Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 47
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

What irks me the most is fellow geocachers who tell my wife and I that we're not good geocacher because we do not go after more caches. We often only do one when visiting an area, or do only a couple on our days list because we got sidetracked.  The cache actually took us someplace interesting.   Personally I think this is a great pastime, as each person can and should approach it in their own way and for their own enjoyment and reasons. I love run on sentences. Thanks for allowing me to rant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours 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.

 

all.png.1f0abe57a8f203ec56bec7b6b02028ca.png

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, moosehunter5 said:

What irks me the most is fellow geocachers who tell my wife and I that we're not good geocacher because we do not go after more caches. We often only do one when visiting an area, or do only a couple on our days list because we got sidetracked.  The cache actually took us someplace interesting.   Personally I think this is a great pastime, as each person can and should approach it in their own way and for their own enjoyment and reasons. I love run on sentences. Thanks for allowing me to rant.

Who tells you that? And how do they tell you that? I mean, what, the local geocachers give out a "bad geocacher" award or something? Or they tell you you're not good enough to go geocaching with them? I'm really having a hard time imagining how someone would say I'm not a good geocacher in any way that I'd even know about, let alone pay any attention to.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

People standing on the ground watching and then logging finds aren't meeting any part of the CO's challenge.

Sure they are: they're using a tool, it just happens to be a sentient tool.

 

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

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..;) 

It's up to the CO whether he's upset about not being able to control people seeking his cache, yes. It's not up to him whether someone who signed the log can claim the find no matter how much it irks him.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Who tells you that? And how do they tell you that? I mean, what, the local geocachers give out a "bad geocacher" award or something? Or they tell you you're not good enough to go geocaching with them? I'm really having a hard time imagining how someone would say I'm not a good geocacher in any way that I'd even know about, let alone pay any attention to.

 

I can't imagine anyone telling another person this either. If they are, then they need to be ignored. Like anything else practiced, the more we find, the better we get at finding. Otherwise, find count has nothing to do with quality of a cacher.

 

 

9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Sure they are: they're using a tool, it just happens to be a sentient tool.

 

It's up to the CO whether he's upset about not being able to control people seeking his cache, yes. It's not up to him whether someone who signed the log can claim the find no matter how much it irks him.

 

Trying to see your point but with your line of thinking, it sounds like it would be ok for me to get my astronaut friend to log the ISS cache the next time he goes up there. I think I remember the backlash that came out when someone tried something like that a while back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours 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.

15 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

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:

 

Not "rare" at all...

Dyslexic,  solving puzzles not a strong suit.

 - But I and couple others have cached with a brainiac who solves some really tough puzzles, but is pretty-much too crippled to complete them.

A team,  he's at GZ (sometimes just that feat takes all day...), and after I do whatever it takes to get the log,  pass it to him (and return it afterwards).

 

I don't understand how someone can claim that people acting as a team can't all  "claim a find".     Weird...

I find it unusual that HQ hasn't chimed in, as  this nonsense comes up a lot.  We all can see by blogs they cache in groups...   :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Not "rare" at all...

Dyslexic,  solving puzzles not a strong suit.

 - But I and couple others have cached with a brainiac who solves some really tough puzzles, but is pretty-much too crippled to complete them.

A team,  he's at GZ (sometimes just that feat takes all day...), and after I do whatever it takes to get the log,  pass it to him (and return it afterwards).

 

I don't understand how someone can claim that people acting as a team can't all  "claim a find".     Weird...

I find it unusual that HQ hasn't chimed in, as  this nonsense comes up a lot.  We all can see by blogs they cache in groups...   :)

 

 

I see no issue with this, as long as they are all at GZ when the cache is found. 

 

Those 'teams' who fly to a city, split into a few groups and cache in separate areas using the 'team stamp', them meeting up for the flight home and logging all the finds made by all the different parts of the team - not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Trying to see your point but with your line of thinking, it sounds like it would be ok for me to get my astronaut friend to log the ISS cache the next time he goes up there. I think I remember the backlash that came out when someone tried something like that a while back.

We'll discuss it with the CO of the ISS cache after you talk an astronaut into bringing the ISS cache back for you to sign, then go back up to the ISS to return it. If I were the CO, I'd be amused by you chutzpah...and your connections.

