purloined?

[+Jayeffel]

Just today I saw evidence of actions  I hope is are not really happening. There is a cache near my house the CO has not kept up due to work schedule. I have replaced the cache at least four time, the last only a few day ago.

 

I  recently put in a tube, a log in the tube, and the tube in a plastic bag. This was in a GR cache. Originally it was a pill bottle, then a MKH,  then back to a pill bottle. Each time the different type of container was logged . 

 

Anyway, the cache was logged found 2/9/2020 by three cachers, one a former reviewer. Two said nice cache, the third one was a DNF earlier, but this time logged "Cache was there this time, just a log in a baggie". Someone took the tune had placed there and left the log and baggie! Guess I need to start putting fingerprint dust pin caches. 

 

Another nearby cache of mine has gone missing, same last logging dates as the other one and one cachers on both the same day. It may have been placed back in a spot it was not found. 

[+Max and 99]

17 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

I have replaced the cache at least four time, the last only a few day ago.

I wouldn't do it anymore. 

Actually two of those three Found Its were previous DNFs. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Max and 99

[+Touchstone]

Sounds like a loosing battle. 

[+wmpastor]

With one cache repeatedly missing and another recently missing, they may be issues with the location (too many muggles?).

[+Jayeffel]

12 hours ago, wmpastor said:

With one cache repeatedly missing and another recently missing, they may be issues with the location (too many muggles?).

 I am not sure why the one gets the wrong attention.

 

 I thought that maybe a nearby business may have something to do with it. Some office windows face the cache, but  are not really that close.  Maybe workers see people there and think something fishy is going on, so they go and remove what is there.

 

But the last time what was missing was a tube with a red reflector in it, the baggie the tube was in  and l the log that was in the tube were left.

 

The other nearby cache I located this morning, it was moved several feet from where it was found. I think I will put a small note in with the log stating where it should be replaced. It was hard to see ar dusk, actually a bit hard to see even when you know where it is.

 

I have no clue why the missing cache gets the wrong  attention, several other similar hides inn then area. It may just be the same  person everytime. 

 

I did put a NA log, due to all the replacements etc.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

 I did put a NA log, due to all the replacements etc.

Bolding mine...

Good.   Guess I don't understand why you'd sorta  "replace" a cache that doesn't belong to you four times first.   

[+Seeker_Knight]

15 hours ago, wmpastor said:

With one cache repeatedly missing and another recently missing, they may be issues with the location (too many muggles?).

Could also be someone who has an axe to grind with the CO.

[+Jayeffel]

Mystery solved.When I replaced the cache I used one of the tubes with a red reflector on it. I put the new log inside and put the tube in a baggie in the GR...

 

A cacher notified me he saw the remarks in the locate log, and responded. When he found it hr said the log was not in the tube. He figured it to be swag so took its. said he traded a Nono container for it, I did not see that, but wasn't really, looking for that either.

 

He is going to take it back and replace that tube. I IF the nano is there he can have that back. I didn't think a cacher took it maliciously.

 

Now another part of  problem - since the CO has not been able to, and I am getting a bit tired of, replacing her cache I made a NA Log. . I really  wanted to adopt this cache  and maybe move it some, Now another cocher in the area, a previous reviewer at that, has put several caches out that will preclude moving it, at least down the trail it is on. 

 

Whom say we don't have fun? Now to go back and see about removing the NA log etc. 

[+TriciaG]

Quote

Now another part of  problem - since the CO has not been able to, and I am getting a bit tired of, replacing her cache I made a NA Log. . I really  wanted to adopt this cache  and maybe move it some, Now another cocher in the area, a previous reviewer at that, has put several caches out that will preclude moving it, at least down the trail it is on. 

 

Whom say we don't have fun? Now to go back and see about removing the NA log etc. 

 

Why remove the NA log? Let it be Archived, then you can place your own cache in that spot (and possibly move it in future if one of the other cacher's placements gets archived).

 

Edit to add: Removing/deleting the NA log won't remove the notification the reviewer will get for it.

Edited February 10, 2020 by TriciaG

[+Seeker_Knight]

3 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

 

Why remove the NA log? Let it be Archived, then you can place your own cache in that spot (and possibly move it in future if one of the other cacher's placements gets archived).

