Be Kind To Cache Owners!!!

[+MoonMatt]

If you enjoy the excitement of a new cache being published for you to go find (and possibly an FTF), keep in mind that a fellow cacher put in time and effort to place and maintain these caches for us to seek.

 

I have seen way too many negative and disparaging comments made by cachers who didn't find a cache as quickly as they expected.  Honestly this has turned me away from hiding new caches. I am not talking about caches that may need better coordinates or other suggestions from helpful cachers.  We all want our caches to be found, but negative comments criticizing the hide or rating are not helpful.  We are living in unprecedented stressful times. Geocaching is intended to be a hobby to enjoy. Transferring your stress to a Cache Owner is not acceptable behavior.  We are better than that!  If every Cache Owner gives up placing new caches as I am inclined to do, there won't be anything  for you to find.

 

So Please Be Kind!!!

[+lee737]

20 minutes ago, MoonMatt said:

negative comments criticizing the hide or rating are not helpful

I agree with your sentiments, but constructive criticism can be useful, like container suitability and ratings (when they are *way* off).

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, MoonMatt said:

If you enjoy the excitement of a new cache being published for you to go find (and possibly an FTF), keep in mind that a fellow cacher put in time and effort to place and maintain these caches for us to seek.

I have seen way too many negative and disparaging comments made by cachers who didn't find a cache as quickly as they expected. 

Honestly this has turned me away from hiding new caches. I am not talking about caches that may need better coordinates or other suggestions from helpful cachers.  We all want our caches to be found, but negative comments criticizing the hide or rating are not helpful.  We are living in unprecedented stressful times. Geocaching is intended to be a hobby to enjoy. Transferring your stress to a Cache Owner is not acceptable behavior.  We are better than that!  If every Cache Owner gives up placing new caches as I am inclined to do, there won't be anything  for you to find.

So Please Be Kind!!!

We disagree...   In fact, my log saying that "we found this cache no where near coordinates, the hide is a 1/1.5 when it says 4 in terrain, and a chinese take-out container isn't gonna last past this summer" is the CO's clue that something's off.  

I spend the gas and a day to visit one's cache, and it turns out to be a horrible experience, that's the closest I'll come to "nice"...

Most people are sensitive when told "your baby is ugly".   Maybe it's in the wording...    

We've found hides that are up-to 400' off, and I don't feel one needs to be "kind" about someone who paid no attention to guidelines.

The other 2/3rds gave up the hobby for a while now, a FTFer who's no longer interested in being a beta-tester for clueless people...

The last couple of years I've tried to be nice, saying, " looking for a small cache to leave a trackable, but found another micro" (pill bottles mostly).

No one fixes it.  Maybe a NM would clue them in.   A dozen logs saying "pill bottles are not small caches" may get the CO to understand too... 

"Log soaked!", "Pile of goo for a log...", and "Log looks like a dead soaked moth" are telling a CO who may read logs that there's a problem.

It should be NM, since it may be months before it's fixed, but some caches with log issues for years never seem to get NMs...

[+MoonMatt]

14 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We disagree...   In fact, my log saying that "we found this cache no where near coordinates, the hide is a 1/1.5 when it says 4 in terrain, and a chinese take-out container isn't gonna last past this summer" is the CO's clue that something's off.  

I spend the gas and a day to visit one's cache, and it turns out to be a horrible experience, that's the closest I'll come to "nice"...

Most people are sensitive when told "your baby is ugly".   Maybe it's in the wording...    

We've found hides that are up-to 400' off, and I don't feel one needs to be "kind" about someone who paid no attention to guidelines.

The other 2/3rds gave up the hobby for a while now, a FTFer who's no longer interested in being a beta-tester for clueless people...

The last couple of years I've tried to be nice, saying, " looking for a small cache to leave a trackable, but found another micro" (pill bottles mostly).

No one fixes it.  Maybe a NM would clue them in.   A dozen logs saying "pill bottles are not small caches" may get the CO to understand too... 

"Log soaked!", "Pile of goo for a log...", and "Log looks like a dead soaked moth" are telling a CO who may read logs that there's a problem.