 

But, to be more practical, I agree that there's a line: at some point, you aren't at GZ, so you can't be said to be using a tool to get the cache by sending someone else to bring it to you. The case we're talking about is where I'm in the same place whether I use a 20' grabber or send my son up the tree to get the cache for me. To me, there's no interesting difference.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

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..;) 

 

I'm not sure all tree-hides are done to set a challenging bar for the finders to surpass. I've just done a PQ of all my finds with the tree-climbing required attribute set, of which there are ten (there are others that have since been archived but the PQ doesn't include them). Three of those I climbed to (they were only a few metres up and the tree was probably more a convenient place for the CO to put the cache rather than a challenge for the finder), two I used ladders to reach, one was at the base of the tree (I'm not sure why the CO set the tree climbing attribute), one was a physical waypoint in a multi that I tried to climb to but couldn't quite reach so I devised a workaround to deduce the missing information, and for the other three I was with a group where someone else retrieved the cache and passed the log around. Those latter three were the one in the mangrove tree on the island I mentioned earlier, one that was just out of my reach when standing at ground level so a taller member of the group grabbed it, and the last one was at an event in the same park as the cache, where some of the kids made the tree climb and passed the logbook around - on that one I'd previously driven there with my ladder but there'd been too many muggles to make the attempt. For the one near the event, the CO couldn't attend as he had to go interstate for work, but added some extra logsheets beforehand in the expectation that all the event attendees were likely to be logging it.

 

While I don't own any tree-climbing caches myself, I have multis that involve clambering about on waterfalls to collect waypoint information, some water-access waypoints, some in caves, some that involve a long and/or steep hike, but those were done to provide interesting rather than challenging experiences. My only cache that was actually set as a challenge is my challenge cache, the rest were just to provide what I hoped would be an enjoyable experience for the seeker, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that some of the finders have used other means to circumvent the tougher elements of those caches.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, K13 said:

Those 'teams' who fly to a city, split into a few groups and cache in separate areas using the 'team stamp', them meeting up for the flight home and logging all the finds made by all the different parts of the team - not so much.

Armchair logging by any other name...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did ten caches in a GeoArt series today.  Seven were listed as  'small'.  Three were listed as 'micro'.  Two pill bottles.  Five preforms.  Sorry.  Those are ALL micros!  

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


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

Did ten caches in a GeoArt series today.  Seven were listed as  'small'.  Three were listed as 'micro'.  Two pill bottles.  Five preforms.  Sorry.  Those are ALL micros!  

I agree there. So frustrating when you have a TB you want to find a home for, but cache COs don't #*$% list their caches correctly, and won't correct it when informed the size is wrong. Example: I had a TB that wanted to be left in a cache in a particular area, so I drove more than 300kms (one way) to fulfil it's mission (I have done this for several TBs, or at least taken them MUCH closer). Cache after cache was listed as small and time after time I found a micro (usually a minti tin); none of which would fit the TB (common sized one). This was extremely frustrating and does dampen the game for me. It's so easy to list the correct size, or change it to the correct size when the size is pointed out to the CO. Much easier than driving several hundred kms to deliver a TB. Finally I found a cache which was a proper small and I could leave the TB in it, although I only left it in that one as I didn't think I might find another true small sized cache. The cache did not meet my safety rules for where to leave TBs, but the TB remained safe until the owner's sister picked it up. One sister in the UK was sending the TB to another sister in Australia. I picked it up in the UK.

My personal way of thinking of cache size:

Micro: About 35mm film canister size or smaller (the official definition), or cache entrance does not allow a normal sized TB to be placed in it, such as long tubes.

Small: Big enough to house at least one TB.

Regular: I like both the ammunition box and shoebox examples. I would also add, big enough to leave a paperback novel in (this was another geoacher's definition, and I think it's a good one).

Large: Water bucket size and bigger.

Other: caches that don't fit the above / weird ones 😜.

 

I blame nanos for size confusion. Newbies see a nano and from then on, nanos = micro. Bigger things such as 35mm film canisters much then be smalls. So sistemas are then regulars and anything bigger, such as an ammo tin are then large. Nanos have brought the sizing down. Maybe when the cache is published if the cacher could clearly see the definitions (not have to click to see them) sizing would improve. Also more experienced geocachers should politely point out that the size is wrong, or it will never be fixed and the newbie will never learn.

