What Irks you most?

[+lee737 193]

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

Personally, I think the volume ranges make a lot more sense than vague descriptions of what may or may not fit.

 

+1. I've been known to fill (my own) weird little containers with water to assess their volume before allocating a size....

[+TeamRabbitRun 320]

6 hours ago, lee737 said:

 

+1. I've been known to fill (my own) weird little containers with water to assess their volume before allocating a size....

 

So you can't complain; YOU'RE the source of your own wet log problems!

[+cerberus1 2412]

8 hours ago, niraD said:

Is your problem with the metric units (100ml, 1L, 20L) or with the use of standard volume measurements rather than... What? Length measurements? Vague descriptions of what may or may not fit (sandwiches, apples, fingers, shoes, fists, boots, etc.)?

 

Personally, I think the volume ranges make a lot more sense than vague descriptions of what may or may not fit. I don't care whether the volume ranges are in metric units or imperial units, but they should be something standard, not vague.

 

First off, it's not a "problem" for us ...     We've used containers that are proven, with openings that things actually fit in.  

 

We see issues more n more with newer folks mostly, but some older cachers still argue that by the site a pill bottle is a small by volume (around 130ml).

I guess you could stuff a sandwich in that pill bottle somehow though...

[+niraD 2332]

28 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We see issues more n more with newer folks mostly, but some older cachers still argue that by the site a pill bottle is a small by volume (around 130ml).

130ml sounds like a small to me. If it has a narrow neck, then that's a separate issue from what size it is.

 

29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I guess you could stuff a sandwich in that pill bottle somehow though...

The description in Geocaching 101 (What does a geocache look like?) says:

"Small - 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar."

 

A sandwich-sized container is an example, not the definition. The definition is the same as in the Help Center article (which uses "about the size of an apple" as the example).

[+BendSinister 28]

An answer to the original question: PHOTOS IDENTIFYING GZ.

 

I don't mean photos of the cache so much as photos that give away the location of the cache. I'm aware of quite a few puzzles and multis where solving (and/or traversing multiple waypoints) effectively became optional because a logger attached a photo. Sometimes quite early in the cache's life! The fact that photos are often attached to a log after logging, and generally without notice, makes monitoring tricky.*

 

This was probably already raised here 23 pages back, but it just seems like such an obvious thing to refrain from doing. I used to wonder whether it was a sign that coordinate-sharing was so widespread that every cache just felt like a traditional. But I also see FTF'ers on puzzles doing the same! There are ways of capturing your smiling face -- or whatever -- at GZ without it constituting a spoiler but it's not necessarily a consideration for many.

 

I suspect it has distorted my criteria for good cache locations. "Is there anything in the vicinity distinctive enough to be recognisable in a photo?" shouldn't really be a consideration, but I'm afraid it is.

 

* A formal notification of every uploaded image would be nice, come to think of it.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by BendSinister

[+Goldenwattle 922]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:55 AM, daddybeth said:

Hmm, not sure about one of mine then.

 

It's a tube a metre long and 20cm wide. You twist the ends off, because of two non-return valves inside one end of the cache then becomes a pump. When you pump it causes a kite to rise through the tube, attached by string to a pencil and small log container about 7cm long.

 

You could put trackables etc in tube, but they would have to be removed before using the tube as a pump.

 

So is that large or other? I put it as large because to me the whole tube is the cache, unless I am misunderstanding and only the physical space that the log occupies is the cache. But in that case most of my caches are wrongly labelled because I usually put the log itself in a sturdy container, and that within another, larger waterproof container to minimise water ingress because it's very wet here. But I'm sure it would get annoying and be unhelpful for cachers if I labelled every one other because they are a cache within a cache.

Sounds a fun cache. Definitely sounds like an 'Other'.

[+Aguila317 14]

What Irks you most?

When a new cache is published and 3 members of the CO's family log a joint FTF within 11 minutes of publication.  

 

Insider information? 

 

 

 

[+on4bam 923]

Logged a DNF on a cache Saturday, so did another cacher on Sunday (cache was clearly missing). Saw a Found it log on Monday stating cache is gone but CO allowed to log a find. 2 hours later another found it log. Another was posted on Wednesday. Now GSAK was showing 3 green squares for the last 4 logs so I posted a NM. 5 minutes later the CO mailed me saying I could log a found it instead of a DNF.... No thanks.

