Did I do the right thing here?

[+tozainamboku]

What is happening is that strong personal opinions about throwdowns are getting in the way of having a reasonable discussion about when a cache needs to be archived. The fact that cache maintenace was performed by someone other than the cache owner and without the permission of the owner is not, in itself, a reason for archiving a cache - at least not yet.

 

If Groundspeak wanted, they could certainly indicate that community maintenace of an abandoned cache is not allowed (or at least that replacement of missing containers is not allowed). That would be a change from the policy that Bryan expressed at the time the policy on non-consensual adoptions was announced. Groundspeak is certainly entitled to make changes to the guidelines (even though fizzymagic may not like it).

 

As it stands now, reviewers have the descretion to allow a cache to continue with community maintenance, or to determine that a cache should be archived because there are issues that require an active owner. Under the current scheme, it seems reasonable for someone to use Needs Archive to bring an issue with an abandonded cache to the reviewer's attention. What this thread seems to be about is whether the fact that you personally don't like throwdowns or that someone logging a find on a throwdown gets your knickers in a twist, is reason to log an NA. I don't believe this is a good reason to log an NA. However throwdowns, photologs, unanswered Needs Maintenance logs, and multiple DNFs are reasons to suspect that the cache owner is not doing maintenance. It seems reasonable to log a NA in order to bring this to the attention of the reviewer who can then decided if community maintenance makes sense for this cache.

[+bflentje]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

[+narcissa]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

 

The cache remains the owner's property when the listing is archived.

[+qtbluemoon]

I'll be honest, I have had a few frustrating experiences with this CO's caches, and his unresponsiveness. As I mentioned before, I understand life changes, and for a time, he was completely away from the game. It was still frustrating, but I let it go. I figured that eventually, the process would weed out the unmaintained caches, including this one. The throwdown here exacerbated my frustration, by delaying the inevitable.

 

It's a good thing I'm not a reviewer, because as soon as I saw one DNF on any of this gentleman's caches, it would be gone. So I guess it is kinda personal. Which isn't good, because I don't even know the man.

 

I do see both sides, and I know the forums are a good place to always get both sides. So we can all agree to disagree.

 

In the future, I'll take all your posts into account, and probably do the same thing.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I don't know why you bothered. What's the big deal about the cache not being what it once was? Why do you care? I understand objecting to throwdowns, but I don't understand stepping in to try to eliminate a cache that people are obviously enjoying finding. For heaven's sake, you don't even know whether the original cache is still there!

 

+1.

[+bflentje]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

 

The cache remains the owner's property when the listing is archived.

 

I am quite sure you missed the point.

[+dprovan]

What difference does that make? It's not a matter of better cache, worse cache, same cache. The CO is gone.

And what difference does that make? Are you posting "needs archived" on all his caches in Oregon simple because he doesn't appear to be living there?

 

What is happening is that strong personal opinions about throwdowns are getting in the way of having a reasonable discussion about when a cache needs to be archived. The fact that cache maintenace was performed by someone other than the cache owner and without the permission of the owner is not, in itself, a reason for archiving a cache - at least not yet.

In this case, the owner has given implicit permission by not objecting to the throwdown.

 

I'll be honest, I have had a few frustrating experiences with this CO's caches, and his unresponsiveness. As I mentioned before, I understand life changes, and for a time, he was completely away from the game. It was still frustrating, but I let it go. I figured that eventually, the process would weed out the unmaintained caches, including this one. The throwdown here exacerbated my frustration, by delaying the inevitable.

 

It's a good thing I'm not a reviewer, because as soon as I saw one DNF on any of this gentleman's caches, it would be gone. So I guess it is kinda personal. Which isn't good, because I don't even know the man.

 

I do see both sides, and I know the forums are a good place to always get both sides. So we can all agree to disagree.

 

In the future, I'll take all your posts into account, and probably do the same thing.

It's kinda frustrating that even while you recognize you were reacting emotionally, you'd still do the same thing.

