ban gcrm please

November 19, 2011

If you haven't heard of gcrm check here for the concept. http://gcrm.gocacher.com/ . Basically it says that any cacher can replace your cache after 5 mins of looking per difficulty level.

I have a previous thread where we discussed gcrm as a concept and the overwhelming majority expressed their negative opinions of this concept. So I'm starting this thread to hopefully bring more attention from tptb. With your help we can stop this lazy cache owner philosophy before it spreads any further.

Thank you for your comments and support.

6.1k · November 19, 2011

Its completely up to the cache owner to put that on their page and allow others to replace it. It seems okay to me.

6k · November 19, 2011

I don't like it but there isn't much you can do. If it was banned then cache owners would just wait until after it was published and put it in the description. Than it would take a na log to deal with it and the reviewers already have enough to deal with. Somethings you just have accept

2.3k · November 19, 2011

It doesn't create lazy cache owners. It simply enables them. The cache owner would be lazy regardless.

November 19, 2011

It doesn't create lazy cache owners. It simply enables them. The cache owner would be lazy regardless.

You are 100% right. We need to stop enabling these cos. Maybe 12 waypoint system?

Edit: to make my joke work better.

Edited November 19, 2011 by HighHeeled Dutchess

2k · November 19, 2011

If you haven't heard of gcrm check here for the concept. http://gcrm.gocacher.com/ . Basically it says that any cacher can replace your cache after 5 mins of looking per difficulty level.

I have a previous thread where we discussed gcrm as a concept and the overwhelming majority expressed their negative opinions of this concept. So I'm starting this thread to hopefully bring more attention from tptb. With your help we can stop this lazy cache owner philosophy before it spreads any further.

Thank you for your comments and support.

So, how do you propose that TPTB go about banning the site?

2k · November 19, 2011

It doesn't create lazy cache owners. It simply enables them. The cache owner would be lazy regardless.

You are 100% right. We need to stop enabling these cos. Maybe 10 waypoint system?

???

November 19, 2011

Why not just ignore cache owners who use gcrm, since you know there's a good chance their caches aren't maintained?

6.5k · November 19, 2011

^^^This^^^

Plus, it seems to be a highly localized issue. I have never heard of this except for the forum discussions. Perhaps you will have more success keeping the discussions local. I know I wouldn't much care about the opinions of someone outside our region if we were doing something here that was out of the norm. In fact I will wager 3000 quatloos that the cachers who use this don't even know there are forum discussions about it.

2k · November 19, 2011

Why not just ignore cache owners who use gcrm, since you know there's a good chance their caches aren't maintained?

Excellent idea. Flip it and use the gcrm designation as a filter.

6.1k · November 19, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it. It's good to have a little community involvement. Some cachers will leave the cache out in the open, or not put the lid on correctly and expect the CO to run out to fix it if they didn't do it right.

If the community decides they are doing too much unnecessary maintenance, they are not obligated to do anything.

November 19, 2011

It doesn't create lazy cache owners. It simply enables them. The cache owner would be lazy regardless.

You are 100% right. We need to stop enabling these cos. Maybe 10 waypoint system?

I see my joke about the 12 steps was lost..probably because it was poorly executed...

???

November 19, 2011

If you haven't heard of gcrm check here for the concept. http://gcrm.gocacher.com/ . Basically it says that any cacher can replace your cache after 5 mins of looking per difficulty level.

I have a previous thread where we discussed gcrm as a concept and the overwhelming majority expressed their negative opinions of this concept. So I'm starting this thread to hopefully bring more attention from tptb. With your help we can stop this lazy cache owner philosophy before it spreads any further.

Thank you for your comments and support.

So, how do you propose that TPTB go about banning the site?

Not the site. I don't care about the site. I'm talking about the practice. If we bring it to the attention of the powers that be maybe they would put the practice to bed earlier rather then later.

