Logging a cache that you have replaced - Etiquette

[+Isonzo Karst]

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?

 

You've already agreed to replace it, so do that. Whether you log it as a find is entirely between you and the cache owner. I don't care or even feel any need to have an opinion.

 

I'm going to disagree with NYPaddleCacher (post #14), which is unusual for me. The gist of his post is that he considers the stat of finds in foreign countries to be important, and important enough to change the way he thinks about replacing and logging caches.

 

I think the same principles apply to a cache in Malaysia as a cache in any US state. If the cache can't be maintained by the owner or a reliable surrogate, it might as well die, whether that death impacts the availability of a foreign travel smiley or not.

 

I see a lot of "special logic" applied to a particular caches - caches that someone considers statistically important (oldest caches, rare D/T combos, special cache titles for alpha challenges etc, webcams and virts - whether there's a functioning cam or the virt object still exists).

 

Your stats, your attachment to a particular stat, are not a reason to change the logic of cache ownership and maintenance. Caches I've found in other countries is just another stat.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Isonzo Karst

[+timbee&suebee]

...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. ...

 

Why would you bother replacing a cache that was muggled before it ever had a find? Doesn't that say something about this placement like that it's not a good idea to put one there? And how are you going to maintiain it from such a distance? I think that is the more pressing question rather than whether you can log it as a find.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

So, out of all those 1000 cachers that posted a find, and all of the couple of dozen that replace it on a regular basis, no one has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not a good spot for a geocache container. I've been trying to discuss what the OP's question was, "should I log it as a find", but when I read this, I more convinced that he shouldn't replace it in the first place. You are allowed to place caches outside of your normal caching area if you can give that local reviewer a suitable maintenance plan, usually a known local cacher that is willing to help you out. A steady stream of tourist with extra geocaches in their luggage is not a suitable maintenance plan, IMO. If a cache needs to be replaced "a couple of dozen times" in a four year period, that means that is disappears every 2 months.

[+JL_HSTRE]

has since been muggled without anyone ever logging a find.

 

If a cache is muggled before it was ever found by an actual geocacher then it should probably be archived as it is probably not a good spot (due to muggle issues or whatever).

 

Also, vacation caches = bad.

 

That all said, if I place/replace a cache that is placed under another CO's account then I will log a find on it. Though in my case that is a pretty rare event.

[+ly2kw]

So, out of all those 1000 cachers that posted a find, and all of the couple of dozen that replace it on a regular basis, no one has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not a good spot for a geocache container.

Amazingly, no (unless I missed an entry or two reading the whole log file in a hurry). As far as I understand it is one of the best spots in the location. The cache is active most of the time and keeps entertaining geovisitors. I doubt if I ever visited this garden if there was no geocache planted there.

[+Don_J]

So, out of all those 1000 cachers that posted a find, and all of the couple of dozen that replace it on a regular basis, no one has come to the conclusion that maybe it's not a good spot for a geocache container.

Amazingly, no (unless I missed an entry or two reading the whole log file in a hurry). As far as I understand it is one of the best spots in the location. The cache is active most of the time and keeps entertaining geovisitors. I doubt if I ever visited this garden if there was no geocache planted there.

 

What it does is colors in a new country on their stats map. Because of that, every one of them is willing to ignore the obvious. I think in this situation the cachers are not replacing the cache to help out the cache owner. They are doing it to serve their own purpose. It's basically a throwdown cache at that point. Since it goes missing so often, I wonder how many of those 1000 find logs say something like, "Found the spot, so I'm logging it as a find".

 

That said, I have replaced caches for other cachers. The typical situation for me is that I either know the CO, or have at least talked to them at an event. It's a 8 mile hike and their cache at the 4 mile mark is obviously missing. If the CO is willing, I'm more than happy to help them out, and yes, I do log it as found. This practice is like a few others that I was taught by the local cachers when I started caching seven years ago, it's what everyone in the area has always done and no one seems to have an issue with it.

[+Team OPJim]

I have to agree with the large number of people who have said that if it is ok with the CO to log a find, then go ahead and log it.

 

The issue of whether the cache should be there or not or archived or not is not the question that was asked. It is a dead horse that has already been thoroughly whipped in other forums.

 

I live in a rural area where some caches are close but hard to get to. On several occasions, other cachers have been visiting one of my caches that I was unable to get to for a month (because it was either a long drive or hike to GZ), and I have communicated with them about replacing the container. In these cases, they have helped me out so that the cache was maintenanced sooner than I could have done it. [it would be different if we were talking about an LPC hidden half a mile from my house.] I have been very grateful for this and have certainly allowed them to find the cache when they were done. They were there, they signed the log, it wasn't their cache (so they weren't logging their own cache). In any case, these cachers are some of the best people with whom I've interacted with. I've also maintenanced caches for other COs in similar circumstances, and if I hadn't already found the cache I signed the log.

[+hukilaulau]

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.

 

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

they are not there. (not really an additional category at all)

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) because it wasn't 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.as the owner replaced it.

I agree that if the CO says it's OK, then you can log anything you want to as a find. But just acknowledge that you're willing to log caches that you didn't find under circumstances that you make up to suit your own purposes. The tortured logic used to justify these "finds" is what I find annoying.

[+Off Grid]

If you have the COs permission log it. Does make me wonder about how it got placed so far from home.

 

Many military personal geocache and we placed some (in all places) Afghanistan plus many of us were geocaching before ground speak or this game got popular after all were did GPS come from :-)

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

.....after all were did GPS come from :-)

It came from my pocket! That's where GPS came from.