 

Anyway, my suggestion is that in the future, you go ahead and find the cache first, and then start complaining. In this case, in particular, the throwdown itself failed immediately, so you could have posted an NM and followed up with a later NA after the CO failed to maintain the throwdown any more than he maintained the original. That way your focus is on the cache. When you focus on the owner's maintenance record or the person dropping the throwdown thwarting your plans, you motives become personal and the condition of the cache -- what you're calling to be archived -- becomes immaterial to your arguments.

Edited May 27, 2014 by dprovan

[+narcissa]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

 

The cache remains the owner's property when the listing is archived.

 

I am quite sure you missed the point.

 

It is not appropriate for other cachers to remove a cache just because it is no longer an active listing on Geocaching.com. It still belongs to the cache owner.

[+JPreto]

If Groundspeak wanted, they could certainly indicate that community maintenace of an abandoned cache is not allowed (or at least that replacement of missing containers is not allowed).

 

So, now Throwdowns are maintenance proceadures not dissaproved by GS...

 

What this thread seems to be about is whether the fact that you personally don't like throwdowns or that someone logging a find on a throwdown gets your knickers in a twist, is reason to log an NA.

 

Just being a Cache Cop, any problem with that? I really apreciate his/her efforts to play by the rules and guidelines. If more like him would play the game for sure there would be much less Throwdowns on abandoned caches and people would play the game more honestly... right?

[+Manville Possum]

 

Just being a Cache Cop, any problem with that? I really apreciate his/her efforts to play by the rules and guidelines. If more like him would play the game for sure there would be much less Throwdowns on abandoned caches and people would play the game more honestly... right?

 

No problem at all, and throwdowns are no problem either. Both are just ways of playing a game called geocaching.

[+qtbluemoon]

In this case, the owner has given implicit permission by not objecting to the throwdown.

In no way is not responding giving any kind of permission, implicit or otherwise. Not responding, in this case, is abandonment. Abandoned caches that turn up missing should be archived. If this cache isn't missing, of course it should stay active. It shouldn't be helped along by someone who needs another "Found It" log.

 

Anyway, my suggestion is that in the future, you go ahead and find the cache first, and then start complaining. In this case, in particular, the throwdown itself failed immediately, so you could have posted an NM and followed up with a later NA after the CO failed to maintain the throwdown any more than he maintained the original. That way your focus is on the cache. When you focus on the owner's maintenance record or the person dropping the throwdown thwarting your plans, you motives become personal and the condition of the cache -- what you're calling to be archived -- becomes immaterial to your arguments.

 

If I'd found the cache, this wouldn't be an issue. The point is, no one knows if the original cache is there or not. And the owner can't be bothered to respond.

 

I emailed the reviewer and asked if I'd overstepped. He said no. Nuff said.

[+JPreto]

What difference does that make? It's not a matter of better cache, worse cache, same cache. The CO is gone.

And what difference does that make? Are you posting "needs archived" on all his caches in Oregon simple because he doesn't appear to be living there?

 

I just can´t get one thing, if the CO is gone and the cache is also probably gone is there any other coherent proceadure other than archiving the cache?

 

I really can´t see it any other way without being a Throwdown, with all the letters! Right?

Edited May 27, 2014 by JPreto

[+JPreto]

 

Just being a Cache Cop, any problem with that? I really apreciate his/her efforts to play by the rules and guidelines. If more like him would play the game for sure there would be much less Throwdowns on abandoned caches and people would play the game more honestly... right?

 

No problem at all, and throwdowns are no problem either. Both are just ways of playing a game called geocaching.

 

Sorry to disagree with you here... Throwdowns are not a way of playing the game, at leat by GS rules.

[+J Grouchy]

So as far as the OP knows, the throwdown could be identical to the original hide.

What difference does that make? It's not a matter of better cache, worse cache, same cache. The CO is gone. As I stated in the NA log, if the original cache is still there, then by all means, leave it active. I want to find his cache, I don't want to find a throw down.