He/she should have posted a TD instead of allowing finds on a missing cache.

 

On the plus side: He/she said a new cache would be placed today.

 

 

[+L0ne.R 1398]

2 hours ago, on4bam said:

Logged a DNF on a cache Saturday, so did another cacher on Sunday (cache was clearly missing). Saw a Found it log on Monday stating cache is gone but CO allowed to log a find. 2 hours later another found it log. Another was posted on Wednesday. Now GSAK was showing 3 green squares for the last 4 logs so I posted a NM. 5 minutes later the CO mailed me saying I could log a found it instead of a DNF.... No thanks.

He/she should have posted a TD instead of allowing finds on a missing cache.

 

On the plus side: He/she said a new cache would be placed today.

 

 

 

I would log another DNF and write that I am logging a DNF so a red dot appears in the app to indicate that the cache isn’t there.  That way others don’t waste a trip assuming the green dots on the app mean that it’s actually in place. 

 

Owners allowing finds in lieu of maintenance really really irks me. And people accepting those finds irks me. It seems that many prefer a Waymarking game—visit the location get a point. The physical cache is a moot point. 

 

 

[+on4bam 923]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I would log another DNF and write that I am logging a DNF so a red dot appears in the app to indicate that the cache isn’t there. 

 

Nope, because that would also be a fake log as I didn't go there again (it's 80Km from home  so not going there to make point ). I have no clue how any app shows the last logs anyway.

So far no OM log though.... I wonder when/if the cache will be replaced.

 

[+BethDaddyKaty 93]

8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I would log another DNF and write that I am logging a DNF so a red dot appears in the app to indicate that the cache isn’t there.  That way others don’t waste a trip assuming the green dots on the app mean that it’s actually in place. 

 

Owners allowing finds in lieu of maintenance really really irks me. And people accepting those finds irks me. It seems that many prefer a Waymarking game—visit the location get a point. The physical cache is a moot point. 

 

 

And yet people often repeat on here CO owns the cache, CO is the initial arbiter of found or not found. But it annoys other people when they break the perceived rules.

[+barefootjeff 2321]

10 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

But it annoys other people when they break the perceived rules.

 

The requirement that the cache be actually present is more than just perceived, I think.

 

Quote

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.

 

If you can't replace a missing cache immediately, the responsible thing to do is disable it until you can, or archive it if you can't, not hand out free finds to all and sundry.

[+baer2006 437]

11 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

And yet people often repeat on here CO owns the cache, CO is the initial arbiter of found or not found. But it annoys other people when they break the perceived rules.

I don't think I need an arbiter for that. If I found the container and signed the log, I found the cache. If not, it's a DNF.

 

Under special circumstances, I have accepted a CO's offer to log a find on a missing cache. But in these cases I let the DNF log stand as well.

[+barefootjeff 2321]

4 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Under special circumstances, I have accepted a CO's offer to log a find on a missing cache. But in these cases I let the DNF log stand as well.

 

Maybe I'm a bit odd (well my friends would say there's no maybe about it), but on the few occasions when I've been offered a find on a cache that was missing or I couldn't quite reach because the terrain defeated me, I've always declined, saying I'll come back and try again after it's been replaced or when I'm better prepared. To me, such a find log would always feel like a lie, something that would haunt me in the wee small hours until I finally gave in to my conscience and deleted it. I won't even log a find if I know the thing I found and signed was a throwdown not sanctioned by the CO. I don't care about a +1 to my find count, filling a rare square on my D/T grid or whatever, for me it's overcoming whatever challenges the CO and the environment have put before me in getting my signature in the logbook.

[+Harry Dolphin 831]

I was looking at a 5D multi cache today.  The first stage was last found in 2015.  One cacher found the final anyway.  (I've been known to do that...)  Three DNFs since that.  16 PAF finds since then.  Two NMs by DNFers.  A note from the CO in 2016 saying that he would replace the first two stages.  Obviously never done.  I decided not to search for it.

[+on4bam 923]

18 hours ago, on4bam said:

So far no OM log though.... I wonder when/if the cache will be replaced.

