Jump to content

A Goecache At The Bottom Of A Pole?


DonutHoes
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I was out caching with some friends and we found the intended cache at the bottom of a thin pole roughly 4-5 feet in height. It appears the cache was at one time suspended but the string broke, causing it to drop to the bottom of the pole. We marked it as found and suggested it needed maintenance only to have our find deleted and a passive aggressive comment about its difficulty.

 

The only way I can see this cache being obtainable is if we dig up the pole (which is a no no anyway) or find something super thin that is able to grab it. Either will defeat the use of stealth as its very visible on a busy street.

 

Any advice on this? I feel like the person who planted it is super unapproachable and other cachers will continue to have issues with it.

Link to comment

I was out caching with some friends and we found the intended cache at the bottom of a thin pole roughly 4-5 feet in height. It appears the cache was at one time suspended but the string broke, causing it to drop to the bottom of the pole. We marked it as found and suggested it needed maintenance only to have our find deleted and a passive aggressive comment about its difficulty.

 

The only way I can see this cache being obtainable is if we dig up the pole (which is a no no anyway) or find something super thin that is able to grab it. Either will defeat the use of stealth as its very visible on a busy street.

 

Any advice on this? I feel like the person who planted it is super unapproachable and other cachers will continue to have issues with it.

 

Based on everything you just wrote, I can guarantee that I would have acted exactly like the cache owner in question here. I suspect you don't realize how naive you're being and how you have failed to consider every aspect of a geocache. Shooting from the hip.. unapproachable, passive aggressive, nice insults.

 

And let's consider the cache REALLY DID fall down into the bottom of the pole.. you really marked it as found? You do realize that if you're name fails to make it to paper that you agreed by reading the guidelines that you didn't really find it, right?

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.

Link to comment

I was out caching with some friends and we found the intended cache at the bottom of a thin pole roughly 4-5 feet in height. It appears the cache was at one time suspended but the string broke, causing it to drop to the bottom of the pole.

 

What gave you the impression it was suspended by a string?

 

We marked it as found and suggested it needed maintenance only to have our find deleted and a passive aggressive comment about its difficulty.

 

The only way I can see this cache being obtainable is if we dig up the pole (which is a no no anyway) or find something super thin that is able to grab it. Either will defeat the use of stealth as its very visible on a busy street.

 

Any advice on this? I feel like the person who planted it is super unapproachable and other cachers will continue to have issues with it.

 

Not signing the log and logging a found? really? :rolleyes:

 

Has it occurred to you that you might need a tool to reach the container?

A magnet on a stick/string might be needed. Maybe you need a string + hook to "catch" the container. Maybe you need to pour water in the pole to make the container float to the top.

Link to comment

I said we marked it found, which was inaccurate. We found it is what I meant, but indicated it needed maintenance. In any case, I'm just going to let this one go. A lot of people have offered great suggestions for future endeavors and I appreciate those who have opted not to lecture me on the rules :P

Link to comment

I think the important point here is to recognize that there's no serious downside to not claiming a find, so if you don't sign the log, shrug your shoulders and report why in a DNF. It doesn't matter whether it was broken or there's a trick to getting it that didn't occur to you. (Good job not digging up the post: that's definitely not the trick! :))

 

A second lesson here is not to take anyone's reaction seriously. I'm sure the CO was just as surly as you say, but there's no reason for you to get upset about his reaction. You know you just made an innocent mistake, so you shouldn't worry about the fact that he thinks you're the devil incarnate or whatever he thinks. You'd think you'd only have to worry about unwarranted reactions during your learning curve, but it turns out things like this will come up from time to time through your geocaching career...and beyond!

 

I said we marked it found, which was inaccurate. We found it is what I meant, but indicated it needed maintenance.

Ah, that a big part of the problem. This is why I discourage newbies from filing NM logs since experience is often important in determining whether an NM is warranted. That's no excuse for the CO being rude, of course, but it explains why he was grumpy.

Link to comment

I think the important point here is to recognize that there's no serious downside to not claiming a find, so if you don't sign the log, shrug your shoulders and report why in a DNF. It doesn't matter whether it was broken or there's a trick to getting it that didn't occur to you. (Good job not digging up the post: that's definitely not the trick! :))

 

A second lesson here is not to take anyone's reaction seriously. I'm sure the CO was just as surly as you say, but there's no reason for you to get upset about his reaction. You know you just made an innocent mistake, so you shouldn't worry about the fact that he thinks you're the devil incarnate or whatever he thinks. You'd think you'd only have to worry about unwarranted reactions during your learning curve, but it turns out things like this will come up from time to time through your geocaching career...and beyond!

