Proxy maintenance and logging a find: is this acceptable?

[Yashinoki]

There is something that has been bothering me regarding proxy maintenance (i.e. someone other than the CO performing maintenance on a cache).

 

There was a cache that had been abandoned for a long time. The container had been missing for some time and it was clear that the CO had no intention of replacing it. At some point, a third party "maintained" the cache by placing a new container in its place. So far, so good.

However, the person who placed the new container also logged a "find" on it. Is this really acceptable?

 

I don't recall seeing this explicitly listed as a prohibited action in the guidelines (sorry if I missed it). The person didn't destroy an existing container or harm anyone. In fact, subsequent logs expressed gratitude for the proxy maintenance.

 

The person who logged the find has a very large number of finds in Japan (well over 10,000 at the time of writing). Realistically, adding one or two extra finds in this way (I don't know how often he does this, but it can't be too many) would not make a significant difference to his total.

 

And yet it still bothers me. Is this an acceptable practice? It seems unfair that someone can place a container without taking responsibility for it and increase their find count at the same time.

I'd like to hear from experienced people and reviewers. Of course, if the consensus is "there's no point worrying about it", I'm open to reconsidering my position.

To be clear, I'm not against proxy maintenance per se. Many people replace missing containers out of goodwill, or officially adopt abandoned caches.

The specific scenario I'm referring to is when a cache is clearly abandoned by the CO, is known to be missing, and someone replaces the container without going through the proper archiving or ownership transfer process (probably without permission). Furthermore, this person then logs a find on the new container that he has replaced.

I am asking about the ethics of this particular situation.

[Keystone]

Section 7.11 of the Help Center has a lot to say about this question:

"Throwdowns are strongly discouraged

A “throwdown” is a container placed by a geocacher who cannot find the original cache.

Some geocachers place throwdowns so that they can log a find on a cache that they suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the cache owner. This can lead to multiple containers, geocacher confusion, and disputes about whether someone is entitled to log a find or not.

How to handle throwdowns

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found it logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the cache as found."

[Keystone]

As a Reviewer, if I've disabled a cache page or posted a reminder note asking the owner to perform maintenance, I will archive that cache page after four weeks if there is no response from the cache owner.  If some other geocacher steps in and places a throwdown in the meantime, I respond with this note:

 

"Hello,

I noticed that this cache has been found since I asked the cache owner to perform a maintenance check.  It is possible that a recent finder left a replacement container (which is discouraged).  But if the cache was replaced with the CO's permission, then all is good here and the owner should re-enable the cache page.  If the owner wishes to investigate the situation, please do so in the next few weeks.

As noted in the linked Help Center article, cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility, and this includes re-enabling the cache page when the geocache is ready to be found.  I will check back in two weeks or so to make sure that this happens.  If not, then I will regretfully need to archive the cache page.

Regards,
Keystone
Geocaching.com Community Volunteer Reviewer"

 

 

[+baer2006]

7 hours ago, Yashinoki said:

I'd like to hear from experienced people and reviewers. Of course, if the consensus is "there's no point worrying about it", I'm open to reconsidering my position.

As @Keystone pointed out, the guidelines strongly discourage "throwdowns".

 

However, it is such an ubiquitous phenomenon, that arguing against it is probably futile. I have often read or heard advice from very experienced cachers to newbies, saying that a few "replacement containers" are a necessary part of your equipment when you're doing "serious" caching.

 

7 hours ago, Yashinoki said:

The person who logged the find has a very large number of finds in Japan (well over 10,000 at the time of writing). Realistically, adding one or two extra finds in this way (I don't know how often he does this, but it can't be too many) would not make a significant difference to his total.

Doesn't surprise me. In my experience, there is a slight positive correlation between number of finds and likelihood of placing throwdowns. But as you say, it's not significant for their total find count. Instead, some people simply cannot stand logging a DNF. For whatever reasons.

