Put it back where yer found it PLEASE!

[Moss Trooper]

<grip mode>

 

Why can't folks put caches back where they were found!!

 

My Angels View cache had been muggled but thanks to another cacher it was put back together and rehidden, all be it in a different place, for which they sent the co-ords. I will appologise to the two who didnt find it prior to me sorting it out, this was due to my work commitments.

 

I know that if it had been re hidden where it was found it would not have been muggled. Once I went to carry out some maintenance and spent 15 minutes looking for it myself. I found it when I stood on it, luckily I had a spare container.

 

Rehideing it in the correct location also maintains the clue, so please please PLEASE re hide it properly.

 

Thanks for your time and no doubt some one will point us to a thread where this has already been addressed.

 

</grip mode>

 

Doffs cap, bows low and backs out of door so he can see it coming

 

[+jerryo]

I don’t see why you should be apologetic if you’re annoyed that someone can’t be @®$3d to put your cache back properly. It’s quite simple to replace them as they were rather than the increasingly common “can’t be bothered so this’ll do” attitude that people sometimes have, especially if they’re in a hurry. It’s happened to me more th>n once and it seems that once someone has found a cache, then that’s it, they don’t care about it anymore. All the caches I do are bookmarked until someone else finds them.

[+Mr'D]

Why can't folks put caches back where they were found!!

Good question. I can however see an exception to the general rule. Caches placed in summer months may be well covered by natural vegetation. Come winter this vegetation can die back making the cache obvious to muggles. I have moved a cache before, only 5' or so, but I did email the cache owner with updated coords and a photo. Better to move a cache than lose it altogether

Jon

[+studlyone]

The other thing to remember is if a geocacher has come across a geocache that has been muggled they may not actually know its original location - obviously this isn't the case in this instance as they sent you different co-ordinates.

 

I can understand the reason for getting upset though - especially if the clue pertains to a certain location.

 

Ian

Edited June 28, 2007 by studlyone

[+jerryo]

I understood the point of the OP to be that sometime in a previous find, the cache wasn’t put back properly and was muggled because of that?

[+scottpa100]

I completely agree with Moss Trooper but I have also thought of another scenario that may happen. During mass caching orgies (think events) it is quite possible for groups of people to approach a cache at the same time. And not everyone may not see where the cache has come from. But none the less, it gets passed around, people sign it and the last person does the rehide and may be not in quite the correct place.

 

I also wonder post mass caching events, how much the muggle incident rate increases by. A lot of flattened grass, tussled branches etc - could make some muggles curious.

 

Thanks for the bringing the topic up.

[+HazelS]

Ahhh, but Scott... that's why we always have the rule that the person that found it, puts it back.. then you know it's in the right place!!!

[+Us 4 and Jess]

OMG Angels View has been muggled it has been there almost a million years now hasn't it Moss? wasn't that the first cache you set, back when the dinosaurs still roamed

 

Didn't you ask the MONSTER sorry ANGEL of the North to keep an eye on it?

 

They must be bliddy good muggles in the North East too as that bugga is buried too, I don't care what you say Mossy boy it is buried

 

I hope all is OK now.

 

Mandy

Edited June 28, 2007 by Us 4 and Jess

[+Sensei TSKC]

I have a urban micro in Marylebone. The clue is pertinent to it's location. I had an instance where two cachers went to the location. One had found it before, the other hadn't. When it was found, the cachers who'd found it before were shocked to find out where it was this time. I received an email from them.

 

I went down to the cache site and discovered it had been hidden more than 30' away from the original location. There is no excuse for this migrating. It's just lazy cachers who don't care. In alot of circumstances there is no excuse.

 

In the countryside or more rural locations there may be some migration due to the inability to find the exact place you took it from - especially if you've moved away from the cache hide to sign the log etc.

 

I totally agree that some cachers should pay more attention to replacing where they found it.

[+Bill D (wwh)]

Sensei TSKC wrote:

In the countryside or more rural locations there may be some migration due to the inability to find the exact place you took it from - especially if you've moved away from the cache hide to sign the log etc.

Yes, I've encountered plently of hiding places where I'm sure some cachers find it difficult to relocate the exact hiding place, for example a bank with masses of tree roots under one of which the cache was hidden.

 

In that sort of situation I always put some sort of marker in the spot I take the cache from, for example a distinctive twig or stone or somesuch. Occasionally it's taken me a while to find the marker in order to replace the cache correctly...!