 

I said we marked it found, which was inaccurate. We found it is what I meant, but indicated it needed maintenance.

Ah, that a big part of the problem. This is why I discourage newbies from filing NM logs since experience is often important in determining whether an NM is warranted. That's no excuse for the CO being rude, of course, but it explains why he was grumpy.

Going forward if it obviously needs maintenance I just won't log it lol - I'll let someone else get their head bit off. We're just out having fun, doing our best to comply with the rules and employ stealth. Not looking to get in altercations with people who think they're the Geocaching god. Thanks for looking out.

Link to comment

I think the important point here is to recognize that there's no serious downside to not claiming a find, so if you don't sign the log, shrug your shoulders and report why in a DNF. It doesn't matter whether it was broken or there's a trick to getting it that didn't occur to you. (Good job not digging up the post: that's definitely not the trick! :))

 

A second lesson here is not to take anyone's reaction seriously. I'm sure the CO was just as surly as you say, but there's no reason for you to get upset about his reaction. You know you just made an innocent mistake, so you shouldn't worry about the fact that he thinks you're the devil incarnate or whatever he thinks. You'd think you'd only have to worry about unwarranted reactions during your learning curve, but it turns out things like this will come up from time to time through your geocaching career...and beyond!

 

I said we marked it found, which was inaccurate. We found it is what I meant, but indicated it needed maintenance.

Ah, that a big part of the problem. This is why I discourage newbies from filing NM logs since experience is often important in determining whether an NM is warranted. That's no excuse for the CO being rude, of course, but it explains why he was grumpy.

Going forward if it obviously needs maintenance I just won't log it lol - I'll let someone else get their head bit off. We're just out having fun, doing our best to comply with the rules and employ stealth. Not looking to get in altercations with people who think they're the Geocaching god. Thanks for looking out.

 

Obviously, if the container is clearly broken or damaged...or if the log and contents are missing...or if it's just generally soaked and nasty inside...you really SHOULD post a NM log. If it's something you're not sure of - some aspect of your search that makes you uncertain of the cache's status - perhaps just shoot the CO an email explaining it. In addition to that, post a DNF if you never found a log sheet (soaked or otherwise). It doesn't mean you won't still get grumpy responses, but it makes it less likely since you aren't publicly questioning the integrity of their cache if part of the challenge potentially is figuring out how to retrieve it.

Link to comment

There were two potentially correct responses here:

 

Log a DNF and in the log state "made visual contact with the container but was unable to retrieve it to sign the log, so recording this as a DNF. Taking on board comments from last month about broken string - this may NM"

 

(I'd expect the CO to respond publically to that along the lines of "Many thanks for querying if this NM - It doesn't there should be no string, you'll need to try harder!") Thats then on record for everyone in the future.

 

Or you are convinced it NM. In which case log an NM "made contact with the container but string broken/missing so unable to retrieve. NM."

 

If thats what the CO deleted - I actually think that was wrong - s/he should have simply added a log note to it. There is no reason to delete a NM log. Simply log it as having been maintained and provide enough information to say it didn't need any work. However, if you logged a find - it needs deleted as you didn't find it...

Link to comment

Go fill said pole with water, container pop up. That is what I did, only mine took 7 gallons to bring it up.

I have one hidden that needs about 60 PSI to get it :rolleyes:

Lol while this option is entirely tempting I live in California where they are constantly preaching to us about the drought we're in. I'm going to pass on it for now and maybe when I find myself with a few gallons of rainwater I'll make another go at it.

Link to comment

There were two potentially correct responses here:

 

Log a DNF and in the log state "made visual contact with the container but was unable to retrieve it to sign the log, so recording this as a DNF. Taking on board comments from last month about broken string - this may NM"

 

(I'd expect the CO to respond publically to that along the lines of "Many thanks for querying if this NM - It doesn't there should be no string, you'll need to try harder!") Thats then on record for everyone in the future.

 

Or you are convinced it NM. In which case log an NM "made contact with the container but string broken/missing so unable to retrieve. NM."

 

If thats what the CO deleted - I actually think that was wrong - s/he should have simply added a log note to it. There is no reason to delete a NM log. Simply log it as having been maintained and provide enough information to say it didn't need any work. However, if you logged a find - it needs deleted as you didn't find it...

