Confused?

[+narcissa]

Narcissa--in many cases, works for me! Archiving old caches so we can have new ones is not evil, especially if it's because the owner themselves isn't maintaining it.

 

But the owner made arrangements to have it maintained. Your previous assertion was that the mere fact that it went missing in the first place meant it should have been archived.

[+Dame Deco]

Missing and never found for 7 years--let's be precise. For all we know, it went missing the day after it was placed.

[+narcissa]

Missing and never found for 7 years--let's be precise. For all we know, it went missing the day after it was placed.

 

For all we know it went missing the day before it was replaced. The age of the cache is not relevant. There was only one DNF and no NM logs. The cache owner arranged maintenance for it and it's in place now.

[+Mudfrog]

Hello everyone! Considering I'm the one in the video, I can probably answer a few questions for you:

 

– I did bring a GPS. If you'll notice in the dialog, I say that I have the app open because my GPS is on the fritz. For whatever reason, my GPSr decided to freeze up at the summit. My only the other option was to use the app.

 

– I got permission from the CO to replace the container if I couldn't find it. I spent quite a bit of time on the summit searching and following the instructions in the cache description. Like I said in the video, we search under every small ledge next to a patch of grass and even some small ledges that didn't have a patch of grass. I am confident that it is no longer there. The weather in the North Cascades is quite brutal and ever-changing, not to mention that the geology is also constantly in flux. Perhaps the ledge it was under fell down and covered it—or opened up and swallowed it. All of these are reasonable conclusions after 7 years of being up there.

 

– That being said, after replacing the container, I still logged the DNF. My friend who was with me (who, as stated in the video is not a geocacher), doesn't have an account, so he didn't log it. The climbers who found the replacement container were not a part of our group.

 

– I offered to replace the container, the CO didn't ask me to.

 

– The CO said I could log it if I wanted to. However, I don't really care if I get to log it or not. While some folks would be upset that they don't get the find, the stats or the supposed glory of a 5/5, that's not why I climbed it. Climbing to the summit was awesome enough.

 

– Haters gonna hate.

 

Ya'll had a great time and that is the big part of what our hobby is about. This is not a cache a person just decides to do on a whim. Preparing for this feat entailed some planning which included what neccessities you would need to take with you. I was surprised when i saw the statement that you didn't have a gpsr with you. My comment above was based on that but i shouldn't have said anything without knowing the facts. It is a shame that it decided to quit working at the wrong time since i feel it's the better tool for finding caches like this.

 

Hopefully the cache you placed is the only one up there now but even if not,, it's not the end of the world. My feelings towards this come from my own experience, where i've tried to help (COs gave permissions), but ended up causing confusion when the original was found a few feet away from where i planted the replacement. I've found that even if i am positive a cache is missing, there's a chance it's not. Again, no biggie but cache replacement is now something i very rarely do.

 

Imo, even though the CO was gracious with his ok to log, you did what makes sense. You didn't find the cache so, replacement or not, you didn't find anything to log. The experience, the challenge, the fun ya'll had, and the lasting memories of this quest are the important things here,,

 

Congratulations!!!

[+The A-Team]

However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

That was true last week, but it's no longer the case due to the recent clarification to the Difficulty / Terrain ratings. In any event, ratings aren't "policed", with limited exceptions not relevant here.

Those are quite some clarifications! Comparing to the old version, there have been a number of additions, deletions, and changes, with some being fairly significant. 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.

Edited July 23, 2015 by The A-Team

[Pup Patrol]

However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

That was true last week, but it's no longer the case due to the recent clarification to the Difficulty / Terrain ratings. In any event, ratings aren't "policed", with limited exceptions not relevant here.

Those are quite some clarifications! Comparing to the old version, there have been a number of additions, deletions, and changes, with some being fairly significant. 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.

 

A long time ago, I suggested/requested that edits/updates to Knowledge Book/Help Center articles be noted, with the date.

 

That was done for a while, then no more.

 

Major changes should be announced in the forum and in the newsletter.

 

B.

[+niraD]

However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

I've found caches that required special tools/equipment/skills to get to ground zero (5-star terrain). I've found caches that required special tools/equipment/skills to find, solve, or open once you reached ground zero (5-star difficulty).

 

I think the most helpful clarification in the current Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain (D/T) document is:

 

"The difficulty rating covers time and effort in finding the cache (and possibly in signing the log) once at the coordinates. The terrain rating covers the physical effort of arriving at the coordinates."