 

Edit to add: Removing/deleting the NA log won't remove the notification the reviewer will get for it.

 

Has this degraded into an activity which promotes takeovers and the like. It USED to be a friendly activity. Now it seems a LOT of people just want to move in and take over the best spots late in the game. It is Geocaching, NOT Monopoly!

Seeker_Knight

[+L0ne.R]

1 minute ago, Seeker_Knight said:

 

Has this degraded into an activity which promotes takeovers and the like. It USED to be a friendly activity. Now it seems a LOT of people just want to move in and take over the best spots late in the game. It is Geocaching, NOT Monopoly!

Seeker_Knight

 

Where I cache, there are whole cities taken over by prolific hiders with 100s and 1000s of caches. Once they fill up their city they move on to the next. They encourage others to help them do maintenance by dropping throwdowns if their cache is missing. The owner never intends to return to their cache, their form of maintenance is click the Archive link if months of DNFs are reported, followed by a reviewer note, but more often they leave archival to the reviewer. Community maintenance is almost always in the form of a dry logsheet in a wet cache. Throwdowns are always upcycled free containers never meant for outdoor use, most often prescription pill bottles and aspirin jars (we must be a very unhealthy bunch), sometimes they will spend 25cents and leave a poorly-milled bison tube. 

[+TriciaG]

16 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

 

Has this degraded into an activity which promotes takeovers and the like. It USED to be a friendly activity. Now it seems a LOT of people just want to move in and take over the best spots late in the game. It is Geocaching, NOT Monopoly!

Seeker_Knight

This is getting into the topic that was deleted by the OP, if I recall correctly.

 

Basically, if a cache owner hasn't maintained their cache for a long time - and in this specific case that's the situation, since the OP has been replacing containers more than once himself - then it's perfectly OK to ask the reviewer to step in and nudge the CO to either get back into doing maintenance, or archive the cache. Once the cache is archived, the space is open and free for anyone else to place a cache there.

 

This has nothing to do with taking over spots like it's some sort of chess or checkers game.  (Or Risk? Or Axis and Allies? ) It's ensuring that COs are responsibly maintaining their own caches and cache listings. And if they cannot do that, letting someone else take that spot who WILL maintain their cache and listing.

 

If the CO of this particular cache wants to adopt out the cache listing to the OP, then great! But that doesn't appear to be the case. From reading this, it seems as if the CO has left the game. If that's the case, it's time to stop relying on the local community to keep propping up this cache, and let someone who is active and willing to maintain a cache in this area have access to it.

 

Your opinion may differ, but it's 100% in line with the geocaching guidelines and the agreement a cacher acknowledges when listing a cache on this site.

[+Max and 99]

17 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

. I have replaced the cache at least four time, the last only a few day ago.

I change my mind. Keep doing it. 

[+coachstahly]

11 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

 

Has this degraded into an activity which promotes takeovers and the like. It USED to be a friendly activity. Now it seems a LOT of people just want to move in and take over the best spots late in the game. It is Geocaching, NOT Monopoly!

Seeker_Knight

 

I'm not sure why you are so against using the tools we have in order to keep caches well maintained.  The OP (NOT the CO) replaced the cache in question at least 4 times because the original CO couldn't take the time to come out and replace it themselves, per the responsibilities they agreed to when placing a cache with this listing service.  This cache has gone MIA at least 4 times and the person who has replaced it each of those times is getting tired of maintaining a cache that isn't their cache to begin with.  If they truly had an axe to grind (as you stated above), then why did this CO replace it 4 times before filing the NA log?  That makes no sense.

 

You seem to think that this is some great spot but it appears it's a guardrail cache that you want "saved" for the original CO.  It's been a tube of some sort (medical vial?), a magnetic key holder, and a pill bottle twice.  There's nothing about that particular cache that cries "best spot" or "great container".  It's just a run of the mill cache along a trail that gets taken repeatedly.  If the CO knows they can't maintain it, for whatever reason, then adopt it out so it can get maintained and it appears that the OP wanted to adopt it.  If the OP sent a message/email to the original CO and got nothing back in return, then that's on the CO.

