Jump to content

What Irks you most?


Recommended Posts

On 11/5/2020 at 6:06 PM, 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'm not sure if local high would help. I'm 5'6.5 and way below average for women here. Every cache that mentions 'up' or 'slightly up' requires a ladder. Or at least balancing on my bike and hoping it doesn't roll off :laughing:

  • Funny 1
Link to post

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country#/media/File:Average_height_of_women_by_year_of_birth,_OWID.svg

 

155-165cm (5ft 1inch to 5ft 5inch) appears to be the height range for the majority of women worldwide.

 

I'd say rating based on a 5ft 5inch woman would work nicely and make women feel the guidelines apply equally to men and women. 

  • Funny 1
Link to post

Well then, that's an interesting article on Wikipedia. The averages for many countries are lower than I expected...hm.  I think I tend to rate cache too low for the Terrain rating at times, partly since I'm of average height, well a bit shorter. Tree climbs are easier for me due to my height, although I don't like some of those low-down corner hides as a result.

Link to post

One from today..... searching for a cache, multiple reports in logs going back years:  'coords way out', 'coords pretty bad', 'coords out a fair way'.... its a trad - put the coords where you found it in your log (or at least an offset for a multi/puzzle).... and CO - fix! We DNFd it, on scouring logs on PC I did find one, at least 30m from 'GZ', and our tracks of course did not intersect it! :mad:

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, lee737 said:

'coords way out', 'coords pretty bad', 'coords out a fair way'.... its a trad - put the coords where you found it in your log (or at least an offset for a multi/puzzle)

That's also a major irk for me. Dozens of finders saying "coordinates way off" but no-one giving any clues as to which approximate direction and distance (let alone their measured coordinates).

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

That's also a major irk for me. Dozens of finders saying "coordinates way off" but no-one giving any clues as to which approximate direction and distance (let alone their measured coordinates).

I have given several sets of coordinates on recent logs, to assist future finders. Also today passed on (spot on) coordinates given by a previous finder. This irks me too. First that people don't bother to take a set of coordinates if they find the cache to assist future finders, instead just say that coordinates are out (oh whoopee do). Second that the CO mostly (some exceptions) takes absolutely no action to correct the coordinates, even when several cachers say the alternative coordinates are good. If the problem is that the CO is lousy at taking coordinates, well, here are a good set of coordinates for them to use, but most don't.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, lee737 said:

One from today..... searching for a cache, multiple reports in logs going back years:  'coords way out', 'coords pretty bad', 'coords out a fair way'.... its a trad - put the coords where you found it in your log (or at least an offset for a multi/puzzle).... and CO - fix! We DNFd it, on scouring logs on PC I did find one, at least 30m from 'GZ', and our tracks of course did not intersect it! :mad:

Or equally annoying, "Found cache 80 feet from ground zero".

 

a) without directional information, 80' often isn't at all helpful.

b) improperly used expression: ground zero is where the cache is, not the posted coordinates.  In its original context, it's where it went boom, not where you tried to aim it.

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

That's also a major irk for me. Dozens of finders saying "coordinates way off" but no-one giving any clues as to which approximate direction and distance (let alone their measured coordinates).

I once found a cache where multiple people had said that they found it about 60ft north of GZ. We searched unsuccessfully, read the logs, walked about 60ft north, and found the cache quickly. I figured that I'd post coordinates with my log, except that the coordinates I got there were virtually identical to the published coordinates. I'm not sure why two locations about 60ft apart would yield the same coordinates, when both were on top of a hill with a clear view of the sky.

 

19 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

b) improperly used expression: ground zero is where the cache is, not the posted coordinates.  In its original context, it's where it went boom, not where you tried to aim it.

Ground zero is where I drop my backpack. From there, my search "goes boom" and starts expanding.

 

Eventually I give up, return to my backpack, and find it sitting on top of the cache, but that's a different irk. ;)

  • Funny 4
Link to post
57 minutes ago, niraD said:

I once found a cache where multiple people had said that they found it about 60ft north of GZ. We searched unsuccessfully, read the logs, walked about 60ft north, and found the cache quickly. I figured that I'd post coordinates with my log, except that the coordinates I got there were virtually identical to the published coordinates. I'm not sure why two locations about 60ft apart would yield the same coordinates, when both were on top of a hill with a clear view of the sky.

