Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I was once asked for proof, and I supplied it. It didn't offend me at all. I had found the cache and signed the log, so I was able to describe the cache and hide in detail. I even described where I parked and the ground surface. That was accepted. The log was a messy lots of scraps of paper, which is why the CO no doubt couldn't find my signature. I was impressed that the CO was doing their job.

 

I'd have thought if the CO was doing their job, the log wouldn't have degenerated into "messy lots of scraps of paper".

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'd have thought if the CO was doing their job, the log wouldn't have degenerated into "messy lots of scraps of paper".

True, but at least the log was still dry :).

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/24/2020 at 3:15 AM, dennistubaplayer said:

I hate it when people do only smartphone coordinates or GPS coordinates. It drives me bonkers trying to convert coordinates to diffrent formats- It's a very hard process. Does anyone agree?

 

Converting between coordinates is pretty simple, and only needs a little thought and a calculator.... I used this exact thing as a maths lesson for my 11yo son last week.....

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, lee737 said:

Converting between coordinates is pretty simple, and only needs a little thought and a calculator.... I used this exact thing as a maths lesson for my 11yo son last week.....

Even a calculator isn't needed, every GPSr I've owned would do the conversion for me.  I've had an app on my android device that would do the conversion (heck, years ago I had one on the PDA!).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

every GPSr I've owned would do the conversion for me.

A lot more mucking about than just a simple operation with a calculator IME....

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, lee737 said:

A lot more mucking about than just a simple operation with a calculator IME....

Takes 15 seconds on my OR700 (and OR600/CO300 before that)

Settings > Position format > hddd.mm.mmmm > hdd mm ss.ss.   and back afterwards.

On my tablet with GCC Coordinates > Converter Select type, enter coordinates, Select to format...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Calculator -

.mmmm * 60 =

Calculator:

.mmmm

Enter

60

×

 

(Since we're in the "irks" thread...)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

:D
My calcs (or should I say calc apps now - thats an irk too) are RPN too.... I was just keeping my point more relatable to the non-nerd.... 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, on4bam said:

Takes 15 seconds on my OR700 (and OR600/CO300 before that)

Settings > Position format > hddd.mm.mmmm > hdd mm ss.ss.   and back afterwards.

On my tablet with GCC Coordinates > Converter Select type, enter coordinates, Select to format...

I think the point is not which method of conversion is a few seconds faster than the other. It's to know what any conversion tools are actually doing. You can geocache quite fine without ever realizing that one degree consists of 60 minutes, each of which has 60 seconds. But I admit that it irks me every time, when I see an experienced(!) geocacher call the fractional minutes "seconds". Also, you can't imagine what a fuss was made in a big German geocaching FB group, when Garmin extended the dd°mm.mmm to 4 fractional digits for the minutes. Instead of shrugging it off and either ignoring the last digit (a consumer GPS is not that exact anyway) or setting it explicitly to 0 when entering coordinates, some people really didn't know what to do. You don't have to be a math genius to know that you can always pad a decimal number with trailing zeroes after the decimal point (or comma ;) ).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/26/2020 at 2:48 AM, lee737 said:

A lot more mucking about than just a simple operation with a calculator IME....

Until you deal with UTM...

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Until you deal with UTM...

yep, geocaching toolbox for that....

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, lee737 said:

yep, geocaching toolbox for that....

 

Or again, just about any GPS ;). UTM, RD, Lambert are formats we come across every now and then (as are DD.ddddd, DD MM.mmm, DD MM SS.ss.....)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

People making up ways to write coordinates. I just prepared a multi for the weekend and found that every station has the coordinates written as

N 55.34.123. - E 006.34.123.

Argh!
Considering these are all coordinates where I have to solve a puzzle to get the complete coords it's a massive headache to edit this on a phone to get usable coords. Glad I edited it beforehand.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, terratin said:

N 55.34.123. - E 006.34.123.

 

This is a symptom of a broader irk: people who are poor about attention to detail wandering into hobbies - or professions - where attention to detail is paramount.  They should maybe be artists instead...

