Jump to content

Confused?


JKK1997

Recommended Posts

... but dispatching a cache replacement team is okay...

 

What will be more correct?

Contacting the owner days before you try to search for a given cache or contacting him after you reach the GZ?

The main point is: With authorization from the owner it is OK, without any previous authorization it is just a throwdown. Can't be simpler.

 

How does the cache owner know for certain that his original cache is actually missing, without going there himself? He may unwittingly be authorizing a 2nd cache to be hidden in the same general area. I guess that depends to some degree on the cache itself and where the original is supposed to be, but still...

Link to comment

 

How does the cache owner know for certain that his original cache is actually missing, without going there himself? He may unwittingly be authorizing a 2nd cache to be hidden in the same general area. I guess that depends to some degree on the cache itself and where the original is supposed to be, but still...

 

He can be pretty sure by giving the cacher a detailed description of the hide. He can't be 100% sure, but he can't be 100% sure if he checks it himself. I've found several "previous containers" where the cache owner replaced a cache believed missing. It happened just last week. I found a cache and reported the log was wet and falling apart. The cache owner checked and the log was fine. Turns out I found a previous thought to be missing version, not the latest. Part of that is caches tend to migrate, so often they aren't in exactly the same place they were left. (In this case that isn't relevant, as it didn't have any finds.. unless someone found it and didn't log it).

 

(Edit)

 

In this case, the cache owner had never found it anyway, so Derek could be just as confident as if the cache owner had looked for it.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

The role of the original cache placer is exaggerated by some in this thread.

 

No it isn't.

 

It happened to me that I had to search for my own cache for quite some time even though it had not been moved. Sometimes nature changes the area that much that even if the original placer visits the area after a while, there is no guarantee at all that the placer finds the cache in case it is still there.

 

Given the location the coords should have been pretty much spot-on. Nobody else had visited the cache since it was hidden - ergo it should be precisely where the original CO left it. Fact is we'll never know - because he never went back - so that's another thing that's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I'd say if a climbing cache cannot be found after a long search like Derek's leaving a nbew container with the consent of the cache owner cannot do that much harm.

 

Others might say the same of any cache as a means to justify a throwdown.

 

I think the issue is caused for those for whom geocaching is a competition where there are winners and where it's about accomplishments and not about enjoying finding a cache at a wonderful location involving a wonderful journey to get there and back from there.

 

That is incredibly presumptious of you and I have to say a little rude. I highly doubt that you possess the ability to read the minds of the geocaching community at large so I can only assume that your assertion is based on your imagination rather than fact. It seems that you are saying the opinions expressed in this thread are basically sour grapes?

 

I have no issues if a cache gets archived if no reaction to need archived logs is available - I do not expect a special treatment for such cases. I'd wish however that the role of whether a cache has been hidden by the original hider and issue like how old a cache is are rather restricted to caches where the cache is about the search and not the journey to the location.

 

I struggled to make any sense of that part but it does still seem that you expect preferential treatment for certain types of caches. You claim that you do not but than there's the statement about restriction to certain types of caches...

 

 

In the case of the climbing cache those who find the container left by Derek are left with the same essential experience that has been intended by the original hider.

 

Mind reading again? Unless of course the original hider did in fact intend that people did indeed take their own cache along to replace the 'missing' cache.

 

 

If a tricky container is replaced by a film can in a tree stump, the situation is a different one. Both types of caches need to be properly maintained, but I think that the community should have different sorts of expectations depending on the type of cache on the level that comes before archival and intervention by the reviewers,

 

The example that this thread revolves around was unfound for YEARS and had been visited neither by the placer or the adopter. And you still think it deserves special treatment?

 

The key point I try to make is who will be willing to hide a cache that involves a long and difficult way to the cache if those from the community who never ever will go for such caches expect the same level of maintenance (response time, not taking any sort of help when offered etc) for an urban cache and for really difficult to reach caches.

 

When we place a cache we commit to maintaining as required and usually within a time-frame of a few months. If we can't live up to that commitment then maybe we shouldn't place the cache.

 

About 2 years ago a cacher told me that he can only hide caches that he is able to visit every day if required and where he is able to visit the cache immediately after a DNF - of course in this manner most caches are then urban caches. The example might be extreme but it demonstrates quite well the trend.