 

OK, no cache replacement "tomorrow" but at least now another cacher logged a DNF. This may have to do with my NM where I wrote that the three previous Found it logs are in fact DNF's

[+Isonzo Karst 728]

I've had COs offer me  finds for DNFs twice lately.  I declined. I'd rather have a real DNF than a fake find. 

 

One of the COs was out of town, but reading logs.  CO contacted a friend to check cache, friend verified it missing and replaced it,  within 24 hours of the logs coming in, and before the CO reached out to offer the find.   While I didn't take him up on it, I understand the impulse, and if you're going to do offer DNF as find, this is the way. Immediately fix, or immediately disable.

 

The other CO has nothing further posted on their page 5 months later (gadget cache is broken, cannot access log sans bolt cutters or maybe beat it to death with a hammer). 

[+Goldenwattle 922]

This recent incident 'Irked' me.

 

My log: After a description of the find I finished off my log to let the CO know the log was full: "The log is full and a new log is needed. TFTC (name of CO)." How else will the CO know?

 

Then when nothing had happened, about six weeks later I did a NM as a nudge. People were still logging finds, even though the log was full. I wondered if they were finding room to sign it, and none of them mentioned the log was full. I appreciate NMs on my caches to let me know there is a problem. When something needs attention, NMs are helpful. I wrote nothing impolite.

"Needs Maintenance

Reminder. I wrote in my log on 28/Oct/2019 that the log is full and a new log is needed.

After more than a month I can't see an OM, so making a NM as an extra nudge. This needs the tender loving care of the CO."

 

I left it at that. However then this several weeks later, and this irked me. "As a fellow CO, I know how much of an inconvenience it can be to have to replace a log. I also know how much a CO appreciates another cacher helping out with the odd maintenance here and there.

If the previous cacher who left a NM log (with 10k finds I'll add) was so offended or outraged by a full log, then perhaps they could have spared a page from their notebook like I just did.

No need for any action from the CO. The cache is in good shape with a fresh sheet alongside the old one. Time to clear that NM log! Many thanks for the cache."

I was not "offended or outraged by a full log", but that (slimy) log offended (and irked) me. They could have just replaced the log without the need to snipe.

They made several presumptions; that I had paper with me to replace the log - I didn't, and that all COs appreciate someone replacing their logs without checking first. I certainly don't want anyone to replace my cache logs without checking with me first. Log a NM please and I will attend to it.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+BethDaddyKaty 93]

Or just geocaching move on and stop relying on reviewers? They do an amazing job but in the end they are volunteers and can't possibly physically check or monitor every cache they review

 

If you look at most comparable sites they have some sort of "reputation" scheme, where experienced, highly rated members typically have eight times the weight of a new member. It amazes me on here that cachers with thousands of finds, many hides and favourite points have identical standing on a map with cachers who signed up yesterday. 

 

Having said that, I think hiding caches makes you better at finding caches, so I don't agree with the "you have to find x00 caches before you hide any" line.

[+niraD 2332]

17 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Or just geocaching move on and stop relying on reviewers? They do an amazing job but in the end they are volunteers and can't possibly physically check or monitor every cache they review

 

No one expects the volunteer reviewers to physically check the caches they publish. That is explicitly not part of the job.

 

And no one should expect the volunteer reviewers to monitor every cache that they review. That's what the NM and NA logs are for. Although I will admit that Groundspeak has muddled this with the CHS.

[+barefootjeff 2321]

2 hours ago, daddybeth said:

If you look at most comparable sites they have some sort of "reputation" scheme, where experienced, highly rated members typically have eight times the weight of a new member. It amazes me on here that cachers with thousands of finds, many hides and favourite points have identical standing on a map with cachers who signed up yesterday. 

 

From what I've seen, some of those cachers with thousands of finds are amongst the worst when it comes to not taking care when rehiding caches or dropping throwdowns if they can't find it in thirty seconds, or not maintaining their own hides for that matter. A few months back a group of highly experienced "thousands of finds" cachers came through here on a mission to do their umpteenth D/T grid loop and most of my hides they visited were left sitting out in the open. I cringe whenever I get logs from numbers cachers.

