Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I think a DNF is enough to convince a cache ower to check on it. 

 

Most of the time when I log a DNF, I don't want the CO to check on it, I just want to record my inability to complete the find. My most recent DNFs were:

  • A coastal multi-stage EarthCache (GC8K5D1) where unexpectedly large seas prevented me from reaching several of the waypoints
  • A cache in amongst wetlands mangroves (GC8G5A7) where the swarms of mosquitoes were so thick on the day I attempted it that I had to abandon my search.
  • Three DNFs in a row on a D3.5 cache (GC8J4D2), but I knew it wasn't missing because other people were finding it. On my fourth attempt I found it too.
  • A 2.5/2.5 cache (GC6ZVE8) that I thought was on the other side of a creek that was a bit too slippery and deep for me to try crossing that day. When I went back for another attempt, it turned out my GPSr had been misleading me that day as I was on the right side of the creek after all.
  • A 1/1 traditional in central Sydney (GC8B1QV) that would've been an easy find except there were security guards and hi-viz workers clustered around GZ preparing for a fireworks display.

In none of those would there have been any point in the CO checking on it as there would have been nothing they could do to make the problem go away.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of the time when I log a DNF, I don't want the CO to check on it, I just want to record my inability to complete the find.

 

 

My point exactly. So a DNF doesn't mean maintenance is needed. 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


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

Whoosh. Does it matter? Did it go over your head? In this case it was a small child. I think a three year old. Are you satisfied now? 

 

How is the CO supposed to know that someone might bring a 3-year-old with them? Or a 5-year-old? Or a 15-year-old? Or their 85-year-old grandmother for that matter? It's the responsibility of the person visiting the cache to decide for themselves whether it's safe for them and their family because they're the only one who knows what their abilities are.

 

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Barefoot, I know you are trying to be the big guy representing all the regulars here and I really like your pictures of your bare feet, but geocaching isn't about just you adults. It's also about bringing families together and children learning about geocaching and the fun this treasure hunting brings. And during this time of the coronavirus and staying at home quarantine, it has become a great activity for families to do together. 

 

Huh? All I'm saying is that not all caches are family-friendly and there will be some, even many, that are not suitable for 3-year-olds, and it's the parent's responsibilty, not the CO's, to deal with that. The reason I'm piping up here is that most of my own caches are in relatively remote bushland and would be quite dangerous for 3-year-olds to be wandering around unsupervised, but I don't see a need to either archive them because they're not "contributing towards making this a family-friendly game" or put warnings in big letters on them saying DON'T BRING YOUR 3-YEAR-OLD CHILD!

 

If you want to take your 3-year-old along and let them wander around unsupervised, it's up to you to pick those caches where that will be safe. Look at the map, look at the description, look at the attributes. There are plenty of caches that are safe for your children, but there are also plenty of caches that aren't. It's your responsibilty to choose which is which, not the CO's.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

My point exactly. So a DNF doesn't mean maintenance is needed. 

 

So why did you just say "I think a DNF is enough to convince a cache ower to check on it"? You can't have it both ways.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here  said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

Look, I'm just trying to understand what the difference is between that cache near a railway line you're complaining about and my Great Train Heist cache which has three virtual waypoints on railway station platforms and a final that's three metres back from the edge of a 20-metre cliff. Am I responsible if someone ignores my "No Kids" and assorted hazard attributes and lets their 3-year-old fall under a train or off the cliff?

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2020 at 2:04 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

My irk is people thinking that geocaching is made for adult fun only.

 

Some geocachers do hide their caches for adults, and MOST of the geocachers I know ARE adults, who sometimes bring their kids and grandkids along for some fun hides.  I'm a grandparent who has taken grandkids on FTF hunts and hikes to find caches.  But I look at the area we are headed, read the description, and try to ensure it's a good one for kids to find, like GC89AF4.

 

Some caches are created with kids in mind, but I'd venture to say a majority of caches are not, and are created for the adults to find.  Then again, each locale is different, and some areas may be more "family-friendly" than others.  You need to be at least a teenager to have an account on your own.  And using a GPS/app to find a cache does take some level of maturity to understand.  Puzzles are sometimes complex and not written for children or even teens.  