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

Link to comment

There were two potentially correct responses here:

 

Log a DNF and in the log state "made visual contact with the container but was unable to retrieve it to sign the log, so recording this as a DNF. Taking on board comments from last month about broken string - this may NM"

 

(I'd expect the CO to respond publically to that along the lines of "Many thanks for querying if this NM - It doesn't there should be no string, you'll need to try harder!") Thats then on record for everyone in the future.

 

Or you are convinced it NM. In which case log an NM "made contact with the container but string broken/missing so unable to retrieve. NM."

 

If thats what the CO deleted - I actually think that was wrong - s/he should have simply added a log note to it. There is no reason to delete a NM log. Simply log it as having been maintained and provide enough information to say it didn't need any work. However, if you logged a find - it needs deleted as you didn't find it...

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

Well if it had several logs indicating it needs repair then maybe it is time to log a needs archive do to lack of maintenance. Doesn't matter if this log is deleted or not, soon as you log it the email is on the way to the reviewer community.

Link to comment

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

I'm still confused what you actually logged this as:

Did Not Find

Needs Maint

Found It

(Needs Archive)

Note

 

People will often mention in a Found It log that the log is wet etc. For me that gets mentioned but then a separate NM log. Reason being a cache owner may not read every find log, but certainly as a CO, I read anything that says Needs Maint. Plus as someone else said - I'm far less likely to try a cache that is showing the NM flag. At the very least I'll read the NM log to see what the issue is (wet log - I will take a spare log and silica sachet)

Link to comment
The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance,

 

While planning a cacheday I don't load such a cache in my GPS. I don't like to waste time on unavailable caches <_<

I'll keep that in mind next time. I didn't see the other responses on the log until we started having issues finding it. It was weird that half the people were claiming it was easy and quick and others were suggesting maintenance. Next time I'll browse the logs before even bothering.

Link to comment

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

I'm still confused what you actually logged this as:

Did Not Find

Needs Maint

Found It

(Needs Archive)

Note

 

People will often mention in a Found It log that the log is wet etc. For me that gets mentioned but then a separate NM log. Reason being a cache owner may not read every find log, but certainly as a CO, I read anything that says Needs Maint. Plus as someone else said - I'm far less likely to try a cache that is showing the NM flag. At the very least I'll read the NM log to see what the issue is (wet log - I will take a spare log and silica sachet)

NM. I mispoke and said we'd found it because we had eyes on it, but no physical retrieval. We suggested maintenance and that's when we got the sassy response. I've been digging through the logs more and I've concluded that the cache is supposed to be on a string that's attached somewhere near the top of the inside of the pole. However, it's broken several times and the CO (instead of reattaching it) has changed the difficulty rating. Is his normal behavior? I guess I thought that if the cache is altered from it's original state the CO is expected to fix it, not adjust the difficulty rating and call it a day.

Link to comment

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

I'm still confused what you actually logged this as:

Did Not Find

Needs Maint

Found It

(Needs Archive)

Note

 

People will often mention in a Found It log that the log is wet etc. For me that gets mentioned but then a separate NM log. Reason being a cache owner may not read every find log, but certainly as a CO, I read anything that says Needs Maint. Plus as someone else said - I'm far less likely to try a cache that is showing the NM flag. At the very least I'll read the NM log to see what the issue is (wet log - I will take a spare log and silica sachet)

NM. I mispoke and said we'd found it because we had eyes on it, but no physical retrieval. We suggested maintenance and that's when we got the sassy response. I've been digging through the logs more and I've concluded that the cache is supposed to be on a string that's attached somewhere near the top of the inside of the pole. However, it's broken several times and the CO (instead of reattaching it) has changed the difficulty rating. Is his normal behavior? I guess I thought that if the cache is altered from it's original state the CO is expected to fix it, not adjust the difficulty rating and call it a day.

 

Adjusting the difficulty sounds about right. Originally it was a lower difficulty with the string and the CO seems to have made the decision to have the cache continue on without the string, therefore increasing the difficulty factor. You now need to do more work to get the cache out.

Link to comment

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

I'm still confused what you actually logged this as:

Did Not Find

Needs Maint

Found It

(Needs Archive)

Note

 

People will often mention in a Found It log that the log is wet etc. For me that gets mentioned but then a separate NM log. Reason being a cache owner may not read every find log, but certainly as a CO, I read anything that says Needs Maint. Plus as someone else said - I'm far less likely to try a cache that is showing the NM flag. At the very least I'll read the NM log to see what the issue is (wet log - I will take a spare log and silica sachet)

NM. I mispoke and said we'd found it because we had eyes on it, but no physical retrieval. We suggested maintenance and that's when we got the sassy response. I've been digging through the logs more and I've concluded that the cache is supposed to be on a string that's attached somewhere near the top of the inside of the pole. However, it's broken several times and the CO (instead of reattaching it) has changed the difficulty rating. Is his normal behavior? I guess I thought that if the cache is altered from it's original state the CO is expected to fix it, not adjust the difficulty rating and call it a day.

