Good Maintenance

[+TeamK-9]

This topic came up as part of a discussion in my local forum, and while the question wasn't really posed in the original topic, I thought it was an interesting question.

 

Say you have an urban micro cache, that repeatedly disappears, gets muggled, whatever. And everytime it disappears, you are out on location within a week to check the location and to put out a replacement if necessary. Same spot, same hide style. By doing that, you're doing your duties as a cache owner, and maintaining the cache, but the question is whether that's a good thing.

 

Is it possible that this is also an example of bad maintenance? I think it's incredibly possible that you're doing more harm than good. Think about it, the location is "compromised." Everytime you put it back you're sort of increasing the chances that a non-geocacher will remove it again.

 

Quite frankly, if any of my caches got muggled, if I even replaced the cache, I would change the location to reduce the risk of the same people getting it again. But that's my opinion.

 

So, repeatedly replacing the container like the first example, is it showing that you're responsible, or is it showing that you're sort of careless...

[+JohnnyVegas]

The first thing I would do is consider what type of camouflage is being used it any. If the camouflage was not a problem I would just move the cache, my guess is that if it is a good hide, the same person is taking the cache.

[+The Leprechauns]

Fine, so one of my micros has gone missing a few times. It's not in a Wal-Mart parking lot. It takes the visitor to a breathtaking scenic overlook of the city that a lot of people don't know about, even if they live in the area.

 

I have tried different containers and different hiding spots. Hopefully one of them will "stick." The reason? This overlook *deserves* to have a cache, and there is no place to hide a larger cache.

 

Your argument presumes that it is muggles taking the hypothetical cache you're discussing. Why are you making that assumption, and what is the basis for it?

[+TeamK-9]

Fine, so one of my micros has gone missing a few times. It's not in a Wal-Mart parking lot. It takes the visitor to a breathtaking scenic overlook of the city that a lot of people don't know about, even if they live in the area.

 

I have tried different containers and different hiding spots. Hopefully one of them will "stick." The reason? This overlook *deserves* to have a cache, and there is no place to hide a larger cache.

 

Your argument presumes that it is muggles taking the hypothetical cache you're discussing. Why are you making that assumption, and what is the basis for it?

Rest assured Lep, we weren't discussing any of your caches.

 

It was just something that came up and I wanted other's opinions on it.

 

And your opinion is exactly what I wanted to hear. I'm pretty sure I know which cache your referring to, and it's definately on my to-do list for next time we do any serious caching in the city.

 

But you mentioned trying to change the cache slightly, by changing the hiding spot and the container. What if the cacher isn't really trying, they're just endlessly putting film canister after film canister into a knot-hole in a tree or something. I'm reminded of one of my favorite classic computer games "Lemmings" in which the Lemmings repeatedly jump off cliffs into the ocean if not told any better...

 

I have one cache, that if it were damaged in any way, or muggled, I might very well just archive, whereas another of my caches, I think is pretty cool, and I'd make every attempt to keep it up.

 

It comes down to lame caches vs. cool caches.

 

In my opinion almost all of your caches fall into the cool category, if not the extremely cool category.

 

But let's say, that the cache in my scenario isn't really incredibly good. It's a run of the mill, film canister micro in a random park, in an area that could easily support a larger cache...

[+CYBret]

What's the old Einstein quote? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

 

I've seen some cachers who seem to view cache placement like this. They place an urban micro, it gets muggled, they put it back in exactly the same place with exactly the same hide.

 

Some places just won't work, some hides just won't work. Sometimes you gotta call a Mulligan and forget about it.

 

Bret

[+Harry Dolphin]

What's the old Einstein quote? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

 

I've seen some cachers who seem to view cache placement like this. They place an urban micro, it gets muggled, they put it back in exactly the same place with exactly the same hide.

 

Some places just won't work, some hides just won't work. Sometimes you gotta call a Mulligan and forget about it.

 

Bret

And, all this time I thought that was Bill W.!

It depends on the cache. Many caches in NYC get muggled over and over again. I presume by different muggles. Some of them are good enough to warrant being replaced over and over again. On the other hand, I've seen caches get replaced that should never have been placed in the first place.

[+pghlooking]

In this situation they have kind of locked themselves in since they have 7 of these caches that are randomly disabled. Most of them seem to be OK, one definately has problems. None of them are WOW at all. I have seen enough cart returns, stand alone store signs, and bus stops on my own. I don't need a cache to show me one more. They are just there to move you along, gathering info, so you can complete a different cache which is an ammo can. Personally as an owner i wouldn't want the headache. Unless it takes you somewhere worthwild it is not worth my time to have to continue to replace these.