Maybe this is just an Aussi problem, but (micro) mintie tins are NOT smalls.

 

If a Nano size won't be added, it would be good to at least change the wording from just 'Micro' to 'Micro & Nano' in the size rating.

 

 

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I blame nanos for size confusion. Newbies see a nano and from then on, nanos = micro. Bigger things such as 35mm film canisters much then be smalls. So sistemas are then regulars and anything bigger, such as an ammo tin are then large. Nanos have brought the sizing down. Maybe when the cache is published if the cacher could clearly see the definitions (not have to click to see them) sizing would improve. Also more experienced geocachers should politely point out that the size is wrong, or it will never be fixed and the newbie will never learn.

Maybe this is just an Aussi problem, but (micro) mintie ins are NOT smalls.

 

I also blame the cache creation page in part. Even though the sizes are precisely defined in the Help Centre (<100ml = micro, 100ml to 1 litre = small, etc.) that information isn't provided on the cache creation page, instead it just gives pictures of "typical" containers in each category and vague references to apples and shoeboxes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I agree there. So frustrating when you have a TB you want to find a home for, but cache COs don't #*$% list their caches correctly, and won't correct it when informed the size is wrong. Example: I had a TB that wanted to be left in a cache in a particular area, so I drove more than 300kms (one way) to fulfil it's mission (I have done this for several TBs, or at least taken them MUCH closer). Cache after cache was listed as small and time after time I found a micro (usually a minti tin); none of which would fit the TB (common sized one). This was extremely frustrating and does dampen the game for me. It's so easy to list the correct size, or change it to the correct size when the size is pointed out to the CO. Much easier than driving several hundred kms to deliver a TB. Finally I found a cache which was a proper small and I could leave the TB in it, although I only left it in that one as I didn't think I might find another true small sized cache. The cache did not meet my safety rules for where to leave TBs, but the TB remained safe until the owner's sister picked it up. One sister in the UK was sending the TB to another sister in Australia. I picked it up in the UK.

My personal way of thinking of cache size:

Micro: About 35mm film canister size or smaller (the official definition), or cache entrance does not allow a normal sized TB to be placed in it, such as long tubes.

Small: Big enough to house at least one TB.

Regular: I like both the ammunition box and shoebox examples. I would also add, big enough to leave a paperback novel in (this was another geoacher's definition, and I think it's a good one).

Large: Water bucket size and bigger.

Other: caches that don't fit the above / weird ones 😜.

 

I blame nanos for size confusion. Newbies see a nano and from then on, nanos = micro. Bigger things such as 35mm film canisters much then be smalls. So sistemas are then regulars and anything bigger, such as an ammo tin are then large. Nanos have brought the sizing down. Maybe when the cache is published if the cacher could clearly see the definitions (not have to click to see them) sizing would improve. Also more experienced geocachers should politely point out that the size is wrong, or it will never be fixed and the newbie will never learn.

Maybe this is just an Aussi problem, but (micro) mintie tins are NOT smalls.

 

If a Nano size won't be added, it would be good to at least change the wording from just 'Micro' to 'Micro & Nano' in the size rating.

 

 

It's not just Oz, it's universal. If I come across a mint tin or similar listed as a small I'll mention the disparity in my log. I'll watch it for a while and if nothing changes I'll log an NM.

I made that noob error with my very first cache placement and was soon corrected by the 2TFer. It was a specimen jar, about twice the volume of a 35mm can. The 2TFer added if it can't hold a TB then it's a micro.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

It's not just Oz, it's universal. If I come across a mint tin or similar listed as a small I'll mention the disparity in my log. I'll watch it for a while and if nothing changes I'll log an NM.

I made that noob error with my very first cache placement and was soon corrected by the 2TFer. It was a specimen jar, about twice the volume of a 35mm can. The 2TFer added if it can't hold a TB then it's a micro.

Unfortunately most COs won't correct a thing.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately most COs won't correct a thing.

Sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe this is just an Aussi problem, but (micro) mintie tins are NOT smalls.

It's the same here (Germany), except that by far the most micros-labeled-as-small are PET preforms. Whenever I do a caching tour with more than a handful of caches, chances are very high that I can write "A preform isn't a 'Small', it's a Micro" in at least one log. At one point I thought about making this a signature line in all my logs ;) .