 

Life gets in the way sometimes but that doesn't mean you should shirk your responsibilities, even one that's an activity that was once done as a way to enjoy some free time, which this CO no longer appears to have due to an increased load in her work schedule.  It takes all of a minute or two to reach out to a local cacher to email them to see if they could help but this CO didn't even do that. I have no sympathy for this particular CO as she has opted to let others do what she is supposed to do.  

 

This NA log that has been filed is her opportunity to show both her reviewer and the community that she's going to maintain her cache like she's supposed to.  It's her chance to "save" her cache and "prevent" some other cacher from claiming the spot where she got her cache published.  If the reviewer ends up disabling and then archiving this cache because the CO didn't respond in the appropriate timeline, then are you still going to feel that she's been cheated out of her cache and the spot it was placed in?  This is her opportunity to take a couple minutes out of her busy life to either offer it up for adoption, maintain it so that people have something to find, reach out to others to help her maintain it, or archive it because she's too busy to keep up with it.  Or are you going to continue to believe that a CO that drops the ball regarding maintenance should be given repeated opportunities to take care of their agreed upon maintenance expectations, despite not actually performing maintenance repeatedly and letting others do it for them because they have some sort of "claim" to the spot?  That claim comes with some responsibilities.  It's not just a "free" ticket to the location in perpetuity.

 

7.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

[+Seeker_Knight]

Having suffered a prolonged illness that kept me out of the game for a time, I tend to have differing opinions on this matter. Let's just say we are not likely to agree on handling things this way, even if it does fall within the letter of the guidelines. Often we find that what is legal is not always morally correct. And a great degree falls within the parameters of interpretation and personal opinion. So I respectfully agree to disagree on this topic.

Seeker_Knight

[+L0ne.R]

24 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

Having suffered a prolonged illness that kept me out of the game for a time, I tend to have differing opinions on this matter. Let's just say we are not likely to agree on handling things this way, even if it does fall within the letter of the guidelines. Often we find that what is legal is not always morally correct. And a great degree falls within the parameters of interpretation and personal opinion. So I respectfully agree to disagree on this topic.

Seeker_Knight

 

Did you try contacting local geocachers via Facebook? https://www.facebook.com/MarylandGeocachingSociety

Another way to get help with your cache is to attend events and get to know your local cachers.

The easiest way to get help without adopting out the cache, is to put a note on your cache description and in the logs to get the next finders' attention. They would probably be more than happy to leave a pill bottle until you can get around to putting a better container out. 

[+CAVinoGal]

21 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

Having suffered a prolonged illness that kept me out of the game for a time, I tend to have differing opinions on this matter. Let's just say we are not likely to agree on handling things this way, even if it does fall within the letter of the guidelines. Often we find that what is legal is not always morally correct. And a great degree falls within the parameters of interpretation and personal opinion. So I respectfully agree to disagree on this topic.

 

First, I'm glad you are healthy enough now to get back to enjoying this hobby!  And, your health issues did not preclude you from being a "responsible cache owner" - you did what needed to be done to keep your cache viable.  The CO's being discussed in the cases above and in other posts are those that have dozens or more caches, and don't maintain them for various reasons.

 

Having said that, each cache and owner situation is different, and yes, I agree that all that needs to be taken into account, and a simple algorithm can't possibly account for all situations.  Still, if a cache owner is responsible, and making a diligent effort to maintain the caches they have placed, there will be evidence of that in the cache records and logs.  Likewise, those CO's that have too many to properly maintain (and that can vary greatly from individual to individual!) and are "allowing" the community to do so, successfully or not, may have some of their caches archived and someone more responsible can place their own.  There really is no "one size fits all" solution!

[+coachstahly]

21 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

Having suffered a prolonged illness that kept me out of the game for a time, I tend to have differing opinions on this matter. Let's just say we are not likely to agree on handling things this way, even if it does fall within the letter of the guidelines. Often we find that what is legal is not always morally correct. And a great degree falls within the parameters of interpretation and personal opinion. So I respectfully agree to disagree on this topic.

Seeker_Knight

 

And if this were the case in this particular situation, I'd be more likely to agree with you.  That isn't the case in this situation.  This CO has an increased work load, not a debilitating illness that is preventing her from reaching out to others or even getting out there herself to maintain her cache.  The OP has done what you hope many cachers would and acted in a friendly manner, 4 times.  Not once, not twice, but 4 times.  That goes above and beyond anything I'd even consider.  Now this particular poster has done what I would have done 4 replacements ago and filed the NA, not to take the spot or hide a new cache there (although they or someone else might), but to notify the local reviewer that this cache needs a reviewer to get involved in order to get this busy CO (not one who can't physically get out there, one who apparently just doesn't have the time) to do anything to save their cache from being archived.  This CO has been given the opportunity to "save" their cache, either by adopting it out, asking some other cacher to help maintain it, maintaining it themselves, or archiving it because they just don't have the time.  For some reason, you see this as the morally "wrong" action instead of the action delineated within the maintenance expectations listed above.  What happened to the notion of taking care of your personal responsibilities to the best of your ability, even when things are difficult to do so?  This particular CO, at least up to this point in time, has done nothing to live up to her end of the agreement.  For some reason I can't quite fathom, you think she's entitled to better treatment of her cache and less responsibility for maintaining her cache, even though she's done nothing to show that she even cares about it, much less maintain it.

 

If Groundspeak wanted COs to "own" their locations in perpetuity, that means we'd never have any new caches in locations because these spots would be forever "saved" for whomever put the first cache there.  Saturation would create a stagnant pool of caches without any hope of turnover or new caches because every CO would rely on friendly "others" to maintain their caches so they were in good shape and wouldn't go away.  Groundspeak wouldn't have created a NM or NA log because there would be no need for anyone to step in since everyone would be maintaining everyone else's caches.  Problem is, that was never quite how it was supposed to be nor was it how it happened.  What happened to all those friendly people that you think were out there in the beginning years of geocaching?  Why are there so few caches from 2000-2005 if all these friendly community members were doing all this maintenance on others' caches? 

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

And if this were the case in this particular situation, I'd be more likely to agree with you.  That isn't the case in this situation.  This CO has an increased work load, not a debilitating illness that is preventing her from reaching out to others or even getting out there herself to maintain her cache.  The OP has done what you hope many cachers would and acted in a friendly manner, 4 times.  Not once, not twice, but 4 times.  That goes above and beyond anything I'd even consider.  Now this particular poster has done what I would have done 4 replacements ago and filed the NA, not to take the spot or hide a new cache there (although they or someone else might), but to notify the local reviewer that this cache needs a reviewer to get involved in order to get this busy CO (not one who can't physically get out there, one who apparently just doesn't have the time) to do anything to save their cache from being archived.  This CO has been given the opportunity to "save" their cache, either by adopting it out, asking some other cacher to help maintain it, maintaining it themselves, or archiving it because they just don't have the time.  For some reason, you see this as the morally "wrong" action instead of the action delineated within the maintenance expectations listed above.  What happened to the notion of taking care of your personal responsibilities to the best of your ability, even when things are difficult to do so?  This particular CO, at least up to this point in time, has done nothing to live up to her end of the agreement.  For some reason I can't quite fathom, you think she's entitled to better treatment of her cache and less responsibility for maintaining her cache, even though she's done nothing to show that she even cares about it, much less maintain it.

 

If Groundspeak wanted COs to "own" their locations in perpetuity, that means we'd never have any new caches in locations because these spots would be forever "saved" for whomever put the first cache there.  Saturation would create a stagnant pool of caches without any hope of turnover or new caches because every CO would rely on friendly "others" to maintain their caches so they were in good shape and wouldn't go away.  Groundspeak wouldn't have created a NM or NA log because there would be no need for anyone to step in since everyone would be maintaining everyone else's caches.  Problem is, that was never quite how it was supposed to be nor was it how it happened.  What happened to all those friendly people that you think were out there in the beginning years of geocaching?  Why are there so few caches from 2000-2005 if all these friendly community members were doing all this maintenance on others' caches? 

I have not problem with moving on with a location if normal and courteous actions have been taken. If someone does not respond to a email or message and the normal DNFs etc, then by all means, move on. At some point we will all die, leaving all the caches lost forever. This makes sense, and I agree completely. I just don't like the idea of some upstart being overly anxious to move in on a cache they didn't think up, maintain or monitor over time.

Seeker_Knight

[+Max and 99]

Is it missing again?