[+CAVinoGal]

11 hours ago, Yashinoki said:

There was a cache that had been abandoned for a long time. The container had been missing for some time and it was clear that the CO had no intention of replacing it. At some point, a third party "maintained" the cache by placing a new container in its place. So far, so good.  STOP RIGHT HERE!  NOT GOOD!  Without the cache owner's permission, this is called a throwdown and is not supposed to happen (though it does, too often IMHO).

However, the person who placed the new container also logged a "find" on it. Is this really acceptable?

 

For some geocachers, this is perfectly acceptable behavior.  It's going to happen.

 

We've been the "victims" of signing caches we later found out were throwdowns, and also had throwdowns placed on at least one of our hides when the original was still in place, and doing just fine.  THAT was upsetting and annoying.  If you can't find one of our hides, log the DNF and we'll come check it out!!

[+Cheminer Will]

Some geocachers don't think any maintenance other than that done by the owner is acceptable.  Others will go as far as to actually replace the container.  My approach is that if a new log paper is needed, I am OK with doing that or having others do it on one of my caches.  I do not replace containers, however and would not expect someone to replace the container on one of my hides.  Seems like it would no longer be my cache then.  I have seen people log a find and say that a container like a pill bottle had a leaking top or was damaged and that they replaced it with a new pill bottle.  That may be a gray area for some I guess but for me that is going beyond just adding some new paper for a full log sheet.

 

I certainly would never do a "throw down".  In all these years, I actually had never heard of that.  If I am reading this thread correctly, a throw down is putting out a new cache container if you cannot find the original?  (Not just replacing a leaking container that you actually found for example). Then logging a find for the container you could not find?  Weird.  Wouldn't that just be a DNF?  I generally don't worry about how others play the game when it comes to how or what they log, track their stats, etc. I don't check my logs to police if someone has really signed as the rules say they should.  If someone says they find one of my caches, I assume they found it and don't worry about whether they have been 100% truthful.  I know others believe cache owners have a responsibility to be the rule enforcers on their caches but I think life to to short for me to do that.  Having said that, if on one of my hides, someone "threw down" a new container because they could not find the one I hid, that might be the first time for me to delete a log.  Then go out and remove their container and make sure mine was still there.  Even the most flexible cache owners have their limits, I guess!

 

 

Edited February 6 by Cheminer Will

[+TeamRabbitRun]

13 hours ago, Yashinoki said:

<...>

Many people replace missing containers out of goodwill, or officially adopt abandoned caches.

<...>

 

 

No, they don't.

To adopt a cache, the owner must participate. By definition, that's not an abandoned cache.  The owner may have given up on it, but if he or she has a hand in the transaction, it's not abandoned.

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, Cheminer Will said:

If I am reading this thread correctly, a throw down is putting out a new cache container if you cannot find the original?  (Not just replacing a leaking container that you actually found for example). Then logging a find for the container you could not find?  Weird.  Wouldn't that just be a DNF?

Exactly!

 

We have a very in theme, well-cammoed hide.  One local finder commented that she expected more of an in-theme container after the write up and knowing our "style".  We couldn't imagine anything MORE in theme than what we had hidden, so we contacted her, and what she found was NOT our container, but a basic pill bottle.  We visited GZ, our original was still in place, and the "throwdown" had several signatures - the last finders who found the throwdown first and never looked further.  We could tell from the logsheet on the throwdown exactly WHO the culprit was.  Here's the note on the cache page and a message sent to all the cachers on the throwdown log - we didn't delete any of the finds, and left it up to the cachers to go back and re-visit to have the experience we intended!