 

On the plus side, the chance that a CO corrects their listed cache size don't seem to be that bad over here.

Edited by baer2006
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 1/6/2019 at 10:58 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately most COs won't correct a thing.

 

Yep.That irks me.  Less than 5% of those caches, where I noted that the container was a micro and not a smal (sometimes with a link to the size guidelines, sometimes quoting the size small capacity), were changed to micro.

 

Many cache owners feel that if it's listed as a micro it won't get as many visits.

And many owners, despite the guidelines, say that it's the size of the disguise that counts, not the capacity of the container. So if a centrifuge nano is in a 2 foot log, it's a regular or large. If it's a "sign-the-back-of-the-sign" flat cache and the sign is 2'x3', it's a 'regular'. I once found a 100ml palm-size cache listed as regular. I noted in my log that it's a small (100ml-1L). 2 years later it's still listed as a regular. At least it's swag-size, the micros listed as small irk me a LOT more, they waste my time and gas money 99.9% of the time. 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 3:09 AM, barefootjeff said:

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.

 

 

Heh.  Makes it sound like they did more work to get it this way than they would have done the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

It's the same here (Germany)

 

I've seen this increasingly since I got back to Germany after a 9-year hiatus.  PET preforms/PETlings were exclusively micros when I left.

 

But I've seen it all over the US as well.  More often with pill bottles than PETlings, but PETlings were often "small" caches in the power trails of southern New Mexico.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've found only two caches in two years that were actually small.

At one time they were the larger pill bottles, but lately folks are calling those little 2.5x1.5 pill bottles small.  Weird...

Recently found a series where thin-neck 20oz soda bottles were "small".    I often mention the containers in logs and get no response.

Used to believe that millimeters and volume examples were throwing folks off here (how many really understand volume?), and the size examples seem to change time-to-time too.

For some time the app didn't match the site for cache sizes, and maybe folks around then still don't get the difference.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Recently found a series where thin-neck 20oz soda bottles were "small".    I often mention the containers in logs and get no response.

 

Now I'm confused. It appears one US fluid ounce is about 30ml, so 20 of them would be 600ml. Why isn't that a "small" (100-1000ml)?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, dprovan said:

We'll discuss it with the CO of the ISS cache after you talk an astronaut into bringing the ISS cache back for you to sign, then go back up to the ISS to return it. If I were the CO, I'd be amused by you chutzpah...and your connections.

 

But, to be more practical, I agree that there's a line: at some point, you aren't at GZ, so you can't be said to be using a tool to get the cache by sending someone else to bring it to you. The case we're talking about is where I'm in the same place whether I use a 20' grabber or send my son up the tree to get the cache for me. To me, there's no interesting difference.

 

Well, I wouldn't ask my astronaut friend to bring the cache down for me to sign. I wouldn't wanna take a chance that another finder might get upset if they arrived only to find the Velcro the cache had been stuck to. I would just have my friend sign my name onto the log while he was up there. You know, like the one tree climber does for the rest of the group. :P

 

Speaking for myself, and I know i'm in the minority,, I feel I need to be able to get to a cache myself before I log it as found. It's the same for puzzle caches as well,, I make it a point to solve them if I can. If I'm not able to meet either of those challenge, then I skip the cache or log my DNF. Sure, a little disappointed when I can't get a cache but in the end, it ain't no thang.

 

To add, the above Is my thinking only. I reply and debate on here but really, I don't care what criteria others use to justify claiming a find.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Now I'm confused. It appears one US fluid ounce is about 30ml, so 20 of them would be 600ml. Why isn't that a "small" (100-1000ml)?

 

Sure, size wise maybe, but other than marbles, what can you get in/out of a thin neck soda bottle ?  

The guidelines says, "They can hold a small logbook and trade items".

I had to use a stick  to fish the logroll out. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Well, I wouldn't ask my astronaut friend to bring the cache down for me to sign. I wouldn't wanna take a chance that another finder might get upset if they arrived only to find the Velcro the cache had been stuck to. I would just have my friend sign my name onto the log while he was up there. You know, like the one tree climber does for the rest of the group. :P

If the CO can prove that's what you did -- or what you had your tree climber friend do -- then I think he's in his rights to deny your find. The rule is "sign log", not "have the log signed". While no one worries about that -- nor should worry about it -- if a group let's one person sign the log even though they could just as easily pass the log around for every individual to sign, when it comes to a CO that wants to be a stickler, the difference between signing the log and having someone else sign the log seems like a reasonable distinction for him to make.