 

I think it's great that you are making your caches with families in mind.  All you  can do is hope others follow your lead so more family type caches will be available.  In the end, it is up to the parent/grandparent/responsible adult to determine whether a cache or area is going to be family friendly.  Yes, geocaching CAN BE a great family activity, but I don't think it was developed as a family activity; it began as a more solitary, adult hobby.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

MOST of the geocachers I know ARE adults

I agree. Geocaching is mostly an adult game and when I meet geocachers at events and caches, it's extremely rare to have children present. That's why it irks me those up in the cloud-suggestions for playground caches (which should be banned), " Bring your children along with you." (I always imagine this sweet, naive, off with the fairies voice saying that. It's usually beginners who do.) Those starry eyed parents might be in a world of nappies and toddlers, but that's only a small time in most people's lives, so most geocachers don't have children of a suitable age readily available. I'm sure that many cachers' adult children would blend in just find, if they can make the trip there from whatever part of the world they live in now. I suppose those without children of the suitable age could nab some for their next playground visit (definitely a joke!).

As a female I feel very uncomfortable visiting playgrounds to find a cache ("Mummy, what's she doing there?"), so imagine how much worse this is for males. Males around playgrounds look very suspect. So please, starry-eyed new parents, don't presume most geocachers have children of the right age they can bring to cover their visit to playgrounds and write naive things like, "Bring your children along with you." Those suggestions irk me and many others, especially I imagine, males. Geocachers, from my experience of events and meeting others on the trail, are mostly adults.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

There be trolls under these bridges!

Is that directed at me?

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Is that directed at me?

 

No, not at all.

It was a cross-thread, cross-topic comment, not directed at you.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I think a DNF is enough to convince a cache ower to check on it. 

 

The powers that be clearly see the value in a 'Cache might be missing' NM log.

Capture.JPG.d20c5c288506396eb157f33897a22f71.JPG

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here  said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

How about a cache near a pond, say?  Should that include a warning?

 

Capture.thumb.JPG.91caf5c4f458f98af7d00f7342fcd13c.JPG

 

Sure I'd be disappointed to see a cliff edge cache marked as 'child friendly' - or any other misleading d/t rating or attributes - but otherwise caveat emptor.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

The powers that be clearly see the value in a 'Cache might be missing' NM log.

Capture.JPG.d20c5c288506396eb157f33897a22f71.JPG

That is only for a DNF, as obviously you can't comment on the actual cache condition, because the cache hasn't been sighted. Other options are available when a find is logged, but found it needs maintenance, rather than missing.

Logbook is full.jpg

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Barefoot, I know you are trying to be the big guy representing all the regulars here and I really like your pictures of your bare feet, but geocaching isn't about just you adults. It's also about bringing families together and children learning about geocaching and the fun this treasure hunting brings. And during this time of the coronavirus and staying at home quarantine, it has become a great activity for families to do together. 

 

You've been promoting family friendly geocaching for weeks and I don't recall anyone geocache is *only* for adults.  Nobody is denying that geocaching is a great activity for families.  What I, and many others have said, is that not every single cache placed must be family friendly.   Geocaching is for families *AND* for those that enjoy a difficulty and possibly risky challenge.   Based on my 13 years playing I would say that a very high percentage of caches *are* family friendly, but there are some that are not for those that enjoy that sort of thing.  What I don't understand is why you think other people (cache hiders) should be responsible for the safely of other peoples children.   They're your children.   You should be the one that decides whether it's safe for them to be near railroad tracks, whether there is a cache nearby or not. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oxford Stone Junior finished his DT grid before his 10th birthday, and learned along the way when and where you might get muddy or scratched, trip over a tree root, bang into a low branch**, fall into water, need to look out for traffic* - all a great education. I can think of a few caches I've done that OSJ would not have been able to do, but only a handful.

*you could be gathering numbers for a 1/1 multi in an unfamiliar town and wander across a street not realising motor vehicles use it, and be in much more danger than abseiling down a cliff. Got to agree with BFJ, it's up to all the cachers including the children, to learn to be safe. 

**by far my worst GRIs (geocaching-related injuries) have been from standing up from a squatting position logging a cache at base of tree and headbutting low branches. Oh Ok and there were the cracked ribs from falling onto a gate (long story...) (no, the cache page didn't warn me that this might happen)

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

If railroad tracks are not sufficient to warn a parent about possible danger then nothing a cache owner does will be.

The fact that geocaching accommodates all ages and parents have the ability and the responsibility to assure their own child's safety while geocaching (and anything else) has been explained over and over ad nauseam. 

