Jump to content

What Irks you most?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

But on the other hand, it's also irksome with some caches, when many logs do mention that the coordinates are out and the CO ignores them all; even going to the cache and saying they checked the coordinates and found they are correct, when many other people aren't finding this.

 

Yep, and those are the ones I look for those logs that have alternate coordinates. Another reason that option must remain when logging geocaches!

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

The CO is deleting logs that depute their claims. I expect this and another log, at least, to be deleted, but fortunately this will still get to the reviewer first.

 

Yep that's when the reviewer needs to be notified. With ample evidence (though reviewers can see deleted/archived logs)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yep, and those are the ones I look for those logs that have alternate coordinates. Another reason that option must remain when logging geocaches!

 

 

Yep that's when the reviewer needs to be notified. With ample evidence (though reviewers can see deleted/archived logs)

The reviewer came in. The cache is now locked.

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Good on you for doing a NM. I used to ignore these wrongly rated 1T caches, but I don't any more. I either do a NM log like you, or I move the cache to a 1T. It's nasty and lacks empathy to not consider those less physically able and make a cache 1T, when it isn't.

 

Bad D/T rating is a nuisance. I have often been tricked to search in the wrong place due to bad ratings. Missing or incorrect attributes can also mess things up.

 

In general, my opinion is that it is better to over-rate (slightly) than under-rate. Over-rating makes us bring a little too much equipment while under-rating makes us go home without finding it. The unreachable T1 is a great example. If it had been a bit over-rated, then I guess it could have been T4! From what you describe, T3 sounds pretty appropriate for it. Rating is hard but T1 on that is so clearly wrong.  Should I correct by placing it according to the rating? Only if I notify the CO about it. One correctly placed T1 here got a "corrected placement" without notification some half a meter too high, well out of reach for wheelchairs. The cacher probably just wanted to help by placing it in a safer place, but then the rating was wrong so the cache got hard to find.

 

One thing that may cause similar problems is that the official application doesn't show anything above 2 so COs who want meny visits put a maximum at 2. This gives us a lot of very hard D2s, in my area many hard mystery caches.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I used to ignore these wrongly rated 1T caches, but I don't any more. I either do a NM log like you, or I move the cache to a 1T.

It's nasty and lacks empathy to not consider those less physically able and make a cache 1T, when it isn't.

 

Didn't see you mentioned this, do you say in your log you moved it ?    

A nephew used to go with us when we saw 1T hides.  Outdoors person at a young age, now in a wheelchair since mid-twenties.

He helped place our only 1T cache (now archived), and even gave pointers on how to make it even easier for the older folks who maybe aren't as fit.   :)

Upper body strong enough that he could climb a tree using only arms, and lower himself right back into his chair.   Cool kid.

He'd have liked to get 1T caches off the ratings altogether though, and after a "meet n greet" with a bunch his age one day, we now realize that many can't "really" do most.

If we see a new cache that is no-where near a 1T, I'll move it and leave a message sorta like, "Must have dropped/shifted, or a critter scurried with it.  Moved to a spot closer to 1T again.  Might want to check."  

 - That leaves everyone clear of "blame" the first time.     ;)

So far, most here have raised their cache  T-rating when more than one finder says it's not a one

 - That doesn't happen with any-other D/T issue, so we think it must be they realize HQ or Reviewer may get involved when it's a one.     

 

 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Upper body strong enough that he could climb a tree using only arms, and lower himself right back into his chair.

That reminds me of a college dormmate. His legs had been paralyzed since childhood, so he used a manual wheelchair, or he walked using leg braces and arm crutches. He made it to the finals of an intramural arm-wrestling competition with ease. He lost once he got to a level where lower-body strength started to matter. Or at least, that's how he explained it to me. But he could climb stairs if he had to, which gave him more flexibility in arranging his schedule than the paraplegic guy who also lived in the dorm, who needed an electric wheelchair.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

One thing that may cause similar problems is that the official application doesn't show anything above 2 so COs who want meny visits put a maximum at 2. This gives us a lot of very hard D2s, in my area many hard mystery caches.

