly.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One of our local cachers expressed this pretty well when he said that you should either sign the log yourself or, in the case of a group signing, been close enough to have done so.

 

This is an opinion I can get behind. As with all things though it still comes down to an honor system. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Please explain.  What is "playing fair" ?    I've yet to see that in any guideline.  Thanks.  :)

 

I prefer to climb alone, but in some instances, it's just too much to take that chance, so a couple folks may tag along.

I could maybe use a belayer, a photographer,  and someone just to keep gear in order.  On one all-day hike/climb, one was a camp cook.

As a team, we all sign the log... 

 

Not a guideline, just etiquette. Either you are cooking in the camp or caching. I have no intention to continue explaining or forcing anyone, it is fundamental mindset.

 

I have almost no chance to cha(lle)nge it and it won't make me feel any better even if I would. But truth needs to be told, that's it. If someone's not fit enough to climb T5 cache or resolve D5 puzzle, but claims FI log - he is not playing fair. I won't be deleting any logs, I won't be upset about it, it is his problem, not mine. I will only create my opinion about person. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

What irks me is when everyone rolled their eyes and questioned my claim when I said I cut down my sister's 60-year-old backyard maple tree. OK well, I watched a guy climb the tree and cut it down, that counts. 😏

Edited by L0ne.R
clarity
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

And as for my own hides, my only expectation is that finders sign the log,

 

If my only expectation was for finders to sign the log I would only create traditional caches which didn't require things like climbing a tree, using a boat, solving a puzzle or something different than the run of the mill cache that requires no additional effort than getting out of a car and searching on a guard rail.  

 

I assume that there are some cases where teamwork is used to retrieve a cache in a tree but I suspect that in most cases when someone logs a find a cache that is up in a tree (but doesn't climb the tree) they offered little help other than vocal encouragement.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

If my only expectation was for finders to sign the log I would only create traditional caches which didn't require things like climbing a tree, using a boat, solving a puzzle or something different than the run of the mill cache that requires no additional effort than getting out of a car and searching on a guard rail.  

 

I assume that there are some cases where teamwork is used to retrieve a cache in a tree but I suspect that in most cases when someone logs a find a cache that is up in a tree (but doesn't climb the tree) they offered little help other than vocal encouragement.

 

 

I had a D4 puzzle cache published in February last year which has had a grand total of four finds to date, although the checker log shows 8 people have solved it. The most recent two finds, a family team, didn't solve the puzzle but, using the hint on the cache page and from studying the maps and satellite images of the area, guessed roughly where the cache might be and, with some thorough searching, found it. In no way do I begrudge them their find - I'd much rather they found it that way than for it to be just sitting there unfound.

 

In a similar vein, I have a T4 multi that involves matching waterfall photos at 3 waypoints. With four photos to choose from at each location, there are 64 possible solutions. Someone who lived nearby was determined to find it but didn't want to do the climbing, so she worked out which of those 64 were plausible, reducing it to a short list of about 6 or 8, and then went exploring. She waded through oozy swamps, became entangled in lantana thickets, and even when she picked the right solution came at it from the wrong side of the creek and only realised when she'd found it that there was an easy way in from the road. We had a good laugh about it when we caught up at the next event.

 

Another of my caches is a T5 which has two boat-access waypoints, but a couple of finders have figured out ways to circumvent the boat requirement through some educated guesswork and targeted research.

 

When I put a cache out there, it's for people to find. I might suggest a way to get there, through a puzzle or a series of waypoints, but in the end it's up to them to decide how they want to go about it and I'm completely happy with that. After all, I'm setting a cache for people to enjoy, not setting an examination, and different people enjoy things in different ways.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rikitan said:

If someone's not fit enough to climb T5 cache or resolve D5 puzzle, but claims FI log - he is not playing fair.

What about a cache that requires solving a D5 puzzle, then requires navigating T5 terrain. One person solves the puzzle, another navigates the terrain, and a third provides the special equipment required to navigate the terrain and provided support that is essential for safety. Oh, no! None of them did everything that was required to complete the cache.

 

They can all "claim the Found It log" as far as I'm concerned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Another of my caches is a T5 which has two boat-access waypoints, but a couple of finders have figured out ways to circumvent the boat requirement through some educated guesswork and targeted research.

 

I think those of us who are irked are talking about something different--the T5 that gets logged as a find with no effort to perform the T5 task (and often unseen by those logging the find). In your boat example, they would be back on shore while Bob rows out and signs their name (or the team-of-the-day name) to the log. 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

What about a cache that requires solving a D5 puzzle, then requires navigating T5 terrain. One person solves the puzzle, another navigates the terrain, and a third provides the special equipment required to navigate the terrain and provided support that is essential for safety. Oh, no! None of them did everything that was required to complete the cache.

 

They can all "claim the Found It log" as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sounds extremely rare. Got an example? 