 

This is an incredible tale - I wonder what the cacher did to cause the reviewer to impose such punitive restrictions? :blink:

 

It demonstrates quite well what trend? None, I suspect.

Link to comment

A cache that can be reached only by a two day hike for example, should not be subject to the same maintenance expectation than a drive in cache.

In a nutshell, this is where I think you're entirely wrong. The maintenance requirement for all caches has to be the same. The CO's the one that has to take into account the 2 day hike when working out how he will maintain the cache to acceptable levels. It is absolutely not reasonable for him to think he has less responsibility because it's harder to get to. In fact, any respectable CO would make very sure to the best of his abilities that a cache that took 2 days to get there would be there and in good condition whenever anyone went to the effort.

Link to comment

Hello again! It's interesting to see such...vigorous conversation regarding something that was just meant to be fun! Anyway, the current owner has graciously added me as a secondary owner. I know quite a few climbers in Washington, so I should be able to coordinate maintenance with relative ease.

Link to comment

Hello again! It's interesting to see such...vigorous conversation regarding something that was just meant to be fun! Anyway,

 

Well that opens up a can of forms. It suggests that the owners responsibility for maintaining a cache is not an issue as long as others enjoy finding it. Although I think that some tolerance for adherence to guidelines or acceptable geocaching practices is justified it might be useful to know where the line should be drawn.

 

For example, on the Alien Head trail near the ET there is now a double track "road" between most of the caches that did not exist prior to the placement of the cache, but as long as geocachers are having fun, is that something we should ignore? Many power trail owners have systematically allowed anyone to replace (maintain) any of the caches on the trail, or replace an existing container with another pre-signed container, or allow leap-frogging on the trail and apparently that's tolerated as long as those doing it are having fun.

 

the current owner has graciously added me as a secondary owner. I know quite a few climbers in Washington, so I should be able to coordinate maintenance with relative ease.

 

How does that work? I always thought that one cache could only have one owner (one account associated with the cache listing).

Link to comment

Hello again! It's interesting to see such...vigorous conversation regarding something that was just meant to be fun! Anyway,

 

Well that opens up a can of forms. It suggests that the owners responsibility for maintaining a cache is not an issue as long as others enjoy finding it. Although I think that some tolerance for adherence to guidelines or acceptable geocaching practices is justified it might be useful to know where the line should be drawn.

 

For example, on the Alien Head trail near the ET there is now a double track "road" between most of the caches that did not exist prior to the placement of the cache, but as long as geocachers are having fun, is that something we should ignore? Many power trail owners have systematically allowed anyone to replace (maintain) any of the caches on the trail, or replace an existing container with another pre-signed container, or allow leap-frogging on the trail and apparently that's tolerated as long as those doing it are having fun.

 

the current owner has graciously added me as a secondary owner. I know quite a few climbers in Washington, so I should be able to coordinate maintenance with relative ease.

 

How does that work? I always thought that one cache could only have one owner (one account associated with the cache listing).

 

Maybe when you're a GS lackey you have special magic powers.

Link to comment

 

For example, on the Alien Head trail near the ET there is now a double track "road" between most of the caches that did not exist prior to the placement of the cache, but as long as geocachers are having fun, is that something we should ignore? Many power trail owners have systematically allowed anyone to replace (maintain) any of the caches on the trail, or replace an existing container with another pre-signed container, or allow leap-frogging on the trail and apparently that's tolerated as long as those doing it are having fun.

 

 

Something similar for GC12 and several of the older caches in Oregon and other states that I have visited. These "Jasmer" caches are not part of a power trail, but get very heavy traffic from cachers all over the world. Some have CO's that have not logged into the site for years...yet the cache gets maintained. These old caches have "freeway" trails carved into the undergrowth in sometimes a spider web effect as each visitor seems to make their own way in. The impact to the understory vegetation around the original plaque was also pretty damaged when I visited it this last winter. Especially a 4-6 foot wide mud path going up to a nearby old cache placed near the plaque. This "damage" you speak of does not only exist for power trails. And the maintenance on some of these older caches have been carried out by the finders for years...don't see anybody on this forum complaining about these caches though, only the power trails.

 

:ph34r:

Edited by Uncle Alaska
Link to comment

the current owner has graciously added me as a secondary owner. I know quite a few climbers in Washington, so I should be able to coordinate maintenance with relative ease.