 

If the tools/equipment/skills allow me to arrive at the coordinates, then it's terrain. If the tools/equipment/skills allow me to find, solve, or open the cache once I'm at the coordinates, then it's difficulty.

[+wmpastor]

Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous

I do not agree and I do not think that the cache has been rated as D=5* because it was hidden in a difficult manner, but rather due to the difficulty of getting there. For such caches it normally is about reaching the location and the experience on the way and not about playing a hide and seek game.

 

Thank makes one wonder what the T rating is for. Care to explain please?

 

From my limited study of the sport, I think that caches with truly high terrain ratings are more likely to have improperly high difficulty ratings than very difficult caches are likely to have improperly high terrain ratings.

 

It might be related to everyday speech. If the cache is 75 feet up in a tree with no lower branches, in everyday speech we would call that a "difficult" cache. But if it is visible from the ground, it may be a T5.0, D1.0 (or something similar). In caching talk, it is *not* "difficult" - but it has a brutal terrain rating.

[cezanne]

Thank makes one wonder what the T rating is for. Care to explain please?

 

The rating has not done by me. However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

That was true last week, but it's no longer the case due to the recent clarification to the Difficulty / Terrain ratings. In any event, ratings aren't "policed", with limited exceptions not relevant here.

 

Thank you for the information I never ever would have become aware of. I think however that the change should to be done here as well

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx

One gets directed to this page from the hide page and not to the knowledge book article. I guess not many cachers will look up the knowledge book article.

 

In any case the cache discussed here has been rated several years ago when it was not uncommon to rate a cache with a high D and T rating when it required special skills and tools to reach. It might also have served its purpose as there is a difference between a cache where one just needs a boat or a high ladder and one where one needs specialized skills, but that's not what the main stream of this discussion is about.

[Rock Chalk]

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.

[+The A-Team]

That was true last week, but it's no longer the case due to the recent clarification to the Difficulty / Terrain ratings. In any event, ratings aren't "policed", with limited exceptions not relevant here.

 

Thank you for the information I never ever would have become aware of. I think however that the change should to be done here as well

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx

One gets directed to this page from the hide page and not to the knowledge book article. I guess not many cachers will look up the knowledge book article.

Good catch. The ClayJar system is still using the old definitions (e.g. T4 includes "requiring use of hands", T5 includes "4wd", etc.). If any Lackeys are reading this, you need to update it to match the "clarified" Help Center article.

[+The A-Team]

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.

Thanks for the background and looking into adding the date.

 

While I agree that it isn't a guideline change and ratings aren't policed, it will still change the way people rate caches. If people aren't made aware that there have been changes, we'll end up with even more inconsistency than we already have because most people will still be rating under the old definitions that have been around for a long time, while the few who have heard about the changes will be using the new ones.

 

As for guideline changes, the only one I can ever recall being mentioned in a newsletter is the challenge cache moratorium (though my memory could just be failing me). There have been many other significant changes that should have been communicated to the entire membership, but they weren't. Will future major guideline changes be communicated to the entire membership (N.B. entire, not just those who signed up for the newsletter; enforcing email validation would allow this to happen more easily)?

[+dprovan]

Why would you choose to do something if you think it's bad form? That doesn't make sense.

I would choose to do something that I think is in bad form because the quality of ones form can be less important than other considerations.

 

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing.

Yes, I have to agree that this would have made more sense to replace the cache listing instead of simply replacing the container, especially since this really is a new cache whether the listings reflect that or not. Not to mention that going missing without being found might make one wonder if it was such a great place to hide a cache to begin with. But having said that, I doubt I would have thought of that possibility if you hadn't brought it up, so I can't fault Derek for not considering it, either.

[cezanne]

Not to mention that going missing without being found might make one wonder if it was such a great place to hide a cache to begin with.

 

A cache which requires special climbing skills and lies in a mountain area (how many cachers in the area do have the required skills?) can stay unvisited for a few years until the first cacher makes an attempt. For such caches one cannot use the same judgement as for caches where an attempt to find them is made very soon after the cache is published.

Nature changes and that cannot be avoided. Regardless of how careful a cache hideout is chosen, something can change sooner or later.

 

Please take the special circumstances into account. There is a difference between a cache that stays unfound for a few years despite many attempts to find it and a cache like this one.

