JPreto

So, in these particular circumstances you can log a FOUND IT in your own cache... NOT!!!!

So I am not a "throwdown absolutist" since I allow another person (geocacher or not) to replace my cache if that person had the proper "lessons" on where and how I want the cache to be placed. And of course, that person will not log a find in that cache except if the person had found it before the "lessons".

Maybe you have misinterpret me or, I have not explained myself clearly... 1) I AM NOT AGAINST a non-owner (or even a muggle) replacing a cache with the owner indications and knowing the exact place where the cache should be, usually by a previous visit to the place or indicative photos. 2) I AM AGAINST a non-owner replacing a cache, even with owner permit (usually lazy owners) if he/she doesn´t know the exact place where the cache should be. Moreover because most of these cases are made with a propose of logging a find in a cache they just replaced, not to help the owner in a altruistic way. About my own caches, if I ever leave Brazil (even if I come back yearly) I will archive 90%-95% of the caches (removing the containers one by one, not to make geolitter), leaving only the EarthCaches and a few "special" caches that a fellow geocacher will be in charge without adopting. He will visit all my cache locations with me and I will leave him several containers (my containers are personalized) for possible future maintenance. If for any reason he will not be able to maintain them any longer I will propose the adoption for any other local geocacher, if no one wants to adopt them, I will archive them and warrant no geolitter will be left.

Lets just put an example, using me: "I am Portuguese and I live in Brazil (almost 8.000km away from my country) I have now 142 caches hidden in Brazil. If I move back to Portugal (my wife is Brazilian so I´ll keep comming here at least every year) what do you think is the best for those 142 caches?"

So regardless of the location this raises another question: Are you in favour of archiving a cache that needs to be fixed and where the cache owner is temporarily unable (could be half a year or even longer, for example to health issues) to fix the cache? There are 2 separate issues you are presenting: 1) Caches located in hard to reach and sometimes impossible. 2) The CO is unable to temporarily maintain the cache. In the 1st case there is even a Attribute for this case, Seasonal caches. The cache that I give as example in the original post is, for me, a good example of that, a seasonal cache. Sometimes you can get it, sometimes you can´t, it´s all up to the weather conditions and nature. Be your own judge! So, if the CO says: "Sorry but I can only check the cache in 7 months because winter time is here and I can´t reach it", the cache should be disabled until he can do proper maintenance of the cache, when the climate or nature conditions allow. No need to archive. In the 2nd case the CO, because of heath reasons or just because he is building a new one and it takes time is unable to rapidly maintain the cache, can´t do a fast maintenance of the cache. First, like in all cases that the CO verifies that there can be a problem with the cache, it must be disabled. If the CO is sick and can´t do it and a NM log goes to the process NM-D-NA done by reviewers but if the CO disables and explains that he can only verify or replace the cache in x months because of x reasons the cache can be disabled for a longer period. As explained on the Help Center article: These are all my opinions and my interpretations of the guidelines... Just that!

Another question: Would you be willing to help the cache owner who cannot go and replace a cache on a high summit you are going to visit only once in your life time (of course under the assumption that the replacement action has been arranged with the owner)? Suppose you could schedule your visit and could alternatively try to wait until the cache gets replaced by someone else. This question is not addressed to me but this is a Forum... I will answer it with my opinion. NO!!!!!! If the owner can´t maintain it the cache shouldn´t be there! Simple and those are the guidelines of the game...

Este não é um título meu, mas o de um tópico colocado no Forum Espanhol por um revisor!!!! http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325512 Ele comenta que cada vez mais os jogadores, preocupados com as estatísticas só procuram meios alternativos para ter mais um "encontrei", alteram propositadamente as dificuldades dos caches (D/T) para completar a matriz ou mesmo criam contas vistuais para poderem registrar mais founds sem que seja nos próprios caches. Ainda bem que é um revisor a escrever isto, porque se fosse um jogador normal seria acusado de ser cache cop!

Buenas! Este es mi primer post en el foro Español pero el Internacional y el Brasileño ya los conozco. Soy Portugués, vivo en São Paulo Brasil pero 3 años de mi vida los pasé en Madrid. Que bueno es escuchar tus palabras siendo revisor!!!! En Brasil no hay muchos caches (solamente 2.000 en todo el País) y las trampas por turistas son más que muchas, especialmente las de los "Greetings from Germany". Además de los logs en caches que no visitaran, los "throwdowns" para que puedan registrar sus finds y hacer eventos en zonas donde no hay caches para que puedan seguir con sus secuencias de días. Un de los casos más graciosos que he visto en los últimos tiempos ha sido justo de un Español (DeepButi) que encontró el cache más antiguo de Europa sin found... el FTF más antiguo con 12 años, 1 mes y 3 dias!!!! Puppet Theatre stash on the Mont Blanc La curiosidad es que casi 2 meses antes, un alemán ha ido al local y con permiso del dueño colocado un caché nuevo para que el pudiera ser el FTF... un Throwdown, vamos... pero en realidad, el cache original estaba y ha sido encontrado más tarde. El alemán cambió su Found It para un DNF pero aún así el Throwdown sigue en su local. Toda la história aqui, pero en ingles.