 

The app only shows traditionals and events to basic members so any D2 mystery still won't show.

 

image.png.5b90c52042aa6827289ebc54b231de7f.png

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Didn't see you mentioned this, do you say in your log you moved it ?

I'm not sure which log you refer to, but there was a 1T up in the rafters, which I managed to get down with a long stick, but as I had nothing to stand on, and because it was marked 1T I hadn't brought anything with me to stand on, I had no choice but to leave it down low. In this case I didn't feel bad about not returning it to where the CO put it, as it was marked as a 1T ans should never have been found in the rafters.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

From what you describe, T3 sounds pretty appropriate for it.

If it's the example I gave of up in the (highish) rafters, technically that's a T5, as a ladder would be requires to be brought to reach it. There was nothing underneath to stand on, or nothing that could be moved to stand on.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I'm not sure which log you refer to, but there was a 1T up in the rafters, which I managed to get down with a long stick, but as I had nothing to stand on, and because it was marked 1T I hadn't brought anything with me to stand on, I had no choice but to leave it down low. In this case I didn't feel bad about not returning it to where the CO put it, as it was marked as a 1T ans should never have been found in the rafters.

I had a similar thing happen to a cache that was attached by magnets under a picnic table in a gazebo.  It disappeared for a while, and when it re-appeared, it had been placed in the rafters.  (I hadn't even thought to look there until I got a message from HQ about its disposition.) Why would they do that?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, VAVAPAM said:

I had a similar thing happen to a cache that was attached by magnets under a picnic table in a gazebo.  It disappeared for a while, and when it re-appeared, it had been placed in the rafters.  (I hadn't even thought to look there until I got a message from HQ about its disposition.) Why would they do that?

 

I see that sort of thing often when a group of cachers goes through and the one who puts it back wasn't the one who found it - they're probably halfway to the next cache by then. I recently had a group go through several of mine and none were put back properly.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, VAVAPAM said:

I had a similar thing happen to a cache that was attached by magnets under a picnic table in a gazebo.  It disappeared for a while, and when it re-appeared, it had been placed in the rafters.  (I hadn't even thought to look there until I got a message from HQ about its disposition.) Why would they do that?

That would be very annoying. The example though that I gave, when I bothered to read the hint, the hint actually had, "In the rafters"...for a 1T. So in that case, it was the CO at fault.

 

Another one terrain cache was on a boardwalk marked as wheelchair assessable, that went through a short section of bushland. Fine, however to get the cache the person in the wheelchair would need to get out of their wheelchair, step down off the path at least 30cms, get down on their knees and reach under the boardwalk to retrieve the cache. I mentioned in my log that while the path might be wheelchair accessible, the cache was not wheelchair accessible, but as per usual, the CO ignored the comment. What is wrong with some COs? Are they just really, really stupid, cruel, or they know better better than everyone else and won't take any advice? I suspect a mixture of all three.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

What is wrong with some COs? Are they just really, really stupid, cruel, or they know better better than everyone else and won't take any advice? I suspect a mixture of all three.

In my experience,  COs ignoring any sound advice fall into two main groups:

* Some just don't care. They place caches in "Fire and Forget" style, and react neither to logs nor personal messages. When the cache deteriorates, the usual DNF/NM/NA logging ensues and in the end it gets archived by the reviewer without any comment by the CO.

* Some are "Know-it-alls", who regard any criticism on their cache as a personal offense and/or think they have to show how geocaching really works to all others. The latter is especially annoying (or funny - depends on you mood ;) ), when it comes from accounts, which are 3 weeks old and have 30 finds or so. This actually happens more often than one would expect.

