Jump to content

Owner doesn't allow me to log


Timber_Wolf
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

First, please don't engage in throw downs (placing replacement caches without the owner's permission). As for the cache owner deleting logs on other caches, I would recommend talking to a Reviewer, then if the problem continues, contact Groundspeak.

Edited by Dgwphotos
Link to comment

If the CO didn't put out the replacement cache than it is his/her right to delete the log. If you want to replace the cache than you need to get his/her okay. If your emails are not answered than that doesn't mean you can replace it and make the find. If someone had replaced one of my caches without my okay than I would delete the log. Keep a watch on the cache and if it is replaced than make the find.

Link to comment

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it,

Technically you are not in the log (the owner log that is). That means you cannot insist on logging online. Your NM log clearly indicates that you did not find it. I´d delete a log like that without hesitation.

 

but made sure other people can log at it too?

You made sure others can make invalid logs too. Frankly as the owner of the cache I´d consider that really rude. I might even consider replacing container and log book and follow up by deleting these invalid logs too using "logged in a decoy placed by Timber_Wolf" as reason for it.

Link to comment

Timberwolf has been around almost 10 years, so this is proof all throw-downers are not crazed numbers hounds. :lol:

 

There could be 1,000 posts to this thread Timberwolf, and I bet you wouldn't find a single one that agrees you should have thrown down a cache, and claimed a find. Owners need to replace their own caches. And if they're slackers who do nothing, like approximately 60% of cache owners worldwide, post a needs archived log.

 

Yes, I just made up 60% worldwide. But I'll bet I'm right. :P

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache owner to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache ownerSock Puppet to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

 

Fixed it. A CO without any find.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

Timberwolf has been around almost 10 years, so this is proof all throw-downers are not crazed numbers hounds. :lol:

 

There could be 1,000 posts to this thread Timberwolf, and I bet you wouldn't find a single one that agrees you should have thrown down a cache, and claimed a find. Owners need to replace their own caches. And if they're slackers who do nothing, like approximately 60% of cache owners worldwide, post a needs archived log.

 

Yes, I just made up 60% worldwide. But I'll bet I'm right. :P

 

I am somewhere along that line. We got a cacher here that will post a owner maintenance log but never fix it. :ph34r: I see this happen way too often.

Link to comment

Well, now that the original CO has archived the cache, you can just create a new cache listing there. You won't be able to log it but now you can own it.

 

The container should be picked up if it doesn't end up posted as a new cache listing, otherwise it's geolitter.

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache owner to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

 

Fixed it. A CO without any find.

 

You need to supply more proof than "no finds". That means nothing.

 

I don't think anything is served by spuriously accusing someone of being a sock puppet.

 

Lots of people have more than one account. It's only when posting on the forums using one of those accounts to deflect attention to the main account is it considered to be a sock puppet.

 

Please don't change my words to reflect something I had no intention of posting, and which does not reflect my opinion.

 

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache ownerSock Puppet to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

 

Fixed it. A CO without any find.

 

How do you know it's a sock puppet? Perhaps they just don't believe in finds at all, and that is why they deleted his log. :D

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache ownerSock Puppet to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

 

Fixed it. A CO without any find.

 

How do you know it's a sock puppet? Perhaps they just don't believe in finds at all, and that is why they deleted his log. :D

Haha. Very funny!

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache ownerSock Puppet to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

 

Fixed it. A CO without any find.

 

How do you know it's a sock puppet? Perhaps they just don't believe in finds at all, and that is why they deleted his log. :D

Haha. Very funny!

 

But seriously, it could be a Waymarker, as all they do is list things.

Link to comment

Now there is this cache in my area: GC3C0XR, and it got stolen about two month ago.

So when I found the rest of it I didn't want to log, I thought tell the owner that it's stolen and wait for a log book.

I did this and nothing happened, so I placed a replacement container there yesterday and logged it.

When I came to log a different cache a couple of minutes ago, I saw that my log was deleted.

So I logged again, and again the owner deleted it.