November 19, 2011

Why not just ignore cache owners who use gcrm, since you know there's a good chance their caches aren't maintained?

Last year I did...and now this concept is spreading. It was just localized to just north of me. Now there are a few les then 2 miles from my home.

And a follow up...when was the last time ignoring a problem really fixed it?

2k · November 19, 2011

If you haven't heard of gcrm check here for the concept. http://gcrm.gocacher.com/ . Basically it says that any cacher can replace your cache after 5 mins of looking per difficulty level.

I have a previous thread where we discussed gcrm as a concept and the overwhelming majority expressed their negative opinions of this concept. So I'm starting this thread to hopefully bring more attention from tptb. With your help we can stop this lazy cache owner philosophy before it spreads any further.

Thank you for your comments and support.

So, how do you propose that TPTB go about banning the site?

Not the site. I don't care about the site. I'm talking about the practice. If we bring it to the attention of the powers that be maybe they would put the practice to bed earlier rather then later.

Ok, then how would they go about banning the practice?

I mean, I get what you are saying. But it doesn't really break any rules. And TPTB have already taken the stance that as long as the cache is there with a logbook ready to be found they're not going to do anything.

I forget the recent cache that came up in the forums where an NA was logged because the logbook was consistently wet and the CO had done nothing. BUT, other cachers continue to add pieces of paper to it and keep it going rather than posting their own NA's so the reviewer basically declined the archival of the cache.

I think rather than trying to get TPTB to do anything you should focus on getting other cachers to stop maintaining other people's caches. That is what enables bad CO's.

I was thinking your 10 waypoint system was going to be something like if you have more than 10 caches with logged and not cleared maintenance issues that you would not be allowed to hide another cache until you took care of your current caches.

That is an idea I could get behind and actually would recommend something lower like 3 to 5 caches with maintenance issues would disqualify you from hiding further caches.

I really don't understand why someone would ignore issues on their current caches while continuing to hide more caches that they have no intention of maintaining.

2k · November 19, 2011

Why not just ignore cache owners who use gcrm, since you know there's a good chance their caches aren't maintained?

Last year I did...and now this concept is spreading. It was just localized to just north of me. Now there are a few les then 2 miles from my home.

And a follow up...when was the last time ignoring a problem really fixed it?

In this case if everyone would ignore caches hidden by people who don't maintain their caches it would work. Who's going to continue hiding badly maintained caches if no one is looking for them.

Problem is that you have to get a consensus on the issue. But although you and I are fed up with poorly maintained caches, most people just want the smiley.

November 19, 2011

That's a great idea geobain. Maybe I should start a thread for that. See this is why I post in the forums.

2k · November 19, 2011

That's a great idea geobain. Maybe I should start a thread for that. See this is why I post in the forums.

Just a couple of suggestions.

1) Try to think it out. What are the arguments you might encounter for and against the idea? What are some of the unforseen consequences that might arise? How do you account for people who must disable a couple of caches due to hunting season, seasonal issues, etc. beyond their control?

2) Once you have that worked out as much as possible, post it as a feature request in the Website section.

This is an idea I would support, but off the top of my head I can think of a lot of problems with it such as the seasonal issues that would have to be worked out before it was accepted by TPTB.

November 19, 2011

Well a disabled cache shouldn't count. If they disable the cache that starts the 3 month count down for archiving, and I won't be out looking for it.

8k · November 19, 2011

My my. We're on the warpath today against lazy cache owners aren't we?

I realize that some people get frustrated when caches they look for aren't being maintained per the guidelines. They may be unwilling to post a Needs Archive and may find that there are some cache owners who ignore NM.

The guidelines make it clear that cache ownership requires maintenance of the caches. Use a needs archive if the cache isn't being maintained.