 

OTOH, I couldn't name a single CO, who I'd regard as "very stupid" or "cruel" (i.e., deliberately misleading the finders).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If it's the example I gave of up in the (highish) rafters, technically that's a T5, as a ladder would be requires to be brought to reach it. There was nothing underneath to stand on, or nothing that could be moved to stand on.

 

Nothing to climb on, even worse. But I guess that is the confusion between the location and the path there. Grading is tricky.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

Nothing to climb on, even worse. But I guess that is the confusion between the location and the path there. Grading is tricky.

Grading is not at all tricky. The handicapped person needs to be able to fetch the cache themselves. Can they or not? They can = T1; they can't, it's not T1.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

In my experience,  COs ignoring any sound advice fall into two main groups:

* Some just don't care. They place caches in "Fire and Forget" style, and react neither to logs nor personal messages. When the cache deteriorates, the usual DNF/NM/NA logging ensues and in the end it gets archived by the reviewer without any comment by the CO.

* Some are "Know-it-alls", who regard any criticism on their cache as a personal offense and/or think they have to show how geocaching really works to all others. The latter is especially annoying (or funny - depends on you mood ;) ), when it comes from accounts, which are 3 weeks old and have 30 finds or so. This actually happens more often than one would expect.

 

OTOH, I couldn't name a single CO, who I'd regard as "very stupid" or "cruel" (i.e., deliberately misleading the finders).

Okay, I couldn't name a cruel one, but I have met some stupid ones. Usually they don't last long in the game, although there are a few exceptions. Often they are know-it-alls too. 30 finds, you wrote. I have known 'know it alls' with 5 finds, or in one case zero finds...but they knew it all; which brings up their level of intelligence.

 

The "Fire and Forget" style. There is a local geocacher who places many hundreds of caches out on power trails (mostly). Their idea of maintenance appears to be, hope someone else fixes it; otherwise archive. They are prepared to keep placing caches, but not return to maintain them. They appear to ignore comments mentioning the deteriorating cache, NM, NA until the reviewer comes in. Then they archive. I would guess the cache is left to litter the countryside.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Grading is not at all tricky. The handicapped person needs to be able to fetch the cache themselves. Can they or not? They can = T1; they can't, it's not T1.

 

This is easy to us, but not to a beginner. The beginner needs to understand what "wheelchair accessible" means. Yes, you can get there with a wheelchair. No, you can't reach it, but the location is still accessible.

 

There are many often misunderstood phrases like this in the hobby. "Found" really means "signed the log book", not "I saw it 6 meters up and couldn't reach it". "Needs archived" really means "a reviewer should have a look at this". "Did not find" means "I think it is gone".

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

There are many often misunderstood phrases like this in the hobby. "Found" really means "signed the log book", not "I saw it 6 meters up and couldn't reach it". "Needs archived" really means "a reviewer should have a look at this". "Did not find" means "I think it is gone".

I take exception at your last one. "Did not find" means "I searched and did not find it". That's all. It does not mean "I think it is gone".

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

I take exception at your last one. "Did not find" means "I searched and did not find it". That's all. It does not mean "I think it is gone".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This, times a million^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

There are many often misunderstood phrases like this in the hobby. "Found" really means "signed the log book", not "I saw it 6 meters up and couldn't reach it". "Needs archived" really means "a reviewer should have a look at this". "Did not find" means "I think it is gone".

 

Yep, some do believe that...

I don't see Did Not Find to mean anything but "I can't find it."      :)

Even the  Help Center says,    "Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it.

DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing.

DNF stands for “Did not find”.

 

We do know of a few who refuse to log DNF, assuming if they can't find it,  it has to be gone.

 - Yet those same people won't log a NM if they truly believed in their special abilities.    ;)

 

Edited by cerberus1
clarification ;)
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't see Did Not Find to mean anything but "I can't find it."      :)

I wouldn't even go that far. It doesn't mean "I can't find it", only that "I didn't find it (this time)". I never assume that I can't find it. I've gone back and found many of the caches I've DNFed. My record so far is 6 DNFs before finally finding it on the 7th attempt.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

I wouldn't even go that far. It doesn't mean "I can't find it", only that "I didn't find it (this time)". I never assume that I can't find it. I've gone back and found many of the caches I've DNFed. My record so far is 6 DNFs before finally finding it on the 7th attempt.