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

This is a symptom of a broader irk: people who are poor about attention to detail wandering into hobbies - or professions - where attention to detail is paramount.  They should maybe be artists instead...

 

Well, it's certainly a very creative way to write coords.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, terratin said:

 

Well, it's certainly a very creative way to write coords.

 

Or, it's a slightly trickier puzzle.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Potentially a way to thwart copy/paste, or auto-formatting (like phone numbers are sometimes force-edited to dial links, Cachly converts detected coordinates to a link as well in many places). But I agree I find non-standard/awkwardly written coordinates a pain =P

Share this post


Link to post

Condoms, tampons and toothbrushes, in this case all in the same cache.  Maybe this was a boy scout cache, you know, be prepared?

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dealfarms1 said:

Condoms, tampons and toothbrushes, in this case all in the same cache.  Maybe this was a boy scout cache, you know, be prepared?

If they are open, they are trash.  If closed/sealed, what's the problem?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, The Jester said:

If they are open, they are trash.  If closed/sealed, what's the problem?

Would you trust that personal products like that had remained sealed and hygienic when stored in a geocache for who knows how long? And that they hadn't been tampered with?

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

If they are open, they are trash.  If closed/sealed, what's the problem?

Would you trust that personal products like that had remained sealed and hygienic when stored in a geocache for who knows how long? And that they hadn't been tampered with?

Just like closed food/candy packages. Still don't really trust if they're unopened (and should still be removed anyway).

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dealfarms1 said:

Condoms, tampons and toothbrushes, in this case all in the same cache.  Maybe this was a boy scout cache, you know, be prepared?

 

Can't tell who's serious or not in replies, but when we had caches on the AT, thru-hikers would stop for (requested in email) supplies.  :)

 - Covered what you saw and then some.   TP was a godsend to most too.  :D

Odd that not one cacher was ever concerned about what they found inside to mention it in logs. 

Maybe if we left the propane/butane cans in the caches instead of a few feet away...

Share this post


Link to post

Tall people, when they say something is easy, and don't appear to acknowledge that not everyone shares their world view on this.

I DNFed a cache, which although I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low. The next finder came along and said, "Despite the last log," it was easy to reach and the terrain rating is fine. It they could reach it without difficulty and found it easy, they must be much taller than my average female height. I didn't have a hope of reaching it without a ladder. My legs are not long enough. Likely they are also younger than me. It wasn't that they are very likely tall that they found it easy (fair enough); it was the condescending way the log sounded, and they referred to my log. It felt personal.

 

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

 

Ratings should be based on the average geocacher, and consider height, age, physical strength, etc. but I don't think that because females are shorter than males on average that ratings should be based upon female averages.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

 

Would that be in "world-wide" height ?   An average for each country ?  

World-wide height used to be 5'6" for men, 5'2" for women, but North American average height for men is 5'9", and 5'4" in women.

I believe that makes us only the 40th tallest country.  So I'd say there is no "average" height for everyone, everywhere.  ;)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Tall people, when they say something is easy, and don't appear to acknowledge that not everyone shares their world view on this.

I DNFed a cache, which although I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low. The next finder came along and said, "Despite the last log," it was easy to reach and the terrain rating is fine. It they could reach it without difficulty and found it easy, they must be much taller than my average female height. I didn't have a hope of reaching it without a ladder. My legs are not long enough. Likely they are also younger than me. It wasn't that they are very likely tall that they found it easy (fair enough); it was the condescending way the log sounded, and they referred to my log. It felt personal.

 

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

Don't take it personally. I can't believe someone tall would seriously be condescending towards someone not as tall, so I suggest you take it as a joke, since that's almost certainly what it was.

 

You're input on the terrain rating on this cache seems valid, and you expressed that observation in your log. I certainly encourage you to keep making this point to COs, and feel free to talk to them in more detail. And you brought it up here. I think you've done what you can. Please try not to be irked.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low.

I would disagree there - I think if it can be reached standing on the ground by anyone, the terrain component of the tree itself is barely worth adding to the terrain of the trek to get to the tree....

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Tall people, when they say something is easy, and don't appear to acknowledge that not everyone shares their world view on this.

