Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
canucktrekkers

Do you know of hard geocaches by difficulty, not by terrain?

Recommended Posts

Hello!

Do you know of caches that are easy for any geocachers, experienced and newbies, to get to, but are very difficult to find and with multiple DNFs in the logs?  Some of the geocaches that fit this description are:

A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge)

Alvin or Walter

Do You Like Gardening?

No Picnic!

Shelter III

The good-luck tree..

Weir Could It Be? 3.0

 ♫ ★ ¥ ♪ • ⌘ ✪ ¶

Do you know of any more geocache that fits this description?  Let me know!

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

There was a D5 traditional in western New South Wales (GC6T390) that had only been found once since being published in 2016, with 41 DNFs in that time, but it got a few NMs, NAs and maybe a CHS ping or two and it looks like the owner might have got jack of it as it was left disabled for too long earlier this year and got archived by the reviewer.

 

Looking at the other D5 traditionals still active in this state, the one with the highest DNF to find ratio is GC5PG72 with 45 DNFs from 48 finds.

 

There's a D3.5 cache near home that's had 34 DNFs from 97 finds (GCT2V1). At the time I found it, there'd been 10 successive DNFs, two of those mine, and I admit I had a little bit of help in the form of a photo taken from GZ by a previous finder which, while not showing the cache, allowed me to line up the foreground with the background buildings enough to hone in on it.

 

Another I've found that gets a lot of DNFs (70 from 120 finds) is also a D3.5 (GC13C3B). It's a decent sized container (a small) but GZ has a multitude of potential hiding places which are a distraction from where the real hiding place is and you really need to look from just the right angle to spot the camo.

Share this post


Link to post

JCF

 

Even with a fairly explicit Hint, it was pretty tough.  Unfortunately, it was a pretty tough location to keep a cache active, due to it being a bit of a tourist attraction.

Share this post


Link to post

https://coord.info/GC5TJAZ , named "DNF". It's a puzzle cache, but the puzzle is essentially trivial - the D5 rating stems from the hide. Currently it has "only" around 150 DNF vs. 650 finds. But most of the find logs admit that they had help from previous finders. What distinguishes this cache from the other examples given so far is that it's size "Large"(!) (which is correct according to finders I've spoken to).

 

A buddy and I logged DNF after searching in vain for 90 minutes. At that time (2016) we both already had 10000+ cache finds in our records and 8 resp. 13 years of caching experience. Yet, we couldn't find a "Large" cache in absolutely non-challenging terrain. We were not proud of it ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

LOL. Container verifier. That's a good one. ALR's cannot be enforced.

 

True, but still would be quite a find.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

LOL. Container verifier. That's a good one. ALR's cannot be enforced.

 

I'm surprised that hasn't come under fire from a reviewer...

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

This reminds me of a cache published in Australia that no-one ever found. In that case I guessed the cache existed as much as the CO's armchair logs existed. The NM logs too I strongly suspected of being made from the same armchair. But still people tried to find it. Even after I wrote a note mentioning the COs history of logging caches, (without finding them first). That log stayed longer than I thought it would, but eventually the history was deleted by the CO (from their armchair no doubt).

 

I am not saying the cache here being discussed doesn't exist; only that it reminds me of the other 'cache'. A major difference is that the CO of the mentioned cache has a history of finding and logging caches. Unless a lot of COs are not doing their job of checking logs, and I can't imagine that with that many logs.

 

It is remarkable though that a small sized cache has not been found, presuming of course it really is a small sized cache. All I can imagine in a forest is a (very realistic) false section of tree bark is hiding it, or it's under a stump and the stump slides up. Likely wrong, but they are my contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

It is remarkable though that a small sized cache has not been found, presuming of course it really is a small sized cache. All I can imagine in a forest is a (very realistic) false section of tree bark is hiding it, or it's under a stump and the stump slides up. Likely wrong, but they are my contributions.

 

I've hunted the one with the ALR a few times.  The coords are pretty loose, suggested on the cache description (the mirror text which is now a missing image).  It's on a hillside in a drainage runoff with a lot of mud, slippery rocks, not a place I like to search long.  Lots of debris, huge cut rotting logs, lots of containers, nooks & crannies.  GZ is in the mud/water pretty much, but some of the log text seems to say it's farther away.  And, yeah, the cache may well be a ziplock bag with leaves or bark glued to it.  Or it's a nano.  It's more of a nasty prank than a Geocache.  But around here, yeah...  You see that at times.

Share this post


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

?

 

ALR = Additional Logging Requirement.

 

There's a cache mentioned in this thread where if you find it, you also write to the Cache Owner and tell him the secret code found inside the container.  To prevent cheating.  Although if I find it, it will have my signature on the log, so... you'd kinda know I found it...

 

It's actually very easy to hide a micro in the woods in a way that it's never found.  "Had a hard time getting good coords here".  I could place the nano somewhere in the area way off the icon, and no fair doing the scorched earth thing hunting for it!  ...you guys better get with the program or I'll take my ball and go home.

 

There was an unfound cache mentioned by a CO around the forums a few years ago, where people were questioning its existence, some higher-ups were leaning on the CO, and he eventually archived it.  The reason people couldn't find it was it was a perfect façade "rock" cover over a rock (on a bridge support, if I remember right).  But now he "took it down" because you don't deserve such a fine cache.  Oh, it was real.  That's 110% for sure.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone can hide a nano in a forest or on a locomotive.... where's the skill in that? I'll be impressed when one of these guys can 'beat' everyone with an ammo tin and good coordinates.....

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Anyone can hide a nano in a forest or on a locomotive.... where's the skill in that? I'll be impressed when one of these guys can 'beat' everyone with an ammo tin and good coordinates.....

 

 

I have one that comes close.  Yellow Submarine is a bright yellow 50 cal ammo can, with a submarine decal on the side.  It's not impossible, except maybe for muggles.  I don't place any cache with the intent that nobody finds it, my plan is that they do.  I hide caches that I probably would never find, but that's different. :anicute:

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I have one that comes close.  Yellow Submarine is a bright yellow 50 cal ammo can, with a submarine decal on the side.  It's not impossible, except maybe for muggles.  I don't place any cache with the intent that nobody finds it, my plan is that they do.  I hide caches that I probably would never find, but that's different. :anicute:

That cache looks great....

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, lee737 said:

That cache looks great....

 

Yeah.  And it doesn't stand out or anything.  :P

 

sub1.jpg

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/6/2019 at 6:15 AM, kunarion said:

 

Yeah.  And it doesn't stand out or anything.  :P

 

sub1.jpg

 

 

 

What makes it so difficult to find? It looks like it should stick out like a sore thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, South_Stander said:

 

What makes it so difficult to find? It looks like it should stick out like a sore thumb.

 

If you are thinking that it must not be actually out in the open like that, you're very perceptive! :D

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/6/2019 at 7:52 AM, lee737 said:

Anyone can hide a nano in a forest or on a locomotive.... where's the skill in that? I'll be impressed when one of these guys can 'beat' everyone with an ammo tin and good coordinates.....

 

Right. It is easy to put wrong coordinates and misleading hints. You mean something like this https://coord.info/GC41X0P

It is a regular size container with pinpoint accurate coordinates. It seems to take many visits or some hours to find but when it is found and the player see that everything is as described they tends to give a favorite. :)

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/6/2019 at 5:50 AM, kunarion said:

There's a cache mentioned in this thread where if you find it, you also write to the Cache Owner and tell him the secret code found inside the container.  To prevent cheating.  Although if I find it, it will have my signature on the log, so... you'd kinda know I found it...

 

If we are speaking about https://coord.info/GC24KMN it is not an ALR and not preventing cheating. The checker verifies to the finder that the correct container and logbook has been found for signing. If they find and sign a wrong container the owner may delete the log.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

If we are speaking about https://coord.info/GC24KMN it is not an ALR and not preventing cheating. The checker verifies to the finder that the correct container and logbook has been found for signing. If they find and sign a wrong container the owner may delete the log.

 

How is it not an ALR?  It's an additional  task a finder must do or the CO might delete the log. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

If we are speaking about https://coord.info/GC24KMN it is not an ALR and not preventing cheating. The checker verifies to the finder that the correct container and logbook has been found for signing. If they find and sign a wrong container the owner may delete the log.

Definitely an ALR. If the CO suspects there is a throwdown  then he check on it. It's part of his maintenance responsibilities. If he can't find it he should check the log book. Looks and  like the checker was added after publication so would not have been vetted by the reviewer.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

If we are speaking about https://coord.info/GC24KMN it is not an ALR and not preventing cheating. The checker verifies to the finder that the correct container and logbook has been found for signing. If they find and sign a wrong container the owner may delete the log.

 

That's a textbook ALR.  

 

3.3. Additional logging requirements (ALR)

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

If you own an existing cache that has a mandatory ALR, you must: 

  • Edit the text of your cache page to make the ALR optional, or remove it.
  • Cache owners must not delete logs based on ALRs. This applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009.
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


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

That's a textbook ALR.  

 

No, it is not an ALR at all. ALR means Additional Logging Requirements and there is none.

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

How is it not an ALR?  It's an additional  task a finder must do or the CO might delete the log. 

 

Please, read the description again. There is no word "must" in the description.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

Please, read the description again. There is no word "must" in the description.

 

There's also nothing on the cache page that says it's optional, per the specified guidelines listed in the help center.  If the CO deletes logs based on the finder not fulfilling the container verifier code, then it's an ALR and can't be enforced.  The only way the find can be verified is via the CO checking on the log to verify it's a legitimate find.  I'm guessing that the CO instituted this, not as an optional thing, but as a requirement, based on the "...BAD APPLE..." mentioned at the end of that paragraph.  There's nothing to say that this is an optional thing so the implication is that any find without a verification code would be deleted.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

There's also nothing on the cache page that says it's optional

 

You mean that there is an invisible ALR hidden in the description.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

You mean that there is an invisible ALR hidden in the description.

 

No.  It's an implied ALR.  ""When you find the container, take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."  This is an imperative sentence.  It's a specific set of instructions that tells you to do something.  There's nothing to state that this is optional and not required.  As it reads, it's a command to do what is stated or your find will apparently be deleted because it wasn't verified.  That's an ALR.  

 

The CO felt that he had to go to this "extreme" (using the verifier) to prevent false finds.  This also implies that the use of the verifier is required, else why create it in the first place.  If it's not needed or allowed, then why create it in the first place and post it on the cache page, AFTER publication?

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

GC24KMN has an impermissible ALR that was added post-publication on 4/18/2016.  Had the language been on the cache page at the time of review, the cache would not have been published.

 

Having answered that tangential question, I'd like for everyone to get back on topic by contributing other cool examples of high difficulty caches.  Thanks!

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all of the great responses!

Here's an interesting one.  It's called Bates Motel GC53318 (now archived) in which there were 226 straight DNFs, and no finds.  It was a five star difficulty with a one and a half star terrain.  The cache was archived due to complaints that it was on private property. 

Share this post


Link to post

There's one in my area is called "The Sea Hag II"... GC599X6. It's supposedly hidden near a concrete structure out on some mudflats. No finders as of yet. 

Share this post


Link to post

The most difficult of these is GC50RWJ . It's a quite hard to find hide, but what makes it really special is that the cache size is large. Having a hard hide for micro isn't that diffcult, but hiding a large cache, that's quite a feat. It's also my only large cache so far.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×