Jump to content

Cache placement


quest2011
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

This question deals with a particular cache that can be found at http://coord.info/GCRDBD . "the Land down under." I have had some discussion about this with another cacher on the cache page.

 

CO appears to be inactive, or at least has not logged in under his/her name, for over 2 years. There is one recorded DNF after 2 finds. I failed to record my DNF after that one. One cacher says he tried to contact the CO but no response and he also says that he visited GZ and the cache is missing. He has replaced the "missing" cache. The closest rule I can find for this situation is 3.3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache.

 

What is the proper way of handling something like this?

Edited by Keystone
fixed link
Link to comment

This question deals with a particular cache that can be found at http://coord.info/GCRDBD. "the Land down under." I have had some discussion about this with another cacher on the cache page.

 

CO appears to be inactive, or at least has not logged in under his/her name, for over 2 years. There is one recorded DNF after 2 finds. I failed to record my DNF after that one. One cacher says he tried to contact the CO but no response and he also says that he visited GZ and the cache is missing. He has replaced the "missing" cache. The closest rule I can find for this situation is 3.3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache.

 

What is the proper way of handling something like this?

 

The issue, believe it or not, is not whether or not this guy should claim a find, but rather should he replace a cache for a long gone owner. The answer is no way. :P There are just about 2 million active caches world-wide now. Do we need someone to come along and be a good samaritan to take care of ordinary, 7 year old abandoned caches? No, again.

 

And if dude is such a humanitarian, why didn't he place another ammo box? The cache page still says the cache is an ammo box. The cache is no longer an ammo box. :D

 

The guy seems quite sincere. He thinks he's doing a service to the Geocaching community. Everyone who does this thinks they're doing a service to the Geocaching community. They're just misguided, that's all. B)

Link to comment

Interesting this cacher feels the need to put a "throw-down" there. I wonder if they always want to maintain it?

One without the other is nothing more than trash. Not really in the best interest of geocaching as a geo-friendly activity, eh?

 

Regarding the adoption issue... you need the CO to be a part of the process. If the CO is no longer active and/or otherwise unresponsive, you need to follow with the DNF, later a NA route. The procedure works, it has worked well for a long time.

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to comment

If you're reasonably sure the cache is missing, then post a Needs Maintenance log as well as your DNF log. If the owner fails to respond, then (as MJS noted) a Needs Archive log (or an email to the reviewer) might be warranted. Placing a "throwdown" container without the owner's permission is not the proper way to handle this situation.

 

I'm not sure why the person who hid the new container felt: "Rather than archiving, it's easier and more fun for everyone if a container is donated to the cache. There is now a container at GZ and this old cache can actually be found."

 

If the old cache is archived and a new listing is published with an active owner, then there still is a container at GZ that can actually be found. As well, owner tasks (such as clearing NM logs) can be performed.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

A throw down cache is not the Proper way to do it - However!

It is a very simple way to do it and continues the game right now!

This is often done by someone who lives close to the cache or is often close to it and doesn't mind.

While not a perfect solution you will find logs of enjoyment after the replacement with the replacer watching the cache.

Game On! No work for the reveiwer, minimal for the replacer, great for finders. Replaced caches are usually one of value.

I would rather see it done properly but would never say " Don't ever do a Throw down ". It is an act of kindness and I for one

applaud it as a good thing for now! If someone wants that location the reviewer is right there to help and would be helpful.

I would never kill a cache because of improper procedure. I think it would be proper for the reveiwer to have the ability to allow adoption of an abandon cache just to preserve the history of it. That way if the original CO wants it back it could be done quite easily.

Keep a good cache going and let it live even if ya don't agree with how it happened. The solution is NOT that Bad!

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

While not a perfect solution you will find logs of enjoyment after the replacement with the replacer watching the cache.

You also might find logs of confusion as future caches search for an ammo can without realizing it has been replaced by a film cannister.

 

Game On! No work for the reveiwer, minimal for the replacer, great for finders.

