Throw-down Cache

February 11, 2004

A friend emailed a note to me yesterday about this cache.

Ever hear of a throw-down gun? It's an unregistered gun that an unscrupulous cop would carry. If you should accidently shoot and kill an unarmed person, you drop the throw-down gun at the scene, and you've got yourself off the hook.

Here's the geocaching version. Look for cache that no one's found in a while. If the last few logs are DNFs, all the better. Show up at the site, look around for a few minutes, then declare "Oh, heavens! The cache is missing!" Then whip out your throw-down cache, hide it somewhere nearby, then log it as a find!

Why, oh why, didn't our team think of this years ago? We, too, could have a Find total in quadruple digits by now.

February 11, 2004

Well young tadpole, if you would look around these forums and maybe do a search you would discover that this is well looked down upon. Uping your find counts untruthfully is defeating the purpose of this game, to have fun looking for something that was hidden by someone else

1.6k · February 11, 2004

Doesn't seem like a good idea to me...

February 11, 2004

If you do this then whats the point of this sport?

Geocaching....a sport not about the numbers.

2.2k · February 11, 2004

I have been told by someone that he even does not visit the cache location. He scans the logs for lost caches, waits until there are some DNF logs or a note by the owner that the cache is missing and than places a back dated find log. He said that he "found" more than 100 caches this way.

Maybe it's time to remove all the statistics from the site?

3.5k · February 11, 2004

You don't have any finds. Why bother?

6.4k · February 12, 2004

Looks like "Art" might be right.

Check out this cache too.

Awful lot of smileys for a cache that was missing!

Edit: here's another.

Edited February 12, 2004 by Mopar

February 12, 2004

It sounds like the cachers who replaced the cache had good intentions. It was certainly an unusual thing to do, and I would have only done it after emailing the owner (and then probably not claiming the cache as a find), but who cares. All we can really hope for with a game like geocaching is that the participants have good intentions.

6.4k · February 12, 2004

It sounds like the cachers who replaced the cache had good intentions. It was certainly an unusual thing to do, and I would have only done it after emailing the owner (and then probably not claiming the cache as a find), but who cares. All we can really hope for with a game like geocaching is that the participants have good intentions.

Many states have bans and permits. In the first example, the cache isnt even close to being in the proper spot (they left it 40ft away). If that park requires a permit, they or the original cache hider might now be in trouble. How's that for 1 good reason?

February 12, 2004

Many states have bans and permits. In the first example, the cache isnt even close to being in the proper spot (they left it 40ft away). If that park requires a permit, they or the original cache hider might now be in trouble. How's that for 1 good reason?

Well, obviously it could turn out that they made a mistake in doing it, but my point was that it seems they never intended to do the wrong thing.

February 12, 2004

Don't we enjoy hiking any more? Getting outside, Breathing fresh air. The whole point of the sport. To get away from these dam computers.

February 12, 2004

Why, oh why, didn't our team think of this years ago? We, too, could have a Find total in quadruple digits by now.

Am I the only one who thought this had a suitably sarcastic tone?

Seriously, if anyone really, really wants to up their count, who's going to check all the logbooks to prove them wrong?

I mean, if there were cash prizes for cache counts it might matter!

1.6k · February 12, 2004

Why, oh why, didn't our team think of this years ago? We, too, could have a Find total in quadruple digits by now.

Am I the only one who thought this had a suitably sarcastic tone?

Obviously...

1.8k · February 12, 2004

Yet another thing that I don't let myself get worked up over...

February 12, 2004

Its not that big of deal to me.

They arent hurting us, just themselves.

February 12, 2004

Here's the geocaching version. Look for cache that no one's found in a while. If the last few logs are DNFs, all the better. Show up at the site, look around for a few minutes, then declare "Oh, heavens! The cache is missing!" Then whip out your throw-down cache, hide it somewhere nearby, then log it as a find!

Why, oh why, didn't our team think of this years ago? We, too, could have a Find total in quadruple digits by now.

Ok, so when I go check on my cache and replace it, I'll take your proxy home and hide it in one of many hiding spots on my list and create a brand new cache, meanwhile deleting your find. Thx for the free cache....now that's what I call trading up!

