Question about putting a cache back

[GardenOfSimple]

I'm really new to this (like 2 weeks) and I've been wondering about this:

 

There has been a time or two that I found a cache that looked like it was really supposed to be hidden a little better. Should I place it back exactly as I found it?? Or should I hide it better when putting it back?

 

Here is what I mean:

I found one cache inside a "hollow" part of a tree. When I found it, you could clearly see the white container (regular size.) When I put it back, I put it in the same part of the tree, but made sure it was in a spot that wasn't immediately visible. (I'm talking moved over 2 inches.)

 

Another was inside a downed hollow tree. There were obviously pieces of bark there used to cover this container. When I went to find the cache, you again could see the white of the container, but just a small bit. When I hid I, I placed the bark so that the full container was covered.

 

I figured that either the container or the bark moved after the person before me returned it (ie it shifted a bit) or the person just didn't hide it as well as it was supposed to... but I'm starting to wonder if I was wrong in that thinking. What is the "etiquette" here???

[+ngrrfan]

I'm really new to this (like 2 weeks) and I've been wondering about this:

 

There has been a time or two that I found a cache that looked like it was really supposed to be hidden a little better. Should I place it back exactly as I found it?? Or should I hide it better when putting it back?

 

Here is what I mean:

I found one cache inside a "hollow" part of a tree. When I found it, you could clearly see the white container (regular size.) When I put it back, I put it in the same part of the tree, but made sure it was in a spot that wasn't immediately visible. (I'm talking moved over 2 inches.)

It's still in the hollow of the tree, right? Then it is where the CO put it, or reasonably close (IMHO).

 

Another was inside a downed hollow tree. There were obviously pieces of bark there used to cover this container. When I went to find the cache, you again could see the white of the container, but just a small bit. When I hid I, I placed the bark so that the full container was covered.

 

I figured that either the container or the bark moved after the person before me returned it (ie it shifted a bit) or the person just didn't hide it as well as it was supposed to... but I'm starting to wonder if I was wrong in that thinking. What is the "etiquette" here???

Covering it with more bark isn't changing a thing (again IMHO). You are doing the right thing as long as you are putting the container back where you found it.

 

I'll take a container and pile more rocks or sticks or bark on it to cover it better than what I found it when possible. There are no flashing neon arrows pointing to the hiding spot, you're supposed to have to look for them.

[+J the Goat]

Helping with cammo in the exact same spot as before is okay (also just my opinion) but be careful not to cross the line. If you are surrounded by tree stumps, leave it in the one you found it, even if the rest are better spots. Don't move the cache from it's actual location because you think the other spot is better or looks like it should be there instead.

 

When in doubt, put it back exactly as you found it and post a note.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Thanks for this thread! i was wondering the same thing! This leads me to another question about replacing cache. i didn't do what the OP did. i found a cache to be partially out, so that i saw the red lid right away. It was in a really muddy area and mostly hidden under pine needles. i figured since the difficulty rating was a 1 that when replacing the cache i should leave the lid a bit exposed like it i found it, so that it is an easier spot.

 

If the difficulty was a 4, i would have replaced it and hidden it better. Is this the correct way to act, or am i over-thinking it?

[+Cache Pack]

I'm really new to this (like 2 weeks) and I've been wondering about this:

 

There has been a time or two that I found a cache that looked like it was really supposed to be hidden a little better. Should I place it back exactly as I found it?? Or should I hide it better when putting it back?

 

Here is what I mean:

I found one cache inside a "hollow" part of a tree. When I found it, you could clearly see the white container (regular size.) When I put it back, I put it in the same part of the tree, but made sure it was in a spot that wasn't immediately visible. (I'm talking moved over 2 inches.)

 

Another was inside a downed hollow tree. There were obviously pieces of bark there used to cover this container. When I went to find the cache, you again could see the white of the container, but just a small bit. When I hid I, I placed the bark so that the full container was covered.

 

I figured that either the container or the bark moved after the person before me returned it (ie it shifted a bit) or the person just didn't hide it as well as it was supposed to... but I'm starting to wonder if I was wrong in that thinking. What is the "etiquette" here???

 

My old Garmin Legend usually takes me withing a couple of feet from the cache, and besides I like the challange of finding the cache. I've found a few disturbed caches, and usually just stach them back where I found them. Good topic for discussion.

[+Border Caz]

IMHO, the cache should be hidden so that it cannot be seen by a casual passer by, (to avoid muggle attacks)even if it is only a D1 - so I would have tried to cover up the red lid when replacing it.

 

Sometimes the "camoflage" wil be distured by animals or birds, searching for food or generally rummaging around, and make the cache more visible than intended.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

IMHO, the cache should be hidden so that it cannot be seen by a casual passer by, (to avoid muggle attacks)even if it is only a D1 - so I would have tried to cover up the red lid when replacing it.

 

Sometimes the "camoflage" wil be distured by animals or birds, searching for food or generally rummaging around, and make the cache more visible than intended.