 

I was trying to get confirmation that it was still there, because who wants to keep going back to a place over and over if it's missing? I knew I wouldn't get anywhere with the CO by posting a Note, or even an NM. NA is all that was left. And as expected, he's out of commission as far as his Oregon caches go.

 

I'd be willing to adopt some of his caches, even this one, but he doesn't respond. Maybe the reviewer will have better luck.

 

I do appreciate everyone's opinion, though, other than the trolling comment. I guess I somewhat understand it, though, I'm a crotchety old man, too.

 

I'm with ya, man.

[+tozainamboku]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

 

The cache remains the owner's property when the listing is archived.

 

I am quite sure you missed the point.

 

It is not appropriate for other cachers to remove a cache just because it is no longer an active listing on Geocaching.com. It still belongs to the cache owner.

How can it belong to the owner if the throwdown was left by someone else without the owners permission?

 

When the group who left a throwdown on my cache, posted a Need Maintenance that said "There is no cache here to be found" after I rejected the throwdown, I took them at their word. After I archived the cache, they posted another note saying "If the next cacher going up that killer hill finds the camo'd altoid that I left there under the SPOR, as directed by the hint, I would be very grateful for you to grab it and turn it into an awesome cache somewhere". If it's still my property I supposed I should complain they're giving away my cammo'd altoid. (BTW the hint say rocks not SPOR, and the more I think about the more I think they just didn't find my cache, so maybe I need to make a trip and remove my original container )

[+dprovan]

In no way is not responding giving any kind of permission, implicit or otherwise.

The person that dropped the replacement said, "If CO does not want it replaced, let me know." The CO did not let him know. By definition, that's implicit permission whether you like it or not. It's true that I don't really know if the CO even saw the log, but at the same time, you don't know whether he saw the log, considered it carefully, and consciously didn't reply because he wanted it replaced.

 

If this cache isn't missing, of course it should stay active.

The cache is not missing. You just don't like how the current container got there.

 

It shouldn't be helped along by someone who needs another "Found It" log.

Yes, we both agree people that drop throwdowns are stupid. That's not the issue.

 

If I'd found the cache, this wouldn't be an issue.

You could find the cache right now, and it sounds like you'd be able to report that the log is moldy and that the cache needs maintenance.

[+tozainamboku]

What this thread seems to be about is whether the fact that you personally don't like throwdowns or that someone logging a find on a throwdown gets your knickers in a twist, is reason to log an NA.

 

Just being a Cache Cop, any problem with that? I really apreciate his/her efforts to play by the rules and guidelines. If more like him would play the game for sure there would be much less Throwdowns on abandoned caches and people would play the game more honestly... right?

That's the problem with cache cops. They're so certain of the way they play the game that they invent rules that don't exist. In spite of the fact that Groundspeak recognizes that throwdowns cause a problem for some cache owners (and perhaps some cache finders like the OP who don't want to find a throwdown - especially if the original cache might be there), there is no rule at this time forbidding throwdowns. On the other hand, cache maintenance is an issue covered in the guidelines and Groundspeak has indicated that while community maintenance may be OK for some caches, they have given reviewers discretion to archive a cache if the owner is absent.

[+qtbluemoon]

he saw the log, considered it carefully, and consciously didn't reply because he wanted it replaced.

That's literally the silliest thing I've ever read on here.

[+JPreto]

That's the problem with cache cops. They're so certain of the way they play the game that they invent rules that don't exist. In spite of the fact that Groundspeak recognizes that throwdowns cause a problem for some cache owners (and perhaps some cache finders like the OP who don't want to find a throwdown - especially if the original cache might be there), there is no rule at this time forbidding throwdowns. On the other hand, cache maintenance is an issue covered in the guidelines and Groundspeak has indicated that while community maintenance may be OK for some caches, they have given reviewers discretion to archive a cache if the owner is absent.

