Jump to content

You gotta be kidding me!


Recommended Posts

As the hider, does anyone else cringe when they see a log indicating that a change has been made to their cache site? Following is a portion of a find log that I received recently. They may have gotten a smiley...but I didn't.

 

"I serached and searched and started to get frustrated. I looked a second time in the spots I thought the cache should be and poked around with a stick and heard a hollow sound and took a look and reached my hand to feel it and there it was. But the cache was totally stuck in it's hiding spot. I couldn't get the cache out. I couldn't lift the object holding the cache in its place. I had to use a stick to lift it and was then able to get the cache out. Needless to say I didn't wedge the cache in tight like it was before. I really didn't think it should be in there like that. I rehid it well."

 

This is how I interpret the log.

 

I was too lazy to look in the opening beneath a large rock so I found a stick and jammed it under. I heard a hollow sound so I then looked. I don't know why it's stuck under there. Let me get another large stick and lift this large moss covered rock that has been here naturally since the ice age to find this geocache. Inspite of all the logs that said this was a nice hide, I'm just going to cover up the container with a pile of rocks here in front of the large overturned rock so that everyone will notice.

 

You gotta be kidding me!

 

Does this happen often?

Link to comment

It happened to my cache. I made a little "house" for my cache out in the desert from large rocks. I made it look inconspicuous as there are other rocks set up in the same fashion. A friend of mine and I were out night caching last week and I decided to check on my cache. When I got there, I was a little disappointed. The finders couldn't put the cache back in its hiding place correctly. It was exposed! Any muggle could have stumbled upon it. Seeing that almost made me want to remove it and put it somewhere else.

Link to comment

Unfortunately it happens way too often.

 

I have a cache with a combination lock (luggage type) on it. The combination is part of the cache name, so it's important that it stay the same. I've had several people change the combination to try and "improve" the cache. One cacher was even bold enough to proudly post a log saying he'd "made the cache a little more difficult for the next finder" because he'd changed the combination.

Link to comment

It happened to my cache. I made a little "house" for my cache out in the desert from large rocks. I made it look inconspicuous as there are other rocks set up in the same fashion. A friend of mine and I were out night caching last week and I decided to check on my cache. When I got there, I was a little disappointed. The finders couldn't put the cache back in its hiding place correctly. It was exposed! Any muggle could have stumbled upon it. Seeing that almost made me want to remove it and put it somewhere else.

Sadly, it's hard for a finder to know if the hide they've discovered was intentional by the hider, if the hide location has become naturally altered (unexpected erosion, changed due to change of season (overgrowth, etc), etc), or if a previous finder has re-hidden it incorrectly after processing. So, in my opinion the best thing to do upon finding it is to re-hide it exactly as found (if possible), and if it's questionable, Email the hider what you've found and let the hider decide if a maint. visit is necessary.

Link to comment
Does this happen often?

 

Yes. I have a stage of a multi that I make sure is visible from a certain angle so its not too hard to find. Every few months I'll see some DNFs on the stage and will go back to check. Each time it has been re-hidden so well I have a hard time even though I know exactly where to look.

 

I have another cache that was moved approximately 30 feet from where I originally hid it. I haven't been able to find it in 3 visits to the site. Others are finding it, so I leave it active, but someday I'd really like to actually be able to find my own cache.

 

I've visited a number caches of mine that were totally exposed, even though I originally hid them well. I guess the finders thought the rest of their fellow geocachers were too stupid to find the caches so they would help them out.

Link to comment

"I serached and searched and started to get frustrated. I looked a second time in the spots I thought the cache should be and poked around with a stick and heard a hollow sound and took a look and reached my hand to feel it and there it was. But the cache was totally stuck in it's hiding spot. I couldn't get the cache out. I couldn't lift the object holding the cache in its place. I had to use a stick to lift it and was then able to get the cache out. Needless to say I didn't wedge the cache in tight like it was before. I really didn't think it should be in there like that. I rehid it well."

 

This is how I interpret the log.

 

Interpretation online is tricky - we tend to read into a log things that may not have been intended by the author.

 

Instead of assuming your interpretation did you ask the cacher who wrote it for clarification?

 

Better yet, did you go check on your cache to see its current status?

 

Did his comment that the rock was crushing down on the cache so hard that a lever needed to be used to free the cache make you wonder if something was wrong with your hide when he found it?

 

I interpret the log to read that he found a cache with a problem and fixed it as best he could! :lol:

Link to comment

"I serached and searched and started to get frustrated. I looked a second time in the spots I thought the cache should be and poked around with a stick and heard a hollow sound and took a look and reached my hand to feel it and there it was. But the cache was totally stuck in it's hiding spot. I couldn't get the cache out. I couldn't lift the object holding the cache in its place. I had to use a stick to lift it and was then able to get the cache out. Needless to say I didn't wedge the cache in tight like it was before. I really didn't think it should be in there like that. I rehid it well."

 

This is how I interpret the log.

 

Interpretation online is tricky - we tend to read into a log things that may not have been intended by the author.

 

Instead of assuming your interpretation did you ask the cacher who wrote it for clarification?

 

Better yet, did you go check on your cache to see its current status?

 

Did his comment that the rock was crushing down on the cache so hard that a lever needed to be used to free the cache make you wonder if something was wrong with your hide when he found it?

 

I interpret the log to read that he found a cache with a problem and fixed it as best he could! :lol:

 

My interpretation in the OP was after visiting the site. I am certain that the cache only became stuck after it was pushed there by the finder. There was never a reason to move such large and obviously heavy rocks. Others had recently found it with no problems.

Link to comment
My interpretation in the OP was after visiting the site. I am certain that the cache only became stuck after it was pushed there by the finder. There was never a reason to move such large and obviously heavy rocks. Others had recently found it with no problems.
If your angst is based on the fact that they poked your cache with their stick, I think you are getting upset over nothing. Many people cache this way.
Link to comment
My interpretation in the OP was after visiting the site. I am certain that the cache only became stuck after it was pushed there by the finder. There was never a reason to move such large and obviously heavy rocks. Others had recently found it with no problems.
If your angst is based on the fact that they poked your cache with their stick, I think you are getting upset over nothing. Many people cache this way.

 

My angst is based on the fact that my cache hidden beneath a natural rock formation has been reduced to a very obvious pile of rocks. To me, that change is a big one. That is NOT my hide. My angst is also based on my failed attempt at reparing the site to where it had been prior to this cachers visit.

Link to comment

Obviously, your perception of the hide was different than that of the finders'. Personally, I don't think the finder had any malice in mind. Whenever we go looking for a cache, we try to figure out what the cache owner was going for. Sometimes we understand that cache owner's intent, sometimes we don't.

Link to comment

Obviously, your perception of the hide was different than that of the finders'. Personally, I don't think the finder had any malice in mind. Whenever we go looking for a cache, we try to figure out what the cache owner was going for. Sometimes we understand that cache owner's intent, sometimes we don't.

 

By no means do I think this was done with any malice in mind. WHY it was done is what I'm trying to figure out and discuss here.

Link to comment

Based solely on the log that you posted, a cacher found the cache. The cacher could not remove the cachewithout removing the stone it was under. The cacher removed the stone and logged teh find. The cacher then rehid the cache to the best of their ability and recorded the issue in the online log.

 

Did I miss anything?

Link to comment

I have this problem often too...and there is a cache out there that I couldn't find...yes my own hide!

 

I don't try to "interpret" what another did, I hide it back where it came from! I shouldn't have to write to the finder asking where my cache is...it should be where I left it, not where someone thought it should be!!

 

Not much can be done, it's common practice for many cachers. I try to replace as it was. If I find one that is OBVIOUSLY out of place, I will hide it in the same place as best I can and write the owner. I won't MOVE it to fit MY thought of where it should have been!!

 

It's not the finder's job to "figure out the cache owner's intent"...if you don't think the cache is in the right place, hide it as best as you can IN THE SAME PLACE and let the owner do the interpretting!!

Link to comment
... If I find one that is OBVIOUSLY out of place, I will hide it in the same place as best I can and write the owner. I won't MOVE it to fit MY thought of where it should have been!!

 

It's not the finder's job to "figure out the cache owner's intent"...if you don't think the cache is in the right place, hide it as best as you can IN THE SAME PLACE and let the owner do the interpretting!!