Edited December 28, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+cerberus1 2412]

4 hours ago, daddybeth said:

If you look at most comparable sites they have some sort of "reputation" scheme, where experienced, highly rated members typically have eight times the weight of a new member.

It amazes me on here that cachers with thousands of finds, many hides and favourite points have identical standing on a map with cachers who signed up yesterday. 

 

Curious where thousands of finds or hides means anything. 

Maybe it's because we've personally seen how those "highly-rated" cachers came by those found numbers.   

I just NA a cache that had a "highly rated" member with over 50,000 finds make a "find" on only a nano's cap and wire on a tree limb. 

If there's any of that "my numbers" carp spoken at events anymore, I leave. 

We know who the honest people are.  That's what matters to us.   

[+Goldenwattle 922]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Curious where thousands of finds or hides means anything. 

Maybe it's because we've personally seen how those "highly-rated" cachers came by those found numbers.   

I just NA a cache that had a "highly rated" member with over 50,000 finds make a "find" on only a nano's cap and wire on a tree limb. 

If there's any of that "my numbers" carp spoken at events anymore, I leave. 

We know who the honest people are.  That's what matters to us.   

There are dishonest geocachers at all levels. That doesn't take it away from the fact that finders who have found more caches are likely to be more experienced. I am finding beginners are the ones logging finds and not signing the log; rather than more experienced cachers. I have just removed the logs of six beginners for not signing the log ("I didn't know I had to sign the log." ), and I should have removed another.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff 2321]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

There are dishonest geocachers at all levels. That doesn't take it away from the fact that finders who have found more caches are likely to be more experienced. I am finding beginners are the ones logging finds and not signing the log; rather than more experienced cachers. I have just removed the logs of six beginners for not signing the log ("I didn't know I had to sign the log." ), and I should have removed another.

 

Back in 2013 when I was a newbie fresh off the boat from the lonely wind-swept streets of Muggledom, I was taken in by the helpful and patient local community as I slowly learnt the ropes. Yes, I knew from day one that I had to sign the logbook, but I DNFed a bison tube because I was expecting, well, something that looked like a bison's horn. One of the more prolific local hiders of bushland caches had to endure my many calls for help when I couldn't see the obvious (one of the photos I sent him after logging two DNFs clearly showed the cache sitting there smirking at me but he still went out and checked it just to be sure). In the end we all became great mates, something for which I'll always be grateful.

 

Move on nearly seven years and today I had the pleasure of meeting our newest local cacher, when he and another local cacher arrived as I was signing the log on a newly-published cache. We spent half an hour or more chatting in what became an impromptu mini-event. It was great to see his enthusiasm for the game and I hope he sticks with it and becomes a bit more adventurous in his caching (his highest T rating to date is a 2.5).

 

On the other side of the coin, about the only times I've had to call logs into question have been from cachers with more years in the game than me and/or more finds than me. I'm a very forgiving CO, especially if it's an honest mistake, and the log is usually let stand or voluntarily deleted by the logger; the only time I've had to delete a log myself was on my EC when someone didn't provide any answers and ignored my repeated requests for them.

 

Sure, I live in a small community that's probably a world away from the hustle and hassles of big city caching, and most of my hides are higher T bushland ones so I don't get the here-today-gone-tomorrow muggles-with-apps, but most of the time I find a helping hand works better than a slap on the wrist.

[+Goldenwattle 922]

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Back in 2013 when I was a newbie fresh off the boat from the lonely wind-swept streets of Muggledom, I was taken in by the helpful and patient local community as I slowly learnt the ropes. Yes, I knew from day one that I had to sign the logbook, but I DNFed a bison tube because I was expecting, well, something that looked like a bison's horn. One of the more prolific local hiders of bushland caches had to endure my many calls for help when I couldn't see the obvious (one of the photos I sent him after logging two DNFs clearly showed the cache sitting there smirking at me but he still went out and checked it just to be sure). In the end we all became great mates, something for which I'll always be grateful.

 

Move on nearly seven years and today I had the pleasure of meeting our newest local cacher, when he and another local cacher arrived as I was signing the log on a newly-published cache. We spent half an hour or more chatting in what became an impromptu mini-event. It was great to see his enthusiasm for the game and I hope he sticks with it and becomes a bit more adventurous in his caching (his highest T rating to date is a 2.5).