Edited February 12, 2004 by Ce'Nedra

February 12, 2004

Its not that big of deal to me.
They arent hurting us, just themselves.

When I go hunting a cache, I'd like to find the actual cache that the hider placed, not some cheezy substitute, somebody decided to leave because they couldn't find the real cache. Just because you found pieces of a cache, doesn't mean you know where the cache was hidden.

They may or may not have had honorable intentions, but I think roelsch should leave cache replacing to the cache owner.

Just my

3.8k · February 12, 2004

Ok, so when I go check on my cache and replace it, I'll take your proxy home and hide it in one of many hiding spots on my list and create a brand new cache, meanwhile deleting your find. Thx for the free cache....now that's what I call trading up!

February 12, 2004

Replacing the cache was not a bad thing to do in this case, as the owner has not been active on the site since 2001. All they need to do now is email TPTB and adopt the cache. Problem solved!

6.4k · February 12, 2004

Replacing the cache was not a bad thing to do in this case, as the owner has not been active on the site since 2001. All they need to do now is email TPTB and adopt the cache. Problem solved!

No, it's not. They live in another state. They probably can't or won't maintain it any better then the guy who hasn't logged in since 2001.

3.5k · February 12, 2004

Replacing the cache was not a bad thing to do in this case, as the owner has not been active on the site since 2001. All they need to do now is email TPTB and adopt the cache. Problem solved!

I guess as a local (the cache in question is about 35 miles away from me) my opinion is a little different. Like Mopar I'm wondering, who's going to maintain this cache now? On top of that, the cache is on Illinois DNR land. When the original cache was placed there were no rules about caching on DNR land but now there are plenty (caches have to be in clear containers, have to be approved by the DNR, checked at least once a month, etc). Maybe these guys didn't know about those rules when they took it upon themselves to replace the container.

As it stands, we've got a few locals checking into it. It might end up being a matter of adopting the cache or it could be that it needs to be archived.

Bret

February 12, 2004

I have been told by someone that he even does not visit the cache location. He scans the logs for lost caches, waits until there are some DNF logs or a note by the owner that the cache is missing and than places a back dated find log. He said that he "found" more than 100 caches this way.

Maybe it's time to remove all the statistics from the site?

Who cares -- he is only hurting himself. I pay some attention to my find count (only about 170 so far), but don't compare it to the number of finds that others have. Why should I care. There always will be cheaters, but in a game where their cheating does not hurt us, let them go at it -- no doubt it will be reflected in other aspects of their life, and will lead to no good. Oh #$%^, enough of this .... sounds like a da#$ lecture!

February 12, 2004

This is a game not unlike Solitaire. If you cheat at Geocaching you are only cheating yourself.

What is that point of that?

:unsure:

Happy caching and stuff!

February 12, 2004

me say no.

February 12, 2004

Looks like "Art" might be right.
Check out this cache too.

Awful lot of smileys for a cache that was missing!

Edit: here's another.

I logged the second cache that you have listed here and if you read the logs to the Wayne Fitzgerald cache you will see many people have since found the replacement cache. I can confirm that it was replaced and logged. I don't understand why everyone thinks that they should be suspect. Haven't you replaced a log or a pen, etc. in a cache that needed replacement? Maybe they feel that they are doing a service in the same way. This cache is only about an hour's drive from where they live, very easily maintainable if they so desire.

Jim

Edited February 12, 2004 by Dorkus&Co.

8.9k · February 12, 2004

I see three problems.

First Problem: The Rocky Springs cache mentioned at the top of the forum is (ummm - doing the math) ~100 miles away from their home. That's more than an hour. As Mopar said many states have bans and permits. They're placing caches in locations that have a permit process that they may not be able to easily maintain. At least two mentioned here (including the first one) are in a state park in Illinois. Team WO9LF just posted a link in our Chicago forum to the State Park guidlines for Illinois (thanks Brian!).

Second problem: They indicated that they didn't find the cache after a cursory look. Then they placed one in an obvious spot. What if the one that was originally placed there IS there - just better hidden? Now there's an obviously placed cache. People will find that instead of finding the cache in the way that the original hider intended (and never find the original). If my cache goes missing, I don't want someone replacing it. If that ever happens, I'll archive the sucker quick and find another spot 250 feet away.