The game also continues if the cache is archived; there are lots of caches out there. And replacing an archived cache with a new cache involves only a little work for the reviewer and is great for finders. It involves more work for the new owner, but that's good. Someone should be responsible for maintaining the cache, reviewing the logs, and updating the listing page as situations warrant.

 

Replaced caches are usually one of value.

That hasn't been my experience.

Link to comment

I wouldn't call what he did a "throw-down". A "throw-down" to me is a film canister or other cheap container that is tossed down after a quick search. It looks to me like the cacher in question very carefully combed the area to make sure the cache was gone, then replaced it with decent sized container (not a film canister).

 

I've replaced caches before for inactive owners. Can't think of a time I did it when the cache was missing, though. If the cache is missing, I'd post a Needs Archive. Usually if I replace a cache it's one where the cache has been gross forever, but the cache has some merit in some way, either by it's history of something else.

 

I have to say I think you're getting too excited over this cache and too caught up in the 'rules' of the game. It's not good for your blood pressure or enjoyment of the game. Best to just let it go and move on to the next one...

Link to comment

Replacing the cache doesn't keep anyone from getting the cache back to proper procedure if they want to take the ball and run with it. It keeps the game going for a cache that SOMEONE thinks is worth it! Everyone is business as usually not perfect. Finders find, loggers log -stories are told, life is good - not perfect. The cache keeps going for years. Abandon caches live long after the abandonment takes place and all those folks had the intended fun. Whooppie! I'm excited about it! Thank you for caring.

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

I wouldn't call what he did a "throw-down". A "throw-down" to me is a film canister or other cheap container that is tossed down after a quick search. It looks to me like the cacher in question very carefully combed the area to make sure the cache was gone, then replaced it with decent sized container (not a film canister).

 

I've replaced caches before for inactive owners. Can't think of a time I did it when the cache was missing, though. If the cache is missing, I'd post a Needs Archive. Usually if I replace a cache it's one where the cache has been gross forever, but the cache has some merit in some way, either by it's history of something else.

 

I have to say I think you're getting too excited over this cache and too caught up in the 'rules' of the game. It's not good for your blood pressure or enjoyment of the game. Best to just let it go and move on to the next one...

There is a similar geocache in my area. I wanted the listing archived because I wanted to maintain a listing at the location of the ownerless missing geocache, but the locals complained to TPTB and the listing remains.

I replaced the geocache and listed it on another site. Problem solved. :laughing:

Link to comment

I wouldn't call what he did a "throw-down". A "throw-down" to me is a film canister or other cheap container that is tossed down after a quick search. It looks to me like the cacher in question very carefully combed the area to make sure the cache was gone, then replaced it with decent sized container (not a film canister).

 

I've replaced caches before for inactive owners. Can't think of a time I did it when the cache was missing, though. If the cache is missing, I'd post a Needs Archive. Usually if I replace a cache it's one where the cache has been gross forever, but the cache has some merit in some way, either by it's history of something else.

 

I have to say I think you're getting too excited over this cache and too caught up in the 'rules' of the game. It's not good for your blood pressure or enjoyment of the game. Best to just let it go and move on to the next one...

 

True it's not a film canister, but it's not an ammo box either, and the cache page still says the cache is an ammo box.

 

Good point, although most would agree the good samaritan Geocachers is in the wrong here, and I believe even most, if not all North American reviewers would archive this cache if an SBA was posted here, The OP of this thread is getting too worked up, and caught up in the "rules" of the game. At least publicly, I'd never post stuff like that on a cache page. Nor would I send emails with that content if I had never met the "throwdowner" in person.

 

P.S. I'd better clarify, no reviewer would archive this cache right now, but I'll bet most would in 30 days after posting a "warning" for the original owner.

Link to comment

I wouldn't call what he did a "throw-down". A "throw-down" to me is a film canister or other cheap container that is tossed down after a quick search. It looks to me like the cacher in question very carefully combed the area to make sure the cache was gone, then replaced it with decent sized container (not a film canister).