 

"My sincere thanks to xxxxxxxx for logging her disappointment that the Arachnophobia cache did not involve any arachnids. This alerted me to go check it out, since the cache most certainly does in fact closely involve an arachnid. I contacted xxxxxxxxx to discover what she found. It was a throw-down! I went to the cache site and found a simple container stuck in a fence post about 10 feet from the actual cache. There were several signatures on the log. I removed the unauthorized container. I don't know if people think that by throwing down a spare container they are somehow doing the CO a favor, or if some people are just so blindly desperate to log a find. Let me be clear; you are not doing anyone a favor if you throw-down a spare container. You logged a find, but as a consequence, several geo-cachers missed the fun of finding the actual cleverly disguised theme inspired container.
I know people play the game differently, and some folks are all about the numbers. But many of us take time to develop fun, clever, and themed containers and unique ways to hide them. Please don't cheapen our efforts by throwing down another simple pill bottle wrapped in camo tape. If you can't find the cache, log a DNF to inform the CO that there may be a problem. At a minimum, add to your log that you threw-down a replacement, so the CO can investigate.
I have no intention of deleting any logs, but I will be sending a copy of this log via message to the last few signers who logged a find on the throw-down container so perhaps, if you're once again in the area, you can stop by and enjoy the experience of finding the actual cache."

 

Side note:  Several that signed the throwdown did re-visit the REAL cache!!

Edited February 6 by CAVinoGal

[+barefootjeff]

There's a cache circa 2006 on an island near home that I DNFed in 2015. A bit later someone dropped a throwdown, then that went missing so someone else dropped a replacement throwdown. Good grief! If it ever goes missing long enough to get archived, I might consider placing a cache there myself, but otherwise I don't have any inclination to return there and log a "find" on a throwdowned-throwdown.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

19 hours ago, Yashinoki said:

However, the person who placed the new container also logged a "find" on it. Is this really acceptable?

As the previous posters have pointed out throwdowns are bad. Unless you have permission from the CO... then it's fine IMO. And of course they deserve a find if they're putting the effort into replacing a cache they don't even own.

Local cacher has a couple of cool caches but is now mostly inactive. I DNF'd one, and he ended up contacting me that the cache was missing. I volunteered to replace it and I logged it as found. No problems with that.

[+CAVinoGal]

39 minutes ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

Unless you have permission from the CO... then it's fine IMO.

 

It's definitely BETTER if you have CO permission, but I know of at least 2 cases near me where the CO (different CO's) gave permission for a replacement (CO did NOT visit GZ, just relied on the eyes of the cachers making the replacement) and there ends up being 2 caches at GZ. 

 

Also, I don't know how many times hubby and I have been searching and we both call out "I got it!" and there are 2 containers, 2 logsheets.....so one, or both, are obvious throwdowns.  We sign one, combine logsheets if we can, and leave one cache for others to find.

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

It's definitely BETTER if you have CO permission, but I know of at least 2 cases near me where the CO (different CO's) gave permission for a replacement (CO did NOT visit GZ, just relied on the eyes of the cachers making the replacement) and there ends up being 2 caches at GZ. 

 

Also, I don't know how many times hubby and I have been searching and we both call out "I got it!" and there are 2 containers, 2 logsheets.....so one, or both, are obvious throwdowns.  We sign one, combine logsheets if we can, and leave one cache for others to find.

 

Sometimes even visiting COs get confused. There's a 2006 cache hidden deep inside a large cave but at some point someone who couldn't find it dropped a throwdown. The CO went to check but couldn't find either the original or the throwdown so left a new replacement. When I attempted the cache in 2022, the logbook in the container I found had entries going right back to 2006 so was almost certainly the original, so I guess there are now at least three containers hiding in that cave.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Throwdowns are particularly irksome when someone leaves a Micro as a replacement for an Ammo Can.

[+dimwit61]

I have replaced missing caches in the past. Usually, I am in the area and have already found the cache and know precisely where and what it should be. In that case I will contact the owner and ask them if they want me to do maintenance on the cache.  In all cases, the owners are quite happy with it. 

[+Mysterion604]

I do not have a big problem with it, nor do I consider it "throw-down" behavior when people are keeping very old or cool caches alive that have gone on longer that their owners' involvement in Geocaching did. (Ideal compliance with guidelines often  do not hold up in the face of real life changes in circumstances.)