 

Is there anything I can do that I keep the log, as I not only found it, but made sure other people can log at it too?

 

:blink:

 

Unbelievable. That's incredible that you think that you are somehow being wronged.

 

Well, if nothing else, your actions have spurred the cache ownerSock Puppet to finally archive the long-missing cache.

 

 

B.

 

Fixed it. A CO without any find.

 

How do you know it's a sock puppet? Perhaps they just don't believe in finds at all, and that is why they deleted his log. :D

Haha. Very funny!

 

But seriously, it could be a Waymarker, as all they do is list things.

Or a letterboxer! I found a letter box yesterday and people are logging it and not the real cache. The geocache is an ammo can and the hardest ammo can I ever found to date!!! Yes they rated the D to a 4! Lol. Took me about a hour and half to find it!

Link to comment

There could be 1,000 posts to this thread Timberwolf, and I bet you wouldn't find a single one that agrees you should have thrown down a cache, and claimed a find. Owners need to replace their own caches. And if they're slackers who do nothing, like approximately 60% of cache owners worldwide, post a needs archived log.

 

Yes, I just made up 60% worldwide. But I'll bet I'm right. :P

Hello. :ph34r:

 

I actually was going to agree with Mr. Yuck, since I believe it's never a good idea to leave a thrown down replacement. If you want to help out a cache owner by replacing a missing cache, it's best to get permission first.

 

However the comment on the 60% of cache owners being slackers, led me to the conclusion that the cache owner in this instance did all the wrong things in order to encourage that someone leave a throw down.

 

Timberwolf reports telling the owner the cache was stolen. His Needs Maintenace log was not the only one. There are no DNFs - so either no one posted or they were deleted. There are a number of finds after the Needs Maintenance. It's not clear if the cache owner was allowing finds for finding the remnants of the cache, or if these got posted after the cache was archived. There is also a curious found log indicating the cache was replaced "where we thought it might have orginally (sic.) been hidden". It may be that the cache was there but not where the cap was.

 

There are numerous reasons for a cache owner to do nothing in this case. Particularly if the cache owner is going to allow finds for find a string and a cap, the cache owner may feel that maintenance can be postponed. This is a problem of course to those who insist on signing a log.

 

And in this case a "puritan" who needed a signed log to claim a find, replaced the cache without the owner's permission. Then they get upset because the owner deleted the find.

 

By ignoring the needs maintenance and allowing finds on the remains, the owner sent a signal that perhaps he would appreciate someone helping with maintenance. If just the log were missing, most of use would agree that someone could leave a new log, sign it, and claim a find. What happens when a container is missing or badly damaged? It would seem that someone leaving a replacement is doing this with good intentions to help out a cache owner. Owners who don't want this help should disable their cache till they make repairs or at least post a note indicating that they will be fixing the cache. Here the cache owner was silent, only indicating that he didn't want a replacement after one was left. No one should be surprised that after several attempts to get the owner to do maintenance that someone took it into their own hands. Of course, many forum participants may feel that "correct" action in this case would be a needs archive.

Link to comment

By ignoring the needs maintenance and allowing finds on the remains, the owner sent a signal that perhaps he would appreciate someone helping with maintenance. If just the log were missing, most of use would agree that someone could leave a new log, sign it, and claim a find. What happens when a container is missing or badly damaged? It would seem that someone leaving a replacement is doing this with good intentions to help out a cache owner. Owners who don't want this help should disable their cache till they make repairs or at least post a note indicating that they will be fixing the cache. Here the cache owner was silent, only indicating that he didn't want a replacement after one was left. No one should be surprised that after several attempts to get the owner to do maintenance that someone took it into their own hands. Of course, many forum participants may feel that "correct" action in this case would be a needs archive.

I don't agree with your first sentence.

 

IMHO, and remember we all have our opinions, the CO is sending the message I don't care about this cache. So, (again IMHO) "Needs Archived" is the best way to handle it.

Link to comment

Not to mention that seven people have 'found' the missing cache!

This is a major problem that Groundspeak needs to address: Entitlement.