 

I've replaced caches before for inactive owners. Can't think of a time I did it when the cache was missing, though. If the cache is missing, I'd post a Needs Archive. Usually if I replace a cache it's one where the cache has been gross forever, but the cache has some merit in some way, either by it's history of something else.

 

I have to say I think you're getting too excited over this cache and too caught up in the 'rules' of the game. It's not good for your blood pressure or enjoyment of the game. Best to just let it go and move on to the next one...

 

True it's not a film canister, but it's not an ammo box either, and the cache page still says the cache is an ammo box.

 

Good point, although most would agree the good samaritan Geocachers is in the wrong here, and I believe even most, if not all North American reviewers would archive this cache if an SBA was posted here, The OP of this thread is getting too worked up, and caught up in the "rules" of the game. At least publicly, I'd never post stuff like that on a cache page. Nor would I send emails with that content if I had never met the "throwdowner" in person.

 

P.S. I'd better clarify, no reviewer would archive this cache right now, but I'll bet most would in 30 days after posting a "warning" for the original owner.

 

You're right. The fact that the cache page is not inaccurate is a problem. And I would never post stuff like on the cache page either. This would be one of the times do disagree, but keep quiet and move on. There's more to lose than to gain from posting stuff like that.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

Replacing the cache doesn't keep anyone from getting the cache back to proper procedure if they want to take the ball and run with it.

That's the thing. Without an active owner, this cache can never "get back to proper procedure". No matter how much a "good samaritan" wants to maintain a cache, they can never make any changes to the cache listing. The cache in question is a perfect example. The cache listing says it's an ammo can, but it isn't anymore. Also, while it isn't a problem at this time, if someone logs a Needs Maintenance in the future, that attribute will forever be present and can't be cleared. When a cache no longer has the correct ratings, hint, description, coordinates, etc., it becomes far less fun. Then there's bogus logs that need to be deleted, missing trackables... Basically, good samaritans for caches owned by an inactive cache owner are powerless.

 

And the samaritan's comment about "this old cache can actually be found"? Sorry, it's age really isn't notable. Just within 50 miles of that cache, there are 600 active caches that are older.

While they may not want to admit it, or have convinced themselves otherwise, they replaced it so they could log a find. I think they had invested so much time looking for the missing container, they felt they deserved a smiley for their effort and came up with ways to justify making that happen, whether it was conscious or not. It looks like a throwdown to me.

 

I may be completely wrong, but that's how it appears to me.

Link to comment

Replacing the cache doesn't keep anyone from getting the cache back to proper procedure if they want to take the ball and run with it.

That's the thing. Without an active owner, this cache can never "get back to proper procedure". No matter how much a "good samaritan" wants to maintain a cache, they can never make any changes to the cache listing. The cache in question is a perfect example. The cache listing says it's an ammo can, but it isn't anymore. Also, while it isn't a problem at this time, if someone logs a Needs Maintenance in the future, that attribute will forever be present and can't be cleared. When a cache no longer has the correct ratings, hint, description, coordinates, etc., it becomes far less fun. Then there's bogus logs that need to be deleted, missing trackables... Basically, good samaritans for caches owned by an inactive cache owner are powerless.

 

And the samaritan's comment about "this old cache can actually be found"? Sorry, it's age really isn't notable. Just within 50 miles of that cache, there are 600 active caches that are older.

While they may not want to admit it, or have convinced themselves otherwise, they replaced it so they could log a find. I think they had invested so much time looking for the missing container, they felt they deserved a smiley for their effort and came up with ways to justify making that happen, whether it was conscious or not. It looks like a throwdown to me.

 

I may be completely wrong, but that's how it appears to me.