It should be NM, since it may be months before it's fixed, but some caches with log issues for years never seem to get NMs...

I think your examples are appropriate and give details that need to be fixed or at least checked on by CO.  I am referring to outright attacks that do not benefit the caching experience at all.

[+MoonMatt]

11 hours ago, lee737 said:

I agree with your sentiments, but constructive criticism can be useful, like container suitability and ratings (when they are *way* off).

Constructive criticism is always helpful to improve our caches. I am not referring to those logs.

[+cerberus1]

1 minute ago, MoonMatt said:

I think your examples are appropriate and give details that need to be fixed or at least checked on by CO.  I am referring to outright attacks that do not benefit the caching experience at all.

 

With no examples, it's kinda tough to figure where your limit's at.       

We started with people yelling at us (a cache maggot stealing as we started...), and now it's a "duck's back" thing...

If someone is vulgar or threatening, an email to Geocaching HQs a good bet.  

 

[+MoonMatt]

4 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

With no examples, it's kinda tough to figure where your limit's at.       

We started with people yelling at us (a cache maggot stealing as we started...), and now it's a "duck's back" thing...

If someone is vulgar or threatening, an email to Geocaching HQs a good bet.  

 

This is why I went this route to just remind us to be kind

Behavior that Geocaching HQ will not act on

• Rude behavior. Some geocachers may create a negative experience for other geocachers, but their behavior does not violate our Terms of Use.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

We disagree...   In fact, my log saying that "we found this cache no where near coordinates, the hide is a 1/1.5 when it says 4 in terrain, and a chinese take-out container isn't gonna last past this summer" is the CO's clue that something's off.  

I spend the gas and a day to visit one's cache, and it turns out to be a horrible experience, that's the closest I'll come to "nice"...

Most people are sensitive when told "your baby is ugly".   Maybe it's in the wording...    

We've found hides that are up-to 400' off, and I don't feel one needs to be "kind" about someone who paid no attention to guidelines.

The other 2/3rds gave up the hobby for a while now, a FTFer who's no longer interested in being a beta-tester for clueless people...

The last couple of years I've tried to be nice, saying, " looking for a small cache to leave a trackable, but found another micro" (pill bottles mostly).

No one fixes it.  Maybe a NM would clue them in.   A dozen logs saying "pill bottles are not small caches" may get the CO to understand too... 

"Log soaked!", "Pile of goo for a log...", and "Log looks like a dead soaked moth" are telling a CO who may read logs that there's a problem.

It should be NM, since it may be months before it's fixed, but some caches with log issues for years never seem to get NMs...

 

This brings back to mind a cache that had coordinates that were way off (70 ft and in someone's fenced back yard) which had been commented on (in Found logs) 14 times over two years and completely ignored by the CO.  I made my comment in a NM log and started a whole s***storm which culminated in the CO writing me into the cache description as a complainer.  The cache started out as an ammo can and has degraded to just a gallon-sized zip lock bag, which may even not be there anymore either.  

[+MoonMatt]

29 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

 

This brings back to mind a cache that had coordinates that were way off (70 ft and in someone's fenced back yard) which had been commented on (in Found logs) 14 times over two years and completely ignored by the CO.  I made my comment in a NM log and started a whole s***storm which culminated in the CO writing me into the cache description as a complainer.  The cache started out as an ammo can and has degraded to just a gallon-sized zip lock bag, which may even not be there anymore either.  

We have also had attempted to find a cache from a new and/or careless CO and brought to an unsafe or awkward location.  By all means it is our responsibility as cachers to note that in logs for the CO AND other Cachers. But we can still do so in the spirit of kindness.  That is all I am saying. 

[+NanCycle]

30 minutes ago, MoonMatt said:

We have also had attempted to find a cache from a new and/or careless CO and brought to an unsafe or awkward location.  By all means it is our responsibility as cachers to note that in logs for the CO AND other Cachers. But we can still do so in the spirit of kindness.  That is all I am saying. 

Sometimes, when "kindness" has been repeatedly ignored, something a little more forceful is called for.  I was not mean at all in my NM log, just straight-up factual.  The only difference between my log and all the others was that mine was NM.

