Why would a cacher do this?

[+rovers3]

So, I placed a cache in an out of the way location but there is a gravel road going past the area back in August 2011. It has had 9 finds and 6 DNF’s since being placed and some of the DNF’s were by some pretty experienced cacher. It is fairly remote so I didn't expect too much traffic to it.

 

The cache was found recently and in part of the log was the following:

 

“Was definitely more hidden than it need to be and the swallows nest in front of the container wasn't helping with spotting it. I left it more exposed to hopefully cut out the DNFs”

 

Cachers that I have cached with and myself have always made it a habit of replacing a cache as found or hiding it a bit better if it is too exposed.

 

Why would a cacher with over 1400 finds to their credit, therefore not a newbie, move a cache so that it could be found easier by the next cacher??

What is your opinion?

[+Touchstone]

Maybe they thought they were being helpful? Sounds like the same sort of rationalization used to place throwdowns

[+TriciaG]

What's the D rating on the cache? Perhaps they think it was hidden harder than it should have been according to the D rating? (This isn't a good reason, but someone might use it as justification.)

[+Touchstone]

What's the D rating on the cache? Perhaps they think it was hidden harder than it should have been according to the D rating? (This isn't a good reason, but someone might use it as justification.)

 

Link for reference:

 

https://coord.info/GC32RKZ

 

1.5 Stars, although to the OP's credit, they appear to be fairly aggressive about checking up on it, so I'm assuming it was originally placed where it was intended.

[Pup Patrol]

I think maybe it was the swallow's nest that prompted them to move the cache.

 

Just a note: instead of logging "write note" perhaps an "owner maintenance" log would be an option.

 

If one really needs a BFL to find the cache in its correct location, maybe upping the D rating a skooch might help.

 

Maybe even add the "flashlight required" attribute.

 

B.

[+L0ne.R]

Difficulty 1.5 -- Easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes.

 

If seasoned cachers can't find it, I'm wondering if the D rating is too low. If you up it to a 3, it might stay covered up. It seems like it's a "Somewhat challenging puzzle or hiding spot", if cachers with thousands of finds and years of experience can't find it.

 

Also the swallows nest - does it need to be handled to get to the cache? Many cachers may be reluctant to move a real nest and disturb birds.

[+AustinMN]

If seasoned cachers can't find it, I'm wondering if the D rating is too low.

 

This seems like it best answers the OP's question - why would a cacher do this? Because it's rated a D1.5!

[+rovers3]

First of all if it is a swallows nest and I'm not saying that it isn't, it has been inactive since before I placed the cache there.

It looked like a clump of mud to me.

As for the D rating, it's dark under the bridge even on a sunny day and the hint is pretty specific and does say that "a flashlight would be a great asset"

The cache is just a small lock-n-lock container painted with cammo'd paint so people may not see it easily but it's not really that well hidden either, you can see it without moving anything just by shining the light in the right direction.

I think that I will increase the D rating to a 2.5.

[+rovers3]

"If seasoned cachers can't find it, I'm wondering if the D rating is too low"

 

Over the years that I have been caching there have been a number of caches with D rating of 1.0 and 1.5 that I either didn't find or had a lot of difficulty finding, esp those hidden in prickly trees or in rock piles.

If and when I did find them I didn't move them more into the open.

[+dprovan]

I think that I will increase the D rating to a 2.5.

Sounds like the right answer. I think you're upset with that seeker, but it sounds like you should thank him. Even though, in your opinion, he actions were misguided, he did explain clearly in the log what he did (and, in my opinion, why he did it), so you knew to go put things right and reconsider the difficulty.

 

"If seasoned cachers can't find it, I'm wondering if the D rating is too low"

 

Over the years that I have been caching there have been a number of caches with D rating of 1.0 and 1.5 that I either didn't find or had a lot of difficulty finding, esp those hidden in prickly trees or in rock piles.

If and when I did find them I didn't move them more into the open.

Meh. I seem to remember a time or two when I thought, based on the difficulty, that the hide location had morphed since the cache was placed, so I tried to hide what I found more in keeping with the posted difficulty rather than with what I found. After all, there's no particular reason to think what I found is what the CO intended, especially when what I found doesn't match the cache page. A very rare case, but it sounds like you have a very rare cache. Furthermore, the log sounds like he thought it was an active swallow's nest, which would be another reason to move it. His assessments might have been wrong, but I don't see that they're unreasonable.

 

And, again, he wrote it up in case you didn't like his decision. All in all, I think you both handled it very well, making it good examples of log writing and cache maintenance. My only suggestion is that you post an OM explaining what you did and why.

[+T.D.M.22]

.

