Can't find that difficulty 5 cache?

[+StarBrand]

Came across this site tonight: http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

GCRM - what a disgusting website. I guess you don't have to take care of your caches if you slap that label on....

Edited October 28, 2010 by StarBrand

[+narcissa]

I'm all in favour of cachers looking out for each other, but there should be a direct arrangement between the cacher and the cache owner. I think this site is well-intentioned, but misguided.

[+StarBrand]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

[+narcissa]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

[Mr.Yuck]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Well, you do have to "opt-in" on this. If they opt-in, well, I guess they're all for it.

 

I give it 5 minutes per difficulty rating before someone runs a WHOIS lookup on the domain name, trying to figure out who is behind the whole thing.

[+BlueDeuce]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

 

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

 

 

Edited:

Edited October 28, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+G & C]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

 

Yea. What the heck IS that supposed to mean?

Edited October 28, 2010 by Guns & Cockpits

[+narcissa]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

 

Yea. What the hell IS that supposed to mean?

 

They're all well-intentioned but misguided peripheral geocaching concepts that sound ok until you take a closer look.

[+Too Tall John]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

I have heard people take the stance that the Geocachers' Creed is bunk, but I've never heard anyone take exception to "trade up, trade even." To read narcissa'a post at face value, it would appear they are doing both. I suspect (hope!) that this isn't the case, though. We should wait for clarification. Oh, wait. That's what you asked for. Carry on.

[+BlueDeuce]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

 

Yea. What the hell IS that supposed to mean?

 

They're all well-intentioned but misguided peripheral geocaching concepts that sound ok until you take a closer look.

 

Ah, peripheral. No integrity allowed. Anyone who claims it is dismissed.

Edited October 28, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[Mr.Yuck]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

I have heard people take the stance that the Geocachers' Creed is bunk, but I've never heard anyone take exception to "trade up, trade even." To read narcissa'a post at face value, it would appear they are doing both. I suspect (hope!) that this isn't the case, though. We should wait for clarification. Oh, wait. That's what you asked for. Carry on.

 

Actually, I thought the Geocachers Creed was fine, and only Sbell111 was against it. Especially after I saw it plastered on the walls at the official Groundspeak GPS maze exhibit. I guess I still remain confused about trade-up, trade even though.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+narcissa]

"Trade up, trade even" is problematic for many reasons. The relative value of trade items is highly subjective, and I think it's a mistake to put so much emphasis on trade items. The "trade up, trade even" thing has contributed to a shift in the way people perceive geocaches and the objects in them. When I started caching, I fully expected to find people's junk drawer cast-offs in the geocaches - it was part of what made each cache unique and fun. Now people expect brand new awesome stuff, or else you've ruined it for them and their kids. Sad.

 

So the base message - don't leave broken paperclips and used gum in a cache - is fine, but the way it has escalated to inexcusable levels of materialism is a net negative for the game as a whole.

 

***

 

As for the Geocacher's Creed, most of it is simply reiterating the instructions and guidelines outlined by Geocaching.com, but in a cloying, mildly patronizing way. It's well-intentioned, but completely unnecessary.

Edited October 28, 2010 by narcissa

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, off topic for this thread.

 

(waits in the alley for narcissa to walk by )

[+Borst68]

I think I pass on this. This idea has all the makings of a train wreck.

[+power69]

Came across this site tonight: http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

GCRM - what a disgusting website. I guess you don't have to take care of your caches if you slap that label on....

hey a new solution to all those pesky 5 star puzzle caches

[+StarBrand]

Came across this site tonight: http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

GCRM - what a disgusting website. I guess you don't have to take care of your caches if you slap that label on....

hey a new solution to all those pesky 5 star puzzle caches

 

I particularly like the clause about the possibility of multiple containers in the area. Record runs could go much faster if all they need to do is toss a new filmcan down in the general area of the cache. Name already neatly printed on the log. With some practice you could probably toss them from a car window.

[MisterEFQ]

Im guessing the people who are going to replace the caches are going to log finds too.

 

Replacing logs, im fine with that. Ive done it a few times and left the old one in the cache.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Maybe this was the theory behind that mysterious FTF (not!) on Long Island that got a lot of attention here a few weeks ago

 

I've replaced my fair share of lost and damaged caches, but with the COs knowledge and agreement. One of those, however, I just heard has now got 3 containers, all in the same spot. I wasn't the only one trying to help out. Not to worry, he goes and straightens it out when he visits it.

