Caches replaced, not by CO

[+Mineral2]

Lately, there have been several caches that have been missing for quite some time, and someone other than the CO have replaced the containers. In all of the cases, it's been replaced by someone "finding" it for the first time.

 

I'm debating about what to do with these:

 

1. Let it be, go find the caches and log them as found and get the smiley for a "false" cache.

 

2. Let it be, don't go looking for them

 

3. Post a NA (they've been missing for a while)

 

4. Go looking for the caches and remove them, posting a note that you shouldn't replace a cache that isn't yours without the CO's permission.

 

Since they're not my caches, and the CO's aren't my personal friends, I'm inclined to stay away from #4. It seems just as bad for me to take "corrective" action into my own hands as it was for someone to "fix" someone else's cache. It just kinda bothers me that someone would replace a missing cache just to get the find for it.

[jholly]

1 or 2. #3, If some did a drop down the cache will show finds and the reviewer will not archive it. #4 makes you a serious cache cop. It is basically none of your business, leave it be. I assume in all cases the NM logs have been posted. If not, then post a NM.

Edited June 14, 2014 by jholly

[+qtbluemoon]

I ran across that same problem last month, and I posted a N/A, even though there was a find after the throw down. I asked the group here if I did the right thing, and I got both sides of the coin. I then asked the local reviewer, and he said it was only a matter of time, since the CO had moved away, and was no longer able to maintain his caches. He disabled the cache, and when he didn't hear from the CO after the normal few weeks, he archived the cache.

 

Whatever feels right, mineral2. There is no right answer. I don't think I've ever seen a thread where there's only one viewpoint.

[+Mineral2]

I won't take #4, even though I want to. I've only ever removed a false cache once, and that was when I found it after finding the original cache next to it, and in this case, I felt compelled because the replacement container was not even appropriate for a geocache - a cardboard pringles container in a place that gets a fair amount of rain and snow throughout the year. Again, the original cache was right where it was supposed to be, so I'm not sure why someone else felt compelled to leave trash with a logsheet nearby.

[jholly]

I won't take #4, even though I want to. I've only ever removed a false cache once, and that was when I found it after finding the original cache next to it, and in this case, I felt compelled because the replacement container was not even appropriate for a geocache - a cardboard pringles container in a place that gets a fair amount of rain and snow throughout the year. Again, the original cache was right where it was supposed to be, so I'm not sure why someone else felt compelled to leave trash with a logsheet nearby.

I won't take the obvious throw down, but I will tell the CO it is there. Let the CO make a decision on his own cache maintenance.

 

Here is one for you to think about. A cache that is a bit hard to find and 10 feet away is a letterbox that is easy to find. A real letter box, not a Groundspeak hybrid letter box. I see lots of cacher names in the letterbox log as if they found the cache. I did find the cache after realizing what the letterbox was. (no, I did not sign the log) I did make a note to the CO about the obvious conflict and noted that the letterbox predated his cache so either make a note on the cache page or move his cache he did neither.

Edited June 15, 2014 by jholly

[+Manville Possum]

Lately, there have been several caches that have been missing for quite some time, and someone other than the CO have replaced the containers. In all of the cases, it's been replaced by someone "finding" it for the first time.

 

I'm debating about what to do with these:

 

1. Let it be, go find the caches and log them as found and get the smiley for a "false" cache.

 

2. Let it be, don't go looking for them

 

3. Post a NA (they've been missing for a while)

 

4. Go looking for the caches and remove them, posting a note that you shouldn't replace a cache that isn't yours without the CO's permission.

 

Since they're not my caches, and the CO's aren't my personal friends, I'm inclined to stay away from #4. It seems just as bad for me to take "corrective" action into my own hands as it was for someone to "fix" someone else's cache. It just kinda bothers me that someone would replace a missing cache just to get the find for it.

Numbers 3 and 4 are way off IMO. If you feel strongly about these let the CO know about them. They are not your concerns.

[+dprovan]

Yes, it's a shame that someone threw down a replacement on a dead cache, and dumb that they claimed the find for doing it. But that has nothing to with me, so I'd treat the cache like any other. I see no reason to ignore it or complain about it or steal it just because it's a throwdown.

