replace owners missing cache

[+ItTakesAThief]

Can I replace someone else's missing cache.....There has been no responses from owners as to replacing, can i replace it myself?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Can I replace someone else's missing cache.....There has been no responses from owners as to replacing, can i replace it myself?

You really shouldn't. This practice is known as a "throw-down" and is pretty much frowned upon.

If a CO cannot take care of his/her caches, they should be allowed to die... making way for somebody what can and will take care of their caches.

 

Besides... if you haven't actually found the cache, how can you realistically say it is missing? You don't know where it is, you haven't found it, so...

 

Scenario: you can't find it, so you assume (yep, THAT word) it is missing. You drop a throw-down. Now there may be two caches out there.

The next person can't find yours or the other, so they drop a throw-down, now there may be three.

 

See where this is going? And all the while, there is STILL the matter of an unresponsive CO.

 

File a DNF log and move on. Enough DNF logs will lead to a Needs Archived log, and then the scene is set for the matter to be resolved.

[Pup Patrol]

Can I replace someone else's missing cache.....There has been no responses from owners as to replacing, can i replace it myself?

 

No.

 

Post a "DNF" if you've looked for it and couldn't find it. You can't assume that it'd missing just because you didn't find it.

 

It's the cache owner's responsiblity to maintain his/her cache and to check on it periodically.

 

Don't be throwing down throw-downs, please. That's what you would be doing.

 

 

B.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[Pup Patrol]

If a CO cannot take care of his/her caches, they should be allowed to die... making way for somebody what can and will take care of their caches.

 

Harsh!

 

 

 

B.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If a CO cannot take care of his/her caches, they should be allowed to die... making way for somebody what can and will take care of their caches.

 

Harsh!

 

 

 

B.

But true... speaking of the cache, not the owner dying.

 

Edit to add:

Edited July 26, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[Pup Patrol]

If a CO cannot take care of his/her caches, they should be allowed to die... making way for somebody what can and will take care of their caches.

 

Harsh!

 

 

 

B.

But true... speaking of the cache, not the owner dying.

 

Edit to add:

 

Whew, had me worried. Capital punishment for bad cache owners...yikes!

 

 

 

B.

[+ItTakesAThief]

If a CO cannot take care of his/her caches, they should be allowed to die... making way for somebody what can and will take care of their caches.

 

Harsh!

 

 

 

B.

But true... speaking of the cache, not the owner dying.

 

Edit to add:

 

Whew, had me worried. Capital punishment for bad cache owners...yikes!

 

 

 

B.

 

Good to know, thanks for the info.....

[+SirDonB]

I am in this situation with 2 caches that I had already found. One I would like to see stay alive and offered to "adopt" it, and the other is on the property where I work, so I replaced it and sent the CO a note. I got a quick response from the CO of the one I replaced for them saying thank you for replacing it for them and helping out.

 

According to this thread, I should have just let the DNF's pile up and let the cache die?? I guess I was wrong for helping out a fellow cacher?

[+Walts Hunting]

In chemical dependency therapy people that do what you did are referred to as "enablers." You make it easy for poor CO's to not have to live up to their responsibilities. Why not make each individual stand up and take responsibility for his behavior.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I am in this situation with 2 caches that I had already found. One I would like to see stay alive and offered to "adopt" it, and the other is on the property where I work, so I replaced it and sent the CO a note. I got a quick response from the CO of the one I replaced for them saying thank you for replacing it for them and helping out.

 

According to this thread, I should have just let the DNF's pile up and let the cache die?? I guess I was wrong for helping out a fellow cacher?

Lessee here... you want to adopt one, but you "helped" the other one. Dunno quite what the point of that is... But, to keep a cache alive and so-to-speak functioning for an owner that doesn't respond (not quite what you described), then the addressed posting is fully applicable.

 

Just for grins... let us say the CO quit and just left his cache out there to rot (it happens all the time), moved away or (excuse me here) died of a massive heart attack three years prior. What then? Keep the cache alive? For what reason? Nobody (probably) has access to the account, nobody is going to respond to the email alerts, nobody can remove the Maintenance Required icons... so, what should we really do? The answer is quite simple. Let the system work. Multiple NM logs will eventually result in a NA log. Once the NA is filed, then the matter drops into the hands of a Reviewer... who "attempts" contact with the CO. If no response by the CO within a specified period of time, the cache goes under.