 

Yes, I've had a few like that. Only about a tenth of the caches I've DNFed have actually been missing, the rest were right there smirking, poking their tongues out at me, waving their arms trying to grab my attention or whatever, all to no avail for this blind Freddy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

This is easy to us, but not to a beginner. The beginner needs to understand what "wheelchair accessible" means. Yes, you can get there with a wheelchair. No, you can't reach it, but the location is still accessible.

 

There are many often misunderstood phrases like this in the hobby. "Found" really means "signed the log book", not "I saw it 6 meters up and couldn't reach it". "Needs archived" really means "a reviewer should have a look at this". "Did not find" means "I think it is gone".

From day one I understood what found meant and had taken a pen with me. I had no one to advise me on this, as then I didn't know any other geocachers. I also would have understood what wheelchair accessible would have meant. These concepts are not difficult for a beginner. I got them. However I waited to I had found about 800 caches before laying my first cache, so to get experience, and even then I still felt inexperienced. But I certainly knew I had to sign that log from day one.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

I wouldn't even go that far. It doesn't mean "I can't find it", only that "I didn't find it (this time)". I never assume that I can't find it. I've gone back and found many of the caches I've DNFed. My record so far is 6 DNFs before finally finding it on the 7th attempt.

 

How would you know ?

We have around 350 DNFs, and I certainly don't ever plan on returning to the numerous park n grab/cache n dash hides that the other 2/3rds went after.   :)

 For me,   rarely stopping at one if on the way walking, "I can't find it" is accurate...

Link to comment

So I only have 144 finds in many years, so I'm sure my opinion isn't particularly valuable, but since this is about things that irk you, here's what irks me:

1) People who use prescription pill bottles for cache containers in urban areas.  Nothing looks more like a drug drop than placing or retrieving a pill bottle from a lamppost in a remote corner of a parking lot.

2) Placing caches on, under or around electrical utility boxes.  There seems to be a trend of this in the area where I live now.  I've found about a half dozen recently where the "container" is a metal faceplate from an electrical box attached to a metallic surface with a magnet, with a ziploc'ed log sheet sandwiched between.  I don't like them, and I don't think the geocaching community should be tampering with electrical/utility boxes.  Lamp posts either, to be honest, but it is what it is.  Doesn't mean it doesn't "irk" me.

 

 

 

s-l640.jpg

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

Currently irked by multis that are broken.  So many are broken that it makes me avoid all multis.

 

One was a 6 stage multi, the item at the 4th stage was no longer there and therefore crashed the sequence.

One was a 2 stage multi, and the signage had been removed.  I was able to google the answers, but that would be more of a puzzle than a multi.

Another one with a sign that had been removed.

Another one that was poorly written, again using signage -- this time it was a 'loop and spur' type trail.  The tasks required counting the letters on the 1st sign, second sign, etc.  But there was no way to know which direction I approached the trail ....  And again, some of the signs had been damaged.

 

Multis take more work to maintain!  Check the stages, not just the final!  Update the page if things change!

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Currently irked by multis that are broken. 

 

 

Broken, and otherwise poorly set up. Before we set off on a >1 stage multi, I'll research it through the logs, if I hear stories of woe trying to decipher instructions or having to phone friends to complete, we'll just pass.....

Link to comment
3 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Currently irked by multis that are broken.  So many are broken that it makes me avoid all multis.

 

And some become only findable if you PAF who still has the coords to the final, or the owner cache....

 

Quote

 

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

12/09/2017

Will get out to check on Stg 2.
In the meantime, if anybody needs help, just message me.

 

 

 

2 years later and this active owner still hasn't checked their multi, with stages missing and a frozen wet final. FYI it has 21 favourite points (30%). 

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

One was a 2 stage multi, and the signage had been removed.  I was able to google the answers, but that would be more of a puzzle than a multi.

We have one like that too in my area (GC16FNR). The gun (at least at the given coordinates for the gun) and its information board have now gone. Now you are expected to google it, making it more a puzzle than a multi. Bad luck for the cacher turning up expecting it to be the multi it's shown as , without having googled this first and without a phone with data.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
3 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Multis take more work to maintain!  Check the stages, not just the final!  Update the page if things change!

 

Curiously I received this in a log on one of my multis a few months back:

 

Quote

There looks to have been a lot of change near the waypoints which worried me but I was able to piece everything together and loved 'the oracle' at gz.

 

So I went around to check all the waypoints (there are four) and nothing's changed since I placed it in March 2018. Doh.

 

3 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Currently irked by multis that are broken.  So many are broken that it makes me avoid all multis.

 

So you'll punish those COs who do look after their multis by avoiding their hides too.

 

I guess one of the benefits of living in a small geocaching community is I soon know what to expect from each hider's multis. People build up reputations good and bad, that and a quick check of any recent logs beforehand is usually enough to at least be prepared for pitfalls. What's the worst that can happen? A DNF and an NM, or an NA if that's already gone unheeded, but I still got out of the house and did at least some of the walk.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Currently irked by multis that are broken.  So many are broken that it makes me avoid all multis.

 

Thought that kinda carp was only going on here.  :)

I don't avoid them yet.  I like the walk, whether they're there or not.  But I agree, an easy half of multis attempted need parts fixed.

Sometimes I can figure a stage out, and if it works out can mail the CO when home.  They're doing the maintenance...

I don't PAF unless I'm injured, so if not, at least got some exercise in. 

I can see your point.  If your interest is the find, "unable to finish" gets old-hat real quick. 

Many here end up archiving insteada fixing.  That tends to tick off a few people...

 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't avoid them yet.  I like the walk, whether they're there or not.  But I agree, an easy half of multis attempted need parts fixed.

 

Either I'm extremely lucky or this is very much a regional thing, but in my six-and-a-half years of caching I've found 73 multis and DNFed 14. Of those 14 DNFs, 12 were because of muggles close to GZ or simply my inability to spot either a waypoint or the cache and were subsequently redeemed on a later attempt. For the other 2:

  • GC5AK02 had a missing waypoint object and has since been archived
  • GC4483X on Lord Howe Island had a missing final on my first visit but had been replaced when I went back a year later

That's it, no other multi woes in all that time.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So you'll punish those COs who do look after their multis by avoiding their hides too.

 

Curious, how would anyone know that their hides were avoided if there wasn't a post ?   Thanks.    :)

I used to have one heck-of-a-lotta caches on my ignore list.  Those COs don't know that...

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So you'll punish those COs who do look after their multis by avoiding their hides too.

 

Curious, how would anyone know that their hides were avoided if there wasn't a post ?   Thanks.    :)

I used to have one heck-of-a-lotta caches on my ignore list.  Those COs don't know that...

 

When multis only get a small number of finds (mine average 16 finds and four have yet to make double digits), a few people refusing to do any multis because of bad experiences with some can have considerable impact. If everyone boycotted all multis because of some bad ones, there'd be a lot of perfectly good unfound multis out there.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

When multis only get a small number of finds (mine average 16 finds and four have yet to make double digits), a few people refusing to do any multis because of bad experiences with some can have considerable impact. If everyone boycotted all multis because of some bad ones,

there'd be a lot of perfectly good unfound multis out there.

 

"Considerable impact" ?  How ?  Folks aren't being "punished"...    Please explain.    

This is a hobby. 

If everyone suddenly stopped doing multis, how would that affect anyone in the hobby, really   ?    :)

 

 - And   that's    all...

