Jump to content

Logging a cache that you have replaced - Etiquette


nd73
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I am headed out on an international trip to a country with very few caching opportunities. There was a cache in the town that I am visiting that was placed by an American but has since been muggled without anyone ever logging a find. After contacting the CO, I have agreed to replace the cache for him. So now my dilemma... should I log this as a find for me?

 

I would love to log a find in another country, but it seems a little sketchy to "find" a cache that you placed yourself. I know that some cachers will maintain someone else's cache, up to and including replacing a missing container, while logging a find. This would likely be my only opportunity to log a find on this trip, as there are no other caches within 20 miles, and I don't have much sightseeing time. I hope to make this a recurring trip (every year or two), but there are no guarantees.

 

Any thoughts from veteran geocachers would be appreciated!

Edited by nd73
Link to comment

if you had permission to replace it, I'd log the find. Otherwise, its going to be an unfound cache for you, so what are you supposed to do, have it stare at you on your map or ignore it? Caches are either two things...findable, or you own it. Do you own it? No. So, I'd log it if you replaced it with permission. Without permission, I would not log any finds.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

I wouldn't even replace it. A cache needs maintenance and this can be done only by locals. Geocaching will not grow there due to some foreigners placing containers that get muggled/dissapear over time.

 

If it's not there and nobody can ensure periodic maintenance the cache should be archived. Even if it's several years old :(

Edited by GeoDeep
Link to comment

I wouldn't even replace it. A cache needs maintenance and this can be done only by locals. Geocaching will not grow there due to some foreigners placing containers that get muggled/dissapear over time.

 

If it's not there and nobody can ensure periodic maintenance the cache should be archived. Even if it's several years old :(

Yep.

 

There's a reason "Vacation Caches" are no longer allowed.

Time this one was Archived.

Link to comment

I wouldn't even replace it. A cache needs maintenance and this can be done only by locals. Geocaching will not grow there due to some foreigners placing containers that get muggled/dissapear over time.

 

If it's not there and nobody can ensure periodic maintenance the cache should be archived. Even if it's several years old :(

Yep.

 

There's a reason "Vacation Caches" are no longer allowed.

Time this one was Archived.

Two yeps.

Link to comment

if you had permission to replace it, I'd log the find. Otherwise, its going to be an unfound cache for you, so what are you supposed to do, have it stare at you on your map or ignore it? Caches are either two things...findable, or you own it. Do you own it? No. So, I'd log it if you replaced it with permission. Without permission, I would not log any finds.

 

I am going to buck the trend, and agree with this. ^^^^^ It is SO common to replace missing "vacation caches" in vacation destinations with permission of the owner, that it's not even funny. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.

 

Would I ever do it? Heck no!!! Is consensus going to be against it in this forum? You'd better bet!!! But it's a very common thing, and the Geocaching Police are not going to come and take you away for doing it. :P

Link to comment

Replace it and log it. The CO told you its ok, so do it.

 

I had done it with the CO full permission because they were unable to maintenance it. (their health is going down fast,so I help them out.) It was later archived because it went missing again. The CO told me, one time is enough and we dont want you to be the life line of our caches. They are one of my fav cachers in this area. Awesome people!

Link to comment

I've replaced one missing cache, with the permission of the owner. He would have been happy to do it himself, but I saved him the 80-km round-trip drive.

 

I logged a Note rather than a Found It, then I added the cache to my Ignore List to avoid seeing it on my maps. I use my own standards to determine whether I can log a "Found It" rather than do whatever the cache owners let me get away with.

 

It sounds like you also would be uncomfortable logging a "Found It" for a cache you didn't find. If that's the case, then you'll probably want to not log a find for the cache in question and avoid future regrets.

Link to comment

On second thought not only would I not log it, I agree with those who say it shouldn't be replaced.

 

It's an unmaintained cache that is only being propagated by replacing it. If it goes missing the day after you leave, it will be missing until the next person decides to take a trip to the area and replace it while there, and the cycle continues. It really needs to be archived.

Link to comment

if you had permission to replace it, I'd log the find. Otherwise, its going to be an unfound cache for you, so what are you supposed to do, have it stare at you on your map or ignore it? Caches are either two things...findable, or you own it. Do you own it? No. So, I'd log it if you replaced it with permission. Without permission, I would not log any finds.

 

I am going to buck the trend, and agree with this. ^^^^^ It is SO common to replace missing "vacation caches" in vacation destinations with permission of the owner, that it's not even funny. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.