[+L0ne.R]

Would this fly with the reviewers? Isn't having a GCRM icon on the cache page equivalent to saying that the CO doesn't plan on maintaining their cache?

[+dfx]

Would this fly with the reviewers? Isn't having a GCRM icon on the cache page equivalent to saying that the CO doesn't plan on maintaining their cache?

depends on how you argue it. nobody says that you have to maintain your cache yourself, it's a common setup to place a cache away from home and have some local person that you know do the maintenance if required. in this case you'd just have a lot of random locals do the maintenance

[CoyoteRed]

Came across this site tonight: http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

GCRM - what a disgusting website. I guess you don't have to take care of your caches if you slap that label on....

The overall concept is okay, but ill conceived and unnecessary.

1. One should never replace another person's container (cache) unless you know it is missing. You don't know it is missing simply because you couldn't find it. The only thing you've proven when you don't find it is you didn't find it, nothing more.
   
2. I think replacing a container that is damaged is okay in order to protect the cache contents. Special and custom containers are problematic due to their very nature, but protecting the cache contents until a new proper container is put out is helpful. This might be nothing more than a gallon freezer bag inside to original container.
   
3. Throwing down a new container because you couldn't find the old one will get you multiple containers. The easier ones will get found and harder ones will not. Essentially you're creating geo-trash. Once the cache is retired who's to know how many bits of trash are you supposed to retrieve?
   
4. Most folks will add a new logbook, but toss the old one? Never! That is a historical document which is the property of the cacher owner to deal with. Even with his permission through direct communication, I'd decline to throw it away. To make the logbook so disposable begs the question of why was it in there in the first place?
   

So, while the concept of helping your fellow cacher is admirable, this iteration is either not well though out or basic premises of the hobby is missing.

 

"Trade up, trade even" is problematic for many reasons. The relative value of trade items is highly subjective...

Yes, it's highly subjective. No one is asking anyone to have a trade appraised in order to make a trade. The basic premise behind this take on "The Golden Rule" is simply think about the folks who come after you. Check out my signature. The wife put it a little better, if a bit more wordy, IMHO.

 

As for the Geocacher's Creed, most of it is simply reiterating the instructions and guidelines outlined by Geocaching.com, but in a cloying, mildly patronizing way. It's well-intentioned, but completely unnecessary.

Yes, all of the creed can be found on geocaching.com, you could not find it all in one place. Guidelines are rules to follow. The creed is a concept. The guidelines, the TOU, are concrete rules in which one can find confusing exceptions or holes that might not answer one's questions. The creed, being a concept, covers just about everything and is fuzzy enough to find answers to questions that don't yet exist. Additionally, if two concepts collide the higher concept takes precedence. (i.e. should you compromise your safety over keeping the integrity of a cache? Hint: obviously your safety comes first.)

 

Now these concepts were found on geocaching.com but they were scattered throughout the guidelines, TOU, the forums, etc. While you could make do without the creed, it take an awful lot of searching and reading--then hopefully you found everything. How many questions on the first page of this forum can be answered simply be reading the creed and letting it guide you?

[+secretagentbill]

Just yesterday I noticed that the geocache within walking distance of where I work was disabled. It was disabled because of a couple of DNFs that suggested that it might be missing. I walked over at lunch time and the cache was right where it had been all along. So if the guys that failed to find it had replaced it, there would have been two containers and a couple of bogus logs. Sometimes people are just too quick to assume that the cache is missing.

[+Huntleigh]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Well, you do have to "opt-in" on this. If they opt-in, well, I guess they're all for it.

 

I give it 5 minutes per difficulty rating before someone runs a WHOIS lookup on the domain name, trying to figure out who is behind the whole thing.

 

No need, there's a link to a GC profile on the bottom of the page.

[+Ike 13]

Well I got something out of those links...an easy to print all in one log for my caches.

[+sbell111]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

I have heard people take the stance that the Geocachers' Creed is bunk, but I've never heard anyone take exception to "trade up, trade even." To read narcissa'a post at face value, it would appear they are doing both. I suspect (hope!) that this isn't the case, though. We should wait for clarification. Oh, wait. That's what you asked for. Carry on.