I DNFed a cache, which although I saw it up a tree, I couldn't reach it, and wrote that, and also that I thought 2.5T was too low. The next finder came along and said, "Despite the last log," it was easy to reach and the terrain rating is fine. It they could reach it without difficulty and found it easy, they must be much taller than my average female height. I didn't have a hope of reaching it without a ladder. My legs are not long enough. Likely they are also younger than me. It wasn't that they are very likely tall that they found it easy (fair enough); it was the condescending way the log sounded, and they referred to my log. It felt personal.

 

I thinking ratings should be made on the basis of average height (even better, average female height, because a high number of females are shorter than average person height).

 

Most of my caches are low to the ground and some are in fairly tight places, so small people will likely have an advantage over larger ones, or at least won't bang their head on the overhanging rock as often. As for climbing caches, either in trees or on rocks, I've DNFed caches that I've seen others scramble up to get without a moment's thought. With my wonky sense of balance, I won't climb more than a metre or two unless there's something I can hold onto, but I don't expect COs to take that into account when rating their hides.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of my caches are low to the ground and some are in fairly tight places, so small people will likely have an advantage over larger ones, or at least won't bang their head on the overhanging rock as often.

 

This is an example of what I mean. It's rated T5 as it has boat-access waypoints but in the description I say that access to the cache itself is about T2.5. I'm of average height and build for an Aussie male but even though I'm the CO and have been there numerous times, I still banged my head on the roof while taking this photo:

 

Crawlspace.jpg.19b2a4133eb38ce5c87b5e2c2450ca08.jpg

 

For someone larger or with difficulty bending and stretching, it could be a lot tougher than a 2.5, whereas for a child it'd be easy-peasy.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Would that be in "world-wide" height ?   An average for each country ?  

World-wide height used to be 5'6" for men, 5'2" for women, but North American average height for men is 5'9", and 5'4" in women.

I believe that makes us only the 40th tallest country.  So I'd say there is no "average" height for everyone, everywhere.  ;)

 

I would think that should be the average height for the local population. From the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Height has been increasing, so now it might be a little taller.

"In 2011-12, the average Australian man (18 years and over) was 175.6 cm tall and weighed 85.9 kg. The average Australian woman was 161.8 cm tall and weighed 71.1 kg. "

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13

I was surprised by those figures, as I always thought I was short, but those figures make me taller than average Australian height. I used to be 165cms, but age catches up.

That makes the average height (F+M)/2=168.7. (about 5'5")

There are sources that rate the average Australian height higher, but I think the Australian Bureau of Statistics is a reasonable source for my local averages. That could vary around Australia too, as different ethnic groups average height varies, and the ethnic percentages vary around the country, most strongly between city and country areas.

(I have also met this when travelling in other countries, my height varying compared to locals, from tall, average to short. I was called shorty in one country, or perhaps that was a sub region in that country.)

If the average height (male + female divided by 2) is used, that would mean it was out of reach still for most females. It's more inclusive if the average female height is used when considering the rating. That does not exclude males, but taking average human height, would exclude many females.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, lee737 said:

I would disagree there - I think if it can be reached standing on the ground by anyone, the terrain component of the tree itself is barely worth adding to the terrain of the trek to get to the tree....

I couldn't reach it from anywhere up in the tree. It was a climb, but height still comes into it, as taller people might be able to reach up from a branch and get the cache, but a shorter person on the same branch can't. And if there are no more branches...

  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Don't take it personally. I can't believe someone tall would seriously be condescending towards someone not as tall, so I suggest you take it as a joke, since that's almost certainly what it was.

It wasn't a joke.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It wasn't a joke.

I didn't say it was a joke. I said you should take it as a joke. And I think that's even better advice now that you've posted this response to me.

 

You can choose whether to laugh at it or be annoyed by it. It really makes no difference at all how the person posting the comment is hoping you'd react.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is an example of what I mean. It's rated T5 as it has boat-access waypoints but in the description I say that access to the cache itself is about T2.5. I'm of average height and build for an Aussie male but even though I'm the CO and have been there numerous times, I still banged my head on the roof while taking this photo:

 

Crawlspace.jpg.19b2a4133eb38ce5c87b5e2c2450ca08.jpg

 

For someone larger or with difficulty bending and stretching, it could be a lot tougher than a 2.5, whereas for a child it'd be easy-peasy.