 

Would I ever do it? Heck no!!! Is consensus going to be against it in this forum? You'd better bet!!! But it's a very common thing, and the Geocaching Police are not going to come and take you away for doing it. :P

 

I was only commenting on the fact would I log a find on a cache I replaced....should it be replaced? That is a different matter. I was not even looking into the story of should it be replaced or not.

Link to comment

I'm normally against someone logging their own throwdown, but your situation is a bit different in my opinion. The CO lives out of country and will definitely not be back to replace it, at least not within an acceptable period of time. If you find the correct location of where the cache was supposed to be, confirm that with the CO and have their permission to replace & log it, go for it. Did you technically "find" your own throwdown? No. But if you found the location of where the original should have been, given the unique circumstances, I'd probably log it if I were in your shoes. In the end, it's on your conscience, no one else's.

Link to comment

I'm normally against someone logging their own throwdown, but your situation is a bit different in my opinion. The CO lives out of country and will definitely not be back to replace it, at least not within an acceptable period of time. If you find the correct location of where the cache was supposed to be, confirm that with the CO and have their permission to replace & log it, go for it. Did you technically "find" your own throwdown? No. But if you found the location of where the original should have been, given the unique circumstances, I'd probably log it if I were in your shoes. In the end, it's on your conscience, no one else's.

 

I pretty much agree with all of this. I see three issues here.

 

Should a replacement cache be put in place? The CO has agreed that they'd like to have it replaced and the OP doesn't mind doing. Anyone else that has an opinion on the matter is essentially expressing their view on how someone else should play the game. I think that perpetuating a cache that is not going to be maintained by the CO is a valid point, and it *does* essentially perpetuate a cache that should probably not have been published in the first place (as a vacation cache).

 

Secondly, should a found it log be posted if the OP replaces the cache. The rationale behind "I wouldn't do it" certainly has it's merits as one can argue that you haven't found a cache that you've hidden your self. On the other hand, I've occasionally "found" my car keys when I forgot where I "hid" them. We can all have an opinion on whether or not the replacement cache should be logged as found but the only opinions that really matter are that of the cache owner and the OP. As long as both feel that posting a found it log is acceptable, I'd say post a found it log. I think it's worth noting that we're talking about one cache. I didn't look at the OPs stats page but I suspect the addition of one found it log isn't going to make an negligible difference to their overall find count. If we were talking about logging a find on replacement caches as a general practice it would be a different story. Doing it once or twice over several years playing the game just isn't the same as making it a habit.

 

Finally, there are extenuating circumstances. Some may feel that any extenuating circumstances are irrelevant but we're not talking about logging a found on a throw down a couple miles form home that could be revisited once the CO has replaced it. Lamoracke mentioned that an it would "have it stare at you on your map or ignore it?" That wouldn't be an issue because the OP might not ever look at a cache map in that area again. Someone mentioned that it wouldn't matter hod old it is. The age of the cache isn't an issue either. It sounded like the cache may be the only opportunity to log a cache in a different country, and that opportunity many never occur again in the OPs lifetime. If the OP *does* put down a replacement, not only would they be able to log a cache in a country they might not ever get another chance to visit, but they may be providing the only realistic opportunity for many other caches to log a cache in that country.

 

I just recently did a PQ for caches within 100 miles of Kuching, Malaysia. I got 9 results. From a reading of the logs, it looks like at least four of those caches are missing. Of the remaining five, only one is active and viable (I exchanged some email with the CO) and within a reasonable distance to where I will be staying. Two of the remaining five have not yet beet found, but both are well over an hour from where I'm staying and one recommends hiring a guide just to go into the area. If that one viable cache didn't exist there is another nearby that may be missing (it's not a vacation cache though), and considering I'm going to be traveling about 20 thousand miles round trip, I probably wouldn't have any qualms about replacing a container with the OPs permission, logging a find, and giving others that visit Malaysia for the first time an opportunity to log a find.

Link to comment

On second thought not only would I not log it, I agree with those who say it shouldn't be replaced.

 

It's an unmaintained cache that is only being propagated by replacing it. If it goes missing the day after you leave, it will be missing until the next person decides to take a trip to the area and replace it while there, and the cycle continues. It really needs to be archived.

 

Chalk me up to a vote in this crowd. The CO agreed to maintain the cache when he/she put it there. With no regular maintainence, this one is not only destined to disappear again, but it runs afowl of the guidelines. Let it die.

Link to comment

On second thought not only would I not log it, I agree with those who say it shouldn't be replaced.