 

On the other side of the coin, about the only times I've had to call logs into question have been from cachers with more years in the game than me and/or more finds than me. I'm a very forgiving CO, especially if it's an honest mistake, and the log is usually let stand or voluntarily deleted by the logger; the only time I've had to delete a log myself was on my EC when someone didn't provide any answers and ignored my repeated requests for them.

 

Sure, I live in a small community that's probably a world away from the hustle and hassles of big city caching, and most of my hides are higher T bushland ones so I don't get the here-today-gone-tomorrow muggles-with-apps, but most of the time I find a helping hand works better than a slap on the wrist.

I sent messages to each of these cachers, as I am willing to accept photographic evidence and/or very good descriptions. Only one replied. I gave them about six weeks to get back to me. From memory their cache find numbers varied from two figures to three figures. It was about time they realised they needed to sign the cache. I suspect most of them didn't so much forget to find the cache, as they didn't find it.

[+on4bam 923]

22 hours ago, on4bam said:

OK, no cache replacement "tomorrow"

 

Cache replaced so all is well now

 

[+HunterandSamuel 175]

On 12/21/2019 at 5:17 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

Which brings me around to my irk... COs who use ziploc bags in leaky containers because they think it will protect the log. 

 

Off topic. I bought heavy duty 2" by 4" ziploc bags on amazon in bulk because I like protecting certain swag we leave in caches in case they leak, like my metal skeleton keys. I also place our logs in them, even the survivor caches we hide, for extra protection just in case. Plus it looks responsible. On the thruway we found a film canister cache that had a crack in the lid. It was a neat hiding spot and part of a series so we camoed taped the lid and placed it's log in a ziploc to keep dry, messaged the CO who was very grateful. 

[+HunterandSamuel 175]

On 12/21/2019 at 5:15 PM, colleda said:

I've often irked myself when I get back to my car/bike/kayak and find I still have the cache pen/pencil in my hand and then have traipse back to the cache to replace it. "Old Timer's" strikes again.

LOL Done that too. Especially irksome if it's raining. 

[+L0ne.R 1398]

On 12/29/2019 at 11:45 AM, HunterandSamuel said:

Off topic. I bought heavy duty 2" by 4" ziploc bags on amazon in bulk because I like protecting certain swag we leave in caches in case they leak, like my metal skeleton keys. I also place our logs in them, even the survivor caches we hide, for extra protection just in case. Plus it looks responsible. On the thruway we found a film canister cache that had a crack in the lid. It was a neat hiding spot and part of a series so we camoed taped the lid and placed it's log in a ziploc to keep dry, messaged the CO who was very grateful. 

 

I'm talking mostly about COs who start with a leaky container, like a food container and know that it will not keep the contents dry, so they put the log in a baggie and figure that will at least save the logsheet from getting wet. 4 months later, the logsheet is reported wet/moldy/unsignable. Baggies are OK for short term use, and could help if the CO gets to the cache quickly within a day or so after the container fails to keep out water. But most of us probably live in areas where COs expect a baggie to protect a sheet/book for months/years.

 

Here's what can happen when even a heavy duty freezer baggie is used that is too big and folding is required. This has happened to a few of my caches. I use authentic Lock & Locks which have kept contents dry for years, the baggie was not necessary, so I stopped using them. Then along comes someone who believes, like so many do, that a baggie is better then no baggie.

 

Here's what one of my authentic Lock & Locks looked like in the springtime after spending the winter with a heavy duty baggie "protecting" the contents, the baggie got caught in the seal. The logbook was soaked.

 

 

I know that finders are well-meaning when they put the contents in a baggie, but it irks me a little to find my cache in this shape. Not a big irk for me though, because it's the nature of the beast. Leaving things outdoors in all kinds of weather and with regular visitors, has its risks. If I had visited the cache in the early winter I might have been able to rescue it from this fate. It had 3 good years which I'm grateful for. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by L0ne.R
typo

[+cerberus1 2412]

2 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I know that finders are well-meaning when they put the contents in a baggie, but it irks me a little to find my cache in this shape.

When we put open, hvy. dty. freezer bags in our ammo cans, they're meant as dividers just to separate stuff, not to "waterproof" anything. 

