Jump to content

Is this acceptable?


roger-rabbit
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Is it acceptable not to find a cache, and then drop off your own container, and claim it as found? If so no wonder he has managed to find 5168 in 16 months.

 

******* found The Rutland Round - Leigh Lodge View (Traditional Cache) at 11/19/2010

 

Log Date: 11/19/2010

Searched all the nearby hint items but failed to find the cache. Took the liberty of leaving a temporary replacement, a 35mm film pot - hope that's OK. Should it transpire that the original cache is still in place I shall of course delete this log.

Link to comment

I'll start the ball rolling on this one :anibad:

 

Our opinion: No, it's not acceptable.

 

If you don't find a cache then you log a DNF. If there've been several DNFs before your own DNF you might consider also adding a NM log to ask the cache owner whether they could check if the cache is still in place.

 

It's best to only replace a cache if you've consulted with the cache owner in advance and they've agreed that you can put in a replacement on their behalf.

 

MrsB :laughing:

 

 

... Who's next?

Link to comment

I agree with Mrs B.

 

I had a cache that was difficult to find. Another cacher assumed it was missing and replaced it - it wasn't missing and that lead to weeks of people signing the log in the wrong container. I appriciate they were trying to help, but they caused problems in the long term for me as the cache setter.

 

I have replaced caches for people - but only with their consent. Either by checking with them beforehand or if I know them phoning them from the cache site to check it's definately missing and asking them if they want me to replace it.

 

The only exception would be if I found a trashed container that was clearly damaged and needed replacing. Then I would happily leave a replacement.

 

The only bit about the above log that reassures me is that the cacher has offered to delete his log if the original has found - so I guess they are acting with good intentions and trying to be helpful.

Edited by *mouse*
Link to comment

I suppose he may have felt he was being helpful and saving you a maint visit - seeing that the previous log was a DNF. (and the only previous DNFs have been when it went missing in the past ... if he had access to those logs).

 

I suppose, it also depends on how convinced he was that he was looking in the right spot.

 

But saying that, personally, I wouldn't replace it (I also couldn't as I don't carry spare film canisters)

 

I would log a DNF (and possibly an email to the owner with a description if I felt I was in correct place)

Link to comment

I'll start the ball rolling on this one :anibad:

 

Our opinion: No, it's not acceptable.

 

If you don't find a cache then you log a DNF. If there've been several DNFs before your own DNF you might consider also adding a NM log to ask the cache owner whether they could check if the cache is still in place.

 

It's best to only replace a cache if you've consulted with the cache owner in advance and they've agreed that you can put in a replacement on their behalf.

 

MrsB :laughing:

 

 

... Who's next?

I have replaced many caches but only after:

1, phoning the CO from the spot to confirm the cache has gone.

or

2. phoning someone who knows where it was and confirm it has gone, replacing it then on the return home, emailing the CO first to explain the situation and getting a thank you email and a 'GO' to log.

 

and lastly .... going with someone who had not found the cache previously (but I had) and seeing it had gone.

I then placed a temp cache till CO could replace it, i then collected my temp.

 

(I always carry at least 3 or 4 spare caches with me .... but then ... I am the MICRO QUEEN! :)

Link to comment

Is it acceptable not to find a cache, and then drop off your own container, and claim it as found? If so no wonder he has managed to find 5168 in 16 months.

 

******* found The Rutland Round - Leigh Lodge View (Traditional Cache) at 11/19/2010

 

Log Date: 11/19/2010

Searched all the nearby hint items but failed to find the cache. Took the liberty of leaving a temporary replacement, a 35mm film pot - hope that's OK. Should it transpire that the original cache is still in place I shall of course delete this log.

 

If you know with 100% certainty that the cache has gone and you have the owner's consent to replace it, then by all means replace it.

 

Replacing it with your own container without the cache owner's consent or if there is doubt over whether the original is actually missing is something I would say is not on... even if the person leaving the replacement is willing to delete their own log it means the cache owner needs to visit the site to remove the unwanted film pot.

 

Even if the original cache isn't there you don't get an automatic right to claim a find just for being there. Some cache owners will allow a find to be claimed if you were clearly in the right place but the cache wasn't, but it's not an automatic entitlement.

Link to comment

Is it acceptable not to find a cache, and then drop off your own container, and claim it as found? If so no wonder he has managed to find 5168 in 16 months..............

I've had this where cachers, again number chasers with high counts, found the hidey-hole when I'd already removed the cache as 'temporarily disabled' to do maintenance - they still counted it as a hide. I too thought 'no wonder they have high counts'. :anibad:

 

Still, I suppose we all play this game our own way. :laughing:

Link to comment

We have replaced several ‘missing’ caches with permission from the owner but only 3 without prior permission, all without a hitch, despite stating in our logs that our log should be deleted if the original cache is found.

For thehoomer, if the clue (i.e.: ‘Base of telegraph pole’) is quite obviously unambiguous, we don’t see the problem and would be more than happy for another cacher to help us out in this way.

