Jump to content

Smashed Caches


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I had a new cache published and a local got FTF all is well, the next finder smashed the caches to sign the log

and then complained to the geocaching.com as I had deleted there find log.

 

they did not find the cache in the way it was intended to be found but smashed it just to sign the log and then complain to me that it was too hard to get out. the cache is here if you want to see who smashed it as I am not allowed to delete there log so you can see who done it...

 

http://coord.info/GC2EWG0

Link to comment

I had a new cache published and a local got FTF all is well, the next finder smashed the caches to sign the log

and then complained to the geocaching.com as I had deleted there find log.

 

they did not find the cache in the way it was intended to be found but smashed it just to sign the log and then complain to me that it was too hard to get out. the cache is here if you want to see who smashed it as I am not allowed to delete there log so you can see who done it...

 

http://coord.info/GC2EWG0

 

As I don't see anyone who entered that they smashed the cache to get to it, I can only imagine that you saw the person doing it. Since you were there to see it happen, why didn't you tell them to stop? Or are you jumping to conclusions?

Edited by Derf69
Link to comment

It's difficult to comment on this particular cache as I can't see the whole story. However, let's discuss the point generally. I suspect that this is an unintended consequence of the new rule which prohibits online log deletion if the cache logbook has been signed. This rule was introduced to ban ALRs and prevent the cache owner from deleting logs for spurious reasons.

 

If a cacher intentionally damages a cache - particularly one which is intended to have a challenge associated with it - simply to claim a find then caching really has reached a low point. Even worse that Groundspeak supports such an action by prohibiting log deletion.

 

A cache has a puzzle which yields the combination of a lock securing the logbook (we used to have such a cache). Is it right that a cacher simply takes boltcutters to the lock rather than solving the puzzle? A stage of a multi is placed in such a way that retrieval is easy but replacement is not (a cache near us is like that). Should a cacher be credited with the find for retrieving the stage to obtain the information but then leaving the stage elsewhere because he or she can't be bothered to replace it correctly?

 

Surely the answer to both of these real-world examples is no, and Groundspeak does a disservice to caching by encouraging them. The only tool a cache owner has in response to such vandalism is log deletion, and such deletion must stand.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...