Now that would have irked me ;) . Not that my search for the cache took a bit longer, but the strange reading from the GPS. I probably would have spent at least 15 more minutes on location to figure out what's going on.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

I once found a cache where multiple people had said that they found it about 60ft north of GZ. We searched unsuccessfully, read the logs, walked about 60ft north, and found the cache quickly. I figured that I'd post coordinates with my log, except that the coordinates I got there were virtually identical to the published coordinates. I'm not sure why two locations about 60ft apart would yield the same coordinates, when both were on top of a hill with a clear view of the sky. 

 

I had that happen, and an even greater distance, but the cache was under a large metal bridge.   I was originally search about 100' away from the bridge for a "magnetic" container (according to the hint) on some guy wires for a telephone pole.   My GPS was bouncing around a little but said I was within 20' near the telephone pole.   When I saw that the next nearest metal object  was the bridge I walked about 100' to it and my GPS said I was within 20'.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Or equally annoying, "Found cache 80 feet from ground zero".

a) without directional information, 80' often isn't at all helpful.

 

One in the woods hide nearby has had 31 people say that a cache is anywhere from 85-100 feet off, and none have said "in what direction". :D

A week ago, a started-this-year new cacher actually gave what they had for coordinates.   None of the old-timers did...  ;)

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I had that happen, and an even greater distance, but the cache was under a large metal bridge.   I was originally search about 100' away from the bridge for a "magnetic" container (according to the hint) on some guy wires for a telephone pole.   My GPS was bouncing around a little but said I was within 20' near the telephone pole.   When I saw that the next nearest metal object  was the bridge I walked about 100' to it and my GPS said I was within 20'.  

Just one of the things we have to deal with.  With timing as tight as it must be to make any of this work at all, the distance between the receiver and an object reflecting a signal, even with the astoundingly little time it takes for that signal to make that short additional distance, fouls the fix quite easily.  Not at all difficult to be told 20' at two points 100' apart under those conditions. 

 

I recall my own 'irk' many years ago the first time I tried to find a cache in a metro downtown area with signals bouncing all over the place off of the many nearby buildings.  Multipath - something I had never even considered at the time - had us walking back and forth across a street between two surface level parking lots for 15 minutes - the handheld would keep telling us to go back to the other side again. 

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

improperly used expression: ground zero is where the cache is, not the posted coordinates.  In its original context, it's where it went boom, not where you tried to aim it.

I've never heard anyone use GZ as anything other than where the posted or solved coordinates point. You may have a intellectual reason for thinking the term developed in some other way, but current usage has forgotten it. I regularly see "found cache N feet from GZ", but I've never seen "GZ was N feet from the posted coordinates", and I'd be confused if I did.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I've never heard anyone use GZ as anything other than where the posted or solved coordinates point. You may have a intellectual reason for thinking the term developed in some other way, but current usage has forgotten it. I regularly see "found cache N feet from GZ", but I've never seen "GZ was N feet from the posted coordinates", and I'd be confused if I did.

It was an expression started in error, I believe, by GCHQ, and then picked up by many of the players.  Geocaching uses the expression in a uniquely upside down manner.  Doesn't make it right.

As I say, you can aim a projectile at any defined set of coordinates you like, but where it actually lands is ground zero.  Always has been - everywhere but here.

 

And if I EVER hear the word 'orientated' again when there's no specific intention to point something in an eastwardly direction ... sigh.

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

If I ever see another log stating that the cache was in plane site, I want it to be at an airport. 

 

Not sure what others see, but in our area, we tend to hear about a lot of "cleaver" caches.  Heart rendering!

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, ecanderson said:

It was an expression started in error, I believe, by GCHQ, and then picked up by many of the players.  Geocaching uses the expression in a uniquely upside down manner.  Doesn't make it right.

Well, yes, actually, it does make it right. There are many words in English for which the right meaning is opposite of the meaning when the word was invented.

 

12 hours ago, ecanderson said:

As I say, you can aim a projectile at any defined set of coordinates you like, but where it actually lands is ground zero.  Always has been - everywhere but here.

Now that you mention it, GZ in geocaching is where the seeker lands, not where the cache lands. The cache is the target, not the munition.

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Well, yes, actually, it does make it right. There are many words in English for which the right meaning is opposite of the meaning when the word was invented.