Note however that reviewers are experienced geocachers and are free to use their judgment. A cache that has a wet log or a full log sheet might not be deemed worthy of being archived. Experienced cachers expect to find caches in this condition and ofter bring new logs to help out. Even leaving a scrap of paper that can be used for a log means that others can "find" the cache. A cache with coordinates slightly off that is still being found, might not get archived, reviewers understand that GPS accuracy varies and that sometimes there is disagreement over coordinates. Even a cache with lots of DNFs may be deemed OK if it appears to be a difficult hide. But the reviewer may also take action in any of these cases as well and the threat of archival often is the push a lazy cache owner needs to get them to do maintenance.

As far as GCRM. I disagree that it leads to lazy cache owners. As stated, experienced cachers expect to find full or wet logs from time to time. They already carry replacements with them to help out. Some even realize that some containers deteriorate and need replacement from time to time. Again they may have cache containers with them and will help out others by replacing a container. Perhaps what is most controversial are cachers who replace caches because they believe the container is missing. An experienced cache should know that sometimes they might just not see even the most straightforward hide. Replacing a cache because it is missing can result in more maintenance for the cache owner who now has to go out and find your replacement cache and possibly remove it. My personnel attitude is that missing caches should not be replaced without first getting permission from the owner. GCRM recognizes this. It allows cache owners to give blanket permission to leave a replacement container. The owners recognize this may cause problems with multiple containers at the site. In no way does GCRM eliminate the ultimate responsibility for maintenance from the owner. No finder is required to replace a cache. Simply, if you want to help out you can. The cache owner, as always, if free to allow you to log a find, if you want to, on the cache you replaced.

Your call to ban GCRM along with the other thread you have started, indicates to me an unreasonable view of geocaching. This is supposed to be a fun lighthearted game. Making it too burdensome on cache owners could backfire by discouraging people from hiding caches. Worrying about minor maintenance issue that can easily be played through it seems like nothing more than trying to justify why you didn't have fun. Please see my signature line.

2k · November 19, 2011

Please see my signature line.

I'm 73.629575% sure I'm not a robot.

November 19, 2011

Warpath...hmm hadn't thought of it that way. But I am part native American and my grandparents fought in ww2. I love discussions. I'm off this weekend and am looking forward to a bright conversation. If you feel I'm being too angry I hope you will excuse my fire.

I like most of us here really enjoy geocaching. I have found hours of joy from this game. I just feel that when a co tries to weasel out of doing the work we both agree is part of the game it needs to be addressed. I realized the concept of gcrm is good in theory but I think we can all agree theory is not practice. In practice here on my area gcrm is enabling lazy cos and allowing them to hide more hides then they can handle.

I'm actually doing them a favor. Seeing as there is no eventual win for getting a million hides why not just settle for placing a reasonable amount of hides or if you must have a bunch, maintain the ones you have BEFORE you hide anymore.

November 19, 2011

Ps...I may be too new to understand where I view your signature line...checked your profile, last few hides, and this posting...saw nothing.

2k · November 19, 2011

Ps...I may be too new to understand where I view your signature line...checked your profile, last few hides, and this posting...saw nothing.

It says, "Are you sure you're not a robot?" - narcissa ".

And something about having fun and blaming yourself. :laughing:

November 19, 2011

Ahh, well I think I'm part robot, as I have a fake joint. As for blaming myself...I always blame myself, just check my dnfs logs.

10.2k · November 19, 2011

Ahh, well I think I'm part robot, as I have a fake joint. As for blaming myself...I always blame myself, just check my dnfs logs.

We can't do that, you'll have to list them here. :anibad:

OK now, a ban on cache pages that contain language encouraging finders to perform maintenance? On the surface, that would sound like more work for the volunteer reviewers. But who amongst us has ever seen that language on a cache that wasn't a micro, and part of a "power trail". Anyone who has an example otherwise, show your hands. It wouldn't be particularly difficult to catch. Sign me up for the idea.

Then again, asking the reviewers to police language in the body of the cache description is going to result in major inconsistencies, and many "slipping through the cracks" Don't believe me? Do a keyword search for Travel Bug Hotel and tell me how many recently published ones you see with "take one, leave one" rules.