Que bom!!! Por isso antes de fazer uma cachada devo contactar os donos dos caches que irei tentar encontrar e perguntar: "Olha, se não encontrar o teu cache posso colocar um cache novo para poder registar um encontrei?" Como não me lembrei disso antes!!!! Sabes, geocaching para mim é muito mais do que encontrar caches e ter mais um found... aliás, já há algum tempo atrás coloquei o numero dos meus DNFs no meu perfil, porque me orgulho muito deles!!!! Não encontrar um cache é um excelente motivo para colocar um DNF em vez de colocar um cache de substituição e registar mais um encontrei. A sério, ajudar o dono do cache é positivo, não digo o contrário, mas apenas se já soubermos onde está o cache, isto é, se já o tivermos encontrado antes, no local original, e o dono pedir ajuda. Se eu nunca tiver encontrado o cache e for ao local e não encontrar o cache, mesmo que o dono seja meu amigo eu não irei colocar um cache porque simplesmente posso estar a colocar o cache num local errado e possibilitar a duplicação de caches no local.

Existe um tópico sobre o feito do Espanhol que após 12 anos, 1 mês e 3 dias descobriu o cache mais antigo da europa que nunca tinha sido descoberto (o FTF mais antigo de sempre): http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325436 Mas acho que ainda mais impressionante do que a descoberta foi o facto de ele ter sido o primeiro a realmente encontrar o cache original: Puppet Theatre stash on the Mont Blanc Em Julho de 2014 um geocacher disse que, depois de falar com o dono do cache, ele poderia colocar um cache de substituição no local caso não encontrasse o cache original. Como o geocacher não encontrou o cache, uma boa desculpa serviu para colocar um novo recipiente: [EN] "I think Philipp killed the original box but we replaced it with permission." [PT] "Acho que o Philipp matou o recipiente original mas colocámos um novo com autorização." A parte divertida é que um total de pelo menos 4 geocachers tentaram encontrar o cache mas nunca conseguiram e registaram sempre DNFs. Porque é que não colocaram um cache de substituição e disseram o mesmo: "Colocámos um cache de substituição com autorização do dono e encontrámos o cache!!!!" O que esperam de uma situação destas: "Parabéns?!?!? Parabéns em encontrar um cache que acabaste de colocar?!?!?!?" A Groundspeak é muito clara neste tema e possui um artigo no Help Center sobre este tema: Apenas traduzo o que está a negrito: A minha interpretação de tudo isto é bastante clara, a Groundspeak espera que quando o um cache de substituição é colocado o dono "vá ao local, verifique e remova o cache de substituição" e que o jogador, em relação à colocação de caches de substituição é "Por favor nunca faças isso!!!" Este é apenas mais um excelente exemplo porque: 1) Nunca colocar um cache de substituição, mesmo que se tenha autorização do dono porque não sabes o local exacto do cache, e pode estar a colocá-lo no local incorrecto; 2) Mesmo que algumas pessoas não o consigam encontrar não significa que ele não está no local, apenas o dono do cache pode confirmar isso; 3) Ser honesto e respeitar os outros jogadores que gostam de encontrar os caches originais colocados pelos donos originais porque, acima de tudo, eles são os únicos donos do cache. Sei que muitos de vocês não concordam com a minha opinião mas para mim colocar é cache de substituição nunca é bom! Se realmente acham que o local é excelente e o dono não faz manutenção no cache esperem que este seja arquivado e coloquem um vosso no mesmo local e aí podem tomar conta dele e serem os donos do cache!

I also climbed mountains... not that high but high for Brazil. 5 hours up and 3 hours down, in the middle of the jungle (the problem is not the temperature but the animals can literally kill you) does not allow me to make a find. In some cases I posted a DNF and a Needs Archive directly because the CO was absent from the game!

In my count it shows EVERY DNF I made... multiples and even caches I found later! For me is my DNF count, not the number of caches I DNFed nor the caches I visited and still didn´t find.

Great that he isn´t about the numbers, it sure looks like it! But if that was true he would have placed a note and never a FOUND IT! for something he actually didn´t found, he just placed there.

Here you clearly show, for me, that numbers are more important than the game itself. So, for what I interpret from your words is that geocachers are excluded from doing maintenance of their own caches if they are placed in remote places? And another thing, if you climb a mountain for the mountain for the pleasure of it you will never be upset by not finding a cache, just log a DNF and climb another, or the same mountain another day. If you climb the mountain for the geocaching you will be more obsessed about finding one, to the point of placing a box just to say FOUND IT!!!

