What Irks you most?

[+thebruce0]

It's an iffy area. There's conceptually great value in teaching them in this context; it's essentially orienteering. But at the same time you're dealing with other people's property that has to be maintained and people outside the group circle also participate. 

A better context for teaching might be to set up private temporary geocaches to teach them about how it works, so you're not affecting other people's involvement if something bad does happen. it sucks. But yeah there can always be some bad seeds. It's not a given that someone in the group will be a problem child with it, but it is a chance, and happens, so why risk it within the realm of official geocaching?  Mimic the experience. If they enjoy it, they could take it up on their own, likely with parents or friends until they're older. If they don't like it, then no harm. The mock activity can be the introduction to geocaching, but leave the actual geocaching to hobbyists instead of teaching lessons...

 

Plenty of kids do play this activity; but yeah, typically with family and responsible adults/authority (the type and persistence that leaders like scout leaders don't have).  *shrug* just thinking out loud.

 

Edited March 7 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

A better context for teaching might be to set up private temporary geocaches to each them about how it works, so you're not affecting other people's involvement

When I've taught kids geocaching, I've started with a brief "classroom" explanation with as many hands-on examples as possible. Then I took them to a nearby spot outside where I had hidden a large number of geocaches (of various sizes, camouflage types, and difficulties). Then I had them raise there hands when they had spotted a container, and I had them take turns pointing out the containers they had spotted.

 

If there was a followup geocaching hike with actual geocaches, then I took them to a park some distance away from the local neighborhood where we could find several geocaches while hiking a couple miles. I never showed them the local neighborhood geocaches for the reasons already mentioned. Even if I trusted all my kids completely, I didn't trust their friends and schoolmates who heard about "toys" in containers hidden in the neighborhood.

[+Goldenwattle]

An Irk with this forum. I make a mistake with an entry and notice it straight after posting and go back to fix it. Then it is displayed, "Edited just now by Goldenwattle".

Why don't we get a few minutes (say 5 minutes) to go back and make a correction without that being displayed? I have been on other forums where a few minutes are allowed to correct the post. The result here is that I then often copy what I have written and start again, deleting the old post. This shouldn't be necessary.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Why don't we get a few minutes (say 5 minutes) to go back and make a correction without that being displayed? I have been on other forums where a few minutes are allowed to correct the post.

 

or it's based on whether the post has been seen by anyone else. If the comment has been loaded to any browser then editing shows no change. That might vary if there are email notifications with content, but yeah, there are other options. It's a minor irk tho

[+Mudfrog]

On 3/6/2023 at 7:10 PM, egroeg said:

I must be the only optimist around here.

 

You aren't the only one. I have a few caches that have been found by different boy scout groups. Can't remember any problems ever developing because of this. Geocaching has really slowed down around here so there aren't many issues these days. In the past however, it was mostly new cachers that messed things up. 

 

As far as boy scouts being interested in geocaching,, they won't be for long if what they're going for is a trail of micros. 

[+JohnCNA]

I have low expectations when searching for a cache left by a scout. The official scouting rules to earn a geocaching merit badge only require maintenance for 3 months. Once they get the badge, there's no further maintenance or interest. I'm sure there are some who continue with the sport. But the majority do not. 

[+Goldenwattle]

35 minutes ago, JohnCNA said:

I have low expectations when searching for a cache left by a scout. The official scouting rules to earn a geocaching merit badge only require maintenance for 3 months. Once they get the badge, there's no further maintenance or interest. I'm sure there are some who continue with the sport. But the majority do not. 

That's my experience with scout caches. Leave and forget. Deteriorating caches and logs.

[+CCFwasG]

On 3/6/2023 at 5:51 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

... Because in my opinion Scouting is not the right environment for this hobby.  ...

 

I don't have  definite opinion here HOWEVER I understand that both Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts have merit badges for geocaching. Therefore, unless you get their national/international bodies to remove that, there is nothing that can be done. Best case is to try to get troops to only take interested kids out, I guess.

 

On 3/6/2023 at 6:21 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I dropped a TB (not mine) off at a cache once. It was a bear attached to a tag. A group of scouts were the next to visit. The next log by one of the scouts read, "We kidnapped the bear". The bear has never been seen again in geocaching. They ready did steal it. I contacted that scout and explained it needed to be placed in another cache. No answer. I contacted the one who appeared to be the scout leader. No answer.

 

While admittedly that stinks, it happens ALL THE TIME with newbie cachers and I guess muggles. I think my rate of disappearing TBs is about 90%. I just don't send any out any more. And when I pick up TBs I try to only ever drop in apparently secure premium caches. I have a near 100% rate of TBs that I watch or drop disappearing from basic caches, with only the exception of difficult puzzle caches! So I agree that was a crappy experience but it could just as easily happen with a school group or just a random bunch of kids caching or anyone, really! I too have written people who logged TBs and kept them with no reply.