 

Gotcha. That makes sense. Fortunately, the last one that i left a bit of red lid exposed won't have muggles around. Was a pretty deserted area.

 

i will definitely take your advice though and be sure to conceal with the concerns you mentioned. Thanks.

[+J the Goat]

IMHO, the cache should be hidden so that it cannot be seen by a casual passer by, (to avoid muggle attacks)even if it is only a D1 - so I would have tried to cover up the red lid when replacing it.

 

Sometimes the "camoflage" wil be distured by animals or birds, searching for food or generally rummaging around, and make the cache more visible than intended.

 

Gotcha. That makes sense. Fortunately, the last one that i left a bit of red lid exposed won't have muggles around. Was a pretty deserted area.

 

i will definitely take your advice though and be sure to conceal with the concerns you mentioned. Thanks.

 

You'd be surprised at what kinds of deserted areas muggles will end up at. Some are just natural explorers. Low traffic probably. No muggle traffic? There's no such thing.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Hmmm, good point too. i'll keep that in mind!

[+J the Goat]

And just so you know, The Way was just down at the Valero on the corner buying a slim jim. No more seeking necessary.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If something was placed say... in the hollow of a tree, the idea is to prevent the casual passerby from noticing anything unusual.

 

Should you find such a cache, and I would say that you PROBABLY will, and the thing that you first noticed was a bright color from the container, it probably was not originally placed in such a manner. If you noticed the cache because of the exposed color, a muggle will also.

 

I have a placement such as that. Inside the hollow is a lot of pithy tree innards. It was placed covered by that material, but I have found (after logs stating "easy find") that many DO NOT replace as found. Que Sera, Sera.

[+briansnat]

Thanks for this thread! i was wondering the same thing! This leads me to another question about replacing cache. i didn't do what the OP did. i found a cache to be partially out, so that i saw the red lid right away. It was in a really muddy area and mostly hidden under pine needles. i figured since the difficulty rating was a 1 that when replacing the cache i should leave the lid a bit exposed like it i found it, so that it is an easier spot.

 

If the difficulty was a 4, i would have replaced it and hidden it better. Is this the correct way to act, or am i over-thinking it?

 

I think you got it. If it was a 4 then no way it should be in plain sight. Generally you put it back exactly as you found it, but if it's obvious that the cache owner didn't hide it that way, try to hide it in accordance with its difficulty rating.

[GardenOfSimple]

If something was placed say... in the hollow of a tree, the idea is to prevent the casual passerby from noticing anything unusual.

 

Should you find such a cache, and I would say that you PROBABLY will, and the thing that you first noticed was a bright color from the container, it probably was not originally placed in such a manner. If you noticed the cache because of the exposed color, a muggle will also.

 

I have a placement such as that. Inside the hollow is a lot of pithy tree innards. It was placed covered by that material, but I have found (after logs stating "easy find") that many DO NOT replace as found. Que Sera, Sera.

 

You guys have been so helpful! Thank you... now in response to this comment in particular: Should I let the owner know that the cache was plainly visible due to color when I found it? Is that a customary thing to mention? I would think that if several people say something like that, then it may be a clue that the hiding spot is possible not as "stable" as intended or something (the natural coverings move more or animals are more curious or whatever..)

If a message IS sent, should it just be part of a "Found It" log or something else?

Edited June 5, 2010 by GardenOfSimple

[+kunarion]

Should I let the owner know that the cache was plainly visible due to color when I found it? Is that a customary thing to mention?

If you want to mention specific info about a hide, do a "Send Message" from the Cache Owner's profile page (about the bright red lid, etc.). You can also do a log on the cache page, but be more general about the problem: "the container was quite visible from a distance", or whatever. Yes, if there are a lot of logs like that, the owner may decide to address it.

 

Sometimes, a container is deliberately made easy to spot. It depends on things like the location, or the number and nosiness of muggles.

Edited June 5, 2010 by kunarion

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

If something was placed say... in the hollow of a tree, the idea is to prevent the casual passerby from noticing anything unusual.

 

Should you find such a cache, and I would say that you PROBABLY will, and the thing that you first noticed was a bright color from the container, it probably was not originally placed in such a manner. If you noticed the cache because of the exposed color, a muggle will also.

 

I have a placement such as that. Inside the hollow is a lot of pithy tree innards. It was placed covered by that material, but I have found (after logs stating "easy find") that many DO NOT replace as found. Que Sera, Sera.

 

i thought one of the guidelines was that caches couldn't be covered with anything! Am i mistaken!? This may explain why i am 1 out of 3 today! Any advice is good! Thanks.

[+kunarion]

i thought one of the guidelines was that caches couldn't be covered with anything! Am i mistaken!?

As long as you don't have to dig to bury the container, it's fine to hide it with surrounding leaves, bark, twigs, etc. And outdoors, it's bound to get covered better and better by nature, so even if the CO intended it to be in plain view, it could be under a pile of leaves.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

i thought one of the guidelines was that caches couldn't be covered with anything! Am i mistaken!?

As long as you don't have to dig to bury the container, it's fine to hide it with surrounding leaves, bark, twigs, etc. And outdoors, it's bound to get covered better and better by nature, so even if the CO intended it to be in plain view, it could be under a pile of leaves.

 

It's also not necessarily going to be on the ground and can still be total be hidden from view. One of the most difficult finds I've done was a nano cache on a very large metal object that could only be found by feeling for it. I found it on my fourth try after spending well over three hours looking for it.

[+briansnat]

If something was placed say... in the hollow of a tree, the idea is to prevent the casual passerby from noticing anything unusual.

 

Should you find such a cache, and I would say that you PROBABLY will, and the thing that you first noticed was a bright color from the container, it probably was not originally placed in such a manner. If you noticed the cache because of the exposed color, a muggle will also.

 

I have a placement such as that. Inside the hollow is a lot of pithy tree innards. It was placed covered by that material, but I have found (after logs stating "easy find") that many DO NOT replace as found. Que Sera, Sera.

 

i thought one of the guidelines was that caches couldn't be covered with anything! Am i mistaken!? This may explain why i am 1 out of 3 today! Any advice is good! Thanks.

 

You can cover caches with leaves, duff, bark, rocks, sticks etc. What you can't do is dig holes in order to hide it.

[+briansnat]

IMHO, the cache should be hidden so that it cannot be seen by a casual passer by, (to avoid muggle attacks)even if it is only a D1 - so I would have tried to cover up the red lid when replacing it.

 

Sometimes the "camoflage" wil be distured by animals or birds, searching for food or generally rummaging around, and make the cache more visible than intended.

 

Gotcha. That makes sense. Fortunately, the last one that i left a bit of red lid exposed won't have muggles around. Was a pretty deserted area.

 

i will definitely take your advice though and be sure to conceal with the concerns you mentioned. Thanks.

 

You'd be surprised at what kinds of deserted areas muggles will end up at. Some are just natural explorers. Low traffic probably. No muggle traffic? There's no such thing.

 

That's for certain. Last weekend I was backpacking with my wife and we had found a nice place to make camp that was 2 miles in from the road and a quarter mile from the nearest trail. Basically the middle of nowhere and requiring moderately difficult bushwacking to reach.

 

We were about to leave our camp to take a day hike when my wife expressed reservations about leaving much of our equipment unattended. I said "Nobody will bother our camp, at least nothing human" (I was more worried about a bear trashing it). Seconds later, as if on queue, we heard voices and 3 people marched by within 50 feet of our campsite.

 

We ran into them a bit later on the trail and it turned out they were locals who were taking a shortcut to an overlook. They were as surprised to see us as we were surprised to see them.

[+J the Goat]

Thanks for this thread! i was wondering the same thing! This leads me to another question about replacing cache. i didn't do what the OP did. i found a cache to be partially out, so that i saw the red lid right away. It was in a really muddy area and mostly hidden under pine needles. i figured since the difficulty rating was a 1 that when replacing the cache i should leave the lid a bit exposed like it i found it, so that it is an easier spot.

 

If the difficulty was a 4, i would have replaced it and hidden it better. Is this the correct way to act, or am i over-thinking it?

 

I think you got it. If it was a 4 then no way it should be in plain sight. Generally you put it back exactly as you found it, but if it's obvious that the cache owner didn't hide it that way, try to hide it in accordance with its difficulty rating.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. In an instance like this, I would place the cache out of plain sight and then message the CO with the exact location it was placed. Replacing caches based on their diff level if you think it's not right is a hazardous practice.

[CoyoteRed]

I have to respectfully disagree. In an instance like this, I would place the cache out of plain sight and then message the CO with the exact location it was placed. Replacing caches based on their diff level if you think it's not right is a hazardous practice.

So, according to you, I'm unable to hide a cache in plain sight? We've had several caches hidden that are seen from a goodly distance. One, which is still active, is simply a camo-painted ammo box that is sitting in the crook of a tree about 50' off the trail--and can be seen from said trail if you know to look. Are you saying you would hide it somewhere else because you don't agree that a cache should be in plain sight?

 

We have another regular in a popular park that is simply at the base of a tree covered in a little bit of debris. Many times when we go past it we don't have to look for it because we can see it is there. You'd move it?

[+BlueDeuce]

You'd move it?

 

If I wasn't quite sure what the owner intended and I was willing to follow-up with them, yes.

 

I get that people try to hide an elephant in a strawberry patch by putting it in red tennis shoes, but if I am the bad guy for wondering if that is the best idea, so be it. That cache owner is just going to have to tell me what they intended. I am certainly not going to assume every exposed cache was intentional.

Edited June 27, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[g_o_caching]

I had this happen to me today. Cache was laying on ground in plain sight. It had a 2 star diff. rating. I placed it back where I thought it had to have come from to be laying where it was. When I logged my find I stated it like this: "Found it laying on ground. Placed it where it might have been, not sure though. tyfc sl"

I figure the OC, or a person that lives close by and has found it before, can check it to see if it's where it was originally hid. That's the best solution (IMO) to correcting a displaced hide.