Throwdowns

[+Ant89]

1. They encourage lazy ownership.
   
2. They encourage armchair maintenance.
   
3. They give a false indication that all is ok with a cache.
   

 

Discuss if you wish.

[+niraD]

• The original cache may still be there, and the seeker just couldn't find it. Future seekers may find the throw-down cache rather than the more interesting original cache.
  
• Even if the original cache is missing, future seekers may not recognize the throw-down cache if it doesn't match the description of the original cache.
  
• If the geocacher who hid the throw-down cache logs a find rather than a DNF, then the owner may not realize that anything is wrong, so it may take longer for a missing container to be replaced properly.
  
• If the owner is no longer maintaining the cache, then the throw-down cache becomes geolitter when the unmaintained cache is archived.
  
• The missing container may have been a puzzle-cache decoy, with a note explaining that the finder still needs to solve the puzzle correctly to get the coordinates of the actual cache. Future finders would not know that they had solved the puzzle incorrectly.
  
• Some locations experience wind storms. The original cache may have been secured to keep it from blowing away, but throw-down containers that aren't secured become geolitter.
  

[+Bohemian1966]

Note to self...

Throw-Downs = Bad

GeoLitter = Not a bunch of baby Geo's

 

I actually like ThoDowns over Throwdowns... feels more Gangstah !... yo

Edited September 11, 2015 by Bohemian1966

[+frinklabs]

Can a "bad" cacher be reported?

[+ChileHead]

They are a delusion of the cacher that they are helping the cache owner. Because we all would love to have our missing caches replaced with a film canister.

[+dprovan]

They make the person dropping the throwdown think they can claim a find for that cache.

[+cerberus1]

But, but...what about the "community" pitching in, as a show of comradeship in helping others to keep those caches alive?

 

- Especially the real old ones...

[+lee737]

I don't agree with propping up caches (old or new) that aren't being cared for, apart from emergency type stuff - draining out water, perhaps an emergency log, but these should then be accompanied by a NM log so the problem can be fixed. Adding a new cache for any reason apart from being asked to by the CO is a mortal sin.

[+Path Pacer]

Why in the world would anyone think it's okay to replace a cache they couldn't find? Isn't that the cache owner's job?

[+captnemo]

• The original cache may still be there, and the seeker just couldn't find it. Future seekers may find the throw-down cache rather than the more interesting original cache.
  
• Even if the original cache is missing, future seekers may not recognize the throw-down cache if it doesn't match the description of the original cache.
  
• If the geocacher who hid the throw-down cache logs a find rather than a DNF, then the owner may not realize that anything is wrong, so it may take longer for a missing container to be replaced properly.
  
• If the owner is no longer maintaining the cache, then the throw-down cache becomes geolitter when the unmaintained cache is archived.
  
• The missing container may have been a puzzle-cache decoy, with a note explaining that the finder still needs to solve the puzzle correctly to get the coordinates of the actual cache. Future finders would not know that they had solved the puzzle incorrectly.
  
• Some locations experience wind storms. The original cache may have been secured to keep it from blowing away, but throw-down containers that aren't secured become geolitter.
  

+1 big time

[+Ant89]

ok, now I'm more awake...

 

I personally have no issue with people replacing a damaged cache like for like where possible. I've done it myself. on other peoples caches. That is I've found the original cache, but it's in a poor state of repair so I've transferred everything that can be to a new and closely matching container if I've got one with me.

 

I never have and never will leave a replacement if I cannot find one.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Why in the world would anyone think it's okay to replace a cache they couldn't find? Isn't that the cache owner's job?

 

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

ok, now I'm more awake...

 

I personally have no issue with people replacing a damaged cache like for like where possible. I've done it myself. on other peoples caches. That is I've found the original cache, but it's in a poor state of repair so I've transferred everything that can be to a new and closely matching container if I've got one with me.

 

I never have and never will leave a replacement if I cannot find one.

 

+1...I think this is one of the most over thought things on the forum.

[+lee737]

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

 

I disagree with this - I would log a DNF +/- a NM (depending on the situation) ... if the CO fixes it, great, if not, it should be archived.

