Throwdown Etiquette

[+HunterandSamuel]

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced. I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced. I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

 

That's 100% your call. If the cache owner feels you didn't find it, they are the ones that will make the decision if your log will stand. If your name is in the logsheet, that's your evidence you found it. It's up to you to decide whether you feel you "found the geocache" - and the cache owner to decide if you actually "found the geocache" =P

You will hear many varying opinions, some that live by the letter of the law and will never log a cache found unless they touch and physically sign their own name on the cache log, and still others that will cache with groups all the time and claim the group caching name that was signed by someone in the group and they were never even near the cache when it was signed, and others will log a find if they feel they had the intended experience for the cache even if the log was missing or wasn't signed for some reason (and the cache owner allows it). The cache owner can perhaps appeal a log if they feel someone didn't "find the cache", but in most cases, if a name under which the person was caching is in the logsheet, the Find log stays.

 

But for you, you have to decide where your ethical line will be drawn. All of the above is "allowed", but some may feel 'dirty' if they fall below whatever threshold they decide is "legitimate".

Edited December 10, 2019 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

15 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced. I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

 

Do the right thing.

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That's 100% your call. If the cache owner feels you didn't find it, they are the ones that will make the decision if your log will stand.

 

Thanks for your considerate response!  

 

 

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

You will hear many varying opinions, some that live by the letter of the law

 

Oh, I'm sure!  But I put myself out there so will brave the storm. lol

[+31BMSG]

19 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced. I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

Since you are battling this and even bothered to ask the question I suspect you already know what you need to do

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced.

I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

 

I think maybe because most feel that decision is up to you.    

 

We wouldn't leave a throwdown, so not an issue.   I personally don't even log some caches I find, stats not needed for a nice day out.

A CO is responsible for maintaining their cache.  That includes logs.

 If the CO realizes a throwdown, they could temp-disable it until they check, and most realize that finders after the throwdown could be given a pass because they found "a cache".

By guidelines, the person that places that throwdown doesn't have a claim for a "find" if the CO deletes their "smiley".

 

 

[+rapotek]

20 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced. I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

I was going to mention it earlier when you wrote about not being selfish but a helpful one with your throwdown. For me placing a new container when I did not found the original/existing one does not count as "Found it", because in fact i did not found it. Therefore placing a new container and logging it as a "found" means a "+1 to stats at all costs" for me. But I have a kind of personal code which is considered somewhat "weird" by some geocachers.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Thanks everyone. One thing that drew me to geocaching was the honor system so I decided to delete the Throwdown find. One point less on my total but the good news is the 14 geocache finds after me will still be honored!

[+thebruce0]

Just remember to have fun - don't take the game TOO seriously, but remember there are some rules, some guidelines, a strong spirit, and a community of people to consider

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Just remember to have fun - don't take the game TOO seriously, but remember there are some rules, some guidelines, a strong spirit, and a community of people to consider

Thebruce0, it's geocachers like you who keep geocachers  like me...interested in geocaching. Thank you.

[+colleda]

5 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 I don't know but I do know the good feelings it gave us to replace this cache for others to find. A kind of pay it forward thing. Maybe in a few years we'll get burned out helping others and stop. lol Thanks for your reply!

We were like you when we first started out, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, but it didn't take long for us to realise why should we care, when a CO clearly doesn't. We would see those same caches again fall into disrepair.

From the start we would not replace any cache we thought was missing with one exception. It was a hide under a bridge, an obvious spot where a previous cacher could not find the container but left a piece of cardboard with their name on it. We had a suitable container with us and also noted that the CO was not MIA. We signed and placed the makeshift log in our proxy container. We did not claim a find but emailed the CO as to what we had done and suggested he check it and do any followup maintenance, which he did  a week or two later) and ok'd us to log a find. Today, given the same circumstances, I would have logged a DNF, an NM, and left it at that.

Edited to add. I would also place it on my watch list and if nothing is done, a month or so later, to fix it I'd log a NA.

Edited December 10, 2019 by colleda

[+HunterandSamuel]

I just want to add...the damaged cache in the forest that we replaced...I will keep doing these replacements and/or fixings.