 

We can explain it to you. But we cant understand it for you.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

If railroad tracks are not sufficient to warn a parent about possible danger then nothing a cache owner does will be

 

And that's how we got all those warning labels on stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

I was referring to another case here on this forum where a cache hide was near a railroad track but there was no warning to the parent who brought their children there to find the cache. People here  said that it's up to the parents to see that's it's not a safe place. I disagree. It's up to the cache owner hiding a cache in a dangerous place to say it's not child friendly. 

 

Based on the way you worded this reply, it appears that you mean to imply that only the CO is responsible for determining the safety of a child when going after a cache. So you're implying that you're abdicating your parenting duties on the hopes that the child friendly cache attribute is marked and it's accurate.  Just because something is marked as child friendly doesn't mean that it's safe for every child.  An LPC is probably safe for children but what if there's a poisonous snake sunning on it?  Are you still willing to let your child go near the cache because it's marked as child friendly? Of course not.  You don't abdicate your parental responsibilities just because a cache is marked as child friendly.  You still need to weigh the inherent risks involved before making a determination.   All of us parents (and I'm lumping you in there as well) don't solely rely on the information provided by the CO when determining whether or not a cache is actually safe for children.  We use the information that the CO provides (but technically isn't required to provide) as well as our own knowledge of our children's limits and knowledge in order to keep them safe when geocaching (or any other activity for that matter).  It's not, and never should be, the sole responsibility of a CO to determine if a place is child friendly or not.  If you believe that, then you've chosen to give up your parental duties and place them in the hands of a cache owner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

 

Whoosh. Does it matter? Did it go over your head? In this case it was a small child. I think a three year old. Are you satisfied now? 

 

What's dangerous for one child isn't necessarily dangerous for another child.  Children learn from parents, peers, teachers, friends about what constitutes safe actions vs what constitutes unsafe actions and they learn those things at different ages.  They don't learn it from osmosis, so your point about a child's age not mattering is also not a valid point.  Let's use your railroad example.  Let's say the child caching with you is 15.  By this time, there's a strong likelihood that they realize trains will either severely injure you or kill you if you get too close to them due to their weight, being told by parents and peers, seeing movies/videos, etc...  Now let's look at the 3 year old.  Their exposure to trains is probably limited to Thomas the Train or The Little Engine That Could.  They see familiar faces and trains that talk, are friendly, and are things that have feelings and the ability to do things that people do.  They're not things to be cautious about because they haven't learned that yet.  They see them as things that they can interact with.  The "choo choo" is a friend, not a 300,000 pound engine that can't stop in time to avoid hitting, maiming, crushing, or killing a toddler that doesn't know any better.

 

The same goes for caches near ponds, which was another point brought up.  At some point, the dangers of drowning are learned by a child.  Until that point is learned though, we do what we can to keep them safe.  We have kiddie pools (where drowning can still occur) that are shallow and make sure to watch them.  We provide PFDs.  We teach them how to swim.  There's no specific age for every child where they learn the potential hazards of water.  So let's look at the 15 year old at a cache near a pond.  They see water and they realize that it's something that has the potential to kill them but have learned how to swim, whether or not the body of water is safe to swim in, whether or not there could be potentially dangerous things in the pond (alligators, red tides, jellyfish) and what to look for to determine that, and various other things that they may have learned in order to keep themselves safe.  A 3 year old sees a body of water and associates it with a kiddie pool, even though it may have current, is considerably deeper than the kiddie pool, and may have dangerous animals in or around it.  They haven't learned all the coping mechanisms that the 15 year old has learned so they don't understand the inherent danger like the 15 year old does.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I think a DNF is enough to convince a cache ower to check on it. 

 

A single DNF?  Does that apply across the board for EVERY cache out there?  If you owned a 5D cache, then would you be convinced it wasn't there based on a single DNF and go check on it?  Would you go check on it if it were a tree climb that the DNF said they saw the cache but opted not to climb the tree to sign the log?  Why would you go check on it if the DNF saw it?  I fully understand for some caches that a single DNF might be convincing enough to go check on it but nor for lots of other ones.  The implication of this is that every time someone logs a DNF (regardless of the reason), it's the responsibility of the CO to go check on it to make sure it's OK.  That's not something I want GS to make us do, nor is it something that they actually tell us to do and it's also not something I want to do.  I'll be happy to check on a cache if I think the DNF log tells me something that hints at the possibility that the cache might be missing but I'm not going to go check out every single DNF that comes my way.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2020 at 9:47 AM, Oxford Stone said:

Oxford Stone Junior finished his DT grid before his 10th birthday, and learned along the way when and where you might get muddy or scratched, trip over a tree root, bang into a low branch**, fall into water, need to look out for traffic* - all a great education. I can think of a few caches I've done that OSJ would not have been able to do, but only a handful.