 

Now that you mention it, GZ in geocaching is where the seeker lands, not where the cache lands. The cache is the target, not the munition.

 

I disagree.   Lat/Long coordinates are two dimensional.   The real world has three dimensions.  The seeker can land at a set of lat/long coordinates but is never  going to find the cache unless they're at the right elevation as well.   GZ is where the cache is located, because that's where you need to be if you geocaching involves actually finding the cache.

Link to post

We refer to GZ as the point on the surface of the earth that our GPSR takes us to when navigating to the listed coordinates, and at least here in the UK, Groundspeak geocache listings DO NOT include elevation, so apart from attributes/cache description, we have no way of knowing the elevation - we have found a cache in a mine shaft where the listed coordinates were vertically above the cache but the entrance was some distance off and those coordinates listed as a waypoint (with no elevation information). 

Link to post
1 minute ago, me N u said:

We refer to GZ as the point on the surface of the earth that our GPSR takes us to when navigating to the listed coordinates, and at least here in the UK, Groundspeak geocache listings DO NOT include elevation, so apart from attributes/cache description, we have no way of knowing the elevation - we have found a cache in a mine shaft where the listed coordinates were vertically above the cache but the entrance was some distance off and those coordinates listed as a waypoint (with no elevation information). 

 

One of my favorite caches had lat/long coordinates that would take you to a strip mall parking lot.  There were quite a DNF logs which said that they search in the obvious spot (a light pole skirt...I know that you don't have them in the U.K.).  Although the listing didn't include elevation, there were clues in the listing which suggested that it was not in the parking log, but under the parking lot.  About 200' from the published coordinates was an entrance to a tunnel under the parking lot and a mostly dry creek bed.   The surface of the earth was actually under the parking lot.   

 

There was also a heavily favorited cache in German that required one to get into an elevator (which also had room for a car) which took you down to a tunnel that went under a river.   If one looked at an satellite map with the lat/long coordinates it would appear that the cache was in the middle of the river, instead of in the tunnel about half way through. 

 

Since elevation is not included in geocache metadata, the terrain rating can be used to give seekers a clue to where the container is hidden.  For that cache in Germany, the fact that it didn't have a T5 rating indicated that it was not *in* the river and would require special equipment.

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

Now that you mention it, GZ in geocaching is where the seeker lands, not where the cache lands. The cache is the target, not the munition.

Exactly. The geocacher lands at GZ, and the search radiates outwards from there.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post

Not sure how the finder suddenly figures into this so prominently.  The challenge has always been a question of posted coordinates of the object vs. the actual position of the object... not the finder.  When we post log comments, it's about the position of the object.  Who the heck knows where the finder is?  That's another set of coordinates altogether, and depends upon the finder's receiver and ability to use it for its own accuracy.  Separate problem.

 

In the real world, GZ may vary from the targeting coordinates.  It's a matter of not exactly hitting the targeting coordinates by some amount with the object (projectile) in question. 

 

We post target coordinates.  It's where we intend for something to be, as best we can determine it.  Sometimes we miss placing the object at the target coordinates.  GZ doesn't always wind up matching the target coordinates as well as some finders would like - sometimes by quite a bit. 

 

That's how the rest of the universe uses the expression.  We use it differently.  Not sure why it got started that way here.

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
45 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

for the rest of the universe, ground zero isn't where you WISH something was, it's where it IS.

 

I see the other way too - until I'm AT the coordinates, it's the coordinates I'm targeting, so GZ is for the posted coordinates. In an ideal world, the geocache will always be precisely on the coordinates (that's their purpose) but once I'm at gz, if the cache isn't there, I begin my search for the cache. I'm lucky if I spot the cache before I hit gz.  If the cache isn't at gz, then I don't consider the cache gz - gz could be 20 meters off the cache location. But the coordinates are still gz according to my gps.

But this is one of those fun geocaching things that people may interpret differently, so yay! :laughing:

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to post

Okay, look. "Ground Zero" - THIS side is right, and so is THAT side.

 

I'm reminded of the scene where Moe and Curly are facing each other, arguing over which side of the wall gets the door. Since they're facing each other, when they both point to the right, they're BOTH CORRECT according to their written instructions, even though they're pointing in opposite directions.

 

The term "Ground Zero" was originally coined referring to the detonation point of a large bomb.