 

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Speaking for myself, and I know i'm in the minority,, I feel I need to be able to get to a cache myself before I log it as found. It's the same for puzzle caches as well,, I make it a point to solve them if I can. If I'm not able to meet either of those challenge, then I skip the cache or log my DNF. Sure, a little disappointed when I can't get a cache but in the end, it ain't no thang.

I'm feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that I sincerely think it's reasonable to use a human as a retrieval tool, so I consider that a case of me being able to get the cache myself. But anyway, I don't think we're talking about personal standards for claiming a find; I'm more focused on what a CO is allowed to forbid.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Now I'm confused. It appears one US fluid ounce is about 30ml, so 20 of them would be 600ml. Why isn't that a "small" (100-1000ml)?

 

Sure, size wise maybe, but other than marbles, what can you get in/out of a thin neck soda bottle ?  

The guidelines says, "They can hold a small logbook and trade items".

I had to use a stick  to fish the logroll out. 

 

So what is it then? It can't be a micro because a micro is defined as less than 100ml. The only other option is "Other" which conveys no information at all about how big the thing is you're looking for. When this came up for discussion on our local FB group a few years back, the concensus was that the size rating should reflect the size of the object you're looking for, not how big a thing you can put in it, since finding the cache is the principal goal and the size rating helps a lot in ruling potential hiding places in or out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The only difference is that I sincerely think it's reasonable to use a human as a retrieval tool, so I consider that a case of me being able to get the cache myself.

I have "found" caches that the other person with me has retrieved because I could reach it. It usually goes like this:  I say "let's just stop here for a minute", I get out of the vehicle to search for the cache and see that I can't reach it, I go back to the vehicle and say "I need your help with this one", the taller person sighs and follows me back to GZ, I point to the cache and say "right there, can you reach that?"     😀

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that I sincerely think it's reasonable to use a human as a retrieval tool, so I consider that a case of me being able to get the cache myself. But anyway, I don't think we're talking about personal standards for claiming a find; I'm more focused on what a CO is allowed to forbid.

 

There's a cache near here that's hidden inside a huge cracked boulder. I DNFed it a couple of times as I couldn't even get myself far enough in to see it, let alone reach it, but I subequently joined a group assault on it and between the four of us, we were able to retrieve the cache, sign the log and return it to its hiding place. In his description, the CO says:

Quote

In order to find this cache you will have to be agile and non-claustrophobic. Or just talk one of the youngin's into doing the dirty work for you

 

so that's what we did.

 

writhe.jpg.b976e623ff8534713d72ed8d17e29a4f.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

How about this for a narrow route to the cache. I had no problem, although I had to go sideways, as I am not that big; only 165cms tall.(Taller people also tend to be wider.) At last I thought 😈, a cache that doesn't advantage the tall person. As so many caches do. By some people's rules here, if the person couldn't fit they couldn't log it.

Narrow alley.jpg

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Sure, size wise maybe, but other than marbles, what can you get in/out of a thin neck soda bottle ?  

The guidelines says, "They can hold a small logbook and trade items".

I had to use a stick  to fish the logroll out. 

 

Then there's always this, listed as a small by the various geocaching suppliers (including HQ's) and indeed, its measured volume is a smidgen over 100ml, but by the time you put a logbook and pencil in it, there's not much room for swag - even marbles would be a tight fit.

 

Cache.jpg.af01200b79d673706a369c2833ac8a28.jpgHoldingCache.jpg.3a205825d7cabf486a315834da6fcade.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Then there's always this, listed as a small by the various geocaching suppliers (including HQ's) and indeed, its measured volume is a smidgen over 100ml, but by the time you put a logbook and pencil in it, there's not much room for swag - even marbles would be a tight fit.

 

Cache.jpg.af01200b79d673706a369c2833ac8a28.jpgHoldingCache.jpg.3a205825d7cabf486a315834da6fcade.jpg

 

This one has a 100ml capacity (palm size). There's a logbook, cut down pencil, several little trinkets and a trackable. But yeah, I've seen lots of 100ml caches that are crammed with a logbook. 