Ok, so you are saying that if a CO is absent from the game, thus he will not check if there is a Throwdown or not, or if the original cache is there or not, you still think that the cache/listing shouldn´t be archived?

 

The guidelines aren´t clear eneough for you, about this specific subject?

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed.

 

I´m going to repeat myself again, if the CO is absent/MIA/not responding it is clear that he will not check the cache nor he will remove the Throwdown and by that not fulfilling his CO responsabilities and if the cache/listing is having problems it is, for me, a clear case of DNF/NM/NA situation.

 

Come on... Am I the only one to read this? What rules are being made up?

[+narcissa]

What this thread seems to be about is whether the fact that you personally don't like throwdowns or that someone logging a find on a throwdown gets your knickers in a twist, is reason to log an NA.

 

Just being a Cache Cop, any problem with that? I really apreciate his/her efforts to play by the rules and guidelines. If more like him would play the game for sure there would be much less Throwdowns on abandoned caches and people would play the game more honestly... right?

That's the problem with cache cops. They're so certain of the way they play the game that they invent rules that don't exist. In spite of the fact that Groundspeak recognizes that throwdowns cause a problem for some cache owners (and perhaps some cache finders like the OP who don't want to find a throwdown - especially if the original cache might be there), there is no rule at this time forbidding throwdowns. On the other hand, cache maintenance is an issue covered in the guidelines and Groundspeak has indicated that while community maintenance may be OK for some caches, they have given reviewers discretion to archive a cache if the owner is absent.

 

There is no problem with "cache cops" because all a regular cacher can do is hit Needs Archived and explain the issue in the log. After that, the reviewer will assess and determine what comes next.

 

Shaming people for appropriate use of the website's tools is the actual problem here.

[+tozainamboku]

The guidelines aren´t clear eneough for you, about this specific subject?

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed.

I read the help center article in a different way. When faced with the issue of many cache owners complaining about throwdowns, TPTB added this section to indicate just what could be done about throwdowns. If TPTB literally meant that cache owners must check on throwdowns as soon as they are aware of them and remove the throwdown if the original cache is still there then we ought to get busy archiving lots of caches - including most power trails.

 

Instead I believe the phrase you quoted was meant to indicate that if the cache owner doesn't want throwdowns it's up to them to go out and remove the throwdown. The help center article goes on to indicate that if the cache owner does not remove the throwdown "there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container." The guidelines indicates that while the cache owner would have a reasonable claim to deny an online find to the geocacher who left the throwdown, if they fail to remove the throwdown they should allow finds on the throwdown by subsequent geocachers to remain.

 

If someone posts in the forum that they "hate throwdowns", there may be nothing I can say that will convince them that Grounspeak doesn't also hate throwdowns. I believe individual lackeys may hate throwdowns and if they are given the resposibility of writing up the help center article that they may let some personal opinion into the text. I try not to read to much into this. If a guideline is unenforceable, then it isn't much of a guideline. If Groundspeak were to try to enforce a maintenance requirement that owners must remove throwdowns you can be sure there would be a revolt.

[+JPreto]

If Groundspeak were to try to enforce a maintenance requirement that owners must remove throwdowns you can be sure there would be a revolt.

 

I thinks this deserves a new topic so I put my comments here.

[+Chrysalides]

I emailed the reviewer and asked if I'd overstepped. He said no. Nuff said.

If you'd started with that, we wouldn't have this whole drama here

 

You did what you felt was the right thing to do in a particular situation. That's good enough for me.

 

If you want to open up another can of worms, ask if it is OK to log a cache when you find a throwdown and know that it is a throwdown, then sit back with the

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't know why you bothered. What's the big deal about the cache not being what it once was? Why do you care? I understand objecting to throwdowns, but I don't understand stepping in to try to eliminate a cache that people are obviously enjoying finding. For heaven's sake, you don't even know whether the original cache is still there!

 

+1.

 

I think this point of view has some merit. Even being a staunch anti-throwdown advocate.