 

With the replaced container, the cache now offers something to find for the next visitors. If the cache got archived, noone would have won. Note that the original hider moved away after about 3 years. It's a different thing to replace a container with the agreement of the cache owner and to take over the owner responsibility. I think one should not use the same rigid arguments for caches that are far more easy to reach and caches like the one discussed here. I'm not asking the reviewers to act differently but at the level concerned here there should be more understanding from the community about the fact that such caches are special and cannot be handled as the majority of caches.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

Not to mention that going missing without being found might make one wonder if it was such a great place to hide a cache to begin with.

A cache which requires special climbing skills and lies in a mountain area (how many cachers in the area do have the required skills?) can stay unvisited for a few years until the first cacher makes an attempt. For such caches one cannot use the same judgement as for caches where an attempt to find them is made very soon after the cache is published.

Nature changes and that cannot be avoided. Regardless of how careful a cache hideout is chosen, something can change sooner or later.

My claim is that a cache unlikely to even be sought for years on end should take these considerations into account. Yes, stuff happens, but that doesn't make it reasonable to hide a cache in such a way that the chances of it actually being there are near zero.

[cezanne]

Not to mention that going missing without being found might make one wonder if it was such a great place to hide a cache to begin with.

A cache which requires special climbing skills and lies in a mountain area (how many cachers in the area do have the required skills?) can stay unvisited for a few years until the first cacher makes an attempt. For such caches one cannot use the same judgement as for caches where an attempt to find them is made very soon after the cache is published.

Nature changes and that cannot be avoided. Regardless of how careful a cache hideout is chosen, something can change sooner or later.

My claim is that a cache unlikely to even be sought for years on end should take these considerations into account. Yes, stuff happens, but that doesn't make it reasonable to hide a cache in such a way that the chances of it actually being there are near zero.

 

Have you been at the location? I have encountered dramatic changes in the mountains and in forests - there is no guarantee whatsoever regardless of which hideout is chosen. If a cache in a city survives only a year, hardly anyone complains.

So what is the big deal about placing a cache at a location like the discussed one? It seems that mainly cachers have an issue who do not have the skill to go for such caches anyway. Those who have the skill, typically do not come for the container or for swag. Such caches attract a completely different audience.

[+Team Microdot]

So what is the big deal about placing a cache at a location like the discussed one? It seems that mainly cachers have an issue who do not have the skill to go for such caches anyway. Those who have the skill, typically do not come for the container or for swag. Such caches attract a completely different audience.

 

In this particular case - the case being discussed here - the trip was planned for the purpose of finding the geocache, so your personal speculation about the motivation and objectives of others in visiting a particular location have nothing to do with this thread.

[cezanne]

So what is the big deal about placing a cache at a location like the discussed one? It seems that mainly cachers have an issue who do not have the skill to go for such caches anyway. Those who have the skill, typically do not come for the container or for swag. Such caches attract a completely different audience.

 

In this particular case - the case being discussed here - the trip was planned for the purpose of finding the geocache, so your personal speculation about the motivation and objectives of others in visiting a particular location have nothing to do with this thread.

 

Yes, the trip has been planned for finding the geocache, but certainly not only for the geocache - those who come for a found it log, typically accept the offer to log a found it.

I have recently visited the oldest active cache in Austria - I would not have had the idea to hike up that mountain without the existence of this cache but I went for the experience. If the oldest cache happened to be at a location not of interest to me, I would not have went there.

 

I think that hiding such a cache and taking the risk that it might disappear is worthwhile - even if the next visitor finds no cache, it's typically worth the trip for the audience of such caches.

I also think that for remote and difficult to reach caches, it is ok if a missing container is replaced with the advance permission of the cache owner. That does not mean that the cache owner does not want to take responsability for the cache. The target audience for such caches profits from actions like Derek's.

 

Clearer now?

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

So what is the big deal about placing a cache at a location like the discussed one? It seems that mainly cachers have an issue who do not have the skill to go for such caches anyway. Those who have the skill, typically do not come for the container or for swag. Such caches attract a completely different audience.

 

In this particular case - the case being discussed here - the trip was planned for the purpose of finding the geocache, so your personal speculation about the motivation and objectives of others in visiting a particular location have nothing to do with this thread.

 

Yes, the trip has been planned for finding the geocache, but certainly not only for the geocache - those who come for a found it log, typically accept the offer to log a found it.