[+The Leprechauns]

Ahhhh, *THOSE* micros. Thanks for clarifying. Since I am not a member of hemanmicrohaters.com, I'm not hip to exactly which particular Pittsburgh-area caches are being bashed in a given week. I'm sure that mine will have their turn again in good time.

 

I found that series to be a mix of well-placed, creative hides, include one that used a nicely customized container, together with some fairly average microcache hides in 'typical' spots. Anyone who didn't enjoy the series would likely not enjoy caching in urban Nashville or Jacksonville.

 

I managed to enjoy the series because I brought a good friend along with us. We had not cached together in quite some time, and we used the drives in between the micros to catch up on life's news. I also showed him how cool it is to cache with a GPS that does autorouting. Little Lep made up a very funny song to memorialize the day's adventures. It was a truly memorable day.

 

Perhaps the caches are there to allow people to have a day like that, if they choose to do so.

[+TeamK-9]

In this situation they have kind of locked themselves in since they have 7 of these caches that are randomly disabled. Most of them seem to be OK, one definately has problems. None of them are WOW at all. I have seen enough cart returns, stand alone store signs, and bus stops on my own. I don't need a cache to show me one more.  They are just there to move you along, gathering info, so you can complete a different cache which is an ammo can. Personally as an owner i wouldn't want the headache. Unless it takes you somewhere worthwild it is not worth my time to have to continue to replace these.

Our recent discussions at Tri-Go were what got me thinking of this. But I was not referring directly to that set. Nor do I want this topic to be about it. I have no expierence with that set of micros, but the topic in general is what got me interested.

 

Is this generally considered a good thing or a bad thing?

Edited June 11, 2005 by TeamK-9

[+Big Dawgg & Cardinal Girl]

I had a micro hidden in a small park that was a neat little park that not many locals knew about. I thought it would be a neat place to take people to. The cache kept getting found by some local children playing in the park. The funny thing about it was they would sign the log then hide it again but in a different spot. Sometimes it would be found by the next cachers sometimes not. After a few times I relized it was time to archive and move on somewhere else. I don't think it's good to keep leading cachers to a cache that may or may not be there.

If you can't move it or hide it better, I think it's better to archive it.

[+carleenp]

Well, I think a cache that goes missing ideally would cause the owner to ask "why" and effect their replacement or decision whether to replace at all. In some cases, like Lep's scenic micro, the area is soooo fitting for a cache, that I think replacing is worth it, and he has experimented with different ideas when it went missing. It is one of those where replacement makes sense every time it goes missing for as long as he is willing to go there and do it. But some caches that repeatedly disappear really should send a signal. If not a cool area and it continually goes missing, why bother without trying to improve the hide? But I guess everyone has their own tolerance level for maintenance. If the owner actually gets out there and replaces it, then I don't care. If they want to replace over and over, then whatever....

 

Anyway, here are some real life examples from my own caches about such decisions:

 

(1) I had a cache in plain site in a park that lasted much longer than I expected, and was fun for the locals, but also proved to cause tons of maintenance because people repeatedly put it back wrong so that it was out of reach. I was happy to archive it when it went missing. I was tired of the thing! (2) I had one that was shot up. I relocated it and it was shot up again. I was going to go for a third try, but decided not to. The area is a place where a pirate seems to like to visit and shoot things. So I archived and have given up on that spot for now. (3) I placed a container that was too obvious and it went missing quick. I chose a better container and hide the next time and it has been fine. (4) I had one in a rural area go missing that really was not hidden well and in the main fishing part of the lake area. I archived and placed a new one in the area but made it a mile walk to a more remote spot and with a better hide.

[+Big Dawgg & Cardinal Girl]

Well, I think a cache that goes missing ideally would cause the owner to ask "why" and effect their replacement or decision whether to replace at all. In some cases, like Lep's scenic micro, the area is soooo fitting for a cache, that I think replacing is worth it, and he has experimented with different ideas when it went missing. It is one of those where replacement makes sense every time it goes missing for as long as he is willing to go there and do it. But some caches that repeatedly disappear really should send a signal. If not a cool area and it continually goes missing, why bother without trying to improve the hide? But I guess everyone has their own tolerance level for maintenance. If the owner actually gets out there and replaces it, then I don't care. If they want to replace over and over, then whatever....

 

Anyway, here are some real life examples from my own caches about such decisions:

 

(1) I had a cache in plain site in a park that lasted much longer than I expected, and was fun for the locals, but also proved to cause tons of maintenance because people repeatedly put it back wrong so that it was out of reach. I was happy to archive it when it went missing. I was tired of the thing! (2) I had one that was shot up. I relocated it and it was shot up again. I was going to go for a third try, but decided not to. The area is a place where a pirate seems to like to visit and shoot things. So I archived and have given up on that spot for now. (3) I placed a container that was too obvious and it went missing quick. I chose a better container and hide the next time and it has been fine. (4) I had one in a rural area go missing that really was not hidden well and in the main fishing part of the lake area. I archived and placed a new one in the area but made it a mile walk to a more remote spot and with a better hide.