Edited September 12, 2015 by lee737

[+CanadianRockies]

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

I've failed to find many D1 caches when my searching method failed to sync up with the hider's, for whatever reason. Even with LPCs, I've DNFed several and only later figured out that some are magnetically attached to the skirt. When I lifted the skirt, they appeared to be missing but weren't. Other times, the caches were blank electrical outlet covers attached to the lamp posts, and I failed to see the cover. It happens. They're DNFs.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

I've failed to find many D1 caches when my searching method failed to sync up with the hider's, for whatever reason. Even with LPCs, I've DNFed several and only later figured out that some are magnetically attached to the skirt. When I lifted the skirt, they appeared to be missing but weren't. Other times, the caches were blank electrical outlet covers attached to the lamp posts, and I failed to see the cover. It happens. They're DNFs.

 

There have been many caches that by looking at the description and hint there was NO question the cache was gone (ex- cache is a film can in the owl statue...pick up hollow statue and look inside) only on these would I replace a container....I also try to replace damaged containers and of course add a log if one is full or wet.

[+zookeepertx]

Why in the world would anyone think it's okay to replace a cache they couldn't find? Isn't that the cache owner's job?

 

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

 

Well..... I don't know. A couple of months ago, I found a LPC and there were 2 containers under the skirt! Right next to each other. Neither was damaged, cracked or stuffed full of SWAG or anything. Still not sure how that happened, LOL!

[+dprovan]

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

The more sure I am that the container is missing, the less important I think it is to keep the cache viable when the container goes missing. If a obvious hide disappears and the CO doesn't replace it, dollars to donuts they've forgotten all about geocaching, so I'd rather their caches disappear when maintenance problems start appearing.

 

But I don't mind if someone feels compelled to replace a cache in that case, as long as they don't log a find since they obviously didn't find it.

[+colleda]

I'd rather log a DNF than a Found It on crappy throwdown.

[+The A-Team]

There have been many caches that by looking at the description and hint there was NO question the cache was gone (ex- cache is a film can in the owl statue...pick up hollow statue and look inside) only on these would I replace a container

If people still insist on doing this, I think we need to make a new log type:

Didn't find it*

 

The "Didn't find it" part would correctly denote that the logger failed to find the container, but the * would denote the "but wait, there's more!" part of the log where the cacher couldn't walk away without the smiley and threw-down. This log could count as a smiley to grant the almighty smiley point to the logger, and there would still be the record of the DNF that also occurred.

 

<The A-Team ducks>

Hey, stop throwing stuff at me! I was just kidding!

[+cerberus1]

If there's no question the cache is gone, I simply log a DNF and a NM.

Folks should be honest that it is all about the numbers...

[+briansnat]

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

 

I disagree with this - I would log a DNF +/- a NM (depending on the situation) ... if the CO fixes it, great, if not, it should be archived.

 

DNF in my book too. You don't KNOW that the cache was in that skirt. Did ya ever notice that the throw-downers invariably log a found it even though they found nada.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If there's no question the cache is gone, I simply log a DNF and a NM.

Folks should be honest that it is all about the numbers...

 

Throwdowns are primarily for cachers who cannot bear to log a DNF. "Looked for two minutes. Could not find the ammo can. Threw down a medicine bottle." For most people, that is called dishonesty. "I am claiming a find on a cache that I did not find helping the cache owner.

Yeah. Right.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

They are a delusion of the cacher that they are helping the cache owner. Because we all would love to have our missing caches replaced with a film canister.

 

In an email to the CO of the oldest cache in the state:

 

"We replaced the missing cache to help the CO maintain their cache"

 

(On a cache that has never been disabled for more than a couple of days. Not sure the CO needs any help.)

 

In the same email...

 

"We were in the area trying to find the oldest cache in your state so we can complete the 'Oldest Challenge Cache' in our area."

 

(Aahhhh..the truth comes out. You replaced it so you wouldn't have to come back and truly find it another time.)

[+OReviewer]

Help Center Article On Throwdowns

 

I have send this to people.

[+AustinMN]

Why in the world would anyone think it's okay to replace a cache they couldn't find? Isn't that the cache owner's job?

 

If the cache is a LPC film can and there is only one light pole at GZ and its a 1-1 and its gone I say replace it ....you would have to be sure that the original container was gone and replace it with a like container.