 

Actually, I thought the Geocachers Creed was fine, and only Sbell111 was against it. Especially after I saw it plastered on the walls at the official Groundspeak GPS maze exhibit. I guess I still remain confused about trade-up, trade even though.

Looks like more people agree with me. After this thread, I bet even more will.

[+sbell111]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Well, you do have to "opt-in" on this. If they opt-in, well, I guess they're all for it.

 

I give it 5 minutes per difficulty rating before someone runs a WHOIS lookup on the domain name, trying to figure out who is behind the whole thing.

Or they could just click on the link to his profile, located conveniently at the bottom of the page.

[+narcissa]

Yes, all of the creed can be found on geocaching.com, you could not find it all in one place. Guidelines are rules to follow. The creed is a concept. The guidelines, the TOU, are concrete rules in which one can find confusing exceptions or holes that might not answer one's questions. The creed, being a concept, covers just about everything and is fuzzy enough to find answers to questions that don't yet exist. Additionally, if two concepts collide the higher concept takes precedence. (i.e. should you compromise your safety over keeping the integrity of a cache? Hint: obviously your safety comes first.)

 

Now these concepts were found on geocaching.com but they were scattered throughout the guidelines, TOU, the forums, etc. While you could make do without the creed, it take an awful lot of searching and reading--then hopefully you found everything. How many questions on the first page of this forum can be answered simply be reading the creed and letting it guide you?

 

Yes, I understand that it has good intentions, but in execution it falls flat. In particular, framing it as a "creed" carries with it several undesirable connotations and a general tone that is unnecessarily patronizing. Geocaching is a game, not a cult.

 

Now the reason I mentioned the "creed" is because the general concept of looking out for each other's caches is similarly well-intentioned, but this particular execution of that concept is highly problematic and could be very damaging to the game.

[+G & C]

 

Yes, I understand that it has good intentions, but in execution it falls flat.

 

 

Oddly, this is how I'm feeling about how you perceive the "trade even or trade up" policy.

 

It IS a game. It's nice to try to set some easy to follow, fun for everyone guidelines. The one thing I will agree with you on is the "creed" thing, but it is all with good intentions, and not difficult to follow in the least. If you do your best to follow that one guideline, my opinion is that you're doing enough. It looks like you're taking the words a little too literally, hence the lack of enjoyment for you.

[+narcissa]

 

Yes, I understand that it has good intentions, but in execution it falls flat.

 

 

Oddly, this is how I'm feeling about how you perceive the "trade even or trade up" policy.

 

It IS a game. It's nice to try to set some easy to follow, fun for everyone guidelines. The one thing I will agree with you on is the "creed" thing, but it is all with good intentions, and not difficult to follow in the least. If you do your best to follow that one guideline, my opinion is that you're doing enough. It looks like you're taking the words a little too literally, hence the lack of enjoyment for you.

 

What do you mean "lack of enjoyment?" I thoroughly enjoy geocaching.

 

I am not concerned about the "creed" being difficult to follow. It's simply unnecessary. There is already a detailed, thoughtful set of guidelines for this game on Geocaching.com.

 

The entire point of my original comment was that I believe there are good intentions behind all of these sorts of things, but in execution they fall short of their intended goals and in some ways inadvertently detract from the game.

[+tiredandlazy]

Came across this site tonight: http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

GCRM - what a disgusting website. I guess you don't have to take care of your caches if you slap that label on....

Well i'm glad he is not in Texas! And i guess if i see, this label (GCRM) on a cache page or his signature (WitzAbout) in the logs, i will just have to pass & go on to the next cache. Since we won't know if it is the real container or just one he tossed out.

[CoyoteRed]

...and could be very damaging to the game.

Hey, everyone's got an opinion. Hell, I think micros are the scourge of geocaching. I don't own one and I doubt I will unless there is place I have to place a traditional and can't place anything larger. (Which is going to be hard considering we've hidden SAW cans in places 98% of today's geocachers would swear would only support a micro.)

 

IMHO, numbers chases and trache are the biggest scourges to the hobby. I know of folks who have dropped out of geocaching because it became too much work to find suitable entertaining caches to hunt without a lot of work without wading through lists of junk. Geocaching is a game. Folks who like to simply go and have fun have had the hobby ruined by folks who selfishnesses allow them to place trache.