Four NA! The cache is not there! So OP tosses a throw down, and expects a find on a cache that s/he never found? And then has the temerity to complain about the log being deleted? First you log a DNF, followed by an NA. OP did not find the cache. What is the complaint here? Oh. Entitlement.

Link to comment

Timberwolf reports telling the owner the cache was stolen. His Needs Maintenace log was not the only one. There are no DNFs - so either no one posted or they were deleted. There are a number of finds after the Needs Maintenance. It's not clear if the cache owner was allowing finds for finding the remnants of the cache, or if these got posted after the cache was archived. There is also a curious found log indicating the cache was replaced "where we thought it might have orginally (sic.) been hidden". It may be that the cache was there but not where the cap was.

 

There are numerous reasons for a cache owner to do nothing in this case. Particularly if the cache owner is going to allow finds for find a string and a cap, the cache owner may feel that maintenance can be postponed. This is a problem of course to those who insist on signing a log.

 

And in this case a "puritan" who needed a signed log to claim a find, replaced the cache without the owner's permission. Then they get upset because the owner deleted the find.

 

By ignoring the needs maintenance and allowing finds on the remains, the owner sent a signal that perhaps he would appreciate someone helping with maintenance. If just the log were missing, most of use would agree that someone could leave a new log, sign it, and claim a find. What happens when a container is missing or badly damaged? It would seem that someone leaving a replacement is doing this with good intentions to help out a cache owner. Owners who don't want this help should disable their cache till they make repairs or at least post a note indicating that they will be fixing the cache. Here the cache owner was silent, only indicating that he didn't want a replacement after one was left. No one should be surprised that after several attempts to get the owner to do maintenance that someone took it into their own hands. Of course, many forum participants may feel that "correct" action in this case would be a needs archive.

 

Now here in Lubbock, other cachers are happy when the finder of a damaged or maybe stolen cache takes care of it.

As a good example I have this one here:

GCJPFY

When I found it, it was on top of the hiding place and someone wrote something nasty into the logbook.

So while relocating it, I send the owner a message and he updated the location until he has time to go there.

And yes he thanked me for taking the time of doing so, I hope he would do the same for my cache.

As you guys can see, it got muggled again, and a different cacher relocated it again.

 

The one in question I checked at least ones per week to see if a new container came up, but after this long time, I decided to put one there so that people actually can log there visits in a log book as it should be.

When I logged it online and said that I put a replacement up, I got a kind of offensive message as notice on the cache listing.

 

So if the owner doesn't want a replacement as he showed to me, I am on my way to pick up the container, but nobody has be become offensive for someone that tries to help.

 

And more than one person logged it noting that there is no log book and nothing else.

I think it's wrong to log without having a cache in your hands, this would mean everybody that walks by could log it online no matte if they found it or not.

Link to comment

Timberwolf reports telling the owner the cache was stolen. His Needs Maintenace log was not the only one. There are no DNFs - so either no one posted or they were deleted. There are a number of finds after the Needs Maintenance. It's not clear if the cache owner was allowing finds for finding the remnants of the cache, or if these got posted after the cache was archived. There is also a curious found log indicating the cache was replaced "where we thought it might have orginally (sic.) been hidden". It may be that the cache was there but not where the cap was.

 

There are numerous reasons for a cache owner to do nothing in this case. Particularly if the cache owner is going to allow finds for find a string and a cap, the cache owner may feel that maintenance can be postponed. This is a problem of course to those who insist on signing a log.

 

And in this case a "puritan" who needed a signed log to claim a find, replaced the cache without the owner's permission. Then they get upset because the owner deleted the find.

 

By ignoring the needs maintenance and allowing finds on the remains, the owner sent a signal that perhaps he would appreciate someone helping with maintenance. If just the log were missing, most of use would agree that someone could leave a new log, sign it, and claim a find. What happens when a container is missing or badly damaged? It would seem that someone leaving a replacement is doing this with good intentions to help out a cache owner. Owners who don't want this help should disable their cache till they make repairs or at least post a note indicating that they will be fixing the cache. Here the cache owner was silent, only indicating that he didn't want a replacement after one was left. No one should be surprised that after several attempts to get the owner to do maintenance that someone took it into their own hands. Of course, many forum participants may feel that "correct" action in this case would be a needs archive.