[+WarNinjas]

Yea I wouldn't say to remove even a throw down unless like you stated the original was there. You would never know if there was a private message from the CO thanking the other cacher for the replacement or something. You could post a needs maintenance and see if the CO responds. Then if nothing go further with a NA if you felt the need to do so.

[4wheelin_fool]

We found 5 throw downs one day, left by 5 different cachers. The only one we removed was one where the original was still in place. Although in the forums many despise throwdowns, your local community may have a different approach and removing them will likely anger more than a few people. If they are not causing any problems just leave them alone. Wait until they get archived before cleaning them up.

[JoNanB]

My quick answer to this is: If Groundspeak and the Reviewers do nothing about it then is is beyond your ability to fix. Groundspeak is way to busy worrying about ways they might be sued to deal with these problems that won't get them sued. This is one of those things where you determine what the spirit of the game is for yourself, play the game for fun and don't worrying about things out of your control.

We don't need any more cache police, I have 611 caches placed it you wouldn't believe how many cache police have something to say about them.

 

This problem has roots a group of topics:

1. In my area it sometimes takes over a year to get the reviewer to archive missing caches.

2. Many cachers, especially new, won't DNF, fewer Will do NM and even fewer will do NA. Lack of DNF's can hide a problem for a long time.

3. Before I log DNF's I look at the CO's profile, if they haven't logged on in over a year I automatically log NA. Puts it on reviewers required to look at list.

4. The bottle swapping mentality caused by power trails has amplified the cache dropping. If you can't spot it immediately drop a new one and claim it.

January 2014 in Quartzsite, AZ we pulled up to find cache for first time and there were a bunch of cachers from Canada.

They ask our user name then immediately gave us a bunch of crap about dropping a new cache when when we couldn't find to original.

I got the pill bottle from them and looked at the log. It clearly stated, by cache name, that I had replaced a broken container several miles away, two days before.

We have found as many as 6 containers at one location on the ET highway.

 

We cache to enjoy our time together outdoors and because it gets us off our butts. We play the game the way we think it should be played and we don't worry about what anybody else does as that diminishes our FUN!!!

Edited June 15, 2014 by JoNanB

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

The term you are looking for is "throw-down".

 

This is prohibited. DO NOT PLACE CACHE CONTAINERS AT CACHES THAT ARE NOT YOURS (unless you are working with the cache owner).

 

Groundspeak has already spoken on the matter.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

Edited June 15, 2014 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+tozainamboku]

This is prohibited.

Nowhere is this prohibited, nor could it be.

 

I'm always amused, and seldom surprised, how people make up things to support their personal idea of how the game should be played. I agree with TheWeatherWarrior that you should NOT PLACE CACHE CONTAINERS AT CACHES THAT ARE NOT YOURS (unless you are working with the cache owner), but I'm not going to invent rules.

 

What Groundspeak has done is given cache owners permission to delete logs of cachers leaving throw-downs - while the same time discouraging them from deleting logs of people who find a throw-down instead of the original cache and placing the responsibility to "clean up" the confusion caused by a "throw-down" on the cache owner.

 

The OP asked what to do as finder if they know there is a throw-down at the cache site. They gave several options, all of which a cache finder is free to do. (Option #3 and particularly #4 may be frowned upon by others in the community and not earn the OP many friends, but they are still free to do those).

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

This is prohibited.

Nowhere is this prohibited, nor could it be.

 

If YOU are placing a cache, it is YOUR cache. It is therefore a violation of the Saturation policy.

 

Here is a direct log on a cache page from a reviewer: http://coord.info/GLE3FQZK

 

Again, DO NOT PLACE A CACHE CONTAINER EXCEPT FOR YOUR OWN CACHES. Groundspeak and staff/volunteers have spoken!

Edited June 15, 2014 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

As to the original question, If you FIND a throw down, the best action is to log with a Write Note. Then contact the cache owner directly through the messages/email system. If the cache owner(s) says it is fine, change the Write Note to a Found it. If it is not, encourage a replacement or offer to replace yourself (say if it is near your home) if you can. If no response, completely up to you to log a Found It or leave as a Write Not or change to a DNF (since it isn't the cache owner's container). If no response, definitely log a Needs Archive as it is the requirement of Cache Owners to maintain their caches (not the community, though it is nice thought). Reviewers cannot easily track the thousands of caches without reports. You can be very apologetic in the NA if it is address or incorrect. Even I had a cache archived incorrectly when the cache was there, just not found for some time.