 

Go figure.

 

There is already a detailed, thoughtful set of guidelines for this game on Geocaching.com.

Again, no there wasn't. Also, the creed is nothing more than the reiteration of common notions at the time. The only thing created was the compact format in which these common notions and ideals of the time were restated.

 

Really, if anyone is against "trade even or trade up" they are against the Golden Rule. If anyone is against the creed, then they are against the ideals and notions that are the basis of geocaching.

 

Now if you want to critic the format go right ahead. Style has no right or wrong, really. Only different levels palatability.

 

...kind of like trache some are so fond of.

[+narcissa]

Again, no there wasn't. Also, the creed is nothing more than the reiteration of common notions at the time. The only thing created was the compact format in which these common notions and ideals of the time were restated.

 

Really, if anyone is against "trade even or trade up" they are against the Golden Rule. If anyone is against the creed, then they are against the ideals and notions that are the basis of geocaching.

 

Now if you want to critic the format go right ahead. Style has no right or wrong, really. Only different levels palatability.

 

...kind of like trache some are so fond of.

 

I am not against the general idea of making (subjectively) good trades (if you trade at all), but I disagree with the amount of emphasis the "trade up, trade even" crusade places on trade items.

 

I also disagree with handpicking certain elements of the guidelines, labelling them with a term so heavy-handed as creed, and then claiming it is or should be universally embraced.

 

I'm not sure where the rant about micros fits in. Almost any geocache can be fun and worthwhile under the right circumstances. It's the cacher's responsibility to determine what sort of geocaches he/she wants to do, and the onus is on the cacher to use the site to find the caches that are suited to them. Any movement toward homogenizing geocaches to meet a particular person's caching aesthetic is unpalatable to me.

[+The Jester]

I am not concerned about the "creed" being difficult to follow. It's simply unnecessary. There is already a detailed, thoughtful set of guidelines for this game on Geocaching.com.

But geocaching.com isn't the whole of geocaching, there are other sites out there. Not all of them have the same set of guidelines posted, so having a creed available in one spot is good for the whole game.

[+narcissa]

I am not concerned about the "creed" being difficult to follow. It's simply unnecessary. There is already a detailed, thoughtful set of guidelines for this game on Geocaching.com.

But geocaching.com isn't the whole of geocaching, there are other sites out there. Not all of them have the same set of guidelines posted, so having a creed available in one spot is good for the whole game.

 

Again, the point of my comment was that the creed is well-intentioned, but problematic. Your point illustrates one of many problem areas: hand-picking certain elements of geocaching and presenting them as a "creed" may encourage geocachers to overlook the finer details listed on Geocaching.com and other listing sites. Geocachers should refer to the specific guidelines on the site they've chosen to use.

 

In this light, the "creed" is especially problematic because it may give inexperienced geocachers the false idea that the "creed" is more important than the real terms of use and geocache placement guidelines.

 

I have no problem with people setting up third party sites that offer additional resources to geocachers. I don't think such sites should present themselves as a higher authority than the actual listing sites, which is exactly what the "creed" does by calling itself a "creed."

[+StarBrand]

A lot of fine folks gave a lot of well thoughtout time and effort to crafting the "creed". Much of it discussed in these very forums long ago.

 

Much of this current discussion makes it sound as if a small handful of folks just tossed it together over a weekend or something.

 

However anybody may feel about the 'creed' - it is a rather nice summary of the most important elements of Geocaching - at least at the time it was originally published.

 

Now - can the topic get back on track?? Please?? Take the 'creed' to a new thread.

[+power69]

Came across this site tonight: http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

GCRM - what a disgusting website. I guess you don't have to take care of your caches if you slap that label on....

hey a new solution to all those pesky 5 star puzzle caches

 

I particularly like the clause about the possibility of multiple containers in the area. Record runs could go much faster if all they need to do is toss a new filmcan down in the general area of the cache. Name already neatly printed on the log. With some practice you could probably toss them from a car window.

yep! everytime the odometer clicks, chuck a film can out the window!

[+narcissa]

A lot of fine folks gave a lot of well thoughtout time and effort to crafting the "creed". Much of it discussed in these very forums long ago.

 

Much of this current discussion makes it sound as if a small handful of folks just tossed it together over a weekend or something.