 

b15d568a-3c08-47f6-b743-7e607a4ec125_l.jpg.8a8eaff2f849c343497437ac4a9b57db.jpg

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

A few days ago cacher x found about 20 of my caches. Every log was the same. I happened to be browsing some of the them today and they, the "Found It" logs, have all been deleted. Curiouser and curiouser and a little irksome.

 
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 1:27 AM, 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 own a powertrail geoart series of (currently) 27 treeclimbs. I knew placing them that they would MOST often not be climbed by their Find counts, especially as we have a few groups of cachers who team-cache, and at least one regular group averaging 25-30 people who would guaranteed make an outing of the series.  I didn't place the trail for everyone to climb the tree for the cache they found, but rather for those people who enjoy climbing trees to have some fun while finding geocaches, and that the people who don't climb them for whatever reason at least feel up for a challenge if they want to, or enjoy a nice hike with a group of friends geocaching for an afternoon (or longer, heh).   So COs don't always expect people to find their caches in the way implied by the hide style. I can't force everyone to climb every tree. But I can certainly encourage people who enjoy climbing trees to take a stab at as many as they want to or can, for the fun of it. That's the intent of my treeclimb trail.  (also, I wouldn't want 30 people each climbing all 27 of them anyway, for obvious reasons :P).  Same thing with many of my independent treeclimb hides. These days I've given up trying to "force" people into specific retrieval tasks. It's not feasible, and it's not enforcible by the guidelines. Not worth the angst.

 

As mentioned earlier, it's better to encourage people to try things the way you intend, rather than force people to (and more often than not make a futile effort to enforce that imposed requirement).

 

 

On 1/7/2019 at 4:57 PM, dprovan said:

If the CO can prove that's what you did -- or what you had your tree climber friend do -- then I think he's in his rights to deny your find. The rule is "sign log", not "have the log signed". While no one worries about that -- nor should worry about it -- if a group let's one person sign the log even though they could just as easily pass the log around for every individual to sign, when it comes to a CO that wants to be a stickler, the difference between signing the log and having someone else sign the log seems like a reasonable distinction for him to make.

 

Except that HQ wouldn't want to get in the middle of that debate. It's a he-said-she-said argument then. Who has proof who signed the log for whom? What are they going to do, try to match handwriting? The rule may say "sign the log", but just like team names are allowed, it can be interpreted "You must [have someone] sign the log". It doesn't say "you as the finder who posts and claims the Found It log online must be the one to write your name on the logsheet."  That's being a stickler. But HQ knows that's not a disagreement that can be arbitrated arbitarily.  Best advice is just go with the spirit of the rule, and if something comes up where there's a clear violation of a guideline, then deal with it. Until then, don't sweat the small stuff.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/8/2019 at 8:57 AM, dprovan said:

if a group let's one person sign the log even though they could just as easily pass the log around for every individual to sign, when it comes to a CO that wants to be a stickler, the difference between signing the log and having someone else sign the log seems like a reasonable distinction for him to make.

I have been with groups of people where one person likes to sign the log for everyone. They grab the log and sign and if anyone complains, say "Don't be silly", it's signed and shove the cache back. Your suggestion could break up friendships and cause arguments and is not worth that. Geocaching is supposed to be enjoyed; not break down into fights over the log.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have been with groups of people where one person likes to sign the log for everyone. They grab the log and sign and if anyone complains, say "Don't be silly", it's signed and shove the cache back. Your suggestion could break up friendships and cause arguments and is not worth that. Geocaching is supposed to be enjoyed; not break down into fights over the log.

Why would that break up friendships?

 

I've been in groups where one person signed everyone's names, except one person who wanted to sign his own name. So the designated signer signed everyone else's names, and then passed the log to the person who wanted to do it himself.

 

And I've been in groups where one person signed a group name that represented everyone, except one person who wanted to sign his own name. So the designated signer signed the group name, and then passed the log to the person who wanted to do it himself.

 

No fuss, no muss, no broken friendships.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

Why would that break up friendships?