Great that you think this way!!!! So you can now stop counter-posting whenever I say that I am against a Throwdown... This way your knickers won´t get twisted since clearly, I don´t mind twisting mines!!!!

2002 guidelines or 2014 guidelines? Do you know the concept of "Grandfathered Geoaches"?

And?!?!?!? Does this change the fact he placed a throwdown and logged a find when the actual cache was still there to be found? I´m very glad that he corrected one of his mistakes but still wondering who will go there and recover the throwdown?!?!?!

I guess yo also like numbers! I also like them, but prefer them to be honest finds...

Wait a minute, isn't that an ad? Congratulations! For the find, and the anti-throwdown statements in the log. I really think that the anti-throwdown statement deserved more than just a reference, I think it deserves a topic: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325468

There is already a post regarding this absolute amazing First To Find (FTF): http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325436 But I think it is more than just a great find by being 12 years 1 month 3 days after the hide and among that period it was never found... at least the original container from the: Puppet Theatre stash on the Mont Blanc In July 2014 a geocacher said that, after talking with the owner, he was allowed to place a new container if I wasn´t hable to find the original cache. As the geocacher didn´t find the original cache, an excuse served to place a new container: "I think Philipp killed the original box but we replaced it with permission." The funny part is that a total of at least 4 geocachers attempted to find this cache and all posted DNFs. Why wouldn´t they just place a Throwdown and say the same: "We placed a new box with the owner permit and we found it!!!" What you expect in a situation like this: "Congrats?!?!? Congrats on finding the cache you just placed?!?!?!" Groundspeak is very clear on this subject and has a Help Center article on this matter: So, in my interpretation, it´s pretty clear what Groundspeak expects from a Owner when a Throwdown is placed "Just go there and check if your cache is still there and remove the Throwdown" and what expect from a player about placing a Throwdown: "Just don´t do it!!!!" This is just a great example why: 1) Never place a Throwdown even if you have permit of the owner because you don´t know the exact place of the geocache, you can be placing it in the wrong spot; 2) Even if many people can´t find the cache it doesn´t mean it´s not there, only the owner can confirm that; 3) Be righteous and respect the other players who like the find the original caches placed by the original owners, after all they are the actual owners the cache. I know many don´t agree with my opinion and say there are cases that a Throwdown is acceptable... well, I really can´t relate with that because if you really think the cache is in a great place and the owner just doesn´t care about it, just let it be archived and place a new one there, that you can take care and be the rightful owner!

Looks good. You'd better ramp up those DNF's though, I have a much higher percentage. If GS added this functionality so that everyone had the correct number of DNFs on the profile, two things would happen. Some would ask for the ability to hide it. Some people would stopping posting DNF logs. How about being optional?

Hey, thanks! It's now on our profile. Yes, great idea!!! I am proud of all my DNFs, and 100% against Throwdowns so, this is yet another way to promote DNFs!!!!

So, you are saying that if the interests of GS are different from your interests in a situation, it is OK to bend the guidelines in your favor, because the reviewers are there to have the last word? Is that it?

This is one of the subjects that I most talk with my reviewers, and I still can´t draw a line in what is or isn´t commercial. Just going to put out some examples, that if you want I can then give out the cache codes but I would prefer not to: 1) A cache is placed inside a park that you must pay a entry fee, clearly you have to interact with the tickets office workers to get inside the business but the cache, is published. 2) One cache is placed inside a cafeteria and you must ask the employer to give you the cache (TB Hotel) and the cache is archived. 3) A cache is placed inside a cafeteria but you don´t have to interact with the employers is published. 4) A cache is placed in a private property that has a precious waterfall but for you to see it you must pay, is published. 5) A cache where the name of the cache is the same as the name of a restaurant but the cache is 10m from the front door of the restaurant and the description says: "A nice place to make a pit-stop" is published. I really couldn´t yet figure out the Commercial guidelines... maybe I never will...

Thank you, Thank you... and again thank you!!!! Best answer so far!!!!! This I can understand and relate to. The thing is exactly what you point out (that I put in bold) is the will of some players to "do things their way" because of the absence of a strict conduct in geocaching guidelines and with that hurting the game. What I defend is that I trust Groundspeak guidelines to protect the game... If most players felt the same way, there wouldn´t be so many issues about so many "simple things" because, in doubt, the player would always opt for the option that was more prone to be within the guidelines instead of, just the opposite, trying to bend them. Get my point of view, and get why I put the questions in the first post? I really wanted to understand how someone wants to protect the game and, at the same time, try to bend the recommendations that manage the game. Again, thank you so much for the post MKFmly!