 

Adjusting the difficulty sounds about right. Originally it was a lower difficulty with the string and the CO seems to have made the decision to have the cache continue on without the string, therefore increasing the difficulty factor. You now need to do more work to get the cache out.

I didn't think that was common practice, but it makes sense. If that's the case, I wish the CO would have indicated that instead. I can't imagine we will be the only one who makes this observation and think it needs maintenance. Oh well, not my cache to maintain and marking this as a lesson learned.

Link to comment

Always a possibility:

 

grabber

I have one of these and I don't even think it's long enough. I cant fit my hand into the pole and I would need at least another 5 inches or so to make the grab. I don't know if this could open wide enough to get around it either. If I visit it again I'll probably weld a couple wire hangers together with a hook at the end and see if I can go at it that way. Or maybe a vacuum hooked to a generator LOL - just kidding, but kind not.

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment

 

I have one of these and I don't even think it's long enough.

 

Another (fairly) common hide requires you to pour water into a tube/pipe, then the cache floats up to the top for you to grab it. On some of the more tricky ones the pipes have holes in them at intervals which need to be covered or blocked, or you need to pour the water in quicker than it can escape. Could this be one of these? Does the cache page have the "special tool required" attribute? which would give the clue for the one you saw.

Link to comment

 

I have one of these and I don't even think it's long enough.

 

Another (fairly) common hide requires you to pour water into a tube/pipe, then the cache floats up to the top for you to grab it. On some of the more tricky ones the pipes have holes in them at intervals which need to be covered or blocked, or you need to pour the water in quicker than it can escape. Could this be one of these? Does the cache page have the "special tool required" attribute? which would give the clue for the one you saw.

Nothing about a special tool until CO deleted our comment and said "use TOTT". We went back and looked through all the logs and images. The cache WAS at one point attached to a string as indicated by the pictures but has since broken. I guess CO didn't want to fix it and instead changed the difficulty B) I hope we find one that's like a puzzle. That sounds awesome. Most of what we've come across is pretty vanilla.

Link to comment

How about a long stick/pole with a huge glob of chewed gum on the end? :laughing:

 

Actually, that may be the best idea yet.

 

It *may* be a floater, but if not, there may not be a drain for the water, and floating it out would then cause damage to the hiding spot.

If *may* be magnetic, but maybe not. Or if so, is the pole that it is in also magnetic? If so, that makes retrieval with a magnet quite difficult.

A grabber may not be able to open wide enough to grip something if the container is a tight fit in the pole.

 

To the OP: While it may seem like laziness, it is entirely within the cache owner's right to decide that the string idea was a lame one, and that his is a much more fun idea of a hide, thus he changes the rating and leaves it as-is. You still haven't made clear, either, if you logged with a Found It log type, or a note or Needs Maintenance log type. If you did log as a Found It, but didn't get your hands on the cache and your name in the log, the cache owner was within his rights to delete your log. And finally, what you see as a "passive-aggressive" reply from the cache owner may simply have been a poorly worded or misinterpreted reply. Possibly. Give him the benefit of the doubt... after all, he's the one that went through the time and effort to hide the cache for you to look for.

Link to comment

 

I have one of these and I don't even think it's long enough.

 

Another (fairly) common hide requires you to pour water into a tube/pipe, then the cache floats up to the top for you to grab it. On some of the more tricky ones the pipes have holes in them at intervals which need to be covered or blocked, or you need to pour the water in quicker than it can escape. Could this be one of these? Does the cache page have the "special tool required" attribute? which would give the clue for the one you saw.

With the water hides, you'd probably want to check whether there's a way for water to empty out before fill the pipe. If the pipe lacks a drain or removable plug or holes drilled into the side of it, then filling the pipe with water may raise the cache container and leave it raised permanently.

 

One option might be to contact previous finders (recent ones are best) and ask them how they retrieved the container. From the logs of the cache you're referring to, it indeed sounds like 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"

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

-- Whatever change made it easier broke on 12/19/2015

Link to comment
You still haven't made clear, either, if you logged with a Found It log type, or a note or Needs Maintenance log type.