How does that work? I always thought that one cache could only have one owner (one account associated with the cache listing).

My guess is he is Watching the cache and has the CO's permission to handle maintenance on the CO's behalf.

Link to comment

The impact to the understory vegetation around the original plaque was also pretty damaged when I visited it this last winter.

Hmmm..I seem to recall a gravel pullout along a lonely stretch of county maintained road near Estecada, Oregon sorrounded by non native Himalayan blackberries. "Understory" makes it sound so romantic.

Link to comment

The impact to the understory vegetation around the original plaque was also pretty damaged when I visited it this last winter.

Hmmm..I seem to recall a gravel pullout along a lonely stretch of county maintained road near Estecada, Oregon sorrounded by non native Himalayan blackberries. "Understory" makes it sound so romantic.

 

There is that (when you think of only the plaque), but then there is the walk over to the ammo can chained to the alder, through the sword fern and other ground species...and it is a worn down mud path when wet...(I guess when you are a forester and botanist, you seem to notice the species and their condition with a bit more of a microscope :) )

Edited by Uncle Alaska
Link to comment

the current owner has graciously added me as a secondary owner. I know quite a few climbers in Washington, so I should be able to coordinate maintenance with relative ease.

How does that work? I always thought that one cache could only have one owner (one account associated with the cache listing).

My guess is he is Watching the cache and has the CO's permission to handle maintenance on the CO's behalf.

 

I think that too, and also the "a cache by" field has been changed to "taorock/fishnthesea Adopted by Hypnopaedia w/Derek".

Link to comment

IMO the difference between maintenance expectations on a remote cache vs easy access cache is response time. It is more understandable that a remote cache may take months before the CO can check it, whereas an urban cache it should be weeks. In either case, a responsive CO is the most important factor and special circumstances may apply (ex: CO has health problems).

Link to comment

I honestly don't understand what the issues are that Derek is expected to address. I've re-read the thread and I still don't understand it.

 

We have established that replacing a cache with the owners permission is allowed. It is not a throwdown. There is some debate if a "found it" log in the replacement case is "good form" or not, but Derek logged a DNF anyway.

 

What are the issues?

 

- That the cache owner is an adopted owner and hasn't found the cache?

- That the cache had never been found?

- That it had been 7 years?

Link to comment

I don't understand what the issues are, either. People are really making a lot out of nothing. Yes. Geocaching is fun. Is that a crime?

 

It's perfectly fine to help someone with maintenance on their cache. Having someone else replace your cache is still being a responsible CO and technically means that the CO is doing maintenance.

 

Derek and Groundspeak were trying to have fun making this video. I'm surprised that they try anymore, because they get picked apart every time they do.

 

I feel like the word "fun" is being regarded as a dirty word. No cachers were harmed in the making of this video. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

What are the issues?

 

- That the cache owner is an adopted owner and hasn't found the cache?

- That the cache had never been found?

- That it had been 7 years?

 

That's funny, you managed to name them all. What's up there now is not a legitimate cache dating back to 2008. Nobody has ever seen it since it was placed. Why not archive and create a new cache page? The whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Link to comment

I don't understand what the issues are, either. People are really making a lot out of nothing. Yes. Geocaching is fun. Is that a crime?

 

It's perfectly fine to help someone with maintenance on their cache. Having someone else replace your cache is still being a responsible CO and technically means that the CO is doing maintenance.

 

Derek and Groundspeak were trying to have fun making this video. I'm surprised that they try anymore, because they get picked apart every time they do.

 

I feel like the word "fun" is being regarded as a dirty word. No cachers were harmed in the making of this video. :rolleyes:

 

The video would have been just as much fun if Derek had decided to go on his quest, then when he didn't find the cache, decide to hide a new one in its place. What would be wrong with that video? Equal the fun, in my opinion--more fun, really. Maybe the adoptee owner would have said that was o.k.--but Derek never asked about that, it didn't occur to him. That could have been worked out in advance. It's a replacement cache, it's not the real cache. It might not technically be a throw down, but it's a lousy way to keep a listing from 2008 alive.