I only joined in 2020, so a lot of the pre-2010 caches I have found are basically only still around due to such community effort - and that includes the PAF/TAF sharing of information that keeps certain old caches viable long after their clues got erased by urban renewal or something (while the cache are still intact at their GZ).

 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Mysterion604 said:

I do not have a big problem with it, nor do I consider it "throw-down" behavior when people are keeping very old or cool caches alive that have gone on longer that their owners' involvement in Geocaching did. (Ideal compliance with guidelines often  do not hold up in the face of real life changes in circumstances.)

I only joined in 2020, so a lot of the pre-2010 caches I have found are basically only still around due to such community effort - and that includes the PAF/TAF sharing of information that keeps certain old caches viable long after their clues got erased by urban renewal or something (while the cache are still intact at their GZ).

 

 

If the ammo can with its thick bound logbook has been replaced by a pill bottle with a scrap of paper in it, and the cache description is no longer relevant due to the changed location and it now requires a PAF to find, in what sense is this an old cache that's being preserved? A bit like the woodsman's favourite old axe that's had three new heads and two new handles.

 

[+baer2006]

3 hours ago, Mysterion604 said:

... and that includes the PAF/TAF sharing of information that keeps certain old caches viable long after their clues got erased by urban renewal or something (while the cache are still intact at their GZ).

I have NA'd more than one cache in such a state. Sorry, but a puzzle or multi, which can only be "solved" via PAF is not a viable cache.

[+CAVinoGal]

On 2/8/2025 at 8:45 AM, dimwit61 said:

I have replaced missing caches in the past. Usually, I am in the area and have already found the cache and know precisely where and what it should be. In that case I will contact the owner and ask them if they want me to do maintenance on the cache.  In all cases, the owners are quite happy with it. 

This is, "technically" not a throwdown, as you already have the smilie, and the CO gave permission.  This is OK, though we have come across multiple containers and the CO gave permission, but the original was actually still in place.  That happens too.  

 

Just yesterday we came across a situation of a missing/inactive CO, a few replacement throwdowns just for the smilie, and a DNF and OAR for us.  After searching unsuccessfully using the write up and the hint, I looked at previous logs and saw this one from a find 2 weeks ago (we didn't read the full log before attempting, just saw a recent find and stopped to find it):

 

Found! 12/15/2024. Made it to GZ today and searched for awhile to no avail. I didn’t have issues with electric fence as mentioned in the last cachers log. I was however not able to come up with a cache. Read previous logs and found that the cache is no longer magnetic. A previous replacement of the cache indicated sign post, no cache there. The most recent replacement of the cache indicated a bush, no bushes whatsoever at GZ. Went ahead and dropped another replacement at this location, this time inside the rusty fence post near the sign post at GZ. Hope this one will last awhile

 

Looking further into it, the CO hasn't logged into the website since 2023, has hidden 23 caches and all but this one are archived.  This one was nothing special, IMO (a pull off on a back road, originally a nano or a magnetic HAK on a guardrail) and *should* have been archived as well, but people wanted that smilie!!  I logged a DNF and OAR - our third DNF out of 5 caches searched for yesterday.  It was time to go home, write up my logs, and sip some wine, at that point!!

[+RebornCyclist]

I honestly detest this habit, especially when the "finder" doesn't mention that they did it!
I've found at least two where the cache had been replaced but the original was still there - one I found both and checked with the CO and removed the throwdown, while the other I didn't know was a throwdown until I was having dinner with the CO later that day (I changed my found to a DNF).
Just log the DNF - it's not the end of the world.

[+MNTA]

I think the whole CO handling needs to be improved by GS.