 

Now here in Lubbock, other cachers are happy when the finder of a damaged or maybe stolen cache takes care of it.

As a good example I have this one here:

GCJPFY

When I found it, it was on top of the hiding place and someone wrote something nasty into the logbook.

So while relocating it, I send the owner a message and he updated the location until he has time to go there.

And yes he thanked me for taking the time of doing so, I hope he would do the same for my cache.

As you guys can see, it got muggled again, and a different cacher relocated it again.

 

The one in question I checked at least ones per week to see if a new container came up, but after this long time, I decided to put one there so that people actually can log there visits in a log book as it should be.

When I logged it online and said that I put a replacement up, I got a kind of offensive message as notice on the cache listing.

 

So if the owner doesn't want a replacement as he showed to me, I am on my way to pick up the container, but nobody has be become offensive for someone that tries to help.

 

And more than one person logged it noting that there is no log book and nothing else.

I think it's wrong to log without having a cache in your hands, this would mean everybody that walks by could log it online no matte if they found it or not.

 

Replacing a cache for an absentee cache owner that has no real concern for their cache just prolongs a bad situation. If you really feel that a cache just has to be there, get the listing archived and place your own.

 

The local cachers around here replace or do maintenance for each other all the time, but it almost always with remote caches and it is with prior communication. Without communication, bad things can and will happen. Yesterday, a local cacher replaced a missing cache about 3 miles up a mountain trail. Helpful cacher? What he didn't know is that the cache owner was at GZ earlier that day and decided to replace his cache 60' away from the original coordinates. Now, there are two caches 60' apart, one at the old coordinates, one at the new.

Link to comment

 

Now here in Lubbock, other cachers are happy when the finder of a damaged or maybe stolen cache takes care of it.

As a good example I have this one here:

GCJPFY

When I found it, it was on top of the hiding place and someone wrote something nasty into the logbook.

So while relocating it, I send the owner a message and he updated the location until he has time to go there.

And yes he thanked me for taking the time of doing so, I hope he would do the same for my cache.

As you guys can see, it got muggled again, and a different cacher relocated it again.

 

The one in question I checked at least ones per week to see if a new container came up, but after this long time, I decided to put one there so that people actually can log there visits in a log book as it should be.

When I logged it online and said that I put a replacement up, I got a kind of offensive message as notice on the cache listing.

 

So if the owner doesn't want a replacement as he showed to me, I am on my way to pick up the container, but nobody has be become offensive for someone that tries to help.

 

And more than one person logged it noting that there is no log book and nothing else.

I think it's wrong to log without having a cache in your hands, this would mean everybody that walks by could log it online no matte if they found it or not.

 

I don't think it's specific to Lubbock, but I think a lot of people who replace absentee owner's caches think they're doing a good deed, and are quite taken aback when they hear about "throw-downs". This especially applies to people who don't hang around this or regional Geocacher forums too much. I'd also say this applies to people who don't attend very many events, don't go out "group caching", and basically have very little personal interaction with other Geocachers and "discussing" Geocaching.

 

Hopefully you see all the arguments against throw down caches, and see that they have merit. I'm not saying we're all a bunch of know-it-all's, and we're right. But I'll tell you what. My local reviewer has a policy of ignoring throw-downs in cases where he has posted warning notes on absentee cache owners pages, and the owner does not replace the cache. They still get archived per the warning note.

 

Oh, and your example of moving someone's discovered, but not muggled cache, and letting them know the new location? Apples and Oragnes vs. replacing this guys cache, and claiming a find for something you put there yourself.

Link to comment

Anyway, the cache is archived, the reviewer knows about this problem, and I would never put a cache right there as this is a children playground.

 

But you did put an unlisted cache right there in a childrens playground, and you logged it on another cache page without that cache owner's permission.

 

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission. If its in a place where you would not place a cache, such as a playground, then it's not a great idea. It's not a good idea, and it's not a fair idea, and it could be considered a bad idea, especially without the owner's permission. :D

 

I suppose these things occur because the initial cache is placed without permission, and the meme continues.. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

write after me, 1000 times.. or as many times as needed until you understand it:

 

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Replacing caches is a great thing to do with the owner's permission.

Link to comment

I wouldn't be so hard on the guy. Back in my day, it was considered considerate to help your fellow cacher with maintenance. But now, with so many people throwing down caches when they couldn't find one, that was still there, causing mass confusion,we should ask first.

I'd say it depends on the cache, the cachers involved and the location and situation. Never say never.

Do you know the cache owner?

Can you reach the CO to ask them if it's OK?

Is the CO still active?

Is the cache really missing?

Did the cache have permission to be there?

Is it an LPC? (Don't bother)

Do you have a similar container, log book, cache sheet and writing utensil with you? Don't throw down a film cannister to replace an ammo can.

Do you know exactly where and how the cache was hidden?

There are a lot of variables, so never say never. Just don't do it because you want the find. Do it because you care, and someone said it was OK to do.

And it really is for the best if we stay away from the little kids' playgrounds.

Link to comment

I wouldn't be so hard on the guy. Back in my day, it was considered considerate to help your fellow cacher with maintenance. But now, with so many people throwing down caches when they couldn't find one, that was still there, causing mass confusion,we should ask first.

I'd say it depends on the cache, the cachers involved and the location and situation. Never say never.

Do you know the cache owner?

Can you reach the CO to ask them if it's OK?

Is the CO still active?

Is the cache really missing?

Did the cache have permission to be there?

Is it an LPC? (Don't bother)

Do you have a similar container, log book, cache sheet and writing utensil with you? Don't throw down a film cannister to replace an ammo can.

Do you know exactly where and how the cache was hidden?

There are a lot of variables, so never say never. Just don't do it because you want the find. Do it because you care, and someone said it was OK to do.

And it really is for the best if we stay away from the little kids' playgrounds.

 

Oh, maybe never say never with owners permission? Interesting points, were we more likely to help out with maintenance in the old days when there were far fewer caches around? I'd say yes. It wasn't so much the old old days, but I did replace a cache for an absentee owner in 2005 or 2006. Important note: the cache was still there, just cracked and yucky inside. I would never do that in modern times, by the way. :lol:

 

Planet brings up the worst case scenario in the world of throw-downs; replacing a regular you can't find with a film canister, and claiming a find. That ought to result in a 30 day ban from the website. :laughing:

Link to comment

I wouldn't be so hard on the guy. Back in my day, it was considered considerate to help your fellow cacher with maintenance. But now, with so many people throwing down caches when they couldn't find one, that was still there, causing mass confusion,we should ask first.

I'd say it depends on the cache, the cachers involved and the location and situation. Never say never.

Do you know the cache owner?

Can you reach the CO to ask them if it's OK?

Is the CO still active?

Is the cache really missing?

Did the cache have permission to be there?

Is it an LPC? (Don't bother)

Do you have a similar container, log book, cache sheet and writing utensil with you? Don't throw down a film cannister to replace an ammo can.

Do you know exactly where and how the cache was hidden?

There are a lot of variables, so never say never. Just don't do it because you want the find. Do it because you care, and someone said it was OK to do.

And it really is for the best if we stay away from the little kids' playgrounds.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Also you may want to question why the cache is missing.

Was it poorly hidden? The new cache won't last long if it was. Muggles now are aware of the location.

Did the owner of the property remove it?

Did the police remove it as a suspicious object?

Did the cache owner move it and not update the coords yet? Or did they intend to archive the listing but they don't know how? (yes this happens)

Link to comment

I wouldn't be so hard on the guy. Back in my day, it was considered considerate to help your fellow cacher with maintenance. But now, with so many people throwing down caches when they couldn't find one, that was still there, causing mass confusion,we should ask first.

I'd say it depends on the cache, the cachers involved and the location and situation. Never say never.

Do you know the cache owner?

Can you reach the CO to ask them if it's OK?

Is the CO still active?

Is the cache really missing?

Did the cache have permission to be there?

Is it an LPC? (Don't bother)

Do you have a similar container, log book, cache sheet and writing utensil with you? Don't throw down a film cannister to replace an ammo can.

Do you know exactly where and how the cache was hidden?

There are a lot of variables, so never say never. Just don't do it because you want the find. Do it because you care, and someone said it was OK to do.

And it really is for the best if we stay away from the little kids' playgrounds.

 

I think that you left out the most important question. Should the cache be replaced? I have seen cachers perpetuate a disaster by continuing to place Gladware throw downs that turned into biological hazards within weeks. I have seen a cache where the locals simply didn't want a cache in the area. It was gone before the FTF, and the guy who FTFed it left a throw down, which quickly disappeared so the third finder did the same. This particular cache had six throw downs, three in a row a one point, before we were finally able to convince the reviewer that there was a problem. The CO was long gone.

 

Worse case I have seen was the guy that couldn't find the cache so he placed what he called a temporary cache and then claimed FTF on it. I was the real FTF the next day and discovered that he had picked up the CO's fake rock cache and used it to cover his film can.

 

As I continue to read this thread I keep coming back to the same question. What was so important about this cache or the location that it simply had to have a cache there? A missing micro at an urban playground that is less than six months old and has a cache owner that is not responding. Smells like a Needs Archive to me.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment
Worse case I have seen was the guy that couldn't find the cache so he placed what he called a temporary cache and then claimed FTF on it. I was the real FTF the next day and discovered that he had picked up the CO's fake rock cache and used it to cover his film can.
Okay, you win. I've found a couple caches that at some point acquired throw-downs that were placed within inches of the (much more interesting) real hides. But this example tops them.
Link to comment

I think the actions on both sides are silly. You throw down a container and log a find? That's not kosher with me. The CO should be more responsible and responsive with their hides.

 

I have to ask you this though. You say you wouldn't put a cache at that location. Why were you hunting it? Why did you put one there? It almost seems like there's some personal aspect of this whole situation. You're clearly not a numbers hound, or at least not based on your find rate. I can't think of any reason you'd be so bent on logging a find on this cache under these circumstances :unsure:

Link to comment

Anyway, the cache is archived, the reviewer knows about this problem, and I would never put a cache right there as this is a children playground.

 

But dropping a throw-down so you can hope to log the find is OK? :blink:

 

I've always hating seeing that. A cacher didn't find the cache. Knows it's missing. Logs it anyway (with or without throw down). Then tries to make the CO look bad for enforcing the guidelines. I think this CO just gave up arguing, even though he was right to delete the supposed find.

Link to comment

I've been following this etiquette thread with interest and now realize I may have sinned. Or did I?

 

A week or so ago I found a micro tube cache (log only) that had a cracked tube and the log was getting wet. We took a snack and water break and air dried his log for a little while. I just happened to have the exact same tube in my pack so I transferred his log to the new tube. Logged it as Found and replace it. I mentioned what I did in the log. So I didn't log something I didn't find and I didn't do a throw down or take over his cache. I thought I was being helpful. Did I trangress? Should I have tried to contact him first?

Link to comment

I've been following this etiquette thread with interest and now realize I may have sinned. Or did I?

 

A week or so ago I found a micro tube cache (log only) that had a cracked tube and the log was getting wet. We took a snack and water break and air dried his log for a little while. I just happened to have the exact same tube in my pack so I transferred his log to the new tube. Logged it as Found and replace it. I mentioned what I did in the log. So I didn't log something I didn't find and I didn't do a throw down or take over his cache. I thought I was being helpful. Did I trangress? Should I have tried to contact him first?

 

I would say you did the right thing.

 

You did maintenance on a cache you found, not place a cache to log a find.

 

No different than putting a new pencil or ziplock into a cache you found.

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...