Fed up with people not re-hiding caches properly

[+D_Skids]

Tonight I have had somebody find my two caches that I have hidden (It was the same person who found both)

 

He reported that one was out in the open and the other was exposed.

 

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if somebody has reported the caches as exposed it would normally suugest that it was the person who had found previously that had not made the effort to hide it properly. Unless of course it was muggled but then normally people woud recognise it as being muggled and if muggled they are normally scattered everywhere or stolen.

 

In both of these cases, the previous person was also the same person for both and it suggests to me they just haven't bothered returning them correctly.

 

I very nearly emailed that person directly but because I do not have 100% proof I have put a request to hide them better and have 'suggested' that it was the previous person that did this.

 

I feel a bit guilty about doing it but if it wasn't them surely if they had found it exposed shouldn't they have reported it then hid it better?

 

I think it really spoils the fun of geocaching if you can see the cache before you have even got there.

 

What do you think? Was I right to have a go?

 

Darren

[+Jaz666]

Well, as you've only currently got two active caches, finding the caches and cachers you are referring to wasn't exactly hard!

 

In both of these cases, the previous person was also the same person for both and it suggests to me they just haven't bothered returning them correctly.

 

Errrr, according to the logs they weren't the same person.

 

This quote from an earlier log suggests it's happened more than once.

Cache was easy to find as it was exposed, surprised it had not been muggled. Tried to conceal it better,

 

In my experience, when a cache gets muggled, about 50% of the time the cache doesn't get trashed or stolen, but gets thrown back roughly where they've found it.

 

It's possible someone was witnessed having a search.

Remember not everybody logs their DNFs.

 

I hope you have more success in the future.

[+jerryo]

It’s surprising how often caches become exposed due to wind etc, particularly if they are only covered up with sticks and the like. It’s better as a setter to find a hide that will accommodate the cache and then cover up what you can see afterwards. That way any finders know exactly where it should go. It makes it easier to return it to the right place.

 

It’s also surprising how many cachers don’t replace them properly too but you can’t blame the last person to find it unless you go there only a short time after. As Jaz666 said, many people don’t log DNFs. Anything could have happened although there are cases where finders are known to have been careless so you could be right.

 

I assume you refer to the person who was dropping TBs as the same person? They may have found it exposed and just politely covered it up without letting you know and to be blamed for cocking it up would be a bit rich under those circumstances.

 

I’d alter your notes to make them less stroppy; it may be better to put the information in the cache description as that’s what people read. I’d certainly consider hiding them better: you could always move them a bit and update the coordinates.

[+D_Skids]

Oops my bad.

 

I was wrong it wasn't the same person on both accounts I must have scrolled down a bit too much.

 

I have now edited my logs so that they don't point the finger. I should have sat back and had a cuppa or something before reacting

 

As for the wind/weather moving them, one is an ammo box and the other is a tuppeware container and both of them are in locations that would not affect them due to wind etc

 

Also that is a very fair comment about people not always logging a did not find (although they should!)

 

In my descriptions, one did ask that it was hidden well but the other didn't but it does now.

 

Thank you for your positive comments

Edited September 16, 2007 by D_Skids

[+chizu]

We recently found a cache that was exposed. I think it's highly unlikely it was the previous finder who had left it exposed though, as he had commented in the physical log that he too had found it exposed!

[markandlynn]

Animals forage for food by turning over objects and looking underneath for insects grubs, hiding mice etc.

 

A simple covering of sticks is a prime target for a badger or many other foraging creatures.

 

Near water swans and ducks will do the same to uncover tender shoots and greenery.

[+MartyBartfast]

I've previously found one exposed cache, and the only logical explaination was that some beastie had moved it while rooting around.

[+jmbillings]

I've previously found one exposed cache, and the only logical explaination was that some beastie had moved it while rooting around.

 

Yeah, we found one once that should have been hidden in the top of a hollow post, in a carrier bag. It was strewn all over nearby, and on the other side of some reeds was a large swan - not sure if he was to blame or not!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if somebody has reported the caches as exposed it would normally suugest that it was the person who had found previously that had not made the effort to hide it properly. ...

 

It's hard to say who exactly in the chain of finds is the key person. I hide them like I find them, but if I find them in their moved locaiton, that's where I'm going to put them back. I have no way to know better.

 

If the guy who said they were exposed was your 2nd finder...then yes, the guy before is most likely the one. Unless of course someone found it but doesn't log online....

[+careygang]

...Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if somebody has reported the caches as exposed it would normally suugest that it was the person who had found previously that had not made the effort to hide it properly. ...

 

It's hard to say who exactly in the chain of finds is the key person. I hide them like I find them, but if I find them in their moved locaiton, that's where I'm going to put them back. I have no way to know better.

 

If the guy who said they were exposed was your 2nd finder...then yes, the guy before is most likely the one. Unless of course someone found it but doesn't log online....

 

I've never understood those that don't online log, especially if they have time to sit and use these forums. As an owner, it's the online logs that let me know what is happening, the find's the DNFs etc. As a cacher, it's reading others logs that help me decide (or not) to do a particular cache. The website is the central pillar to the activity, without it geocaching would not exist, so why not log?

[markandlynn]

...Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if somebody has reported the caches as exposed it would normally suugest that it was the person who had found previously that had not made the effort to hide it properly. ...

 

It's hard to say who exactly in the chain of finds is the key person. I hide them like I find them, but if I find them in their moved locaiton, that's where I'm going to put them back. I have no way to know better.

 

If the guy who said they were exposed was your 2nd finder...then yes, the guy before is most likely the one. Unless of course someone found it but doesn't log online....

 

I've never understood those that don't online log, especially if they have time to sit and use these forums. As an owner, it's the online logs that let me know what is happening, the find's the DNFs etc. As a cacher, it's reading others logs that help me decide (or not) to do a particular cache. The website is the central pillar to the activity, without it geocaching would not exist, so why not log?

 

Some people dont like or want an online presssence for personal privacy reasons.

Some people dont log online cause they dont want to be in the smiley hunt / count part of the game.

 

We know and have met / introduced to the sport both types.

 

Most of our old log books contain a few players who dont log online, letterboxing survives quite well without online logs.

[+alma]

know what you mean .one of mine hardly ever gets put back properly and for it to work it has to be put back properly

dont know what the problem is with putting a cache back were it was.its hardly rocket science

[+Alice Band]

Frustratingly I've had people log my caches as being exposed, then they replace it as they found it, exposed. Are people being bone idle or too scared to interfere with someone else's cache?

 

If I find an exposed cache I do my best to re-hide it so it doesn't get muggled. If its stickoflage and the cache hasn't been touched for a while quite often the sticks fall off due to weather action. Same with leaves on woodland caches.

[markandlynn]

Frustratingly I've had people log my caches as being exposed, then they replace it as they found it, exposed. Are people being bone idle or too scared to interfere with someone else's cache?

 

If I find an exposed cache I do my best to re-hide it so it doesn't get muggled. If its stickoflage and the cache hasn't been touched for a while quite often the sticks fall off due to weather action. Same with leaves on woodland caches.

 

Noticed that a few times in logs and when visiting caches.

Cache's tend to rise up out of hiding holes. As people remove it a few sticks / leaves fall into the hole so the cache rises up, after so many finds the cache sits proudly on its little platform of sticks stones and leaves.

It takes just a few moments of time to clear out the hole properly and rehide.

 

eedit fore speeling

Edited September 18, 2007 by markandlynn