[+chizu]

 

My Angels View cache had been muggled but thanks to another cacher it was put back together and rehidden, all be it in a different place, for which they sent the co-ords. I will appologise to the two who didnt find it prior to me sorting it out, this was due to my work commitments.

 

Apology accepted

[+Clyde.]

I'm glad that you brought this up as its a likkle nark of mine this.

I just can't understand why some cachers put the cache back in completely the wrong place and then totally trash the surrounding area as if a herd of wilder beasts have been thru there.

One of our caches has recently been dismantled at one end when the other has had a nice big red screw cap on it and was obviously the right end to access it.

Also at the cache location ANOTHER micro cache appeared wedged behind the tree (where our cache was hidden), this micro in question was at least 3miles away from GZ and didn't even belong to us, no reason why, no-one owning up to it....weird

OK, if the location has a bundle of hidey holes and theres a risk of being muggled I can understand why a cache can move a couple of ft in any direction but 3 miles away ????

We recently found a multi cache where we didn't even need to locate the 3rd part of the puzzle as we spotted the finale a mile away as the whole surrounding area had been totally flattened and all that was left was this tree stump with a tupperware box sticking out of it, no cover, no attempt at even covering it back up....nothing

 

Do these people get the milk out of the fridge at home then put it back in the washing machine? Do they park their car in Asda's car park then go to Tesco's to put their shopping in the boot and wonder why the car isn't there?

Its not as if there has been a couple of hrs between retrieving/replacing a cache, at most 5 mins so is it so hard to replace something where they found it, most hints even tell you where the cache can be found so if someone is suffering from a very short term memory loss, why don't they refer to that??

 

Just find it totally bizarre to say the least

[TheWeston's]

I once placed a cache in a different position, because I was being watched by canoodling couple who had no intention of going anywhere and I was late getting back to work.

 

I only moved it about 10 feet and made a note in the log entry so that subsequent cachers would know and probably return it back to where it should be.

Edited June 29, 2007 by TheWeston's

[Helen in Mustardland]

I have a urban micro in Marylebone. The clue is pertinent to it's location. I had an instance where two cachers went to the location. One had found it before, the other hadn't. When it was found, the cachers who'd found it before were shocked to find out where it was this time. I received an email from them.

 

 

I recall that incident, Sensei.

 

The cachers who'd previously found it were some distance away and not looking in my direction when I found it (so they couldn't be accused of assisting) and we discussed whether to put it where they had previously found it or where I had just found it, deciding that it didn't make a lot of difference. As it transpires, neither of us found it where it /ought/ to have been, from what you told me later! Maybe it was muggle-moved?

 

(Had I been thinking, i might've realised what the hint meant and relocated it to the relevant site. But I wasn't so I didn't.)

 

One of the Purple_Pineapples micros was /kindly/ moved down a few feet from up high behind a sign, because the finder thought it was a bit difficult to reach. Whereupon the hint no longer fitted, the terrain rating became too high and it was promptly muggled.

[+wigglesworth]

Clyde

I know the cache that you describe and we were the unfortunate cachers to find the cache deeply entrenched in the post. We had spent some time searching for it and so were quite frustrated! But that happens quite a few times.

 

As to ground being churned up this happens frequently but does this reflect on the hiding place as much as the seekers? Certainly at this nettle busy time of year I appreciate cacher 'trails'.

Peter

[+The_Botherers]

I don't think we have come across a cache that has not been in the location it should have been. However, we have found quite a few that were very very badly hidden . Jakey_Botherer especially takes a great dislike to caches that are spotted easily due to previous finder's lack of hiding skills. He takes great delight in making sure that he re-hides the cache with much care so it can't be seen from any angle - BUT it is always in the exact spot we found it in the first place.

 

With regard to flattened vegetations etc - I think it is not always avoidable, especially if a cache has been placed during winter months only to be surrounded by nettles etc as soon as spring arrives. Not wanting to get nettle rash all over (we have encountered a few caches that have been totally surrounded by 3 ft high nettles) one might have to use feet/boots to be able to get to the cache. Even though I agree that this kind of disturbance may arouse the curiousity of muggles, what other options are there? Not bother with the cache and come back in winter time? This is meant as a serious question, not a wind up by the way.

[+TrailGators]

I've come across many caches that have been moved. They should never be moved unless there is a good reason. Whenever, they are moved a note should be left on the cache page to let everyone know.

[+wigglesworth]

Interesting spin off debate! Should caches be hidden so that they cannot be seen!