*you could be gathering numbers for a 1/1 multi in an unfamiliar town and wander across a street not realising motor vehicles use it, and be in much more danger than abseiling down a cliff. Got to agree with BFJ, it's up to all the cachers including the children, to learn to be safe. 

**by far my worst GRIs (geocaching-related injuries) have been from standing up from a squatting position logging a cache at base of tree and headbutting low branches. Oh Ok and there were the cracked ribs from falling onto a gate (long story...) (no, the cache page didn't warn me that this might happen)

 

I stood up from a cache under a life-sized hollow bronze moose statue in an office building parking lot in Freeport, Maine.

 

They said you could hear the BONG! from my head hitting the moose's, um, 'undercarriage' as far away as eastern New Hampshire.

 

That was years ago, and my kids are still cracking up over that one.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Just because something is marked as child friendly doesn't mean that it's safe for every child.

 

Exactly. I've set the "recommended for kids" attribute on three of my hides because I thought school-aged children might enjoy them, but that doesn't mean they're safe for a 3-year-old to go wandering around unsupervised. One of them is an EarthCache on the rock shelves at the end of the beach and is an interesting place for school-aged kids to explore, and plenty of the local kids do, but only at low tide and when the seas are fairly calm. It's not even a safe place for adults to play when big waves are crashing over the rocks. The other two are fairly easy terrain-2 walks but are in places where snakes could be lurking so parents still need to remain watchful.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a 65+ year old adult that never had kids - am I the best one to decide if one of my caches is kid friendly?  I've worked with our church's teenage programs, so I know that age but have no experience with younger than that.  So, do you want to trust my judgement or your own for your young kids?

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

CrocodilePond.jpg.b9811dbd417fd0dd60c345de9250291c.jpg

 

Yep.

 

:antenna: Yes, there are places in northern Australia where a croc attribute would be appropriate, but I checked, and there isn't one available.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

A single DNF?

I checked a cache recently for a single DNF, but only because I was cycling past it and the person who DNFed it was an experienced cacher with several thousand finds. If it had been a less experienced cacher, I might not have checked it with only one DNF. The cache was still there. There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

and my kids are still cracking up over that one.

As was your head...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

I'm pretty serious about maintenance, but I'm not inclined to go for a 50km drive (I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to yet) to check on my multi that was recently DNFed by a newbie who was searching for the cache at the listed coordinates. What matters is not the DNF itself but its context.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance.

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF. There is nothing wrong with a CO checking when there hasn't been a DNF.

 

The issue is when someone states that other cache owners should be expected to do likewise.

Share this post


Link to post

I was pleased to see this "Do you guys want a fun geocache to find this memorial day weekend? Find this one. I guarantee you, you won’t be disappointed…" posted to a statewide Facebook group. What irked me was the same geocacher then posted full on video spoilers to Tiktok. 😡 Why bother to spend hours building field puzzles?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JustFindingOurWay said:

I was pleased to see this "Do you guys want a fun geocache to find this memorial day weekend? Find this one. I guarantee you, you won’t be disappointed…" posted to a statewide Facebook group. What irked me was the same geocacher then posted full on video spoilers to Tiktok. 😡 Why bother to spend hours building field puzzles?

 

Did you tell him?

Anonymously, of course, keeping your GC ID hidden.

Share this post


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

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

These types of statements (italicized) need some sort of context because it seems to me that you're saying that a CO who goes out and checks up after each DNF is serious about maintenance (and therefore a better CO) than those that don't do it that way. They're not as serious about maintenance (and are therefore worse COs) and are willing to let DNFs sometimes stand and collect as a matter of record about the seekers' inability to find it, not as a notion that automatically means something is wrong with the cache because it wasn't found.  I don't know if that was your intent or not but that's how it reads.