I have recently visited the oldest active cache in Austria - I would not have had the idea to hike up that mountain without the existence of this cache but I went for the experience. If the oldest cache happened to be at a location not of interest to me, I would not have went there.

 

I think that hiding such a cache and taking the risk that it might disappear is worthwhile - even if the next visitor finds no cache, it's typically worth the trip for the audience of such caches.

I also think that for remote and difficult to reach caches, it is ok if a missing container is replaced with the advance permission of the cache owner. That does not mean that the cache owner does not want to take responsability for the cache.

 

Clearer now?

 

It was perfectly clear the first time, thanks.

 

You were suggesting, in the form of a sweeping generalisation, that the type of cache which is the subject of this thread required skill levels such that those who have the skill to get to it don't come for the cache anyway.

 

I highly doubt that you're in a position to make that claim with any veracity and nor is it contextual to this thread.

 

I'd prefer it if this thread stayed on topic and didn't go the way of many threads you've engaged with in the past - rambling on for page after page, going round in circles or off on wild tangents with nothing to do with the subject matter. Which is why I posted what I did.

 

Clearer now?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Team Microdot

[cezanne]

You were suggesting, in the form of a sweeping generalisation, that the type of cache which is the subject of this thread required that those who have the skill to get to it don't come for the cache anyway.

 

I meant they do not come just for the cache container and that the can live with DNFs as the trip means something to them too. Neither DameDeco nor Lone.R belong to the target audience of such a cache. I still feel that what Derek has done was a good idea and that the target audience of the cache which is discussed here profits from what he has done much more than from an archived cache. That statement is very much on-topic. If one applies the same kind of expectations to difficult mountain caches than to caches much easier to reach, the first category will die out sooner or later and noone will win.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

You were suggesting, in the form of a sweeping generalisation, that the type of cache which is the subject of this thread required that those who have the skill to get to it don't come for the cache anyway.

 

I meant they do not come just for the cache container and can live with a DNF without regarding the trip as a waste of time. Neither DameDeco nor Lone.R belong to the target audience of such a cache. I still feel that what Derek has done was a good idea and that the target audience of the cache which is discussed here profits from what he has done much more than from an archived cache.

 

OK - so you're retracting your earlier suggestion that people who go for high terrain caches aren't actually going for the cache and agreeing that even if that were true it is irrelevant here as it's clear that they did make the journey for the purpose of finding the cache.

 

Cool

 

Hopefully that's one derail avoided.

[cezanne]

OK - so you're retracting your earlier suggestion that people who go for high terrain caches aren't actually going for the cache and agreeing that even if that were true it is irrelevant here as it's clear that they did make the journey for the purpose of finding the cache.

 

It was not about high terrain caches in general. There is a big difference between a creative container 50m high in a tree in a boring environment and a cache at a peak with an unbelievable panorama and where the way to the cache is the main reward. Of course cachers in general head for a cache to try to find it, but there is a difference if someone comes just for finding the container or for the journey. It will be very rarely the case (if ever at all) that someone does a cache like the one discussed here only for finding a hidden container (which is not too uncommon for urban caches at ugly locations where some cachers go there just to score a find).

 

I think that what makes such caches special is not that they might go unfound for a longer time - it's the experience on the way and the location. So I do not see an issue with the fact that now a new container waits to be found which is not the one placed by the original hider. Those who reach this cache can be proud due to the accomplishment and not for having found an old cache.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

OK - so you're retracting your earlier suggestion that people who go for high terrain caches aren't actually going for the cache and agreeing that even if that were true it is irrelevant here as it's clear that they did make the journey for the purpose of finding the cache.

 

It was not about high terrain caches in general. There is a big difference between a creative container 50m high in a tree in a boring environment and a cache at a peak with an unbelievable panorama and where the way to the cache is the main reward. Of course cachers in general head for a cache to try to find it, but there is a difference if someone comes just for finding the container or for the journey. It will be very rarely the case (if ever at all) that someone does a cache like the one discussed here only for finding a hidden container (which is not too uncommon for urban caches at ugly locations where some cachers go there just to score a find).

 

You're going off on a tangent again.

 

Stick to the cache that is the subject of the thread.

[cezanne]

Stick to the cache that is the subject of the thread.

 

That has been my intent right from the beginning. My argument was why I think that Derek did the right thing for that very cache which is in contrast to some other statements in this thread one of which even claimed that geocaching will get ridiculed by such actions.

[+Team Microdot]

Stick to the cache that is the subject of the thread.