[+HunterandSamuel]

9 minutes ago, colleda said:

We were like you when we first started out, bright-eyed and bushy tailed

I think that my being bright eyed and bushy tailed a bit longer will be nice. I'm hoping for a long long time. It's what keeps me interested in geocaching.

[+barefootjeff]

39 minutes ago, colleda said:

We were like you when we first started out, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, but it didn't take long for us to realise why should we care, when a CO clearly doesn't. We would see those same caches again fall into disrepair.

 

I've now been caching for almost seven years but I'm still mostly bright-eyed and bushy-tailed I think. Caching has taken me to some amazing places over that time and continues to do so. There's still that adrenaline rush on the rare occasion a new cache is published in my area, more so if it involves a long hike or a kayak paddle. In the beginning it was the thrill of discovering hidden caches but that slowly morphed to where it's now more often the journey than the cache. As I've got to know more fellow cachers, the social side of the game is becoming a greater part, both at formal events and just through discussion groups like the various FB groups and these forums. Cache ownership is also now a more dominant part of the game for me as the number of caches to find has dried up and my tally of owned caches increases. I've put caches in places I enjoy visiting so checking on them is something I like doing, and I'm always on the lookout for new places I can weave a cache idea around.

 

It's pretty rare for me to come across a cache in a poor state of repair, particularly in the current drought where even water-logged caches have probably dried out, but when I do, I consider each one on its merits. With very few new caches now and many of the older ones having inactive owners, if an old cache can have its life extended by many years through a little one-off help I'll gladly do so. I'll replace a full log in an otherwise good cache, or replace an old cracked container with a new one of the same type if the contents are in good condition and it's not likely to be an ongoing maintenance concern (for example, a 15-year-old cache showing its age that, with a new box, ought to be good for another 15 years). But if it's a cache with ongoing problems (leaking container, soggy log, etc.) it'll just get an NM and ultimately an NA if the owner's long gone. In an area where caches are becoming increasingly sparse and new hides are rare, archival should be the last resort for when the cache is no longer viable without ongoing attention.

Edited December 10, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+The A-Team]

43 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I just want to add...the damaged cache in the forest that we replaced...I will keep doing these replacements and/or fixings.

 

That's another often-discussed topic: non-owner maintenance. Basically, performing maintenance as a finder. It's similar to throwdowns, but also a bit different.

 

Looking back in this discussion, I assume you're talking about the nasty container you replaced where the owner hasn't logged in since 2017? In my opinion, you shouldn't do that. Like with the case of throwdowns, one of the things a CO agrees to do is maintain their cache. By replacing the container like you did, you're effectively "enabling" a CO who isn't fulfilling their responsibility to keep their container in decent shape. I know you're just trying to be helpful, but this still-abandoned cache will now live longer before finally getting dealt with. Ideally, you should log that the cache needs maintenance, then log a "Needs archive" after a while if the owner doesn't do anything about it. If a reviewer then archives the cache, the spot will be available for you or another responsible cache owner to hide a new, maintained cache there.

 

I made this same mistake once upon a time. There was a mini-series of caches where a couple of caches had issues and the owner was no longer active. I took it upon myself to go out and fix up the problematic caches to make the series whole again. However, I wasn't able to clear the "Needs maintenance" attribute nor update the coordinates or hint, so this process didn't last long until it became untenable. I definitely won't do that again. Finders can't properly maintain a cache.

 

Leave maintenance up to the one who agreed to provide it: the CO. Feel free to give a cache a helping hand, like cleaning out the seal of the lid or adding an additional logsheet, but I wouldn't recommend doing any more than that.

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Something I noticed in this Throwdown discussion is that no one has mentioned to me personally that I shouldn't keep my log find for a missing cache we replaced. I'm sincerely having a battle over this in my geocache conscience. Do I let bygones be bygones, it has been about a half year now, and keep it since a lesson has been learned or should I delete my find?  What would you do?

Funny you should mention this. I considered bringing it up a couple times, but I decided it was too obscure and off the point to bring up. But now that you've brought it up yourself....

 

First, just let me say that I've never heard anyone that replaced a missing cache not claiming a find. I've never replaced a cache, but I'd probably claim the find, too. I wanted to make that clear so you wouldn't think I'd think less of you for keeping your find.

 

Now having said that...it's completely illogical. If the cache was missing, you didn't find it. It makes no more sense, logically, for you dropping a replacement to claim the find that it would make for the CO to claim a find for his cache after he originally placed it.

 

And having said that, the CO can always give you permission to log a find even when you didn't find his cache, so if he thanks  you for replacing his cache by way of allowing you to claim the find, it would be legitimate of you to do so.

 

Having presented and supported 3 different positions on a yes/no question, you can probably see why I decided not to bring it up myself.

[+Michaelcycle]

8 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I understand and thought of that too. In this particular State forest, this was the only cache hide and there are lots of locations to hide others so we weren't taking away potential hides from cachers.  I guess that's why it was important to keep it active and there was a plead from another geocacher for someone to help it out because the area was so beautiful. As for maintaining it, I'm hoping the next cacher will or my relative who lives down the road a few miles can check on it. Or just let it be archived if gone missing. I don't know but I do know the good feelings it gave us to replace this cache for others to find. A kind of pay it forward thing. Maybe in a few years we'll get burned out helping others and stop. lol Thanks for your reply!

That is incorrect. There is a multi cache in the same forest. You also stated that the CO has not visited the site since 2017. That is also incorrect. That geocacher logged a find as recently as May of this year. I suspect you are not aware that logging using a phone app does not show up as a site visit. 

 

I regard throw downs as the geocaching equivalent of feeding feral cats. In the long run it prolongs the marginal life of the animal and usually creates more feral cats. Far more humane is to trap and neuter then feed if you insist on being involved. The geocaching equivalent is the offer to adopt if the cache is in your area. If you get no response then a "Needs Maintenance' followed by a "Needs Archiving" is the procedure to follow.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Michaelcycle

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, The A-Team said:

 

That's another often-discussed topic: non-owner maintenance. Basically, performing maintenance as a finder. It's similar to throwdowns, but also a bit different.

 

Looking back in this discussion, I assume you're talking about the nasty container you replaced where the owner hasn't logged in since 2017? In my opinion, you shouldn't do that. Like with the case of throwdowns, one of the things a CO agrees to do is maintain their cache. By replacing the container like you did, you're effectively "enabling" a CO who isn't fulfilling their responsibility to keep their container in decent shape. I know you're just trying to be helpful, but this still-abandoned cache will now live longer before finally getting dealt with. Ideally, you should log that the cache needs maintenance, then log a "Needs archive" after a while if the owner doesn't do anything about it. If a reviewer then archives the cache, the spot will be available for you or another responsible cache owner to hide a new, maintained cache there.

 

I made this same mistake once upon a time. There was a mini-series of caches where a couple of caches had issues and the owner was no longer active. I took it upon myself to go out and fix up the problematic caches to make the series whole again. However, I wasn't able to clear the "Needs maintenance" attribute nor update the coordinates or hint, so this process didn't last long until it became untenable. I definitely won't do that again. Finders can't properly maintain a cache.

 

Leave maintenance up to the one who agreed to provide it: the CO. Feel free to give a cache a helping hand, like cleaning out the seal of the lid or adding an additional logsheet, but I wouldn't recommend doing any more than that.

 

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but sometimes there are exceptions and each case needs to be considered on its merits. A few weeks ago I visited a very old cache, hidden in 2003 by one of the foundation cachers in this part of the world. It was hidden deep under a rock ledge, well protected from the weather, and its original 16-year-old logbook was as good as the day it came out of the stationery shop, but the container, a 2-litre Sistema, had gone brittle and cracked as someone had noted in a previous log, probably due to the fires that had burnt through that area in the time it's been there. There were photos in the cache page gallery of the original container so I was able to buy an exact replacement before heading off, and simply swapped all the contents over into the new box after adding my signature to the logbook. There were no NMs on the cache page so no need for an OM to clear anything, no coordinates had been changed, in fact nothing had changed except a new bit of plastic replacing the old. Actually I could have gotten away with just replacing the lid as the body of the container was still sound, but, well, you can't just buy a lid so might as well go the whole hog, as they say.

 

 

The CO last visited the website in July this year but hasn't found any caches since 2011. Had I logged an NM, the most likely outcome would have been archival, either by the CO who might well be too infirm now to get to it, or by a reviewer if the CO didn't respond. That would be a pity, since apart from the cracked lid the cache was in excellent condition for its age and is in a location where it's very unlikely anyone else would be placing another. With its original logbook, it's a piece of our caching history and I think worth helping to preserve for as long as is reasonably possible, especially now with a number of other caches of similar vintage being destroyed in the current fires burning around here.

 

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Looking back in this discussion, I assume you're talking about the nasty container you replaced where the owner hasn't logged in since 2017? In my opinion, you shouldn't do that. Like with the case of throwdowns, one of the things a CO agrees to do is maintain their cache. By replacing the container like you did, you're effectively "enabling" a CO who isn't fulfilling their responsibility to keep their container in decent shape. I know you're just trying to be helpful, but this still-abandoned cache will now live longer before finally getting dealt with. Ideally, you should log that the cache needs maintenance, then log a "Needs archive" after a while if the owner doesn't do anything about it. If a reviewer then archives the cache, the spot will be available for you or another responsible cache owner to hide a new, maintained cache there.

 

This is logical only if you want to help the cache owner who is not worth of it (= not your friend). But this logic breaks when you are helping the community, not caring about the CO. Your goal seems to be accelerated archiving of all caches when it should be the opposite.

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

Your goal seems to be accelerated archiving of all caches

 

Not in the slightest.

[+HunterandSamuel]

13 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:

That is incorrect. There is a multi cache in the same forest. You also stated that the CO has not visited the site since 2017. That is also incorrect. That geocacher logged a find as recently as May of this year. I suspect you are not aware that logging using a phone app does not show up as a site visit

 

1. Yup, I just checked and there it is, way up on the other side of the forest. But still lots of room for more caches to be hidden so I'm not concerned that I took up all the space in the forest. I'll have to check it out next time in the area. Looks like a beautiful hike. As for the last time the OC signed in to geocaching.com, my computer shows July 31, 2017. I'll check on my old android to see what it shows. You claim May of this year. Now that upsets me a bit because her/his cache got many complaints of being water logged, damaged, and a NM and they did nothing to repair it. I thought she/he was MIA, deceased, or moved.

[+HunterandSamuel]

15 hours ago, The A-Team said:

 

That's another often-discussed topic: non-owner maintenance. Basically, performing maintenance as a finder. It's similar to throwdowns, but also a bit different.

I disagree. If I didn't do the maintenance I would still list it as a find because I found the cache, just like the cachers before me.  Nothing you say will change my mind unless it's in violation of geocaching.com's polices. Show me a link and then I'll roll over and submit.

[+HunterandSamuel]

I'm wondering if there's a topic on the kinds of swag people place in their caches or cache finds. I don't want to start a duplicate topic. I found some neat swag I would like to share. Bulk skeleton keys that are actually bottle openers. etc. They are real cool looking! Antique looking.

[+cerberus1]

8 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Now that upsets me a bit because her/his cache got many complaints of being water logged, damaged, and a NM and they did nothing to repair it.

 

  I thought she/he was MIA, deceased, or moved.

 

This was explained a few pages back.   Welcome to reality.  

 

[+kunarion]

6 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm wondering if there's a topic on the kinds of swag people place in their caches or cache finds. I don't want to start a duplicate topic. I found some neat swag I would like to share. Bulk skeleton keys that are actually bottle openers. etc. They are real cool looking! Antique looking.

 

Here are a couple:

 

 

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

This was explained a few pages back.   Welcome to reality.  

 

LOL If she was missing I wouldn't mind at all but she/he had signed in this past year when my search showed 2017.

[+HunterandSamuel]

3 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Here are a couple:

 

 

 

Thanks so much! I want to post a photo of my skeleton keys. And they aren't too expensive to buy (I buy them in bulk and place them in 2" by 4" heavy duty zip lock bags). They are neat swag for Halloween too. When writing a log I would say...left a skeleton key and squishy eye ball. lol That would get cachers interested  (what the heck is that?) and find the caches.  

[+HunterandSamuel]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

There's still that adrenaline rush on the rare occasion a new cache is published in my area

I feel that too! I also get a rush being the FTF! We have a few very competitive geocachers in my area who love getting FTF. And now they got me doing it. lol I only have three FTFs so far.  

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

but she/he had signed in this past year when my search showed 2017.

 

If you looked at the last time the cacher logged on to geocaching.com, it probably DID say 2017.  Not everyone these days uses the website, and a login on the official app or another app on the phone, or GSAK, or Project-GC wn't show up in that stat.  A more accurate way might be to look at the profile, and see when the last find or placed cache is.

 

I use the website, almost daily, but some who have adopted the app for caching (or never knew any other way, like some new to the game), might never log on to the website, yet still be quite active.

[+HunterandSamuel]

6 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 A more accurate way might be to look at the profile, and see when the last find or placed cache is.

 

Yup, that worked on my computer, looking at the profile and then clicking on geocaches. Thanks.  They were active in May of this year.

[+kunarion]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

sometimes there are exceptions and each case needs to be considered on its merits. A few weeks ago I visited a very old cache, hidden in 2003 by one of the foundation cachers in this part of the world. It was hidden deep under a rock ledge, well protected from the weather, and its original 16-year-old logbook was as good as the day it came out of the stationery shop, but the container, a 2-litre Sistema, had gone brittle and cracked as someone had noted in a previous log, probably due to the fires that had burnt through that area in the time it's been there. There were photos in the cache page gallery of the original container so I was able to buy an exact replacement before heading off, and simply swapped all the contents over into the new box after adding my signature to the logbook. There were no NMs on the cache page so no need for an OM to clear anything, no coordinates had been changed, in fact nothing had changed except a new bit of plastic replacing the old. Actually I could have gotten away with just replacing the lid as the body of the container was still sound, but, well, you can't just buy a lid so might as well go the whole hog, as they say.

 

The CO last visited the website in July this year but hasn't found any caches since 2011. Had I logged an NM, the most likely outcome would have been archival, either by the CO who might well be too infirm now to get to it, or by a reviewer if the CO didn't respond. That would be a pity, since apart from the cracked lid the cache was in excellent condition for its age and is in a location where it's very unlikely anyone else would be placing another. With its original logbook, it's a piece of our caching history and I think worth helping to preserve for as long as is reasonably possible, especially now with a number of other caches of similar vintage being destroyed in the current fires burning around here.

 

 

This has happened on my caches, too.  I'm done with that one, I'm waiting just a bit longer in case someone wants to find it and then I'm making a special trip this summer to pick it up and archive it.  Now someone comes along because "I'm probably too infirm to do cache maintenance anymore" and unilaterally fixes it for me.  Sure, it's a cool cache in a cool place. And it's cool and nice to do all that work. 

 

And I go archive it as planned.  Now there's an issue:  The person who fixed it did so because he didn't want it to be archived, what about all the work he did to maintain my lousy old cache?  He fixed it up perfect for me, and to show my appreciation, I archived it.

 

So I tend to delay my own Cache Owner trip, and I'll give it a few months and then archive it.  Or you can please log an NM and just leave it and let me take care of it.

 

More often, I have a better container ready as soon as the inevitable NM happens, and the community repair (without the NM, because now it's perfect) makes the situation worse in the meantime.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

And I go archive it as planned.  Now there's an issue:  The person who fixed it did so because he didn't want it to be archived, what about all the work he did to maintain my lousy old cache?  He fixed it up perfect for me, and to show my appreciation, I archived it.

 

Maybe ask the person who fixed it up if they'd like to adopt it? In my case, "all the work" I did was stopping at the supermarket on the way to the cache to buy a $5 plastic box, so its no big deal even if that was the CO's plan.

[+kunarion]

31 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maybe ask the person who fixed it up if they'd like to adopt it? In my case, "all the work" I did was stopping at the supermarket on the way to the cache to buy a $5 plastic box, so its no big deal even if that was the CO's plan.

 

That's what I might do, adopt it.  Might as well be the CO if I'm maintaining it.  Often the issue is not just the container, it's the whole situation.

 

But that cache example where the lid is cracked but the contents are fine?  It's balanced, it's in stasis, it's good.  I'd have to think long and hard before messing with that.  I'd be concerned that I'd throw off that cache's Karma. 

[+cerberus1]

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maybe ask the person who fixed it up if they'd like to adopt it? In my case, "all the work" I did was stopping at the supermarket on the way to the cache to buy a $5 plastic box, so its no big deal even if that was the CO's plan.

 

It seemed (to me) that kunarion was simply showing a point of how a buttinsky messes with a CO's maintenance plans. 

It appeared (to me)  the intention was to archive it, and this "helpful" person, for whatever reason, added a cache not needed or wanted.

Now kunarion gets to make that special trip to go pick up someone else's cache at his GZ...

[+barefootjeff]

35 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Now kunarion gets to make that special trip to go pick up someone else's cache at his GZ...

 

But he'd still have to make exactly the same trip whether it was to retrieve his old dilapidated cache or the new container that someone had put in its place. On the plus side he now has a nice shiny new container he can use for something else.

Edited December 11, 2019 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+cerberus1]

5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Often the issue is not just the container, it's the whole situation.

 

Right.    

We archived an entire series because the area was changing, with very-large trees falling (a couple while we were there), and we felt safety a concern.

 - Attention not a given with many we've seen for a while now.  There's more than a few videos on phones and attention...   

 

If I'm busy and folks don't know my phone number (I talk on the phone), it might be a day or better before I get back to them.

I think it's really odd that someone would assume that I'd "appreciate" whatever throwdown they'd leave "to help me out".

We've never used mediocre containers.  Since I'd have to go back to replace the container they left anyway, I'd rather they log a NM and move on...

 - Though we act on logs,  fixing 'em before waiting for a NM.   "Log damp" not needing a NM  a few weeks later to go fix...

Now if they're replacing 30/50cals with 81mm mortar boxes, I've still got half a pallet for trade.    

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

59 minutes ago, kunarion said:

But that cache example where the lid is cracked but the contents are fine?  It's balanced, it's in stasis, it's good.  I'd have to think long and hard before messing with that.  I'd be concerned that I'd throw off that cache's Karma. 

 

Not really. The lid had reached the state where each time someone opened it a bit more would likely break off so if left to its own devices it would have soon turned into litter.

 

As I said from the beginning, I considered this one a special case. If it had been a themed container instead of an off-the-shelf supermarket box I could easily replicate, I wouldn't have done it. Had the logbook been a lump of pulp instead of essentially pristine, I wouldn't have done it. Had GZ become overgrown with lantana or any other obnoxious weeds, I wouldn't have done it. Had it been one of dozens of caches along that road I wouldn't have done it. Had it been a relatively new cache with no historical significance I wouldn't have done it. In all those situations I would've just logged an NM and let the due processes play out, but for this particular one I thought for a tiny outlay it was worth extending the life of a fairly unique cache for the ongoing enjoyment of the community. With any luck it'll now be good for another 16 years, by which time I'll be 81 and either pushing up daisies or too infirm to get back there, so someone else can decide what to do with it.

[+The A-Team]

7 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

23 hours ago, The A-Team said:

That's another often-discussed topic: non-owner maintenance. Basically, performing maintenance as a finder. It's similar to throwdowns, but also a bit different.

I disagree. If I didn't do the maintenance I would still list it as a find because I found the cache, just like the cachers before me.  Nothing you say will change my mind unless it's in violation of geocaching.com's polices. Show me a link and then I'll roll over and submit.

 

Just to be clear, my comparison to throwdowns was only in the way that a finder is doing something that a CO would normally do. I wasn't addressing whether to log the find or not. Of course, it doesn't matter whether you do any maintenance on the cache or not, you would still log it as a find if you did find the cache.

[+The A-Team]

14 hours ago, arisoft said:

This is logical only if you want to help the cache owner who is not worth of it (= not your friend). But this logic breaks when you are helping the community, not caring about the CO. Your goal seems to be accelerated archiving of all caches when it should be the opposite.

 

My goal is to have caches that are maintained by the person who agreed to maintain it. If necessary, archival is one route to deal with issues in this respect. It isn't the primary goal, though.

 

Sure, we could all fix up and replace every cache that needs maintenance, but then why would COs ever bother doing it themselves?

[+papu66]

I have mixed attitude toward throwdowns. I'm ok with cachers replacing broken or obviously missing containers making as little change as possible to the original. But throwing in a petling just because you can't log DNF just sucks. Not only is your find void, so is everybody else's that find your substitute.

 

I can remember 4-5 cases where I have found two cache containers. I tend to stop searching after I have found one, so you'd think duplicate caches must be way more common than this. Who knows how many other times I have logged a throwdown.

Interestingly, in those instances the second cache was sometimes placed by the CO who presumably couldn't find his own cache or assumed it's missing because of a couple of DNFs.

[+arisoft]

9 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Sure, we could all fix up and replace every cache that needs maintenance, but then why would COs ever bother doing it themselves?

 

It is better that you fix the cache to reduce CO² emissions.

[+thebruce0]

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, papu66 said:

I'm ok with cachers replacing broken or obviously missing containers making as little change as possible to the original.

 

I'm just wondering when a cache is "obviously missing". A few times I've thought one of my own caches was missing, and was about to log a TD, when I discovered it had been cleverly concealed in a slightly different place to where I'd put it. If I can't find my own caches, I'm certainly no judge as to when someone else's is obviously missing. Maybe a better course of action is to log a DNF and a "cache might be missing" NM, after all that's what that canned NM log was created for, or if someone else has already done that and there's been no response, log an NA. Then, once the missing cache has been archived, you can happily drop your throwdown and you even get to create a shiny new cache page to go with it!

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, BendSinister said:

I mean, I love writing DNFs!

 

I love too! Currently I have posted  847 DNFs. In Finland, there are only three geocachers with more DNFs than me.

Edited December 12, 2019 by arisoft

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just wondering when a cache is "obviously missing"

 

Well one could concoct any number of sample cases.  All demonstrating a listing that describes the cache to the T, so its placement is unmistakable. Which means clearly, if it's not where the listing describes, then it must be missing.

But I'd say that's most often not the case, and still agree that the DNF doesn't mean "the cache must be missing."  "Might be" is more accurate (and technically accurate) but it still focuses on the finder's opinion about it being missing when fundamentally a DNF literally just means "did not find".

Leave the "might be missing" bit to the inference of any reader and CO.

[+kunarion]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

It is better that you fix the cache to reduce CO² emissions.

 

Wait.  So by not doing maintenance, the Cache Owner is saving the planet?!

 

And here all this time I've been fixing my own caches like a moron.

[+HunterandSamuel]

16 hours ago, The A-Team said:

 

Just to be clear, my comparison to throwdowns was only in the way that a finder is doing something that a CO would normally do. I wasn't addressing whether to log the find or not. Of course, it doesn't matter whether you do any maintenance on the cache or not, you would still log it as a find if you did find the cache.

I thought a throwdown was when a cacher replaced a missing cache and then log it as a find? Doing maintenance  on a cache is not considered a throwdown.

[+HunterandSamuel]

29 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Wait.  So by not doing maintenance, the Cache Owner is saving the planet?!

 

And here all this time I've been fixing my own caches like a moron.

LOL Me too!

[+HunterandSamuel]

I write DNFs so I know what caches I already searched for. I also follow the DNF cache to see if others have found it and then do another search. Another question...is contacting the CO for another hint on a cache considered a geonono too?

[+HunterandSamuel]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

LOL