 

Now as for my Delorme, it came from Singapore, China, Korea and maybe even Mexico, collectively.

 

[GPS-Hermit]

If the cache indicates from the logs that lots of folks have a great time finding the cache - then it is a success - replacing the cache keeps a good cache active and continues to be enjoyable even if it has no maintainer. The COs interest may return, and the replacement cache can last a long time and be enjoyed which is more likely than finding a local CO to adopt it. Let it live!

 

I once had trouble finding a CO that was not maintaining his cache - so I was going to replace it just because I liked it and the logs showed other did as well. He finally did respond so all is well. I now watch it and care for it. Another one I replaced with no approval and everyone is finding it just fine.

I watch it too!

 

The cache lives

 

As far as logging - I did not make any additional logs for replacing the cache I had previously found.

[+Glenn]

If the cache indicates from the logs that lots of folks have a great time finding the cache - then it is a success - replacing the cache keeps a good cache active and continues to be enjoyable even if it has no maintainer. The COs interest may return, and the replacement cache can last a long time and be enjoyed which is more likely than finding a local CO to adopt it. Let it live!

 

I once had trouble finding a CO that was not maintaining his cache - so I was going to replace it just because I liked it and the logs showed other did as well. He finally did respond so all is well. I now watch it and care for it. Another one I replaced with no approval and everyone is finding it just fine.

I watch it too!

 

The cache lives

 

As far as logging - I did not make any additional logs for replacing the cache I had previously found.

 

The trouble with keeping a cache active when it's owner is inactive is that the information on the cache page can become inaccurate. Often a description of the cache container is given in the description or in the hint. Also something about the area is commonly placed in the description which can change over time. Sometimes if a cache can't be adopted then it is better to log an SBA and relist it.

[+ly2kw]

I am planning a trip to Balkans in a few weeks and will most likely be riding past this cache. The cache description reads: 'The cache was left on holidays. It's a 35mm film box and a local cacher kindly assisted to help with maintenance on this cache'. But at the same time CO has a log entry that is openly asking other seekers to maintain his cache:

 

 

The cache is seemingly inactive now, but I don't think I am going to help with restoring it. Or should I?

[+SwineFlew]

There is a cache that the owner give the ok to replace the cache if its missing. The cache never been found of yet and its the oldest un found cache in the world.

 

The name of the cache is 4.5lb Walleye.

 

So guys, you think it will be ok to sign the log of the replace cache you set down? Dont tell me its "ok" because its "special"

[Mr.Yuck]

There is a cache that the owner give the ok to replace the cache if its missing. The cache never been found of yet and its the oldest un found cache in the world.

 

The name of the cache is 4.5lb Walleye.

 

So guys, you think it will be ok to sign the log of the replace cache you set down? Dont tell me its "ok" because its "special"

 

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: 4.5lb Walleye is actually "tied" for oldest unfound cache, but the other one gets no pub whatsoever. It's in Alaska: GC1259 True, it's waypoint name is about 1,000 digits greater than 4.5lb Walleye. 6/23/01 was a Saturday. Were there really 1,000 caches a weekend being placed back then? Who knows. Anywho, there's a tie.

 

All we have to go on is a note posted in February, 2012, by a Southern Ontario cacher that the owner is "open" to a replacement, and claim of a find. We'll have to assume they have made email contact with the cache owner.

 

I said very early on that it has become commonplace to replace never found caches in remote locations and claim a find. I predict this will happen at 4.5lb Walleye. Ironically enough, in a rare case in such instances, the cache that is tied with it, GC1259, there is a throwdown in place, but the throwdowner has not claimed a find.

[+CanadianRockies]

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: 4.5lb Walleye is actually "tied" for oldest unfound cache, but the other one gets no pub whatsoever. It's in Alaska: GC1259 True, it's waypoint name is about 1,000 digits greater than 4.5lb Walleye. 6/23/01 was a Saturday. Were there really 1,000 caches a weekend being placed back then? Who knows. Anywho, there's a tie.

I suspect the more likely explanation is that someone accidentally (or deliberately) entered the wrong hide date.

 

Edit: Or the owner waited a month before they listed the cache.

Edited September 13, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+SwineFlew]

There is a cache that the owner give the ok to replace the cache if its missing. The cache never been found of yet and its the oldest un found cache in the world.

 

The name of the cache is 4.5lb Walleye.

 

So guys, you think it will be ok to sign the log of the replace cache you set down? Dont tell me its "ok" because its "special"

 

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: 4.5lb Walleye is actually "tied" for oldest unfound cache, but the other one gets no pub whatsoever. It's in Alaska: GC1259 True, it's waypoint name is about 1,000 digits greater than 4.5lb Walleye. 6/23/01 was a Saturday. Were there really 1,000 caches a weekend being placed back then? Who knows. Anywho, there's a tie.

 

All we have to go on is a note posted in February, 2012, by a Southern Ontario cacher that the owner is "open" to a replacement, and claim of a find. We'll have to assume they have made email contact with the cache owner.

 

I said very early on that it has become commonplace to replace never found caches in remote locations and claim a find. I predict this will happen at 4.5lb Walleye. Ironically enough, in a rare case in such instances, the cache that is tied with it, GC1259, there is a throwdown in place, but the throwdowner has not claimed a find.

Thank you for finding that cache for me. I thought 4.5lb Walleye was oldest unfound cache in the world.

 

Is the cache still there? Hope its in a place where the wind doesnt blow it away or an animal dig it out.

 

Now I am going to flip the coin around a bit, what if the CO never place a cache there and its a liar cache?