9.2k · November 20, 2011

Its completely up to the cache owner to put that on their page and allow others to replace it. It seems okay to me.

It's not okay to abdicate your maintenance responsibilities. It's both a bad idea, and against the guidelines.

9.2k · November 20, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it.

And which cache are you referring to? The original, which is still there, but hard to find, the first throw-down cache, or the second throw-down cache? (Yes, this actually happened.)

And then there's the follow-up issue when that happens - the owner checks his cache, and sees that a lot of people have logged it on line, but don't have a signature in the cache log (because they signed cache #2 or #3). So he starts deleting logs, with the inevitable blow-back.

And that's what happens when people replace caches they don't own.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Prime Suspect

8k · November 20, 2011

Its completely up to the cache owner to put that on their page and allow others to replace it. It seems okay to me.

It's not okay to abdicate your maintenance responsibilities. It's both a bad idea, and against the guidelines.

This is nonsense. Nobody is abdicating their maintenance responsibilities. They are simply giving permission to others to help out. I don't see this as any different than a reviewer who falls behind in the review queue asking other reviewers to help out

2k · November 20, 2011

This is nonsense. Nobody is abdicating their maintenance responsibilities. They are simply giving permission to others to help out. I don't see this as any different than a reviewer who falls behind in the review queue asking other reviewers to help out

Do you really believe that?

If reviewers neglected the queue like cache owners neglect their caches they would not be reviewers very long.

Too bad the same cannot be said of cache owners. They are allowed to list new caches while ignoring their current caches with maintenance issues.

Pushing that responsible onto the finders is just unfair and not the way the system was designed to work.

November 20, 2011

In practice at least in my area it has become an abdication of responsibilities. Only now that this issue has been raised with such gusto has the offending co been getting out and doing SOME maintaining. It is a start but I don't want this type of thing happening in other areas. If we can prevent a good theory but bad practice from getting a foothold elsewhere I call all the flack I have received totally worth it.

19k · November 20, 2011

Its completely up to the cache owner to put that on their page and allow others to replace it. It seems okay to me.

It's not okay to abdicate your maintenance responsibilities. It's both a bad idea, and against the guidelines.

This is nonsense. Nobody is abdicating their maintenance responsibilities. They are simply giving permission to others to help out. I don't see this as any different than a reviewer who falls behind in the review queue asking other reviewers to help out

That's not the way I read it. It is more like somebody accepting the responsibilities of being a reviewer, and immediately asking other reviewers to take over for him while he goes out caching. I would guess that both extremes are represented there, actually. But I know a little something about at least one caching group that has adopted the gcrm method of cache maintenance, and I don't expect to see them out there checking on their hides any time soon.

3.7k · November 20, 2011

It doesn't create lazy cache owners. It simply enables them. The cache owner would be lazy regardless.

+1

1.9k · November 20, 2011

Arrive at GZ

look up, down, left, right, toss down a film can.

one of mine has this problem.

November 20, 2011

Arrive at GZ

look up, down, left, right, toss down a film can.

one of mine has this problem.

From where I'm sitting this is the prime issue with GCRM.

In my area, at least, field maintenance by geocachers isn't uncommon. Many carry replacement logs, baggies, pencils, and even containers, just in case. But containers aren't usually replaced unless the original is found and is too badly damaged to serve any longer.

GCRM gives permission to drop a throwdown after five minutes of search per difficulty level.

Five minutes.

Come on.

Really?

38.2k · November 20, 2011

Its completely up to the cache owner to put that on their page and allow others to replace it. It seems okay to me.

It's not okay to abdicate your maintenance responsibilities. It's both a bad idea, and against the guidelines.