 

However anybody may feel about the 'creed' - it is a rather nice summary of the most important elements of Geocaching - at least at the time it was originally published.

 

Now - can the topic get back on track?? Please?? Take the 'creed' to a new thread.

 

Sorry, the point of my comparison wasn't meant to dump on "creed" people, just to point out that there are several of these peripheral sites and concepts that geocachers develop with good intentions that end up having negative consequences in the field. Sorry that my point was misunderstood - in my neck of the woods, any mention of the "creed" is met with universal eyerolling. Just shows you how much geocachers can differ from one area to the next.

 

BACK TO THE TOPIC: The idea of looking out for each other's caches is, on its surface, kind of nice, but in practice it falls apart. The person who developed this site may well have put a lot of thought into it, but clearly didn't consider that it will likely go awry in actual practice.

 

Someone who signs up for this really has no basis for complaint if they check on their cache and find fifteen film canisters strewn around, but I'd hate to see geocachers assuming that it is generally accepted. Geocachers in this area often help each other out, but I would only ever replace a geocache container if I was given explicit permission and thorough instructions by the cache owner.

 

Anyway, we all know what they say about good intentions...

[+wimseyguy]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Well, you do have to "opt-in" on this. If they opt-in, well, I guess they're all for it.

 

I give it 5 minutes per difficulty rating before someone runs a WHOIS lookup on the domain name, trying to figure out who is behind the whole thing.

Or they could just click on the link to his profile, located conveniently at the bottom of the page.

 

So how many of his 3400+ finds are legit, and how many are just throwdowns?

 

I think throw downs are the scourge of geocaching. I think cachers who cannot post DNF's are just &((&$#$.

 

you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating

Really?? Only 25 minutes is appropriate for a 5* hide before you can just drop your own and call it a find?

Sheesh has this guy learned nothing positive in five years of caching?

Maybe he should re-read the Creed.

And I think Trade Fairly is an excellent mantra. We can all decide what we determine to be fair without expecting brand new still in the wrapper swag or breaking the bank. I'd much rather find a cool handmade sig item than anything else in a cache anyway.

 

There, that should cover the OP and any tangents.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

you must spend a reasonable amount of time searching - at least 5 minutes per difficulty rating

Really?? Only 25 minutes is appropriate for a 5* hide before you can just drop your own and call it a find?

Sheesh has this guy learned nothing positive in five years of caching?

 

 

That was that part that got me as well. Five minutes per difficulty rating? An hour per difficulty rating would have been more realistic. Granted, if one searches for an hour and hasn't found a 1 star cache, it probably *is* missing, but searching 5 hours for a 5 star difficulty cache (assuming that it's not a puzzle cache) would actually be almost reasonable. I still wouldn't condone throwing down a container, no matter how long one searches.

[+Sol seaker]

Wow. So I went back three times and spent around an hour to 45 minutes each time at a difficult 5 cache near here,

 

and you mean all this time I could have just thrown down another one?

 

That makes the game so easy it's boring.

 

so boring I might as well start playing the "Lying Down" game instead

[+wimseyguy]

Like this?

[+Team Dromomania]

If one of my caches can't be found please leave a DNF or NM note or email me. If found and it needs service it's ok with me to make repairs or replace logs but please let me know via email or your logs. Once somebody did throw down their on container about 3 feet from the hide and logged a find with no mention of that fact. I found out later when others started reporting two containers.

 

I don't like this idea of others changing my hides without first checking with me. When it comes to caches I'll take the republican route (More government and rules not desired).

[+tozainamboku]

So has nobody noticed that it's up to a cache owner to add the logo on the page and opt into this program. How many cache owners who own a true difficulty five cache are going to put this logo on their page? In a way it actually does a service in telling people who might otherwise leave a throw down not to do so unless the cache owner has indicated that he wants his cache replaced if missing. What may be a bigger problem is that someone who would have replaced a log sheet or fixed up a broken or leaky container might not do this unless the cacher owner has used the logo.

 

Now, I realize there are some puritans who are adamantly against anyone but the cache owner replacing a cache container. Worse is that the person who replaces the container then logs a find. But this is once again an example of puritans creating rules that don't exist. If a cache owner wants to let other cachers help maintain a cache and allows them to post a find log online if they replace a missing container, the owner can do so. Just as a cache owner can delete the found log of someone who leaves a container without first getting permission.