 

I think most of us are irked by the more common T5 claim where the only team support is cheering on the guy who climbs the tree:

 

cb3f8a530290d3b71b407ee999032fc8.gif.9f3

 

And there seems to be a faction who feel the owner can 'go climb a tree' if he doesn't like it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
47 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Another of my caches is a T5 which has two boat-access waypoints, but a couple of finders have figured out ways to circumvent the boat requirement through some educated guesswork and targeted research.

 

I think those of us who are irked are talking about something different--the T5 that gets logged as a find with no effort to perform the T5 task (and often unseen by those logging the find). In your boat example, they would be back on shore while Bob rows out and signs their name (or the team-of-the-day name) to the log. 

 

Well perhaps something similar - Team Three-Men-and-One-Kayak pull up at the boat ramp, Paul and Jim help Bob get the kayak off the car, Bob paddles out around the island to get the water waypoint information while Paul and Jim grab some lunch for them at the nearby shops. After helping put the kayak back on the car, Paul drives them to GZ while Bob eats his lunch. Then they all walk out along the trail where Jim, the smallest of the three, crawls in under the ledge to retrieve the cache, passing it to Bob and Paul for them to sign the log (or Jim just signs the team name).

Share this post


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

What about a cache that requires solving a D5 puzzle, then requires navigating T5 terrain. One person solves the puzzle, another navigates the terrain, and a third provides the special equipment required to navigate the terrain and provided support that is essential for safety. Oh, no! None of them did everything that was required to complete the cache.

 

They can all "claim the Found It log" as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sounds extremely rare. Got an example? 

 

Yeah, this example is based on a local 4.5/5 puzzle cache (or maybe it's a 5/4.5 puzzle cache--I forget). The terrain is safest when approached as a team effort, with at least as many people in the boat as under water.

 

But the concept isn't that different from most of the challenging multi-stage caches I've done. They're often best enjoyed as a team, and there are plenty of ways for multiple people to contribute in a meaningful way to finding the cache.

 

Or for that matter, any group caching trip where the group is playing three-musketeers style, or where some of the group is really bad at playing huckle-buckle-beanstalk style and gives away the hide to the rest of the group even when they try not to.

 

Geocaching isn't always about a solo effort, where one person does everything on his/her own with no help from anyone else.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a real-life example I was involved in which you could probably argue either way, when nine of us did GC7J7X8 on the 5th of May last year. We all paddled our kayaks out to the island, waded in through the knee-deep intertidal mudflats and did the dance around the oyster shells, but only one climbed up the mangrove tree where the cache was tied and passed the log down for the rest of us to sign. My hands were covered in mud so I didn't even sign the log myself but got the person standing next to me to do it. Another member of our group also climbed a tree, but it turned out to be the wrong tree. It was a fun day out on the water, at the next cache around on the bay someone else made the find and handed the log around, and even for the rest of us it was a nice group gathering that wouldn't have happened but for those caches. While I can't speak for the CO, if it had been my cache I'd have much preferred to see those nine Found It logs rather than one find and eight DNFs (or even WNs).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I'd kinda agree if any caches we did ever had the CO say what he "intended" on the cache page .  Guess it's different elsewhere...

A blanket statement of "intended" rarely fits.  On a simple trad, the second-to-find often doesn't see a cache as intended...

Our two remaining 5T hides merely state that we check that they sign the log.    That's Geocaching 101.   :)

 

You're not likely to find a CO's intentions stated on a cache page anywhere. However, it should be obvious that the majority of COs that go through the trouble of placing a cache up in a tree expect people to climb the tree before logging it. One person climbing and signing for everyone, or handing the cache down to people on the ground, aren't what most COs had in mind when they placed their cache. 


 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

You're not likely to find a CO's intentions stated on a cache page anywhere. However, it should be obvious that the majority of COs that go through the trouble of placing a cache up in a tree expect people to climb the tree before logging it. One person climbing and signing for everyone, or handing the cache down to people on the ground, aren't what most COs had in mind when they placed their cache.

I'm not sure how obvious that is. Most of the elevated caches that I've found have been retrieved and replaced using tools, not by climbing.

 

Of the two that required climbing, one was an easy climb (maybe 10 feet high in a tree with lots of branches to climb) and the other was a multi-stage cache where the owner explicitly encouraged teams to work together to share the work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, niraD said:

I'm not sure how obvious that is. Most of the elevated caches that I've found have been retrieved and replaced using tools, not by climbing.

 

Of the two that required climbing, one was an easy climb (maybe 10 feet high in a tree with lots of branches to climb) and the other was a multi-stage cache where the owner explicitly encouraged teams to work together to share the work.

 

I agree with you there. I'm sure most COs are perfectly fine when someone comes up with an ingenuous method of retrieving, signing, and then replacing without climbing. For instance, a finder making and using a 20 foot grabber. The obvious is that COs who hide caches like these aren't hiding them to be easy for every Tom, Dick or Mary. The intention of the CO is to challenge finders in some way. People standing on the ground watching and then logging finds aren't meeting any part of the CO's challenge.. 

 

In the end, it's up to the CO. The majority, I as well, shrug it off and let the find logs stand. Overall, not a big irk for me..;) 

  • 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 47

×
×
  • Create New...