 

 

I can see what you're saying but I don't think the comparison is spot on.  Even if access to a cache comes down to waist size, it's amazing how we can always squeeze that little bit more in.  (Just ask my belt!)  The difficulty increases gradually, maybe to the point where it becomes impossible.  With height, you've either got it or you haven't.  (I haven't.)

 

I had to log a DNF on a T1.5 cache on the back of a London road sign last year.  For anybody just an inch taller than me (or with an inch longer arms): 'easy find'.  For us shorties: impossible ... without a box!  Despite many mentions of 'a bit of a stretch' in the logs, there were only a few DNFs bemoaning a lack of height (3 out of more than a 1000), so I guess the T-rating was fine.  I just accept it, and move on.

 

I do get a little irked though, by the implication that a lack of height must make it easier to get to those low-down caches.  (I'm finding it harder to tie my own laces these days!)  I'd even suggest that short people are more likely to bang their heads in low spaces - it's something we so rarely have to consider! ;-)

 

(I have a feeling that all of this has come up on this thread before...)

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I had to log a DNF on a T1.5 cache on the back of a London road sign last year.  For anybody just an inch taller than me (or with an inch longer arms): 'easy find'.  For us shorties: impossible ... without a box!  Despite many mentions of 'a bit of a stretch' in the logs, there were only a few DNFs bemoaning a lack of height (3 out of more than a 1000), so I guess the T-rating was fine.  I just accept it, and move on.

 

Accepting your limitations in one area knowing that that you have advantages in others?

How logical of you. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I couldn't reach it from anywhere up in the tree. It was a climb, but height still comes into it, as taller people might be able to reach up from a branch and get the cache, but a shorter person on the same branch can't. And if there are no more branches...

This is starting to devolve into a side discussion, so to bring it back around to universal discussion.... T ratings should be world wide based. A T2 in the Alps should also be a T2 in the Sahara. I understand that regional bias does creep into the ratings, but when I travel, it is nice to have the same expectation everywhere. 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, igator210 said:

T ratings should be world wide based. A T2 in the Alps should also be a T2 in the Sahara. I understand that regional bias does creep into the ratings, but when I travel, it is nice to have the same expectation everywhere. 

 

Alternatively, from the Help Center article Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T):

"Ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in Banff, Canada, is a different experience than a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland. Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area and guidance in the table below."

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

Alternatively, from the Help Center article Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T):

"Ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in Banff, Canada, is a different experience than a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland. Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area and guidance in the table below."

 

I'm firmly with niraD on this.

 

If I were to travel to a far away place where the standards are different, I'd keep that in mind.

 

If I go to Tabasco, Mexico and order chili, and the guy tells me it's "not all that spicy", as a New Yorker I might think twice before I just shovel it into my mouth.

 

I get amused when I read outraged rants like "THIS CACHE SHOULD BE ARCHIVED - IT'S RATED 3.0 WHEN IT'S CLEARLY A 3.5!!!"

 

Wholly smokes - the D/T ratings are GUIDELINES for us, not Manufacturing Specifications!

 

If you're five feet tall and you're caching in Norway, guess what! There'll be low-T-rated caches you won't be able to get!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

If I go to Tabasco, Mexico and order chili, and the guy tells me it's "not all that spicy", as a New Yorker I might think twice before I just shovel it into my mouth.

My wife has no tolerance for spicy heat, which makes certain cuisines a challenge. But we finally figured out how to explain what she wants, after too many examples of "very mild" being too spicy for her.

 

On a scale of one to five, she wants a zero.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is an example of what I mean. It's rated T5 as it has boat-access waypoints but in the description I say that access to the cache itself is about T2.5. I'm of average height and build for an Aussie male but even though I'm the CO and have been there numerous times, I still banged my head on the roof while taking this photo:

 

Crawlspace.jpg.19b2a4133eb38ce5c87b5e2c2450ca08.jpg

 

For someone larger or with difficulty bending and stretching, it could be a lot tougher than a 2.5, whereas for a child it'd be easy-peasy.