Link to comment

We have seen this several times before.

 

The interesting thing is that it only happens with micros and usually 35mm film pots.

 

Never seen someone leave a regular in this situation.

 

If it happened on one of our caches we would delete the log and go and do some CITO.

 

We would rather see a DNF log so that we can sort things out ourselves.

Link to comment

Definitely DNF, even if I've had 2 experiences where cachers haven't found mine recently and then someone else has come along and found the old one when I've put in a new.

 

The approach to the CO always makes a difference too. Diplomacy is a must (which is exactly how those involved in my 2 did it, and it's appreciated). Some get very proprietorial over their caches, often with good reason.

 

:D

Link to comment

Again, definitely DNF unless you involve the CO. The CO chose the cache container, camoflage, location, difficulty, hint etc. and somebody else who happens not to find it can't possibly recreate the original challenge. To be so confident that the cache isn't there and that they can recreate it is arrogance. They'll put it in the wrong place, make it too easy to spot etc. etc.

Link to comment

Again, definitely DNF unless you involve the CO. The CO chose the cache container, camoflage, location, difficulty, hint etc. and somebody else who happens not to find it can't possibly recreate the original challenge. To be so confident that the cache isn't there and that they can recreate it is arrogance. They'll put it in the wrong place, make it too easy to spot etc. etc.

 

A very strong word, 'Arrogance'.

 

We would still consider replacing a non-ambiguous cache as ‘helpful’. If an easy cache had suffered multiple DNF’s, the CO would have to visit the site anyway. If he/she found the original hide, they would then have the opportunity to delete our log and remove the arrogantly placed cache!

 

Anyway, you have plenty of opinions now. I hope you find a way forward which rests easy with you.

Link to comment

Is it acceptable not to find a cache, and then drop off your own container, and claim it as found? If so no wonder he has managed to find 5168 in 16 months.

This is something that comes up quite regularly.

 

Happened to two of mine, both easy caches, both experienced cachers, both times the cache was there, they just didn't find it, both times subsequent cachers found the wrong one, both times I had to make a visit just to remove the "replacement".

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

I've once replaced a missing cache without the owners consent, in my defence it had many DNF's, a hint and a spoiler picture, so I was as confident as I could be that I was in the right place and after an extended search was sure it was indeed missing. The cache description also specifically said it was a 35mm film can and so what I was replacing it with was similiar. However, even then I was unsure if I was doing the right thing, it felt wrong and in my log I was very apologetic. I wouldn't do it again without first gaining permission as it creates an uncomfortable situation.

 

Jon.

Link to comment

Seems bang out of order to me.

 

If you can't find it you can't find it. If you are really against logging DNF's then don't log it at all, no one needs to know! But don't 'find' your own box.

 

Kind of spoils the game if you take your own box along to a general area where a cache is listed and claim it as some kind of achievement.

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I don't contribute much to these forums but feel honour-bound to reply to this topic, as I was the logger in question.

 

The cache diff was 1.5, so not designed to be a tricky hide. The log previous to mine was from an experienced cacher(s) with 3700+ finds, who spent 20 minutes searching. I searched for a similar length of time, and there were only so many places it could have been.

 

For anyone with doubts about my motivation in replacing the cache, it was indeed to save the CO a maintenance visit, but also to save the cache from being disabled for other finders until the CO could arrange to replace it. When you are finding up to a 100 caches a week, you don't bother replace a missing cache just to "keep the numbers up", as I think one or two might be suggesting or hinting at.

 

This is something I've done a few times in the past, because I had previously seen a number of logs where other cachers have done the same: indeed, once or twice also allowing me to log a find on the cache so replaced, as the CO still hadn't been able to visit themselves. I've also had an instance, on the Weavers Way, where a cache had been replaced thusly, only for me to then find the original on my visit, so I realise the dangers involved in leaving a replacement.

 

I acknowledge all the comments made in this thread, and the clear consensus that this was "a bad thing". I don't agree, and I would be - and will remain - perfectly happy for someone to replace any of my caches should they have gone missing, but given the sentiments in this thread it is not something I will personally do in the future.

 

I must take umbrage with the statement "If so no wonder he has managed to find 5168 in 16 months. ".

 

I am in the fortunate position of being able to cache whenever I want to, usually 3 or 4 days a week, and I cover a lot of ground - I am of course totally addicted to this game of ours! - so I take it as an attack on my personal integrity if someone questions the validity of my caching exploits.

 

I have deleted the log in question.

 

Nigel

Link to comment
I would be - and will remain - perfectly happy for someone to replace any of my caches should they have gone missing ...
But this, I feel, is the crux of it - even on a simple cache you can't always be sure it IS missing.

 

Both the instances I mentioned in a previous post are simple caches, and both times they were missed by experienced cachers with even more finds than yourself.