 

Since something like 99.99% of LPC's don't really have permission, replacing one that is missing may be a wonderful way of demonstrating to the property owner who found and removed it that geocachers are malicious.

[+ChileHead]

Since something like 99.99% of LPC's don't really have permission, replacing one that is missing may be a wonderful way of demonstrating to the property owner who found and removed it that geocachers are malicious.

 

That's a good point I hadn't given much thought to before. I know in some areas, landscapers will remove caches when they are doing their job because they don't know what it is and don't want people stepping all over their flowers.

 

Business owners or management may see people walking around their property where they don't belong, and wonder what this thing is behind the bush, in the tree, guardrail or LPC, and then remove it.

 

Unfortunately in almost all cases caches removed have no notice posted on them by the land owner/manager to say they aren't welcome, so the CO will replace. After a couple go arounds like this the CO will usually just archive it, but if somebody who can't bear the thought of posting a DNF replaces it then we are just extending the time frame to anger land managers.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

[+AustinMN]

however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

 

Ten seconds to find out your last time connexcted to the site was today, and that your last "found it" was 7 days ago..."tons of research?"

 

You are deluding yourself.

 

Edit: Last log was 7 days ago...last found it was over a month ago.

Edited September 17, 2015 by AustinMN

[+AustinMN]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

 

Here is one of your throwdowns. "Fix" lasted two months. You wasted your effort. http://coord.info/GC2GH2T

Edited September 17, 2015 by AustinMN

[+TriciaG]

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on

I'm a lazy and inconsiderate cacher that doesn't want to waste time and money on someone else's cache, when that person should be doing the maintenance/replacement themselves. If I want to put out containers, I'll put out new caches that I'll maintain myself.

 

It's called "the responsibility of being a cache owner."

[+BAMBOOZLE]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

 

Here is one of your throwdowns. "Fix" lasted two months. You wasted your effort. http://coord.info/GC2GH2T

 

It would appear that current finders are finding the one I left.....regardless , I consider all efforts worthwhile.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on

I don't want to waste time and money on someone else's cache, when that person should be doing the maintenance/replacement themselves. If I want to put out containers, I'll put out new caches that I'll maintain myself.

 

It's called "the responsibility of being a cache owner."

 

I edited out the lazy and inconsiderate part because I don't think you are that.

The rest of your statement is " dead on " and speaks for most here if they would admit it.....nothing wrong with that AT ALL.

I just think its a good thing if some chose to help out and they shouldn't be disparaged any more than the ones who chose not to.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

 

Here is one of your throwdowns. "Fix" lasted two months. You wasted your effort. http://coord.info/GC2GH2T

 

How many throwdowns have been done on that cache?

 

A found it log from a 100K+ find cacher:

 

... Enjoyed the hunt. Left a temporary replacement and SL. Thanks!

 

 

[+BAMBOOZLE]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

 

Here is one of your throwdowns. "Fix" lasted two months. You wasted your effort. http://coord.info/GC2GH2T

 

How many throwdowns have been done on that cache?

 

A found it log from a 100K+ find cacher:

 

... Enjoyed the hunt. Left a temporary replacement and SL. Thanks!

 

I was heading south during some of the worst rain and flooding in Texas history. Check out my log on photos on this cache :

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1PN9J_wichita-river

[+J Grouchy]

A found it log from a 100K+ find cacher:

 

... Enjoyed the hunt. Left a temporary replacement and SL. Thanks!

 

From what I've seen (many, many instances) that particular cacher has left TONS of throwdowns. Enough for me to question the validity of a great percentage of his 100K+ "finds".

 

Perfect example to use in the "it's all about the numbers for some" argument.

[+DanOCan]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find.

 

I make an effort to maintain the caches I hide and I expect others to do the same. I have a hard enough time remembering to bring a pen with me caching, never mind carrying complete caches in case I happen to stumble across one that appears to be missing.

 

If the CO has left the game, who am I doing a favor for by placing a throwdown? Sort term a few people might get to collect a smiley they would have otherwise missed, but long term ownerless caches do a lot of harm to the game. Land managers and land owners really need to be able to reach the cache owner if something is wrong and having caches out there with owners who are gone or not engaged enough to respond really don't help us as a whole.

 

If you don't find the cache, log a DNF. <-- My purist view

[+colleda]

You know just once , in relation to this topic, I wish someone would post, " I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find ".