As more caches are being buried - ie you have to move earth (or ground cover) to retrieve the cache it seems against our earlier geocaching experiences when they were hidden so that they could be seen!

My preference is for the cache to be visible from some angles!

Peter

[+The_Botherers]

My son/us never uses anyting to alter the depth/location of the cache and, hopefully most of the time, we only use items (such as twigs, rocks) that we think had been previously used to hide the cache. Furthermore, a lot of cache owners actually ask on the cache page for the cache to be hidden well from all angles. However, we hope that we have never intentionally made it more difficult for anyone to find the cache, move it or go against the wishes of the cache setter.

[+GeocachingAdam]

But none the less, it gets passed around, people sign it and the last person does the rehide and may be not in quite the correct place.

 

 

This is why when I cache with other cachers, and my family too, I have the person who found it, hide back in the same place they found it. This eliminates the possibility that it gets placed in the wrong spot, unless of course the person who found it has real short term memory problems... or just doesn't care.

[+Sensei TSKC]

Interesting spin off debate! Should caches be hidden so that they cannot be seen!

As more caches are being buried - ie you have to move earth (or ground cover) to retrieve the cache it seems against our earlier geocaching experiences when they were hidden so that they could be seen!

My preference is for the cache to be visible from some angles!

Peter

My thought is that the cache should be placed so that cachers can find them and muggles do not notice them. Caches should not be buried in any instance but that doesn't mean that they should be visible from an angle.

 

Some of the clever caches are hidden in full view and not discovered by muggles.

[+John Stead]

 

With regard to flattened vegetations etc - I think it is not always avoidable, especially if a cache has been placed during winter months only to be surrounded by nettles etc as soon as spring arrives.

 

Sometimes, only sometime, it is possible to get through nettles etc and not leave too obvious a trail. For example if a cache is likely to be in a fence some yards from a parallel path it will leave a less obvious trail if you leave the path a little distance along and approach close to the fence rather than get opposite the cache location and go direct to it at right angles from the path.

Sometime too it is possible to pull some of the vegetation up again and hope it will regrow before the muggles follow you in - tough on the next cacher maybe but better that than no cache to look for!

[+Clyde.]

I know the cache that you describe and we were the unfortunate cachers to find the cache deeply entrenched in the post. We had spent some time searching for it and so were quite frustrated! But that happens quite a few times

 

I could imagine your frustration at this because:

 

1. Its not the cache you were looking for

2. You missed out on a great hide

 

Not sounding like a 'know it all' but Bonnie and I have yet to find a cache that was 3 miles from where it should have been....and hidden as well

 

Just can't understand why whoever it was didn't just return it to its location OR put it into our cache with a small note on it.

 

As for the trampling down of surrounding vegetation, as John said why don't we just send in one person if the nettles are high or from a slightly different direction and if a few must go in, why don't they just follow the 1st persons route in rather than all going in 'gung ho' and flattening, virtually flailing everything within 20ft of the location.

Honestly, the multi cache in question that we found the location was totally destroyed to the point that the nettles/grass/whatever else were pulled up and the soil was showing.

The cache itself was sticking up and out of the tree stump like the Winter Hill beacon and anyone would spot it from miles away...

Now I'm not pointing a finger at anyone but there was an event the previous weekend and a number of cachers all found the cache at the same time/day, I could be totally wrong in my assumptions but if I was the cache owner I would not be too happy with my cache being compromised in this manner

 

The cache was found a couple of days previous to us and they noted in their log the same thing " A herd of Wilder beasts" I think they said....thats were I got that expression from for my opening post

[+The_Botherers]

 

With regard to flattened vegetations etc - I think it is not always avoidable, especially if a cache has been placed during winter months only to be surrounded by nettles etc as soon as spring arrives.

 

Sometimes, only sometime, it is possible to get through nettles etc and not leave too obvious a trail. For example if a cache is likely to be in a fence some yards from a parallel path it will leave a less obvious trail if you leave the path a little distance along and approach close to the fence rather than get opposite the cache location and go direct to it at right angles from the path.

Sometime too it is possible to pull some of the vegetation up again and hope it will regrow before the muggles follow you in - tough on the next cacher maybe but better that than no cache to look for!

 

I wholeheartedly agree that all steps should be taken to avoid arousing anyone's curiousity and we usually try to do that . As you mention in your post alternative ways should be found (if possible) to approach a cache and not bulldoze everything in sight. In my defence though my actual comment referred more to the actual cache site and not the path to it .