 

The next person after me threw down last month. The cache was, and still is, on my watchlist. That's how I know there was a throwdown. Am I going to post a needs archived? Nope, and the thought never crossed my mind.

[+tozainamboku]

If you want to open up another can of worms, ask if it is OK to log a cache when you find a throwdown and know that it is a throwdown, then sit back with the

I recall once finding two containers at cache site. Aha, a throwdown, I thought. Now which log should I sign. I signed both. When I went to log online I saw that the cache owner had recently done maintenance and couldn't find her cache - so she left a replacement. Now, I realize that caches migrate sometimes and a cache owner may have trouble finding his cache; perhaps the replacement was closer to what the owner originally had in mind for the hide. But in this case the two magnetic containers were only a few inches apart. After this experience it's mostly become irrelevant to me which cache I find.

 

I will often look for the original if I know there is a throwdown, if just to post that in my log. But I'll probably log a find on whatever I've found unless the CO has ask not to log the throwdown and it can be distinguished from the actual cache (which is often doable by examining the logsheet).

 

While throwdowns are generally a brand new cache left because someone didn't find anything, it still reminds me of the Ship of Theseus. Most people will say if the log is missing or is full, you can replace this with a new log sheet. Many will say if you find a container that is cracked or missing a cover, you can help with maintenance by replacing that. If some replaces the log and later someone else replaces a broken container (or visa versa), are you finding the original cache?

[+JPreto]

Most people will say if the log is missing or is full, you can replace this with a new log sheet. Many will say if you find a container that is cracked or missing a cover, you can help with maintenance by replacing that. If some replaces the log and later someone else replaces a broken container (or visa versa), are you finding the original cache?

Come on man, if you find the cache and replace it because it´s cracked, don´t you think is different than a Throwdown or for you it is all the same?

 

Actually when someone does any maintenance in another CO cache he should always tell it in the online register because, even tho the maintenance guy is trying to help, the CO might not like the changes. This, for me, are good geocaching practices.

[+qtbluemoon]

If you'd started with that, we wouldn't have this whole drama here

Yeah, I should have started by emailing him, but it was well into this discussion before I did.

 

The next person after me threw down last month. The cache was, and still is, on my watchlist. That's how I know there was a throwdown. Am I going to post a needs archived? Nope, and the thought never crossed my mind.

Good point, Mr.Yuck. After the fact, it probably wouldn't bother me, either.

 

When I went to log online I saw that the cache owner had recently done maintenance and couldn't find her cache - so she left a replacement.

This wouldn't bother me, either, since it is her cache. I guess my major problem, in this case, is the absentee ownership aspect.

[+JPreto]

It is completely unacceptable to harass another cacher for posting an honest Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log.

You should come to Brazil and explain this to some geocachers... or maybe it is just a problem of what is considered a "honest" or "dishonest" Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive...

The question of honesty is actually a core issue with the class of NA that was the topic of the original thread. When someone says, "The cache isn't there" or "The container's completely failed and the log is mush," then any dishonesty can be easily revealed by inspection, so there's very little reason to think anything nefarious is going on. When we accept objections that focus on something other than the physical cache -- "he doesn't maintain his caches", "I've had trouble with him not responding", "someone left a throwdown that wasn't explicitly approved", or "this cache is stopping someone else from planting a cache here" -- suddenly the NA has a wide latitude for making accusations that can never be confirmed, and we have to start worrying about whether something else is going on. That doesn't mean such NAs are automatically dishonest, it just means that they leave room for it.

 

I copied this quote from another topic because it is more related to this one rather than the other...

 

You like examples, so here is one for you all:

 

Praça Barão de Tiete

 

In this cache I posted my first ever NA, after my 4th visit to the cache and after sending an email to the CO saying I was going to request it to be archived because I think it is placed in a dangerous place, where some pretty strange homeless people live.

 

Sorry that some logs are in Portuguese but nothing a Google translate can´t solve, all my logs are in english tho.