Link to comment

[

The video would have been just as much fun if Derek had decided to go on his quest, then when he didn't find the cache, decide to hide a new one in its place. What would be wrong with that video? Equal the fun, in my opinion--more fun, really. Maybe the adoptee owner would have said that was o.k.--but Derek never asked about that, it didn't occur to him. That could have been worked out in advance. It's a replacement cache, it's not the real cache. It might not technically be a throw down, but it's a lousy way to keep a listing from 2008 alive.

 

Ok, I now understand.

 

But this to me seems an odd thing to do. If I put myself in Derek shoes.... I agreed with the owner that I would replace the cache if it was missing. It would be odd to go back to the owner and say "please archive your cache, I want to own this now".

 

If Derek had done as you suggest, I'm sure we would be seeing posts saying "What is Groundspeak doing? They are encouraging cachers to place their own caches when they can't find one, and ask the original owner to archive their cache! What sort of example is that?"

Link to comment

I don't understand what the issues are, either. People are really making a lot out of nothing. Yes. Geocaching is fun. Is that a crime?

 

Since I was the one that addressed the issue of "fun" perhaps I should explain.

 

I wasn't thinking about this cache specifically, but questioning whether or not "we had fun" excuses behaviors in general that would not generally be considered acceptable.

 

Is "we had fun" an acceptable excuse if it comes at the expense of other geocachers having less fun? Does "having fun" excuse employing what some deem to be questionable definitions of a "find" (3 cache monte, leap frogging?). Does it excuse guideline violations, especially those that might present the game in a bad light to land managers? Is it okay to trespass to find a geocache as you had fun finding the cache? Where do we draw the line at what is acceptable as long as someone was having fun?

Link to comment

1. There is a difference between a throwdown and a replacement. A cache is a throwdown if one carries spare film cans and simply drops one in a convenient spot when he can't find the real cache. A replacement is of the same size and nature as the original, in the same spot as the original, with swag if the original had swag. If it's the same thing as the CO would have placed as a replacement and the original is 100% certain to be gone, it's not a throwdown.

 

2. As far as how old a cache is, i.e. the oldest unfounded cache, it is not the container that makes it old or the oldest. Otherwise, every time a cache is muggled and replaced, it should get a new hide date and GC number. In fact, if the CO does maintenance and replaces a weathered container, it would count as a new hide. Thus, IMHO, it is the location and quality of the hide that counts.

 

3. Now an interesting aside. I recently went after a 5/5. It was underwater and required scuba gear. It also required searching along a length of encrusted anchor chain in 2 foot visibility. The CO came to watch. He brought a replacement cache because he feared the cache was missing. Given that the last finder was breath-holding, there is little wonder the cache was not properly replaced and went missing. The CO did not bring scuba gear with which to replace the cache. When I reported the original was missing, the CO had me replace it using his replacement. I did. ISince it wasn't a throwdown and since I had it in my hands and since I signed the log, it is definitely not a DNF. That means it must be a find.

Link to comment

1. There is a difference between a throwdown and a replacement. A cache is a throwdown if one carries spare film cans and simply drops one in a convenient spot when he can't find the real cache. A replacement is of the same size and nature as the original, in the same spot as the original, with swag if the original had swag. If it's the same thing as the CO would have placed as a replacement and the original is 100% certain to be gone, it's not a throwdown.

 

2. As far as how old a cache is, i.e. the oldest unfounded cache, it is not the container that makes it old or the oldest. Otherwise, every time a cache is muggled and replaced, it should get a new hide date and GC number. In fact, if the CO does maintenance and replaces a weathered container, it would count as a new hide. Thus, IMHO, it is the location and quality of the hide that counts.

 

3. Now an interesting aside. I recently went after a 5/5. It was underwater and required scuba gear. It also required searching along a length of encrusted anchor chain in 2 foot visibility. The CO came to watch. He brought a replacement cache because he feared the cache was missing. Given that the last finder was breath-holding, there is little wonder the cache was not properly replaced and went missing. The CO did not bring scuba gear with which to replace the cache. When I reported the original was missing, the CO had me replace it using his replacement. I did. ISince it wasn't a throwdown and since I had it in my hands and since I signed the log, it is definitely not a DNF. That means it must be a find.

 

This is where my opinion differs from many. You went down and did NOT find the cache/container. This is the part of the time frame that gives the one true answer of whether the cache was found or not. In this case, it was NOT. Nothing you say or do later changes that fact.