 

The adoption of the term by our hobby has no exact parallel (don't leave bombs in caches!), so any use must be subjectively applied by indicating to what physical point you're referring.

 

In other words, it depends on the subject of your usage. It's just as valid to call the posted coordinates "Ground Zero" when you're talking about getting to the site BECAUSE you're talking about getting to the site as it is to call the actual location of the cache "Ground Zero" because you're then talking about the hunt for THAT location.

 

There's no commonly agreed-to meaning of this hijacked term, so the real answer is that it depends on context.

 

Conceivably, you could have a log that says, "Using my GPSr, I got to GZ and found a sign that pointed me to a spot 100 feet to the North. Then, using a compass I paced it out and found the cache at GZ," and this would be perfectly legitimate.

 

So stop arguing about Larry and don't be a stooge. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

 

https://youtu.be/cx1klDB02bs

 

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
Edited to add the hyperlink.
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 11/14/2020 at 5:17 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I disagree.   Lat/Long coordinates are two dimensional.   The real world has three dimensions.  The seeker can land at a set of lat/long coordinates but is never  going to find the cache unless they're at the right elevation as well.   GZ is where the cache is located, because that's where you need to be if you geocaching involves actually finding the cache.

I'm not entirely convinced GZ outside of geocaching includes elevation, but I do know it's not used that way by geocachers I've run into. I've often seen logs explaining that they were at GZ, saw the cache, but could not retrieve it because they were at the wrong elevation.

Link to post

I was only a little irked by a finder's DNF logs on three of my Fernleigh Track series a few days ago.

 

FT #1 D2.0  DNF "The hint was no help in that bush"

           OM "After a recent dnf I checked this one today. Found it where it was meant to be but was exposed. Replaced natural Camo. All good now."

Comment. Tree cover is a big problem in this spot. Have tried a few times to get better coordinates here but don't seem to be able to get any better than 4-5 metre accuracy. Hint "Knife and ...." In the fork of a very large paper bark tree about a foot above ground level and ground is clear around it. Natural camo is a small sheet of almost paper thin paper tree bark laid on over of container. This one is tricky, so log ok.

FT #2 D2.5 DNF "Identified a couple of spots. GPS seemed to be off 18m for a cut tree location. Hint again no help. Hides should only stop muggles and not geocaching. Particularly along a track where people are also aware of the time to complete the walk."

            OM "After a recent dnf I took a walk to check. Very few muggles about probably due to the heat. Cache was where it should be and very obvious as the camo paint is wearing off exposing bright blue underneath."

Comment. I have no idea what "cut tree location" refers to. Hint. "Mr Edward Kelly's ultimate fate" Almost any Aussie would know that Edward "Ned" Kelly (1854-1880) was an notorious bushranger (outlaw) who was eventually hanged for his crimes - which included killing police. Cache is a bison tube hanging by fishing line from a sole, small, sapling alongside the track. And, although visible to anyone walking past looking in the right direction, has never been muggled.

FT#3 D2 DNF "Another silly cache. Giving up on your caches."

                OM "After a recent dnf I checked on this one today. Right where it should be and easily visible if looking at the right spot. All good."

Comment. Cache is a white pill bottle containing a large bison tube (we all know pill bottles aren't water proof), at head height, wedged in the fork of a large brown tree. Which has had 163 finds and only 11 DNFs.

 

After that one it seems they gave up and went home. Their loss, not mine.

 

 

 
  • Funny 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, colleda said:

I was only a little irked by a finder's DNF logs on three of my Fernleigh Track series a few days ago.

 

FT #1 D2.0  DNF "The hint was no help in that bush"

           OM "After a recent dnf I checked this one today. Found it where it was meant to be but was exposed. Replaced natural Camo. All good now."

Comment. Tree cover is a big problem in this spot. Have tried a few times to get better coordinates here but don't seem to be able to get any better than 4-5 metre accuracy. Hint "Knife and ...." In the fork of a very large paper bark tree about a foot above ground level and ground is clear around it. Natural camo is a small sheet of almost paper thin paper tree bark laid on over of container. This one is tricky, so log ok.

FT #2 D2.5 DNF "Identified a couple of spots. GPS seemed to be off 18m for a cut tree location. Hint again no help. Hides should only stop muggles and not geocaching. Particularly along a track where people are also aware of the time to complete the walk."