[+lee737]

We've had criticism in the past for the density of bushbash that was needed to get to the cache, where, if the finder had paid attention to the description, they would have been directed to a fairly open way to traverse across to the hide, which was a 20L/5ga bucket, so couldn't really be popped under a seat on the main track.... 

[+MoonMatt]

8 minutes ago, lee737 said:

We've had criticism in the past for the density of bushbash that was needed to get to the cache, where, if the finder had paid attention to the description, they would have been directed to a fairly open way to traverse across to the hide, which was a 20L/5ga bucket, so couldn't really be popped under a seat on the main track.... 

I find great humor when I "find" the clearly marked path leaving a cache i just bushwhacked to but never thought of criticizing the CO for MY stupidity. We just need to be humble and kind. 

[+baer2006]

I agree that there is no need to be rude in cache logs, even if there is some real problem with the cache (e.g. coordinates way off). OTOH, it must be possible to state such problems the logs without being accused of being "just a complainer". I have encountered many cache owners (mostly newbies, sorry to say), who saw even the most well-meaning and constructive criticism as personal offense.

 

And BTW, regarding the thread title: I tend to ignore requests, which end in multiple exclamation marks and don't even contain a "please" .

[+MoonMatt]

10 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I agree that there is no need to be rude in cache logs, even if there is some real problem with the cache (e.g. coordinates way off). OTOH, it must be possible to state such problems the logs without being accused of being "just a complainer". I have encountered many cache owners (mostly newbies, sorry to say), who saw even the most well-meaning and constructive criticism as personal offense.

 

And BTW, regarding the thread title: I tend to ignore requests, which end in multiple exclamation marks and don't even contain a "please" .

I appreciate your comments.  I did at least end the post with "Please be kind!!!"

[+cerberus1]

...And there's the Co that hasn't logged in, or responded to logs since the cache was placed...

One near me, a "scout pack..." cache still hasn't changed their coordinates the 90+ feet, which puts the hide on the other side of a creek. 

MoonMatt, you'd be happy to know that most logs are kind - by saying "went by XXX's coordinates and parking...".  Over a year now...   

When able, I'll probably go there, be the wet blanket, and post a NM.   Oddly enough, as the norm, I'll get the mean mail for it...

 

[+NanCycle]

10 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

 it must be possible to state such problems the logs without being accused of being "just a complainer".

Of course, like the 14 people before me did.  

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, NanCycle said:

which culminated in the CO writing me into the cache description as a complainer.

One CO did that to me when I did some NM logs ("Log full, needs a new log") on several of their caches. They put that on every cache that mentioned a new log was needed, even those where it wasn't me who mentioned the full log. They told me they expected others to replace the log when they found it full, as that's what they did.

 

(Comment from me: For those who think of replacing a full log in one of MY caches, DO NOT replace any logs of mine. Log a NM, or put it in the log, as I actually read logs. I will do the maintenance. Rarely gets to that though, as occasionally I check my caches as part of OM.)

 

The Reviewer made a comment on one of that's CO's caches, that NM is not a personal attack.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

We've had criticism in the past for the density of bushbash that was needed to get to the cache, where, if the finder had paid attention to the description, they would have been directed to a fairly open way to traverse across to the hide, which was a 20L/5ga bucket, so couldn't really be popped under a seat on the main track.... 

Hint: Read Description.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

We've had criticism in the past for the density of bushbash that was needed to get to the cache, where, if the finder had paid attention to the description, they would have been directed to a fairly open way to traverse across to the hide, which was a 20L/5ga bucket, so couldn't really be popped under a seat on the main track.... 