Some people get very possessive about signing the log for everyone. Strangers he would likely hand the log to, but when it's a small group and he's with people he knows he signs for everyone. I've had the arguments and it's not worth it over who signs the log. Although I have noticed that he has mellowed a bit over that lately.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Why would that break up friendships?

 

I've been in groups where one person signed everyone's names, except one person who wanted to sign his own name. So the designated signer signed everyone else's names, and then passed the log to the person who wanted to do it himself.

 

And I've been in groups where one person signed a group name that represented everyone, except one person who wanted to sign his own name. So the designated signer signed the group name, and then passed the log to the person who wanted to do it himself.

 

No fuss, no muss, no broken friendships.

 

Generally when I'm out with a group, the log gets passed around for each of us to sign in our own way, but sometimes one person has put in all the names. If the log is large enough I like to add my little bare feet insignia after my name, as it's sort of become my caching trademark, so in those cases I've asked to be able to do that before they put the log back and that's always been fine. Another caching friend, who alas is no longer active, is a mad keen fan of one of the local rugby league teams and always signed the log in orange pen, his team's colour, so I guess he would've been keen to do his own signing if out with a group. Now that's making me wonder if he gave up caching because he lost his orange pen...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My community is fairly relaxed about that now. Most often people caching in groups, are with people who are willingly part of that collective (and group name). If the group is very large or a big mix of ethics, the typical practice is the person with the log signs (however they do, group name and/or more) then calls out if anyone else wants to sign. That's the easy way to ensure everyone's satisfied without making assumptions or raising a stink. Most of the time there's 1 or 2 people who step forward to sign their own name, the rest are satisfied to claim the group name.

And to my knowledge there are no COs who are so demanding that every person sign their own name (if only because they're fought that fight in the past and lost... or they resorted to geocide taking their ball and going home quitting the game and archiving everything)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And to my knowledge there are no COs who are so demanding that every person sign their own name (if only because they're fought that fight in the past and lost... or they resorted to geocide taking their ball and going home quitting the game and archiving everything)

 

"if only because they're fought that fight in the past and lost"

Correct. One CO in our area requested that everyone sign their own name. The group retaliated by filling the notebook/logbook with their signatures (one large signature per page or across 2 pages) and posting a "full log" report. I have a YouTube video I can point to for proof.

 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh I know of that..incident. :P

(no I wasn't a part of it, but heard aaalll about it, heh)

Share this post


Link to post

 

18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Except that HQ wouldn't want to get in the middle of that debate. It's a he-said-she-said argument then. Who has proof who signed the log for whom? What are they going to do, try to match handwriting?

I wouldn't expect HQ to take a stand. I'm assuming everyone's honest and open about what happened. I don't particularly care how things get sorted out if someone hides what they did for the same reasons HQ wouldn't get involved.

 

18 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
On 1/7/2019 at 1:57 PM, dprovan said:

if a group let's one person sign the log even though they could just as easily pass the log around for every individual to sign, when it comes to a CO that wants to be a stickler, the difference between signing the log and having someone else sign the log seems like a reasonable distinction for him to make.

I have been with groups of people where one person likes to sign the log for everyone. They grab the log and sign and if anyone complains, say "Don't be silly", it's signed and shove the cache back. Your suggestion could break up friendships and cause arguments and is not worth that. Geocaching is supposed to be enjoyed; not break down into fights over the log.

It irks me when I bring up a hypothetical example for purposes of discussion, and someone thinks I'm suggesting people must do things that way.

 

Although I don't understand why anyone would go geocaching twice with -- let alone be friends with -- someone that wouldn't let anyone who wants to sign the log.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

"if only because they're fought that fight in the past and lost"

Correct. One CO in our area requested that everyone sign their own name. The group retaliated by filling the notebook/logbook with their signatures (one large signature per page or across 2 pages) and posting a "full log" report. I have a YouTube video I can point to for proof.

It irks me when instead of just ignoring an unreasonable request, someone reacts with vandalism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It irks me when instead of just ignoring an unreasonable request, someone reacts with vandalism.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your point; this is a side-note.

Is the request really unreasonable?