 

I'm not going to run out every time someone files a DNF on one of my caches unless there's something mentioned in the log that hints at a possible issue with the cache.  You don't provide any leeway with a statement like this because there's absolutely no context - nothing about the cache being a 1.5/1.5 vs. a 4.5/1.5, nothing about information in the log that says they saw the cache but couldn't get to it to sign the log or that they didn't even get to GZ because they were on the wrong side of an impassable natural feature, nothing about it being a CO who has a track record of ignoring their caches - that provides qualifiers.  You've lumped every CO who doesn't go check on their cache after a single DNF into the same category.

 

I have no issue with those COs who choose to go check on their cache after a single DNF but I do have issue with you implying that those who don't do it that way are less serious and somehow worse COs because they don't go check on it after each DNF.

Edited by coachstahly
clarification
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


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

 

These types of statements (italicized) need some sort of context because it seems to me that you're saying that a CO who goes out and checks up after each DNF is serious about maintenance (and therefore a better CO) than those that don't do it that way. They're not as serious about maintenance (and are therefore worse COs) and are willing to let DNFs sometimes stand and collect as a matter of record about the seekers' inability to find it, not as a notion that automatically means something is wrong with the cache because it wasn't found.  I don't know if that was your intent or not but that's how it reads.

 

I'm not going to run out every time someone files a DNF on one of my caches unless there's something mentioned in the log that hints at a possible issue with the cache.  You don't provide any leeway with a statement like this because there's absolutely no context - nothing about the cache being a 1.5/1.5 vs. a 4.5/1.5, nothing about information in the log that says they saw the cache but couldn't get to it to sign the log or that they didn't even get to GZ because they were on the wrong side of an impassable natural feature, nothing about it being a CO who has a track record of ignoring their caches - that provides qualifiers.  You've lumped every CO who doesn't go check on their cache after a single DNF into the same category.

 

I have no issue with those COs who choose to go check on their cache after a single DNF but I do have issue with you implying that those who don't do it that way are less serious and somehow worse COs because they don't go check on it after each DNF.

On 5/23/2020 at 1:32 AM, coachstahly said:

A single DNF?

My full answer, not only the bit you picked out, to put this in context: I checked a cache recently for a single DNF, but only because I was cycling past it and the person who DNFed it was an experienced cacher with several thousand finds. If it had been a less experienced cacher, I might not have checked it with only one DNF. The cache was still there. There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

A quick search got the above complete answer to this; not the bit you chose, out of context, to highlight. My answer was a chatty one, giving an example of checking after one DNF. I believe this is up to the individual CO to consider what to do about this, and if they chose to check after a single DNF...it's as I wrote. Nothing weird about it, and I would prefer a CO to check more often than ignore DNFs. Personally I wouldn't normally check after one DNF, but maybe after a couple of DNFs on not hard finds by experienced cachers. As can be read above I only did check in that example, because I was passing (so no great effort) and the person who DNFed it was very experience, not a beginner. I don't see why my example needed to be questioned.

 

In summary, I was riding past, I remembered a DNF from an experienced cacher, so took a quick stop and checked. I didn't need to go out of my way to do this. What do you find strange enough about that to question?

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I checked a cache recently for a single DNF, but only because I was cycling past it and the person who DNFed it was an experienced cacher with several thousand finds. If it had been a less experienced cacher, I might not have checked it with only one DNF. The cache was still there.

 

This is a personal example of what you're talking about regarding checking on a cache with a single DNF.  No problem with this at all.  You provided a specific example that I fully understand and would probably do if I were in a similar situation.

 

23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

This is no longer about a single cache and instead moves to a generalization about COs, NOT about your personal experience you just related.  You even admit to such in your most recent reply.

 

29 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I believe this is up to the individual CO to consider what to do about this, and if they chose to check after a single DNF...it's as I wrote.

 

Sure.  I have no problem with this at all.

 

30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

Here's where the personal judgment comes in that needs some context, at least how it's written.  By saying that checking on a cache after a single DNF is better than letting DNFs pile up, without any context as to why those DNFs might be piling up, it implies that multiple DNFs shouldn't be allowed to accrue because they somehow mean something is wrong with the cache.  Of course it's better to check on a cache than NOT to check on a cache but those of us who choose to allow DNFs to "pile up" do so on some of our caches because there's nothing in any of those logs that indicates there's an issue with the cache.  Why is that worse than someone going to check on a cache after a single DNF?  