 

Ha ha, I remember that one! If I recall correctly, the suggested approach route was in the checker output, which I'd printed out and laminated at the time I'd solved the series of puzzles, but it was several weeks later that I actually got out to search for the caches and of course forgot to take that with me. Needless to say, I took the scenic route to GZ via all the lantana thickets and lawyer vine, only to spot the easy way once I'd arrived. Here's my log:

 

 

My logs are generally an account of my experience rather than any sort of judgement on the cache, which is why I don't like it that AL activity logs are now called "reviews". There was one cache, though...it had been a difficult week, with me logging several DNFs on a new and as yet unfound T3 cache, and when an easy traditional was published I thought I'd dash out after work for a quick find to make me feel better. Instead it turned out to be yet another DNF, with me approaching GZ from the wrong side through what appeared and smelt like a toxic waste dump, then to top it off, on the way back to the car a couple of dog-walkers passed by and their big all-so-friendly dog, which had just been swimming in the slimy dam, jumped all over me and covered me in a horrible stinking sludge. I'm afraid I really let fly in my DNF log, later doing an edit after I'd had some dinner and calmed down a bit. I subsequently found out the CO was a youngster who'd been introduced to caching by one of my mates and this was his first hide. Oops. I try to be a bit more diplomatic with my logs now, except perhaps if the cache is a rusty mint tin...

[+lee737]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I have encountered many cache owners (mostly newbies, sorry to say), who saw even the most well-meaning and constructive criticism as personal offense.

People don't seem to take criticism well now, it gets called hating/shaming..... you're just poor-coordinate-shaming me!  

[+lee737]

19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

(Comment from me: For those who think of replacing a full log in one of MY caches, DO NOT replace any logs of mine. Log a NM, or put it in the log, as I actually read logs. I will do the maintenance. Rarely gets to that though, as occasionally I check my caches as part of OM.)

Same here.... I'm happy not to have an old service station (gas station) docket as the log, cheers.....

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, MoonMatt said:

I find great humor when I "find" the clearly marked path leaving a cache i just bushwhacked to but never thought of criticizing the CO for MY stupidity. We just need to be humble and kind. 

I recall finding a cache a few dozen feet off an official trail, where the off-trail route was over clear level ground. After logging my find, I read other logs, and was surprised that many of them referred to bushwhacking a quarter mile or more over rough terrain, through poison oak, etc., etc., etc.

 

Apparently, some finders just followed the arrow, and when the winding trail turned away from the arrow (because the trail followed the contour lines to remain fairly level), they left the trail and tried to hike in a straight line to the cache.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

I recall finding a cache a few dozen feet off an official trail, where the off-trail route was over clear level ground. After logging my find, I read other logs, and was surprised that many of them referred to bushwhacking a quarter mile or more over rough terrain, through poison oak, etc., etc., etc.

 

Apparently, some finders just followed the arrow, and when the winding trail turned away from the arrow (because the trail followed the contour lines to remain fairly level), they left the trail and tried to hike in a straight line to the cache.

 

One of my caches (GC8RTKC) is like that. My intended access is along the fire trail to the reference point I marked, then across an open rock shelf to the cache with no bush-bashing required at all, but being a traditional, people don't read the description and instead just follow their arrow which points them off the trail at a bend and across a thickly-vegetated gully.

 

 

Probably as a result, it's my least-favourited cache with just one FP from 24 finds in two years. According to the Year of the Hide recommendations, I should probably archive it even though I don't think there's anything particularly bad about it, with a nice view from GZ and a good quality container and logbook.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One of my caches (GC8RTKC) is like that. My intended access is along the fire trail to the reference point I marked, then across an open rock shelf to the cache with no bush-bashing required at all, but being a traditional, people don't read the description and instead just follow their arrow which points them off the trail at a bend and across a thickly-vegetated gully.

 

 

Probably as a result, it's my least-favourited cache with just one FP from 24 finds in two years. According to the Year of the Hide recommendations, I should probably archive it even though I don't think there's anything particularly bad about it, with a nice view from GZ and a good quality container and logbook.

 

You could add coordinates of where people should leave the path.

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You could add coordinates of where people should leave the path.

 

I did, it's the reference point called "Leave the fire trail here" and the description says "Turn left onto the ML9 Loop fire trail and continue along to the reference point. From there, just follow the rock shelf to GZ", but nobody reads the description, they just fire up their phone or GPSr at the car park and blindly follow the arrow.

