Jump to content

More Helpful Cachers


Recommended Posts

A story told in the form of cache logs, names redacted to protect the innocent (and not so innocent). The cache in question is listed as 1.5 difficulty, 1 terrain.

 

-----

(DNF) May 10, 2008 by P*****VT (457 found)

 

Was excited to go find this one as there is no Cracker Barrel in VT...was dismayed to find that it may have taken a walk. I had Phudd with me (who has already found this cache) and we verified that it was not where it was originally. Has it moved or been muggled?? Cache owner may want to go check on this one. Thanks anyway!

 

-----

(Note) May 31, 2008 by cacheowner (12960 found)

 

Cache is in place and has been since the end of May, it is not the original container as it was missing but it is hidden in the same spot as originally.

 

-----

(Note) June 1, 2008 by h***** (6421 found)

 

Thanks to the cache owner for posting a status update to the cache page, albeit 2 months back-dated (I promise you, I looked for any logs before I posted my note on August 5). Maybe now I can go after this one!

 

-----

(DNF) July 30, 2008 by ********4 (124 found)

 

third time we have looked for this one. Went on the guidance of two other people that have found it. Its not there or it has been moved farely far away from coord. May have been muggled. Needs to be checked.

 

-----

(DNF) August 9, 2008 by h***** (6421 found) (same person who posted June 1 note)

 

Didn't find cache after looking for just over 5 minutes between the 4 of us. We looked in the obvious and not so obvious spots. Time was up, so off we went. Long drive to have the last search of the day be a DNF Oh well, we tried.

 

-----

(DNF) August 9, 2008 by s********* (1842 found)

 

Looked around for a good 15 minutes but no love. Must be a doozie!! TFTH!

 

-----

(DNF) January 11, 2009 by t************ (3185 found)

 

B***********r and I spent a while looking over the traditional location and several non-traditional ones but came up blank. This location was surprisingly un-busy on a Sunday evening.

 

-----

(DNF) March 14, 2009 by L***********(14 found)

 

Did not find. Very sad day. We looked around for about 15 minutes and still no luck.

 

-----

(DNF) April 17, 2009 by T** S***** G**(359 found)

 

No find either. I should have checked the logs first and we wouldn't have wasted our time.

 

-----

(DNF) August 1, 2009 by D** (966 found)

 

Add us to the long list of DNFs. Wonder when the last time it was checked on was.

 

-----

(DNF) May 4 by b*********** (12 found)

 

not sure its there at all anymore. I emailed the guy responsible and I haven't heard back. don't waste your time hunting for. this one

 

-----

(NA) May 13 by GeoGeeBee (108 found)

 

Why, oh why, has no one posted a Needs Archived log on this one yet? It's very obvious where it should be, and it's clearly not there. The owner hasn't responded to emails or Needs Maintenance logs. And the company has rescinded their blanket permission for OYR caches. Time to make this bad penny go away.

 

-----

(Note) May 13 by cacheowner (12960 found)

 

No i have not checked on this 1 since Jan. but it was in place then. I will check it again this weekend.

 

-----

(Smiley) May 30 by C*******T******* (1445 found)

 

Spoke to the owner at an event last week and he told me exactly where the cache was located. I stopped by that night and looked and low and behold it wasn't there. I asked him if I could replace it for him and he said I could since I live close. Ate here this morning and replaced the cache. Cache on!

Edited by GeoGeeBee
Link to comment

Throwdown/angel caches suck. If any one of the cachers who posted the DNF's had simply replaced the container and posted "couldn't find it, and know where it should be so I left a new container there" they deserve all the scorn from the torch and pitchfork assembled herein.

 

Since the CO authorized the replacement of this cache on their behalf, this is a different situation, and doesn't really suck that much. Especially since CB hides are becoming an endangered species.

 

Just my $.02, and acknowledging that I like OYR caches. YMMV

Link to comment

It's in the very last posted log. If it is authorized, it isn't a throwdown in my book. That distinction was the point of my original reply.

I asked him if I could replace it for him and he said I could since I live close. Ate here this morning and replaced the cache. Cache on!
Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

It's in the very last posted log. If it is authorized, it isn't a throwdown in my book. That distinction was the point of my original reply.

I asked him if I could replace it for him and he said I could since I live close. Ate here this morning and replaced the cache. Cache on!

 

Ok, I see it. It's not the throwdown that's bad, but the amount of time that has elapsed..

Link to comment

It's in the very last posted log. If it is authorized, it isn't a throwdown in my book. That distinction was the point of my original reply.

I asked him if I could replace it for him and he said I could since I live close. Ate here this morning and replaced the cache. Cache on!

 

Ok, I see it. It's not the throwdown that's bad, but the amount of time that has elapsed..

 

Well, wimseyguy and I are in disagreement here. In my opinion, the replacement cache is merely destined to be archived, anyway. The cache owner has shown absolutely zero interest in maintaining the cache, it's been missing for nearly two years with just notes posted that said "It was there last time I looked," or "I'll check on it this weekend" (several weeks ago, with no follow-up). Then suddenly another cacher replaces it.