Agreed. Cachers helping other cachers with maintenance is one thing. I've had other cachers offer to take a look at one of my caches because they happened to be heading to the area. I appreciated thir doing so. But I never placed any of my caches expecting anybody other than myself to take care of them. Placing caches with the expectation that others will maintain them for you is just plain wrong.

I also find their standard of 5 minutes of searching per difficulty level before declaring a cache missing to be absurd. 25 minutes of searching for a 5 star difficulty cache before you throw down another container? The definition of THREE star difficulty is "An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon."

November 20, 2011

Well a disabled cache shouldn't count. If they disable the cache that starts the 3 month count down for archiving, and I won't be out looking for it.

I don't post in the forums much, but want to address this specific thought. You cannot have a singular standard for the management of disabled caches, and there is no good reason why finding a disabled one should not count. It is even possible that a listing is active when you pulled your data, or when you found it, but gets disabled before you log it. That shouldn't count?

I just finished a periodic sweep of all disabled caches in NC and looked at 400+ listings. They are disabled for a wide variety of reasons-recent DNF's indicate it may be MIA, recent find logs indicate a maintenance need, location is undergoing construction/logging/development and is inaccessible, CO is in the armed forces and is currently deployed, CO has some health issues and cannot maintain right now, location is closed for season, and a few others.

Each disabled listing needs to be viewed as an individual and not smothered with a blanket practice.

14k · November 20, 2011

Why not just ignore cache owners who use gcrm, since you know there's a good chance their caches aren't maintained?

Last year I did...and now this concept is spreading. It was just localized to just north of me. Now there are a few les then 2 miles from my home.

And a follow up...when was the last time ignoring a problem really fixed it?

In this case if everyone would ignore caches hidden by people who don't maintain their caches it would work. Who's going to continue hiding badly maintained caches if no one is looking for them.

Problem is that you have to get a consensus on the issue. But although you and I are fed up with poorly maintained caches, most people just want the smiley.

A nice idea in theory, but how do you define "badly maintained caches"? If someone fails to close the container on one of my caches, resulting in everything inside getting soggy, and I happen to leave for a two week vacation on the day it's discovered, it's not going to get fixed right away. Are you going to ignore all my hides because I have a life outside geocaching?

6.1k · November 20, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it.

And which cache are you referring to? The original, which is still there, but hard to find, the first throw-down cache, or the second throw-down cache? (Yes, this actually happened.)

And then there's the follow-up issue when that happens - the owner checks his cache, and sees that a lot of people have logged it on line, but don't have a signature in the cache log (because they signed cache #2 or #3). So he starts deleting logs, with the inevitable blow-back.

And that's what happens when people replace caches they don't own.

Which is highly unlikely to happen if the cache owner has already asked people to replace it if needed.

The problems associated with throwdown caches occur when it is done without the approval of the cache owner.

Edited November 20, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

1.2k · November 20, 2011

Why not just ignore cache owners who use gcrm, since you know there's a good chance their caches aren't maintained?

Yeah, wouldn't that be a nice feature to have. :rolleyes:

6.1k · November 20, 2011

If the cache is missing from an obvious spot, usually that means it was stolen.

Some people steal caches because they dont approve of it, or to annoy the cache owner, or so they can hide their own cache in the area. If the owner is openly allowing other cachers to replace it, I can imagine that it would rather annoy the heck out of the cache maggots.

Edited November 20, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

November 20, 2011

Well a disabled cache shouldn't count. If they disable the cache that starts the 3 month count down for archiving, and I won't be out looking for it.

I don't post in the forums much, but want to address this specific thought. You cannot have a singular standard for the management of disabled caches, and there is no good reason why finding a disabled one should not count. It is even possible that a listing is active when you pulled your data, or when you found it, but gets disabled before you log it. That shouldn't count?

I just finished a periodic sweep of all disabled caches in NC and looked at 400+ listings. They are disabled for a wide variety of reasons-recent DNF's indicate it may be MIA, recent find logs indicate a maintenance need, location is undergoing construction/logging/development and is inaccessible, CO is in the armed forces and is currently deployed, CO has some health issues and cannot maintain right now, location is closed for season, and a few others.