 

Kudos to Derek for doing, again imo, the right thing. I've been in his situation, where i've put in a lot of effort to find a cache but then come up with no container. Sure, it's a bit disappointing but it doesn't take much away from the challenging, fun filled adventure that was experienced. B)

Link to comment

Is this thread typical of conversations on the forum? Is there usually so much disagreement?

 

Most of the time it's worse

 

I usually live in the Waymarking corner of the Groundspeak forums. In that corner, we only complain. Rarely do we disagree.

 

Seems logical as the WM site has so many problems the only thing to do is complain (and everyone agrees it's broken most of the time) :lol:

Link to comment

I don't understand what the issues are, either. People are really making a lot out of nothing. Yes. Geocaching is fun. Is that a crime?

 

Since I was the one that addressed the issue of "fun" perhaps I should explain.

 

I wasn't thinking about this cache specifically, but questioning whether or not "we had fun" excuses behaviors in general that would not generally be considered acceptable.

 

Is "we had fun" an acceptable excuse if it comes at the expense of other geocachers having less fun? Does "having fun" excuse employing what some deem to be questionable definitions of a "find" (3 cache monte, leap frogging?). Does it excuse guideline violations, especially those that might present the game in a bad light to land managers? Is it okay to trespass to find a geocache as you had fun finding the cache? Where do we draw the line at what is acceptable as long as someone was having fun?

Good point. I've heard of serial killers who wound up saying, "We had fun."

Ripped off my customers, but "We had fun."

Lied on my income tax, but "We had fun."

Could become the next excuse for doing anything you wish.

As if we need an excuse anymore....

Link to comment

But this to me seems an odd thing to do. If I put myself in Derek shoes.... I agreed with the owner that I would replace the cache if it was missing. It would be odd to go back to the owner and say "please archive your cache, I want to own this now".

 

If Derek had done as you suggest, I'm sure we would be seeing posts saying "What is Groundspeak doing? They are encouraging cachers to place their own caches when they can't find one, and ask the original owner to archive their cache! What sort of example is that?"

 

Doing what was done seems like an odd thing to do.

 

It doesn't seem that long ago that there were threads on here where lonely caches - which had never been found if memory serves - were unceremoniously archived after just one DNF. I seem to remember that thread being hotly debated and a number of people being rather displeased by that whole idea.

 

But here we have a Groundspeak employee who goes out to find a lonely cache that's never been found making the default assumption that the cache won't be there - and then replacing the cache to keep it going.

 

The two scenario's seem completely counter to one another.

 

And I'm mildly curious about why the cache was assumed to be missing. Was GZ in such a state of flux when the cache was placed that the earth was likely to swallow up the cache or was it so poorly hidden that it was likey to blow away? What?

 

If you're the owner of a lonely cache that's never been found, how do you get on the list for Groundspeak replacing and perpetuating your cache for you and saving you a maint visit, rather than archiving it?

Link to comment

And I'm mildly curious about why the cache was assumed to be missing.

 

Speaking as a climber, Liberty Bell is an extremely popular destination in the North Cascades, to the point it is featured in the seminal book on mountaineering/rock climbing by Steve Roper, "50 Classic Climbs of North America". I would have, by default, assumed the cache would probably not have survived for that length of time on the summit. I've already stated what my course of action would have been under the circumstances earlier in this thread.

Link to comment

1. There is a difference between a throwdown and a replacement. A cache is a throwdown if one carries spare film cans and simply drops one in a convenient spot when he can't find the real cache. A replacement is of the same size and nature as the original, in the same spot as the original, with swag if the original had swag. If it's the same thing as the CO would have placed as a replacement and the original is 100% certain to be gone, it's not a throwdown.

I've never heard of swag being required for a replacement to be considered a replacement for a previously swag-filled cache. I would have just assumed it was a less enjoyable replacement, but a replacement nonetheless.

 

If one must be 100% certain that the original is gone, then the vast majority of owner-approved replacements would be throwdowns. Even most owners aren't 100% sure their caches haven't simply migrated elsewhere.

 

3. Now an interesting aside. I recently went after a 5/5. It was underwater and required scuba gear. It also required searching along a length of encrusted anchor chain in 2 foot visibility. The CO came to watch. He brought a replacement cache because he feared the cache was missing. Given that the last finder was breath-holding, there is little wonder the cache was not properly replaced and went missing. The CO did not bring scuba gear with which to replace the cache. When I reported the original was missing, the CO had me replace it using his replacement. I did. ISince it wasn't a throwdown and since I had it in my hands and since I signed the log, it is definitely not a DNF. That means it must be a find.

