A true example why not to place a Throw Down!

[+sbell111]

Actually my first "defense" against any problem with one of my caches is to simply disable them until I can check. Sometimes I take longer, sometimes I take just a few days until I manage to visit the cache and enable it.

 

It seems like geocachers have a problem with disabling own caches until they can be checked that they are OK to be found again...

It should be noted that just because a cache is disabled doesn't mean that a cacher will not attempt to find it.

 

If I received a PQ this morning and you disabled the cache this afternoon, I might certainly go try to find it tomorrow, unaware that there is any issue. If I do so and sign the log of the original cache or the replaced cache, I still get to log my find online.

[+sbell111]

The comment by JPreto that he plans to number his containers in the future, made me remember that I even considered to leave for a certain cache two final containers at trees nearby. I used this approach successfully already for intermediary stages of a multi cache nearby. If the same coordinates can be used and if one accepts finds in both containers, the only issue that might arise is that trackables might easier get stuck.

If any reviewer knew about this he would probably disable the cache and ask you to remove one of the containers. 2 containers in the same coordinates and you can sign any of them?!?!?

What guideline do you feel that this violates?

[+sbell111]

... except for the ones being stolen by "fellow" geocachers after they log their finds.

 

I would like to see you prove such claim. Everybody would, in fact. Shame on you!

In a city with 18 millions people, not considering perfectly normal that an urban cache can disappear, blaming the community instead, says a lot about yourself.

As you know I check my own caches regularly, moreover the ones that are near my house. Funny enough, suspecting what might happen after a Sunday geocaching meeting I went to check them on Saturday... On Monday most of them were gone. Not to mention the one, placed 2m high in a tree that got filled with feces and the "fellow geocacher" even placed a found log teasing...

 

Ohhh yes, you are right, Mr. Forum Moderator that uses facebook to instigante even more problems between geocachers.

 

"Before you acuse me, take a look At yourself..." come on, sing it...

Remember the advice that I gave you about not being so snarky and remembering that you are the one who is new and doesn't know everything about the game?

[+tozainamboku]

The comment by JPreto that he plans to number his containers in the future, made me remember that I even considered to leave for a certain cache two final containers at trees nearby. I used this approach successfully already for intermediary stages of a multi cache nearby. If the same coordinates can be used and if one accepts finds in both containers, the only issue that might arise is that trackables might easier get stuck.

If any reviewer knew about this he would probably disable the cache and ask you to remove one of the containers. 2 containers in the same coordinates and you can sign any of them?!?!?

Really?

 

I understand that according to the help center article on throwdowns "multiple or inconsistent containers can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place." I'm not aware of any guideline that says you can't have two containers and allow logs in either of them.

 

There are cache owners who leave decoys at the cache site and intend for the finder to to find the correct cache from among the decoys. So I think it is pretty clear you can have multiple containers. But I recall a cache where a cache owner left two containers - one in a tree and the other at the base of the tree - and allowed you to sign the log on either one. I even think that if you signed both the cache owner would allow you to log the cache twice. (did I just give you a wedgie? )

[+sbell111]

Maybe you should wait until you are into geocaching for a much longer time to see that sometimes the memory

how a cache is hidden can fade away considerably over the years and also to see how enormously areas can change over time.

That is why I take photos of the area and closeups of the locations of every cache I place... So my memory doesn´t fade away.

 

But even then, cases like this happen... http://coord.info/GLFBF5JZ

Looks like a rare case of a cacher findng a "better" place for the cache (apparently less than one meter away because no change of coords, right?) and the CO agreeing.

 

I would never change the location on my own. If I saw that a small move would leave the cache "better protected" as in the link, I'd email the CO who could decide. Of course that brings up the question of whether caches in remote places have slightly different rules. Other issues: Was there cache migration? Has the growth of plants changed GZ?

20cm from where I placed it... 4 small trees are growing together and I had placed the cache on the outside of that group of trees. The cache was in the middle of the group of trees when I revisited it, making it less visible to muggles.

You are bent because someone moved your cache less than eight INCHES from where you placed it? Really?

[RuideAlmeida]

Ohhh yes, you are right, Mr. Forum Moderator that uses facebook to instigante even more problems between geocachers.

 

Your understanding of instigation is so wrongful like some other misconceptions you do... mainly every different opinion will be considered as an instigation, by you. Sad.

[4wheelin_fool]

The last two points occur in Camden, NJ as well, and geocaching is legal there as well.

 

Yeah... we geocache with extreme caution whenever we're in the US. Compared to here, it can be a little scary!

 

Believe me, it will get worse if someone finds out you are from the land of Rob Ford and Justin Bieber.

[4wheelin_fool]

Ohhh yes, you are right, Mr. Forum Moderator that uses facebook to instigante even more problems between geocachers.

 

Your understanding of instigation is so wrongful like some other misconceptions you do... mainly every different opinion will be considered as an instigation, by you. Sad.

 

Based on what he said it sure seems that other geocachers are stealing his caches, due to his insistence of following the guidelines and his posts on Facebook. That's what is sad.

[RuideAlmeida]

Based on what he said it sure seems that other geocachers are stealing his caches, due to his insistence of following the guidelines and his posts on Facebook. That's what is sad.

 

It is just a question of credibility... One of the world problems, it is that there are idiots full of certainties and geniuses full of doubts... I think we need to choose wisely our own path.

Edited August 27, 2014 by ruidealmeida

[cezanne]

The comment by JPreto that he plans to number his containers in the future, made me remember that I even considered to leave for a certain cache two final containers at trees nearby. I used this approach successfully already for intermediary stages of a multi cache nearby. If the same coordinates can be used and if one accepts finds in both containers, the only issue that might arise is that trackables might easier get stuck.

If any reviewer knew about this he would probably disable the cache and ask you to remove one of the containers. 2 containers in the same coordinates and you can sign any of them?!?!?

 

Certainly not. I know several cases where two containers are offered - one up in the tree and one at the roots of the tree and the cache descriptions mentioned right from the beginning that everyone can choose which container to sign. Some sign only the logbook in the container up the tree, other only the logbook down at the roots and some both.

 

What is not allowed is two final waypoints for a cache, but if the same coordinates can be used and if cachers are free to log any of the two supplied containers, there is no reason for a reviewer to act at all.

There is neither a guideline broken nor is there any sort of harm created.

[+qtbluemoon]

Here is a great success story about through downs.

 

A couple of years back, I was planning a hike up a mountain to find a few caches. The CO of one of the caches found out I was heading up, and asked me to replace a missing cache. I graciously accepted his request, and placed a new container where my GPS zeroed out. I logged that cache, and so did another cacher the next day. There was absolutely no drama. Everyone was happy.

 

The point? There is no single answer that covers all scenarios. Stop trying to make blanket statements like "never leave a through down".

I wouldn't classify this as a throw down. It was requested help for maintenance, perfectly reasonable. At least, to me.

Edited August 27, 2014 by qtbluemoon

[Andronicus]

Here is a great success story about through downs.

 

A couple of years back, I was planning a hike up a mountain to find a few caches. The CO of one of the caches found out I was heading up, and asked me to replace a missing cache. I graciously accepted his request, and placed a new container where my GPS zeroed out. I logged that cache, and so did another cacher the next day. There was absolutely no drama. Everyone was happy.

 

The point? There is no single answer that covers all scenarios. Stop trying to make blanket statements like "never leave a through down".

I wouldn't classify this as a throw down. It was requested help for maintenance, perfectly reasonable. At least, to me.

To me too. The OP also discussed a replacement with permission of the CO. Seemed reasonable to me. Maybe the cacher in question should have looked for the original a little better, but still reasonable.

[4wheelin_fool]

Based on what he said it sure seems that other geocachers are stealing his caches, due to his insistence of following the guidelines and his posts on Facebook. That's what is sad.

 

It is just a question of credibility... One of the world problems, it is that there are idiots full of certainties and geniuses full of doubts... I think we need to choose wisely our own path.

 

And I don't think that it's very wise to infer that the OP is an idiot that is not credible, while at the same time being quick to say for certain that it wasn't another cacher. Geocaches often disappear frequently without any malice, but when several are missing at once with someone leaving taunting notes, that's a different story. I'm rather curious how someone could be so certain that it wasn't another geocacher.

[RuideAlmeida]

And I don't think that it's very wise to infer that the OP is an idiot...

 

Your words, not mine.

Personally I only would make such a harsh claim with proofs, without any proof, would not be credible. Simply that.

[+JPreto]

Ohhh yes, you are right, Mr. Forum Moderator that uses facebook to instigante even more problems between geocachers.

 

Your understanding of instigation is so wrongful like some other misconceptions you do... mainly every different opinion will be considered as an instigation, by you. Sad.

 

Based on what he said it sure seems that other geocachers are stealing his caches, due to his insistence of following the guidelines and his posts on Facebook. That's what is sad.

 

Just to clear it out:

 

1) You will not find any post made by me on Facebook, I never posted anything... Have an account with no friends and only use it when I need to contact someone I don´t have a direct contact.

 

2) It was the Forum Moderator that posted on Facebook, in the private Brazilian Geocaching Group, luckily not all members are alike and one of them just send me the "copy/paste" of the posts that talked about me;

 

3) I don´t say things in the back... If I need to say anything I say it directly, so that the person can, at least say something about it;

 

4) I presented a reclamation to Groundspeak regarding this Forum Moderator because of the way he conducted the Brazilian Forum and also attached the comments he made on Facebook, the answer from Groundspeak was: "He can say whatever he wants in Facebook, it´s not an official channel."

 

Can we please go back to the original topic that the Forum Moderator, not making a single comment of the topic just entered to try and say I was lying...

[+JPreto]

I understand that according to the help center article on throwdowns "multiple or inconsistent containers can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place." I'm not aware of any guideline that says you can't have two containers and allow logs in either of them.

The meaning of "A geocache" maybe...

 

There are cache owners who leave decoys at the cache site and intend for the finder to to find the correct cache from among the decoys. So I think it is pretty clear you can have multiple containers. But I recall a cache where a cache owner left two containers - one in a tree and the other at the base of the tree - and allowed you to sign the log on either one. I even think that if you signed both the cache owner would allow you to log the cache twice. (did I just give you a wedgie? )

Decoys are not geocaches... no logbook...

 

(did I just give you a wedgie? )

If you think so, go for you... I don´t.

I´ll look on this: "one container with logbook per cache issue, maybe in another topic" It´s a nice case!!!!

[+wmpastor]

Maybe you should wait until you are into geocaching for a much longer time to see that sometimes the memory

how a cache is hidden can fade away considerably over the years and also to see how enormously areas can change over time.

That is why I take photos of the area and closeups of the locations of every cache I place... So my memory doesn´t fade away.

 

But even then, cases like this happen... http://coord.info/GLFBF5JZ

Looks like a rare case of a cacher findng a "better" place for the cache (apparently less than one meter away because no change of coords, right?) and the CO agreeing.

 

I would never change the location on my own. If I saw that a small move would leave the cache "better protected" as in the link, I'd email the CO who could decide. Of course that brings up the question of whether caches in remote places have slightly different rules. Other issues: Was there cache migration? Has the growth of plants changed GZ?

20cm from where I placed it... 4 small trees are growing together and I had placed the cache on the outside of that group of trees. The cache was in the middle of the group of trees when I revisited it, making it less visible to muggles.

You are bent because someone moved your cache less than eight INCHES from where you placed it? Really?

 

Wait, a misinterpretation, I think. It's Preto's cache, & he posted the note that said -

 

Someone changed the location of the cache and I consider it to be better protected, so I changed the hint.

 

[+JPreto]

20cm from where I placed it... 4 small trees are growing together and I had placed the cache on the outside of that group of trees. The cache was in the middle of the group of trees when I revisited it, making it less visible to muggles.

You are bent because someone moved your cache less than eight INCHES from where you placed it? Really?

No, I just changed the hint because I agreed that the new placement was better... not a big deal...

[+JPreto]

And I don't think that it's very wise to infer that the OP is an idiot...

Your words, not mine.

Personally I only would make such a harsh claim with proofs, without any proof, would not be credible. Simply that.

I´ve heard much worse than this... I don´t really care... He can say whatever he wants about me. I just wonder if he is not going against any Forum specific guideline, like this one:

 

4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Maybe he should send a warning on himself...

[Andronicus]

Based on what he said it sure seems that other geocachers are stealing his caches, due to his insistence of following the guidelines and his posts on Facebook. That's what is sad.

 

It is just a question of credibility... One of the world problems, it is that there are idiots full of certainties and geniuses full of doubts... I think we need to choose wisely our own path.

 

And I don't think that it's very wise to infer that the OP is an idiot that is not credible, while at the same time being quick to say for certain that it wasn't another cacher. Geocaches often disappear frequently without any malice, but when several are missing at once with someone leaving taunting notes, that's a different story. I'm rather curious how someone could be so certain that it wasn't another geocacher.

 

Your words, not mine.

Personally I only would make such a harsh claim with proofs, without any proof, would not be credible. Simply that.

As for proof, it would appear that the evidence (as mentioned in 4wheelin_fool's post) is as close to proof as anyone is likely to get (without having video or something like that).

 

But this is all way off topic. The original topic was about Throw Down caches, right?

[4wheelin_fool]

Based on what he said it sure seems that other geocachers are stealing his caches, due to his insistence of following the guidelines and his posts on Facebook. That's what is sad.

 

It is just a question of credibility... One of the world problems, it is that there are idiots full of certainties and geniuses full of doubts... I think we need to choose wisely our own path.

 

And I don't think that it's very wise to infer that the OP is an idiot that is not credible, while at the same time being quick to say for certain that it wasn't another cacher. Geocaches often disappear frequently without any malice, but when several are missing at once with someone leaving taunting notes, that's a different story. I'm rather curious how someone could be so certain that it wasn't another geocacher.

 

Your words, not mine.

Personally I only would make such a harsh claim with proofs, without any proof, would not be credible. Simply that.

 

Those pretty much are your words.

 

It's actually fairly common for a criminal to taunt the victim and/or the police about what they did by saying there is no proof. In this case it certainly appears that another cacher did that, and that the meme is continuing here.

[+tozainamboku]

The meaning of "A geocache" maybe...

 

Who are you that you get to decide the meaning of "a geocache"?

 

Groundspeak's guidelines get to decide what geocaches can be listed on the site; even they don't define the meaning of "a geocache".

 

Perhaps you made a newbie mistake of confusing geocache with container?

 

While the description for a traditional cache may say "These geocaches will be a container at the given coordinates" that statement doesn't apply to other types. You may argue that if you wanted to have multiple containers with logs you would need to use some type other than traditional. I wouldn't think so, but I can see the reviewers might take such a position. In any case people have hidden caches with multiple containers, even with multiple finals in different location, and allowed a find so long as you found one of these containers. And some caches owners have allowed multiple finds when you find multiple containers.

[+JPreto]

The meaning of "A geocache" maybe...

 

Who are you that you get to decide the meaning of "a geocache"?

 

Groundspeak's guidelines get to decide what geocaches can be listed on the site; even they don't define the meaning of "a geocache".

 

Perhaps you made a newbie mistake of confusing geocache with container?

 

While the description for a traditional cache may say "These geocaches will be a container at the given coordinates" that statement doesn't apply to other types. You may argue that if you wanted to have multiple containers with logs you would need to use some type other than traditional. I wouldn't think so, but I can see the reviewers might take such a position. In any case people have hidden caches with multiple containers, even with multiple finals in different location, and allowed a find so long as you found one of these containers. And some caches owners have allowed multiple finds when you find multiple containers.

 

Can we continue this conversation here so we don´t mix up the topics?

[+tozainamboku]

 

Can we continue this conversation here so we don´t mix up the topics?

I don't really care to discuss that topic separately. So I'll try to stay on topic and talk about throwdowns.

 

Earlier in this thread I posted that I have gotten my knickers in a twist over throwdowns ... but this was over throwdowns left on caches that I owned.

 

IMO, the only one who should care about throwdowns is the cache owner. A cache owner can decide to accept the throwdown or not. The help center article you like to quote makes it clear that it is the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the throwdown, and it goes further to imply that a cache owner may delete the log of the person leaving the throwdown.

 

You are reading far to much into it to argue that cache owners are not allowed to accept throwdowns. Based on years of experience of what I've seen reviewers do and what lackeys and reviewers have said in the forum, I'm confident it doesn't say that. Caches belong to the owner and owners are given a lot of leeway in exercising their responsibility for quality control of posts made to the cache page. I have seen a cache with no active owner that seems to be getting a lot of throwdowns be archived by a reviewer; this is within their discretion. I have never seen a cache where an active owner accepts a throwdown and allows Found logs whether the original cache or the throwdown was found be archived for that. Which brings us back to the point that you can have multiple containers to log.

[+JPreto]

 

Can we continue this conversation here so we don´t mix up the topics?

I don't really care to discuss that topic separately. So I'll try to stay on topic and talk about throwdowns.

 

Earlier in this thread I posted that I have gotten my knickers in a twist over throwdowns ... but this was over throwdowns left on caches that I owned.

 

IMO, the only one who should care about throwdowns is the cache owner. A cache owner can decide to accept the throwdown or not. The help center article you like to quote makes it clear that it is the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the throwdown, and it goes further to imply that a cache owner may delete the log of the person leaving the throwdown.

 

You are reading far to much into it to argue that cache owners are not allowed to accept throwdowns. Based on years of experience of what I've seen reviewers do and what lackeys and reviewers have said in the forum, I'm confident it doesn't say that. Caches belong to the owner and owners are given a lot of leeway in exercising their responsibility for quality control of posts made to the cache page. I have seen a cache with no active owner that seems to be getting a lot of throwdowns be archived by a reviewer; this is within their discretion. I have never seen a cache where an active owner accepts a throwdown and allows Found logs whether the original cache or the throwdown was found be archived for that. Which brings us back to the point that you can have multiple containers to log.

 

As you please... I just quote again the guidelines:

 

From Help Center Article:

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 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 interpret this as the CO being responsible for maintenance of the cache should ASAP remove the throwdown and if he doesn´t he is lacking maintenance of the cache. (optional for the CO - usage of the word "should" but at the same time saying the CO doesn´t do the maintenance visit which he is responsible).

 

From General Guidelines - Listing Guidelines 1.2.

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance. As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

I interpret this as the CO is responsible for maintenance and has to remove bad logs (not optional for the CO - usage of the words "your responsibility").

 

From General Guidelines - Listing Guidelines 1.2.

If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

If the CO doesn´t do a proper maintenance of the cache, as refered in the previous 2 cases, the geocaching listing can be archived. (optional by reviewers - usage of the word "may")

 

If the reviewers don´t use something "optional" that is written in the guidelines it doesn´t mean it is not written in the guidelines. The fact is, they can archive a listing if the "bad logs" are not deleted or the cache is not maintained, for instance, by not visiting the cache after a throwdown as been made. For me this is clear enough to say that Groundspeak doesn´t approve throwdowns, otherwise why would there be an article on this and why would the owner be accused of not maintaining the cache?

 

If this was not like this, a reviewer could never archive a listing if any geocache container was there (throwdown or not) because there would be no need for maintenance if any geocache container was active. They can only archive a cache if no maintenance is done and, not checking a throwdown is lack of maintenance.

 

Can you see now my point of view and how I interpret the guidelines?

[cezanne]

 

As you please... I just quote again the guidelines:

 

From Help Center Article:

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 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 interpret this as the CO being responsible for maintenance of the cache should ASAP remove the throwdown and if he doesn´t he is lacking maintenance of the cache. (optional for the CO - usage of the word "should" but at the same time saying the CO doesn´t do the maintenance visit which he is responsible).

 

I do not think that the intent of the cited text is to say that you need to run out and remove a throwdown as soon as possible. It certainly makes sense to visit the cache site in case that confusion might arise if more than container is present and in particular in cases where the cache owner feels unhappy with logs in the wrong container.

The key point is that as long as there are several containers present which look like a potential geocache with a log sheet, all logs need to be accepted and some cache owners are not happy with us and thus need to react quickly.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the guidelines which enforces that a cache owner who believes that the original cache got lost and that the throwdown is ok and at the right place has to run out to do a maintenance visit as soon as possible. They can easily wait until the next logs come in and take their time until it is convenient to visit the location.

 

In my understanding, the important part of the cited text is to discourage cache replacements without having the ok of the cache owner and how to deal with cases when the wrong container has been logged in case of multiple containers due to throwdowns.

 

Groundspeak does not come up with rules or suggestions with no reason behind and sometimes I feel that you do not try to understand what could be behind a statement.

[Keystone]

 

Can we continue this conversation here so we don´t mix up the topics?

I don't really care to discuss that topic separately. So I'll try to stay on topic and talk about throwdowns.

 

Earlier in this thread I posted that I have gotten my knickers in a twist over throwdowns ... but this was over throwdowns left on caches that I owned.

 

IMO, the only one who should care about throwdowns is the cache owner. A cache owner can decide to accept the throwdown or not. The help center article you like to quote makes it clear that it is the cache owner's responsibility to deal with the throwdown, and it goes further to imply that a cache owner may delete the log of the person leaving the throwdown.

 

You are reading far to much into it to argue that cache owners are not allowed to accept throwdowns. Based on years of experience of what I've seen reviewers do and what lackeys and reviewers have said in the forum, I'm confident it doesn't say that. Caches belong to the owner and owners are given a lot of leeway in exercising their responsibility for quality control of posts made to the cache page. I have seen a cache with no active owner that seems to be getting a lot of throwdowns be archived by a reviewer; this is within their discretion. I have never seen a cache where an active owner accepts a throwdown and allows Found logs whether the original cache or the throwdown was found be archived for that. Which brings us back to the point that you can have multiple containers to log.

Thank you for getting us back on topic. To everyone, let's stay there.

 

Your summary is very good.

 

It's important to remember that we're talking about a Help Center article. I believe the primary purpose of the article is to provide a reference source when disputes arise between a cache owner who discovers their cache has a "throwdown," on the one hand, and the geocachers who left the throwdown container and the innocent finders of the throwdown, on the other hand. The article should govern the geocachers' conduct and, if called upon to mediate a logging dispute involving a throwdown, I imagine that Geocaching HQ would point to the article. Geocaching HQ has very limited resources to mediate logging disputes, short of a ToU violation.

[+JPreto]

It's important to remember that we're talking about a Help Center article. I believe the primary purpose of the article is to provide a reference source when disputes arise between a cache owner who discovers their cache has a "throwdown," on the one hand, and the geocachers who left the throwdown container and the innocent finders of the throwdown, on the other hand. The article should govern the geocachers' conduct and, if called upon to mediate a logging dispute involving a throwdown, I imagine that Geocaching HQ would point to the article. Geocaching HQ has very limited resources to mediate logging disputes, short of a ToU violation.

 

This is a very important opinion!!! Thank you!!!!

[+sbell111]

It's important to remember that we're talking about a Help Center article. I believe the primary purpose of the article is to provide a reference source when disputes arise between a cache owner who discovers their cache has a "throwdown," on the one hand, and the geocachers who left the throwdown container and the innocent finders of the throwdown, on the other hand. The article should govern the geocachers' conduct and, if called upon to mediate a logging dispute involving a throwdown, I imagine that Geocaching HQ would point to the article. Geocaching HQ has very limited resources to mediate logging disputes, short of a ToU violation.

 

This is a very important opinion!!! Thank you!!!!

I hope that you actually consider how this opinion plays to some of the statements that you have made regarding logs to the 'wrong' logbook.

[+JPreto]

It's important to remember that we're talking about a Help Center article. I believe the primary purpose of the article is to provide a reference source when disputes arise between a cache owner who discovers their cache has a "throwdown," on the one hand, and the geocachers who left the throwdown container and the innocent finders of the throwdown, on the other hand. The article should govern the geocachers' conduct and, if called upon to mediate a logging dispute involving a throwdown, I imagine that Geocaching HQ would point to the article. Geocaching HQ has very limited resources to mediate logging disputes, short of a ToU violation.

 

This is a very important opinion!!! Thank you!!!!

I hope that you actually consider how this opinion plays to some of the statements that you have made regarding logs to the 'wrong' logbook.

Yes I do! It confirms that:

 

1) Groundspeak HQ would point out an article to solve a dispute between players, this meaning that articles are valid and important ways to show how they want the game to be played... May I say "game rules"?

 

2) Logs on throwdowns are disputable, because they are caches not placed nor approved by the owner.

 

Why would Groundspeak care about his if there were no problems with a throwdown?

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak wrote that as a response to a few incidents regarding geocachers discovering a throwdown at their cache, and subsequently deleting the found log of everyone who signed it. The first signatures were likely the guilty party, but not the others. It also may have screwed up a few milestones which resulted in the milestone locking feature. There is a fine line between honestly trying to help the CO, and selfishly helping yourself to a smiley without considering the consequences. Since some COs like throwdowns at their hides, and others don't, this will always be an endless conflict.

[+JPreto]

There is a fine line between honestly trying to help the CO, and selfishly helping yourself to a smiley without considering the consequences. Since some COs like throwdowns at their hides, and others don't, this will always be an endless conflict.

Agree!!!! But it is an endless conflict because there is not a clear guideline about throwndowns. But then again, even if there was one it wouldn´t probably be clear enough not to leave an open door for owners that like throwdowns, like most guidelines are. Most likely because upsetting the throwdown likers would decrease the PM income... That would ruin business!

 

I am starting to think all this guideline conversation is pointless because virtually, in all guidelines, there are ways to breach it and, if the reviewers want, they can use that or not. Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

Edited August 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+sbell111]

It's important to remember that we're talking about a Help Center article. I believe the primary purpose of the article is to provide a reference source when disputes arise between a cache owner who discovers their cache has a "throwdown," on the one hand, and the geocachers who left the throwdown container and the innocent finders of the throwdown, on the other hand. The article should govern the geocachers' conduct and, if called upon to mediate a logging dispute involving a throwdown, I imagine that Geocaching HQ would point to the article. Geocaching HQ has very limited resources to mediate logging disputes, short of a ToU violation.

 

This is a very important opinion!!! Thank you!!!!

I hope that you actually consider how this opinion plays to some of the statements that you have made regarding logs to the 'wrong' logbook.

Yes I do! It confirms that:

 

1) Groundspeak HQ would point out an article to solve a dispute between players, this meaning that articles are valid and important ways to show how they want the game to be played... May I say "game rules"?

 

2) Logs on throwdowns are disputable, because they are caches not placed nor approved by the owner.

 

Why would Groundspeak care about his if there were no problems with a throwdown?

Do you remember how that article said that logs from finders who signed the 'wrong' log should be allowed and you said that you would delete them? Can you see how those positions are at odds with one another?

[+sbell111]

There is a fine line between honestly trying to help the CO, and selfishly helping yourself to a smiley without considering the consequences. Since some COs like throwdowns at their hides, and others don't, this will always be an endless conflict.

Agree!!!! But it is an endless conflict because there is not a clear guideline about throwndowns. But then again, even if there was one it wouldn´t probably be clear enough not to leave an open door for owners that like throwdowns, like most guidelines are. Most likely because upsetting the throwdown likers would decrease the PM income... That would ruin business!

 

I am starting to think all this guideline conversation is pointless because virtually, in all guidelines, there are ways to breach it and, if the reviewers want, they can use that or not. Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

The issue is much simpler than that.

 

What your keep calling the 'guidelines' are really the 'listing guidelines and requirements'. Throwdows are not an issue with caches that are yet to be listed, so the guidelines do not address them.

[4wheelin_fool]

I am starting to think all this guideline conversation is pointless because virtually, in all guidelines, there are ways to breach it and, if the reviewers want, they can use that or not. Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

 

Well, ok then.

 

The guidelines are often more flexible than people are, and perhaps it should be the other way around.

[+GeoBain]

Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

 

That's why they call them guidelines rather than the laws of geocaching.

[+JPreto]

Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

 

That's why they call them guidelines rather than the laws of geocaching.

 

Actually the definition of guideline is:

 

Merriam Webster - a rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done

 

Cambridge Dictionary - information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be

 

Collins - a principle put forward to set standards or determine a course of action

 

So, it sure seems more like rules instead just recommendations... But if they are not clear, there is little use for them since all are open to discussion.

[+GeoBain]

Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

 

That's why they call them guidelines rather than the laws of geocaching.

 

Actually the definition of guideline is:

 

Merriam Webster - a rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done

 

Cambridge Dictionary - information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be

 

Collins - a principle put forward to set standards or determine a course of action

 

So, it sure seems more like rules instead just recommendations... But if they are not clear, there is little use for them since all are open to discussion.

 

Exactly. Guidelines are rules that show how you SHOULD do something. Whereas a law:

 

Merriam Webster - a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

[+JPreto]

Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

 

That's why they call them guidelines rather than the laws of geocaching.

 

Actually the definition of guideline is:

 

Merriam Webster - a rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done

 

Cambridge Dictionary - information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be

 

Collins - a principle put forward to set standards or determine a course of action

 

So, it sure seems more like rules instead just recommendations... But if they are not clear, there is little use for them since all are open to discussion.

 

Exactly. Guidelines are rules that show how you SHOULD do something. Whereas a law:

 

Merriam Webster - a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

 

"Law" is clearly different than "guideline" (must vs should) but what about "rule"? Isn´t it basically the same as a guideline ("should" is applied)?

 

I tend to use guidelines as rules, not as laws, but like some say: "rules are meant to be broken". So we are up to the same point... all possibilities!!!!

[+GeoBain]

"Law" is clearly different than "guideline" (must vs should) but what about "rule"? Isn´t it basically the same as a guideline ("should" is applied)?

 

I tend to use guidelines as rules, not as laws, but like some say: "rules are meant to be broken". So we are up to the same point... all possibilities!!!!

 

From the guidelines thread:

 

1.Authoritative statement of what to do or not to do in a specific situation, issued by an appropriate person or body. It clarifies, demarcates, or interprets a law or policy.

 

2.Statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct.

 

Rules may be divided into four general categories:

 

(1) Folklore: Unpublished rules that are conveyed by behavior and are implicitly understood.

(2) Guidelines: Commonly published and recommended practices that allow some discretion with their interpretation and use.

(3) Mandates: Published commands that may not be ignored in any circumstance and whose violation is punished.

(4) Policies: Published rules that imply a predicted behavior and whose violation may be permitted or tolerated under certain circumstances.

 

Using this definition, I herby agree with JPetro that all the published and unpublished guidelines are rules.

[4wheelin_fool]

I tend to use guidelines as rules, not as laws, but like some say: "rules are meant to be broken". So we are up to the same point... all possibilities!!!!

 

Exactly. If you can't a find a guideline to fit a your needs, just throw one down.

[+MKFmly]

Frustratinly, we keep covering the same ground with the same poster, and that inspired and examination of the issue from "generaltional theory" with respect to adult learning. One of the cardinal perspectives I often remind myself is "It's not their fault". "It's not their fault" they are who they are. "It's not their fault" they were raised in different times. "It's not their fault" they have different values.

 

The world is full-colour, including every shade of gray. Every person is unique, with his or her own interests, quirks and personal preferences about the way things are done.

 

Black-and-white thinkers have a kind of metaphorical colour-blindness. They don’t see the value of the subtle differences most people recognize as important, even crucial to understanding and functionality.

 

"Black and White" means there is just one rule.

There is a schedule with an exact time, it is always the same.

All the rules apply to everybody. There are no exceptions.

There is just one way to do things.

Black and white means things are predictable.

Black and white means things seem fair and are clear.

 

"Gray areas" means that the rule is sometimes one thing, and sometimes-another thing.

 

Gray areas are unpredictable, confusing, and seem unfair to "black and white" thinkers.

 

For people who become confused about "gray areas", it may help to explain in "black and white" terms, "This is a black and white area." Or, "This is a gray area."

 

It is ”obvious” to a black and white thinker; while it is obvious that it is not obvious to a gray thinker.

 

Black-or-White thinkers often can only assign two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

 

Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

 

Example: The Supreme Leader tells the people ALL rule abiders are good while ALL rule breakers are bad.

 

It's a "gray area" if something is done one way some of the time, and another way at other times.

(Like the retirement of virtual caches and the "grandfathering" of caches in the past that do not meet the guidelines as currently stated)

(Like being driven to play baseball some days, and having to take the bus when there is no one around to drive you at other times.)

 

It is a "gray area" when different rules apply to different people

(Like a cache owner arranging maintenance with another cacher to replace a missing container, and a cacher leaving a throwdown)

(Like at a party, everyone else can drink, but the person who is doing the driving for the night does not.)

 

It is a "gray area" if different rules apply at different times of the day or week

(Like pay parking at meters only till 6 p.m. and not on Sunday.)

(Like at work, the hours you work might be different on weekdays and weekends.)

 

It is a "gray area" if different rules apply at different times of the year

(Like school five days a week, except Spring Break, Christmas, Summer Holidays, and Teacher Discretionary Days.)

 

It's a "gray area" if something is done one way some of the time, and another way at other times.

[+tozainamboku]

Why would Groundspeak care about [t]his if there were no problems with a throwdown?

Ah. But the problem Groundspeak has with throwdowns is very different then the problems you or I have with throwdowns.

 

I have a problem as cache owner because I don't want someone who hasn't found my cache before to decide what kind of replacement container and how it should be hidden. I feel that a throwdown makes a statement that my cache is "generic" (perhaps even that all caches are generic) and I like to think that at least some cache owners are attempting to show some creativity in their hides.

 

You may have a problem because you don't think that 'Found It' is an appropriate log for a cache you didn't actually find.

 

Groundspeak has a problem when a cache owner deletes logs of people who find the throwdown container instead of his cache. In cases where this has happened, the finders complain that they signed the log of what they thought was the cache and perhaps were even unaware of the throwdown and they want their log restored. The help center article suggests two things. One is that the cache owner is responsible for removing the extra cache, and two is that as long as that container is there the owner should not be deleting logs of people who thought they had found the correct cache. The article also allows the cache owner to delete the found log of the person who left the throwdown.

 

I believe that Groundspeak may also have a problem with some caches where the owner is no longer active. For these caches, I've been told that the community may do maintenance to keep a cache going, but that the reviewers have discretion to decide that the cache has problems that require there be an active owner to fix. A reviewer may view repeated throwdowns on a cache as indicating there is some other problem that can't be taken care of just through community maintenance (e.g., a groundskeeper keeps finding and throwing away the containers). The reviewer may archive the cache.

Edited August 29, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was just pointing out that, despite the journey, Philipp is obviously not about the numbers and, no, it doesn't change the fact that he placed a throwdown.

Great that he isn´t about the numbers, it sure looks like it! But if that was true he would have placed a note and never a FOUND IT! for something he actually didn´t found, he just placed there.

He climbed a mountain to find a single cache. That's not a hallmark of someone who is trying to rack up a big score.

 

Have you looked at where that cache is located? There are several other caches in the same general area, including a couple closer (and higher) to Mont Blanc. Down in the valley there are a lot of caches as well.

 

A few years before I started cacheing (and a year after the cache was placed) I went skiing for the day at Le Brevant, a resort across the valley (where Chamonix is located). I had considered skiing Vallee Blanche, an unmarked, unmaintained, and unpatrolled off piste area that starts at the top Aguille du Midi tram (which is what most use to begin their accent on Mont Blanc) and ends in the town of Chamonix. It's very strongly recommended that one not ski it without a guide so I opted for the resort across the valley. There's a cache now at the top of the tram at Le Brevant where I had lunch and took lots of pictures of Mont Blanc and the area where the Estonian Puppet Theater is located.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the effort it took to get that cache but it's hardly in the middle of nowhere. I actually missed the unmarked bus (along with 9 other people) after skiiing that day and had to share a taxi with a family from Poland for the 100km trip back to Geneva.

[+sbell111]

I was just pointing out that, despite the journey, Philipp is obviously not about the numbers and, no, it doesn't change the fact that he placed a throwdown.

Great that he isn´t about the numbers, it sure looks like it! But if that was true he would have placed a note and never a FOUND IT! for something he actually didn´t found, he just placed there.

He climbed a mountain to find a single cache. That's not a hallmark of someone who is trying to rack up a big score.

 

Have you looked at where that cache is located? There are several other caches in the same general area, including a couple closer (and higher) to Mont Blanc. Down in the valley there are a lot of caches as well.

 

A few years before I started cacheing (and a year after the cache was placed) I went skiing for the day at Le Brevant, a resort across the valley (where Chamonix is located). I had considered skiing Vallee Blanche, an unmarked, unmaintained, and unpatrolled off piste area that starts at the top Aguille du Midi tram (which is what most use to begin their accent on Mont Blanc) and ends in the town of Chamonix. It's very strongly recommended that one not ski it without a guide so I opted for the resort across the valley. There's a cache now at the top of the tram at Le Brevant where I had lunch and took lots of pictures of Mont Blanc and the area where the Estonian Puppet Theater is located.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the effort it took to get that cache but it's hardly in the middle of nowhere. I actually missed the unmarked bus (along with 9 other people) after skiiing that day and had to share a taxi with a family from Poland for the 100km trip back to Geneva.

The way you describe it, it kinda still sounds like its in the middle of nowhere, except higher.

[+tozainamboku]

A few years before I started cacheing (and a year after the cache was placed) I went skiing for the day at Le Brevant, a resort across the valley (where Chamonix is located). I had considered skiing Vallee Blanche, an unmarked, unmaintained, and unpatrolled off piste area that starts at the top Aguille du Midi tram (which is what most use to begin their accent on Mont Blanc) and ends in the town of Chamonix. It's very strongly recommended that one not ski it without a guide so I opted for the resort across the valley. There's a cache now at the top of the tram at Le Brevant where I had lunch and took lots of pictures of Mont Blanc and the area where the Estonian Puppet Theater is located.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the effort it took to get that cache but it's hardly in the middle of nowhere. I actually missed the unmarked bus (along with 9 other people) after skiiing that day and had to share a taxi with a family from Poland for the 100km trip back to Geneva.

Give the man a souvenir!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A few years before I started cacheing (and a year after the cache was placed) I went skiing for the day at Le Brevant, a resort across the valley (where Chamonix is located). I had considered skiing Vallee Blanche, an unmarked, unmaintained, and unpatrolled off piste area that starts at the top Aguille du Midi tram (which is what most use to begin their accent on Mont Blanc) and ends in the town of Chamonix. It's very strongly recommended that one not ski it without a guide so I opted for the resort across the valley. There's a cache now at the top of the tram at Le Brevant where I had lunch and took lots of pictures of Mont Blanc and the area where the Estonian Puppet Theater is located.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the effort it took to get that cache but it's hardly in the middle of nowhere. I actually missed the unmarked bus (along with 9 other people) after skiiing that day and had to share a taxi with a family from Poland for the 100km trip back to Geneva.

Give the man a souvenir!

 

I already got one. It was a nice fleece jacket with a graphic of several of the Chamonix ski resorts and the flags for France, Switzerland, and Italy. I wear it fairly often in the winter.

 

I've also got the digital souvenirs for France and Switzerland (but not Italy since GS hasn't created one). I wouldn't expect to get a souvenir for Poland for riding in a taxi with a Polish family.

 

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was just pointing out that, despite the journey, Philipp is obviously not about the numbers and, no, it doesn't change the fact that he placed a throwdown.

Great that he isn´t about the numbers, it sure looks like it! But if that was true he would have placed a note and never a FOUND IT! for something he actually didn´t found, he just placed there.

He climbed a mountain to find a single cache. That's not a hallmark of someone who is trying to rack up a big score.

 

Have you looked at where that cache is located? There are several other caches in the same general area, including a couple closer (and higher) to Mont Blanc. Down in the valley there are a lot of caches as well.

 

A few years before I started cacheing (and a year after the cache was placed) I went skiing for the day at Le Brevant, a resort across the valley (where Chamonix is located). I had considered skiing Vallee Blanche, an unmarked, unmaintained, and unpatrolled off piste area that starts at the top Aguille du Midi tram (which is what most use to begin their accent on Mont Blanc) and ends in the town of Chamonix. It's very strongly recommended that one not ski it without a guide so I opted for the resort across the valley. There's a cache now at the top of the tram at Le Brevant where I had lunch and took lots of pictures of Mont Blanc and the area where the Estonian Puppet Theater is located.

 

I'm not trying to minimize the effort it took to get that cache but it's hardly in the middle of nowhere. I actually missed the unmarked bus (along with 9 other people) after skiiing that day and had to share a taxi with a family from Poland for the 100km trip back to Geneva.

The way you describe it, it kinda still sounds like its in the middle of nowhere, except higher.

 

There are 127 caches within 10 miles of the coordinates for the Estonian Puppet Theater cache. That doesn't sound like in the middle of nowhere to me.

[+JPreto]

There are 127 caches within 10 miles of the coordinates for the Estonian Puppet Theater cache. That doesn't sound like in the middle of nowhere to me.

I think there is only one "middle of nowhere cache": http://coord.info/GC1BE91

[+DeepButi]

My English is not good enough to fully understand what is being discussed on the last few posts. I would appreciate someone making it clear!

 

Anyway, for what is worth, my 2c.

 

Cache is not in the middle of nowhere. It's a popular high mountain hike area due to the proximity of Mont Blanc. Some 2,000 (two thousand) people summit it each year.

Most of them using the Gouter route; accessing the cache using this route is out of question, no one would do it (unless a very specific adventure is planned as tried Philippe). It is not reasonable.

Some of them using the Tacul-Maudit. Not much, but still quite a bunch of people.

 

On the Gouter route STX Extreme and Near the top of Europe have some visits. Why? because they are exactly on the path to Mont Blanc. No need to spend any aditional effort.

 

Puppet Theater instead is not at all in the path. It comes after a difficult Tacul climb (it took us almost 3h for a lineal distance of 1Km) and before an still more difficult Maudit ascension. On a very long journey (almost twice the time the Gouter route), so the chances are extremely low of anyone taking the detour. You must consider we are not talking about a marked route folowwing some clear path. It's snow & ice, nothing else. If you want to go there while on the route to MB you will need to spend a lot of additional energy.

In addition, one would think the possibility it's under some meters of snow is high. At 4000m high, 4m of snow is nothing. Go and find a cache under 4m of snow without an exact place where to dig!!!! (In fact the site is very well chosen and we didn't dig a single inch! but you have to go there to check).

 

That said, the cache itself is not "that" dificult. You need:

 

1. A low avalanche risk. Google will help you find the number of dead people in Tacul-Maudit. No one want to help increasing this numbers. That's mandatory (or suicidal).

2. A reasonable weather forecast

3. 7h of high mountain hiking (crampons, ice axe, rope team, etc etc)

 

The cable car takes you from 1100 (one thousand one hundred) meters to 3400 (3600ft to 11100ft) in 20 minutes, so most people needs aclimatisation (correct word?). Unless you are a trained one, guide companies will not take you there unless you spend a couple of nigths at +3000m.

 

And all of this effort for a cache that most people think "will not be there".

 

Honestly speaking, no idea why it took so long for some frikie cacher to go there! I myself was 100% sure the cache should be there. There is no reason why it shouldn't! No muggles, no animals ...

 

Let's see how much it takes for a STF