 

Even with 4 different geocachers, reported the same issue "can´t look for the cache because I don´t feel safe" and after posting the NA, the cache is still active because both the CO and the reviewers feel that it is not the case to be archived. I made my part and GS felt that my NA log should be there so they undeleted it after an inmediate deletion by the CO.

 

This was one of the caches that raised more discutions between me and some fellow brazilian geocachers.

 

My NA is honest for me, but dishonest for them... but, above all, the reviewers or lackeys have the last call.

Edited May 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+bflentje]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

 

The cache remains the owner's property when the listing is archived.

 

I am quite sure you missed the point.

 

It is not appropriate for other cachers to remove a cache just because it is no longer an active listing on Geocaching.com. It still belongs to the cache owner.

 

Thanks for the lecture. But I think you still missed my point.

 

-- Happen to be visiting Thunder Bay in a couple of weeks.

[+narcissa]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

 

The cache remains the owner's property when the listing is archived.

 

I am quite sure you missed the point.

 

It is not appropriate for other cachers to remove a cache just because it is no longer an active listing on Geocaching.com. It still belongs to the cache owner.

 

Thanks for the lecture. But I think you still missed my point.

 

-- Happen to be visiting Thunder Bay in a couple of weeks.

 

Your point is that you feel the person who reports a neglected cache is responsible for removing the cache. Your point is problematic. Cachers in our area have been quite explicitly warned against this.

 

I don't understand the point of your Thunder Bay comment. Is it a secret code?

[+dprovan]

My NA is honest for me, but dishonest for them... but, above all, the reviewers or lackeys have the last call.

Since your NA reports a problem with the physical location of the cache, it meets my requirements for being focused on the cache itself. Anyone can go to GZ and confirm what you've reported. Even though the CO keeps reporting something else, others seem to be confirming your assessment. Now, as you say, it's up to the reviewer to decide whether what you're reporting is a reason to archive. Seems like it would be, but who knows? I'm sorry to hear you're getting hassles about it. All I can say is that, whatever the reviewer decides, be sure to accept the decision with grace and move on, satisfied you've done your part.

[+dprovan]

From that other thread:

 

Seriously? Just what is it you think I'm up to, dprovan?

I don't think you're up to anything, but someone else might become suspicious of your motives when you say, "No one will keep it up, and it's just taking up space," because that's what someone might say if they had plans for a cache in that area that this cache was blocking.

[+Chrysalides]

Most people will say if the log is missing or is full, you can replace this with a new log sheet. Many will say if you find a container that is cracked or missing a cover, you can help with maintenance by replacing that. If some replaces the log and later someone else replaces a broken container (or visa versa), are you finding the original cache?

Come on man, if you find the cache and replace it because it´s cracked, don´t you think is different than a Throwdown or for you it is all the same?

I don't think that's what toz is saying. He's just bringing up an interesting philosophical topic that we can sit down over beer and discuss for amusement.

 

Actually when someone does any maintenance in another CO cache he should always tell it in the online register because, even tho the maintenance guy is trying to help, the CO might not like the changes. This, for me, are good geocaching practices.

Agree. Or at least email the CO.

[+Chrysalides]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

(multiple levels deleted)

Your point is that you feel the person who reports a neglected cache is responsible for removing the cache. Your point is problematic.

I agree with narcissa (does that mean, by inference, that I agree with simpjkee?). Why should a person reporting an issue be the one responsible for clean-up? You might as well say that the reviewer who archived a cache be responsible for picking up the pieces.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Chrysalides

[+JPreto]

My NA is honest for me, but dishonest for them... but, above all, the reviewers or lackeys have the last call.

Since your NA reports a problem with the physical location of the cache, it meets my requirements for being focused on the cache itself. Anyone can go to GZ and confirm what you've reported. Even though the CO keeps reporting something else, others seem to be confirming your assessment. Now, as you say, it's up to the reviewer to decide whether what you're reporting is a reason to archive. Seems like it would be, but who knows? I'm sorry to hear you're getting hassles about it. All I can say is that, whatever the reviewer decides, be sure to accept the decision with grace and move on, satisfied you've done your part.

 

Exactly my point, and up until now both Reviewers and CO think it is OK (the NA post was made in Feb 16th 2014, more than 3 months ago) and so the cache is still active. I am just putting out my opinion, i am not a reviewer nor a lackey to act upon this cache. I feel I did my part... and will always respect the reviewers decisions, for me they are the referees of this game, even tho sometimes, I may not agree with some decisions.

 

A different case now: COPA 2014 Timão.

 

In this case a NA was not even needed. The first person that found the cache posted that the place was dangerous and the CO immediately disabled the cache saying the player was right and the cache would be put in a different place. After a while the CO changed the cache for more than 1km away, with reviewers approval. This for me is the way to do it!

[+bflentje]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

(multiple levels deleted)

Your point is that you feel the person who reports a neglected cache is responsible for removing the cache. Your point is problematic.

I agree with narcissa (does that mean, by inference, that I agree with simpjkee?). Why should a person reporting an issue be the one responsible for clean-up? You might as well say that the reviewer who archived a cache be responsible for picking up the pieces.

 

While I find most of the comments by you two comical at best, I agree with you both in principle. But the point your missing is this.. and keep in mind this is just my opinion and I don't care what you think of it:

 

The OP knowingly posted a NA on a cache where it has more or less been confirmed that the CO is vacant and that the container has been replaced with a drop. Therefore you can conclude, that in this special circumstance, if the cache gets archived, the OP should be prepared to pickup the geotrash knowing full well that the CO isn't going to be doing it. You can debate and play games all day about ownership and listings on other sites but this is a special case, and if you're not prepared to do your duty, just leave the darn NA button alone.

[+JPreto]

Why should a person reporting an issue be the one responsible for clean-up? You might as well say that the reviewer who archived a cache be responsible for picking up the pieces.

 

For me the reporting person is not responsible but the one who did the TD, it´s his/her cache!!! Neither the CO or the reviewer have nothing to do with it.

 

If I drink half of a can of coke and leave it on the floor it´s still my can of coke, right? Or the moment I place it on the floor it´s no man property. In some African countries it is actually like this (don´t want to offend the Africans but it is a fact in some less developed African countries), it is only yours if it´s in your hands but, we are not in Africa and the cache, even tho the listing belongs to the CO, the physical cache belongs to the person that did the TD... so it´s his/her responsibility!

 

Imagine a TD as a gift to the CO. If the CO doesn´t clearly accepts the TD, the property of the gift it is still of the one that tried to give the gift, not the CO.

Edited May 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+Chrysalides]

While I find most of the comments by you two comical at best, I agree with you both in principle. But the point your missing is this.. and keep in mind this is just my opinion and I don't care what you think of it:

 

The OP knowingly posted a NA on a cache where it has more or less been confirmed that the CO is vacant and that the container has been replaced with a drop. Therefore you can conclude, that in this special circumstance, if the cache gets archived, the OP should be prepared to pickup the geotrash knowing full well that the CO isn't going to be doing it. You can debate and play games all day about ownership and listings on other sites but this is a special case, and if you're not prepared to do your duty, just leave the darn NA button alone.

Comical? Ouch.

 

I disagree, and I don't care what you think of it either. If the OP sees a problem and reports it, it is not his "duty" or his responsibility to clean up the aftermath. They could do it if they want to, obviously. They should not be required to. As JPetro pointed out, if anyone other than the CO is responsible, it is the person leaving the TD.

[+narcissa]

I am not condoning a throwdown and not condoning the NA. But in the event this cache gets archived, the OP had better get out there and pickup the geo-trash since the CO appears absent.

(multiple levels deleted)

Your point is that you feel the person who reports a neglected cache is responsible for removing the cache. Your point is problematic.

I agree with narcissa (does that mean, by inference, that I agree with simpjkee?). Why should a person reporting an issue be the one responsible for clean-up? You might as well say that the reviewer who archived a cache be responsible for picking up the pieces.