[+Goldenwattle]

27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I did, it's the reference point called "Leave the fire trail here" and the description says "Turn left onto the ML9 Loop fire trail and continue along to the reference point. From there, just follow the rock shelf to GZ", but nobody reads the description, they just fire up their phone or GPSr at the car park and blindly follow the arrow.

Then I would put something like, 'information and WPs for easiest route in description' in the hint, as I'm guessing that more people would check the hint. Or, 'for best route, read the description'.

[+MoonMatt]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One of my caches (GC8RTKC) is like that. My intended access is along the fire trail to the reference point I marked, then across an open rock shelf to the cache with no bush-bashing required at all, but being a traditional, people don't read the description and instead just follow their arrow which points them off the trail at a bend and across a thickly-vegetated gully.

 

 

Probably as a result, it's my least-favourited cache with just one FP from 24 finds in two years. According to the Year of the Hide recommendations, I should probably archive it even though I don't think there's anything particularly bad about it, with a nice view from GZ and a good quality container and logbook.

 

That does look like an awesome view. Some cachers like to make their own D/T ratings and don't pay attention to the info the CO provides. But maybe they learn for next cache.

[+Team Canary]

Posting Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archived logs is sadly seen the wrong way by too many people.

 

I've given up logging them recently after receiving feedback for my approach.

 

Its hard because we all draw different lines in different places. 

 

[+MoonMatt]

11 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Posting Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archived logs is sadly seen the wrong way by too many people.

 

I've given up logging them recently after receiving feedback for my approach.

 

Its hard because we all draw different lines in different places. 

 

I agree its difficult to word it so people don't take it the wrong way.  All we can do is try to be polite and if our log is taken the wrong way nothing we can do. Thanks for sharing your views!

[+Goldenwattle]

32 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Posting Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archived logs is sadly seen the wrong way by too many people.

 

I've given up logging them recently after receiving feedback for my approach.

 

Its hard because we all draw different lines in different places. 

 

I rarely worry about posting NMs logs, but I hesitate with NA. I just did a second NM log rather than the NA log I would have liked to have done. If that's ignored maybe in a month I will log that NA.

[+niraD]

44 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Posting Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archived logs is sadly seen the wrong way by too many people.

 

I've given up logging them recently after receiving feedback for my approach.

 

Its hard because we all draw different lines in different places. 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then I would put something like, 'information and WPs for easiest route in description' in the hint, as I'm guessing that more people would check the hint. Or, 'for best route, read the description'.

 

When I started in this game, the understanding I got was that the hint was meant to be something you looked at once at GZ to help narrow your search. Stuff about the cache, including parking and directions on how to get to GZ, was meant to be in the description. Sadly the official app has turned that upside down, with the hint now given top prominence and the desciption relegated to "something to look at if you get stuck". With my caches at least, if you wait until you get stuck to look at the description, it's probably too late, but I guess I'm doing it wrong. Or maybe there's an expectation these days that traditionals are meant to be just parking lot or guard rail hides where the description might just as well be "this page is intentionally left blank".

 

I seem to recall that, with some GPSrs, there's a limit to how many characters they will display in the hint. At any rate, I try to keep my hints as brief as possible and wouldn't want to be filling it up with parking and trail directions. It annoys me when I'm scratching my head at GZ and look at the hint for some guidance, only to find it's telling me where to park; at that point I'm likely to walk away in disgust and log an unfriendly DNF.

 

In hindsight, maybe I should have made that cache a multi, with the first waypoint at the spot where you leave the fire trail, but that wouldn't have worked as nobody does multis now on principle, either because they're too much effort for just one smiley or because one or more of the waypoints are expected to be missing.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

<...>

 

Probably as a result, it's my least-favourited cache with just one FP from 24 finds in two years. According to the Year of the Hide recommendations, I should probably archive it even though I don't think there's anything particularly bad about it, with a nice view from GZ and a good quality container and logbook.

 

 

 

I have a cache that's similarly configured to Jeff's illustration, where you you approach from the upper left (in his pic). The posted coords (well, the coords you get after you solve the primary puzzle) take you to the point on the trail where I want you to head up a side-trail, like Jeff's green arrow.