In this case, it appears that the finder followed your advice. He hid it in the same place as best he could and let the owner know of the issue (through his log).

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I would think you missed the part where the finder TORE the area up to get the cache and then left the pile behind...if you CAN'T figure out how to remove a cache without altering the area, which, from the reading of the OP, was done, you probably shouldn't remove it at all.

 

The moss covered rock is obvious to me that it doesn't need to be moved to get the container.

 

I agreee...a lazy cacher that didn't want to take the time to PROPERLY remove the container!!

Link to comment

No sbell111...the finder tore the area up and then left the remains in the open because they didn't care to take the time to go at it right in the first place!

 

You hid a cache in a nice spot, the next cacher had a hard time finding it so they think they'll be the "nice guy" and make it easier...not good practice. That's an excuse from the finder that they couldn't find the cache because it was well hidden and then TORE the area up to find it.

Link to comment

Based solely on the log that you posted, a cacher found the cache. The cacher could not remove the cachewithout removing the stone it was under. The cacher removed the stone and logged teh find. The cacher then rehid the cache to the best of their ability and recorded the issue in the online log.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Yes. You are missing something. The cache site was irreparably altered. This can not be acceptable to you. Can it?

Link to comment
I would think you missed the part where the finder TORE the area up to get the cache and then left the pile behind...if you CAN'T figure out how to remove a cache without altering the area, which, from the reading of the OP, was done, you probably shouldn't remove it at all.
I think you might be reading more into the log than is there. Perhaps, you are reading a totally different log since I clearly am not reading the same found log as you are. Perhaps you can link to the one you are reading.
The moss covered rock is obvious to me that it doesn't need to be moved to get the container.
Regarding your comment that you shouldn't have to move a moss covered rock to get to a cache, I bet I've moved 100 moss covered rocks that have been placed on caches. Until I get a Star Trek transporter or magical powers, I will continue to move the rocks that are placed on top of cache boxes.
I agreee...a lazy cacher that didn't want to take the time to PROPERLY remove the container!!
As I tried to explain previously, without being with the cacher in question during that hunt, we cannot pretend to know what they were thinking. It appears to me that they made a good faith attempt to remove the cache without changing the hide at all. When it was clear that this was not possible, they removed the stone. They did not replace it as it was because, due to their difficulty in removing the cache, they felt that it was not as the hider intended it when they arrived. They replaced it as good as they could and reported the issue.

 

- I just took a look at the cache page. ince teh last maintenance visit, the cache was found by twice before this cacher and once since. Based on that and the log in question, I can't be sure that the cache was as hidden before the cacher found it. Can you?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

While the finder may have been a bit over zealous in his efforts, I would hardly call him lazy as it looks like he went to far more effort than was necessary to get at the cache.

 

They apparently saw only one way to get at it. Sorry they tore up the area but the intended method of retreival must not have been real obvious. We all wish that nobody would overly disturb ay area for caching but from what you relate, I don't think the finder was in a hurry or lazy - just intent on retrieving what appread to be a "stuck" or wedged cache container.

Link to comment
Yes. You are missing something. The cache site was irreparably altered. This can not be acceptable to you. Can it?
Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained how the site was 'irreparably altered'. If you could also explain the method of hide and how the cacher was supposed to remove the cache, it would help.
Would this log be looked upon with favor? "Cache was stuck in the hollow tree. I couldn't get it out so I cut the tree down. I didn't think it should be stuck in that tree. I placed it beside the fallen tree. It is well hidden."

 

I see no difference to what was done to my cache.

Would this be acceptable behavior?
No it wouldn't, but you haven't yet explained how moving a rock equates to chopping down a cherry tree.
Link to comment

Ohhhh...so we shouldn't blame the last cacher because the cache was probably moved before him/her??? Their actions are OK because someone else did it too??

 

I would explain that by saying the cacher was "lazy" is meant to read...the cacher was too lazy to find the right way to get the cache out of it's hiding spot, so tore the area up and is making it "all better" by tearing the area up even more to rehide it. Yes, they made more work physically for themselves, but they spared themselves the mental work of doing it right in the first place. More than one way to be lazy!!

Link to comment
Ohhhh...so we shouldn't blame the last cacher because the cache was probably moved before him/her??? Their actions are OK because someone else did it too??
Ummm... The last cacher is not being blamed.
I would explain that by saying the cacher was "lazy" is meant to read...the cacher was too lazy to find the right way to get the cache out of it's hiding spot, so tore the area up and is making it "all better" by tearing the area up even more to rehide it. Yes, they made more work physically for themselves, but they spared themselves the mental work of doing it right in the first place. More than one way to be lazy!!
Objection. Facts not in evidence.
Link to comment

I'll put it out there simple for you lawyer minded folk...if you can't find a cache any other way than to alter, destroy or "tear up" an area, you probably shouldn't be caching. If you can't rehide a cache where you found it LIKE you found it, you probably shouldn' be caching.

 

Moving a cache has NO justification...sorry.

 

And yes...the evidence IS there...it's in plain writing. It starts where the log says "I really didn't think it should be there like that. I rehid it well".

Link to comment
Yes. You are missing something. The cache site was irreparably altered. This can not be acceptable to you. Can it?
Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained how the site was 'irreparably altered'. If you could also explain the method of hide and how the cacher was supposed to remove the cache, it would help.
Would this log be looked upon with favor? "Cache was stuck in the hollow tree. I couldn't get it out so I cut the tree down. I didn't think it should be stuck in that tree. I placed it beside the fallen tree. It is well hidden."

 

I see no difference to what was done to my cache.

Would this be acceptable behavior?
No it wouldn't, but you haven't yet explained how moving a rock equates to chopping down a cherry tree.

 

Take a walk in the woods. Nature has a way of creating little "hiding places". I always look for the darkness you see when a crevis is deep enough that you can't see into it from a distance. They don't look man made or forced into a scene. This hide was one of those locations. A natural rock formation with a space beneath similar to a small cave. I didn't have to move a thing for this hide. My small container fit inside and out of sight less than a foot from the opening. No sticks or piled rocks to give away its location. Just as the tree example above, I made no alteration to what was there by natures hand. Cutting down a tree or levering a 300 lb rock out of the way are no different here. If one looked into the opening it would have been seen. Others had seen it in its hiding place while walking toward it if the light was right. As I make no claim to be mother nature......this site was irreparably altered.

Link to comment
I'll put it out there simple for you lawyer minded folk...if you can't find a cache any other way than to alter, destroy or "tear up" an area, you probably shouldn't be caching. ...
So, since it's tough, it's ok to move it and make the owner go back often???

Dude, people do the best that they can. Let it go.

Link to comment
... A natural rock formation with a space beneath similar to a small cave. I didn't have to move a thing for this hide. My small container fit inside and out of sight less than a foot from the opening. No sticks or piled rocks to give away its location. ...
I don't know what to tell you. According to the finder, the cache was in there in such a way that it could not be removed without moving the rock that was above it. Perhaps something changed, perhaps not.
Link to comment

Yes, it's OK to be upset about people moving your cache. It's also OK to be upset about people not trading even - both happen all the time.

 

You have to expect it to some degree, and then be willing to move on.

I think you've vented and made your point.

 

From what I can now read, it sounds like the best thing to do is to either:

1) Archive the cache to prevent further damage to the area

2) Hide it in a new way in the same spot

Link to comment

Moved caches, broken containers, wet log books, missing containers, these are all things a cache owner has to deal with all the time.

You are on the lucky end, because they noted the change in the log. Most times, us hiders don't even get that.

Whether they did it on purpose or not, lazy or not, whatever the reason, as a hider you can either fix it or archive it, or heck let it go like that.

This is just another type of criticism from other cachers, and if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't hide caches. Nobody said it was easy.

 

edit: to many typos

Edited by Woodlit
Link to comment

I do understand that and I do let it go...what can you do??? But I'm not going to stand up for those that do it!!

 

Yes, that IS the problem with many cachers, they don't THINK while they look...and it's far easier to tear things apart than to be respectful of our surroundings...I've moved a few of my caches after seeing the "animal-like" actions of some cachers!!

 

Many of those cachers would be better suited in a demolition derby than to go out caching!!

Link to comment

I do understand that and I do let it go...what can you do??? But I'm not going to stand up for those that do it!!

 

I guess you could make a cache holder. If you are hiding an ammo can, make a box without a lid that fits the ammo can in there perfectly. then cement the holder where you want it to be permanently. :blink:

 

But I think that is against the guidelines. :laughing:

Link to comment

I'd let it go. Besides what you left out was

 

"Took an eyeball and angel pin. Left 2 carabineers and a purple pen. TFTC"

 

Sounded like he traded even, if not up. :laughing:

 

More appropriate log would have been "Took an eyeball and angel pin. Left 2 carabineers, purple pen and a pile of rocks where your cache was. TFTC"

 

I'm done now. Time to get on with my life. At least until that cacher places a hide near me :huh::blink:

Link to comment

I found a cache that was place by boy scouts. It was near 20ft up a tree. I was able to untie the knot using a stick but unable to replace back as high. I tied it above my head. Its listed as a 1.5/2. There is no mention of replacing the cache where it was. Which would have been impossible with out being a nimble teen ager or bringing a ladder. If the finder can't replace it where it was because of ability level then they should replace as best as possible and make note of the change.

On the other hand I have had a cache moved from deep bush to open grass and I was grumpy too!

Link to comment

I do understand that and I do let it go...what can you do??? But I'm not going to stand up for those that do it!!

 

I guess you could make a cache holder. If you are hiding an ammo can, make a box without a lid that fits the ammo can in there perfectly. then cement the holder where you want it to be permanently. :blink:

 

But I think that is against the guidelines. :laughing:

 

I don't know if that is aginst the rules, it sounds like it might actually work...if you had a strong enough magnet! What are the rules for a hide like that??

Link to comment

I found a cache that was place by boy scouts. It was near 20ft up a tree. I was able to untie the knot using a stick but unable to replace back as high. I tied it above my head. Its listed as a 1.5/2. There is no mention of replacing the cache where it was. Which would have been impossible with out being a nimble teen ager or bringing a ladder. If the finder can't replace it where it was because of ability level then they should replace as best as possible and make note of the change.

On the other hand I have had a cache moved from deep bush to open grass and I was grumpy too!

 

I'd guess there are always going to be an exception...and that sounds like the exception if there ever was one. I'm placing a few that require you to climb a tree to get the cache...no rope to lower it or anything, climb! That will stop the inability to replace, you'd be able to replace since you could retrieve. Thse will be rated appropriately and all warnings will be posted with listing....

 

I think the OP's case is in line with your "on the other hand" example!

Link to comment

We found one where one daughter had to climb up the tree to retrieve it. The funny thing is, there was an older caching pair right under that tree, looking for the cache! If we hadn't been there, they would not have been able to retrieve the cache at all. No indication of a climb was on the cache page, and the difficulty did not reflect it, either. Kay retrieved the cache, both caching groups signed the logbook, and she replaced it for us.

 

Hubby and I could have gotten it if she hadn't been there, but I doubt that the other caching pair would have tried for it. I do wish this had been on the cache page, though, to keep people from making a trip out to log it, but not be able to retrieve it. (It was a ways out in the country... not many other caches around that area.)

 

Malia

 

just looked at the cache listing... there was a vague warning... You are looking for a camoed beach tube and might need the help from some littler people.

Edited by Moore9KSUcats
Link to comment

We found one where one daughter had to climb up the tree to retrieve it. The funny thing is, there was an older caching pair right under that tree, looking for the cache! If we hadn't been there, they would not have been able to retrieve the cache at all. No indication of a climb was on the cache page, and the difficulty did not reflect it, either. Kay retrieved the cache, both caching groups signed the logbook, and she replaced it for us.

 

Hubby and I could have gotten it if she hadn't been there, but I doubt that the other caching pair would have tried for it. I do wish this had been on the cache page, though, to keep people from making a trip out to log it, but not be able to retrieve it. (It was a ways out in the country... not many other caches around that area.)

 

Malia

 

just looked at the cache listing... there was a vague warning... You are looking for a camoed beach tube and might need the help from some littler people.

 

Yeah...that's not enough of a clue to be of help for a climb cache! I will definitely tell that climbing will be involved, it will be tough enough without having to figure that part out!! Also, warnings will be placed as to the dangers of going after it!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...