I thought I had read their response earlier, that they did NOT log a Found It, but only a NM.

 

Don't laugh. I've done it. Hiking pole with duct tape instead of gum. Duct tape is actually much stickier!

Even better! And it's more sanitary. :ph34r:

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

How about a long stick/pole with a huge glob of chewed gum on the end? :laughing:

 

Actually, that may be the best idea yet.

 

It *may* be a floater, but if not, there may not be a drain for the water, and floating it out would then cause damage to the hiding spot.

If *may* be magnetic, but maybe not. Or if so, is the pole that it is in also magnetic? If so, that makes retrieval with a magnet quite difficult.

A grabber may not be able to open wide enough to grip something if the container is a tight fit in the pole.

 

To the OP: While it may seem like laziness, it is entirely within the cache owner's right to decide that the string idea was a lame one, and that his is a much more fun idea of a hide, thus he changes the rating and leaves it as-is. You still haven't made clear, either, if you logged with a Found It log type, or a note or Needs Maintenance log type. If you did log as a Found It, but didn't get your hands on the cache and your name in the log, the cache owner was within his rights to delete your log. And finally, what you see as a "passive-aggressive" reply from the cache owner may simply have been a poorly worded or misinterpreted reply. Possibly. Give him the benefit of the doubt... after all, he's the one that went through the time and effort to hide the cache for you to look for.

I mentioned we marked it NM = need maintenance. Look, I'm grateful that people hide caches...that's not what this post is about. It was definitely a rude remark, but still not the point. I was under the impression that once you create a cache you maintain as it was originally planted, which the CO has chosen not to do. Apparently that's okay to do so I'm moving on from it. It's not even that I care if they CO is lazy, but if you're going to change your mind because someone broke the way you originally set it up then don't give people attitude when they question the integrity of the cache. I wasn't the first, nor will I be the last to question it since all other logs and pictures indicate it's hung from a string.

Link to comment

 

I have one of these and I don't even think it's long enough.

 

Another (fairly) common hide requires you to pour water into a tube/pipe, then the cache floats up to the top for you to grab it. On some of the more tricky ones the pipes have holes in them at intervals which need to be covered or blocked, or you need to pour the water in quicker than it can escape. Could this be one of these? Does the cache page have the "special tool required" attribute? which would give the clue for the one you saw.

With the water hides, you'd probably want to check whether there's a way for water to empty out before fill the pipe. If the pipe lacks a drain or removable plug or holes drilled into the side of it, then filling the pipe with water may raise the cache container and leave it raised permanently.

 

One option might be to contact previous finders (recent ones are best) and ask them how they retrieved the container. From the logs of the cache you're referring to, it indeed sounds like 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"

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

-- Whatever change made it easier broke on 12/19/2015

Good advice. I'll do that next time :) Thanks!

Link to comment

There is no reason to delete a NM log.

 

Agreed! I hate it when people delete my NM logs. I found one where there was a toy duck glued to the lid. The glue had given out and the duck had fallen off, so I logged a NM for the CO (saying that part of the container had broken, but not going into detail)...who promptly deleted it. Some COs just don't like having anything but "Found it" logs on their cache pages. It's pretty stupid and a bit anal-retentive, but it wasn't worth having a discussion with him about it.

Link to comment

I'm not sure why 'DonutHoes' gets given a hard time. He/she seems to have done the right thing based on the available evidence. If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

So logging a NM seem fair enough. It's all very well the CO moaning that string is no longer part of the hide, but they really have to make this clear because any cacher who is having trouble retrieving this one is likely to check previous logs and spot the string reference.

Link to comment

If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

 

The string was first mentioned in #10. Up until that post we assumed there could have been just any method to retrieve the cache.

Link to comment

If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

 

The string was first mentioned in #10. Up until that post we assumed there could have been just any method to retrieve the cache.

 

String was mentioned in the very first post.

Link to comment

If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

 

The string was first mentioned in #10. Up until that post we assumed there could have been just any method to retrieve the cache.

 

String was mentioned in the very first post.

 

It "appeared"... I've seen enough caches where the first impression is that a string is or was used but that it had never been part of the cache. The same goes for other "fixtures". Only 2 weeks ago we found Velcro where we expected to find a binder with info to find a cache (the same as we found at WP1). After contacting the CO we got a hint to look 5m further. So not all you see is part of the cache.