[4wheelin_fool]

Between our teams we have over 28,000 finds which has given us the proper perspective on cache etiquette.

 

Really? So that entitles someone to throw a leaky film can down in place of a regular?

 

Don't know if there is any learning curve here, it seems more like a bubble. After too many finds some seem to act like noobs again.

[+tozainamboku]

This is prohibited.

Nowhere is this prohibited, nor could it be.

 

If YOU are placing a cache, it is YOUR cache. It is therefore a violation of the Saturation policy.

No one leaving a throw-down would view it as placing a cache. I would have thought that no one would have viewed as that, but I guess if you are grasping at something to support a fantasy that there is a rule against throw-downs you'll say anything no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

 

Here is a direct log on a cache page from a reviewer: http://coord.info/GLE3FQZK

 

Again, DO NOT PLACE A CACHE CONTAINER EXCEPT FOR YOUR OWN CACHES. Groundspeak and staff/volunteers have spoken!

IMO, you are reading too much into Palmetto's note. In the cache in question, the cache owner deleted the find from the throw-down and attempted to delete the finds from people who found the throw-down. After some discussion on the cache page (including the claim by the person who left the throw-down that 28000 find makes them a expert in cache etiquette) the reviewer posted a link to the help center article that states the policy that a cache owner may delete the log of the person leaving the throw-down and that deletions of other logs is discouraged, as well as making the cache owner responsible for dealing with the throw-down container, including the ability to remove it.

 

In the end the throw-down was dealt with per the Groundspeak policy, and it was immaterial what the throw-down leaver believes regardless of their find count.

 

Sure, the policy includes an unenforceable statement that "geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner", but I would not read this as a "rule".

 

I'll wager that the policy and the reviewer's note are immaterial to the person who left the throw-down, and that he/she still believes that "most cachers appreciate the replacement of a log or container when MIA as long as the owner was notified." With 28000 finds, and who knows how many of those are throw-downs, experience has taught that it's better to leave the throw-down. If the cache owner is so ungrateful for the maintenance help that they delete the find - so be it. At least others will have opportunity to find something.

 

As it stands today, most cache owners are probably more than willing to accept unsolicited help in maintaining their caches. They may also feel that someone who, when faced with a possible missing cache, decides to replace it, that they are entitled to log a find. People who leave throw-downs do appear to be genuinely shocked if someone doesn't accept the throw-down and deletes their find (or doesn't allow them to log a find). And God help those like me who told a throw-down leaver to go ahead an log a find if they had to, but that I didn't appreciate the throw-down. That was probably the worse thing I could have said to them.

 

The help center article simply gives cache owners some support if they choose to deal with throw-downs this way.

Edited June 16, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

No, you just want to throw down so you can falsely claim a smiley or too lazy to keep your own caches up. Hands down, it is against the rules, and generally a piss poor way to play the game. I'm all for help from the community, and this thread is part of that, but throw downs are a real problem.

 

I, like my friend, delete all logs from users that throw-down. In other caches, folks threw down and deprived finders from a good, quality cache.

 

BOTTOMLINE: DO NOT DO IT. There is ZERO justification for it.

Edited June 16, 2014 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+BAMBOOZLE]

We found 5 throw downs one day, left by 5 different cachers. The only one we removed was one where the original was still in place. Although in the forums many despise throwdowns, your local community may have a different approach and removing them will likely anger more than a few people. If they are not causing any problems just leave them alone. Wait until they get archived before cleaning them up.

 

I agree.....I would do #1 and move on.

For one thing I would never know if a cache was a replacement or not ( as a CO I have left multiple caches at GZ because my cache had been moved and I thought it was gone.)

[+Mineral2]

In the case of the caches in question, they are not replacements by the CO, but on both, owned by two different people, and thrown down by two different people, the log in the throw down specifically states that the cache was replaced by the user (not CO), and in one of them, even mentions that he "thinks" the new containers is placed where the original was.

 

I'll probably go with #2, as I feel cheated going after a cache that the CO didn't place.

