Jump to content

A Goecache At The Bottom Of A Pole?


DonutHoes

Recommended Posts

Why aren't people more perturbed about the lack of owner maintenance? If the string no longer matters, why hasn't the owner removed it? Seems he doesn't intend to maintain his cache.

 

Because the evidence that this siuation is a result of poor cache maintenance is not certain, and we don't like throwing insults around at cache owners without proof?

 

I've seen caches where a presumed attachment was put there as a red herring, or was completely unrelated to the cache.

Link to comment
Then again some cachers think a fence cap hide is really sneaky and difficult

 

For someone hasn't found a variety of caches, it probably is.

 

My first hide was a fence cap hide. It was placed in a spot where there wasn't really an obvious spot to hide a container and my intent was to create something that would show someone just starting out a cache that wasn't just a container hidden in a hole in a tree or under a pile of sticks. Those with a bit of experience wouldn't have any trouble finding it at all, but for someone just starting out I thought it was a good example of a hide that was "outside the box". Unfortunately, a few years ago the park that it was in (across the street from where I live) was completely re-landscaped and a brand new fence (with fence caps that could not be removed) installed so I had to archive it.

 

 

Link to comment

It's a D4. Maybe the cache is supposed to have a piece of broken string on it.

I've got a friend that had an excellent cache that had, as a red herring, a bit of Velcro attached to it. The real cache was a "hiding in plain sight" cache. I almost quit looking for it when I saw the Velcro. So, yeah... it could happen, but the OP says that logs don't support that theory in this case.

Link to comment
Then again some cachers think a fence cap hide is really sneaky and difficult
For someone hasn't found a variety of caches, it probably is.
Yep. The first few FPCs that I found were a real challenge. Eventually I figured out that it was a standard hide location that I should check early in my search, but that wasn't obvious when I first started out.
Link to comment

Because the evidence that this siuation is a result of poor cache maintenance is not certain, and we don't like throwing insults around at cache owners without proof?

 

It's a D4. Maybe the cache is supposed to have a piece of broken string on it.

I've got a friend that had an excellent cache that had, as a red herring, a bit of Velcro attached to it. The real cache was a "hiding in plain sight" cache. I almost quit looking for it when I saw the Velcro. So, yeah... it could happen, but the OP says that logs don't support that theory in this case.

 

I outlined the history of this cache in post #34. The CO changed the Difficulty because the retrieval method broke and it became more difficult to remove. A more detailed recap of what I outlined in post #34:

 

The cache progression was:

-- The CO placed it as a 1.5

-- The cache broke and couldn't be retrieved

-- The CO raised the difficulty "until someone makes it back into a 1.5" on 6/13/2013

container is still there.... NOW IT"S REAL HARD TO GET OUT.....

DIFFICULTY raised until someone makes it back into a 1.5

Couple trips to the car might be need to get TOTTs....

 

Thanks...

-- Five DNF's followed the CO's Write Note log

-- Someone found it and "made it a lot easier for the next team" on 9/18/2013

-- Over 30 Found It's that stated how easy it wasn't a D4 anymore

-- Whatever change made it easier broke on 12/19/2015 (a cacher logged a DNF and said the retrieval method broke when they tried to retrieve it)

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

Because the evidence that this siuation is a result of poor cache maintenance is not certain, and we don't like throwing insults around at cache owners without proof?

 

It's a D4. Maybe the cache is supposed to have a piece of broken string on it.

I've got a friend that had an excellent cache that had, as a red herring, a bit of Velcro attached to it. The real cache was a "hiding in plain sight" cache. I almost quit looking for it when I saw the Velcro. So, yeah... it could happen, but the OP says that logs don't support that theory in this case.

 

I outlined the history of this cache in post #34. The CO changed the Difficulty because the retrieval method broke and it became more difficult to remove. A more detailed recap of what I outlined in post #34:

 

The cache progression was:

-- The CO placed it as a 1.5

-- The cache broke and couldn't be retrieved

-- The CO raised the difficulty "until someone makes it back into a 1.5" on 6/13/2013

container is still there.... NOW IT"S REAL HARD TO GET OUT.....

DIFFICULTY raised until someone makes it back into a 1.5

Couple trips to the car might be need to get TOTTs....

 

Thanks...

-- Five DNF's followed the CO's Write Note log

-- Someone found it and "made it a lot easier for the next team" on 9/18/2013

-- Over 30 Found It's that stated how easy it wasn't a D4 anymore

-- Whatever change made it easier broke on 12/19/2015 (a cacher logged a DNF and said the retrieval method broke when they tried to retrieve it)

 

Thank you for the full story. So it is a case of a cache owner who hasn't gone out to his cache to maintain it, and yet expects higher standards from the people who claim a find. The OP could:

  • Claim a find but not post that they didn't sign the log, he's never going to check the actual container
  • Report the CO by emailing the reviewer
  • Go public and post an NA detailing the problem - use NC's list above
  • Ignore the cache and other caches by this CO

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

(Good job not digging up the post: that's definitely not the trick! :))

 

That was the funniest thing I have read all day! :laughing:

 

The original poster seems like a really nice guy and I think he is going to be (is) a great cacher. He was able to put up with this crazy group so I think he will fit in well.

 

As far as if the string broke and the hider just changed it to a D4 is kind of unfair to the first finders who had it easy and are getting the credit for finding a D4 right! Not that I care I just thought that was something someone would bring up.

Link to comment

The cache itself is a 4 rating so the difficulty is definitely in the extraction. It looks like it's in a film canister of some sort. It's pink. I didn't think of a magnet but I'll consider that next time. I wish the person who planted it had been this nice and helpful lol.

 

Based on other logs this was an "easy/quick find" so my gut tells me either it's been busted or no one is actually removing it from the pole.

Never mind, I didn't read all comments before I posted this. My suggestion was filling the tube with water but others have mentioned before.

Regarding the string you found, maybe the CO isn't the one that attached the cache to a string, might have been a previous cacher that did it without the CO knowing in order to make the retrieving easier. They might have thought it originally had a string and thought they were "fixing" it for said CO. That might be why the CO isn't "fixing" it b/c it wasn't set up that way in the first place. Just a thought.

Edited by Luckyone80
Link to comment

The cache itself is a 4 rating so the difficulty is definitely in the extraction. It looks like it's in a film canister of some sort. It's pink. I didn't think of a magnet but I'll consider that next time. I wish the person who planted it had been this nice and helpful lol.

 

Based on other logs this was an "easy/quick find" so my gut tells me either it's been busted or no one is actually removing it from the pole.

Never mind, I didn't read all comments before I posted this. My suggestion was filling the tube with water but others have mentioned before.

Regarding the string you found, maybe the CO isn't the one that attached the cache to a string, might have been a previous cacher that did it without the CO knowing in order to make the retrieving easier. They might have thought it originally had a string and thought they were "fixing" it for said CO. That might be why the CO isn't "fixing" it b/c it wasn't set up that way in the first place. Just a thought.

 

If that were the case, someone else added the string, it is the responsibility of the cache owner to check their cache and put it back to its original condition, when he is informed of the issue. But it doesn't seem to be the case as outlined in post #34 and #55, the cache was originally dangling on a string.

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...