Each disabled listing needs to be viewed as an individual and not smothered with a blanket practice.

I'll I meant was that if a cache was disabled that meant to me that the co was aware of the issue and there was at least some kind of communication on the listing as to what was going on and when they would fix.

November 20, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it.

And which cache are you referring to? The original, which is still there, but hard to find, the first throw-down cache, or the second throw-down cache? (Yes, this actually happened.)

And then there's the follow-up issue when that happens - the owner checks his cache, and sees that a lot of people have logged it on line, but don't have a signature in the cache log (because they signed cache #2 or #3). So he starts deleting logs, with the inevitable blow-back.

And that's what happens when people replace caches they don't own.

Which is highly unlikely to happen if the cache owner has already asked people to replace it if needed.

The problems associated with throwdown caches occur when it is done without the approval of the cache owner.

The problem I see is that when you have a proliferation of gcrm caches in an area and your caches are close by people tend to assume this is how all caches are in the area. Then a non gcrm cache that has a unique hide or is maybe more challenging gets a throw down.

So now you have to say your hide isn't gcrm because others around it are. And not enough people read listings before they throw down.

Edited November 20, 2011 by HighHeeled Dutchess

19k · November 20, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it.

And which cache are you referring to? The original, which is still there, but hard to find, the first throw-down cache, or the second throw-down cache? (Yes, this actually happened.)

And then there's the follow-up issue when that happens - the owner checks his cache, and sees that a lot of people have logged it on line, but don't have a signature in the cache log (because they signed cache #2 or #3). So he starts deleting logs, with the inevitable blow-back.

And that's what happens when people replace caches they don't own.

Which is highly unlikely to happen if the cache owner has already asked people to replace it if needed.

The problems associated with throwdown caches occur when it is done without the approval of the cache owner.

Which part of that is not likely to happen if GCRM was requested by the cache owner? People tossing down secondary, tertiary, or more throw-downs because they didn't find the original? How is that not likely to happen just because the owner requested it?

Or did you mean the part about the cache owner finally getting out there and checking up on his cache, only to find signatures missing from his log? How is that not likely to happen just because the owner requested it?

I don't get what you say would be different just because it was requested.

19k · November 20, 2011

If the cache is missing from an obvious spot, usually that means it was stolen.

Some people steal caches because they dont approve of it, or to annoy the cache owner, or so they can hide their own cache in the area. If the owner is openly allowing other cachers to replace it, I can imagine that it would rather annoy the heck out of the cache maggots.

Oh, no it doesn't! I know many cachers that hide with a deliberate sense of misdirection. There may be a big hollow stump nearby, but the cache is hidden in a much less obvious spot 20 feet from it... quite deliberately. Or caches that are hidden in culverts that go under the trail with an obvious, but incorrect spot at the coordinates, but also at a higher elevation. Etc etc etc

6.1k · November 20, 2011

If the cache is missing from an obvious spot, usually that means it was stolen.

Some people steal caches because they dont approve of it, or to annoy the cache owner, or so they can hide their own cache in the area. If the owner is openly allowing other cachers to replace it, I can imagine that it would rather annoy the heck out of the cache maggots.

Oh, no it doesn't! I know many cachers that hide with a deliberate sense of misdirection. There may be a big hollow stump nearby, but the cache is hidden in a much less obvious spot 20 feet from it... quite deliberately. Or caches that are hidden in culverts that go under the trail with an obvious, but incorrect spot at the coordinates, but also at a higher elevation. Etc etc etc

On those type of hides the cache owner would be highly unlikely to put the cache replacement request on the page.

6.1k · November 20, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it.