Third problem: They logged a when they didn't find a cache. It's their find count, I know. But it sure wouldn't be left on any of my cache pages.

February 12, 2004

I see three problems.

As Mopar said many states have bans and permits. They're placing caches in locations that have a permit process that they may not be able to easily maintain. At least two mentioned here (including the first one) are in a state park in Illinois. Team WO9LF just posted a link in our Chicago forum to the State Park guidlines for Illinois (thanks Brian!).

I don't get the arguement about the Park rules and bans. If there are rules or bans in a specific park, then the original container was in violation, etc. also. They didn't create a new cache, they replaced a container. If there was a problem that was against the parks geocaching policies then the cache should have already been withdrawn and archived.

Jim

6.4k · February 12, 2004

[i don't get the arguement about the Park rules and bans. If there are rules or bans in a specific park, then the original container was in violation, etc. also. They didn't create a new cache, they replaced a container. If there was a problem that was against the parks geocaching policies then the cache should have already been withdrawn and archived.

Jim

If they never found the cache, how do they know it's REALLY missing? I don't care HOW many finds you have, you sometimes get skunked by easy ones. It's quite possible the real cache is still there, but they have no real way of knowing that.

If they never found the cache, how do they know they are putting it in the right (legal, approved, permitted, whatever) location? You've never found a cache where your GPS said you were 40-50ft away?

In the 1st cache mentioned at the top of the thread, they even admit they put the cache 40ft away from where they thought it was originally, cause it was a better place. Well, that better place hasn't been approved, and doesn't have a permit, so it looks like they violated a state law there. Besides, like Markwell, I would be pretty pissed if someone from 100 miles away came thru here, admitted they only looked a few minutes for my cache, then left a POS gladware container where they thought it should be and log a find. I guess thats why it looks like they target cache owners that haven't logged in for a while.

Maintaining someone's cache is a great thing. I often do it myself.

Replacing someone's cache when you really have no idea how/where the original cache was, is just plain wrong.

Logging a find on a cache you didn't find is a whole different issue, but not the way most of us play the game.

1.3k · February 12, 2004

Maybe it's time to remove all the statistics from the site?

:unsure:

Why should I not be able to keep a tally of my caches found because some idiot wants to rack up finds?

21.9k · February 12, 2004

I don't get the arguement about the Park rules and bans. If there are rules or bans in a specific park, then the original container was in violation, etc. also. They didn't create a new cache, they replaced a container. If there was a problem that was against the parks geocaching policies then the cache should have already been withdrawn and archived.

Jim

As someone who deals with land managers and cache permits regularly, both as a cache owner and as a Groundspeak volunteer who deals with complaints, there is a world of difference between an old placement and a new placement. A cache placed in November 2001 by an owner who last logged onto the website in March 2002? That's pretty easy to discuss with a land manager who adopted a permit policy in May 2003, and explain away. But with everyone who hides caches in State Parks now knowing (or is supposed to know) that caches require permits, it is a lot harder to justify to a complaining park manager how this brand new container showed up in the park in early 2004. In my experience, land managers have been fairly forgiving of caches placed prior to their adoption of permit requirements, treating these as "grandfathered," but they are pretty strict on insisting that any new placements be registered. When I assist with the adoption of a cache like that, I make sure that the new owner follows through to get the permit.

February 12, 2004

:unsure: Bad Bad :huh: Bad ...come one . Live and Let Caches Die!!!! Archive the cache and start your own if need be. I would be ticked if someone "Dropped" a cache at my location just because the could not find it.

I WILL HACK YOU!!!

Reguards,

The Amish Hacker

Edited February 12, 2004 by AmishHacker

38.2k · February 12, 2004

If they never found the cache, how do they know it's REALLY missing? I don't care HOW many finds you have, you sometimes get skunked by easy ones. It's quite possible the real cache is still there, but they have no real way of knowing that.