 

The goal of geocaching is to have fun. It is not to score points by finding caches according to rule that the puritans have invented. Most people agree is is more fun to find a cache than to go looking for one that is missing.* There are many cachers who feel they are improving the game by leaving a container for the next cacher if they are reasonably confident the cache is missing.

 

*I personally find it more fun to find two caches: the replacement cache and the original only a few inches away. It's even more fun when the replacement was left by the cache owner. (Note to puritans - when this has happened I only logged one Found It log).

Edited October 31, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+StarBrand]

I suspect that many 'rules' don't exist simply because it seems to defy all reasonable common sense (for most of us) that anybody would do those things.

 

If you feel the great need to spew out the term 'puritain' for such matters - please feel free to do so. It would seem that some folks are willing to accept any and all behaviors not explicitly forbidden in the guidelines.

[+secretagentbill]

I think if someone says 'puritan' one more time, this forum will implode.

 

But anyway, I kinda had the reverse of this happen last week. I placed a cache and it turned out that there was another container hidden near GZ (wasn't listed on the site...not sure if it was archived or not yet published). I didn't see it when hiding my cache, but the first five or six people to visit the location found the other instead of mine. Fortunately nobody logged a find as they made note of the fact that it was the wrong type of container (I listed Lock-n-Lock in the description and it was a camo pretzel jar). After a volley of confusing emails, one of the cachers removed the rogue container and other cachers have begun revisiting to make the find.

 

Extra containers, regardless of intention, cause confusion IMO and replacement issues are best left to the owner.

[+tozainamboku]

But anyway, I kinda had the reverse of this happen last week. I placed a cache and it turned out that there was another container hidden near GZ (wasn't listed on the site...not sure if it was archived or not yet published). I didn't see it when hiding my cache, but the first five or six people to visit the location found the other instead of mine. Fortunately nobody logged a find as they made note of the fact that it was the wrong type of container (I listed Lock-n-Lock in the description and it was a camo pretzel jar). After a volley of confusing emails, one of the cachers removed the rogue container and other cachers have begun revisiting to make the find.

 

Extra containers, regardless of intention, cause confusion IMO and replacement issues are best left to the owner.

Great example. Extra containers are part of the game. You can't stop them. There may be an achived cache nearby, or two cachers have hidden caches and the first one gets published while the owner of the second is still working on the submission. Or someone could've hidden a cache and listed it on a different geocaching site. Or it could be a letterbox. (Gosh, did someone steal someone's letterbox or terracache?)

 

Caches migrate and a cache owner can't find it, so they leave a replacement. Now there are two caches. (I've found the original and a replacement left by the owner at least 3 times.) And there are the cases where a cache has been reported missing and the cache owner asks for someone going out to the area to help and replace the cache for them.

 

I agree that someone shouldn't just drop a replacement when they can't find a cache. If you DNF a cache it doesn't mean it is not there. But at some point the cache is likely to be missing. If a cache owner can't get out to replace the cache there is no reason that they can't ask for someone to help. The website referenced in the OP is simply providing a way for cache owners to ask for that help. Since a cache owner with a difficult hide may expect that some cachers will have trouble finding the cache, I presume that these owners will not put the icon on their cache page and these caches will not be replaced as part of this program. Instead this will give some cachers a better feeling about replacing an easy cache that goes missing, since the owner has indicated this is OK; If the cache gets replaced sooner, this means that other cachers will have better chance of finding a cache and a log to sign. I think most people enjoy the game more when the find the cache then when they DNF. I suppose the program could be improved by having the replacement caches labelled as such. Then anyone who doesn't want to count this as a find will have the opportunity to not log the cache, or to keep looking in hopes they find the original container.

[+wmpastor]

The general concept sounds ok until you read the details.

 

Right on par with "trade up or trade even" whiners and "The Geocacher's Creed."

 

Yea. What the hell IS that supposed to mean?

 

They're all well-intentioned but misguided peripheral geocaching concepts that sound ok until you take a closer look.

 

Ah, peripheral. No integrity allowed. Anyone who claims it is dismissed.

Ok, wot the "H" is THAT supposed to mean?

[+wmpastor]

I think if someone says 'puritan' one more time, this forum will implode.

I never knew caching was around in the 1700's! I guess they used maps & compasses.