 

So that is why the reviewer could be involved in allowing the adoption rather than the cache owner only. If the approver is convinced it is a good cache people enjoy then he could be the one to allow the adoption. Much better to keep the cache going than to worry about the listing or the same container. The approver can remove the Need maintenance indicator quite easily if needed. A new cache just starts it all over again and you lose the logs and stories that were fun to read - I say keep it out there. It is a history of that spot being a cache since whenever. Someone needs to take it over and the replacement cache is not the right solution but alot better than deleting it and no one taking it over. Let it live if ya can. It buys time to find a new owner but there needs to be a way to adopt an abandon cache rather than delete it. No need for the logs to start over. Almost all of what is needed is there and mostly the listing will be correct rather needing to be changed. I agree that if there is huge differences deletion is needed. Mostly it will all be the same. Finding a lock-n-lock rather than an ammo is not a complete killer. As I see if the co-ords,parking and hint and description, attributes, are all the same as would be in MOST cases, replacement is a way to keep a good cache going for now.

Link to comment
So that is why the reviewer could be involved in allowing the adoption rather than the cache owner only.
Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers don't own the cache. They don't have the right to adopt it out to a third party without the owner's consent.

 

Someone needs to take it over and the replacement cache is not the right solution but alot better than deleting it and no one taking it over.
Archiving a cache listing is not deleting it. The old logs are still there. If a new owner lists a replacement or redux cache, then they can link to the original listing and all the old logs are still there for people to view.
Link to comment

So Groundspeak can simply say noone owns an abandon cache and it is up for grabs. Point is - it is a good cache and after replacement , people keep finding it and enjoying it. That is what it is all about - not so much a hole in the rules shuts a good caches down when someone else simply wants to replace the container and let the cache continue. If folks are enjoying their finds - the cache is serving its purpose even if the CO is not doing his part right! Maybe what I am feeling here is that the cache itself is more important than the quality of the CO's participation. The cache is still on the radar and the fun continues and the replacer has done a good thing for now.

I certainly agree if the cache is causing major problems that are drawing complaints in the logs and disturbing the quality of the hunt -then shut her down. If the logs show business as usually and everyone is having a ball,it is a great contribution.. I would also still like to see that this cache has been there since 2001 and here are the logs and stories and what has happened at this cache location since then. Pretty neat it is all together and on the radar!

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

Groundspeak does not want to get involved with cache ownership...it's only a listing service. ;)

 

There have been enough cases where an 'absent' cache owner 'returned to the scene' only find their property had been 'given away' without their consent.

 

Groundspeak has no say in what becomes of the container, no matter what happens with the listing on their site.

Link to comment

So here's a novel idea that won't be popular with some but how abut, there's a cache there with a log. Log it and move on. Frankly I'd be glad there's a cache there to log rather than having wasted my time but how more a waste of time to get all caught up in some esoteric witch hunt. Honestly, just enjoy the game and quit all the whining.

Link to comment

So here's a novel idea that won't be popular with some but how abut, there's a cache there with a log. Log it and move on. Frankly I'd be glad there's a cache there to log rather than having wasted my time but how more a waste of time to get all caught up in some esoteric witch hunt. Honestly, just enjoy the game and quit all the whining.

 

Amen brother.

A replacement cache with new log could give years of enjoyment to future finders.

Link to comment

I wouldn't call what he did a "throw-down". A "throw-down" to me is a film canister or other cheap container that is tossed down after a quick search. It looks to me like the cacher in question very carefully combed the area to make sure the cache was gone, then replaced it with decent sized container (not a film canister).

 

I think a throw-down is a replacement of any kind that is not placed with the CO's permission.

 

We had a terrific and innovative multi in our area that was abandoned by the CO. Over time, multiple well-meaning 'good samaritans' had left replacements just to keep it going. Including myself. So the cache migrated locations a little, as well as covering every size from a micro bison to ammo can and every size in between, depending on what the 'helper' had on hand at the time. I later removed my 'helpful' throw-down when one of the previous throw-downs was found , so there were now two containers there. I will not do that again. If the CO is unresponsive and there's a long list of DNF's, it's time for someone to post a NA and let the reviewers decide if it should continue on life support or get archived.

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...