Jump to content

two guys that own over 200 caches.


gonzogunner
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

there are two brothers who have set out 200 caches between the two. we have started turning the one gone in for NA because they are gone. me and another cacher have been replacing the missing ones and repairing the flat out busted ones. exactly how do you nicely ask them to take care of all their own caches from now on out or they will be turned in for NA if they are missing and if they don't want to do the up keep on them?

Link to comment

there are two brothers who have set out 200 caches between the two. we have started turning the one gone in for NA because they are gone. me and another cacher have been replacing the missing ones and repairing the flat out busted ones. exactly how do you nicely ask them to take care of all their own caches from now on out or they will be turned in for NA if they are missing and if they don't want to do the up keep on them?

 

Log NA, wait for the reviewer to archive them. If someone else does their maintenance for them why would they ever bother to do it themselves? Let the abandoned caches die and if the location is good you can put your own cache there afterwards.

 

If you're maintaining someone else's cache you can't log Owner Maintenance to get rid of the NM attribute that will inevitably show up sooner or later.

Link to comment

I agree with the others. If a cacher isn't maintaining their hides, they need to go away. If it's pretty clear that a cache is missing or otherwise in dire need of maintenance, and the cacher has clearly abandoned the game, log the NA. Keep doing this for all of their problem hides and gradually they'll go away.

 

Don't maintain their hides for them. Replacing a full log or putting some tape over a crack is one thing, but replacing a missing cache is another. Community-maintained caches can never be properly maintained, because nothing can be done with the cache listing. It's better for the cache to be archived and allow a new and properly-maintained cache to be hidden.

Link to comment

In AA they call someone who does what you are doing an "Enabler." You are enabling bad conduct by the placer by covering for his errant ways.

 

NEVER DO THE KND OF MAINTENANCE YOU ARE TALKNG ABOUT WITHOUT PERMISSION. If you have been to the scene and think it needs post an NA or if you want to avoid any conflict a email to the reviewer that published it making sure you include a URL for the cache to help him out will work.

Link to comment

In AA they call someone who does what you are doing an "Enabler." You are enabling bad conduct by the placer by covering for his errant ways.

 

NEVER DO THE KND OF MAINTENANCE YOU ARE TALKNG ABOUT WITHOUT PERMISSION. If you have been to the scene and think it needs post an NA or if you want to avoid any conflict a email to the reviewer that published it making sure you include a URL for the cache to help him out will work.

 

Also replacing a cache that doesn´t belong to you is making a Throwdown... It is not approved by Groundspeak!!!

Link to comment

there are two brothers who have set out 200 caches between the two. we have started turning the one gone in for NA because they are gone. me and another cacher have been replacing the missing ones and repairing the flat out busted ones. exactly how do you nicely ask them to take care of all their own caches from now on out or they will be turned in for NA if they are missing and if they don't want to do the up keep on them?

 

I think you're going to get zero support around here for "replacing the missing ones". Well, actually I think there might be one guy. :)

 

By nicely asking, do you mean they're active Geocachers, and they just blow off maintenance on their own? Or have they not been heard from on the hide or find side in ages?

Link to comment

there are two brothers who have set out 200 caches between the two. we have started turning the one gone in for NA because they are gone. me and another cacher have been replacing the missing ones and repairing the flat out busted ones. exactly how do you nicely ask them to take care of all their own caches from now on out or they will be turned in for NA if they are missing and if they don't want to do the up keep on them?

 

Please don't replace any missing ones, and only repair the busted ones if they are decent hides. What you are doing was a good idea back in 2004 or so when there wasn't that many around. However It's nice that new cachers such as yourself have the instinct to repair and fix what they find, rather than leaving them out in the open with the lid off. Most cachers will appreciate repairs, but not replacements.

Link to comment

Also replacing a cache that doesn´t belong to you is making a Throwdown... It is not approved by Groundspeak!!!

Stop reading things that aren't there. You may pesonally believe that throwdowns are wrong, but Groundspeak has never taken this position. The Help center article you are likely refering to simply makes it clear that a cache owner may delete the found log of someone who leaves a throwdown. It goes on to discourage cache owners from deleting found logs of people who subsequently find the throwdown, and most importantly it makes it the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the consequences of the throwdown.

 

A cache owner may happily accept any unsolicited help anyone offers in maintaining their cache, and/or a cache owner may delete the found log of someone claiming a find by leaving a throwdown. (

 

There have been a number of responses of why people feel that it is not a good idea to leave unsolicited throwdowns, including that the this practice leads to more cache owners who are willing to hide hundreds of caches that they know they can't maintain. Let's leave it with real suggestions of what individuals believe is the best approach to deal with missing and unmaintained caches, and not invent Grounspeak policies that don't exist.

Link to comment

Stop reading things that aren't there. You may pesonally believe that throwdowns are wrong, but Groundspeak has never taken this position. The Help center article you are likely refering to simply makes it clear that a cache owner may delete the found log of someone who leaves a throwdown. It goes on to discourage cache owners from deleting found logs of people who subsequently find the throwdown, and most importantly it makes it the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the consequences of the throwdown.

 

A cache owner may happily accept any unsolicited help anyone offers in maintaining their cache, and/or a cache owner may delete the found log of someone claiming a find by leaving a throwdown. (

 

There have been a number of responses of why people feel that it is not a good idea to leave unsolicited throwdowns, including that the this practice leads to more cache owners who are willing to hide hundreds of caches that they know they can't maintain. Let's leave it with real suggestions of what individuals believe is the best approach to deal with missing and unmaintained caches, and not invent Grounspeak policies that don't exist.

 

From the help center article:

 

"Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find."

 

That seems pretty clearly anti-throwdown.

Link to comment

Also replacing a cache that doesn´t belong to you is making a Throwdown... It is not approved by Groundspeak!!!

Stop reading things that aren't there. You may pesonally believe that throwdowns are wrong, but Groundspeak has never taken this position. The Help center article you are likely refering to simply makes it clear that a cache owner may delete the found log of someone who leaves a throwdown. It goes on to discourage cache owners from deleting found logs of people who subsequently find the throwdown, and most importantly it makes it the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the consequences of the throwdown.

 

A cache owner may happily accept any unsolicited help anyone offers in maintaining their cache, and/or a cache owner may delete the found log of someone claiming a find by leaving a throwdown. (

 

There have been a number of responses of why people feel that it is not a good idea to leave unsolicited throwdowns, including that the this practice leads to more cache owners who are willing to hide hundreds of caches that they know they can't maintain. Let's leave it with real suggestions of what individuals believe is the best approach to deal with missing and unmaintained caches, and not invent Grounspeak policies that don't exist.

 

We have a live one here!!! :P

 

3.9. Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

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. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

This page was: Helpful | Not Helpful

 

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

Link to comment

Stop reading things that aren't there. You may pesonally believe that throwdowns are wrong, but Groundspeak has never taken this position. The Help center article you are likely refering to simply makes it clear that a cache owner may delete the found log of someone who leaves a throwdown. It goes on to discourage cache owners from deleting found logs of people who subsequently find the throwdown, and most importantly it makes it the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the consequences of the throwdown.

 

A cache owner may happily accept any unsolicited help anyone offers in maintaining their cache, and/or a cache owner may delete the found log of someone claiming a find by leaving a throwdown. (

 

There have been a number of responses of why people feel that it is not a good idea to leave unsolicited throwdowns, including that the this practice leads to more cache owners who are willing to hide hundreds of caches that they know they can't maintain. Let's leave it with real suggestions of what individuals believe is the best approach to deal with missing and unmaintained caches, and not invent Grounspeak policies that don't exist.

 

From the help center article:

 

"Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find."

 

That seems pretty clearly anti-throwdown.

A little egg on my face for not checking the exact wording before I posted. I probably would not have worded what I said the way I did.

 

I still view the sentence quoted above as more of a throw away comment than an official policy. The Help Ceneter and other places on the site are full of statements written by lackeys that may or may not reflect actual policy. It's hard to tell here if TPTB really believe that geocaches should never be replaced without permission of the cache owner or if that is given as a rationale for the ensuing policy.

 

The actual policy states that owner is responsible for dealing with throwdowns and that while the original cacher who left the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log it as a find, it is reasonable for a cache owner to allow finds by subsequent cachers who can not determine if they found the original cache or the throwdown. As to the part of the policy that says "If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place", I call shenanigans. In my experience I've found multiple containers that were left by owners doing maintenance when they couldn't find their own cache more times than I've found multiple containers where someone had left an unsolicited throwdown. Maybe the next time this happens I should post a NA on the cache and see if the reviewer will follow the policy. I've actually considered logging two finds in these cases; there's no guideline that says I can't do that.

Link to comment

Also replacing a cache that doesn´t belong to you is making a Throwdown... It is not approved by Groundspeak!!!

Stop reading things that aren't there. You may pesonally believe that throwdowns are wrong, but Groundspeak has never taken this position.

 

Here the guidelines... I quote for you:

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.

This means Groundspeak is in favor of Throwdowns?

And you can stop stalking me... B)

Link to comment

Another example of unintended consequences for this practice:

 

In my area we have a series of six stand alone caches. Each is supposed to contain a clue to the coordinates for a seventh "bonus cache". One cache in the series has been missing since about 1952 and, after a long string of DNFs, someone came along from out of town not realizing that the missing cache was part of a series. They replaced the cache, minus the hint fot the final of course, and logged it as a find. It now has a long string of finds since and it won't get properly maintained or archived which is all well and good until someone decides they want to go after that "bonus cache", finds all of the other five caches and then arrives at the sixth and discovers the path to the bonus to be irreparably broken.

Edited by Ckayda
Link to comment

Interesting how as the numbers are increasing, the favs are decreasing...

I suspect that the overwhelming majority of caches where the owner has only placed one cache don't get many favorite points.

 

My general impression is that the hiders who get a lot of favorite points tend to hide more caches than the average hider. For one thing they see hiding caches as way to express their creativity. There may be point where you've hidden too many cache to continue to be creative and they all start looking like the same cache, but I suspect that there is as great a variation in the numbers of caches placed by so-called creative hiders as there is among non-creative hiders.

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...