Jump to content

What Irks you most?

avroair

By avroair
in General geocaching topics

Followers 52

Recommended Posts

dprovan

+dprovan

Posted
Posted
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 comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted
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 comment
me N u

+me N u

Posted
Posted

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 comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted
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 comment
ecanderson

+ecanderson

Posted
Posted

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 comment
thebruce0

+thebruce0

Posted
Posted
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 comment
TeamRabbitRun

+TeamRabbitRun

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 comment
dprovan

+dprovan

Posted
Posted
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 comment
colleda

+colleda

Posted
Posted

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 comment
colleda

+colleda

Posted
Posted
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 comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 comment
ecanderson

+ecanderson

Posted
Posted
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 comment
fizzymagic

+fizzymagic

Posted
Posted
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 comment
Goldenwattle

+Goldenwattle

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted
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 comment
colleda

+colleda

Posted
Posted
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 comment
Goldenwattle

+Goldenwattle

Posted
Posted
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 comment
barefootjeff

+barefootjeff

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, colleda said:

I'm guessing that cryptic hints can irk some.;)

 

There's a cache I did recently where the hint is "Bonnie Tyler". It wasn't until I finally found it on my second attempt that it clicked, which brings me to another irk which is hints that only make sense after you've found the cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
baer2006

+baer2006

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, colleda said:

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).

Well, I'm 50+ and I had to google it, too. The name Jethro Tull wasn't unknown to me, but except from "Locomotive Breath" and "Aqualung"; I couldn't have named a song.

 

The hint "Red Hot Chili Peppers" is rather popular here (I must have seen it a dozen times) for caches placed under a bridge. I guess most cachers had to google it the first time.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Well, I'm 50+ and I had to google it, too. The name Jethro Tull wasn't unknown to me, but except from "Locomotive Breath" and "Aqualung"; I couldn't have named a song.

 

The hint "Red Hot Chili Peppers" is rather popular here (I must have seen it a dozen times) for caches placed under a bridge. I guess most cachers had to google it the first time.

I'm, uh, 50+ too.  I saw Jethro Tull live once.   It was one of the best concerts I ever attended.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 52
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...