That's certainly one definition of a "find." But that means a cache owner who signed their cache log also "found" it. And if you were with the cache owner when they hid the cache and you signed the log, then you also "found" it. And if somebody brings a cache to an event and everybody signs the log, then they have "found" it.

 

In my definition of a "find," those three scenarios aren't "finds."

Link to comment

This is the kind of thing that should be announced in the newsletter (if not a membership-wide notification), because everyone needs to know that there are revised guidelines for the ratings. Especially in the absence of a "Last updated" timestamp on that article, many people probably wouldn't realize that it had changed without looking at it closely and being knowledgeable about the previous version.

 

This is not a guideline change. There are no guidelines for D/T ratings. As Keystone noted, ratings are not currently policed. We only offer suggestions and guidance, such as what is found in the Help Center.

 

The reason for the update to the Help Center article relates to the Geocaching Intro app. The Intro app allows users to tap on the D or T number to see an explanation for the particular D or T. Before, we only had descriptions for whole numbers. We needed to write descriptions that included the half-number ratings. Which is what led to the updated D and T descriptions. Since they are going to be added to the app, it only made sense to update the Help Center page for uniformity.

 

If this were a major guideline change, I would agree it should be communicated broadly. But that's not the case here.

 

However, I do agree that it is often appropriate to add a "Last Updated" date to Help Center articles. I'll see about adding it to the page in question.

I have proof that terrain ratings have been policed by a GS reviewer in my state. I've been told to change a T rating. Just saying.

Link to comment
I have proof that terrain ratings have been policed by a GS reviewer in my state. I've been told to change a T rating. Just saying.
Was it an event? Or was it a T1 cache without the Wheelchair Accessible attribute? Or was it a cache with the Wheelchair Accessible cache that wasn't T1?

 

Because those are the main situations that I know of where the volunteer reviewers get involved in the difficulty or terrain ratings.

Link to comment

A cache that can be reached only by a two day hike for example, should not be subject to the same maintenance expectation than a drive in cache.

In a nutshell, this is where I think you're entirely wrong. The maintenance requirement for all caches has to be the same. The CO's the one that has to take into account the 2 day hike when working out how he will maintain the cache to acceptable levels. It is absolutely not reasonable for him to think he has less responsibility because it's harder to get to. In fact, any respectable CO would make very sure to the best of his abilities that a cache that took 2 days to get there would be there and in good condition whenever anyone went to the effort.

 

Ok then we have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm not expecting different rules for different cache types when it comes to the treatment by the reviewers. My point was that the community expectations should be different in my opinion. Just one example of what I mean: For a cache near the cache owner's house maintenance within say 3 weeks is something reasonable to expect except in special cases while for a remote cache it is not and it's also not important.

 

Another example is the present one where I think that the replacement by a cacher which is not the cache hider is ok in the described circumstances (of course not an unsolicited throwdown).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Just one example of what I mean: For a cache near the cache owner's house maintenance within say 3 weeks is something reasonable to expect except in special cases while for a remote cache it is not and it's also not important.

 

I disagree. Getting to a junky cache or a DNF after above average effort to get there is more disappointing than the same as a park-and-grab.

 

Another example is the present one where I think that the replacement by a cacher which is not the cache hider is ok in the described circumstances (of course not an unsolicited throwdown).

 

Are you voting again for special treatment of and zero maintenance from cache owners of caches which take longer to get to than average? Are you voting for a hide-it-and-forget-it policy?

Link to comment

It had been 7 years and the only attempt was a DNF. In my opinion it seems reasonable to have a discussion with the CO in advance about what to do IF it can't be found and appears missing. Others don't agree, that is fine, it is an opinion. What is known (according to Derek) is that this conversation happened.

 

I don't know if Derek offered or the CO asked.. or if that makes a difference to the verdict on Derek. I.e. the conversation could have been:

 

Derek: Hi, just to let you know we plan to make a video of trying to find your cache.

CO: Great! You know, it's been 7 years and the only attempt was a DNF. If you can't find it, would you mind replacing it?

Derek: Sure.

 

It seems some think a cache should never be replaced except by the owner, even if the owner gives permission (or indeed asks someone to do it). Others may think is OK under certain conditions, but these conditions aren't clear.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment
Are you voting again for special treatment of and zero maintenance from cache owners of caches which take longer to get to than average? Are you voting for a hide-it-and-forget-it policy?

 

Great strawman! Impressive twisting of another's words! Grade-A false dichotomy!

 

Let's do the same back to you:

 

So you vote for a maintenance within 2 weeks or it gets archived policy?

Link to comment
Are you voting again for special treatment of and zero maintenance from cache owners of caches which take longer to get to than average? Are you voting for a hide-it-and-forget-it policy?

 

Great strawman! Impressive twisting of another's words! Grade-A false dichotomy!

 

Let's do the same back to you:

 

So you vote for a maintenance within 2 weeks or it gets archived policy?

 

Hi Fizzy - how are you? :)

 

No - not a strawman - nothing more than a question raised in a bid to clarify my own understanding. Read into it what you will but I'm quite sure Cezanne is capable of answering.

 

And no - I'm not voting for a maintenance within 2 weeks or it gets archived policy.

Link to comment

I don't understand what the issues are, either. People are really making a lot out of nothing. Yes. Geocaching is fun. Is that a crime?

 

It's perfectly fine to help someone with maintenance on their cache. Having someone else replace your cache is still being a responsible CO and technically means that the CO is doing maintenance.

 

Derek and Groundspeak were trying to have fun making this video. I'm surprised that they try anymore, because they get picked apart every time they do.

 

I feel like the word "fun" is being regarded as a dirty word. No cachers were harmed in the making of this video. :rolleyes:

Thanks Amber!

Link to comment

Just one example of what I mean: For a cache near the cache owner's house maintenance within say 3 weeks is something reasonable to expect except in special cases while for a remote cache it is not and it's also not important.

 

I disagree. Getting to a junky cache or a DNF after above average effort to get there is more disappointing than the same as a park-and-grab.

 

Apart from the fact that those who go for a trip in the mountains are well aware of the fact that various issues can make them turn around before reaching the final target, it's still a reality that you cannot expect the

same response times regardless of the cache location and that's what I wrote above.

 

Your comparison somehow would suggest that one should stay at home instead of setting out for a mountain tour where a 100% success can never be guaranteed. I have never heard of someone who loves the mountains and thinks that staying at home is the better decision and who regards having to turn around prematurely as a bigger disappointment than not going for a mountain tour at all.

 

Do you expect a cache owner of a remote cache to visit it every 3 weeks just because cachers like you might end up disappointed with a DNF?

 

 

 

Another example is the present one where I think that the replacement by a cacher which is not the cache hider is ok in the described circumstances (of course not an unsolicited throwdown).

 

Are you voting again for special treatment of and zero maintenance from cache owners of caches which take longer to get to than average? Are you voting for a hide-it-and-forget-it policy?

 

No, I'm not voting for zero maintenance and not for a hide-it-and-forget-it policy. As said before, I think however that allowing other cachers to help with the maintenance and allowing for a longer

period for taking care about maintenance issues makes sense for caches like the one discussed here.

Link to comment

Hey. I notice that you never check on your cache. If I look for it for a minute or two and cannot find it, can I leave a throwdown?

 

That doesn't strike me as the intent of Geocaching.

 

But what do I know?

 

Staunchly refusing to help each other is the intent of geocaching.

Link to comment

Do you expect a cache owner of a remote cache to visit it every 3 weeks just because cachers like you might end up disappointed with a DNF?

 

Well that would really depend on such things as how well it was hidden, how many DNF's there had been in that three weeks and how likely it was that the cache was missing.

 

No, I'm not voting for zero maintenance and not for a hide-it-and-forget-it policy. As said before, I think however that allowing other cachers to help with the maintenance and allowing for a longer

period for taking care about maintenance issues makes sense for caches like the one discussed here.

 

If I've followed the thread correctly the cache in question has not been seen by any of its owners for seven years.

 

That seems an awfully long time to go without a maint check - especially given that the view(s) of the owner(s) were that the likelihood of the cache being missing in that time frame was very high.

 

And you're voting for a longer period for taking care about maintenance issues, longer than seven years?

Link to comment

I kind of have to laugh--was just checking on oldest hides in UK, and one was hidden in 1955 and another in 1982 (published in 2014 and 2015). Someone posted a "needs archived" on one of them, and the reviewer responded with "There is nothing in the guidelines to say that the hidden date must be accurate." That kinda tells me everything about the way GS runs the hobby that I need to know! :laughing:

Link to comment

And you're voting for a longer period for taking care about maintenance issues, longer than seven years?

 

No, but I do not think that a cache cannot go unvisited by the cache owner and other cachers for several years.

 

Someone who goes for a cache that has not been found for a long time, always is aware about the risk that it might be missing.

 

I do not expect a maintenance trip as a result of a single DNF log and no NM log at all. If it were differently, I would not dare any longer to write DNF logs as many of my DNF logs are for caches that are perfectly fine.

 

So the essence of this discussion here for me is the question whether or not a replacement of the container by someone else than the cache owner is acceptable or if this turns a cache into an illegitimate one. My answer to the last question (the illegitimate part) is a clear no in situations like the one described here.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I kind of have to laugh--was just checking on oldest hides in UK, and one was hidden in 1955 and another in 1982 (published in 2014 and 2015). Someone posted a "needs archived" on one of them, and the reviewer responded with "There is nothing in the guidelines to say that the hidden date must be accurate." That kinda tells me everything about the way GS runs the hobby that I need to know! :laughing:

 

Why are such dates so important to you?

Link to comment

I don't understand what the issues are, either. People are really making a lot out of nothing. Yes. Geocaching is fun. Is that a crime?

 

It's perfectly fine to help someone with maintenance on their cache. Having someone else replace your cache is still being a responsible CO and technically means that the CO is doing maintenance.

 

Derek and Groundspeak were trying to have fun making this video. I'm surprised that they try anymore, because they get picked apart every time they do.

 

I feel like the word "fun" is being regarded as a dirty word. No cachers were harmed in the making of this video. :rolleyes:

 

As has been said before, whatever a person does is wrong ... in someone's opinion.

 

People are really making a lot out of nothing.

Welcome to the forums! :D

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

I kind of have to laugh--was just checking on oldest hides in UK, and one was hidden in 1955 and another in 1982 (published in 2014 and 2015). Someone posted a "needs archived" on one of them, and the reviewer responded with "There is nothing in the guidelines to say that the hidden date must be accurate." That kinda tells me everything about the way GS runs the hobby that I need to know! :laughing:

 

Why are such dates so important to you?

Maybe because when we read something we like to distinguish between fact and fiction? :)

Link to comment

I do not expect a maintenance trip as a result of a single DNF log and no NM log at all. If it were differently, I would not dare any longer to write DNF logs as many of my DNF logs are for caches that are perfectly fine.

 

I think you said the same thing in the thread(s) where Groundspeak / a volunteer reviewer had archived lonely caches for a single DNF.

 

On one hand we have a lonely unfound cache archived for a DNF by a Groundspeak representative. On the other hand we have a lonely unfound cache replaced by a Groundspeak employee.

 

It's this inconsistency in approach and implementation of the guidelines that I find odd and slightly incredible.

Link to comment

I kind of have to laugh--was just checking on oldest hides in UK, and one was hidden in 1955 and another in 1982 (published in 2014 and 2015). Someone posted a "needs archived" on one of them, and the reviewer responded with "There is nothing in the guidelines to say that the hidden date must be accurate." That kinda tells me everything about the way GS runs the hobby that I need to know! :laughing:

 

Why are such dates so important to you?

Maybe because when we read something we like to distinguish between fact and fiction? :)

 

We cannot know anyhow when a cache was hidden except for our own caches. I have encountered caches that have been published several years after having been hidden (no fake date). I guess for those who want to compete the publish date is the one to care about anyhow.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I kind of have to laugh--was just checking on oldest hides in UK, and one was hidden in 1955 and another in 1982 (published in 2014 and 2015). Someone posted a "needs archived" on one of them, and the reviewer responded with "There is nothing in the guidelines to say that the hidden date must be accurate." That kinda tells me everything about the way GS runs the hobby that I need to know! :laughing:

 

I learned this from the "How to Puzzle Cache" book. Apparently there are caches where the false hidden date is a hint to the puzzle.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...