 

From there, they have to project a waypoint that will take them up the side-trail to the cache.

 

I did it that way because I didn't want them to bushwack, but because it isn't far off the main trail I figured most people WOULD, attempting to save themselves the extra hundred foot uphill walk.

 

Field-puzzle on top of a puzzle, but people tell me they enjoyed it.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by TeamRabbitRun

[+mustakorppi]

Almost exactly 3 years ago, a new geocacher placed their 3rd cache, which went missing before publication. After the first few DNFs, the CO tried posting some hints in notes, so we know the container was nicely themed to the location, though obviously it was too prone to being muggled and wouldn’t have survived the weather for long.
 

Unfortunately we never got to know how the hider, obviously still a child, would have developed as a CO. He got to deal with a month and half of notes and DNFs from experienced cachers ranging from neutral to outright telling how him how the place was stupid, complaining about why their own cache got archived and this didn’t, egging others on to feed on the drama… until another young cacher came in to log a FTF on his own throwdown, supposed adults followed suit and the cache got archived and locked. The CO hasn’t been seen since.

 

On 5/22/2022 at 6:10 PM, MoonMatt said:

Behavior that Geocaching HQ will not act on

• Rude behavior. Some geocachers may create a negative experience for other geocachers, but their behavior does not violate our Terms of Use.

[+MoonMatt]

6 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Almost exactly 3 years ago, a new geocacher placed their 3rd cache, which went missing before publication. After the first few DNFs, the CO tried posting some hints in notes, so we know the container was nicely themed to the location, though obviously it was too prone to being muggled and wouldn’t have survived the weather for long.
 

Unfortunately we never got to know how the hider, obviously still a child, would have developed as a CO. He got to deal with a month and half of notes and DNFs from experienced cachers ranging from neutral to outright telling how him how the place was stupid, complaining about why their own cache got archived and this didn’t, egging others on to feed on the drama… until another young cacher came in to log a FTF on his own throwdown, supposed adults followed suit and the cache got archived and locked. The CO hasn’t been seen since.

 

Thats sad that they didn't get more help to learn the ropes. I hope they try again someday. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/22/2022 at 11:04 PM, Team Canary said:

Posting Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archived logs is sadly seen the wrong way by too many people.

 

I've given up logging them recently after receiving feedback for my approach.

 

A CO who gave me grief over a valid and accurate NM log would get the issue refered to a Reviewer and I would cease to seek their hides.

 

That said, seekers should be open to when they are indeed wrong. I logged a NM on a birdhouse hide where the contents were seemingly pilfered and an old lotto ticket left as a replacement logsheet.

 

The CO messaged me to say the cache had not been pilferes; the inner container was actually cleverly concealed. He seemed to think the number of FPs should have alerted me the cache was not just a normal birdhouse hide. FPs aren't something I would factor in. Besides, a rest area hide using a non-standard container would would get lots of FPs regardless. Nevertheless, since I had misunderstood the cache I did apologize to the CO and changed my log.

[+colleda]

I once DNF'd an ammo can cache in a forest in Alaska. About 4 or 5 metres away there was a real birdhouse into which some seekers had placed scrap paper logs and logged a find. The description stated the cache was an ammo can, one of a series where all had gone missing and were eventually archived.

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, colleda said:

I once DNF'd an ammo can cache in a forest in Alaska. About 4 or 5 metres away there was a real birdhouse into which some seekers had placed scrap paper logs and logged a find.

The description stated the cache was an ammo can, one of a series where all had gone missing and were eventually archived.

Yep.  The many examples we found, I'd like to think it was simply missed it, rather than dumb...

A new cacher once placed lifelike bird nests in trees, eggs n all, and this spoil sport advised him against it.

The CO and his friends pooh-poohed the idea, mentioned us at events, until people started complaining about all the real eggs broken near GZs.

I found a mini ammo can once, in an area excavated by people looking for an ammo can.  Not one person noticed the "other" size...

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I found a mini ammo can once, in an area excavated by people looking for an ammo can.  Not one person noticed the "other" size...