 

I have a higher rated D/T cache that's got 4 straight DNFs and 5 of the last 6 are DNFs.  I know how it's hidden, I know that it's virtually impossible to accidentally dislodge it, and I know that there's no way a muggle is going to accidentally discover it and take it.  I did my first maintenance check on it in 2 years and it was right where I placed it.  Does that make me a worse CO than a CO who chooses to go check on a cache that happens to have a single DNF because I let them pile up?  Or do you mean that is worse to let DNFs pile up than it is to check on a cache after a single DNF?  Either way, you're implying that multiple DNFs are somehow bad, even though some caches aren't created to be found regularly.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

This is a personal example of what you're talking about regarding checking on a cache with a single DNF.  No problem with this at all.  You provided a specific example that I fully understand and would probably do if I were in a similar situation.

 

 

This is no longer about a single cache and instead moves to a generalization about COs, NOT about your personal experience you just related.  You even admit to such in your most recent reply.

 

 

Sure.  I have no problem with this at all.

 

 

Here's where the personal judgment comes in that needs some context, at least how it's written.  By saying that checking on a cache after a single DNF is better than letting DNFs pile up, without any context as to why those DNFs might be piling up, it implies that multiple DNFs shouldn't be allowed to accrue because they somehow mean something is wrong with the cache.  Of course it's better to check on a cache than NOT to check on a cache but those of us who choose to allow DNFs to "pile up" do so on some of our caches because there's nothing in any of those logs that indicates there's an issue with the cache.  Why is that worse than someone going to check on a cache after a single DNF?  

 

I have a higher rated D/T cache that's got 4 straight DNFs and 5 of the last 6 are DNFs.  I know how it's hidden, I know that it's virtually impossible to accidentally dislodge it, and I know that there's no way a muggle is going to accidentally discover it and take it.  I did my first maintenance check on it in 2 years and it was right where I placed it.  Does that make me a worse CO than a CO who chooses to go check on a cache that happens to have a single DNF because I let them pile up?  Or do you mean that is worse to let DNFs pile up than it is to check on a cache after a single DNF?  Either way, you're implying that multiple DNFs are somehow bad, even though some caches aren't created to be found regularly.

I repeat what I wrote, " I believe this is up to the individual CO to consider what to do about this, and if they chose to check after a single DNF...it's as I wrote. Nothing weird about it, and I would prefer a CO to check more often than ignore DNFs. Personally I wouldn't normally check after one DNF, but maybe after a couple of DNFs on not hard finds by experienced cachers. As can be read above I only did check in that example, because I was passing (so no great effort) and the person who DNFed it was very experience, not a beginner. I don't see why my example needed to be questioned."

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/23/2020 at 11:25 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't see why my example needed to be questioned.

 

I've already said I'm not questioning your example.  It was never about your specific example.  I'm perfectly fine with you checking on a cache of yours after a single DNF because you happened to be right there.  I would probably do the same (and pretty sure I have).  

 

My point was the meaning behind your generalized statement at the end.  Those last two sentences aren't specifically about you and your example anymore.

 

On 5/22/2020 at 9:02 PM, Goldenwattle said:

There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them and shows they are serious about maintenance. Better than those who let the DNFs pile up.

 

Them, they, and those refer to someone other than you (which is why it was never about your specific example).  You're applying your own judgment/values/beliefs to a greater audience than yourself now and that two word "better than" has two basic implications when combined with "those who let the DNFs pile up."  

 

1.  Is the CO who checks on their cache after a single DNF better than the CO who lets their DNFs pile up?

 

2. Is it better to check on a cache after a single DNF than it is to let DNFs pile up?

 

I understood it to mean what #1 means, not #2.

Share this post


Link to post

My newest gripe is the new cachers that never rehide the cache properly. Despite clearly saying, "please replace as found" in the description, invariably containers are left in the open, leaving them vulnerable to muggles, the weather and spoiling the challenge or surprise for the next player.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, G0ldNugget said:

Despite clearly saying, "please replace as found" in the description, invariably containers are left in the open, leaving them vulnerable to muggles, the weather and spoiling the challenge or surprise for the next player.

 

That phrase works just as you told. If it is open when I find it, I will leave it open as requested. :)

It is better to tell how the container is supposed to replace.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, G0ldNugget said:

My newest gripe is the new cachers that never rehide the cache properly. Despite clearly saying, "please replace as found" in the description, invariably containers are left in the open, leaving them vulnerable to muggles, the weather and spoiling the challenge or surprise for the next player.