Link to comment

I'm not sure why 'DonutHoes' gets given a hard time. He/she seems to have done the right thing based on the available evidence. If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

So logging a NM seem fair enough. It's all very well the CO moaning that string is no longer part of the hide, but they really have to make this clear because any cacher who is having trouble retrieving this one is likely to check previous logs and spot the string reference.

 

Thank you for saying this.

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.

Link to comment

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha.

I'm still confused what you actually logged this as:

Did Not Find

Needs Maint

Found It

(Needs Archive)

Note

 

People will often mention in a Found It log that the log is wet etc. For me that gets mentioned but then a separate NM log. Reason being a cache owner may not read every find log, but certainly as a CO, I read anything that says Needs Maint. Plus as someone else said - I'm far less likely to try a cache that is showing the NM flag. At the very least I'll read the NM log to see what the issue is (wet log - I will take a spare log and silica sachet)

NM. I mispoke and said we'd found it because we had eyes on it, but no physical retrieval. We suggested maintenance and that's when we got the sassy response. I've been digging through the logs more and I've concluded that the cache is supposed to be on a string that's attached somewhere near the top of the inside of the pole. However, it's broken several times and the CO (instead of reattaching it) has changed the difficulty rating. Is his normal behavior? I guess I thought that if the cache is altered from it's original state the CO is expected to fix it, not adjust the difficulty rating and call it a day.

 

Perhaps if you were more clear the first time I would not have appeared to agree with the "elitist" cache owner.

Link to comment

Bflentje, i have read the rules, yes. I also don't care if I sound naive. That's why it's a question. Geocaching is supposed to be fun - not about being an elitist.

 

Elistist?? :rolleyes:

 

you mean, not about being entitled.

 

I read the first post and immediately had the thought that the OP was just new (we all were at one time) and didn't realize that retrieval of the cache could be part of the challenge. I've been in the same predicament where i thought for sure something was wrong with a cache but after thinking things through, or getting help from a friend, found that there was something else that needed to be done.

 

Was just about to add my suggestion above, maybe give a bit of a hint of what they might try, but then read their 3rd post with that "elitist" word in it. As with the other thread in Getting Started where the "unfair" word was used, i decided to leave it be.

 

Of course, those two words are appropriate to use at times but there's rarely a time when they can be legitimately used with geocaching.

Link to comment

I'm not sure why 'DonutHoes' gets given a hard time. He/she seems to have done the right thing based on the available evidence. If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

So logging a NM seem fair enough. It's all very well the CO moaning that string is no longer part of the hide, but they really have to make this clear because any cacher who is having trouble retrieving this one is likely to check previous logs and spot the string reference.

 

Thank you for saying this.

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.

When I read the OP, that was my first question... Why so much angst about DonutHoes' logging error, and none about the owner's lack of following up on mentions of maintenance needs in previous logs?

Link to comment

I'm not sure why 'DonutHoes' gets given a hard time. He/she seems to have done the right thing based on the available evidence. If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

So logging a NM seem fair enough. It's all very well the CO moaning that string is no longer part of the hide, but they really have to make this clear because any cacher who is having trouble retrieving this one is likely to check previous logs and spot the string reference.

 

Thank you for saying this.

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.

When I read the OP, that was my first question... Why so much angst about DonutHoes' logging error, and none about the owner's lack of following up on mentions of maintenance needs in previous logs?

 

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

Link to comment
1453848097[/url]' post='5561152']
1453842173[/url]' post='5561125']
1453824614[/url]' post='5561046']
1453818782[/url]' post='5561017']

I'm not sure why 'DonutHoes' gets given a hard time. He/she seems to have done the right thing based on the available evidence. If the logs indicate that the cache was attached by string and the cache description doesn't contradict this, then it seems fair to deduce that the now stringless cache is in need of attention.

So logging a NM seem fair enough. It's all very well the CO moaning that string is no longer part of the hide, but they really have to make this clear because any cacher who is having trouble retrieving this one is likely to check previous logs and spot the string reference.

 

Thank you for saying this.

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.

When I read the OP, that was my first question... Why so much angst about DonutHoes' logging error, and none about the owner's lack of following up on mentions of maintenance needs in previous logs?

 

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

 

I thought it only became a D4 after the cache fell to the bottom of the fence tube post. Instead of going to check on the cache and add a new one to the string the CO instead made the difficulty rate a 4. Then again some cachers think a fence cap hide is really sneaky and difficult, maybe the CO listed his dangling fence cap hide a D4 to begin with.

Edited by L0ne.R
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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...