If the now archived cache was in a prime location, you can bet somebody will put a new one there and (hopefully) care enough about it to care for it (as well as you, I and others) to enjoy for a long time yet to come.

 

WH is so very correct. That type of assistance only "enables" or promotes lazy cache owners.

Minor and temporary repairs are a good thing to do, but to replace the cache in its entirety isn't.

 

One caveat, if I may... upon request of a CO, I would replace one but (s)he would have to at least provide me with a reason that they cannot, and they would have to understand that it would be a one-time opportunity.

 

To willy-nilly replace caches though or fully maintain them, is a bad concept... all the way around. A cache needs an owner, a responsible owner. If somebody wants to place caches out and about, they have to assume that responsibility, for the sake of the game-activity-recreation-sport (whatever you desire to call it). To do otherwise is to administer another black-eye to geocaching as we know it.

 

[/steps off soap-box]

Edited July 26, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+SirDonB]

Lessee here... you want to adopt one, but you "helped" the other one. Dunno quite what the point of that is... But, to keep a cache alive and so-to-speak functioning for an owner that doesn't respond (not quite what you described), then the addressed posting is fully applicable.

 

Just for grins... let us say the CO quit and just left his cache out there to rot (it happens all the time), moved away or (excuse me here) died of a massive heart attack three years prior. What then? Keep the cache alive? For what reason? Nobody (probably) has access to the account, nobody is going to respond to the email alerts, nobody can remove the Maintenance Required icons... so, what should we really do? The answer is quite simple. Let the system work. Multiple NM logs will eventually result in a NA log. Once the NA is filed, then the matter drops into the hands of a Reviewer... who "attempts" contact with the CO. If no response by the CO within a specified period of time, the cache goes under.

If the now archived cache was in a prime location, you can bet somebody will put a new one there and (hopefully) care enough about it to care for it (as well as you, I and others) to enjoy for a long time yet to come.

 

WH is so very correct. That type of assistance only "enables" or promotes lazy cache owners.

Minor and temporary repairs are a good thing to do, but to replace the cache in its entirety isn't.

 

One caveat, if I may... upon request of a CO, I would replace one but (s)he would have to at least provide me with a reason that they cannot, and they would have to understand that it would be a one-time opportunity.

 

To willy-nilly replace caches though or fully maintain them, is a bad concept... all the way around. A cache needs an owner, a responsible owner. If somebody wants to place caches out and about, they have to assume that responsibility, for the sake of the game-activity-recreation-sport (whatever you desire to call it). To do otherwise is to administer another black-eye to geocaching as we know it.

 

[/steps off soap-box]

 

[/hands you your soap-box]

Dont get me wrong... the replacement of the cache in question is indeed, like you, a one time thing... will I maintenance for the CO, no because, as you put it, it is not the responsibility of the finder, seeker, cacher, or what ever you want to call yourself. This particular CO only has 3 hides... my aiding would have been different if they had say 20 or more. In that case, I would not have helped because it is my belief that you should only hide as many caches as you are able to reasonable maintain.

 

The cache I want to adopt, based off the CO profile page, I am seeing indications that he is no longer in the area to maintain the cache, so wanting to help the Geocaching sport, I want to take it over and keep it going. The one I helped is on the property I work at and the CO is normally good about maintenance, this one had gone longer than I was use to seeing and with the recent batch of DNFs I decided to check on it since I had already found it and knew where it should be. I also waited about a week or so before I replaced it to see if the CO was gonna get to it. The location of the cache I replaced is not what I would consider to a prime spot, but it is decent and, agian, it happens to be on the property that I work on. The cache has turned up missing a few times and the CO did promptly replace it in the past, so I dont consider them to be a neglectful owner. If they were a neglectful owner and had a traceable history of being neglectful, I would not have helped.

 

So it is of my opinion that some people fall on hard times and for one reason or another cant get to the cache in a reasonable time to perform maintenance, so if you have found it needing help, contacted the CO, and then gave assistance, it should be a positive thing and shows you care enough for your hobby. On the flip side to that, if the CO is one of those ones that go out place a hundred caches, never checks up on them, never responds to communications, and is just a grade A dooshbag, then yes let it fall out of the loop, opening the spot for someone who cares more.