 

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

If everyone suddenly stopped doing multis, how would that affect anyone in the hobby, really   ?   

 

I reckon it'd affect those who create the multis. I doubt I'd bother going to all the trouble of creating them and keeping them in good order if I knew everyone shuns them simply because they're multis. Much easier to just throw out roadside traditionals and forget about the themes, waterfalls, storylines, hikes, etc. If it's all just about getting an easy guaranteed +1 smiley, I'm probably in the wrong game.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

When multis only get a small number of finds (mine average 16 finds and four have yet to make double digits), a few people refusing to do any multis because of bad experiences with some can have considerable impact. If everyone boycotted all multis because of some bad ones, there'd be a lot of perfectly good unfound multis out there.

 

In my opinion that is the fault of irresponsible multi owners, not the fault of finders who have been burned a few times and would rather avoid a good chance of aggravation instead of fun. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I reckon it'd affect those who create the multis. I doubt I'd bother going to all the trouble of creating them and keeping them in good order if I knew everyone shuns them simply because they're multis. Much easier to just throw out roadside traditionals and forget about the themes, waterfalls, storylines, hikes, etc. If it's all just about getting an easy guaranteed +1 smiley, I'm probably in the wrong game.

 

 I stopped creating them because the icon collectors here love them. They don’t care if it’s an exclusive PAF or PAO cache. As I pointed out in my example of the frozen cache with missing stages and 30% FPs. A recent “find” on that cache said they need it to qualify for a challenge. I don’t want my multis to be valued often exclusively for the icon. 

 

As a finder I don’t know which multis are actually good. I don’t know that because I can’t rely on the FP system  (see my example above, 30% FPs).  I can’t necessarily trust the find logs. My only recourse is find local multis of owners I know create a good experience and maintain their multis. That would be a couple of owners in my area. I have limited time while travelling to attempt the research involved to find truly good, from beginning to end, multis. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

When multis only get a small number of finds (mine average 16 finds and four have yet to make double digits), a few people refusing to do any multis because of bad experiences with some can have considerable impact. If everyone boycotted all multis because of some bad ones, there'd be a lot of perfectly good unfound multis out there.

I have three multis. They don't get nearly as many finds as the traditionals. One, two stager, published  08/Mar/2017, has 63 finds only because it is on a popular cycle/walking power trail. The other two have less finds, because they are not on a popular trail and also have 11 & 12 stages. One, published 17/Aug/2015, has 32 finds, and the other, published 13/Aug/2017,  has 18 finds. About eight finds each a year. The positive thing about a multi, is potentially less work maintaining them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 12/2/2019 at 7:20 PM, ParrotRob said:

2) Placing caches on, under or around electrical utility boxes.  There seems to be a trend of this in the area where I live now.  I've found about a half dozen recently where the "container" is a metal faceplate from an electrical box attached to a metallic surface with a magnet, with a ziploc'ed log sheet sandwiched between.  I don't like them, and I don't think the geocaching community should be tampering with electrical/utility boxes.  Lamp posts either, to be honest, but it is what it is.  Doesn't mean it doesn't "irk" me.

 

We found one recently that is a snap-lock type container inside an electrical box.  I was very surprised that the city had allowed it to stay there, and was honestly pretty nervous about retrieving and replacing it.  If my husband had been on that trip he would have made us take the DNF.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

That's a good point. Sometimes less traffic is the appeal of owning a multi. 

 

It's the appeal of doing them too. We've done multi's that take all or most of a day with many WP's without seeing a living soul.

 

5 minutes ago, RobinsonClan56 said:

We found one recently that is a snap-lock type container inside an electrical box.  I was very surprised that the city had allowed it to stay there, and was honestly pretty nervous about retrieving and replacing it.  If my husband had been on that trip he would have made us take the DNF.