 

While I find most of the comments by you two comical at best, I agree with you both in principle. But the point your missing is this.. and keep in mind this is just my opinion and I don't care what you think of it:

 

The OP knowingly posted a NA on a cache where it has more or less been confirmed that the CO is vacant and that the container has been replaced with a drop. Therefore you can conclude, that in this special circumstance, if the cache gets archived, the OP should be prepared to pickup the geotrash knowing full well that the CO isn't going to be doing it. You can debate and play games all day about ownership and listings on other sites but this is a special case, and if you're not prepared to do your duty, just leave the darn NA button alone.

 

According to which guideline is it the geocacher's "duty" to collect an archived cache? Be specific.

 

As I mentioned before, cachers in our area have been specifically warned that it is *not* other cachers' responsibility to collect archived geocaches.

 

If a land owner or land manager has asked for the cache to be removed, and the owner is unresponsive, it might be prudent to remove it with a reviewer's knowledge, and leave a clear note on the cache page so the cache owner can see what happened to it when/if they return to the site.

 

The NA log is there to bring a reviewer's attention to a problematic geocache. There are no responsibilities or "duties" attached to it. Stop trying to bully other geocachers into ignoring the rules you insist on breaking.

[+JPreto]

If a land owner or land manager has asked for the cache to be removed, and the owner is unresponsive, it might be prudent to remove it with a reviewer's knowledge, and leave a clear note on the cache page so the cache owner can see what happened to it when/if they return to the site.

 

Totally agree, the cache still belongs to the person who hide it, in these cacse, either the CO or the TD owner!

[+qtbluemoon]

The OP knowingly posted a NA on a cache where it has more or less been confirmed that the CO is vacant and that the container has been replaced with a drop. Therefore you can conclude, that in this special circumstance, if the cache gets archived, the OP should be prepared to pickup the geotrash knowing full well that the CO isn't going to be doing it. You can debate and play games all day about ownership and listings on other sites but this is a special case, and if you're not prepared to do your duty, just leave the darn NA button alone.

I have no problem cleaning up the geotrash. If I can find it, that is.

[+dprovan]

Totally agree, the cache still belongs to the person who hide it, in these cacse, either the CO or the TD owner!

Let's keep in the mind that the cleanup issue came up because the cache is being archived specifically because the owner is out of the picture and the person that left the current physical container at GZ is a scofflaw. In other words, the two parties one might hold responsible to pick up the litter have been declared irresponsible. In that case, it makes sense for the person that filed the NA asserting that lack of responsibility then take responsibility for cleaning up. I wouldn't say they must pick up the throwdown, but I certainly wouldn't be concerned about who owned what if they did. The very nature of the NA means that if the NA is granted, no one else is going to pick up that trash.

[+Sagefox]

Perhaps you can give me a few reasons why you posted a NA on this cache.

I posted a Needs Archived on this cache because the original cache may be missing and the CO is in no position to maintain it.

 

I have no problem with your NA log. When the CO goes dark the cache is left to the mercy of the community. Sometimes others will maintain them (including throwdowns) and sometimes they get NM and NA logs.

 

I don't really care why throw downs happen, they are, by definition, unmaintained caches.

 

Not sure I agree with this. Throwdowns typically don't bother me unless the site is a litter dump or other objectionable site making it very questionable why someone would want to keep it active.

 

Until the TD is, itself, in need of maintenance, though, I'm not sure a NA is appropriate.

 

What definition are you referring to? Is it in the guidelines that a TD is an unmaintained cache?

[+qtbluemoon]

What definition are you referring to? Is it in the guidelines that a TD is an unmaintained cache?

I just don't believe that anyone who throws down a cache is going to keep it up. "It's obviously not there, because I couldn't find it. Let's throw this down, help a guy out, I get my find, win-win for everyone, on to the next one."

 

I could, of course, be way off base, wouldn't be the first time.