A good story though: recently was irked about a local CO who hoards TBs. Tracked down a really nice one I carried across the country for a friend. Saw who picked it up, 6 months or maybe a year back. Inactive cacher with low finds. Wrote them. A week later I got a message asking about what was attached. I replied and they said they have it and will drop it off. A rare TB "victory"! And then there was the CO who archived a cache I had just stuck a fancy geocoin and TB in and he said he'd remove them and he held onto them for a year, leaving them listed in the archived cache, despite being active and occasional messages from me. Some folks think TBs don't matter (as if they were free?!). Irks me no end that people don't treat them as they should - someone else paid for them, treat with respect, etc.

 

On 3/6/2023 at 8:10 PM, egroeg said:

I must be the only optimist around here.

 

No, there's two of us   [Correction: apparently three!] 

 

Edited March 9 by CCFwasG
correction

[+cerberus1]

18 hours ago, JohnCNA said:

I have low expectations when searching for a cache left by a scout. The official scouting rules to earn a geocaching merit badge only require maintenance for 3 months. Once they get the badge, there's no further maintenance or interest. I'm sure there are some who continue with the sport. But the majority do not. 

 

Yep, I agree...   The other 2/3rds, who used to be a FTF monster would give that audible grumble that there might be a new cache nearby whenever a "scout" cache came out.

There's one near me that hasn't been accurate (coordinates are on the wrong side of the creek...) since it was placed in 2020.

No NMs since 2020 either...   I do know that some have attempted to contact them, but logs alone should show whoever placed it there's issues.

I just had a stent put in on my birthday (yay me...), so guess I'm not correcting that soon.

[+CCFwasG]

23 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep, I agree...   The other 2/3rds, who used to be a FTF monster would give that audible grumble that there might be a new cache nearby whenever a "scout" cache came out.

There's one near me that hasn't been accurate (coordinates are on the wrong side of the creek...) since it was placed in 2020.

No NMs since 2020 either...   I do know that some have attempted to contact them, but logs alone should show whoever placed it there's issues.

I just had a stent put in on my birthday (yay me...), so guess I'm not correcting that soon.

 

I admit to mostly ignoring caches placed by scouting groups.

Happy Belated Birthday  and good luck with recovery!

[+JL_HSTRE]

In updating my GSAK database, I noticed an archived cache owned by "null". I'd never seen this before. Looking into it, a user named DevilDuck1 had their account deleted and GSAK reads delete_user as null data. The user in question had multiple active hides from 2002 which were automatically archived and locked as part of the standard account deletion process. Apparently when this occurs it doesn't create an Archived log. And the fact that this one cacher hid multiple early hides is geo-history that has now been erased, in the name of "privacy."

[+JL_HSTRE]

I just came across a lengthy log. Half the log was a good, cache-specific description of their adventure. It's longer than most logs out there in general, even on that cache. The other half of the log was, by its own admission, "An AI generated intro to beef up our word count". It's basically cheating to win a game you're already winning - a game for which there is no prize, which is itself a subgame of another game for which there is no prize for first place. It's competitive to the point of mental illness.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Ammo cans that go missing and are replaced by a cap-n-cap or pill bottle.

 

If your cache was a regular and now it's a Micro, archive the old listing and create a new one. I filter out most Micros. When your cache stopped being a Regular it stopped being a cache I wanted to Find.

 

Don't simply change the cache size. Those who found it when it was a Regular deserve that in their stats, and a Micro likewise. 

 

And if you won't follow the above suggestion then at least update the darn listing. I shouldn't have to read the logs to find out what I'm really searching for.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If your cache was a regular and now it's a Micro, archive the old listing and create a new one.

Since we're in the "irk" thread...

 

It irks me when listings are churned, when listings are archived and replaced with new ones, when the caches are essentially the same. Sure, you replaced the container with a different kind of container, or hid it under an unnatural pile of stones instead of an unnatural pile of sticks, but if the reason for the cache is the same (the hike, the view, the historic location, the public art, whatever), then it's the same cache. Update the listing. Don't archive it and relist the same cache with a new GC code.

[+JL_HSTRE]

11 hours ago, niraD said:

Sure, you replaced the container with a different kind of container, or hid it under an unnatural pile of stones instead of an unnatural pile of sticks

 

IMO it depends on how much of a change. A minor change to hide style, moving the cache five feet away, replacing the original ammo can with a plastic ammo can or large lock-n-lock doesn't necessitate a new listing because the listing is effectively unchanged.

 

A 4/4 Micro in a tree then the tree falls over, resulting in no more climbing and an easy find at eye level is a big change. People looking for tree climbers need no longer seek. People who can't climb trees can now find.

 

A change from a Regular to a Micro is big change because it determines whether or not those of us who skip most/all Micros, especially Micros in the woods, will skip the cache.

[+Goldenwattle]

22 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

A change from a Regular to a Micro is big change because it determines whether or not those of us who skip most/all Micros, especially Micros in the woods, will skip the cache.

As long as the cache is correctly rated for how it is at the time, that doesn't matter. If it's a micro you don't find it (I avoid many micro caches too, when there's a choice), but if at the time it's a regular, you find it.

 

I have changed ratings on caches. I do this along with regular maintenance. It's part of upkeep. D/T mostly gets changed in the weeks/months after a cache is published, as I take comments and DNFs aboard. A 1.5D is not that with several (proper) DNFs for instance. I also look at the cacher's experience when considering this. Once a cache has 'settled in', I rarely change D/T ratings. A cache should not be published and the ratings are set in concrete from day one.

 

The only exception to that was a cache that gave problems and I moved it about. Only maybe two or three metres, but the terrain changed from T1 (flat sealed path and cache at about head height when sitting in a wheelchair) to T3; a slippery scramble and underneath. It's now back at the T1 position (a creature kept evicting it from the T3 spot), with the third cache container and it's been that way for ages now, and finally is giving no problems. T1/T3, they are not 'precious' ratings. If I changed a T5 rating, that might be more of a problem, for people collecting those finds for challenges.

 

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

IMO it depends on how much of a change.

Yep. And it depends on what the point of the cache is.

 

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

A 4/4 Micro in a tree then the tree falls over, resulting in no more climbing and an easy find at eye level is a big change. People looking for tree climbers need no longer seek. People who can't climb trees can now find.

Sure, if the point of the cache was the tree climb, and the tree is now gone and the container is at eye level, then that is a new cache. Archive the old listing and create a new one.

 

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

A change from a Regular to a Micro is big change because it determines whether or not those of us who skip most/all Micros, especially Micros in the woods, will skip the cache.

I've never hidden a cache where the point of the cache was the size of the container. I've found very few caches where the point of the cache was the size of the container. With those very few exceptions, a new container with a different size just means the listing needs to be edited so the size shown is correct for the new container. That's what I've done when I've hidden a new container that was larger or smaller than the original. Archiving and relisting because the new container is a different size is just churn, unless the point of the cache was the size of the container.

[+JL_HSTRE]

17 hours ago, niraD said:

I've never hidden a cache where the point of the cache was the size of the container. I've found very few caches where the point of the cache was the size of the container. With those very few exceptions, a new container with a different size just means the listing needs to be edited so the size shown is correct for the new container. That's what I've done when I've hidden a new container that was larger or smaller than the original. Archiving and relisting because the new container is a different size is just churn, unless the point of the cache was the size of the container.

 

If it's all about "the point of the cache" then shouldn't the cache be archived, even if in good shape, if it's primary reason goes away? The cool tree dies, the overlook becomes obscured, the cool rock formation collapses?

 

It's important to me the Regular stays Regular in my stats, especially as those become a dying breed. Updating the size to Micro takes that away from me.

 

It really annoyed me in my early years of geocaching that the first four or five Large caches I found where listed as Not Chosen or Other instead of Large.

 

Someone else talked about correcting D/T based on finder feedback. That I agree with. If you hide a 1.5/1.5 but it soon becomes apparent it was actually a 3/3 the people who found it with the lower rating deserve the higher, more accurate rating. If the cache is overrated and reduced to a more accurate rating, again any previous finders didn't deserve the higher rating anyway. Correcting a mistake is one thing. Changing the D/T because of changes in access or placement that cause an accurate rating to become inaccurate, even if "the point of the cache" is the same, warrants a new cache.

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Someone else talked about correcting D/T based on finder feedback. That I agree with. If you hide a 1.5/1.5 but it soon becomes apparent it was actually a 3/3 the people who found it with the lower rating deserve the higher, more accurate rating. If the cache is overrated and reduced to a more accurate rating, again any previous finders didn't deserve the higher rating anyway. Correcting a mistake is one thing. Changing the D/T because of changes in access or placement that cause an accurate rating to become inaccurate, even if "the point of the cache" is the same, warrants a new cache.

Well ... one of my irks is people who regard ratings as a kind of "reward" instead of what they IMHO should be: An indication of the cache's current challenge level w.r.t. difficulty and terrain.

 

E.g. I had a cache high up in a tree. You also needed equipment (like a ladder) to reach the lowest branches. So I rated it as T5. After a year or so, the tree fell down in a storm, and I placed a new container in a nearby tree. That one is easier to climb and you no longer need the ladder. So I changed it to T4.5. For me, there is no reason to archive and republish the cache because of that. I don't care about the stats of others.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

E.g. I had a cache high up in a tree. You also needed equipment (like a ladder) to reach the lowest branches. So I rated it as T5. After a year or so, the tree fell down in a storm, and I placed a new container in a nearby tree. That one is easier to climb and you no longer need the ladder. So I changed it to T4.5. For me, there is no reason to archive and republish the cache because of that. I don't care about the stats of others.

 

I had that. 3 iterations of the same cache. But when the tree first fell down, it was a slight change in T. When that tree collapsed, I archived it and published a new one a few meters away in a different tree. Different hide, different tree, different cache, I'm not going to really mess up others' stats for that.

 

Ultimately it's a decision by the CO as to whether it's a new experience or the same one with an accuracy adjustment. HQ appears to side with the "archive and post a new one" if it's sufficiently different from the old. And that's a pretty subjective call.  IMO, saying "who cares about other people's stats" is as bad as "never change it even if it's inaccurate because it messes up people's stats". The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If it's all about "the point of the cache" then shouldn't the cache be archived, even if in good shape, if it's primary reason goes away? The cool tree dies, the overlook becomes obscured, the cool rock formation collapses?

If the point of the cache is having a container in good shape, then leave it alone.

 

If the point of the cache is something that no longer exists, then what would be the point of leaving the cache in place? It's time to archive it, unless perhaps you want to turn the cache into a memorial for the public sculpture or historic building or rare tree or whatever. But even that seems kinda iffy to me.

 

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Someone else talked about correcting D/T based on finder feedback. That I agree with. If you hide a 1.5/1.5 but it soon becomes apparent it was actually a 3/3 the people who found it with the lower rating deserve the higher, more accurate rating. If the cache is overrated and reduced to a more accurate rating, again any previous finders didn't deserve the higher rating anyway.

Difficulty ratings, terrain ratings, size ratings, attributes, etc., are not something that finders "deserve" or "earn" in any way whatsoever. They are communication tools for the CO to let potential seekers know generally what to expect from the cache experience.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Ultimately it's a decision by the CO as to whether it's a new experience or the same one with an accuracy adjustment. HQ appears to side with the "archive and post a new one" if it's sufficiently different from the old. And that's a pretty subjective call.  IMO, saying "who cares about other people's stats" is as bad as "never change it even if it's inaccurate because it messes up people's stats". The sweet spot is somewhere in between.

I honestly don't care about past finders' stats. But the cache is part of past finders' histories, and if they go back to the listing, they should see something familiar (or at least, something similar to what they experienced). It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but it should be similar in most of the important details. (And yes, that's a subjective call on the part of the CO.)

[+thebruce0]

10 hours ago, niraD said:

I honestly don't care about past finders' stats. But the cache is part of past finders' histories, and if they go back to the listing, they should see something familiar (or at least, something similar to what they experienced). It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but it should be similar in most of the important details. (And yes, that's a subjective call on the part of the CO.)

Yep. And I have no issue with seeing another listing almost identical; no harm in that. But returning to see an entirely different listing than what you found is a bit different than that...

There's subjectivity in deciding how 'different' a listing should be before publishing a new one. That debate could rage into the foreseeable future

[+JL_HSTRE]

18 hours ago, niraD said:

Difficulty ratings, terrain ratings, size ratings, attributes, etc., are not something that finders "deserve" or "earn" in any way whatsoever. They are communication tools for the CO to let potential seekers know generally what to expect from the cache experience.

 

Those are not mutually exclusive.

 

Much as logs should both inform the CO and other seekers about the status of the cache while also recording your journey. They are a communication tool AND a form of personal recordkeeping. 

[+me N u]

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yep. And I have no issue with seeing another listing almost identical; no harm in that. But returning to see an entirely different listing than what you found is a bit different than that...

There's subjectivity in deciding how 'different' a listing should be before publishing a new one. That debate could rage into the foreseeable future

One of our finds has had its name, description, location and size changed post adoption, the new CO only kept the GC code and hidden date the same.

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, me N u said:

One of our finds has had its name, description, location and size changed post adoption, the new CO only kept the GC code and hidden date the same.

What's the point of adopting a cache if you're going to change everything about it? Just let it be archived.

[+MNTA]

43 minutes ago, niraD said:

What's the point of adopting a cache if you're going to change everything about it? Just let it be archived.

 

I'll say it again. 

 

Very few caches should be adopted. 

[+L0ne.R]

10 hours ago, niraD said:

What's the point of adopting a cache if you're going to change everything about it?

The GC code especially old codes. They are coveted.

 

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

I'll say it again. 

 

Very few caches should be adopted.

 

I wish I'd listened back in 2018 when I adopted a couple of 2005 caches over the other side of the bay. In hindsight, I probably should have just let the previous owner (who himself had adopted them from the original owner) archive them. One of them, which had gone missing at the time I adopted it, has been something of a maintenance headache with people not putting it back properly, either leaving it exposed in a high muggle environment or damaging the container. Even the nice seafood restaurant over there that was a reward for doing owner maintenance trips has closed down.