 

I agree, it's not quite a "throwdown" since the cache owner authorized it. But is the person who placed it going to maintain it? It sure doesn't sound like the owner is going to do it.

Link to comment

I agree, it's not quite a "throwdown" since the cache owner authorized it. But is the person who placed it going to maintain it? It sure doesn't sound like the owner is going to do it.

 

imo it's a throwdown if not placed by the CO or someone who has found/placed it previously(and then only with explicit permission from the CO.)

this can be argued over till the cows come home of course.

 

ps, throwdowns suck and potentially ruin the intented original cache experience imo

Link to comment

I agree, it's not quite a "throwdown" since the cache owner authorized it. But is the person who placed it going to maintain it? It sure doesn't sound like the owner is going to do it.

 

imo it's a throwdown if not placed by the CO or someone who has found/placed it previously(and then only with explicit permission from the CO.)

this can be argued over till the cows come home of course.

 

ps, throwdowns suck and potentially ruin the intented original cache experience imo

 

I agree. It's a throwdown, a sanctioned throwdown but still a throwdown.

Link to comment

I don't disagree with the OP that this cache may be archived at some future point. I don't disagree with him that someone should have posted a NA long before he did if the cache wasn't being maintained. I don't disagree that the CO didn't appear to be interested in maintaining this one.

 

But now it has been maintained, and it's there waiting to be found. There are other caches out there that are maintained by the community for various reasons. And since OYR caches cannot be listed any longer, but older ones are allowed to remain, is that such a bad thing? This cache isn't blocking a spot where someone else can hide one. Unless they want to use the parking lot next door. :laughing:

Link to comment

If the owner authorized the replacement, what's the big problem? Ottawa geocachers do cache maintenance for each other all the time. Saves unnecessary trips to the boonies.

 

Its your cache you do the maintenance. Archive it and then maybe some one who is close by can put a new one there. A Micro is never worth adopting.

Link to comment

If the owner authorized the replacement, what's the big problem? Ottawa geocachers do cache maintenance for each other all the time. Saves unnecessary trips to the boonies.

The problem is the inference, it took well over a year to replace a missing container on property that doesn't want it there.

 

If the people who own the property don't want it there, then why hasn't the reviewer done something about it? Why aren't there logs mentioning that?

 

It shouldn't have taken a year for the cache to get maintained, but if the owner authorized the replacement, then the person who replaced it is not the problem.

Link to comment

If the owner authorized the replacement, what's the big problem? Ottawa geocachers do cache maintenance for each other all the time. Saves unnecessary trips to the boonies.

 

Its your cache you do the maintenance. Archive it and then maybe some one who is close by can put a new one there. A Micro is never worth adopting.

 

I don't know why it's necessary to take such a severe, unforgiving view. Sometimes things come up, sometimes people go on vacation, sometimes people just ask a fellow cacher to do them a favour. If the cache is getting maintained and the owner is aware of and agrees to it, why does it matter who actually does the maintenance? If I can save my buddy a trip by doing a maintenance run on a cache I'm going by anyway, I will.

 

This is not the same thing as someone informally adopting a cache whose owner hasn't logged in for more than a year. The owner authorized the maintenance.

 

Groundspeak will approve geocaches placed far from the cache owner's home coordinates IF they can get another geocacher to be a co-maintainer. Groundspeak also lets us write whatever we want in the "placed by" section. Clearly, Groundspeak allows flexibility here and doesn't seem to care who maintains the cache as long as the owner is involved at some level and the cache gets maintained.

Link to comment

What does the fact that there is no cracker barrel in vermont have to do with anything?

Ever notice Willows only line in the song Walk Through The Fire?

 

ANYA: She came from the grave much graver

SPIKE: First, he'll kill her, then I'll save her

TARA: Everything is turning out so dark

SPIKE: No, I'll save her, then I'll kill her

WILLOW: I think this line is mostly filler

GILES: What's it going to take to strike a spark?

Link to comment

LOL... this is almost the same situation i saw today on a cache that hadn't been seen in more than a year.

 

several requests for maintenance... a needs archive...

 

yesterday, a tourist cacher "found it". it's a PNG in a very small rest area (very limited hiding spots).

 

i'm starting to have some doubts about my fellow cachers' honesty. i've seen several caches where the cache clearly wasn't there and people consistently logging finds.

Link to comment
I agree, it's not quite a "throwdown" since the cache owner authorized it. But is the person who placed it going to maintain it? It sure doesn't sound like the owner is going to do it.

The good news for you here is that you can keep your panties in a wad over this cache for at least a few more months. But don't worry too much -- after it's finally gone, I feel certain you will find another cache whose owner does not maintain it to your standards, and then you do your holier-than-thou act in the forums over it.

Link to comment

I don't have a problem with an authorized "throwdown", as long as it's not in a situation like this. This owner is most certainly not interested in maintaining his cache, and someone replacing it isn't going to change that. I would replace a local cache if the circumstances were right and I knew that the owner would be following behind me to either place it correctly or maintain what I put out.

 

Maybe the OP should get in touch with a local reviewer and get him/her privvy to the situation. Seems like a good reason for archival to me, even with a new cache in place.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...