[+SidAndBob]

I recently found this log on one of my caches.

Found eventually after lots of searching ...

Returned cache to slightly more obvious postion within

coordinates.

I had to make a specific trip to replace the cache and then I emailed the finder to tell him that it was bad etiquette to move the cache as I had chosen the hiding place, which I had made intentionally difficult.

I did feel like saying "If you want to chose the hiding place then go and create your own cache".

[+careygang]

Interesting spin off debate! Should caches be hidden so that they cannot be seen!

As more caches are being buried - ie you have to move earth (or ground cover) to retrieve the cache it seems against our earlier geocaching experiences when they were hidden so that they could be seen!

My preference is for the cache to be visible from some angles!

Peter

My thought is that the cache should be placed so that cachers can find them and muggles do not notice them. Caches should not be buried in any instance but that doesn't mean that they should be visible from an angle.

 

Some of the clever caches are hidden in full view and not discovered by muggles.

 

What's this about caches being buried?

 

Quote from rules:

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

I must admit that I did find one in the US a couple of years ago that was 'buried', in that the container was under a very odd but realistic plastic flower. Perhaps the locals wouldn't have fallen for it, but I just thought the flower was something native to the desert!!

It does seem fairly common in the US to have buried caches in wild countryside, but only so that elaborate covers can be put over them.

Edited July 2, 2007 by careygang

[+mongoose39uk]

Having just spent two hours putting caches back where they should be I have to agree.

 

One had moved from next to a large tree to live next to a a sapling near the path.

 

'appen it preferred the view

[+Clyde.]

The clue seemed pretty clear as to where it was supposed to be, so I fear it may have gone

 

The above is from a recent log at the multi cache I was talking about....need I say anymore

[+Alibags]

Interesting spin off debate! Should caches be hidden so that they cannot be seen!

As more caches are being buried - ie you have to move earth (or ground cover) to retrieve the cache it seems against our earlier geocaching experiences when they were hidden so that they could be seen!

My preference is for the cache to be visible from some angles!

Peter

My thought is that the cache should be placed so that cachers can find them and muggles do not notice them. Caches should not be buried in any instance but that doesn't mean that they should be visible from an angle.

 

Some of the clever caches are hidden in full view and not discovered by muggles.

 

What's this about caches being buried?

 

Quote from rules:

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

I must admit that I did find one in the US a couple of years ago that was 'buried', in that the container was under a very odd but realistic plastic flower. Perhaps the locals wouldn't have fallen for it, but I just thought the flower was something native to the desert!!

It does seem fairly common in the US to have buried caches in wild countryside, but only so that elaborate covers can be put over them.

 

The cache that Mandy refers to is NOT in fact buried. No tool or pointy stick is needed to uncover it or rehide it. If that is buried then every cache hidden under a pile of rocks in the UK is also 'buried'.

[+Sensei TSKC]

The cache that Mandy refers to is NOT in fact buried. No tool or pointy stick is needed to uncover it or rehide it. If that is buried then every cache hidden under a pile of rocks in the UK is also 'buried'.

Totally agree.

[+Us 4 and Jess]

The cache that Mandy refers to is NOT in fact buried. No tool or pointy stick is needed to uncover it or rehide it. If that is buried then every cache hidden under a pile of rocks in the UK is also 'buried'.

Totally agree.

 

Mandy was teasing one of her local cachers (and very good friend) did you notice the 8 smilies.

 

M

[Moss Trooper]

The cache that Mandy refers to is NOT in fact buried. No tool or pointy stick is needed to uncover it or rehide it. If that is buried then every cache hidden under a pile of rocks in the UK is also 'buried'.

Totally agree.

 

Mandy was teasing one of her local cachers (and very good friend) did you notice the 8 smilies.

 

M

 

Is OK folks, I have found a very smelly kipper and when I next see Mandy I will slap her daft with said kipper.

 

We actually have regular discussions on this very point.. A discussion with Mandy on this is she talks and I listen. It goes something like "Moss! flower! when I want your views on this I will give you them"

 

Edited July 4, 2007 by Moss Trooper

[+Us 4 and Jess]

boooooooooooooooga of Moss

 

Wait till I see you

 

M

Edited July 4, 2007 by Us 4 and Jess

[+Sensei TSKC]

 

Mandy was teasing one of her local cachers (and very good friend) did you notice the 8 smilies.

 

M

But only 3 of 'em were actually 'laughy' ones! So why are they called 'smilies'? This definitely doesn't make me smile: