A true example why not to place a Throw Down!

[+JPreto]

When I mentioned the possibility of archival I did not mean archival by a reviewer, but archival by the CO because people like yourself do not accept maintenance by someone else which I regard as pretty stubborn.

As others have said before Groundspeak has no rule that the owner has to be present at the maintenance action in person. What counts is that caches are properly maintained in the sense of the owner.

Lets just put an example, using me: "I am Portuguese and I live in Brazil (almost 8.000km away from my country) I have now 142 caches hidden in Brazil. If I move back to Portugal (my wife is Brazilian so I´ll keep comming here at least every year) what do you think is the best for those 142 caches?"

Edited August 26, 2014 by JPreto

[cezanne]

When I mentioned the possibility of archival I did not mean archival by a reviewer, but archival by the CO because people like yourself do not accept maintenance by someone else which I regard as pretty stubborn.

As others have said before Groundspeak has no rule that the owner has to be present at the maintenance action in person. What counts is that caches are properly maintained in the sense of the owner.

Lets just put an example, using me: "I am Portuguese and I live in Brazil (almost 8.000km away from my country) I have now 142 caches hidden in Brazil. If I move back to Portugal (my wife is Brazilian so I´ll keep comming here at least every year) what do you think is the best for those 142 caches?"

 

I do not know your caches, but maintaining 142 caches might be a bit hard if one always has to rely on someone else several of the caches need attendance.

 

I said before that what counts for me is that caches are properly maintained. How this happens, does not play an essential role. My duty as a cache owner is to take care of my caches. Noone is telling me how I have to do the job. I own caches where the present container has been placed by someone else whom I asked for replacing the old container by a new one when I was not able to do the exchange. I later visited these caches and I'm perfectly happy with the result and so are the finders. I would not have an issue with asking someone reliable to place a new container if the old one disappeared. I think that all this is in accordance with being a responsible cache owner.

 

My main point is that I consider it to be ridiculous that someone only accepts maintenance performed by the cache owner.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 26, 2014 by cezanne

[+MKFmly]

This question is not addressed to me but this is a Forum... I will answer it with my opinion.

 

NO!!!!!! If the owner can´t maintain it the cache shouldn´t be there! Simple and those are the guidelines of the game...

Given, the cache owner is responsible for having a maintenance plan for their cache.

 

Given, they can of course perform maintenance themselves, they can pre-arrange maintenance with a third party, they can pre-arrange maintenance with other cachers, and they can even rely on the goodwill of the caching community to perform maintenance (generally observed as bad form).

 

It's simple, but by no means is a cache owner REQUIRED TO PERSONALLY perform any and all such physical maintenance!

The point of the guideline is that cache maintenance is performed, NOT WHO performs it.

 

Given the above, any pre-arranged maintenance of a cache between the cache owner and a cacher (or other third party) is maintenance and a replacement container is a CO approved replacement container. If maintenance is not pre-arranged then a replacement container is a "throwdown" and needs to be observed with "a very slightly raised left eyebrow" and a healthy dose of skepticism regardless of the rationale and justification used...

[+tozainamboku]

If the current cache owner is no longer willing or able to maintain their cache the cache could go up for adoption rather than be archived.

Groundspeak has determined that non-consensual adoption are no longer allowed. There were many problems when a owner returned after absence and found their cache had been given away. Groundspeak did not want to deal with the issues of their being involved in the transfer of a cache. When this "rule" went into effect I asked about caches that are being maintain by the community when the cache owner is no longer active. The response I got then was that it is within reviewer descretion to remove need maintenance attributes if the cache was being maintained in this way, but there were also situations where reviewers might decide that the cache needed an owner and could archive it.

 

The issue comes up in these discussion because the throwdown absolutist can not abide someone other than the cache owner replacing a missing cache. The majority of geocachers seem to think that a cache with a cache in place is better than a cache with no cache to find. The issues of multiple containers or of finding a container other than what the original hider intended seems somewhat irrelevant to the view of a simply minded game. People who take things way too seriously find that these minor issues are important. Add to that the fact that people leaving throwdowns usually log a find (and have come to see that as normal) upsets people who believe that leaving a new cache because you didn't find anything clearly is not a find.

Edited August 26, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+JPreto]

Given, they can of course perform maintenance themselves, they can pre-arrange maintenance with a third party, they can pre-arrange maintenance with other cachers, and they can even rely on the goodwill of the caching community to perform maintenance (generally observed as bad form).

 

It's simple, but by no means is a cache owner REQUIRED TO PERSONALLY perform any and all such physical maintenance!

The point of the guideline is that cache maintenance is performed, NOT WHO performs it.

 

Maybe you have misinterpret me or, I have not explained myself clearly...

 

1) I AM NOT AGAINST a non-owner (or even a muggle) replacing a cache with the owner indications and knowing the exact place where the cache should be, usually by a previous visit to the place or indicative photos.

 

2) I AM AGAINST a non-owner replacing a cache, even with owner permit (usually lazy owners) if he/she doesn´t know the exact place where the cache should be. Moreover because most of these cases are made with a propose of logging a find in a cache they just replaced, not to help the owner in a altruistic way.

 

About my own caches, if I ever leave Brazil (even if I come back yearly) I will archive 90%-95% of the caches (removing the containers one by one, not to make geolitter), leaving only the EarthCaches and a few "special" caches that a fellow geocacher will be in charge without adopting. He will visit all my cache locations with me and I will leave him several containers (my containers are personalized) for possible future maintenance. If for any reason he will not be able to maintain them any longer I will propose the adoption for any other local geocacher, if no one wants to adopt them, I will archive them and warrant no geolitter will be left.

[+J Grouchy]

Where I would argue with Groundspeak is on their definition of a throwdown. True, it's just semantics, but still. I feel if I have the owner's explicit permission to replace a cache they believe to be missing, my replacement is not a throwdown. It's a replacement. Groundspeak may see them as being one and the same, but I do not. Either way though, logging a "Found It!" would be inappropriate, since I 'found it' in my backpack.

 

What about if you gave it some time to get moved around a bit by noob cachers, then come back and try to find it?

[+JPreto]

The issue comes up in these discussion because the throwdown absolutist can not abide someone other than the cache owner replacing a missing cache.

So I am not a "throwdown absolutist" since I allow another person (geocacher or not) to replace my cache if that person had the proper "lessons" on where and how I want the cache to be placed. And of course, that person will not log a find in that cache except if the person had found it before the "lessons".

[+JPreto]

What about if you gave it some time to get moved around a bit by noob cachers, then come back and try to find it?

So, in these particular circumstances you can log a FOUND IT in your own cache... NOT!!!!

[cezanne]

2) I AM AGAINST a non-owner replacing a cache, even with owner permit (usually lazy owners) if he/she doesn´t know the exact place where the cache should be.

 

How can you know whether someone who replaces a replacement in accordance with the cache owner knows the exact place?

Don't you think that the replacer of the cache on the Mont Blanc was considerate enough to obtain all available information? (By the way, this guy has been reviewer for Germany for a number of years.)

 

How do act as cache owner if you visit one of your caches and cannot find a container neither at the location where you hid it nor nearby? Do you place a replacement?

I certainly would do so and still there are many cases where the old container was still there, but just at a wrong place or sunken down so that several people failed to find it.

 

 

Cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm a bit curious of the main differences between a throwdown absolutist and a Puritan. Are they different species, or is one devolved from the other? What are the genetic differences, as well as any specific affinity for wearing certain types of underclothing, such as knickers or briefs.

[+JPreto]

2) I AM AGAINST a non-owner replacing a cache, even with owner permit (usually lazy owners) if he/she doesn´t know the exact place where the cache should be.

 

How can you know whether someone who replaces a replacement in accordance with the cache owner knows the exact place?

Don't you think that the replacer of the cache on the Mont Blanc was considerate enough to obtain all available information? (By the way, this guy has been reviewer for Germany for a number of years.)

 

WOW!!!! A German Reviewer did a throwdown?!?!?! The plot thickens...

And he clearly didn´t know the correct place of the cache, otherwise he would have found it like the Spanish Reviewer did.

 

How do act as cache owner if you visit one of your caches and cannot find a container neither at the location where you hid it nor nearby? Do you place a replacement?

I certainly would do so and still there are many cases where the old container was still there, but just at a wrong place or sunken down so that several people failed to find it.

Sure, I can happen that is why I place a Owner Maintenance every time I place a new container in the cache place so other geocachers know exactly what I am doing has a owner, because, after all, I place MY CACHES for them to find!

 

Lets put out another example: I place container A at the top of a tree in a specific place and it falls to the floor with the wind. After some DNFs I go there and can´t find the cache so I place container B in the same location. After some years a geocacher steps on container A, that was all along there in the floor, and he mentions it on the log. My attitude is to immediately disable the cache, go to the place and remove one of the containers before enabling it again.

 

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

 

With this discussion you made me think about another thing, I will start to number my containers and say which is the number on the container so, in remote cases like this, geocachers know if it is the correct container. Thanks for the discussion, it made me realize how I can improve the quality of my caches.

[+JPreto]

I'm a bit curious of the main differences between a throwdown absolutist and a Puritan. Are they different species, or is one devolved from the other? What are the genetic differences, as well as any specific affinity for wearing certain types of underclothing, such as knickers or briefs.

Clearly both puritans and absolutists have their knickers twisted... apart from that only "tozainamboku" can define. Even me, with my Biochemistry studies, can´t define. I also can´t see any of this in the guidelines, help center or geocaching 101.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

 

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

 

 

I think if a cacher found your container ( either one ) at GZ and signed the log that GS would allow the find to stand and I think it should.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

If the current cache owner is no longer willing or able to maintain their cache the cache could go up for adoption rather than be archived.

Groundspeak has determined that non-consensual adoption are no longer allowed. There were many problems when a owner returned after absence and found their cache had been given away. Groundspeak did not want to deal with the issues of their being involved in the transfer of a cache. When this "rule" went into effect I asked about caches that are being maintain by the community when the cache owner is no longer active. The response I got then was that it is within reviewer descretion to remove need maintenance attributes if the cache was being maintained in this way, but there were also situations where reviewers might decide that the cache needed an owner and could archive it.

 

The issue comes up in these discussion because the throwdown absolutist can not abide someone other than the cache owner replacing a missing cache. The majority of geocachers seem to think that a cache with a cache in place is better than a cache with no cache to find. The issues of multiple containers or of finding a container other than what the original hider intended seems somewhat irrelevant to the view of a simply minded game. People who take things way too seriously find that these minor issues are important. Add to that the fact that people leaving throwdowns usually log a find (and have come to see that as normal) upsets people who believe that leaving a new cache because you didn't find anything clearly is not a find.

 

Very well put here....I agree.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I'm a bit curious of the main differences between a throwdown absolutist and a Puritan. Are they different species, or is one devolved from the other? What are the genetic differences, as well as any specific affinity for wearing certain types of underclothing, such as knickers or briefs.

 

I think its the same animal with a different name and since they're usually in a knot they must wear knickers.

[+JPreto]

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

I think if a cacher found your container ( either one ) at GZ and signed the log that GS would allow the find to stand and I think it should.

As I said, this case is tricky/arguable/undefined... but that would be my opinion/decision and, by the game guidelines, I can say if a log is rightful or not in my own caches.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm a bit curious of the main differences between a throwdown absolutist and a Puritan. Are they different species, or is one devolved from the other? What are the genetic differences, as well as any specific affinity for wearing certain types of underclothing, such as knickers or briefs.

The Puritans were a group of English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries. A puritan (lower case p) is coloquially used for any person who is excessively strict in their interpretation of rules particulary in moral or religious matters. I use the term puritan in geocaching for people who obsess over personal rules they have for logging finds and complain loudly on the forums when people log finds and do not follow their rules. Of course most puritans would object to logging a find on throwdown cache, even when the owner has given permission for the throwdown, claiming you didn't find the cache per their rules.

 

Blame Jeremy Irish for the knickers. He is the one who said "Bickering over the rules of a cache 'find' was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find."

 

Hope that clarifies it

[cezanne]

And he clearly didn´t know the correct place of the cache, otherwise he would have found it like the Spanish Reviewer did.

 

Not necessarily. I have experienced situations where the cache owner placed a second cache even though the original one was still there but was not found.

It happened to me many years ago that I almost failed to find one of my early caches. I searched for more than an hour and found it only by chance and it was not the fault

of cachers not rehiding the cache properly. At some point one really needs to make a decision whether to place a new container or taking any other sort of action.

In my case I decided to archive the cache even though it was still there and there have been no DNF logs, but for other reasons.

 

I think you should also take into account that ° changed his log to DNF after the found it log came in.

 

Sure, I can happen that is why I place a Owner Maintenance every time I place a new container in the cache place so other geocachers know exactly what I am doing has a owner, because, after all, I place MY CACHES for them to find!

 

One could do exactly the same if someone else places a container.

 

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

 

I would definitely accept the log.

 

With this discussion you made me think about another thing, I will start to number my containers and say which is the number on the container so, in remote cases like this, geocachers know if it is the correct container. Thanks for the discussion, it made me realize how I can improve the quality of my caches.

 

I wonder why you think that such minor issues as to whether someone finds the most recent container are part of what you regard as quality of your caches.

 

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

[+JPreto]

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

Why not have both? Or just containers? Or just locations? I tend to mix...

[cezanne]

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

Why not have both? Or just containers? Or just locations? I tend to mix...

 

Because I never cared about the hide and seek aspect and about containers.

You are certainly free to mix whatever components you wish to use for your caches. My statement was about my caches .........

[+JPreto]

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

Why not have both? Or just containers? Or just locations? I tend to mix...

Because I never cared about the hide and seek aspect and about containers.

You are certainly free to mix whatever components you wish to use for your caches. My statement was about my caches .........

OK!!!

Maybe you like Waymarking more than geocaching... I am more of a geocaching fan!

[+tozainamboku]

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

Why not have both? Or just containers? Or just locations? I tend to mix...

Because I never cared about the hide and seek aspect and about containers.

You are certainly free to mix whatever components you wish to use for your caches. My statement was about my caches .........

OK!!!

Maybe you like Waymarking more than geocaching... I am more of a geocaching fan!

[+Manville Possum]

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

Why not have both? Or just containers? Or just locations? I tend to mix...

Because I never cared about the hide and seek aspect and about containers.

You are certainly free to mix whatever components you wish to use for your caches. My statement was about my caches .........

OK!!!

Maybe you like Waymarking more than geocaching... I am more of a geocaching fan!

Just thought I would keep you informed, the Waymarking site is not running very well now. Just so you know.

Here is a Waymarking category that you may find of interest Bicycle Tenders.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Manville Possum Hunters

[cezanne]

Maybe you like Waymarking more than geocaching... I am more of a geocaching fan!

 

This gets off-topic, but no I don't like Waymarking. I like caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EFT1_vulkanland?guid=bc6fc608-511d-4790-91a6-63898366b82c

(over 180km hike). Show me a single waymark in the world that has a comparable list of amazing logs and

photos. Waymarking some points of a trail where most waymarkers do not walk the entire trail is something

completely different. Moreover, it hardly would possible to implement such a cache as a waymark - the

route is not given in advance and the waypoints are calculated one by one - so there remains a surprise factor.

 

The container at the end is a convenient way of proving one's visit, but the real experience happens for me before

the container and I like those caches the most where I know already from 30 distance where to look for the cache.

Of course such caches are much easier to replace by someone else than the cache owner than those where one needs to

search with a lot of determination.

[+Manville Possum]

One good thing about Waymarks that are similar to EarthhCaches, NO throwdowns.

[+sbell111]

What about if you gave it some time to get moved around a bit by noob cachers, then come back and try to find it?

So, in these particular circumstances you can log a FOUND IT in your own cache... NOT!!!!

If you wanted to, yes, you could.

[+J Grouchy]

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

I think if a cacher found your container ( either one ) at GZ and signed the log that GS would allow the find to stand and I think it should.

As I said, this case is tricky/arguable/undefined... but that would be my opinion/decision and, by the game guidelines, I can say if a log is rightful or not in my own caches.

 

In the particular case of the tree, I think you would have more of an argument in favor of deletion than you would if it were a similar hiding spot. The top of a tree would definitely mean a higher terrain rating - say a T2 versus what ought to be maybe a T3 or higher.

 

I've run across several caches where the owner did "maintenance" by putting down a new container but I found the original right next to where they put the replacement. In those cases I just end up signing both logs and mentioning it in my log. Even if I'd just signed one of them, however, and it turned out I was signing the original and not the replacement, then I would have really earned the find even though the original was technically "lost".

 

Back to the tree...if your container A had just fallen to a lower branch, I would argue you ought to let the 'found it' log stand. My point with all this is it all depends on the circumstances, really.

[+sbell111]

2) I AM AGAINST a non-owner replacing a cache, even with owner permit (usually lazy owners) if he/she doesn´t know the exact place where the cache should be.

 

How can you know whether someone who replaces a replacement in accordance with the cache owner knows the exact place?

Don't you think that the replacer of the cache on the Mont Blanc was considerate enough to obtain all available information? (By the way, this guy has been reviewer for Germany for a number of years.)

 

WOW!!!! A German Reviewer did a throwdown?!?!?! The plot thickens...

And he clearly didn´t know the correct place of the cache, otherwise he would have found it like the Spanish Reviewer did.

 

How do act as cache owner if you visit one of your caches and cannot find a container neither at the location where you hid it nor nearby? Do you place a replacement?

I certainly would do so and still there are many cases where the old container was still there, but just at a wrong place or sunken down so that several people failed to find it.

Sure, I can happen that is why I place a Owner Maintenance every time I place a new container in the cache place so other geocachers know exactly what I am doing has a owner, because, after all, I place MY CACHES for them to find!

 

Lets put out another example: I place container A at the top of a tree in a specific place and it falls to the floor with the wind. After some DNFs I go there and can´t find the cache so I place container B in the same location. After some years a geocacher steps on container A, that was all along there in the floor, and he mentions it on the log. My attitude is to immediately disable the cache, go to the place and remove one of the containers before enabling it again.

 

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

 

With this discussion you made me think about another thing, I will start to number my containers and say which is the number on the container so, in remote cases like this, geocachers know if it is the correct container. Thanks for the discussion, it made me realize how I can improve the quality of my caches.

If you delete his log, you would be in violation of TPTB's guidance on this issue and the log would be subject to reinstatement. Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

I think if a cacher found your container ( either one ) at GZ and signed the log that GS would allow the find to stand and I think it should.

As I said, this case is tricky/arguable/undefined... but that would be my opinion/decision and, by the game guidelines, I can say if a log is rightful or not in my own caches.

Actually, TPTB are very clear on this issue. If the cacher signed the log (either log), then the find should stand. As a cache owner, you do not have the authority to delete a log in the event that the finder signed the logbook.

[+J Grouchy]

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

I think if a cacher found your container ( either one ) at GZ and signed the log that GS would allow the find to stand and I think it should.

As I said, this case is tricky/arguable/undefined... but that would be my opinion/decision and, by the game guidelines, I can say if a log is rightful or not in my own caches.

Actually, TPTB are very clear on this issue. If the cacher signed the log (either log), then the find should stand. As a cache owner, you do not have the authority to delete a log in the event that the finder signed the logbook.

 

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

[+sbell111]

All my caches are about the experience and the locations and not about containers.

Why not have both? Or just containers? Or just locations? I tend to mix...

Because I never cared about the hide and seek aspect and about containers.

You are certainly free to mix whatever components you wish to use for your caches. My statement was about my caches .........

OK!!!

Maybe you like Waymarking more than geocaching... I am more of a geocaching fan!

Why do you keep acting as if everyone else in a conversation is a noob and you are the one with all the experience when in it seems that the complete opposite is more accurate?

Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Now, the tricky part would be if he didn´t manage to find container B, that was in the top of the tree, and found container A, that was on the floor and logged a Found It. This is actually tricky. My attitude would be to talk to him and delete his found it log because he didn´t found the container that was in game, but one that was considered gone.

I think if a cacher found your container ( either one ) at GZ and signed the log that GS would allow the find to stand and I think it should.

As I said, this case is tricky/arguable/undefined... but that would be my opinion/decision and, by the game guidelines, I can say if a log is rightful or not in my own caches.

Actually, TPTB are very clear on this issue. If the cacher signed the log (either log), then the find should stand. As a cache owner, you do not have the authority to delete a log in the event that the finder signed the logbook.

 

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

The help center article quoted in the OP does a very good job in explaining why the find should stand. It doesn't matter which logsheet was signed. A cache was found at the listed coordinates. A log was signed. The find stands.

[+JPreto]

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

The help center article quoted in the OP does a very good job in explaining why the find should stand. It doesn't matter which logsheet was signed. A cache was found at the listed coordinates. A log was signed. The find stands.

No need to "produce" the log, this is just an example on one of my caches... http://coord.info/GLF9JYK8

 

And yet again, another Help Center article:

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

 

This said, I can say that the cache meant to be found was not that one... So, as I said before, going to start to number my caches so the geocacher knows if the found cache is the correct one and not an old cache, lost in the game, placed by me or any other geocacher that, imagine, 5 years ago, choose the same spot for a geocache but never went to retrieve it after being archived (and yes, this can happen also).

[+JPreto]

Maybe you like Waymarking more than geocaching... I am more of a geocaching fan!

This gets off-topic, but no I don't like Waymarking.

OK!!!

The cache you point out is really impressive... Great geocache!!!!!

[+JPreto]

Why do you keep acting as if everyone else in a conversation is a noob and you are the one with all the experience when in it seems that the complete opposite is more accurate?

When there is nothing to say, there is no need to attack...

 

Of course most, if not all of the repliers in this post, have more geocaching experience than me... I started not over a year ago and most of my experience is in Brazil where there are only 2.000 caches and 300 players. So your statement is pretty accurate when talking about experience in GeoCaching.

[+JPreto]

Back to the tree...if your container A had just fallen to a lower branch, I would argue you ought to let the 'found it' log stand. My point with all this is it all depends on the circumstances, really.

Exactly!!! And we can find a thousand examples in the middle... like the cache was 10 meters high in the tree, where you needed security ropes and thus a T5 but the previous finder left the cache 2 meters high in the tree. What to do with the next finds?

 

If I was the one logging the find (lets just put the opposite case just to make if funnier) I would log a found it and say on the log the cache was 2 meters high and it wasn´t a T5 for me. In a perfect world the CO would see my log and disable the cache. He would go to the cache and put it in the correct place. If the CO deleted my log I would understand because I never went up, 10 meters on the tree, the place where the cache should be and the place the CO wanted to show!

 

So... in these particular cases, the CO is responsible for the cache so only he knows if the requirements to find the cache were or not meet. This can lead to very difficult to evaluate situations...

[+sbell111]

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

The help center article quoted in the OP does a very good job in explaining why the find should stand. It doesn't matter which logsheet was signed. A cache was found at the listed coordinates. A log was signed. The find stands.

No need to "produce" the log, this is just an example on one of my caches... http://coord.info/GLF9JYK8

 

And yet again, another Help Center article:

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

Is that an example of a time when you had two cache containers at the listed coordinates? If so, did the cacher sign the other log? If so, then you are in violation of the guidelines. If not, then your example has no bearing on the issue.

 

This said, I can say that the cache meant to be found was not that one... So, as I said before, going to start to number my caches so the geocacher knows if the found cache is the correct one and not an old cache, lost in the game, placed by me or any other geocacher that, imagine, 5 years ago, choose the same spot for a geocache but never went to retrieve it after being archived (and yes, this can happen also).

Between the actual guidelines which state that signed log = find, and the help center article that you previously cited which states that if a cacher signs the 'wrong' log then the find should stand, it's pretty obvious that deleting the online log is inappropriate. It matters not who placed the 'throwdown.

 

It should be noted that the concept of numbering your cache containers is unlikely to do anything to resolve this issue beyond showing you as a cache owner who is unwilling to properly maintain your cache by removing the old containers as the help center article directs you to. (Weren't you the one who took the position that the guidelines, the help articles, and the GC 101 were all supposed to be taken as hard and fast rules?)

Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Why do you keep acting as if everyone else in a conversation is a noob and you are the one with all the experience when in it seems that the complete opposite is more accurate?

When there is nothing to say, there is no need to attack...

 

Of course most, if not all of the repliers in this post, have more geocaching experience than me... I started not over a year ago and most of my experience is in Brazil where there are only 2.000 caches and 300 players. So your statement is pretty accurate when talking about experience in GeoCaching.

In that case, my advice is to listen to the people who are responding to you and to lay off the snarky replies.

[+JPreto]

Between the actual guidelines which state that signed log = find, and the help center article that you previously cited which states that if a cacher signs the 'wrong' log then the find should stand, it's pretty obvious that deleting the online log is inappropriate. It matters not who placed the 'throwdown.

Sorry but I cannot agree, see the Help Center article again:

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.

"In these cases" - cases where a throwdown was made and the owner didn´t act promptly removing the throwdown or disabeling the cache.

 

"It is reasonable" - my interpretation is "he should" which is different that "he must".

 

Again I say, it´s really up to the cache owner to decide if the logs stand or not. And this can be tricky!

[+sbell111]

Back to the tree...if your container A had just fallen to a lower branch, I would argue you ought to let the 'found it' log stand. My point with all this is it all depends on the circumstances, really.

Exactly!!! And we can find a thousand examples in the middle... like the cache was 10 meters high in the tree, where you needed security ropes and thus a T5 but the previous finder left the cache 2 meters high in the tree. What to do with the next finds?

 

If I was the one logging the find (lets just put the opposite case just to make if funnier) I would log a found it and say on the log the cache was 2 meters high and it wasn´t a T5 for me. In a perfect world the CO would see my log and disable the cache. He would go to the cache and put it in the correct place. If the CO deleted my log I would understand because I never went up, 10 meters on the tree, the place where the cache should be and the place the CO wanted to show!

 

So... in these particular cases, the CO is responsible for the cache so only he knows if the requirements to find the cache were or not meet. This can lead to very difficult to evaluate situations...

If the CO deleted your log in that scenario, he would be in violation of the guidelines.

 

It is not the cache seeker's responsibility to ensure that the cache is where it should be prior to his arrival. It is the cache owner's.

[+sbell111]

Between the actual guidelines which state that signed log = find, and the help center article that you previously cited which states that if a cacher signs the 'wrong' log then the find should stand, it's pretty obvious that deleting the online log is inappropriate. It matters not who placed the 'throwdown.

Sorry but I cannot agree, see the Help Center article again:

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.

"In these cases" - cases where a throwdown was made and the owner didn´t act promptly removing the throwdown or disabeling the cache.

In your example, it was the cache owner who placed the replacement cache. If he failed to remove the old container, then he caused the problem of their being two cache containers at the location. He should certainly, therefore, allow those finds that were logged to the original cache.

"It is reasonable" - my interpretation is "he should" which is different that "he must".

From the guidelines:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

You will note that they didn't add 'unless the cache owner feels like deleting your log'.

 

Again I say, it´s really up to the cache owner to decide if the logs stand or not. And this can be tricky!

... unless a person actually familiarizes himself with the listing guidelines. Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[+J Grouchy]

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

The help center article quoted in the OP does a very good job in explaining why the find should stand. It doesn't matter which logsheet was signed. A cache was found at the listed coordinates. A log was signed. The find stands.

No need to "produce" the log, this is just an example on one of my caches... http://coord.info/GLF9JYK8

 

And yet again, another Help Center article:

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

Is that an example of a time when you had two cache containers at the listed coordinates? If so, did the cacher sign the other log? If so, then you are in violation of the guidelines. If not, then your example has no bearing on the issue.

 

This said, I can say that the cache meant to be found was not that one... So, as I said before, going to start to number my caches so the geocacher knows if the found cache is the correct one and not an old cache, lost in the game, placed by me or any other geocacher that, imagine, 5 years ago, choose the same spot for a geocache but never went to retrieve it after being archived (and yes, this can happen also).

Between the actual guidelines which state that signed log = find, and the help center article that you previously cited which states that if a cacher signs the 'wrong' log then the find should stand, it's pretty obvious that deleting the online log is inappropriate. It matters not who placed the 'throwdown.

 

It should be noted that the concept of numbering you cache containers is unlikely to do anything to resolve this issue beyond showing you as a cache owner who is unwilling to properly maintain your cache by removing the old containers as the help center article directs you to. (Weren't you the one who took the position that the guidelines, the help articles, and the GC 101 were all supposed to be taken as hard and fast rules?)

 

You say that as if there is no room for debate...and I think the case can be made that there most certainly IS room for debate. My example of the terrain rating, for example.

 

Per the throwdown page:

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.

 

See what they did there? "Generally"

That makes all the difference.

Generally...unless the thrower-downer stated that they threw down a pill bottle where an ammo can is supposed to be.

Generally...unless a T5 cache is in a T1 location.

 

"Generally" gives the CO leeway if folks really want to fight about it. Not that this stuff is really worth fighting about...but if I was going after a T4 cache and found it laying next to a sidewalk, I'd be suspicious and wouldn't at all be surprised if my log was deleted.

[+JPreto]

If the CO deleted your log in that scenario, he would be in violation of the guidelines.

 

It is not the cache seeker's responsibility to ensure that the cache is where it should be prior to his arrival. It is the cache owner's.

I wouldn´t complain since it was not his fault but the previous geocachers that didn´t respect the rules of the game: "Place the cache exactly how you found it"

 

Anyway, this is a community game with some guidelines (lets not put rules because it might offend some players) so if people don´t respect the guidelines things like this can happen more and more.

 

The balance of the game is in the hands of everybody and, at the same time, in the hands of nobody. I am getting poetic now...

 

So again I say, throwdowns are bad and in the first post it is a very good example of it.

[cezanne]

So... in these particular cases, the CO is responsible for the cache so only he knows if the requirements to find the cache were or not meet. This can lead to very difficult to evaluate situations...

 

I do not agree. For a non challenge cache the signature in the log book is sufficient - that's very simple. It only gets complicated if you want to have it getting complicated. Recall geocaching is not an exam where you are the teacher and need to evaluate whether the student leaves with a pass or fail.

 

I often encounter logs for difficult puzzle caches where it is evident that the logger did not solve the puzzle.

Still such found it logs are legitimate and they are legitimate too if someone signs the log book of a tree climbing cache, but does not do the climbing. (It's lame, but that's a different topic.)

Edited August 26, 2014 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

The help center article quoted in the OP does a very good job in explaining why the find should stand. It doesn't matter which logsheet was signed. A cache was found at the listed coordinates. A log was signed. The find stands.

No need to "produce" the log, this is just an example on one of my caches... http://coord.info/GLF9JYK8

 

And yet again, another Help Center article:

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

Is that an example of a time when you had two cache containers at the listed coordinates? If so, did the cacher sign the other log? If so, then you are in violation of the guidelines. If not, then your example has no bearing on the issue.

 

This said, I can say that the cache meant to be found was not that one... So, as I said before, going to start to number my caches so the geocacher knows if the found cache is the correct one and not an old cache, lost in the game, placed by me or any other geocacher that, imagine, 5 years ago, choose the same spot for a geocache but never went to retrieve it after being archived (and yes, this can happen also).

Between the actual guidelines which state that signed log = find, and the help center article that you previously cited which states that if a cacher signs the 'wrong' log then the find should stand, it's pretty obvious that deleting the online log is inappropriate. It matters not who placed the 'throwdown.

 

It should be noted that the concept of numbering you cache containers is unlikely to do anything to resolve this issue beyond showing you as a cache owner who is unwilling to properly maintain your cache by removing the old containers as the help center article directs you to. (Weren't you the one who took the position that the guidelines, the help articles, and the GC 101 were all supposed to be taken as hard and fast rules?)

 

You say that as if there is no room for debate...and I think the case can be made that there most certainly IS room for debate. My example of the terrain rating, for example.

 

Per the throwdown page:

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.

 

See what they did there? "Generally"

That makes all the difference.

Generally...unless the thrower-downer stated that they threw down a pill bottle where an ammo can is supposed to be.

Generally...unless a T5 cache is in a T1 location.

 

"Generally" gives the CO leeway if folks really want to fight about it. Not that this stuff is really worth fighting about...but if I was going after a T4 cache and found it laying next to a sidewalk, I'd be suspicious and wouldn't at all be surprised if my log was deleted.

That verbiage gives you something to argue regarding whether the log should be reinstated, but it doesn't come near to making a convincing argument, in my opinion. In fact, it's kind of easy to punch a fat hole into the argument.

 

Imagine that you want to hide a 5/5 cache in a large container that happens to be 50 feet from a 1/1 LPC. Your cache will be denied because it is too close, even though if one accepts your position, the two caches should never be confused for one another.

Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

If the CO deleted your log in that scenario, he would be in violation of the guidelines.

 

It is not the cache seeker's responsibility to ensure that the cache is where it should be prior to his arrival. It is the cache owner's.

I wouldn´t complain since it was not his fault but the previous geocachers that didn´t respect the rules of the game: "Place the cache exactly how you found it"

 

Anyway, this is a community game with some guidelines (lets not put rules because it might offend some players) so if people don´t respect the guidelines things like this can happen more and more.

 

The balance of the game is in the hands of everybody and, at the same time, in the hands of nobody. I am getting poetic now...

 

So again I say, throwdowns are bad and in the first post it is a very good example of it.

So it's not your fault as a cache owner. It's the fault of the squirrel that dislodged the cache. Therefore, you should be able to delete some future cacher's finds?

Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[cezanne]

So again I say, throwdowns are bad and in the first post it is a very good example of it.

 

I would not call it a throwdown if a replacement happens with the ok of the cache owner.

The example just shows that mistakes can happen. As I told you it happened to many cache owners that they

replaced their own cache even though the old container was still there (and has not beemn moved to another place).

 

Unsolicited cache replacements are unfortunate because they typically create additional work for the cache owner.

In my understanding the help center article on throwdowns intends to discuss the case of cache containers left without consent

of the cache owner.

[+JPreto]

From the guidelines:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

You will note that they didn't add 'unless the cache owner feels like deleting your log'.

What about challenges, aren´t they caches? So if this sentence was an absolute fact I could not have done this:

 

http://coord.info/GLENBACX

 

but I did! So there are exceptions to these guideline... This is just one of them!

 

Again I say, it´s really up to the cache owner to decide if the logs stand or not. And this can be tricky!

... unless a person actually familiarizes himself with the listing guidelines.

And attacking again... why?

[+J Grouchy]

I don't think it's so clear cut. The CO could produce the log sheet and prove to anyone who cared (providing he could find someone who did) that the person did not sign the log on the active container.

The help center article quoted in the OP does a very good job in explaining why the find should stand. It doesn't matter which logsheet was signed. A cache was found at the listed coordinates. A log was signed. The find stands.

No need to "produce" the log, this is just an example on one of my caches... http://coord.info/GLF9JYK8

 

And yet again, another Help Center article:

Logs can be deleted by the owner of the log, by the owner of the listing (the geocache owner) and by site administrators. Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the geocache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

Is that an example of a time when you had two cache containers at the listed coordinates? If so, did the cacher sign the other log? If so, then you are in violation of the guidelines. If not, then your example has no bearing on the issue.

 

This said, I can say that the cache meant to be found was not that one... So, as I said before, going to start to number my caches so the geocacher knows if the found cache is the correct one and not an old cache, lost in the game, placed by me or any other geocacher that, imagine, 5 years ago, choose the same spot for a geocache but never went to retrieve it after being archived (and yes, this can happen also).

Between the actual guidelines which state that signed log = find, and the help center article that you previously cited which states that if a cacher signs the 'wrong' log then the find should stand, it's pretty obvious that deleting the online log is inappropriate. It matters not who placed the 'throwdown.

 

It should be noted that the concept of numbering you cache containers is unlikely to do anything to resolve this issue beyond showing you as a cache owner who is unwilling to properly maintain your cache by removing the old containers as the help center article directs you to. (Weren't you the one who took the position that the guidelines, the help articles, and the GC 101 were all supposed to be taken as hard and fast rules?)

 

You say that as if there is no room for debate...and I think the case can be made that there most certainly IS room for debate. My example of the terrain rating, for example.

 

Per the throwdown page:

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.

 

See what they did there? "Generally"

That makes all the difference.

Generally...unless the thrower-downer stated that they threw down a pill bottle where an ammo can is supposed to be.

Generally...unless a T5 cache is in a T1 location.

 

"Generally" gives the CO leeway if folks really want to fight about it. Not that this stuff is really worth fighting about...but if I was going after a T4 cache and found it laying next to a sidewalk, I'd be suspicious and wouldn't at all be surprised if my log was deleted.

That verbiage gives you something to argue regarding whether the log should be reinstated, but it doesn't come near to making a convincing argument, in my opinion. In fact, it's kind of easy to punch a fat hole into the argument.

 

Imagine that you want to hide a 5/5 cache in a large container that happens to be 50 feet from a 1/1 LPC. Your cache will be denied because it is too close, even though if one accepts your position, the two caches should never be confused for one another.

 

You just punched a fat hole through a straw man.

 

Fact is, every case is different and you can't make an absolute ruling until you know the facts of each. I have a hard time believing folks would take it to this extreme 'cause it's frankly pretty silly, but I'm pretty sure both sides would be allowed to make an argument in their defense and a decision would be made based on those arguments. The very fact that Groundspeak would listen to both sides is evidence that it's not so clear-cut as you would have us believe; as is the very fact that the CO has the ability to delete the logs without first going through Groundspeak in order to do so.

[+Manville Possum]

When I mentioned the possibility of archival I did not mean archival by a reviewer, but archival by the CO because people like yourself do not accept maintenance by someone else which I regard as pretty stubborn.

As others have said before Groundspeak has no rule that the owner has to be present at the maintenance action in person. What counts is that caches are properly maintained in the sense of the owner.

Lets just put an example, using me: "I am Portuguese and I live in Brazil (almost 8.000km away from my country) I have now 142 caches hidden in Brazil. If I move back to Portugal (my wife is Brazilian so I´ll keep comming here at least every year) what do you think is the best for those 142 caches?"

How many of your 142 caches are only a magnetic strip, plastic bag, and piece of paper like the ones you posted in another thread, and how do those type caches hold up in Brazil's climate?