If I see this on a cache page, I'll put the cache back exactly where I found it. Which might not be where you placed it or want it. 

Edit: I just remembered that the last time this happened the geocacher who found the cache after me put on her log that the cache was not replaced where it's supposed to be. 

I messaged her and explained that I 

did exactly what the cache owner asked me to do.

Recently I saw a great description of how the cache should be replaced, so even if we found it elsewhere, we know where to put it after we sign the log. 

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

That phrase works just as you told. If it is open when I find it, I will leave it open as requested. :)

Yep.

We've done similar, where we knew that a cache wasn't supposed to be where we found it.

... But because the CO just had to give more directions, did as told.

Left a  message, " odd place for a cache, went by CO's request, may need maintenance..." in with my Found It. 

 

Remembered a thread where it was maybe 50/50 whether folks even read cache pages anymore.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

It is better to tell how the container is supposed to replace.

I've seen caches with instructions for replacing the cache correctly inside the cache itself. Once you've found it, the instructions aren't a spoiler. And it avoids questions about whether it was in the correct location when you found it.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, niraD said:

I've seen caches with instructions for replacing the cache correctly inside the cache itself. Once you've found it, the instructions aren't a spoiler. And it avoids questions about whether it was in the correct location when you found it.

 

I placed a large laminated card with illustrated instructions under one of mine in a desperate attempt to try to get people to put it back in a manner that doesn't crush the container, but it hasn't worked.

 

image.png.7a00d6f70a64c45d846d75372b0f1e21.png

 

With many of my hides, I'm more likely to go out and check after a find than I am after a DNF, just to make sure it's been put back properly. If someone didn't find the cache, they can't have not rehidden it properly.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You're applying your own judgment/values/beliefs to a greater audience than yourself now

Perhaps I am.

"There is nothing wrong with a CO checking after each DNF, as that's up to them". Yes, it's up to the greater audience, not me, and I have nothing against them doing so..

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Remembered a thread where it was maybe 50/50 whether folks even read cache pages anymore.

I rarely read the cache description when in the field, unless having trouble finding the cache; then I read description and previous logs. I do read the hint though. Later when logging the find on my computer, if the description looks interesting, I might read it then. A bigger screen is better and more enjoyable to read this on, than on a tiny Garmin etrex30 screen.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I rarely read the cache description when in the field, unless having trouble finding the cache; then I read description and previous logs. I do read the hint though. Later when logging the find on my computer, if the description looks interesting, I might read it then. A bigger screen is better and more enjoyable to read this on, than on a tiny Garmin etrex30 screen.

 

A fair few of the DNFs I get are because people haven't read the description before heading out in search of the cache. They get caught out by things like not realising there's no mobile reception anywhere near GZ, or taking the route I warned against which puts an impassible cliff between them and the cache, or not having a torch when the description and attributes say one's needed. Sometimes the background image contains a helpful hint. Or in the case of the most recent DNF I received, not realising it was a multi and that they need to answer questions at the waypoints to work out where the cache is. There have also been a couple of occasions when I've had to move a waypoint because of muggling but people have been caught out months later using old data they've loaded off-line.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/18/2020 at 3:33 PM, HunterandSamuel said:

 

I give my search of a geocache about 20 minutes but usually go beyond that because of my competitive nature. I try to not give a DNF and love revisiting to avenge it. The love of the game!

I commend you for persevering.  I'm not that driven (in geocaching).  Five minutes tops for me, then to greener ground zeroes.  I've said before, I don't like looking for geocaches.  I like finding them.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I rarely read the cache description when in the field, unless having trouble finding the cache; then I read description and previous logs.

I do read the hint though. Later when logging the find on my computer, if the description looks interesting, I might read it then.

A bigger screen is better and more enjoyable to read this on, than on a tiny Garmin etrex30 screen.

 

On low D/T traditionals, we rarely see reason to read the description.  The other 2/3rds though uses a phone, so can in a pinch.    :)

One thing that used to bug her was what amounted to short stories in the descriptions, to find the container/ location  not even matching.

Get enough, and you kinda tune that CO out...

-  But doing single caches mostly, and picking caches I'll do,  when solo I need to read everything.  (Being a dyslexic old fart doesn't help... :-).   :D

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51

×
×
  • Create New...