 

That has been my intent right from the beginning. My argument was why I think that Derek did the right thing for that very cache which is in contrast to some other statements in this thread one of which even claimed that geocaching will get ridiculed by such actions.

 

It does sort-of make a mockery of certain principles of the activity, the guidelines we are supposed to adhere to and the consistency of decisions made on which caches should be archived and which shouldn't.

[+Dame Deco]

Cezanne--nothing you said contradicts the point that I made, in fact my solution would work absolutely perfectly: archive the unfound cache and have the person who placed the throw down simply create a new cache page. It would in fact all come to the same conclusion we have now--dnf for Derek, find for the next person. Only the find would be for a real cache, not some throw down.

 

And I admit, that it bugs me that an HQ Lackey did the deed and made the video--it really does give the impression that GS is just fine with this kind of thing. Think, GS, think--what kind of impression are you making?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Dame Deco

[+redsox_mark]

Cezanne--nothing you said contradicts the point that I made, in fact my solution would work absolutely perfectly: archive the unfound cache and have the person who placed the throw down simply create a new cache page. It would in fact all come to the same conclusion we have now--dnf for Derek, find for the next person. Only the find would be for a real cache, not some throw down.

 

And I admit, that it bugs me that an HQ Lackey did the deed and made the video--it really does give the impression that GS is just fine with this kind of thing. Think, GS, think--what kind of impression are you making?

 

I believe that GS is fine with cachers helping an active cache owner by replacing a likely missing cache with the cache owners permission.

 

Which is why the knowledge book article on throwdowns defines it as replacing without cache owner permission.

 

This also matches what I see happening and generally accepted in my area. Cacher A decides to attempt a cache which has a greater than normal chance of being missing (based on DNFs and time since it was found, or in this case never found). They agree with the Cache owner B, that should they fail to find the cache, they will replace it. This helps out cache owner B and A and B are happy with this arrangement. I've been "Cacher B" and done this myself. When I've done this I've asked the owner for a clear description of the hide so I could be as certain as possible that the cache was indeed missing.

 

It is up to the cache owner if they want to archive their cache and place a new listing or not; but I see no reason why they must do that. And Cacher B may not want to own the cache.

 

Sure, the agreement between Cacher A and Cacher B could be "If Cacher B can't find it, Cacher A agrees to archive the cache and Cacher B sets a new one". But that isn't the only option.

[+Team Microdot]

It is up to the cache owner if they want to archive their cache and place a new listing or not; but I see no reason why they must do that. And Cacher B may not want to own the cache.

 

Am I right in saying though that in this scenario the cache owner has moved away from the area and likely has zero intention of maintaining the cache?

 

Shouldn't that put a different spin on things?

[+redsox_mark]

It is up to the cache owner if they want to archive their cache and place a new listing or not; but I see no reason why they must do that. And Cacher B may not want to own the cache.

 

Am I right in saying though that in this scenario the cache owner has moved away from the area and likely has zero intention of maintaining the cache?

 

Shouldn't that put a different spin on things?

 

The original owner moved away in 2011. The adopted owner is local and posted in 2013 "I have every belief that the cache is still up there as I have spoken to the original hider and only one person has DNF'd. If I get 2 more verifiable (Picture) DNF's I will go up and check on it or archive it."

[+Dame Deco]

And it's been unfound for 7 years. You have to take the actual situation into account at some point, not just keep making general rationalizations. The "oldest unfound cache in Washington State" was not found. A replacement cache was found.

 

So the guy who adopted and gave permission for the replacement never even saw it? That makes the whole situation even sillier.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Dame Deco

[+Team Microdot]

It is up to the cache owner if they want to archive their cache and place a new listing or not; but I see no reason why they must do that. And Cacher B may not want to own the cache.

 

Am I right in saying though that in this scenario the cache owner has moved away from the area and likely has zero intention of maintaining the cache?

 

Shouldn't that put a different spin on things?

 

The original owner moved away in 2011. The adopted owner is local and posted in 2013 "I have every belief that the cache is still up there as I have spoken to the original hider and only one person has DNF'd. If I get 2 more verifiable (Picture) DNF's I will go up and check on it or archive it."

 

Didn't we have a thread on here not long back where a number of old, unfound caches were summarily archived because one person posted a DNF?

 

But this cache is somehow different?