 

Currently a lot of us use the last time logged into the web site to indicate if the CO is active or not. Why can't they include App access as well. Improve the App for CO support and display the same information and more that is on the web. Push reminders. This is not hard to do. I'd say also make the hiding easier on the App. This is now an App game not a web based listing service. If the legal agreement does not require push notifications change it. 

 

The process for hiding a first time cache by a new CO needs help. Better training and scrutiny is needed. Explain to them the writing a note in response to a OAR log is not correct after they perform maintenance. If we need more reviewer and volunteers I'd be happy to sign up. 

 

Also I disagree proxy maintenance should be dissuaded. The CO signed up for the job they should do it. 

 

Use AI to analyze all the logs as they come in. Detect problems automatically notify CO and reviewers to followup. Automatically disable if failure to do the job they signed up for. I flagged a problem cache 3 months ago with an inactive CO on a LPC PNG. It is still active despite a RAR a month ago. Could I or any of the 4 subsequent finders (most indicated problems) perform proxy maintenance and throw down a new container and a new log for a crappy cache with an inactive CO. I say no. Archive please.

 

Last of the rant. All caches should have expiration dates that can be reset through maintenance. If truly abandoned, encourage local cachers to clean up the trash. 

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, RebornCyclist said:

I've found at least two where the cache had been replaced but the original was still there

Example of people not finding the cache and just doing a throwdown. GC2HMY3. 

I found this on 6 February this year. The person before me did a thrown down. The next day when I searched I found the real cache, with previous signatures. It is a bit difficult to get to, and not 100% safe, with a drop, and you must be very careful. But if this soon to be 70 yr old can manage it, so should most others! It's a large small, not the piddly throwdown down by the person who DNF-ed the cache.

Then a few days later this, "we left a small black film container sitting on a rock in the bush and signed our names on it thks for the fun". Another throwdown by a DNF-er.

I also saw another log that indicates at least a third throwdown.

 

Last year I found several examples in Buenos Aires too, or even worse, people just taking photographs of themselves and logging finds. Very annoying for those who log DNFs, as some comments I read indicated.

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Also I disagree proxy maintenance should be dissuaded.

I agree for caches in urban areas with lot of alternative caches to find, and not a special cache such as a 2000 one.

However, you are making your comment from a place of privilege for geocaching. Not everywhere in the world has as many old caches we can find for challenge caches (in fact here in Australia we don't have any remaining caches for several months), or as many caches spread across the country as the USA. And there are other places in the world even with sparser caches than Australia. You can drive several hundred kms and not find one. So, not coming from your place of privilege with lots of old caches and a more settled country compared to Australia, I don't agree for old caches and caches in remote areas, which visitors are maintaining. Once those are archived, they are extremely unlikely (basically zero chance) to be replaced and then there will be no caches.

  

3 hours ago, RebornCyclist said:

I honestly detest this habit, especially when the "finder" doesn't mention that they did it!

I can think of one of those I visited not long ago, twice, and made two DNFs. Then someone comes along and logs a find. I messaged them to ask where it was hiding, as I had searched well. I suspected a throwdown, and that was confirmed when they said they replaced it. The original cache was placed by a CO with many cache replacements, but not quick to go check their caches. More about placement, than maintenance.

 

 

This comment is mine, and others would not necessarily relate. The more caches that are placed, the less likely I am to go find caches, because I like to find them all, and knowing I can't, often now when at home I'm not bothered to go caching. Not so special and rare now. To overcome this I now concentrate on things more achievable; finding a cache in each council area in Australia & NZ, finding SideTracked caches*, logging countries (I know I won't be able to log them all, or even most of them), etc.

 

* I will never find all in the world, but I have a chance for Australia, and at one stage had found over 95% of SideTracked in Australia. Any other finds in other countries are just the icing. (On that, Singapore & NZ need visits again😁.)

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 05:28 AM by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Use AI to analyze all the logs as they come in. Detect problems automatically notify CO and reviewers to followup.

 

If that happens, I'd better not say I tripped over a wet log on the way to the cache.