 

I am sorry if I am a nice guy and cant just turn my nose up at a cache in need. What goes around comes around, and one day I may not be able to provide maintenance to a cache I may place and would not shun someone for just randomly helping then telling me they did so. In addition due to my work scheduled, I am not able to attend most get together events that pop up around me, so it is hard for me to make friends with other cachers. I helped in this instance in the hopes to spark a friendship.

 

I am gonna do what I feel is the right thing to do, and that starts by researching the CO and sending them an email about the cache. Yes I will take the time to look at all their caches and look at the logs to see if they are a responsible owner or not. If it is a full log and I have some paper to add to the log with, I will just do it and let the owner know the log was full, I added a page to get them through till they can get it replaced. I see nothing wrong with helping another cacher once in a while. I have no plans on making it a regular thing either, but if I can help by replacing a log, or a small container on occasion then I will. You see, I look at the bigger picture, responsible COs sometimes need a little extra help, and that's OK in my book. However if you keep aiding them on a regular basis then they become an irresponsible owner.

 

So if this was wrong in your eyes, so be it, crucify me for being a nice person, you won't be the first nor the last. I am a dying breed, a human who cares about others and those that share his hobby. Otherwise, I will continue on as normal and plan for my first cache hide.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Bandit1979

[+Walts Hunting]

Sometimes caring about others involves making them responsible instead babying.

[+TriciaG]

It sounds to me like you had good reasons for replacing this cache. It wasn't like the owner was AWOL for a long period, or otherwise neglectful of his caches.

 

I think ANY broad-brush rule (such as "NEVER help a CO by replacing their cache; it enables them") is going to be wrong once in a while. In general, I agree with it; but there will always be exceptions. You found one of what I consider to be a valid exception.

[+ItTakesAThief]

Can I replace someone else's missing cache.....There has been no responses from owners as to replacing, can i replace it myself?

 

No.

 

Post a "DNF" if you've looked for it and couldn't find it. You can't assume that it'd missing just because you didn't find it.

 

It's the cache owner's responsiblity to maintain his/her cache and to check on it periodically.

 

Don't be throwing down throw-downs, please. That's what you would be doing.

 

B.

 

Thanks for all the responses, pretty much already knew the answer.....your right they should take responsibility for their own caches......

Edited August 1, 2013 by Keystone
fixed quote tags

[+SirDonB]

It sounds to me like you had good reasons for replacing this cache. It wasn't like the owner was AWOL for a long period, or otherwise neglectful of his caches.

 

I think ANY broad-brush rule (such as "NEVER help a CO by replacing their cache; it enables them") is going to be wrong once in a while. In general, I agree with it; but there will always be exceptions. You found one of what I consider to be a valid exception.

 

I would agree with not replacing a missing cache if it was one you have not found yet just for the sake of getting the find and smiley. I would agree that, that is wrong and should not be done at all. However if you happen to know that the cache owner is responsible and want to give a lil help once in a while, I see nothing wrong with that and was the point I was trying to make with my original post.

 

So from the stand point that as a rigid rule that should never ever be broken, "Never replace a cache other than your own," I do not agree with it at all. One should not be shunned for helping and it should be understood that there will be exceptions and that if someone does help that they have good reason for helping.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

It is funny... kind of, anyway...

 

I think ANY broad-brush rule (such as "NEVER help a CO by replacing their cache; it enables them")

"NEVER replace a cache other than your own,"

"NEVER" was never (pun intended) a part of any of the posts relating the fact that caches shouldn't be replaced. Just seems like somebody else thought that "NEVER" should be included -- in quotes, as if it had been posted -- even when it was not any part of a posting.

 

Goes to show that folks rarely read what is truly there, they just read what they "want" to read.

 

A (generated) search of this thread reveals that only three posts had used that word (to this point), none of those posts were made by the folks that stated a cache should not be replaced.

Sorry that soooo much extra was read into what was actually posted......

[+TriciaG]

My reading comprehension is fine; thanks for the concern.

 

I wasn't quoting anyone or any specific post. I was generalizing an attitude I've read on here (that IS present and apparent). How, instead of quotes, am I to write an attitude I'm referencing?