            OM "After a recent dnf I took a walk to check. Very few muggles about probably due to the heat. Cache was where it should be and very obvious as the camo paint is wearing off exposing bright blue underneath."

Comment. I have no idea what "cut tree location" refers to. Hint. "Mr Edward Kelly's ultimate fate" Almost any Aussie would know that Edward "Ned" Kelly (1854-1880) was an notorious bushranger (outlaw) who was eventually hanged for his crimes - which included killing police. Cache is a bison tube hanging by fishing line from a sole, small, sapling alongside the track. And, although visible to anyone walking past looking in the right direction, has never been muggled.

FT#3 D2 DNF "Another silly cache. Giving up on your caches."

                OM "After a recent dnf I checked on this one today. Right where it should be and easily visible if looking at the right spot. All good."

Comment. Cache is a white pill bottle containing a large bison tube (we all know pill bottles aren't water proof), at head height, wedged in the fork of a large brown tree. Which has had 163 finds and only 11 DNFs.

 

After that one it seems they gave up and went home. Their loss, not mine.

 

 

 

I'm now feeling a little chuffed by the wordy DNF logs as the cacher usually only leaves one word logs on caches they find.:)

Link to post
43 minutes ago, colleda said:

FT #2 D2.5 DNF "[...] Hides should only stop muggles and not geocaching. [...]"

As someone who enjoys searching for difficult "hidden in plain sight" camouflage caches, this attitude irks me.

Edited by niraD
Link to post
17 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not entirely convinced GZ outside of geocaching includes elevation, but I do know it's not used that way by geocachers I've run into. I've often seen logs explaining that they were at GZ, saw the cache, but could not retrieve it because they were at the wrong elevation.

Indeed, and back to the original meaning of the phrase, the elevation above ground zero was just that - elevation above ground zero.  The elevation itself didn't define the location.

Link to post
18 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not entirely convinced GZ outside of geocaching includes elevation, but I do know it's not used that way by geocachers I've run into. I've often seen logs explaining that they were at GZ, saw the cache, but could not retrieve it because they were at the wrong elevation.

 

GZ does not include elevation.  It was originally coined to refer to the point on the surface of the Earth directly below an exploding nuclear bomb.

 

Similarly, the "epicenter" of an earthquake is the point on the surface of the Earth directly above the location of the event, but people misuse it as well.

 

Geocaching.com does not allow for elevations in geocache coordinates.  So getting to "GZ" does not mean you found the cache.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
14 hours ago, colleda said:

Mr Edward Kelly's ultimate fate

Put like that without the extra information, this Australian would likely not get the hint, let alone a non-Australian. The criminal Ned Kelly is not high on my thoughts most of the time. I have also never associated Ned as being a shortened version of Edward. Didn't know it was. The shortened version of Edward is Ed I thought. I suppose it's as silly as Bill being the shortened version of William.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have also never associated Ned as being a shortened version of Edward. Didn't know it was. The shortened version of Edward is Ed I thought. I suppose it's as silly as Bill being the shortened version of William.

Yeah, I remember learning that my friend's mom's name was Margaret. I always heard people calling her Peg. :huh:

And when I called my friend Jack at work (back in the days when the receptionist had to forward calls to the office phone), the receptionist asked whether I meant John (same last name), which confused us both. :huh:

And then there's Chuck as a short form of Charles... :huh:

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, baer2006 said:

(Minor) irk for me: Hint like the one quoted, when caching in a foreign country ;).

That's so true then one can ask uncle Google.

One of my other hints is "xxxxx as a xxxxx - Jethro Tull". Cachers of a certain (my) vintage get that one but more youthful seekers usually Google it. A bison tube in a house brick (listed as a micro).

  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, I remember learning that my friend's mom's name was Margaret. I always heard people calling her Peg. :huh:

And when I called my friend Jack at work (back in the days when the receptionist had to forward calls to the office phone), the receptionist asked whether I meant John (same last name), which confused us both. :huh:

And then there's Chuck as a short form of Charles... :huh:

LOL, I also didn't know Peg was Margaret (more education from this site), even though I have heard of Pegs. Don't think I have even personally known a Peg though.

Chuck is only a shortened form of Charles in the USA. In fact, sorry to say, it's treated as a mild joke in some other countries. Maybe because in some other countries chuck is to vomit. Not as bad as Randy though.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
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...
×
×
  • Create New...