And which cache are you referring to? The original, which is still there, but hard to find, the first throw-down cache, or the second throw-down cache? (Yes, this actually happened.)
And then there's the follow-up issue when that happens - the owner checks his cache, and sees that a lot of people have logged it on line, but don't have a signature in the cache log (because they signed cache #2 or #3). So he starts deleting logs, with the inevitable blow-back.

And that's what happens when people replace caches they don't own.

Which is highly unlikely to happen if the cache owner has already asked people to replace it if needed.
The problems associated with throwdown caches occur when it is done without the approval of the cache owner.

Which part of that is not likely to happen if GCRM was requested by the cache owner? People tossing down secondary, tertiary, or more throw-downs because they didn't find the original? How is that not likely to happen just because the owner requested it?
Or did you mean the part about the cache owner finally getting out there and checking up on his cache, only to find signatures missing from his log? How is that not likely to happen just because the owner requested it?

I don't get what you say would be different just because it was requested.

The designation is unlikely to be used on difficult hides, so if the cache cannot be found, it is also most likely missing. If the cache owner is requesting replacements, they are also unlikely to be deleting found logs on pseudo replacement caches. Also if they are truly "lazy", why would they be checking on the cache anyhow?

19k · November 20, 2011

If the cache is missing from an obvious spot, usually that means it was stolen.

Some people steal caches because they dont approve of it, or to annoy the cache owner, or so they can hide their own cache in the area. If the owner is openly allowing other cachers to replace it, I can imagine that it would rather annoy the heck out of the cache maggots.

Oh, no it doesn't! I know many cachers that hide with a deliberate sense of misdirection. There may be a big hollow stump nearby, but the cache is hidden in a much less obvious spot 20 feet from it... quite deliberately. Or caches that are hidden in culverts that go under the trail with an obvious, but incorrect spot at the coordinates, but also at a higher elevation. Etc etc etc

On those type of hides the cache owner would be highly unlikely to put the cache replacement request on the page.

How can you make a claim like that?

19k · November 20, 2011

If someone else fixed the cache for them, I don't see how it would matter as long as the cache is is good condition when others find it.

And which cache are you referring to? The original, which is still there, but hard to find, the first throw-down cache, or the second throw-down cache? (Yes, this actually happened.)
And then there's the follow-up issue when that happens - the owner checks his cache, and sees that a lot of people have logged it on line, but don't have a signature in the cache log (because they signed cache #2 or #3). So he starts deleting logs, with the inevitable blow-back.

And that's what happens when people replace caches they don't own.

Which is highly unlikely to happen if the cache owner has already asked people to replace it if needed.
The problems associated with throwdown caches occur when it is done without the approval of the cache owner.

Which part of that is not likely to happen if GCRM was requested by the cache owner? People tossing down secondary, tertiary, or more throw-downs because they didn't find the original? How is that not likely to happen just because the owner requested it?
Or did you mean the part about the cache owner finally getting out there and checking up on his cache, only to find signatures missing from his log? How is that not likely to happen just because the owner requested it?

I don't get what you say would be different just because it was requested.

The designation is unlikely to be used on difficult hides, so if the cache cannot be found, it is also most likely missing. If the cache owner is requesting replacements, they are also unlikely to be deleting found logs on pseudo replacement caches. Also if they are truly "lazy", why would they be checking on the cache anyhow?

So, these are throw-away hides in the first place? In that case, I'd just as soon they get thrown away before they are published.

7.9k · November 20, 2011

What I do after not finding a cache, or finding a cache in 'disrepair' is not affected by any silly icon or link on the cache page.

First and foremost, a throw-down replacement because I didn't find it is NOT my style...even if I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN where the cache should have been. Anyone who does this will loose several respect points (not that anyone cares how much I respect them).

Full or wet log depends on the container. If there's room for a replacement without removing the original, then I will probably leave a micro log in a baggie. If there is no room, I'll sign the log somehow and mention it in my log. If it has been a chronic issue, I'll add a NM log.

ban gcrm please

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment