Log this as found?

[+31BMSG]

Two weeks ago I was several hundred miles from home chasing caches on a list. Once I had completed my list I used the app to spot a few other caches in the area before heading home, this was one of them, https://coord.info/GC24VWC

The camo film pot was well concealed but I found it less than 5 feet from the posted coordinates and signed the log while noting that the last date on the log was 1/18/14. Once I got back to my computer I pulled up the web page to research this cache and at least 50 finds have been logged since 1/18/14, one photo showing a considerable amount of swag in the hide, and the possibility that there are two throw downs at this location.

I emailed the CO for advice and was a bit surprised when I actually received a reply a short time later, " From what I have seen, you did not find the latest cache. I have no knowledge of the film can you found. The original cache that I placed was a waterproof match case wrapped in camo tape." My DNF log is towards the top of the logs section.

After emailing the CO more details he admits I may have found the original log but said " I will check on it and see what I find ". Is two weeks sufficient time to check on this? I'm considering logging this as found since it appears I found the original log although in a different container.

 

[+L0ne.R]

Odd indeed.

The cache owner hasn't logged into the site since 2013.

" The original cache that I placed was a waterproof match case wrapped in camo tape. "

The photo posted 11/07/2017  shows contents of the cache, which would make the cache at least a small size, not a matchstick. So maybe at one point there was a larger throwdown. And then you found the a film pot which sounds like a throwdown. 

Seems like a good reason for the cache owner to go visit ground zero and check to see if the cache is actually there.

[+Mudfrog]

You found a cache that was micro in size and had a logsheet to sign. The cache's page described this so you had no reason at all to suspect it might not have been the cache. I would probably log it as found but it's really up to you on how you want to handle it.

[+J Grouchy]

A: You went to the posted coordinates.

B: You found a container with a log to sign.

C: You signed the log and returned the cache to its hiding spot.

 

You fulfilled all the requirements to log this as a find online if you so choose.  

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Typically when someone asks "can I log this cache" is often comes down to personal ethics and whether or not the CO will allow the log to stand.  This question isn't 
"can" I log this cache, but "should" I log this cache.

When it comes to finding a throwdown cache it's not always obvious that it was *not* the cache hidden by the CO, and although few will do so, a CO can delete the online found it log if they choose to do so.  Personally, I'd like to see a bit of leniency on the part of the CO since the container you found matched the cache listing.  I suppose it doesn't match as a film pot wouldn't be "waterproof" as described in the listing but it would be a stretch for a naive CO to think that it was.  If the CO chooses to be strict about logging a throwdown there's not much you can do about it beyond what you've already done: logging a NM.  It's not a battle worth fighting.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This question isn't "can" I log this cache, but "should" I log this cache.

This is it.

"Can" is only answered by - is the name you're caching under signed on the logsheet? If so, then yes.

"Should" is very much based on your personal ethic, which can be extremely nuanced and vary greatly depending on whom you ask.

[+31BMSG]

46 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Typically when someone asks "can I log this cache" is often comes down to personal ethics and whether or not the CO will allow the log to stand.  This question isn't 
"can" I log this cache, but "should" I log this cache.

When it comes to finding a throwdown cache it's not always obvious that it was *not* the cache hidden by the CO, and although few will do so, a CO can delete the online found it log if they choose to do so.  Personally, I'd like to see a bit of leniency on the part of the CO since the container you found matched the cache listing.  I suppose it doesn't match as a film pot wouldn't be "waterproof" as described in the listing but it would be a stretch for a naive CO to think that it was.  If the CO chooses to be strict about logging a throwdown there's not much you can do about it beyond what you've already done: logging a NM.  It's not a battle worth fighting.

I agree it not worth fighting and I think I'll leave it alone, hopefully the CO will get it sorted out. Looking back through the logs again it appears I found a throwdown placed in 2013 and numerous cachers are now finding a larger throwdown placed after 1/18/2014. These are the type caches I try to weed out before a trip but since this was done on the fly I didn't research enough, no big loss. Thanks for the input.

[+L0ne.R]

14 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:

I agree it not worth fighting and I think I'll leave it alone, hopefully the CO will get it sorted out. Looking back through the logs again it appears I found a throwdown placed in 2013 and numerous cachers are now finding a larger throwdown placed after 1/18/2014. These are the type caches I try to weed out before a trip but since this was done on the fly I didn't research enough, no big loss. Thanks for the input.

Ugghh throwdowns, plus owners who abandon their caches and do nothing about them even when they know there's a problem. You did right to post an NM.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

44 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Ugghh throwdowns, plus owners who abandon their caches and do nothing about them even when they know there's a problem. You did right to post an NM.

Let's not place the blame entirely on cache owners.  A throw-down, as commonly defined is a container placed at GZ without the cache owners permission, and typically when someone trying to find the actual cache can't find it, and "helpfully" drops a container so that their name is on a log sheet and can justify to themselves that they've "found the cache" because the guidelines stipulate that they can log it as found if they've signed the log.   A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

[+L0ne.R]

19 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Let's not place the blame entirely on cache owners.  A throw-down, as commonly defined is a container placed at GZ without the cache owners permission, and typically when someone trying to find the actual cache can't find it, and "helpfully" drops a container so that their name is on a log sheet and can justify to themselves that they've "found the cache" because the guidelines stipulate that they can log it as found if they've signed the log.   A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

Yes, very true. Some COs are not made aware of a second container. A regular check would help.

In this case, the owner has evidence via the logs and photo gallery that throwdowns are happening. He says the original was a matchstick container. In 2012 a string of DNFs happened.  Sometime in 2013 someone replaced it with a larger container 

 

Quote

 

12/26/2013

Found with Mom. A mouse ran across her foot. Too funny TFTC. Took rubber duck. Left a trackable I held on to for too long.

 

The OP told the CO about the film canister he found (the larger throwdown may be missing), the original matchstick is likely gone. The owner should check. He should have checked back in 2012. Seems unlikely that he will. The cache will limp on with throwdown after throwdown.

[+baer2006]

33 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Let's not place the blame entirely on cache owners.  A throw-down, as commonly defined is a container placed at GZ without the cache owners permission, and typically when someone trying to find the actual cache can't find it, and "helpfully" drops a container so that their name is on a log sheet and can justify to themselves that they've "found the cache" because the guidelines stipulate that they can log it as found if they've signed the log.   A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

Indeed. A few months ago I found two containers at a cache location. Both of them were film cans, but it was absolutely obvious, that one was the original and the other a throw-down. I scroll through the all the online logs, beginning from the name which was clearly the first entry in the throw-down. None of the logs mentioned the two containers, but the paper logs were almost distributed 50-50 between them . No surprise, because after you find one of the boxes, you just sign the log and move on. But I was there with my son, we looked at different spots and more or less simultaneously shouted "Here it is!" . So the owner was almost certainly completely unaware of the situation before my find.

I suspect that these cases happen more often than one might think.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Let's not place the blame entirely on cache owners.  A throw-down, as commonly defined is a container placed at GZ without the cache owners permission, and typically when someone trying to find the actual cache can't find it, and "helpfully" drops a container so that their name is on a log sheet and can justify to themselves that they've "found the cache" because the guidelines stipulate that they can log it as found if they've signed the log.   A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

I'd think the cache owner is now aware of a possible throw down.   Let's see what happens.

I can only think of three reasons why this situation would exist.    A throw down, a good Samaritan cacher replaced a bad container (with something different than the original)  or the cache owner replaced the container (with something different) and didn't update the cache page.  Would all three of these situations be enough to warrant a NM?  

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Let's not place the blame entirely on cache owners.  A throw-down, as commonly defined is a container placed at GZ without the cache owners permission, and typically when someone trying to find the actual cache can't find it, and "helpfully" drops a container so that their name is on a log sheet and can justify to themselves that they've "found the cache" because the guidelines stipulate that they can log it as found if they've signed the log.   A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

In 8/'15, there was a found it with ""The cache was big enough to accept a travel bug", and in 10/'16 another found it said "cache is now a small container".  That's two years the CO didn't log they checked, attempting to  see why their "camo, waterproof, micro container" was now able to hold swag, and called small by a few.

[+L0ne.R]

44 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'd think the cache owner is now aware of a possible throw down.   Let's see what happens.

I can only think of three reasons why this situation would exist.    A throw down, a good Samaritan cacher replaced a bad container (with something different than the original)  or the cache owner replaced the container (with something different) and didn't update the cache page.  Would all three of these situations be enough to warrant a NM?  

As a cache owner I would hope NMs are welcomed. If there's anything wrong with the cache I hope they would want to know. But owners who set-em-and-forget-em may not like it. Those who value a smiley above all and feel throwdowns are a legitimate part of play, will likely be miffed if a listing gets archived.  But the NM is the right thing to do.

Edited March 27, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+J Grouchy]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

You mean like this?

 

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, 31BMSG said:

I agree it not worth fighting and I think I'll leave it alone, hopefully the CO will get it sorted out. Looking back through the logs again it appears I found a throwdown placed in 2013 and numerous cachers are now finding a larger throwdown placed after 1/18/2014. These are the type caches I try to weed out before a trip but since this was done on the fly I didn't research enough, no big loss. Thanks for the input.

I wouldn't claim the find both because you have documented proof it was a throwdown and because the CO says you shouldn't. But having said that, your case is solid, so I wouldn't complain if you claimed it, and I suspect GS would back you up if it came down to being up to them. The DNF log you filed is interesting enough, and if it were me, that would be enough to satisfy me: there's no particular reason for me to care that it isn't a found log. The only difference between DNF and Found is is the +1, and I don't care at all about that.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Let's not place the blame entirely on cache owners.  A throw-down, as commonly defined is a container placed at GZ without the cache owners permission, and typically when someone trying to find the actual cache can't find it, and "helpfully" drops a container so that their name is on a log sheet and can justify to themselves that they've "found the cache" because the guidelines stipulate that they can log it as found if they've signed the log.   A CO may not be aware, *even* after making a maintenance visit, that a throw-down even exists unless the throw-downer mentions it in their log .  

Yes, very true. Some COs are not made aware of a second container. A regular check would help.

A regular check *might* help but a throw-down happens when someone can't find the cache.  They may be looking in the wrong place and drop a cache where they *think* it should go.  That may not be where the original is hidden, and a regular check might reveal that the cache is exactly where they hid it and unless the logs inidicated there was a throw down they're probably not going to search in the spot where the throw down was placed.

[+hukilaulau]

The cache owner didn't actually say he "shouldn't" claim a find. Just that he didn't find the original container. I agree that it doesn't matter much, but if I initially logged it as a find I wouldn't have changed it.

[+CAVinoGal]

10 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Indeed. A few months ago I found two containers at a cache location. Both of them were film cans, but it was absolutely obvious, that one was the original and the other a throw-down. I scroll through the all the online logs, beginning from the name which was clearly the first entry in the throw-down. None of the logs mentioned the two containers, but the paper logs were almost distributed 50-50 between them . No surprise, because after you find one of the boxes, you just sign the log and move on. But I was there with my son, we looked at different spots and more or less simultaneously shouted "Here it is!" . So the owner was almost certainly completely unaware of the situation before my find.

I suspect that these cases happen more often than one might think.

This has happened to us too - we found two film cans, one white, one black.  The black was the original,according to the write up, with logs about 50-50 on who found which one, going back to 2014, no mention of throwdowns, or two caches.  People found one or the other, signed it and moved on.  We put all the logs into one canister (the original, black one), emailed the CO, but have yet to hear.

[+WarNinjas]

To me it sounds like the small cache there is a throwdown.  Also the one you found was a throwdown. Guessing the original has been missing for a while.  So now everyone is questioning if you found the right throwdown.  I would just log it as found unless it was close to home or somewhere I planned to be going back.  If it was a cool cache or something difficult I might think differently but sounds like your basic hide.