Maybe it's worded badly, and the CO really meant he or she wants to see every finder's name, as opposed to a 'team name'. So maybe it wasn't really that everybody has to physically sign it. If that were the case, I don't think that's unreasonable, especially if it isn't a teeny logroll. Certainly makes it easier to confirm actuals vs. armchairs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

It irks me that when someone complies with a CO request, they are falsely accused of vandalism. Signing their names in the fashion of John Hancock is NOT vandalism.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, K13 said:

It irks me that when someone complies with a CO request, they are falsely accused of vandalism. Signing their names in the fashion of John Hancock is NOT vandalism.

 

It's not a nice thing to do either.  Maybe it's not vandalism but it is vindictive, and not the kind of behavior that is conducive to a friendly local geocaching community.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

An example of what irks me (and happened last year):

  • I tried to find a cache, and failed. In my DNF log, I said that I gave up the search after a few minutes, because nasty thorns were all over the place and I just wasn't in the mood to get my clothing and skin tortured any longer. That should have made it clear that I didn't make an exhaustive search. However, I also said that I saw something which might have been the remains of a cache (a loose piece of wire).
  • Several months later, someone claimed a find - it was the first log after my DNF. The log was a copy&paste standard log, with only one cache-specific line:  "Placed a new container" ... classic throwdown.
  • Some weeks later, another find is claimed, saying like "Two containers found close to each other".

I didn't find the cache, scratched my hands and arms quite a bit during my attempt ... and the next guy comes along and just drops a throwdown! To me, his log sounded like "How stupid can you be to stumble around in thorns and ending with a DNF. See my throwdown, that's how a pro handles it!". I'm sure wasn't really meant like this, but still ... it irked me a lot. The fact that the cache was there all the time and that the CO apparently doesn't care about the throwdown, just topped it off.

 

Also, it didn't help that I know the throwdowner personally, and he has his nose rather high about what a "great cacher" he is.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Is the request really unreasonable?

Apparently the vandals thought it was unreasonable. I think that's all the matters in this context.

 

1 hour ago, K13 said:

It irks me that when someone complies with a CO request, they are falsely accused of vandalism. Signing their names in the fashion of John Hancock is NOT vandalism.

Don't be ridiculous. A signature or stamp that takes up an excessive amount of space is rude to begin with, but I agree it's not vandalism. A bunch of people intentionally signing their names 20 times bigger than they would on any other cache specifically to make sure they fill the log and force the CO to replace it is as much vandalism as taking the log with them.

 

I will grant, however, that they signed the log, so they can claim the find.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2019 at 11:43 AM, colleda said:

A few days ago cacher x found about 20 of my caches. Every log was the same. I happened to be browsing some of the them today and they, the "Found It" logs, have all been deleted. Curiouser and curiouser and a little irksome.

 

Seems it had something to do with trig points and an alternative geocache site. To the best of my knowledge there is only one trig close to these caches.

Edited by colleda
spelling typo

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 10:00 PM, Goldenwattle said:

My personal way of thinking of cache size:

Micro: About 35mm film canister size or smaller (the official definition), or cache entrance does not allow a normal sized TB to be placed in it, such as long tubes.

Small: Big enough to house at least one TB.

Regular: I like both the ammunition box and shoebox examples. I would also add, big enough to leave a paperback novel in...

 

I blame nanos for size confusion. Newbies see a nano and from then on, nanos = micro. Bigger things such as 35mm film canisters much then be smalls... Nanos have brought the sizing down. Maybe when the cache is published if the cacher could clearly see the definitions (not have to click to see them) sizing would improve. Also more experienced geocachers should politely point out that the size is wrong, or it will never be fixed and the newbie will never learn.

Maybe this is just an Aussi problem, but (micro) mintie tins are NOT smalls.

 

If a Nano size won't be added, it would be good to at least change the wording from just 'Micro' to 'Micro & Nano' in the size rating.

 

Exactly - all of these.  Excellent suggestion to rename "Micro" to "Nano to Micro". 

 

It's not just an Aussi problem.  Huge problem here in the USA as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

What irks me is the apparent reluctance of cachers to post NM or NA logs.  I'm currently in a new area and have come across many caches that have quite a few DNFs, but no one has suggested that they NM.  I've done so on about a dozen of them so far, and suspect that many of the DNFs are from people who are here on vacation, so have little reason to post a DNF.  Also, most of them are from only a couple of cachers (who have placed a lot of caches), so a friendly reminder might be beneficial.  I just don't want to appear to be the person who is a pain about these things.  

  • Upvote 4

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...