I love clever, hard-to-find caches. But the CO needs to make sure the location can withstand the repeated intense searches brought on by clever, hard-to-find caches.

[+ras_oscar]

On 5/22/2022 at 10:42 AM, cerberus1 said:

We disagree...   In fact, my log saying that "we found this cache no where near coordinates, the hide is a 1/1.5 when it says 4 in terrain, and a chinese take-out container isn't gonna last past this summer" is the CO's clue that something's off.  

I spend the gas and a day to visit one's cache, and it turns out to be a horrible experience, that's the closest I'll come to "nice"...

Most people are sensitive when told "your baby is ugly".   Maybe it's in the wording...    

We've found hides that are up-to 400' off, and I don't feel one needs to be "kind" about someone who paid no attention to guidelines.

The other 2/3rds gave up the hobby for a while now, a FTFer who's no longer interested in being a beta-tester for clueless people...

The last couple of years I've tried to be nice, saying, " looking for a small cache to leave a trackable, but found another micro" (pill bottles mostly).

No one fixes it.  Maybe a NM would clue them in.   A dozen logs saying "pill bottles are not small caches" may get the CO to understand too... 

"Log soaked!", "Pile of goo for a log...", and "Log looks like a dead soaked moth" are telling a CO who may read logs that there's a problem.

It should be NM, since it may be months before it's fixed, but some caches with log issues for years never seem to get NMs...

if it was 400 feet away from GZ, are you sure you had the correct cache? 528 feet or more could well be a completely different  cache. The coordinates couldn't have been that bad if there was enough info on the cache page and the coords to allow you to make the find.

 

When I make comments on a cache I limit myself strictly to facts.

-The cache was fond 30 feet from posted coordinates.

-The cache was found in the open.

-The container has a hole in the bottom that appears to be made by rodents.

-The log sheet is too wet to sign, added a dry log sheet in a zlock.

 

All my comments are designed to alert the CO to potential issues, so they can come to do their periodic maintenance armed with materials to resolve issues in one trip. I would never leave insulting or disparaging comments about the cache or the cache owner. This person on the internet whom I never met has taken the time to:

-prepare a cache container

-research hidings spots online and in the field

-taken field coordiantes

-hidden a cache

-submitted the cache to the local reviewer for approval

-committed to periodic maintenance of a cache that is intended to be permanent

 

All for the sole purpose of providing ME with a pleasant experience

 

I have on occasion approached GZ and decided not to complete the hunt. Often because, if I were the CO I would not have chosen that area to hide a cache. That doesn't mean the location is bad, it just means it does not suit my personal taste.

 

 

[+cerberus1]

9 minutes ago, ras_oscar said:

if it was 400 feet away from GZ, are you sure you had the correct cache? 528 feet or more could well be a completely different  cache.

The coordinates couldn't have been that bad if there was enough info on the cache page and the coords to allow you to make the find.

 

The roadside cache was less than a quarter mile from our property.  The only thing near out neighbor there was a bus stop...   Sheesh...

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

When I make comments on a cache I limit myself strictly to facts.

-The cache was fond 30 feet from posted coordinates.

 

In such a situation, I'd prefer to say something like "I found the cache 30 feet south of where my GPSr was pointing me" because I doubt my GPSr is any more accurate than the CO's. Sometimes weird discrepencies happen; there's a bushland cache where my GPSr had me searching in a particular spot but after expanding my search I eventually found the cache about ten metres away. The curious thing was that when I looked at my GPSr it was saying zero metres there, so I walked back to where I'd been originally searching and it again said zero metres. I suspect there are signal reflections from nearby hills that result in those two locations both showing the same coordinates.

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In such a situation, I'd prefer to say something like "I found the cache 30 feet south of where my GPSr was pointing me" because I doubt my GPSr is any more accurate than the CO's.

 

Yep. And as a CO, knowing a cache is in a sort of shifty area, it's kind of annoying when people seem to assume their gps is the most accurate; and the cache gets logs complaining that the coordinates are off, while others state the coordinates are spot on. So... who's right?  Almost certainly that's not the intended meaning, but "where my gps led me" is less likely to come off in that manner. 