Edited August 4, 2016 by T.D.M.22

[+wmpastor]

What's the D rating on the cache? Perhaps they think it was hidden harder than it should have been according to the D rating? (This isn't a good reason, but someone might use it as justification.)

 

Yes, it could be okay to "correct" a situation if you're *certain* of what you're doing.

 

I once went after what was absolutely a tree cache and which had "migrated" to ground level. I replaced it as intended and so noted in the log.

 

This way others - like me - who come specifically for a tree cache - which aren't that common - get what they expected and what the CO intended.

 

Of course, guessing what the CO intended is a different story.

Edited August 4, 2016 by wmpastor

[+narcissa]

I agree that you should probably increase the difficulty rating, but someone who vandalized my cache like this would be DTM.

[+Jobu35]

People shouldn't move other co's caches, unless of course it fell out of the tree or some such thing. I could see putting it back where it was intended to be, but not deciding where you think it should have been in the first place...

[+The A-Team]

People shouldn't move other co's caches, unless of course it fell out of the tree or some such thing. I could see putting it back where it was intended to be, but not deciding where you think it should have been in the first place...

That's the thing: what's the difference? How do you know where it's intended to be? For all you know, the cache is supposed to be at the base of the tree. Unless there's something pretty explicit in the cache listing, you can't know where the cache is intended to be. Only the owner knows that. In the absence of any indication in the cache listing that something is obviously wrong (e.g. physical hide completely contradicts the D/T rating, attributes, description, hint, title, etc.), the container should be put back where you found it with a reasonable* level of concealment from muggles.

 

*Note that "reasonable" doesn't mean a giant mound of material; it means just enough concealment to hide it from muggles, but not so much that it stands out as a beacon to them. I had to archive a cache because people insisted on repeatedly stacking massive chunks of bark on it and muggles couldn't help but be drawn to it.

[+Jobu35]

People shouldn't move other co's caches, unless of course it fell out of the tree or some such thing. I could see putting it back where it was intended to be, but not deciding where you think it should have been in the first place...

That's the thing: what's the difference? How do you know where it's intended to be? For all you know, the cache is supposed to be at the base of the tree. Unless there's something pretty explicit in the cache listing, you can't know where the cache is intended to be. Only the owner knows that. In the absence of any indication in the cache listing that something is obviously wrong (e.g. physical hide completely contradicts the D/T rating, attributes, description, hint, title, etc.), the container should be put back where you found it with a reasonable* level of concealment from muggles.

 

*Note that "reasonable" doesn't mean a giant mound of material; it means just enough concealment to hide it from muggles, but not so much that it stands out as a beacon to them. I had to archive a cache because people insisted on repeatedly stacking massive chunks of bark on it and muggles couldn't help but be drawn to it.

agreed and well stated.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Jobu35

[+wmpastor]

People shouldn't move other co's caches, unless of course it fell out of the tree or some such thing. I could see putting it back where it was intended to be, but not deciding where you think it should have been in the first place...

That's the thing: what's the difference? How do you know where it's intended to be? For all you know, the cache is supposed to be at the base of the tree. Unless there's something pretty explicit in the cache listing, you can't know where the cache is intended to be. Only the owner knows that. In the absence of any indication in the cache listing that something is obviously wrong (e.g. physical hide completely contradicts the D/T rating, attributes, description, hint, title, etc.), the container should be put back where you found it with a reasonable* level of concealment from muggles.

 

*Note that "reasonable" doesn't mean a giant mound of material; it means just enough concealment to hide it from muggles, but not so much that it stands out as a beacon to them. I had to archive a cache because people insisted on repeatedly stacking massive chunks of bark on it and muggles couldn't help but be drawn to it.

 

Going back to my example, there were photos of people in the tree and the description said so. So when it was at ground level, I knew someone had undone the CO's design, and I corrected it.

[+fizzymagic]

People shouldn't move other co's caches, unless of course it fell out of the tree or some such thing. I could see putting it back where it was intended to be, but not deciding where you think it should have been in the first place...

 

Generally, it is difficult to open and sign the log on a cache without moving it.

 

Likewise, it can be difficult to place the cache back exactly as originally placed. Variations of a few inches are quite common.

 

Lastly, there is a tendency of some finders to do the CO a "favor" by trying to hide the cache better.

 

As a result, some caches become more and more difficult to find as time goes on. Assuming that a cache you find is in the location intended by the CO is not always justified, especially when the difficulty you encounter is significantly different from the posted difficulty.

 

That being said, I try to re-hide the cache as close to exactly how I found it as possible; I frequently alert the CO of a potential problem, which, IMO, is the correct way to handle the situation.