 

Hobbit hole?:P

Edited by colleda

Share this post


Link to post

CO's who disable "sharing via API".

We tried to find the bonus of a small (6 caches) series yesterday. Last find date July 17th 2020, no DNFs, notes... but an OM in May. Only, the log by "opted-out-user" reads "Content unavailable. This user has opted-out of sharing certain information with API Authorized Developers."

 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, on4bam said:

CO's who disable "sharing via API".

We tried to find the bonus of a small (6 caches) series yesterday. Last find date July 17th 2020, no DNFs, notes... but an OM in May. Only, the log by "opted-out-user" reads "Content unavailable. This user has opted-out of sharing certain information with API Authorized Developers."

 

Presumably their log is readable in the official app or on the website? Why is this option even there? Maybe they should archive the lot and find a new hobby??
 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Presumably their log is readable in the official app or on the website? Why is this option even there? Maybe they should archive the lot and find a new hobby??
 

Probably. Not a lot of good when the GPS is loaded from GSAK when in the field. CO info should always be available, they put it out themselves.

What's the logic behind hiding a CO's name and (important OM, TA, note...) logs on heir own caches. Isn't that exactly the info that SHOULD be viewable to finders? If they really want to hide info they could create a second account just for hiding that doesn't block API access.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

Probably. Not a lot of good when the GPS is loaded from GSAK when in the field. CO info should always be available, they put it out themselves.

What's the logic behind hiding a CO's name and (important OM, TA, note...) logs on heir own caches. Isn't that exactly the info that SHOULD be viewable to finders? If they really want to hide info they could create a second account just for hiding that doesn't block API access.

 

 

 

 


I certainly get the irk, but my guess is they have no idea of the consequences of their decision.  Not sure about you, but these days, if I see a ‘do not share’ option then my instinct is to check it.

 

I’d send them a friendly message to let them know.

 

I’d also like to see a message pop-up on the website when you check that box, laying out the implications - “Did you know that if you opt out, users of third-party apps like GSAK and Cachly will not be able to see your logs?”

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I certainly get the irk, but my guess is they have no idea of the consequences of their decision.  Not sure about you, but these days, if I see a ‘do not share’ option then my instinct is to check it.

I’d send them a friendly message to let them know.

I’d also like to see a message pop-up on the website when you check that box, laying out the implications - “Did you know that if you opt out, users of third-party apps like GSAK and Cachly will not be able to see your logs?”

 

Agreed.    Sorta...   What "consequences" will I ever see by clicking that box ?    :)

 I simply don't want to be included with others "stats" ratings n stuff worldwide on third-party sites.   

My statistics are open to all, so if someone just has to know how "they compare" ...they just need to look at my profile.  ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, lee737 said:

Presumably their log is readable in the official app or on the website? Why is this option even there? Maybe they should archive the lot and find a new hobby??

 

Curious...  Isn't this the site most folks play on ?   The idea that all must join with third-party sites, or "find a new hobby" I feel is rude.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I find in that case, there obviously has to be a threshhold between when the cacher logged the online find, and the CO checks in on the cacher who virtually logged it. Asking for proof 8 months after the virtual log is a bit unrealistic, but asking after a few fews to....say 6 months, I find that acceptable. All cachers should really have proof of logging the find in case they lose their writing utensil or what have you, but I can understand if the user deletes the image on mistake, or loses the fil in a corrupt drive...etc. 

 

In any case, it's up to the CO to be stringent there are no virtual only logs, but also its imperative the finder logs truthfully, and in the case they cannot sign the log, has photographic proof by the very least, or can describe GZ. There are grey areas in my statement which I do acknowledge however.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Curious...  Isn't this the site most folks play on ?   The idea that all must join with third-party sites, or "find a new hobby" I feel is rude.  :)

 

I guess you don't "get it". Anyone not using the "official" app and uses software by API PARTNERS can't see the name nor the log of those "opting out". That's not a problem BUT, I would think that a CO want finders to be able to read info that they themselves post on their cache's page.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51

×
×
  • Create New...