 

We never found one inside a "live" electrical box but found caches in fake electrical outlets and fake real electrical boxes. Most of the time they have a fake number on them with GC****** or at least a serial number that's a lot different from the real thing. I'm sure foreign geocachers would not notice that. If I were to find a cache in a real live electrical box I wouldn't think twice about posting a DNF AND NA.

I know of a cache that was hidden in/on and electric utility pole (you had to climb) where, as soon as the reviewer knew how and where the cache was hidden the listing was archived.

 

The metal plate as pictured above is fairly common too but it's a while since we found one of those. Sometimes instead of a metal plate a magnetic "danger sign" is used with the log behind it or with coordinates to a next stage of a multi. They kept us busy the first few times but now we spot them from a distance.

 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, RobinsonClan56 said:

 

We found one recently that is a snap-lock type container inside an electrical box.  I was very surprised that the city had allowed it to stay there, and was honestly pretty nervous about retrieving and replacing it.  If my husband had been on that trip he would have made us take the DNF.

 

I once went to one in a live electric box next to a tennis court. The hint was "yank".  I walked away.

But I did eventually go back, once I read some find logs and was a more sure about what I was looking for. The cache box was inside the electric electric box, painted grey to match and attached with very strong magnets. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I once went to one in a live electric box next to a tennis court. The hint was "yank".  I walked away.

But I did eventually go back, once I read some find logs and was a more sure about what I was looking for. 

The cache box was inside the electric electric box, painted grey to match and attached with very strong magnets. 

 

The other 2/3rds got knocked on her can once touching a container that (afterwards) I saw had a bare, hot wire alongside it. 

She was one of two unfortunate ones to touch it. The other didn't want folks upset with them and didn't say anything in their log. 

 - Turned out it was done by another who took the thing apart and didn't put it back together.  Sheesh...

Turns out it was never inside it, but hidden in live wires surrounding the box.   Not much better.

It was archived soon after, with the "CO" giving up in a huff when it was found most caches didn't conform to guidelines, and had no maintenance plans.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

We never found one inside a "live" electrical box but found caches in fake electrical outlets and fake real electrical boxes.

I recall a trailhead cache that I found, where the container was in a small electrical box strapped to one of the posts supporting the trailhead sign. There were no utility poles anywhere near the trailhead, which made the electrical box stand out to me. There was no need to unscrew or disassemble anything though. I just opened the door on the front of the box, and there was the container.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

... not the fault of finders who have been burned a few times and would rather avoid a good chance of aggravation instead of fun. 

 

You could say this about EVERY cache and cache type that you get DNFs on.  While maintenance (more accurately a lack of maintenance) can certainly play a part in a DNF, this is the type of rationale that seems to me to favor the notion of cachers more interested in the +1 than anything else. Since when should cachers be guaranteed a find on each and every cache they look for?  Sometimes things happen that the CO can't control and while they should certainly attempt to be as attentive as possible, it's not always feasible to stay on top of things that happen to their caches.  Not looking for multis because you've been burned by a DNF a few times by some COs not maintaining their caches is just like not looking for traditional caches because you've been burned by a  DNF a few times by some COs not maintaining their caches.  DNFs are part of the game so I'm not real sure why a DNF is that big a deal unless you're truly only interested in the +1.  Is it frustrating?  Absolutely.  Is it the end of the world?  Nope.  Is it an "irk"?  Maybe a little bit but seeing as how I have quite a few multis out and active, I'm a bit more sympathetic due to my firsthand experience in the effort needed to keep things up and running.  However, as L0ne.R pointed out in their example, I'm certainly not sympathetic to a situation where the CO hasn't addressed a known issue in an appropriate amount of time.

 

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I stopped creating them because the icon collectors here love them. They don’t care if it’s an exclusive PAF or PAO cache. As I pointed out in my example of the frozen cache with missing stages and 30% FPs. A recent “find” on that cache said they need it to qualify for a challenge. I don’t want my multis to be valued often exclusively for the icon. 