I agree with you on this. If it is a wow area and the owner is willing to replace it then go for it. Maybe trying to camo it better or finding a better hiding spot close by.

I forgot to mention that in my case I was a little uneasy with this hide to start with. I was trying to get a little more activity in the area (as Carleen knows my area is lacking caches and cachers) so was putting out easy hides for winter caching. So I wasn't real suprised that I did have some problems with it. There was not a better hiding spot for it, so archiving was best.

I do have a couple of caches, and know of caches owned by others that I think would be worth replacing or maintaining as much as possible.

[+TeamK-9]

Well, I think a cache that goes missing ideally would cause the owner to ask "why" and effect their replacement or decision whether to replace at all. In some cases, like Lep's scenic micro, the area is soooo fitting for a cache, that I think replacing is worth it, and he has experimented with different ideas when it went missing. It is one of those where replacement makes sense every time it goes missing for as long as he is willing to go there and do it. But some caches that repeatedly disappear really should send a signal. If not a cool area and it continually goes missing, why bother without trying to improve the hide? But I guess everyone has their own tolerance level for maintenance. If the owner actually gets out there and replaces it, then I don't care. If they want to replace over and over, then whatever....

I agree with you wholeheartedly there Carleen...

[+The Leprechauns]

Our recent discussions at Tri-Go were what got me thinking of this. But I was not referring directly to that set. Nor do I want this topic to be about it. I have no expierence with that set of micros, but the topic in general is what got me interested.

Since when has not finding the microcaches precluded anyone from bashing them on hemanmicrohaters.com? I mean, they're micros, they must suck, right? If they go missing, they ought to die, right?

 

Now there's two micro-angst threads open. Bad karma spreads like the flu.

[+pghlooking]

Since when has not finding the microcaches precluded anyone from bashing them on hemanmicrohaters.com? I mean, they're micros, they must suck, right? If they go missing, they ought to die, right?

Actually it wasn't started about micro bashing at all. I wasn't happy when yours was bashed last year and i said it publicly there at that time. I also enjoyed finding the series that everyone loves to hate and defended it then openly in the forums. It is now that i don't care for it becuase of the fact that it is now anything special and has maintance problems that are not corrected within a week. The series isn't the problem, its the amount of downtime. It could be improved and become much less maintance intensive but owners don't always see it or care to. The topic was inspired by debate about when is it too much to continue and whens it time to call it a day and just move on without the cache. Its also not very fair to label the only local geocaching group in your area as all being hemanmicrohaters, especially when some of truly did not like the way the riverfront was treated. I don't think all 246 members should fall under one umbrella of angst for the actions and words of a few.

 

When the cache has been muggled too many times, its not a special place or special view, then get rid of it. Nothing worse than making a drive to find something thats gone again and again and again.

[+Renegade Knight]

The long and short answer to your question is the same.

 

It depends.

[+brodiebunch]

It's not in a Wal-Mart parking lot. 

I have seen that comment alot in the forums, along with one that goes like this, "a film canister thrown into a bush" or something like that.

 

I guess we are fortunate here in the Puget Sound area, many of our caches have either some historical, geographical, whimsical, investigative (puzzle) or stealthy nature to them. Perhaps I just havent seen or found a cache with so little effort put into it as a parking lot or bush like that.

 

Those in the quote would be of little interest and/or have a low survival rate.

[+The Leprechauns]

I've found ill-advised cache placements and poorly maintained caches in the Puget Sound area, too, during my two trips there. No place is immune. I recall a cache in the bushes in front of a sewage plant's test lab, a cache at the corner of a parking lot, and which had fallen from its hiding place, a leaky cache that the owner archived twice after not finding it, despite find reports from other cachers, a cache in a plastic bag tossed under a boardwalk in a marsh, a cache poorly placed at the edge of a ferry parking lot, and a cache that was just a loose piece of paper, which we replaced with an emergency film canister.

 

Those are just a few examples based upon a terribly small sample size of 50 caches. But some of them fit the theme of this thread as they were replaced several times. I prefer to focus on the many spectacular caches included within that same 50 finds.

[+TeamK-9]

I didn't mean for this thread to cause any angst in the forums, and yet, right after I posted it, I knew it probably wouldn't turn out well.

 

Anyway, I'm locking this, because I don't think the discussion is being very productive...