 

It's an unmaintained cache that is only being propagated by replacing it. If it goes missing the day after you leave, it will be missing until the next person decides to take a trip to the area and replace it while there, and the cycle continues. It really needs to be archived.

 

Chalk me up to a vote in this crowd.

NYPC has some valid points, but I still throw my support behind the "don't replace/archive" group. Performing maintenance for an owner that never intended to maintain their own cache in the first place is a bad idea in my book.

Link to comment

I've done something similar and yes, I did log the find. I was going out caching and noticed a cache that was missing. I contacted the owner ahead of time and got the OK to replace. The hint was pretty specific so I felt confident I had the right spot. The cache owner was happy, the cachers following me were happy, win-win.

 

I disagree with those who've said it should just be archived, no matter what the circumstances. If the coordinates are bad, I say OK, archive it. If the location sucks, OK, archive it.

 

But otherwise, if it's obviously missing, the hiding location is clear and someone's willing replace (with the cache owner's permission), what's the harm in it? So what if it goes missing again? A bunch of people will have had fun and we'll not be any worse off than when we started.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

This is one of our "found it" logs: "When one is travelling to an island with only 5 geocaches, doesn't finding them all seem like an important goal? We thought so. :D Because the cache was disabled, we got in touch with the owner, who gave us pretty specific intstructions on how to find the cache. But like the previous seekers we could not find the old container.

 

Fortunately, we had come equipped with our "cache doctor" kit and were able to replace this cache with a new container full of goodies, including a White Jeep TB. Thanks for bringing us to the birthplace of Hula on Molokai and a great beach."

 

While I don't travel nearly as much to far flung destinations as NYPaddleCracher (thanks for the thoughtful post), I do live in a "vacation destination" & think there are differing standards for missing caches in areas that lack a Geocaching community vs. the rest of the world. Nothing worse than going on vacation and realizing there are no caches to find! :o I see this sort of replacement as a gift to the caching community. When we replace a cache like this, we generally put it on our watch list, we enjoying knowing that others get to find what we left. I'll also say that by getting in touch with cache owners in situations like this, we've made some lasting geofriendships. For replacing the cache in the log above, we were sent a geocoin as a thank-you and that was the beginning of a whole other obsession!

 

So I say do what makes you feel comfortable and enjoy your trip!

jrr

Link to comment

So I say do what makes you feel comfortable and enjoy your trip!

 

I'm in this camp. I've done the same myself - only once, in an another country, with the owners permission. In my case, the challenge was finding GZ. (It was in an airport - in a nice garden but which was hidden away). Once you find the garden there was a specific hint and spoiler photo - it was easy to see the finding spot and confirm it was missing. Then I had an additional challenge - find a place to purchase a container before my flight left. I did this, hid the container - and logged a find.

 

I understand the other view - "you can't find it if you hid it". But in a case where the hide is so obvious this seems a bit of a technicality to me.

Link to comment

 

Chalk me up to a vote in this crowd. The CO agreed to maintain the cache when he/she put it there. With no regular maintainence, this one is not only destined to disappear again, but it runs afowl of the guidelines. Let it die.

 

The guidelines say that the CO is responsible for the maintenance of his cache. It does not say that the CO has to be the one that does this maintenance. A CO asking someone he trusts to replace a cache container is different from someone placing a "throw down" without getting permission from the CO first.

Link to comment

I wouldn't because I didn't find anything, I put it there.

After replacing the cache you could walk a couple hundred feet away in a random direction. Then use your GPS to navigate back to the spot where the cache is then look for it, find it, and sign the log.

Link to comment

So I say do what makes you feel comfortable and enjoy your trip!

 

I'm in this camp. I've done the same myself - only once, in an another country, with the owners permission. In my case, the challenge was finding GZ. (It was in an airport - in a nice garden but which was hidden away). Once you find the garden there was a specific hint and spoiler photo - it was easy to see the finding spot and confirm it was missing. Then I had an additional challenge - find a place to purchase a container before my flight left. I did this, hid the container - and logged a find.

 

I understand the other view - "you can't find it if you hid it". But in a case where the hide is so obvious this seems a bit of a technicality to me.

 

Again, I don't agree with doing this throw-down with owner permission thing, but it's pretty much become the norm on vacation placed caches, and additionally on remote, never found caches, such as there are dozens of in Northern Canada, and Alaska. The replacer is asking permission in just about every case I've seen. I'm OK with it I suppose, although I wouldn't do it myself. Ultimately, I agree with those that say if a vacation placed cache can't be replaced by the CO, then it deserves to be archived. I guess people really want that "exotic" find, and the practice of replacing them has become the norm.