 

If it's any consolation I never had any doubts that the replacement was done with the best of motives, in your case and on those times it has happened on my caches. But whatever the intention, the practice has created me a considerably more work than if the cacher had simply logged their DNF in the usual way.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

I think it’s acceptable, providing that the CO subsequently checks whether the cache is in fact missing, and if it isn’t, asks the generous replacer to delete their log. The quoted log entry makes it crystal clear that the replacer here is trying to help, they are expecting the CO to follow this up and act accordingly, they’re not just chucking down film pots as an alternative to logging DNF’s to rack up their smiley count.

Link to comment

I think it’s acceptable, providing that the CO subsequently checks whether the cache is in fact missing, and if it isn’t, asks the generous replacer to delete their log. The quoted log entry makes it crystal clear that the replacer here is trying to help, they are expecting the CO to follow this up and act accordingly, they’re not just chucking down film pots as an alternative to logging DNF’s to rack up their smiley count.

 

I did check this one out, and it had indeed gone missing. Removed the replacement cache, and replaced, but in a slightly different area, as this was the second time this one had gone missing.

Link to comment

If anyone does the Chiltern Hundred and is really sure that a cache is missing (a good sign is if several previous cachers couldn't find it either), then I'd be grateful if they replace the missing cache - it will save me having to do the maintenance. If you can, please phone me and I'll give you the clue letter if I can.

 

Exceptions to the are number 23, 38 and 50, which often get DNFed, but have never actually gone missing.

 

Also, if you find that the log book is wet, I'd be really pleased if that were replaced for me.

Link to comment

I recently did a cache, Far Cotton Rec. It's a puzzle cache, not too difficult. We spent several minutes finding the cache, but what we found, was an old cache.

 

The cache had gone missing after it was last found in February. Two teams of very experienced cachers had failed to find it, likewise the cache owner. CO replaced it soon after, and the new cache was found subsequently. What we found, had last been logged in February, so it was the old one.

 

What I think happened, was it had been replaced a crucial few inches from where it should have been - where we found it, didn't quite fit the hint.

 

A similar thing happened to one of my Chiltern Hundred caches. I went round on a maintenance loop, couldn't find one of them, decided it had gone, and replaced it. Which led to there then being two caches there (situation subsequently rectified).

 

I've replaced other people's caches in the past, but only when I'm really sure that it can't be there, usually with a few previous DNFs and a really specific hint. I've always been thanked for doing it.

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I don't contribute much to these forums but feel honour-bound to reply to this topic, as I was the logger in question.

 

The cache diff was 1.5, so not designed to be a tricky hide. The log previous to mine was from an experienced cacher(s) with 3700+ finds, who spent 20 minutes searching. I searched for a similar length of time, and there were only so many places it could have been.

 

For anyone with doubts about my motivation in replacing the cache, it was indeed to save the CO a maintenance visit, but also to save the cache from being disabled for other finders until the CO could arrange to replace it. When you are finding up to a 100 caches a week, you don't bother replace a missing cache just to "keep the numbers up", as I think one or two might be suggesting or hinting at.

 

This is something I've done a few times in the past, because I had previously seen a number of logs where other cachers have done the same: indeed, once or twice also allowing me to log a find on the cache so replaced, as the CO still hadn't been able to visit themselves. I've also had an instance, on the Weavers Way, where a cache had been replaced thusly, only for me to then find the original on my visit, so I realise the dangers involved in leaving a replacement.

 

I acknowledge all the comments made in this thread, and the clear consensus that this was "a bad thing". I don't agree, and I would be - and will remain - perfectly happy for someone to replace any of my caches should they have gone missing, but given the sentiments in this thread it is not something I will personally do in the future.

 

I must take umbrage with the statement "If so no wonder he has managed to find 5168 in 16 months. ".

 

I am in the fortunate position of being able to cache whenever I want to, usually 3 or 4 days a week, and I cover a lot of ground - I am of course totally addicted to this game of ours! - so I take it as an attack on my personal integrity if someone questions the validity of my caching exploits.

 

I have deleted the log in question.

 

Nigel

 

Thanks for the reply Nigel, I think that's made things a lot clearer and certainly restored some of my faith in Cachers. With a cache rate of one every week or so I can only marvel and envy your 100 or so a week. Thanks for fronting up and explaining your genuine position.

 

[Edit] I've just been reading the stat's on your profile and I must say I'm blown away...

Edited by bochgoch
Link to comment

What I think happened, was it had been replaced a crucial few inches from where it should have been - where we found it, didn't quite fit the hint.

One of my caches is placed in a very obvious location... inside a hollow log... but it's placed in such a way that it takes a little 'grovelling' to get at. Crucially, it's out of sight of any muggles that choose to sit on the log for a rest. It's quite a popular 'seat' ;) As it's en-route to one of my favourite pubs, I stopped to check that all was OK... It wasn't there!

I subsequently found it behind the log. Not visible to anyone walking along the path but very easily spotted by anyone who stopped and sat there. :unsure:

I expect that somebody just couldn't be bothered to put it back where they found it... too much like hard work... They'd just dropped it behind the log and wandered off.

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...