Though I sometimes chuckle when reading a log on a cache saying their gps must be having a bad day

[+barefootjeff]

50 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Though I sometimes chuckle when reading a log on a cache saying their gps must be having a bad day

 

Yep, my GPSr was having a bad day a couple of weeks ago when I was up in the Newcastle area doing a new series by lee737. He's pretty pedantic about making sure his coordinates are as accurate as he can possibly get them, so it was a bit of a surprise when at one cache (and only one) my GPSr was consistently putting me about ten metres off and on the wrong side of the trail. It is on fairly steep ground with a fair bit of shielding to the north, so that might have been the cause, but none of the other finders have mentioned having any trouble and a few have said the coordinates led them straight to it. The satellite image also puts it in the right spot so I'm pretty sure the problem was with my device and possibly the satellite constellation available at the time, and I said as much in my log.

 

Later in the day, as I was making my way back to the car after finishing the series, my device beeped to tell me it had completely lost satellite reception. That was in pretty dense forest, and a short time later it reacquired signals but from then on it was showing me well off the track and when I got back to the car, where there was a clear view of the sky, it showed me about 50 metres away from where I knew I was. Turning it off and back on fixed it, and it hasn't done that either before or since, but it's something I'll keep in mind if I have cause to doubt the coordinates on another of Lee's caches.

Edited June 9, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+ras_oscar]

I have found it helpful to occasionally go through the calibration process for my Oregon 700.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I carry multiple GPS units. On one cache, in moderate woods, I had a difference of 40 meters between two of them. The reason I carry multiple is that they have different antenna configurations, and one of them it GPS only, the other is GPS/GLONASS. I searched both locations, and found the cache. (In this case, the GPS with GLONASS was the accurate one.)

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I carry multiple GPS units. On one cache, in moderate woods, I had a difference of 40 meters between two of them. 

 

When we first started, folks would talk about "the Garmin/Magellan factor", and we thought they were just trying to BS the noobs.  

 - But we'd notice a 26' difference between the two, and knowing who uses what at the time, saw that most came true.

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

I have found it helpful to occasionally go through the calibration process for my Oregon 700.

 

The calibration process is only for the magnetic compass and has no effect on the accuracy or otherwise of the coordinates.

[+Lolette83]

On 22/05/2022 at 05:23, lee737 said:

Je suis d'accord avec vos sentiments, mais les critiques constructives peuvent être utiles, comme l'adéquation et les évaluations des conteneurs (lorsqu'elles sont * loin *).

Malheureusement beaucoup de personne ne font pas la différence entre "critique constructive" et "critique destructive". Exemple : "Cette cache ne présente aucun intérêt" est différent de "je ne vois pas l'intérêt de cette cache". Dans la 1ere phrase je pose un jugement, "un dicta", une sorte de "Vérité universelle" qui n'est pas juste (puisque je me place au nom de tous) et peut être blessante pour le créateur de la cache par exemple, médisante et injuste si la personne n'a pas vu qu'elle se trouvait sur un site qui présente un intérêt. Beaucoup ne lisent même pas la description de la cache. Quand à la deuxième phrase elle n'engage que celui qui parle et qui se responsabilise en ne parlant que pour lui.

[+baer2006]

3 hours ago, Lolette83 said:

Malheureusement beaucoup de personne ne font pas la différence entre "critique constructive" et "critique destructive". Exemple : "Cette cache ne présente aucun intérêt" est différent de "je ne vois pas l'intérêt de cette cache". Dans la 1ere phrase je pose un jugement, "un dicta", une sorte de "Vérité universelle" qui n'est pas juste (puisque je me place au nom de tous) et peut être blessante pour le créateur de la cache par exemple, médisante et injuste si la personne n'a pas vu qu'elle se trouvait sur un site qui présente un intérêt. Beaucoup ne lisent même pas la description de la cache. Quand à la deuxième phrase elle n'engage que celui qui parle et qui se responsabilise en ne parlant que pour lui.

To give some constructive criticism, even if off-topic for this thread: Please honor the fact, that the language in the non-regional parts of this forum is English. Thank you !