 

As above, EVERY cache could be valued exclusively for the icon in some manner.  Are you saying that you don't want any of your caches to be found because the primary reason many of your caches are found is strictly for the icon or because it meets some particular challenge?  Does that mean that the only reason you want people to find your caches is that they value your cache for the experience it offers?   COs can't control the reasons behind why cachers choose to find their caches.  Some find caches because they meet a challenge, others find caches because they are a challenge, and others find caches because they add one more to the tally (and on and on and on for other reasons).  I chose the last cache to complete my fizzy, not because it was the closest one but because it looked to be the neatest one that was relatively close.  I value the cache because it was the last combination I needed AND it was a fun cache.  Why must it be an either/or type of proposition?  I don't think any less of that cache because it met a personal challenge of mine.  In fact, I give it more weight than many of the others I've found over these last 9 1/2 years because it was chosen for a specific reason AND it was an enjoyable cache experience.

Link to comment

I just recalled another time recently when I was irked by incorrect size - again. Cache was listed as "small" but was a bison tube inside a hollowed out, dead, piece of oleander stem which was placed among other dead stems of an oleander tree. If you're familiar with oleanders you will know how they grow. This was in a park in Valencia where I had teamed up with a German geocacher I met that morning. We must have spent about 45 minutes looking for the "small". My German friend eventually lucked on it.  It was a good hide but very frustrating. If it had been described correctly I may have given it a FP.

The same CO had also caused us frustration in the same park with a trad that was offset about 20m and anothe that was a fake sprinkler (buried cache) among real sprinklers. I wondered if the park maintenance staff had had problems in the past with cachers dismantling sprinklers - there was one close to the aforementioned oleander.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, colleda said:

I just recalled another time recently when I was irked by incorrect size - again. Cache was listed as "small" but was a bison tube inside a hollowed out, dead, piece of oleander stem which was placed among other dead stems of an oleander tree. If you're familiar with oleanders you will know how they grow. This was in a park in Valencia where I had teamed up with a German geocacher I met that morning. We must have spent about 45 minutes looking for the "small". My German friend eventually lucked on it.  It was a good hide but very frustrating. If it had been described correctly I may have given it a FP.

Oh, I've seen those called large size around here by one particularly incompetent cache owner. "It has a large thing attached to it" is apparently the logic.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Oh, I've seen those called large size around here by one particularly incompetent cache owner. "It has a large thing attached to it" is apparently the logic.

 

In a sense, I could understand that. The container may not be the size indicated, but you are searching for something that size that was placed there by its owner. That may be another discussion (likely already had) - does size refer to the container or the item placed in the location which wasn't there before? Relevant to the concept of 'physical waypoint' being anything 'new' introduced to the environment for a multicache, for example (is, does size refer to anything physical newly introduced to the environment, or just the container itself)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Oh, I've seen those called large size around here by one particularly incompetent cache owner. "It has a large thing attached to it" is apparently the logic.

Yeah, but in most cases, finding the large-size camouflage (rock, log, whatever) doesn't help you. You have to spot the micro-size container embedded in (or attached to) the large-size camouflage to know that you've found the cache. So the micro-size container is really the thing you're looking for.

Link to comment

1075964470_2019-12-0416_44_12-Geocaching_SubmitaGeocache.png.ca68c08c365f368ecfc9ed37d1aacfad.png

 

"Other" covers those micro-cache-in-a-larger-item problem. But unfortunately the Hide-a-Cache page does not explain what "Other" means. It would be nice if they had a link to the cache size page in the Help Center. But the help page also doesn't do a great job of explaining what "Other" means.

 

P.S. I am very irked when I find a bison tube in a stick/board/log/birdhouse posted as small/regular/large. A container that includes a log and the possibility of something interesting like a signature item or trackable, is what brings me geocaching joy. So I filter out micros and other (because they are always log-only).  I don't like being duped into travelling kilometers and spending my limited free time for what turns out to be a micro (log-only cache), when I could be elsewhere finding the type of container experience I like. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...