Odds are we come back to find them all closed up.  Doesn't really hurt anything.

 - But when the other 2/3rds used lock n locks, there was always someone "helping" by adding a baggie not needed for it's spot.

[+Lillme 3]

So far, as a relatively new cacher, I only have two complaints Anachronisms in 'clues' that I just don't understand and can't even find when I google them. This week one clue read, "CITO or maybe CIPO" now anyone tell me what the hell that meant?

Then those cachers who can't be bothered to re-hide the cache as it was before they found it, I've seen that so often already. I only have seventeen of my own caches out, but I find weekly maintenance  runs an absolute necessity.  

Oh sorry, I just thought of another............."took TB to move on" then they don't get to log the fact, so it shows as still in the cache when it's not.

I only bought two TB's and already one has disappeared to who knows where, I won't bother with anymore.

[+Goldenwattle 922]

8 minutes ago, Lillme said:

Oh sorry, I just thought of another............."took TB to move on" then they don't get to log the fact, so it shows as still in the cache when it's not.

I only bought two TB's and already one has disappeared to who knows where, I won't bother with anymore.

If I know who has taken a TB and they haven't logged it, I will write on the log of the TB to let the owner know who has it. That allows the TB owner to contact the person with the TB, if they so choose.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe 68]

7 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

LOL Done that too. Especially irksome if it's raining. 

 

I can go one better.  Grabbed a bison tube and jumped in the car.  Wife fished out the log while I logged online.  Put the bison tube back together, re-hid and got ready to drive off.  Log roll was still in my wife's lap.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe 68]

26 minutes ago, Lillme said:

So far, as a relatively new cacher, I only have two complaints Anachronisms in 'clues' that I just don't understand and can't even find when I google them. This week one clue read, "CITO or maybe CIPO" now anyone tell me what the hell that meant?

Then those cachers who can't be bothered to re-hide the cache as it was before they found it, I've seen that so often already. I only have seventeen of my own caches out, but I find weekly maintenance  runs an absolute necessity.  

Oh sorry, I just thought of another............."took TB to move on" then they don't get to log the fact, so it shows as still in the cache when it's not.

I only bought two TB's and already one has disappeared to who knows where, I won't bother with anymore.

 

I was going to reply and say I thought that CITO was still a thing, but I don't see any reference at all to it on the Geocaching home page.   If it's there, it's buried pretty well.

 

[+colleda 600]

5 minutes ago, ParrotRobAndCeCe said:

 

I was going to reply and say I thought that CITO was still a thing, but I don't see any reference at all to it on the Geocaching home page.   If it's there, it's buried pretty well.

 

I believe there's a glossary of terms somewhere. Perhaps a kind person will post a link?

[+barefootjeff 2321]

46 minutes ago, colleda said:

I believe there's a glossary of terms somewhere. Perhaps a kind person will post a link?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx

 

In there, CITO is defined as:

 

Quote

"Cache In Trash Out" is an ongoing environmental initiative supported by the worldwide geocaching community. Since 2002, geocachers have been dedicated to cleaning up parks and other cache-friendly places around the world. Learn more at www.geocaching.com/cito.

 

CITO is also a type of event cache.

 

I have no idea what CIPO might be, but I suspect it might be something local to the cache's environment that starts with a "P" and should be taken out. Parrots? Possums? People? Pirates?

[+niraD 2332]

49 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I have no idea what CIPO might be, but I suspect it might be something local to the cache's environment that starts with a "P" and should be taken out. Parrots? Possums? People? Pirates?

Parbage? Precycling? Pompost?

[+barefootjeff 2321]

A two-word log on a 7-stage multi-cum-field-puzzle and they couldn't even spell either word correctly!

 

At least they did sign the logbook and put the cache back properly so I can't really complain too much, indeed I should be grateful they did it as it's the first find since October and only the 13th since I created it in May.

[+Goldenwattle 922]

25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

A two-word log on a 7-stage multi-cum-field-puzzle and they couldn't even spell either word correctly!

 

At least they did sign the logbook and put the cache back properly so I can't really complain too much, indeed I should be grateful they did it as it's the first find since October and only the 13th since I created it in May.

I suspect that's taken from a TV show. Which I didn't watch, but I have heard others making quotes from it.