[cezanne]

Cezanne--nothing you said contradicts the point that I made, in fact my solution would work absolutely perfectly: archive the unfound cache and have the person who placed the throw down simply create a new cache page. It would in fact all come to the same conclusion we have now--dnf for Derek, find for the next person. Only the find would be for a real cache, not some throw down.

 

There is a big difference involved. Derek would need to be willing to take over the owner responsability, that's a different thing at a different level than offering to bring a replacement container and in particular for such a cache and when one does not live very close to the cache. The willingness to help out with bringing along a new container is much easier to offer than the willingness to own a cache.

 

In my experience for caches that involve long/difficult hikes/climbs helping out the owners by cachers who visit the cache location anyway is needed to keep the number of such caches at a reasonable level.

 

I'm concerned about the ever increasing expectations from some parts of the community in terms of owner maintenance which more and more cuts down on caches of the discussed type.

 

In order to have caches for finders to enjoy, one needs cache owners. It's so much easier to archive a cache or not to hide one.

 

 

And I admit, that it bugs me that an HQ Lackey did the deed and made the video--it really does give the impression that GS is just fine with this kind of thing. Think, GS, think--what kind of impression are you making?

 

I'm often of a different opinion than Groundspeak HQ, but in this case I do not see an issue. I think one needs to differentiate (certainly there are cachers who cannot do that and who might draw wrong conclusions, but that's not so much a problem I care about). Maybe it makes a difference that I started geocaching in the early times and that I live in a country where remote mountain caches exist which are endagered too by the trend I mentioned above.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne

[+Dame Deco]

The trend of expecting cache owners to maintain caches? The guy who now owns it has never seen it! They adopted it, and they've never even seen it. I don't think it qualifies as a legitimate cache anymore.

[+Team Microdot]

Looks to me like Cezanne is voting to allow cache placers to place caches with no intention of maintaining them - just so long as they are difficult to get to.

 

We have a guy in the UK that did that. Invariably, if there ever is anything to find when you get there it is a wet, stinking mess which is a massive anti-climax having worked so hard to get there. But at least he gets the kudos of owning caches on all the highest peaks in the UK...

[+redsox_mark]

And it's been unfound for 7 years. You have to take the actual situation into account at some point, not just keep making general rationalizations. The "oldest unfound cache in Washington State" was not found. A replacement cache was found.

 

So the guy who adopted and gave permission for the replacement never even saw it? That makes the whole situation even sillier.

 

Well, to me your statement "GS is just fine with this kind of thing" sounds like a generalization. I'm trying to understand what the objectionable "kind of thing" is.

 

I agree that adopting a cache you have not found is unusual.

[cezanne]

The trend of expecting cache owners to maintain caches? The guy who now owns it has never seen it! They adopted it, and they've never even seen it. I don't think it qualifies as a legitimate cache anymore.

 

No, not the trend to expect cache owners to maintain caches but the trend to expect the same kind of maintenance with the same time limits and other conditions for each type of geocache.

 

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.

 

I think for such caches it is perfectly reasonable to allow fellow cachers who visit the cache to help out if they wish to do so. Of course the cache owner cannot rely on this and if noone volunteers to help out and a cache

receives NM and NA logs with no action following it will eventually be archived regardless of where it is located and that is ok (except for the fact that it often creates geolitter, but that's not the topic here).

 

I'm not happy about powertrail owners who expect the visitors to do the maintenance and clearly say so. Helping out each other on a voluntary basis is ok however for me when a cache is very difficult and tedious to reach.

The alternative would be to have almost no such caches at all and that's the worst outcome in my opinion. Of course for those who want to treat all caches the same, this causes an issue with their principle.

 

I think that the current owner took the cache over to help the cache exist for a longer time.

 

I have never thought about the term "legitimate cache". For me a cache is an offer to visit a location and legitimacy does not make sense in this context.

[+Dame Deco]

Maintaining a cracked or broken cache after a two day hike is one thing, replacing something nobody has laid eyes on in 7 years is another.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Dame Deco

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The trend of expecting cache owners to maintain caches? The guy who now owns it has never seen it! They adopted it, and they've never even seen it. I don't think it qualifies as a legitimate cache anymore.

 

No, not the trend to expect cache owners to maintain caches but the trend to expect the same kind of maintenance with the same time limits and other conditions for each type of geocache.

 

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.

 

I think for such caches it is perfectly reasonable to allow fellow cachers who visit the cache to help out if they wish to do so.

 

...

 

I'm not happy about powertrail owners who expect the visitors to do the maintenance and clearly say so.

 

 

And I don't like the idea that there is one set of acceptable practices for many caches but another set of practices for caches that are placed for the purpose of finding as many as possible in the shortest amount of time.

 

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

I'm not happy about powertrail owners who expect the visitors to do the maintenance and clearly say so.

 

Which thing are you not happy about?

 

Is it the expectation that they have or the fact that they say they have that expectation?

 

And is that the basis on which you judge that their caches should receive different treatment (be more harshly policed I assume)?

 

You seem to be saying that a CO's responsibility for maintaining a cache reduces proportionately with the effort required to maintain it...

 

If that's the case I might drop a few caches next time I'm in the US as by your rules my level of responsibility for maintaining them should be zero!

[cezanne]

And I don't like the idea that there is one set of acceptable practices for many caches but another set of practices for caches that are placed for the purpose of finding as many as possible in the shortest amount of time.

 

Actually, what happens for powertrails is unacceptable from my personal point anyway but I cannot change it.

 

I care about what happens for the caches to which my heart is close and I rather forget about principles than live with the fact that a certain type of caches dies out at all which is very much endagered anyhow. Powertrails are not endagered.

 

It makes much more sense if say a group of 50 climbers or mountaineers helps out each other to maintain the caches owned by them - that allows each of them to go for different and new tours and not to have to go for the same tour all and all over again without no real need as anyway someone comes along who is willing to take care that the caches are in proper condition and that everything is alright.

[+Team Microdot]

It makes much more sense if say a group of 50 climbers or mountaineers helps out each other to maintain the caches owned by them - that allows each of them to go for different and new tours and not to have to go for the same tour all and all over again without no real need as anyway someone comes along who is willing to take care that the caches are in proper condition and that everything is alright.

 

Perhaps you could make a list then of 50 climbers or mountineers who are willing to maintain caches belonging to CO's who are not willing... Good luck

[cezanne]

I'm not happy about powertrail owners who expect the visitors to do the maintenance and clearly say so.

 

Which thing are you not happy about?

 

Is it the expectation that they have or the fact that they say they have that expectation?

 

Both and the existence of powertrails at all to add.

 

And is that the basis on which you judge that their caches should receive different treatment (be more harshly policed I assume)?

 

I clearly stated that I do not expect the reviewers to act differently. I would wish that the community acts differently.

I do not like the term "policing" - I'm not sure whether it refers to actions of the reviewers in your usage.

 

You seem to be saying that a CO's responsibility for maintaining a cache reduces proportionately with the effort required to maintain it...

 

That has not been my intention. If maintenance is needed and there is noone helping out, then of course it's the cache owner's turn to act.

I see no reason however to regard actions sets by someone else than the CO with the consent of the CO as illegitimate.

 

 

If that's the case I might drop a few caches next time I'm in the US as by your rules my level of responsibility for maintaining them should be zero!

 

There is a difference in the sense that I'm sure that there are local cachers there who are much closer and for whom maintaining those caches would be far easier.

For a remote cache the situation is different.

 

If a cache at the end of a two day hike needs maintenance and noone else is available, then the owner needs to set out anyway (or the cache might get archived)

but why force the owner to make a visit if

someone else volunteers who wants to visit the location anyway just because some cachers think that the resulting replacement cache is not legitimate?

[+Team Microdot]

There is a difference in the sense that I'm sure that there are local cachers there who are much closer and for whom maintaining those caches would be far easier.

For a remote cache the situation is different.

 

If a cache at the end of a two day hike needs maintenance and noone else is available, then the owner needs to set out anyway (or the cache might get archived)

but why force the owner to make a visit if

someone else volunteers who wants to visit the location anyway just because some cachers think that the resulting replacement cache is not legitimate?

 

No - there's no difference - I'll place my US caches in remote places - with no intention of maintaining them, just the expectation that others will.

 

I won't state my intention though to anybody, as stating the intention apparently makes my actions more of a misdemeanor.

 

By your measure that should be welcomed by the geocaching community.

 

If someone makes a two day hike to one of my caches and reports a DNF I'll just post a note saying that I'll check on the cache only when there's been more DNF's - however long that takes - safe in the knowledge that Groundspeak won't archive my cache.

[cezanne]

No - there's no difference - I'll place my US caches in remote places - with no intention of maintaining them, just the expectation that others will.

 

I won't state my intention though to anybody, as stating the intention apparently makes my actions more of a misdemeanor.

 

By your measure that should be welcomed by the geocaching community.

 

I never said anything about that "no intention to maintain the caches" should be welcomed by the community.

 

For those who like to visit caches in remote places, it is however in any case better that there exist such caches than if there exist

no such caches.

 

If someone makes a two day hike to one of my caches and reports a DNF I'll just post a note saying that I'll check on the cache only when there's been more DNF's - however long that takes - safe in the knowledge that Groundspeak won't archive my cache.

 

Archiving a cache of whichever type on the basis of a single DNF does not seem reasonable to me. Waiting for a second DNF or failure log makes sense in the majority of cases.

(I have logged numerous DNFs for caches which were there when I failed to find them and many of them were easy caches with respect to the D-level.)

 

If someone who sets out for the long hike anyway, offers help I see no reason why the cache owner should not be allowed to accept the help. If someone wants to rely on that sort of help in all cases, he/she will ultimately

run into a problem anyway. As long as the only problem is the problem some cachers who never ever will go for such a cache have with the legitimacy of a cache, I think that there is no maintenance problem.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I never said anything about that "no intention to maintain the caches" should be welcomed by the community.

 

Not in those words - but you implied it when you said:

 

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.

 

So as long as I place abandon the caches I will never maintain in such a way that they require at least a two day hike, I should get special treatment

[+Touchstone]

Personally, I would've taken the DNF, and written up/submitted an awesome Earthcache for the summit instead

 

Well done video in spite of the takeaway message. Oh well.

[+Mudfrog]

And it's been unfound for 7 years. You have to take the actual situation into account at some point, not just keep making general rationalizations. The "oldest unfound cache in Washington State" was not found. A replacement cache was found.

 

So the guy who adopted and gave permission for the replacement never even saw it? That makes the whole situation even sillier.

 

I didn't realize that the cache had been adopted by a person who had never even been to ground zero. That cache should have been archived when the original owner, the only person who knew any details of the hide, left town.

 

I'm with Cezanne, that these types of caches are what i am more interested in. They are few and far between so i hate to hear when one of them has problems or gets archived. Still, i don't feel they deserve extra special treatment because of how they are placed.

[+redsox_mark]

I didn't realize that the cache had been adopted by a person who had never even been to ground zero. That cache should have been archived when the original owner, the only person who knew any details of the hide, left town.

 

 

Perhaps a requirement for adoption should be that the new owner has found the cache previously. Or, that they visit the cache at the time of adoption to ensure it is there and they can find it. But that is not the case today. Logs by the adopted owner indicate he/she talked to the previous owner and got details, but of course that isn't the same as hiding it.

 

I assume when Groundspeak got the idea to create a video of the attempt to find this unfound 5/5 cache, they didn't take into account that the cache was adopted, or think that this made the cache less legitimate.

[+cheech gang]

I didn't realize that the cache had been adopted by a person who had never even been to ground zero. That cache should have been archived when the original owner, the only person who knew any details of the hide, left town.

 

 

Perhaps a requirement for adoption should be that the new owner has found the cache previously. Or, that they visit the cache at the time of adoption to ensure it is there and they can find it. But that is not the case today. Logs by the adopted owner indicate he/she talked to the previous owner and got details, but of course that isn't the same as hiding it.

 

I assume when Groundspeak got the idea to create a video of the attempt to find this unfound 5/5 cache, they didn't take into account that the cache was adopted, or think that this made the cache less legitimate.

 

They failed to take into account that the video may be seen by the forum denizens. Like throwing a steak to a pack of wolves.

[cezanne]

 

I'm with Cezanne, that these types of caches are what i am more interested in. They are few and far between so i hate to hear when one of them has problems or gets archived. Still, i don't feel they deserve extra special treatment because of how they are placed.

 

I do not mean extra treatment by the reviewers - I just meant a different level of expectations from the community. In any case, I do think that a cache owner who accepts in such a case the offer of another cacher to help him/her out is not doing anything wrong.

 

I need to add that labels "like oldest unfound cache", "oldest cache" etc have no meaning to me - caching is not a competition in my eyes. What counts much more in my opinion is that a cache is offered at a nice location and that the cache is in proper condition. That should be sufficient.

 

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

 

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.

 

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. 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. 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 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. 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.

 

When I hike up a mountain and end up with a DNF, it can never be a waste of time.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cezanne