[4wheelin_fool]

Not all throwdowns are alike. Leaving a crappy micro container in place of a regular with an active owner, and then trying to justify it with your find count is just plain wrong and is what makes the others look bad. Leaving a decent container in place of an inactive owner is a bit different. I wouldn't do it, but log it? Yes.

[+tozainamboku]

No, you just want to throw down so you can falsely claim a smiley or too lazy to keep your own caches up. Hands down, it is against the rules, and generally a piss poor way to play the game. I'm all for help from the community, and this thread is part of that, but throw downs are a real problem.

 

I, like my friend, delete all logs from users that throw-down. In other caches, folks threw down and deprived finders from a good, quality cache.

 

BOTTOMLINE: DO NOT DO IT. There is ZERO justification for it.

I see you feel strongly about this.

 

The problem is that I don't like throw-downs any more than you. But when I made comment like yours to a person who left a throw-down on one of my caches, it must have really hit a nerve.

 

The people who left the throw-down were very upset that I would even consider their motivation was to get another smiley. I'll let you dig around on my caches to find the one where I was skewered for falsely impugning their motives for leaving a throw-down.

 

You can believe whatever you want about why people leave throw-downs. You can make up non-existent rules. You may even get Groundspeak to have a stupid unenforceable rule that will only encourage more throw-downs. If you don't understand the reason why people leave throw-downs you are part of the problem. However, I'm pretty certain that I won't sway your mind. When the puritans start calling to burn the witch, no one can stop the witch burning.

[+funkymunkyzone]

If you visit a cache and there is, what you believe to be, a "throw down" cache, how do you know it's not just an inferior cache that's actually listed on an inferior cache listing site? If it was, then you'd be muggling their cache. I wonder if an inter-cache-listing-site war might be started this way...

Edited June 16, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

3. Before I log DNF's I look at the CO's profile, if they haven't logged on in over a year I automatically log NA. Puts it on reviewers required to look at list.

 

 

Wait, what? You log an NA just because you couldn't find a cache? Are you saying it isn't possible for you to not find a cache unless it was missing? I'm sure the reviewers just love having to sort out the real NA logs from the fluff like "I didn't find it, so it MUST be missing".

[+Mineral2]

I'll log an NA if there are at least 3 DNF's before me (the more the merrier), the cache hasn't been found in over a year, and the CO hasn't been on the site in over a year. Most of the time, the CO is probably filtering e-mails from geocaching directly to the trash, which is why the DNF's and NM's go unanswered. Occasionally, the NA post prompts the CO to come back and perform maintenance or voluntarily archive. But it does get the ball rolling. Around here, caches can go missing for years before anyone decides to take any action on it. A NA post at least gets the reviewer's attention and often gets the cache de-activated. If the CO has no intention of checking up on his caches, the cache should be archived so that someone more active can use that spot.

[+L0ne.R]

1402896338[/url]' post='5392272']

1402849085[/url]' post='5391998']

3. Before I log DNF's I look at the CO's profile, if they haven't logged on in over a year I automatically log NA. Puts it on reviewers required to look at list.

 

 

Wait, what? You log an NA just because you couldn't find a cache? Are you saying it isn't possible for you to not find a cache unless it was missing? I'm sure the reviewers just love having to sort out the real NA logs from the fluff like "I didn't find it, so it MUST be missing".

 

Not a big deal really. The CO can easily remedy the NA request by checking the cache and posting an OM.

 

 

[Clan Riffster]

Since they're not my caches

This should be your primary concern. I abhor throwdowns. But the problem is one for the owner to resolve, not you. If the owner is MIA, obviously this isn't going to happen. If you can't just let it go, you might consider putting them on your watchlist. Once they turn to carp, post an NA, explaining that the owner is no longer playing and the cache is in bad shape.

[+DanOCan]

I would log my find and move on.

 

If the original containers were indeed missing (ie: not a situation of multiple containers at ground zero), I don't really care who did cache maintenance, whether it was the owner or someone else. I was there and found a cache.

[+Mineral2]

These are previous DNF's for me. I keep an eye on them to see if anyone finds them, and if so, I'll return for a second look. I'm inclined to not return to a throwdown.