[+barefootjeff 2321]

23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I suspect that's taken from a TV show. Which I didn't watch, but I have heard others making quotes from it.

 

Could be, but a Google search on the phrase doesn't yield much. About all I watch on TV these days is news and sport so any pop culture references will just go straight over my head.

[+kunarion 1880]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

A two-word log on a 7-stage multi-cum-field-puzzle and they couldn't even spell either word correctly!

 

At least they did sign the logbook and put the cache back properly so I can't really complain too much, indeed I should be grateful they did it as it's the first find since October and only the 13th since I created it in May.

 

It's not an uncommon catch phrase.  Here it is from Borat.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by kunarion

[+cerberus1 2412]

5 hours ago, ParrotRobAndCeCe said:

I was going to reply and say I thought that CITO was still a thing, but I don't see any reference at all to it on the Geocaching home page. 

 If it's there, it's buried pretty well.

 

It's still definitely a thing, offering souvenirs a few times a year on CITO events (for those that need an event to CITO...).  

 - But I sorta agree. 

We were surprised that there's no longer any mention in even Geocaching 101, where most start learning about the hobby.

You need to get into the Help Center,  enter the forums (and know it's in the events forum), or see mention in a blog to even know what it is.

When we started, CITO was an integral part of the hobby.  We received permissions because of it.  We CITO every day while out.

Don't know why it's taken a back-seat to find counts...

 

[+barefootjeff 2321]

49 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

It's not an uncommon catch phrase.  Here it is from Borat.

 

 

It's not even something I've seen promos for, let alone watched. Oh well. I assume they probably enjoyed the multi and it's not something I have to log an OM in response to.

[+Goldenwattle 922]

26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It's not even something I've seen promos for, let alone watched. Oh well. I assume they probably enjoyed the multi and it's not something I have to log an OM in response to.

That was not the source I was thinking of, as I have never watched Borat. Has it been on TV in Australia? I've never seen it.

[+barefootjeff 2321]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That was not the source I was thinking of, as I have never watched Borat. Has it been on TV in Australia? I've never seen it.

 

I was thinking more Kath and Kim (it took me all afternoon to remember their names) but that's another show I never watched. Anyway that was more noice than naice I think.

Edited December 30, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe 68]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

It's still definitely a thing, offering souvenirs a few times a year on CITO events (for those that need an event to CITO...).  

 - But I sorta agree. 

We were surprised that there's no longer any mention in even Geocaching 101, where most start learning about the hobby.

You need to get into the Help Center,  enter the forums (and know it's in the events forum), or see mention in a blog to even know what it is.

When we started, CITO was an integral part of the hobby.  We received permissions because of it.  We CITO every day while out.

Don't know why it's taken a back-seat to find counts...

 

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at.  I recently came back from an extended hiatus from the hobby, and it used to be much more heavily promoted.  CITO, that is.

[+Goldenwattle 922]

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I was thinking more Kath and Kim (it took me all afternoon to remember their names) but that's another show I never watched. Anyway that was I think.

Yes, that's the show I couldn't think of the name of, as I have never watched it. I believe you are correct; it's more noice than naice.

[+HunterandSamuel 175]

15 hours ago, ParrotRobAndCeCe said:

 

I can go one better.  Grabbed a bison tube and jumped in the car.  Wife fished out the log while I logged online.  Put the bison tube back together, re-hid and got ready to drive off.  Log roll was still in my wife's lap.

LOL You certainly went one better!

[+HunterandSamuel 175]

We have a cache hidden by a pond. After the snow melted last year, garbage was everywhere. Someone logged it and mentioned CITO was needed desperately. We went down to take a look, it was bad, the wind seemed to blow every piece of garbage in town to our cache site. Too much for us to pick up ourselves so we called the town's Public Works Dept and they cleaned it up nicely. It was directly across from a business, not good for customers to see either.

[+HunterandSamuel 175]

18 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Here's what one of my authentic Lock & Locks looked like in the springtime after spending the winter with a heavy duty baggie "protecting" the contents, the baggie got caught in the seal. The logbook was soaked.

Yikes. Good point about the baggie getting caught in the seal so please don't add a baggy to caches. We replaced a cheap torn baggy with a strong small Ziploc.