Something like this happened to me. There was a cache near my home that I had found. It suddenly started getting DNF's and the owner noted that he wouldn't be able to get to the cache for a few months. I volunteered to check on it and replace it if necessary. I searched the area thoroughly, didn't find it and left a replacement cache. Of course, the "found it" logs started coming again. Then I noticed that some of the found it logs were mentioning things that didn't sound at all like the cache I left behind. After several months of some very confusing logs, I went back to check on it and there were two caches about 3 feet apart...the original and mine. I guess the original was so well hidden that I couldn't find it on my return visit. Some hunters were finding the original and some were finding mine (but nobody found both), which is why the logs were confusing.

So Mopar is correct. They have no real way of knowing that its really missing. Heck, I had previously found the cache and couldn't find it on my return. How's someone whose never been there gonna know?

Maybe it's time to remove all the statistics from the site?

Oh, that will go over real well. I guess you don't recall the uproar when the counts were removed from the logs.

Edited February 12, 2004 by briansnat

February 13, 2004

I have been told by someone that he even does not visit the cache location. He scans the logs for lost caches, waits until there are some DNF logs or a note by the owner that the cache is missing and than places a back dated find log. He said that he "found" more than 100 caches this way.

Maybe it's time to remove all the statistics from the site?

If the 'He" referred to in this quote is referring to Mean Gene or Rolesh, I guarantee that they have visited all the sites that they have logged. I believe that they thought that they were doing a little cache maintenance that everyone does at ever cache we visit.

Getting rid of the stats on the site is just silly.

glenn

Edited February 13, 2004 by *gln

2.2k · February 13, 2004

If the 'He" referred to in this quote is referring to Mean Gene or Rolesh, I guarantee that they have visited all the sites that they ...

It is none of the mentioned cachers.

1.6k · February 13, 2004

I think this needs to somehow be added into the guidelines to prevent stuff like this from happening.

But I must concur, getting rid of stats is just silly, maybe even abjectly silly...

February 13, 2004

I guess you don't recall the uproar when the counts were removed from the logs.

I guess I started GCing after this controversy. What happened? They removed the total find count that is seen next to each username in the logs, then reverted back after the uproar?

6.4k · February 13, 2004

I guess you don't recall the uproar when the counts were removed from the logs.

I guess I started GCing after this controversy. What happened? They removed the total find count that is seen next to each username in the logs, then reverted back after the uproar?

Yup

5.7k · February 13, 2004

There is one very important problem with replacing missing caches (I have done this myself, but usually when I have the old cache remains in hand) that I didn't see anyone bring up. What if the cache isn't missing? I have seen this happen WAY too many times in our area. A cacher can't find a well hidden cache, assumes it's missing, and drops a cache (and sometimes logs it, but this isn't the part that annoys me). Now there are two caches! This annoys me to no end and causes a lot of confusion to the future finders. The DNF log type is there for a reason, to alert the cache owner that there is a potential problem with the cache. Plus, DNF logs are the most entertaining. :unsure:

--Marky

8.9k · February 13, 2004

There is one very important problem with replacing missing caches (I have done this myself, but usually when I have the old cache remains in hand) that I didn't see anyone bring up. What if the cache isn't missing?

:unsure: B)

<snip>

Second problem: They indicated that they didn't find the cache after a cursory look. Then they placed one in an obvious spot. What if the one that was originally placed there IS there - just better hidden? Now there's an obviously placed cache. People will find that instead of finding the cache in the way that the original hider intended (and never find the original). If my cache goes missing, I don't want someone replacing it. If that ever happens, I'll archive the sucker quick and find another spot 250 feet away.

Edited February 13, 2004 by Markwell

February 13, 2004

Why is Markwell Markwelling his own Markwell? Edited February 13, 2004 by wildearth2001

February 13, 2004

Why is Markwell Markwelling his own Markwell?

There is one very important problem with replacing missing caches (I have done this myself, but usually when I have the old cache remains in hand) that I didn't see anyone bring up. What if the cache isn't missing?

9.1k · February 13, 2004

Never, ever, try to out-Markwell Markwell. He is the master. I would sooner challenge Jesus to a barefoot waterskiing contest.

February 13, 2004

Never, ever, try to out-Markwell Markwell. He is the master. I would sooner challenge Jesus to a barefoot waterskiing contest.

Barfoot water skiing is fun. I could probably out markwell markwell some time in the next few months, once I get a few more posts going my way

5.7k · February 13, 2004

Hehe, well, it doesn't hurt to bring the point up twice. I could care less if someone is padding their numbers, it only affects their count (and anyone who cares about that). I do care about duplicate caches. That affects all future finders. I waste a fair amount of time cleaning up these issues of cache maintainence when I shouldn't have had to.

--Marky

February 13, 2004

Here is a Markwell of a Markwell to Markwells Markwell of his own post.

February 13, 2004

Or here is a markwell of a markwell of markwells markwell.

To get back on topic, as I have said and others has said placeing a fake cache at a cache location will confuse future finders, plus when the owner goes out to look at the logsheet he will know it was you because you were the first to sign the obviously fake cache

February 13, 2004

While I'm not sure that anyone should be replacing anyone else's cache, one thing I *did* like on the first of Mopar's linked caches was this: if you read the logs, there's one guy that logged a "find" after he found out the cache was stolen.

He went there, didn't find it, and logged a DNF. In his log, he mentioned that if he found out it was stolen, that he'd edit his log entry later to log a find. Sure enough, after he saw it was gone, he went in and logged it as a "find".

Now, what is the point of logging a find if you don't actually FIND the cache? So what if it was stolen, he still didn't actually FIND it, did he? Is this standard practice, or am I missing something here? Just curious...

Edited February 13, 2004 by FSU*Noles

8.9k · February 13, 2004

Off topic: Maybe we should take the markwelling discussion here.

February 13, 2004

While I'm not sure that anyone should be replacing anyone else's cache, one thing I *did* like on the first of Mopar's linked caches was this: if you read the logs, there's one guy that logged a "find" after he found out the cache was stolen.

He went there, didn't find it, and logged a DNF. In his log, he mentioned that if he found out it was stolen, that he'd edit his log entry later to log a find. Sure enough, after he saw it was gone, he went in and logged it as a "find".

Now, what is the point of logging a find if you don't actually FIND the cache? So what if it was stolen, he still didn't actually FIND it, did he? Is this standard practice, or am I missing something here? Just curious...

Some folks do this, others don't. My finds are all finds, altho I still do not know what I will do when I hit a grey area, found cache, frozen in place and such. As far as replacing someone elses cache, I think that is a maintenance issue for the owner of the cache. If the cache is confirmed stolen after my attempt, it is still a DNF with the hopes of replacement by the owner. I have a few that were archived, they are on my never to find list which I maintain with my DNF list, Still Looking For list and of course my Found list

To me, replacing a log book, adding a few dollar store toys or replacing ziplock baggies after finding a cache is helpful. Replacing the whole cache, unless you have an agreement with the cache owner is not a good idea, IMHO

3.9k · February 13, 2004

logs from the cache pages:

We concluded, after a patient search, that the cache had developed legs of its own, so we hesitantly replaced it with logbook, ziplock bag and container that we brought along. If the original container shows up again, we'll be very embarrassed -- but I think we did the right thing.

After a thorough search of the area by the Rooter, an expert no nonsense cacher, the cache was declared missing.

We abandoned the search after a few minutes and set out a replacement cache: a sandwich-sized plastic container with just a log book inside (I left the ziplock bags in the car -- could the next cacher please bring one?)

We knew this cache had gone missing and came prepared with a replacement. We found the hiding spot and replaced the cache.

Look, I know this doesn't effect me in any way but, Replacing a cache is not the same as finding a cache. Duh! This is bad form and extremely lame. I don't believe for a second that their intentions were good. They're just padding their numbers.

Who are they to conclude or declare that the cache is missing? On another cache they only searched for a few minutes! We found the hiding spot???!!! How do they know they found the hiding spot? Seems to me they set out to find caches THEY think are missing, and are always prepared to replace it.

a sandwich-sized plastic container with just a log book inside

Smells like a lame Gladware cache to me.

Lame, Lame, Lame.

If someone had the cajones to replace one of my caches, I'd flip. To say the least I would delete their log without warning.

Throw-down Cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment