Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
wolfcatsden

Derelict Geocaches

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Lately I've been Finding a few Derelict Geocaches where they have gone missing or are just

in bad repair for a long long  time.   Like myself Winter is a bad time for me to go out

in the snow to repair or replace a Geocache.  but if you do not intend to repair or replace a

geocache their should be at some point where its removed automatically from the game.

This would encourage and open up new geocaches to be placed  and the game to continue

 

My suggestion is the Following


1) a log  function for Geocachers who come a cross a missing/ non repaired geocaches  that has

     been listed  missing and or need repair and nothing has changed after one calendar year as

     possibly Derelict as a way to alert the reviewers

 

2) The Reviewers/geocaching would  review this cache and send a email stating their geocaches has be

     deemed possibly Derelict and you have for example 3-4 months to temporary disable it, repair and or replace it.

     (winter. nature disaster, civil unrest in the area  would be exempt from this time limits)

 

3)  temporary disable Geocaches should also have a Limit on how long they can sit without actions or further logs

      add by its owner giving the reason.

 

4) a final email is sent by geocaching.com for example after the set time declaring this geocaching as non active and

     in violation of the rules you have 72 hrs to respond, repair or replace.  otherwise it will be deleted and removed

     from the game automatically 

 

anyways i think its fair and gives a lot of time for geocaches to respond and take action but does set a Limited to an

inactive Geocache in the game.  giving opening for new Geocaches to be placed.   

 

  Let me know what you think ?

 

 

 

Edited by wolfcatsden

Share this post


Link to post

The system is already in place.

Just needs cachers to be marking Needs Maintenance, and then Needs Archived, in a timely manner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, and when I log an Needs maintenance I owe the CO information specific enough to allow them to bring supplies to make the appropriate repairs in a single trip. PM if doing so on the public log would be a spoiler.  FYI, I have only seen the need to log a NA on 2 or 3 occasions. Each time the reviewer responded in a timely manner.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Yes it is.

Except for many its hidden. More and more cachers coming into the activity don't use it because of that. They don't "opt out" of the "new" yet vastly inferior logging "experience" on the website. Or on their phone app they see...

 

Chose Log Type

Found

DNF

Write Note

 

Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived should be included when a cacher Is prompted to enter a log type.

I am inclined to agree with the thoughts that a new cacher might not have the knowledge to understand their role.

 

I can appreciate the lack of guidance in the app may leave someone in the dark. >> (not that anyone reads instructions anyway)<< I have been in receipt of a number of nasty-grams from the "Cache Health Police" only to find the cache in perfect condition.  I for one am pleased to find that there seems to be less reliance on reports of cache ill health generated by "new folk"

 

My feeling: the "youngies" have had a stream of participation ribbons throughout their lives and can NOT COPE with having to actually work for a prize.  It is easier for them to whine, whimper, sob and generate bogus reports because they are hurt and upset about not getting a "Smiley Face".

 

Before you begin throwing flames let me put on my Nomex Fire Suit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

 

Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived should be included when a cacher Is prompted to enter a log type.

 

 

With an explanation of -Just because you cant find it, it doesn't mean it's not there- so it's not necessarily a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log! :laughing:

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, wolfcatsden said:

Lately I've been Finding a few Derelict Geocaches where they have gone missing or are just

in bad repair for a long long  time.

 

Good to have someone else acknowledge the problem in Ontario. 

Share this post


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

My feeling: the "youngies" have had a stream of participation ribbons throughout their lives and can NOT COPE with having to actually work for a prize.  It is easier for them to whine, whimper, sob and generate bogus reports because they are hurt and upset about not getting a "Smiley Face".

 

As you sling barbs at the younger generations, please allow this GenXer to humbly offer two points for your consideration.

 

First, just because cachers might be new at the game, doesn't make them "youngies."  I've seen several posts lately from new cachers who are at or near retirement age, including one older gentleman who was having trouble locating a cache in northern Phoenix.  (Meanwhile, my daughter, who turns seven this August, is closing in on 1,000 finds as part of our caching family.)

 

Second, if children have been led to expect participation ribbons just for showing up, would that not be the fault of the adults who organized the events and decided they needed one? 

 

I remember getting my first dinky participation trophy for not winning tee ball, or was it soccer, waaaay back in 1983 or so.  Even back then, I could see the concept was ridiculous.  I didn't want a dinky trophy for showing up.  i wanted one of the cool ones for winning.  But as an eight year old, I was not in charge of planning trophies - the parents were.  And in 1983, participation trophies were already nothing new.  They've been around for a century.  Ergo, I believe that makes participation trophies a problem created by the Baby Boom and earlier generations.

 

But, as Mark Twain would say, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

 

As you sling barbs at the younger generations, please allow this GenXer to humbly offer two points for your consideration.

 

First, just because cachers might be new at the game, doesn't make them "youngies."  I've seen several posts lately from new cachers who are at or near retirement age, including one older gentleman who was having trouble locating a cache in northern Phoenix.  (Meanwhile, my daughter, who turns seven this August, is closing in on 1,000 finds as part of our caching family.)

 

Second, if children have been led to expect participation ribbons just for showing up, would that not be the fault of the adults who organized the events and decided they needed one? 

 

I remember getting my first dinky participation trophy for not winning tee ball, or was it soccer, waaaay back in 1983 or so.  Even back then, I could see the concept was ridiculous.  I didn't want a dinky trophy for showing up.  i wanted one of the cool ones for winning.  But as an eight year old, I was not in charge of planning trophies - the parents were.  And in 1983, participation trophies were already nothing new.  They've been around for a century.  Ergo, I believe that makes participation trophies a problem created by the Baby Boom and earlier generations.

 

But, as Mark Twain would say, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

1.  I don't "youngies" was a reference to age, but length of time geocaching.

 

2.  As a Baby Boomer (1954) I never recall getting a "participation trophy" for showing up.  And that article linked used the term in several different ways (a trophy for a group that had the most members participate is much different from the (current) Participation Trophy term).

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, wolfcatsden said:

Lately I've been Finding a few Derelict Geocaches where they have gone missing or are justin bad repair for a long long  time.  

Like myself Winter is a bad time for me to go out in the snow to repair or replace a Geocache. 

but if you do not intend to repair or replace a geocache their should be at some point where its removed automatically from the game.

This would encourage and open up new geocaches to be placed  and the game to continue

My suggestion is the Following

1) a log  function for Geocachers who come a cross a missing/ non repaired geocaches  that has been listed  missing and or need repair and nothing has changed after one calendar year as possibly Derelict as a way to alert the reviewers

 

2) The Reviewers/geocaching would  review this cache and send a email stating their geocaches has be deemed possibly Derelict and you have for example 3-4 months to temporary disable it, repair and or replace it.

     (winter. nature disaster, civil unrest in the area  would be exempt from this time limits)

 

3)  temporary disable Geocaches should also have a Limit on how long they can sit without actions or further logs add by its owner giving the reason.

 

4) a final email is sent by geocaching.com for example after the set time declaring this geocaching as non active and

     in violation of the rules you have 72 hrs to respond, repair or replace.  otherwise it will be deleted and removed

     from the game automatically 

anyways i think its fair and gives a lot of time for geocaches to respond and take action but does set a Limited to an

inactive Geocache in the game.  giving opening for new Geocaches to be placed.   

Let me know what you think ?

 

We have a log function, it's called Needs Maintenance.

Hopefully you're logging NM so these rapscallions get a heads-up that they need maintenance.   ;)  That "lead by example" thing...

 - We're not seeing NM entered by manyThis is the first step.  Can't much blame the CO if no-one's saying anything... 

 

We don't know about others, but our Reviewers have done most for some time.  Seems shorter times too.

 

Last I was in the hospital it was months.   Something as simple as a "holiday weekend" vacation would be past your short "or else" penalty.  

 - But that's already factored in with the "warning" our Reviewers give members.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

 

With an explanation of -Just because you cant find it, it doesn't mean it's not there- so it's not necessarily a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log! :laughing:

 

I sooooooooo agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2020 at 1:27 AM, humboldt flier said:

 I have been in receipt of a number of nasty-grams from the "Cache Health Police" only to find the cache in perfect condition.

I have never had any of them. How often do you check your caches and do you respond to mention of problems in logs in a timely fashion? I try to check my caches regularly, even if there has been no reports of a problem. During this covid 19 crisis, I have been walking or cycling to any caches close enough to do so as part of my allowed daily exercise. My maintenance record can be seen by a reviewer, and I would not allow several DNFs to remain, or mention in logs of problems (if problems are mentioned in logs, I don't wait for NMs to act), without me going to check the cache, doing any maintenance necessary and then logging an OM, whether maintenance was necessary or not, to record my visit. After 2 DNFs by experienced caches I would almost definitely check the cache, as I don't have many caches which are hard to find. Any caches that are further away from home, I make sure when placing they are not hard to find (no silly micros in bushland for instance :rolleyes:), so there won't be many DNFs. If I want a tricky to find cache that might get DNFs because it's tricky, I would place them closer to where I live and where I can easily check.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just a general comment of NM & NA of a recent experience.

There is a cache long in need of OM and I logged a NM months ago, as did some others. The owner made an OM just after mine, saying they were busy but they would get to it soon. Months later they still hadn't replaced the broken cache and I logged a NA, mentioning the OM was not a real OM. Then I noticed the previous log to mine saying they had replaced the sodden log with a new one. A bit annoying that, as it should be up to the CO and replacing the log won't stop water getting in. Anyway, I deleted my NA, as I had forgotten the real problem was the hole in the cache lid. (I remembered that later.) A couple of days later the reviewer put notice on it, so they obviously saw the NA and still thought it was applicable (and other people maintaining it doesn't count), even though I had deleted the NA.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers are made aware of "Needs Archived" logs even if the log is deleted.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Reviewers are made aware of "Needs Archived" logs even if the log is deleted.

Yes, I guessed that and wondered if they would still take notice. However a read of the logs would put the problem in perspective.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


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

I have never had any of them. How often do you check your caches and do you respond to mention of problems in logs in a timely fashion? I try to check my caches regularly, even if there has been no reports of a problem. During this covid 19 crisis, I have been walking or cycling to any caches close enough to do so as part of my allowed daily exercise. My maintenance record can be seen by a reviewer, and I would not allow several DNFs to remain, or mention in logs of problems (if problems are mentioned in logs, I don't wait for NMs to act), without me going to check the cache, doing any maintenance necessary and then logging an OM, whether maintenance was necessary or not, to record my visit. After 2 DNFs by experienced caches I would almost definitely check the cache, as I don't have many caches which are hard to find. Any caches that are further away from home, I make sure when placing they are not hard to find (no silly micros in bushland for instance :rolleyes:), so there won't be many false DNFs. If I want a tricky to find cache that might get DNFs because it's tricky, I would place them closer to where I live and where I can easily check.

 

This whole concept of "false" DNFs, or "bogus" DNFs that were mentioned recently in another thread, bothers me. I'm not particularly good at finding caches, expecially ones that are meant to be easy, and my DNFs are an important part of my caching history since I generally learn more from my failures than I do from my successes. The vast majority (about 80% at last count) of my DNFs are due to my own ineptitude or some situation either on my trek to the cache or at GZ that prevents my search from having a successful outcome. These are all my DNFs so far this year:

  • A coastal multi-stage EarthCache (GC8K5D1) where unexpectedly large seas prevented me from reaching several of the waypoints
  • A cache in amongst wetlands mangroves (GC8G5A7) where the swarms of mosquitoes were so thick on the day I attempted it that I had to abandon my search.
  • Three DNFs in a row on a D3.5 cache (GC8J4D2), but I knew it wasn't missing because other people were finding it. On my fourth attempt I found it too.
  • A 2.5/2.5 cache (GC6ZVE8) that I thought was on the other side of a creek that was a bit too slippery and deep for me to try crossing that day. When I went back for another attempt, it turned out my GPSr had been misleading me the first time (or I was misreading the map) as I was on the right side of the creek after all.
  • A 1/1 traditional in central Sydney (GC8B1QV) that would've been an easy find except there were security guards and hi-viz workers clustered around GZ preparing for a fireworks display.

None of these have anything to do with a problematic cache and there would be no point in the COs checking on them as there would be nothing they could do to make the problems go away. It bugs me that DNF is being increasingly turned into a de-facto NM, with the expectation that COs need to do something in response to stop them happening, particularly if there's more than one. If it's now wrong to log DNFs in situations like these, and I have to log WNs instead, I lose not only the blue frownies on the map that serve as a reminder to have another attempt (hopefully better prepared), but my stories of heroic failure become lost in amongst all the mundane TB drops, revisited caches and the like that I already use WN for.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

How often do you check your caches and do you respond to mention of problems in logs in a timely fashion?

 

Although no one has mentioned receiving a CHS email in quite some time after a few DNFs (it appears the algorithm has been tweaked), there were some of us that posted that we received CHS emails after a couple DNFs that didn't mention any problems in the logs at all, just DNFs.  The problems mentioned in any logs aren't scored in the CHS, nor is your response time as it pertains to any previous maintenance related to those problems.  The actual log type is what is scored within the CHS - DNF, Found it, OM, and NM - and the content of each of those logs doesn't matter to the CHS.  It would matter to a reviewer if they end up disabling (or not disabling) a cache due to inaction on a CO's part to address a CHS email.  Finds and OMs raise the score while DNFs and NMs lower the score.  What triggered the email for me (and for Jeff) were a couple consecutive DNFs.  I checked on it and it was right where I hid it.

 

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I try to check my caches regularly, even if there has been no reports of a problem.

 

You're more than welcome to do so but I don't quite understand the reasoning behind this, unless you just happen to be passing it by and have the time.  If you know you put out a good container with a decent sized log that has avoided unwanted attention from muggles, then there's no real need to verify what you already suspect - that it's in good shape.  

 

I'm also curious to know what "regularly" means for you.  I place my caches in such a manner (using good containers, good sized logs, and in locations that don't accidentally get discovered) that I usually don't have to do maintenance so my time between visits can be longer, unless someone wants me to check or brings up a potential issue or an actual issue.  I was fortunate enough to adopt a 2001 cache and when I adopted it, I put out an ammo can.  I did maintenance in March.  My last maintenance visit was in 2015 when I adopted it. I also was fortunate enough to adopt a 2004 multi library cache.  I did maintenance on it in January and my last maintenance visit was 2016 when I adopted it.  I do an occasional "Is it still there" visit (once a year?) but there is no need to file an OM because there have been no issues and no negative hits to the CHS, only finds and notes.

 

25 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not allow several DNFs to remain...without me going to check the cache

 

I don't understand this logic, particularly for harder hides.  There's nothing wrong with DNFs and, as mentioned above, it doesn't mean something is wrong with the cache.  I expect to get DNFs on many of my caches and don't think anything of them.  If someone mentions a potential issue, then absolutely I'd check on it, but not just a few cachers not finding it.  The sole exception I might make to this is if it's been awhile since I've gone to check on it but even then, they're still usually in place and just fine.

 

54 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

so there won't be many false DNFs

 

What's a false DNF?

Share this post


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

I would not allow several DNFs to remain,

I would, depending on the cache. I got two dnfs on stage 1 of a cache this week. Questions related to a sculpture that is most certainly still there. Absolutely nothing for me to check. 

 

Even if I did check, the DNFs remain. 

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

What's a false DNF?

 

I realize I asked this but I'm replying to myself to clarify.  There are cachers who define a DNF as the moment they hit "Go", regardless of how far away they might actually be.  If they don't end up making it to the cache to look for it because of a detour or traffic, but log their DNF, then who am I to say that's a false DNF?  I wouldn't log it as a DNF (WN for me) but I fully get that others do.  That's a valid DNF, even though I wouldn't log it that way.  I did that yesterday.  I hit go to navigate (phone GPS) to the parking area and when I arrived, the lot was so full of muggles that I would have most likely exposed the cache to them.  Therefore, I didn't even get out of the car to look, even though it was .31 miles from parking.  I filed a WN log.  I know some cachers who would file a DNF for that.  Knowing that, what, then, is a false DNF?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I realize I asked this but I'm replying to myself to clarify.  There are cachers who define a DNF as the moment they hit "Go", regardless of how far away they might actually be.  If they don't end up making it to the cache to look for it because of a detour or traffic, but log their DNF, then who am I to say that's a false DNF?  I wouldn't log it as a DNF (WN for me) but I fully get that others do.  That's a valid DNF, even though I wouldn't log it that way.  I did that yesterday.  I hit go to navigate (phone GPS) to the parking area and when I arrived, the lot was so full of muggles that I would have most likely exposed the cache to them.  Therefore, I didn't even get out of the car to look, even though it was .31 miles from parking.  I filed a WN log.  I know some cachers who would file a DNF for that.  Knowing that, what, then, is a false DNF?


It could be a Note.  But for consistency, if you previously made a DNF for any cache where you hit “Go” and didn’t find it, it might be another DNF.  There’s no strict rule about that.  I add such a cache, assuming I intend to try again, to a list named “Go Find” to keep track.  
 

I try not to make a DNF merely because a cache both exists and I haven’t found it, because that would be many millions of caches.  But if a parking lot tends to be full making it tough to access the cache I was intent on finding today, AND if that full lot is a surprise not mentioned on the cache page, don’t tempt me.  :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I would, depending on the cache. I got two dnfs on stage 1 of a cache this week. Questions related to a sculpture that is most certainly still there. Absolutely nothing for me to check. 

 

Even if I did check, the DNFs remain. 

But your OM would also now be there.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not allow several DNFs to remain...without me going to check the cache

 

I don't understand this logic, particularly for harder hides.  There's nothing wrong with DNFs and, as mentioned above, it doesn't mean something is wrong with the cache.  I expect to get DNFs on many of my caches and don't think anything of them.  If someone mentions a potential issue, then absolutely I'd check on it, but not just a few cachers not finding it.  The sole exception I might make to this is if it's been awhile since I've gone to check on it but even then, they're still usually in place and just fine.

You ignored what I wrote and failed to include this, "I don't have many caches which are hard to find."

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You're more than welcome to do so but I don't quite understand the reasoning behind this, unless you just happen to be passing it by and have the time.  If you know you put out a good container with a decent sized log that has avoided unwanted attention from muggles, then there's no real need to verify what you already suspect - that it's in good shape.  

 

I'm also curious to know what "regularly" means for you.

Every one to two years, unless I am passing. My containers are not rubbish. Also if I get some problems mentioned. That is not excessive.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

What's a false DNF?

As that was taken out of context, I had to look back and see what I had meant. I have no idea why I put 'false', except I hadn't had breakfast yet. I have now removed it. I meant just plain, "so there won't be many DNFs". But in my pre-breakfast haze, I likely meant DNFs where the cache is still there, but for whatever reason, they couldn't find it, likely because it was a hard find. So therefore, with caches further away from home, I don't make them difficult to find, so I don't need to get in the car and take a drive to check a cache that I then find not missing. With easy to find caches, chances are there would not be two DNFs in a row, especially from experiences geocachers. If there are, it does really need a check, and from experience, then almost certainly is missing.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not allow several DNFs to remain,

I would, depending on the cache. I got two dnfs on stage 1 of a cache this week. Questions related to a sculpture that is most certainly still there. Absolutely nothing for me to check. 

 

Even if I did check, the DNFs remain.

 

The most recent DNF I received was on a multi from someone who was searching for the container at the listed coordinates. I'll no doubt pay the cache another routine visit in due course but that will have to wait until we've had a reasonable spell of dry weather as I don't want to get bogged on the dirt road into it.

 

 

53 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

With easy to find caches, chances are there would not be two DNFs in a row, especially from experiences geocachers. If there are, it does really need a check, and from experience, then almost certainly is missing.

 

I find the more experience I get, the more likely I am to DNF a cache as I have preconceived ideas on what I'm expecting to find and if the reality is something quite different I'm likely to completely overlook the obvious. That happened to me on a traditional recently which I DNFed three times before finally finding it on my fourth attempt. I'd convinced myself I knew what it was going to be, based on the name of the cache and similar ones I'd previously found, but it wasn't. I'd have probably had more luck if I'd been a raw newbie going for my first find.

 

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I'm also curious to know what "regularly" means for you.  I place my caches in such a manner (using good containers, good sized logs, and in locations that don't accidentally get discovered) that I usually don't have to do maintenance so my time between visits can be longer, unless someone wants me to check or brings up a potential issue or an actual issue.  I was fortunate enough to adopt a 2001 cache and when I adopted it, I put out an ammo can.  I did maintenance in March.  My last maintenance visit was in 2015 when I adopted it. I also was fortunate enough to adopt a 2004 multi library cache.  I did maintenance on it in January and my last maintenance visit was 2016 when I adopted it.  I do an occasional "Is it still there" visit (once a year?) but there is no need to file an OM because there have been no issues and no negative hits to the CHS, only finds and notes.

 

Yes, there's a cache I hid in 2015, a 3/3 multi, which I visited last week because I was looking for a nice long walk to do that was within our allowed travel range at the time. Of late it only gets about one find a year and I reckon it has more chance of being nabbed by aliens than of being muggled or filling up with water. About all that's changed in those five years are the 17 names added to the logbook.

 

FiveYearOldCache.jpg.a381d4064239eb30fdf86c6fcbd16ebe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

As that was taken out of context, I had to look back and see what I had meant. I have no idea why I put 'false', except I hadn't had breakfast yet. I have now removed it. I meant just plain, "so there won't be many DNFs". But in my pre-breakfast haze, I likely meant DNFs where the cache is still there, but for whatever reason, they couldn't find it, likely because it was a hard find. So therefore, with caches further away from home, I don't make them difficult to find, so I don't need to get in the car and take a drive to check a cache that I then find not missing. With easy to find caches, chances are there would not be two DNFs in a row, especially from experiences geocachers. If there are, it does really need a check, and from experience, then almost certainly is missing.

 

 

That certainly makes more sense.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Every one to two years, unless I am passing. My containers are not rubbish. Also if I get some problems mentioned. That is not excessive.

 

OK.  I was thinking you were meaning monthly or something to that extent.  That's not excessive at all.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

You ignored what I wrote and failed to include this, "I don't have many caches which are hard to find."

 

 That means you have caches which are hard to find as well.  Does that mean you won't let a few DNFs be posted without a visit for those as well?

 

That's what I was referring to when I said "particularly harder hides."  I fully understand your reasoning behind easier caches with a few DNFs.  There are really only two likely reasons that an easy cache gets quite a few DNFs, especially if they're consecutive - one is that the cache is just not found and the other is that it's missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

There are really only two likely reasons that an easy cache gets quite a few DNFs, especially if they're consecutive - one is that the cache is just not found and the other is that it's missing.

 

Or muggles at GZ. They seem to be a major cause of DNFs on otherwise easy caches. There's one in central Sydney I've DNFed a couple of times, I'm sure it'd be an easy find if there wasn't always a muggle sitting on top of the seat it's hidden under.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

 That means you have caches which are hard to find as well.  Does that mean you won't let a few DNFs be posted without a visit for those as well?

 

That's what I was referring to when I said "particularly harder hides."  I fully understand your reasoning behind easier caches with a few DNFs.  There are really only two likely reasons that an easy cache gets quite a few DNFs, especially if they're consecutive - one is that the cache is just not found and the other is that it's missing. 

I can usually judge by the experience of the cacher and what is written whether I need to check. It depends on the DNF log. "DNF, too many people about, so I didn't search," won't get a check from me, but a couple of DNFs from very experienced cachers who said they spent ages searching, likely will. It they were beginners, likely not.

I don't have any seriously hard ones to find. The one that used to be most difficult (numerous hidey places, bad GPS reception), I have now added a spoiler photograph and very precise instructions to find, but still left it at D3 because of increased muggle numbers. Building work was happening right beside it, and I didn't want any of the builders to notice people hanging about suspiciously, and then later checking to see what the people were looking for, and finding the cache. I kept the D at 3, because of the muggle factor. Builders, plus people coming out the back door of the nearby bar. Even for me checking the cache and knowing where it is hidden, I have had to make more than one visit to get the chance too, or even give up and come back another day. Hence the D stays at 3. And now cafes and another bar are invading this alleyway with outside tables and chairs. It used to be a grotty  back alleyway, but I suspect it will become a lively cafe and bar area. That will make finding this cache more difficult still.

Another I have marked as 3D, because some people have struggled to find it. But really, all they need to do is look around and see evidence of where others have walked. Perhaps they needed the practice I got, by finding my first 180 caches without GPS. I checked the ground (among other things) for evidence of where to go. The moved pebble, the bent grass, the broken twig, etc...and the geo-trail...like this cache has. Although it's faint, it's there.

Also I don't place harder to find caches (I didn't say 'hard'; there's a difference in meaning) in places a long way from where I live. I place them where I can easily get to to check. Any caches further away, I make sure they are not difficult to find, as I don't want to have to make longer trips, just to check the cache because of DNFs. If unsure of the rating, I would prefer to overrate it, then underrate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The one that used to be most difficult (numerous hidey places, bad GPS reception), I have now added a spoiler photograph and very precise instructions to find, but still left it at D3 because of increased muggle numbers.

 

But didn't you say elsewhere that you never read the description on traditionals? That's why I always do before I leave home, just in case it's something like this where I'm likely to need whatever extra hints the CO has offered up. It doesn't help if, after tearing my hair out at GZ, I look at the description on my Garmin only to discover there's a spoiler photo I can't see.

 

 

8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

But really, all they need to do is look around and see evidence of where others have walked. Perhaps they needed the practice I got, by finding my first 180 caches without GPS. I checked the ground (among other things) for evidence of where to go. The moved pebble, the bent grass, the broken twig, etc...and the geo-trail...like this cache has. Although it's faint, it's there.

 

Most of my caches don't get enough finders to create a geotrail and even if they do, access is usually over rock so about all you could hope for is some muddy footprints if there's been recent rain.

 

RockShelf.jpg.7f19af61ea6ec4ceca3f45e80a225cfb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I can usually judge by the experience of the cacher and what is written whether I need to check. It depends on the DNF log. "DNF, too many people about, so I didn't search," won't get a check from me, but a couple of DNFs from very experienced cachers who said they spent ages searching, likely will. It they were beginners, likely not.

I don't have any seriously hard ones to find. The one that used to be most difficult (numerous hidey places, bad GPS reception), I have now added a spoiler photograph and very precise instructions to find, but still left it at D3 because of increased muggle numbers. Building work was happening right beside it, and I didn't want any of the builders to notice people hanging about suspiciously, and then later checking to see what the people were looking for, and finding the cache. I kept the D at 3, because of the muggle factor. Builders, plus people coming out the back door of the nearby bar. Even for me checking the cache and knowing where it is hidden, I have had to make more than one visit to get the chance too, or even give up and come back another day. Hence the D stays at 3. And now cafes and another bar are invading this alleyway with outside tables and chairs. It used to be a grotty  back alleyway, but I suspect it will become a lively cafe and bar area. That will make finding this cache more difficult still.

Another I have marked as 3D, because some people have struggled to find it. But really, all they need to do is look around and see evidence of where others have walked. Perhaps they needed the practice I got, by finding my first 180 caches without GPS. I checked the ground (among other things) for evidence of where to go. The moved pebble, the bent grass, the broken twig, etc...and the geo-trail...like this cache has. Although it's faint, it's there.

Also I don't place harder to find caches (I didn't say 'hard'; there's a difference in meaning) in places a long way from where I live. I place them where I can easily get to to check. Any caches further away, I make sure they are not difficult to find, as I don't want to have to make longer trips, just to check the cache because of DNFs. If unsure of the rating, I would prefer to overrate it, then underrate.

 

This is exactly my thinking too. :) When I use to hide caches this is how I did it.  I expected cachers to find my caches. Hard to find (high D-rate) or not. I didn't want them to drive back multiple times. I don't want finders to end up frustrated.  

 

I had a D3, but I also provided a good hint. If someone logged a DNF, if it sounded like they used the hint and really looked, then I would make the 20 minute drive within a week. If I thought it might be possible they didn't look in the right spot, I'd leave it for the 2nd DNF. 2 DNFs in a row, from experience, meant it was very likely something was wrong. I think we know our caches well enough to know when it sounds like there might be a need to check. It was a relief when it was still there, not an irritant. I placed it in a nice location that I enjoyed returning to. A couple of times in 15 years it really had disappeared. 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But didn't you say elsewhere that you never read the description on traditionals

Mostly I don't, unless I can't find the cache, as important information should be in the hint, and from my experience, mostly I have found it in the hint. The Description is for the history, geology, etc of the area. Why the cache is here and why it's worth visiting. And mostly this is what I have found. Either that, or nothing of real importance.  This is why I rarely read the description until I am scratching at straws as I cant find the cache and the hint is useless. However, most times the description doesn't help either. If yours does, your descriptions are the exception. If it were a more remote cache, I read all this before leaving home, but not for easy to get to caches, which is most here. For the cache I was referring to here, the description is only the history of the area. The pertinent information to find this cache is in the hint.GC4BKBP

"The cache is a magnetic keyholder and it's on the big power box on the (longer) eastern side (East Row/Mort Street side). See spoiler photograph. Be careful of muggles and good luck."

Unfortunately for those of us using GPSs the spoiler photograph doesn't appear. However, there is phone coverage here and most people can turn the phone data on and find the photograph.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Mostly I don't, unless I can't find the cache, as important information should be in the hint, and from my experience, mostly I have found it in the hint. The Description is for the history, geology, etc of the area. Why the cache is here and why it's worth visiting. And mostly this is what I have found. Either that, or nothing of real importance.  This is why I rarely read the description until I am scratching at straws as I cant find the cache and the hint is useless. However, most times the description doesn't help either. If yours does, your descriptions are the exception.

 

For my puzzles, multis, challenges and EarthCache, which make up the majority of my hides, the description must be read otherwise you won't get anywhere with them and end up DNFing them like some newbies have. But even for my traditionals, getting to GZ is the main challenge and there's way too much information I need to convey for it all to go in the hint. I'm not sure what the maximum number of characters a GPSr can display in the hint, but it isn't that many.

 

Anyway, my understanding is that the hint is meant to be read after you've reached GZ and are looking for a bit of a nudge to narrow your search. I get really annoyed when, after searching at GZ for a while and finally look at the hint, all it tells me is where to park. That should be in the description or, even better, provided as a Parking waypoint.

 

Only a couple of my caches are in places with any historical significance and even then I try to keep the history lesson to the minimum needed to establish context for the cache. For the rest, the description provides the theme of the cache as well as guidance of how best to get there, what likely hazards there might be along the way and maybe what to expect when you finally arrive, unless that's part of the surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I had a D3, but I also provided a good hint. If someone logged a DNF, if it sounded like they used the hint and really looked, then I would make the 20 minute drive within a week. If I thought it might be possible they didn't look in the right spot, I'd leave it for the 2nd DNF. 2 DNFs in a row, from experience, meant it was very likely something was wrong. I think we know our caches well enough to know when it sounds like there might be a need to check. It was a relief when it was still there, not an irritant. I placed it in a nice location that I enjoyed returning to. A couple of times in 15 years it really had disappeared. 

 

Across all my hides (not including the caches I've adopted) I've had a total of 64 DNFs but only 2 of those were due to a cache problem and they were on the same (now archived) cache. The rest were due to all manner of other reasons that resulted in an unsuccessful search that day. Many have come back better prepared and found it on their next attempt. I don't go out of my way to make my caches hard to spot once at GZ, but getting to GZ can be quite a challenge on some of them, but a lot of the time people simply were looking in the wrong place because of preconceived ideas of where it has to be (that's a trap I fall into all too often). Two of the DNFs are on my EarthCache and resulted from people not heeding the warning about only attempting it at low tide with small seas running. I did get another DNF from someone who couldn't find a container there but they later deleted it when they figured out how EarthCaches worked.

 

Some of my hides are only a short drive from home but even those are still a fair hike from the nearest parking. A considerable number take at least half a day for me to go and check on, with one being a 50km drive with the last few kilometres along a dry weather 4WD-only dirt road. My longest hike is about 6km each way but a fair number of them are around the 3km mark (an hour's walking in the typical terrain here). I also have a water-access cache that I can only get to with favourable tides, light winds and on a weekday outside school holidays when there are unlikely to be speedboats and jet skis for my stubby little kayak to contend with.

 

So no, as a rule I don't dash out to check on a cache when I get a DNF unless the content of that DNF suggests there could be a problem, and even then I'll likely contact the DNFer to try to confirm it. I'm more likely to check on a cache after a find as some people seem incapable of putting caches back properly.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I also have a water-access cache that I can only get to with favourable tides, light winds and on a weekday outside school holidays when there are unlikely to be speedboats and jet skis for my stubby little kayak to contend with.

For a long time when passing on the shore, I would glance at an island wanting to swim there to find the cache, but I couldn't (sigh) with boats passing. Finally I was able to go with someone in their blow up boat.

I once had an experience of starting to swim across a small lake and looking up to see a sail boat coming my way :o. I'm not a fast swimmer, but I headed back to shore as fast as I could and stuck near the edge (boring:unsure:) for the rest of the day. So I know about that boat problem:(.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

For a long time when passing on the shore, I would glance at an island wanting to swim there to find the cache, but I couldn't (sigh) with boats passing. Finally I was able to go with someone in their blow up boat.

I once had an experience of starting to swim across a small lake and looking up to see a sail boat coming my way :o. I'm not a fast swimmer, but I headed back to shore as fast as I could and stuck near the edge (boring:unsure:) for the rest of the day. So I know about that boat problem:(.

 

During the lockdown I went out on my kayak for a bit of upper body exercise and to check on a cache's virtual waypoint to make sure it hadn't moved in recent maintenance work. I heard a noise which at first I thought was a freight train on the nearby rail line, but when kept getting louder I turned to see I had a ferry boat on my tail. I hastily turned towards shallower water where it couldn't follow me!

  • Surprised 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 4

×
×
  • Create New...