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......however they will do tons of research on when a CO last visited the site, the CO's mothers maiden name, etc, etc when in a fraction of the time they could have fixed the cache.

I'm in the minority so go ahead and pile on just ask yourself is it your purist view of the hobby that generates your views ( if so its really overkill ) or is it that really you just don't want to be bothered.

 

Here is one of your throwdowns. "Fix" lasted two months. You wasted your effort. http://coord.info/GC2GH2T

And for a CO with a history of maintenance neglect. Yep, wasted effort.

[+TheOldfields]

If we know in advance that the cache we're getting near is a throwdown, we ignore it (for reasons already given by others). Really would be good if people stopped doing it.

[+wmpastor]

Since something like 99.99% of LPC's don't really have permission, replacing one that is missing may be a wonderful way of demonstrating to the property owner who found and removed it that geocachers are malicious.

 

That's a good point I hadn't given much thought to before. I know in some areas, landscapers will remove caches when they are doing their job because they don't know what it is and don't want people stepping all over their flowers.

 

Business owners or management may see people walking around their property where they don't belong, and wonder what this thing is behind the bush, in the tree, guardrail or LPC, and then remove it.

 

Unfortunately in almost all cases caches removed have no notice posted on them by the land owner/manager to say they aren't welcome, so the CO will replace. After a couple go arounds like this the CO will usually just archive it, but if somebody who can't bear the thought of posting a DNF replaces it then we are just extending the time frame to anger land managers.

 

Agreed that the landowner may remove a cache, but I think it's uncommon, especially on large commercial properties. A lessee business in the shopping center may see and remove a cache based on unusual activity, but that was a poor location choice by the CO. The owner of the center is a corporation whose managers are sitting in an air conditioned office 10 miles, 100 miles or even 1,000 miles away.

[+Shawnonabike]

I once returned to a cache I didn't find the first time and this time I found two caches within a couple of meters of each other. Is the second cache what you call a "Throw down"?

[RuideAlmeida]

Is the second cache what you call a "Throw down"?

 

Depends... if it is placed without the previous owner consent, yes it is a throwdown.

If it is placed with the previous owner consent (even wrongly presuming that the original had disappeared) it is OK.

[+Team Microdot]

Is the second cache what you call a "Throw down"?

 

Depends... if it is placed without the previous owner consent, yes it is a throwdown.

If it is placed with the previous owner consent (even wrongly presuming that the original had disappeared) it is OK.

 

Except of course when it facilitates a cache owner who doesn't fulfill their commitment to maintain caches they have placed.

[+L0ne.R]

Is the second cache what you call a "Throw down"?

 

Depends... if it is placed without the previous owner consent, yes it is a throwdown.

If it is placed with the previous owner consent (even wrongly presuming that the original had disappeared) it is OK.

 

Except of course when it facilitates a cache owner who doesn't fulfill their commitment to maintain caches they have placed.

 

You are so right. There are owners who never intend to maintain their caches and love it when someone throws down a pill bottle.

 

There's one in my area that wrote a note chastising a cacher for posting an NM after a string of DNFs. I found it next and it was missing as far as I could tell, it was an easy 1.5/1.5. Then along comes high-numbers cacher who needed a cemetery smiley for a challenge and threw down a pill bottle to "help the owner". The owner wrote another note thanking that guy profusely, then posted an OM. The result, a cache owner whose disrespectful behaviour is reinforced.

[+dprovan]

There may be lazy CO's but there are also lazy cachers who would rather just say the heck with the next guy I don't want to be bothered so I'll just log a NM and move on......

But happily, those lazy cachers end up doing the right thing just like the rest of us that don't replace caches because replacing a cache you don't own isn't a good idea.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Is the second cache what you call a "Throw down"?

 

Depends... if it is placed without the previous owner consent, yes it is a throwdown.

If it is placed with the previous owner consent (even wrongly presuming that the original had disappeared) it is OK.

 

True.

There have been a few times I replaced a missing cache of mine only to have the original found a good distance from GZ by a future seeker so you can kind of " throw down " on your own cache.

[+fuzziebear3]

Since it is your own cache, you have permission of the cache owner to replace ... so it is not a throwdown on your own cache