Link to comment

I'd like to separate out the questions:

 

1. Is it OK to help an owner and replace a cache (with their permission)?

2. If you replace such a cache, is it OK to log a find?

 

The OP is asking question 2. Now some are saying that in this specific case the cache should not be replaced at all, as it appears the owner lives outside the country where the cache is. And that is a valid point.

 

But let's assume there is a valid reason to replace the cache. (In my specific case, the cache owner was local and active - but still asked for help replacing). Maybe it is cache local to you, and the owner has broken his leg and won't be able to replace it for a couple of months. Whatever. I think most of us would agree there are some cases where replacing a cache is OK, or indeed a good thing to do.

 

Now, assuming that there is a valid reason to replace the cache for the owner - it seems odd to me to not log it as a find. As otherwise it means that because I did something helpful for the owner (replace the cache), I can now never log it as found. When I look at all the caches out there - they are either:

A. Caches I have found

B. Caches I have not yet found, but are available for me to find (my abilities permitting etc).

C. Caches that I own

 

And while I understand the "you put that container there, so you can't find it" logic, it creates an additional category of caches:

D. Caches which I can not mark found because I helped someone

 

Which seems odd.

 

What also seems odd if you play this out is this. Let's say I replace the container, but don't log a find (because I put the container there). Fine. One year later, it gets muggled and the container replaced again - this time by the owner (in the same spot). I know exactly where that container is, and if I choose to go and find it, now I can log it as a find as it is not the container I put there.

Link to comment

Personally, I'd ask to adopt it, if it was a good one, or let it go archived. In a way, replacing it because they are too far away is a first step.

 

I was looking through a local cachers list of owns and most of them are very far away cause they moved since then, I was surprised how long they've survived. I don't really see much of a problem with vacation caches unless it got really out of hand.

 

I wouldn't claim ownership tho for offering a local cache owner (especially with 100s) with maintaining some closer to me tho to save time.

Link to comment

This thread's topic has veered away from the OP's original question of should they or shouldn't they log it as a find and has become should it have been placed to begin with and should it be REplaced at all considering the CO lives out of country. We can debate the last two till the cows come home (yes, I'm from the country and we actually do say that) but don't forget what they're asking is if they should log it found. Ultimately the decision is yours, nd73. Is it "proper" cache etiquette to log your own throw down? Not necessarily, and as you can see isn't taken kindly by many cachers, but those who support logging a throw down find (with CO's permission) make some very valid points. In my opinion, having permission from the CO and also confirming with the CO that you were looking in the correct location is key. With those two things (permission & location confirmation) I don't think you should feel bad for logging it. Especially when you factor in being out of country and unable to log any other finds there.

 

I think it's worth noting that we're talking about one cache. I didn't look at the OPs stats page but I suspect the addition of one found it log isn't going to make an negligible difference to their overall find count. If we were talking about logging a find on replacement caches as a general practice it would be a different story. Doing it once or twice over several years playing the game just isn't the same as making it a habit.

 

Lamoracke mentioned that an it would "have it stare at you on your map or ignore it?" That wouldn't be an issue because the OP might not ever look at a cache map in that area again.

 

I agree, it's one cache and there's no harm done. I have a cacher in my area (a "Charter Member" of these forums, as a matter of fact) who has over 13,000 finds. Recently we just so happened to search for the same few caches within a relatively short period of time so I noticed they have a habit of dropping throw downs whenever they can't find the cache then logging it found. No permission from the CO & no idea if their replacement is even in the right spot. What bothers me most, and I know it really shouldn't, is they enjoy bragging about their find count in every log. There are cachers who look up to them and respect them because of their find count. So I can't help but wonder how over-inflated their find count is due to logging their own throw downs simply because they refuse to accept a DNF that would tarnish their precious numbers. Doing it once, as is the case with this OP, or even a few times over a stretch of time (with the CO's permission) is perfectly acceptable to me. I know it doesn't affect us or our game personally, but I think doing it over & over because you're afraid to affect your numbers is just sad.

 

I had to laugh at lamoracke's comment about having a DNF staring at you on the map. Earlier this year we took a road trip to western MO. While visiting the 3 corners location where MO, OK, and KS meet, we decided to venture further into OK & KS to find some more caches. One of the OK caches was missing (as far as we know) and we debated on whether or not to log a DNF since we knew we'd more than likely never be back there. In the end, we decided to go ahead and log it and treat it as our own unique personal "accomplishment." We figured what the heck, we have milestone numbers, our first FTF, special locations, etc., so why not have a DNF far from home that we'll never go back for. This game is what you make of it.

Link to comment

Not to be obnoxious but if you've posted the question here, you already knew the answer. Were you hoping there was a number of us that would change your mind? I'd be logging it and wouldn't think twice about what others thought. Though, I wouldn't be advertising it either. :P

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment

To the OP...

I would log it. For me, it indicates to myself (and others) that I was at GZ of a cache that was far from home.

 

I wouldn't even replace it. A cache needs maintenance and this can be done only by locals. Geocaching will not grow there due to some foreigners placing containers that get muggled/dissapear over time.

 

If it's not there and nobody can ensure periodic maintenance the cache should be archived. Even if it's several years old :(

Yep.

 

There's a reason "Vacation Caches" are no longer allowed.

Time this one was Archived.

If there is someone willing to maintain it, its there for others to find. If long distance caches are to be archived, a lot of countries would have no caches at all. Makes caching while vacationing a bit tough.

If the cache is somehow maintained (replaced by the OP) or is in decent shape, who cares if the CO is local or not.

 

Replace it and log it. The CO told you its ok, so do it.

 

I had done it with the CO full permission because they were unable to maintenance it. (their health is going down fast,so I help them out.) It was later archived because it went missing again. The CO told me, one time is enough and we dont want you to be the life line of our caches. They are one of my fav cachers in this area. Awesome people!

We've had that situation locally. I believe the CO of a couple of the better old caches is no longer alive. The caches are some of my favorite and I'll help maintain them because I think they should be enjoyed by others.

 

Personally, I'd ask to adopt it, if it was a good one, or let it go archived. In a way, replacing it because they are too far away is a first step.

 

I was looking through a local cachers list of owns and most of them are very far away cause they moved since then, I was surprised how long they've survived. I don't really see much of a problem with vacation caches unless it got really out of hand.

 

I wouldn't claim ownership tho for offering a local cache owner (especially with 100s) with maintaining some closer to me tho to save time.

This issue with Cache owers moving away is a fairly big issue in some areas. When I was out on the east coast, I noticed a lot of NM and NA canidates and after talking with a few locals, they informed me that Cache owners moving a way is a big issue.

Link to comment

This thread's topic has veered away from the OP's original question of should they or shouldn't they log it as a find and has become should it have been placed to begin with and should it be REplaced at all considering the CO lives out of country. We can debate the last two till the cows come home (yes, I'm from the country and we actually do say that) but don't forget what they're asking is if they should log it found. Ultimately the decision is yours, nd73. Is it "proper" cache etiquette to log your own throw down? Not necessarily, and as you can see isn't taken kindly by many cachers, but those who support logging a throw down find (with CO's permission) make some very valid points. In my opinion, having permission from the CO and also confirming with the CO that you were looking in the correct location is key. With those two things (permission & location confirmation) I don't think you should feel bad for logging it. Especially when you factor in being out of country and unable to log any other finds there.

 

I think it's worth noting that we're talking about one cache. I didn't look at the OPs stats page but I suspect the addition of one found it log isn't going to make an negligible difference to their overall find count. If we were talking about logging a find on replacement caches as a general practice it would be a different story. Doing it once or twice over several years playing the game just isn't the same as making it a habit.

 

Lamoracke mentioned that an it would "have it stare at you on your map or ignore it?" That wouldn't be an issue because the OP might not ever look at a cache map in that area again.

 

I agree, it's one cache and there's no harm done. I have a cacher in my area (a "Charter Member" of these forums, as a matter of fact) who has over 13,000 finds. Recently we just so happened to search for the same few caches within a relatively short period of time so I noticed they have a habit of dropping throw downs whenever they can't find the cache then logging it found. No permission from the CO & no idea if their replacement is even in the right spot. What bothers me most, and I know it really shouldn't, is they enjoy bragging about their find count in every log. There are cachers who look up to them and respect them because of their find count. So I can't help but wonder how over-inflated their find count is due to logging their own throw downs simply because they refuse to accept a DNF that would tarnish their precious numbers. Doing it once, as is the case with this OP, or even a few times over a stretch of time (with the CO's permission) is perfectly acceptable to me. I know it doesn't affect us or our game personally, but I think doing it over & over because you're afraid to affect your numbers is just sad.

 

I had to laugh at lamoracke's comment about having a DNF staring at you on the map. Earlier this year we took a road trip to western MO. While visiting the 3 corners location where MO, OK, and KS meet, we decided to venture further into OK & KS to find some more caches. One of the OK caches was missing (as far as we know) and we debated on whether or not to log a DNF since we knew we'd more than likely never be back there. In the end, we decided to go ahead and log it and treat it as our own unique personal "accomplishment." We figured what the heck, we have milestone numbers, our first FTF, special locations, etc., so why not have a DNF far from home that we'll never go back for. This game is what you make of it.

 

Some of us consider a "throwdown", (what your example 13K cacher does), and replacing a cache with the cache owner's explicit permission and instructions to be two entirely different things. I would contend that the former has very little relation to the latter. "Throwdown" has evolved to become a dirty little word to describe what most of us consider to be an undesirable practice. Coordinating and performing maintenance for another cacher shouldn't be considered dirty.

Link to comment

Not to be obnoxious but if you've posted the question here, you already knew the answer. Were you hoping there was a number of us that would change your mind? I'd be logging it and wouldn't think twice about what others thought. Though, I wouldn't be advertising it either. :P

Actually, I didn't know the answer, but it doesn't sound like there is a right answer, or even a consensus. It seems pretty evenly split based on the responses.

 

Reasons to replace the cache: I wanted to help out by maintaining/providing a cache in a country were there aren't many opportunities. There are only 25 or so caches listed in this country, and almost half have never been found, mainly due to owners who didn't understand the concept and never maintained their caches. Reviewers have made no threats to archive, probably because there is no demand to free up the real estate for new hides. I've read logs of people doing these long power trails where they assume that if they can't find a cache, it must be missing and therefore in need of their intervention to keep the trail intact. It seemed an odd response to a DNF to me, but I understand the logic, especially if the CO has given permission (although often, they don't mention whether or not they have permission).

 

Reasons not to replace: I can't guarantee at this time that it would be maintained. If this trip becomes a regular thing, I may offer to adopt the cache.

 

Reasons to log this as a find: I would like a record of my geocaching activities in this country to reflect that I was here at this spot that the original CO wanted to bring geocachers.

 

Reasons to not log: No search is required, other than finding the coordinates. Also, I would be the first to log a find, although under the circumstances, I am more than willing to allow the next logger to claim FTF. I know it's not an official part of the game, but it's still part of the game. This is the reason I asked the question, to be honest. I'm sure the find would be noticed because it would be the first find for this cache, and I'm skittish of the potential controversy.

 

Maybe I'm overly concerned about what other people think, but I believe that's the purpose of this community and this forum: to establish and maintain standards for the game. There have been lots of good points made during the discussion, but I still haven't made a decision as to what to do. I guess I was hoping for a consensus that this was an appropriate or inappropriate action from people who have been at this longer than I have. Anyone want to offer any further opinions?

Edited by nd73
Link to comment

 

Maybe I'm overly concerned about what other people think, but I believe that's the purpose of this community and this forum: to establish and maintain standards for the game. There have been lots of good points made during the discussion, but I still haven't made a decision as to what to do. I guess I was hoping for a consensus that this was an appropriate or inappropriate action from people who have been at this longer than I have. Anyone want to offer any further opinions?

 

As you can tell by my previous post,I think you should replace the cache and log it as find. I have done exactly that on several occasions. Further opinions:

 

1. By contacting the cache owner and and making plans to get to GZ prepared replace a missing cache with an appropriate container, you have already put in more effort than 99% of geocachers out there. And despite what some have said in this thread, I don not believe this is the same as leaving a "throw down" container @ GZ just b/c you couldn't find a cache. I am sure future cachers who find your container will appreciate the effort even if they don't always acknowledge you. (If you do replace it put it on your watch list to see future logs.)

2. Remember asking for a consesus here is sort of like herding cats.... You are only getting responses from those who read (and post) in the forums; and that is a very small minority of the caching community. What passes for majority around here may or may not hold in your own area.

3. I am guessing (as I haven't reviewed the profiles of other posters to this thread) that most of the "don't replace; cache should be archived" opinions come from cachers who live & cache in ares with lots of caches and lots of cachers. They may not have ever visited a country with 25 caches or an island with just one. In other words they have not been in your exact circumstance. I have; does my opinion get more weight as a result? That's up to you.

 

jrr

Link to comment

If the owner says they would like you to replace it, then you can replace it.

If the owner says you can then log a find (and even claim FTF), then you can do that too.

 

If I TRULY just wanted to help the CO with their vacation hide (that should have never happened), I would replace it and post a note to that effect.

 

Surprisingly, notes and DNFs are just as much a part of your Geocaching chronicles as found logs.

 

If I left the area (country, island, dimension) and came back at a later date (no, not like the next day), and the container I left was still there then I would feel justified in posting a found log.

 

@sillygirl & jrr

How does the number of caches in a country or on an island affect the ethics of this?

Someone had an ill-conceived idea to hide a cache, and didn't/couldn't maintain it. Now it's every cacher's responsibility (well, every self-serving cacher) to maintain it so they can get a smilie?

 

What about all those countries and islands with no caches yet.

Shouldn't something be done about that?

Link to comment

Some of us consider a "throwdown", (what your example 13K cacher does), and replacing a cache with the cache owner's explicit permission and instructions to be two entirely different things. I would contend that the former has very little relation to the latter. "Throwdown" has evolved to become a dirty little word to describe what most of us consider to be an undesirable practice. Coordinating and performing maintenance for another cacher shouldn't be considered dirty.

 

I was going to make this same observation. I've heard throwdowns referred to as angel caches. I've always considered throwdowns to be placed without the owners permission and usually a cheap container like a film canister and often not the same size as the original cache. Holding little more than a scrap of paper for the logbook. Getting the owners permission, using a container the similar in size to the original, adding a "real" log book and swag isn't what I would call a throwdown.

 

What if the CO puts together the replacement cache then sends the replacement cache to someone else to place? Does the cache really have to be placed by the COs hands.

 

If you don't like the idea of someone who replaces a cache to also log it then how would feel if the CO logs a find for a replacement caches that he had someone else place?

Link to comment

MY opinion

 

1) I think the best option is adoption.

 

I now own a few caches that I adopted from a great cacher who was quitting. I had someone adopt a few caches of ours in an area that I felt I would have problems being responsible for their maintenance

 

2)If you have permission from the CO, it is not a throwdown.

 

I thought the term throwdown was a derogatory term invented to cover situations where a cacher cant find a cache and puts out one to replace it without permission, in order to get the numbers

 

3)You have the opportunity to count a cache as a HIDE or a FIND. It is not your cache so you can only count it as a FIND, if you so wish.

 

We own a few of our Micro Logic puzzle caches some distance from here. They were placed by other cachers. I indicated on the cache page that I allowed them to hide the caches on the understanding that they would do the maintenance, and that they could not log the cache intil they sent me the answer to the puzzle and they could not claim a FTF.

Link to comment

Reasons to not log: No search is required, other than finding the coordinates. Also, I would be the first to log a find, although under the circumstances, I am more than willing to allow the next logger to claim FTF. I know it's not an official part of the game, but it's still part of the game.

You'd be the first, but the next person could be the first to find. It's not part of the game, but it's still part of the game. Be careful, your actions could cause a disruption in the space time continuum. :laughing:

 

Go ahead and log it, we won't tell anyone. :anibad:

Link to comment

Reasons to not log: No search is required, other than finding the coordinates. Also, I would be the first to log a find, although under the circumstances, I am more than willing to allow the next logger to claim FTF. I know it's not an official part of the game, but it's still part of the game.

You'd be the first, but the next person could be the first to find. It's not part of the game, but it's still part of the game. Be careful, your actions could cause a disruption in the space time continuum. :laughing:

 

Go ahead and log it, we won't tell anyone. :anibad:

 

If you replace someone's cache, I imagine the FTF has been long decided before the replacement cache. I can't imagine too many folks are claiming FTFRs (First To Find Replacements) and if so, let them.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment
If you replace someone's cache, I imagine the FTF has been long decided before the replacement cache. I can't imagine too many folks are claiming FTFRs (First To Find Replacements) and if so, let them.

That was my failed attempt at a humorous play on their paradoxical post. They said they'd be the first, but willing to let the next person claim FTF. How can someone else be FTF if they're not the first to find? Also, the comment about it not being a part of the game, but still being a part of the game. My reply didn't translate from thought to text properly. Forgive me, it's late.

Link to comment

I say go for it, you have the ok from the CO. Thats all that matters, if says it's ok then replace it and claim your smiley face. :)

To some of us, that's NOT all that matters. We have our own ethical standards that might go beyond the standards of some cache owners. For example, even if a cache owner says it's okay to log a "Found It" when I've never been within 1,000 miles of their cache, I wouldn't do it.

Link to comment

On second thought not only would I not log it, I agree with those who say it shouldn't be replaced.

 

It's an unmaintained cache that is only being propagated by replacing it. If it goes missing the day after you leave, it will be missing until the next person decides to take a trip to the area and replace it while there, and the cycle continues. It really needs to be archived.

smiley-sign-i-agree.gif

 

And that was my first thought.

Link to comment

3)You have the opportunity to count a cache as a HIDE or a FIND. It is not your cache so you can only count it as a FIND, if you so wish.

You also have opportunities to count a cache as a DID NOT FIND or to log a NOTE, if you so wish.

 

Yes that is possible but why would you log a DNF in the situation described here?

 

In any event, I guess I was thinking of our local situation. I like the local map to show the caches as Happy faces or stars. If I dont find a local cache, I keep going back till I get it.

Link to comment

On second thought not only would I not log it, I agree with those who say it shouldn't be replaced.

 

It's an unmaintained cache that is only being propagated by replacing it. If it goes missing the day after you leave, it will be missing until the next person decides to take a trip to the area and replace it while there, and the cycle continues. It really needs to be archived.

smiley-sign-i-agree.gif

 

And that was my first thought.

 

If the owner is involved then the cache isn't unmaintained. Does it really make a difference that it isn't the owners hands that are replacing the cache?

Link to comment

3)You have the opportunity to count a cache as a HIDE or a FIND. It is not your cache so you can only count it as a FIND, if you so wish.

You also have opportunities to count a cache as a DID NOT FIND or to log a NOTE, if you so wish.

Yes that is possible but why would you log a DNF in the situation described here?

I would log a DNF in the situation described here because I did not find the cache according to my personal standards. I merely placed a replacement for a cache that I did not find. Your mileage might vary.

Link to comment

3)You have the opportunity to count a cache as a HIDE or a FIND. It is not your cache so you can only count it as a FIND, if you so wish.

You also have opportunities to count a cache as a DID NOT FIND or to log a NOTE, if you so wish.

Yes that is possible but why would you log a DNF in the situation described here?

I would log a DNF in the situation described here because I did not find the cache according to my personal standards. I merely placed a replacement for a cache that I did not find. Your mileage might vary.

 

WOW

 

I thought DNF meant I looked and could not find it. The DNF log informs the CO and other cachers that there may be a problem with this cache or informs everyone that this is a tough one.

Link to comment

3)You have the opportunity to count a cache as a HIDE or a FIND. It is not your cache so you can only count it as a FIND, if you so wish.

You also have opportunities to count a cache as a DID NOT FIND or to log a NOTE, if you so wish.

Yes that is possible but why would you log a DNF in the situation described here?

I would log a DNF in the situation described here because I did not find the cache according to my personal standards. I merely placed a replacement for a cache that I did not find. Your mileage might vary.

I thought DNF meant I looked and could not find it. The DNF log informs the CO and other cachers that there may be a problem with this cache or informs everyone that this is a tough one.

Good point about a DNF possibly misleading people. Okay, I'd log a NOTE explaining that I couldn't find the cache and replaced it with permission of the owner. My point is, you don't have to log a FIND if you didn't find the cache (according to your own standards).

Link to comment
I'm in this camp. I've done the same myself - only once, in an another country, with the owners permission. In my case, the challenge was finding GZ. (It was in an airport - in a nice garden but which was hidden away). Once you find the garden there was a specific hint and spoiler photo - it was easy to see the finding spot and confirm it was missing. Then I had an additional challenge - find a place to purchase a container before my flight left. I did this, hid the container - and logged a find.

That one is a very special cache. With nearly 1000 finds in four years it has been maintained a couple of dozen times both by CO and other cachers. Did you notice your container survived a couple of weeks? I logged my find after replacing a missing container there too. A few weeks later I found a new box placed by another geocacher. I even happened to pick a trackable so I feel pretty much OK about having logged it as a find. BTW the cache is currently missing, but it won't be long before you see someone's "placed a new container" log.

Link to comment

I wouldn't because I didn't find anything, I put it there.

After replacing the cache you could walk a couple hundred feet away in a random direction. Then use your GPS to navigate back to the spot where the cache is then look for it, find it, and sign the log.

 

That's like hiding your car keys so you can look for them.

Link to comment

3)You have the opportunity to count a cache as a HIDE or a FIND. It is not your cache so you can only count it as a FIND, if you so wish.

You also have opportunities to count a cache as a DID NOT FIND or to log a NOTE, if you so wish.

Yes that is possible but why would you log a DNF in the situation described here?

I would log a DNF in the situation described here because I did not find the cache according to my personal standards. I merely placed a replacement for a cache that I did not find. Your mileage might vary.

 

I wouldn't log a DNF for the same reason I wouldn't log a found it, because I was hiding, not hunting. That and it could mislead other cachers.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...