 

EDIT: Nah, don't answer that. Do you have an issue with the gist of my post - that broad-brush rules are not correct 100% of the time?

Edited July 31, 2013 by TriciaG

[+OneOldDog]

Holy Cow! I guess I'm a simple person......... I read the whole thing am amazed. Why such a issue? I add a log when needed and don't think twice about it!

[+briansnat]

I am in this situation with 2 caches that I had already found. One I would like to see stay alive and offered to "adopt" it, and the other is on the property where I work, so I replaced it and sent the CO a note. I got a quick response from the CO of the one I replaced for them saying thank you for replacing it for them and helping out.

 

According to this thread, I should have just let the DNF's pile up and let the cache die?? I guess I was wrong for helping out a fellow cacher?

 

Not necessarily wrong, but I think you did it backwards. I would have sent a note to the CO offering to replace it if it was OK with him and waited for his approval before doing so.

[+Brooklyn51]

 

..snip.. I am gonna do what I feel is the right thing to do ..snip..

 

I think this pretty much sums it up pretty well. Hard to go wrong with that attitude, whether or not you feel it should be replaced or not is kind of a debatable point and would depend a lot on the circumstances and parties involved.

 

While we haven't replaced a cache we couldn't find (for the obvious reason someone already stated, just because we didn't find it doesn't mean it's really missing) but we have replaced the occasional container that was clearly in trouble; ie, hit by a lawnmower or some such accident, especially if it's in a cool location.

[+Brooklyn51]

In chemical dependency therapy people that do what you did are referred to as "enablers." You make it easy for poor CO's to not have to live up to their responsibilities. Why not make each individual stand up and take responsibility for his behavior.

 

This is a game and can hardly be compared to a chem dep program. Helping out a cache and by extension some "poor CO" now and then just makes it better for everyone else that follows.

[+SirDonB]

I am in this situation with 2 caches that I had already found. One I would like to see stay alive and offered to "adopt" it, and the other is on the property where I work, so I replaced it and sent the CO a note. I got a quick response from the CO of the one I replaced for them saying thank you for replacing it for them and helping out.

 

According to this thread, I should have just let the DNF's pile up and let the cache die?? I guess I was wrong for helping out a fellow cacher?

 

Not necessarily wrong, but I think you did it backwards. I would have sent a note to the CO offering to replace it if it was OK with him and waited for his approval before doing so.

 

Yes I can agree with you that I may have done it backwards after looking back on it, but I did what I thought was the right thing to do at the time. Next time I find an acceptation to the "rule" I will be sure to do it in the correct order. LOL... However, this was the first time I have done this, so I am still on the learning curve to proper etiquette whether some may say common sense says to contact the CO offering to replace first, then wait for a response.

[+SirDonB]

"NEVER" was never (pun intended) a part of any of the posts relating the fact that caches shouldn't be replaced. Just seems like somebody else thought that "NEVER" should be included -- in quotes, as if it had been posted -- even when it was not any part of a posting.

 

Goes to show that folks rarely read what is truly there, they just read what they "want" to read.

 

A (generated) search of this thread reveals that only three posts had used that word (to this point), none of those posts were made by the folks that stated a cache should not be replaced.

Sorry that soooo much extra was read into what was actually posted......

 

"Never" may not have been used in the original posts by some folks, however it was in the overtone of what was said by those same folks who said that you should not replace a cache for an owner. Now that said, the use of the word "never" in quotes (as I just did) could have been done for sarcasm, to further sharpen a point being made, or some other reason. That is lost when reading something with out the other posters voice to give proper tone and inflections to what was written so that you may understand better what they are saying and how it was intended to be conveyed. So you point that we read what we "want" to read is not completely accurate. We read what is there, then we respond to how we understand it as the narrative voice in our heads has read it to us.

 

My reading comprehension is fine; thanks for the concern.

 

I wasn't quoting anyone or any specific post. I was generalizing an attitude I've read on here (that IS present and apparent). How, instead of quotes, am I to write an attitude I'm referencing?

 

EDIT: Nah, don't answer that. Do you have an issue with the gist of my post - that broad-brush rules are not correct 100% of the time?

 

I agree with you, if we can not use quotes, how are we to reference an attitude that is present and apparent that we have understood from the context of the whole thread?