Caches Being Muggled

[+Us 4 and Jess]

Checking through caches tonight that we have done since we started, I noticed how many of them have been muggled, wrecked and archived, not may I add straight after we have done them, although that has happened too (and doesn't that make you feel awful)

 

The point I was wanting to make, and I am sure it will have been made before, if we all had to be premium members and pay say £15.00 - £20.00 per annum would less caches be trashed?

 

We just come on here download/print off caches and go and do our thing, the cache wreckers do the same thing, but would they pay to wreck them?

 

I don't want to be a hypocrite here as I myself am not a premium member and the reason for that is simply I don't need to be for what I do, which is just print off the caches and go and try to do them, I don't use a pda or download lots of waypoints ect (I'm not an electronic whizz )

 

But i would be more than willing to pay just to do what I do to continue enjoying my caching

 

If it was compulsory for everyone to pay would we lose cachers? I fully understand some people are on low wages or unemployed and maybe can't afford to pay, but in the same breath can the cachers who keep having to replace wrecked caches afford to replace them and how many time do they have to be replaced before the cacher thinks enough is enough and does not replace the cache

 

Just some thoughts to mull over

 

mandy

[+Kitty Hawk]

I'd wondered about this, and I'd be sad if either of mine ws muggled. On the other hand, one is in a busy wood so it's bound to go sometime.

 

I looked through a list of muggled local caches the other day and I now know of some locations that I didn't previously where I may be able to set a cache, so it may be that caches being disturbed are like forest fires, they are sad, but allow rejuvenation.

 

Adrian

[+Snosrap]

I don't think it would make a scrap of difference.

 

I would be extremely surprised if the people who do this have ever heard of Geocaching yet alone visited the web site and planned the sortie.

 

Much more likely is that they have just stumbled accross a box of stuff hidden (although perhaps not well enough) in a wood.

[+The Hancock Clan]

I think it would be a good idea to restrict coordinates to members only. Now that GPS units are becoming cheaper and that more and more people are hearing about geocaching, anyone can access the website and then find the caches.

We had a travel bug go missing from a cache in Florida. Admittedly, it was attractive being a collector's toy London Bus, but looking at the TB history of the cache, dozens had gone missing from there. I've also heard of caches having some extremely unpleasant things left in them. Have they been found by chance or perhaps might some kids have GPS on their mobile etc?

[+Haggis Hunter]

I can agree with what Snosrap has said, I don't think that paying will make a lot of difference to caches being muggled. As I think that most of the time is indeed someone coming over it by accident. However we have had in the past, people doing exactly what Us 4 and Jess have said, and have gone out deliberately to trash caches. In that instance as rare as it is, membership would stop them.

 

I have in the past thought that membership after a certain amount of caches have been found, a person should have to pay. I also think you should have premium membership before you set a cache.

At the present moment the Status Quo doesn't bother me. I have chosen to pay for my membership and think that the £16.30 for a year for what I get extra is worth it.

However if we had more people paying, Groundspeak would get richer, but hopefully it would also mean that the servers can be updated before they start slowing down again, and that the merchandise may get cheaper, as that is probably one of their main resources.

A paying member may also be more cautious about how they re-hide a cache, as there is a lot of people out there that don't do a very good job of it, (general statement from finding caches and my own caches sat out in the open) if they paid, it may make them think whilst re-hiding. Although I don't think it would totally solve the problem. With that in mind I guess it takes us back to what Us 4 and Jess have said, but has just been put into a different context.

[+third-degree-witch]

I dont think having to pay will make one scrap of difference to cache safety, Caches will be muggled regardless. Most caches are so obvious after a while in any case. Trampled superhighways and neat piles of firewood etc are hardly going to preserve a cache forever.

There seem to be people EVERYWHERE this days on this crowded isle, Hasn't anyone else noticed it ?. Its just a law of averages i guess n caches will suffer eventually.

On the subject of paying i will say this..I personally pay because £17 a year is nothing for a years enjoyment, Plus now ive gone paperless the added tools are very useful. People whinge when the server creaks and groans, Myself included, Perhaps if membership fees were obligatory then maybe the servers would be upgraded ! we must all agree they need a kick in the nuts from time to time ! hehe

Edited May 27, 2005 by third-degree-witch

[+stu_and_sarah]

Don't forget... the option is always there on your own hides to make the coordinates available only to members.

 

I, too, don't think it would make much difference.

 

1) Muggles will find them anyway.

2) Your casual trasher might be put off.

3) Die-hard sociopathic trashers will pay.

 

I think the key to avoiding muggles is to find a nice peaceful spot which not many people know about. That's my favourite place to find, too.

 

Cheers,

 

Stu

[ClanWhippy]

i also doubt that compulsory premium membership would solve the problem of muggled caches for similar reasons to the ones already stated.

 

i also think that not everyone would pay, some would of course, but i suspect many would not. and there's nothing really to stop a "free alternative" breakaway faction setting up their own website if this one becomes compulsory cost. and i can't imagine fragmentation would be a good thing for the sport/hobby as a whole.

 

the other thing i think we should consider is how compulsory membership would affect new blood. would people be put off without a "try before you buy" option.

 

my feeling is that although it's a shame that caches get trashed, it's an inevitable part of the experience. like most things in life, the best we can hope for is that the numbers are in our favour, ie. a few get trashed, but the vast majority do not.

 

one way i think we could reduce the occurance of trashing would be if we could educate new players quickly on the importance of leaving a cache in the same or better condition than found.

 

another option would be for cache owners to maintain them more frequently.

 

i suspect that many times, caches do not go from well hidden to wide open in one find. it seems more likely that caches move away from a state of well hidden bit by bit over several finds.

 

and then there's always going to be the case where a bunch of kids just get lucky and drop on one. and you really don't expect kids to read the cache explanation sheet and comply now do you?

 

anyhow, that's my thoughts

[+Alibags]

I am also a premium member and think it's a very small cost compared to the use and enjoyment I get from the website (although I can quite appreciate other people's misgivings about paying money over to gc.com).

 

However, I too think that most caches seem to be be trashed by people who stumble over them. As has been previously said, not all cachers make as good a job as we might hope at re-hiding a cache. The amount of trampling around caches is as good as a big neon arrow in many cases and as for the piles of equally length sticks places in a parallel heap of firewood, well, they are just far too obvious. Some of this is inevitable because of the hiders choice of hiding place and hiding technique, even before the thing degenerates.

 

I confess I don't understand why people trash caches. Stealing the goodies I can understand (although obviously not condone) but why trash them outright? Mind you, I don't understand lots of things people do these days (I sound so OLD!!) but then again, I think that's a reflection on them and not on us.

 

I have just CITOd and archived a cache of mine that was completely trashed (smashed up into tiny pieces etc). When my first cache muggling happened I was mad and upset and wound up about it. Now I just accept that sh-1-t happens, and am just glad there was no TB in it at the time. Ho hum!

[markandlynn]

Tend to agree with the above.

The hiding technique has a lot to do with this. A nice hollow with good leaf cover and sticks looks ideal until the cache has been removed several times and the stuff on top becomes the stuff underneath the ammount of caches you come across where they have slowly risen is remarkable we should perhaps all make efforts to help rehide these caches more carefully.

[+Pharisee]

Most caches are so obvious after a while in any case. Trampled superhighways and neat piles of firewood etc are hardly going to preserve a cache forever.

If you set your new caches at the end of Autumn / beginning of Winter then by the time Spring comes and the new ground cover starts to grow, the frenetic rush to find a 'new cache' will be over and it will have settled down to just a casual visitor and hopefully there won't be a 'superhighway'

 

Alternatively... you could make them so difficult (or 'long winded') that they won't get many visitors anyway. Seems to work for me

[+sTeamTraen]

However, I too think that most caches seem to be be trashed by people who stumble over them. As has been previously said, not all cachers make as good a job as we might hope at re-hiding a cache. The amount of trampling around caches is as good as a big neon arrow in many cases and as for the piles of equally length sticks places in a parallel heap of firewood, well, they are just far too obvious. Some of this is inevitable because of the hiders choice of hiding place and hiding technique, even before the thing degenerates.

As long as the cache is off the trail, I don't see that as a big problem. A pile of wood may look "obvious" to a cacher, but wouldn't necessarily be so to a passerby, and I don't know many people who would stick their hands into a pile of sticks and leaves on the off chance.

 

Sometimes I find caches where a lot of work has gone into everything except the last stage (I own a couple like this, too ). Recently I've taken to going a minimum of 50 metres off the path for the final site; it may damage the cache's "wheelchair/granny/toddler friendly" rating, but I suspect that's a compromise one has to make in many areas.

 

All that said, I'm lucky. The Vosges and Black Forest areas have a billion places to hide caches where nobody will ever place their feet.

[+Skippy and Pingu]

I tend to agree that having to pay to get cache positions won't on the whole stop muggling. But I do think that there is a certain amount of deliberate trashing. Certainly from my limited experience I do find it odd that everytime I stated that I had done a maintance visit or restocked one of my caches it was emptied of all contents within 24 hours. This cache had 5 people watching it - a large number of interested parties for a traditional cache. The result of this was I stopped stocking the cache and when it eventually went missing I archieved it with no plans to replace it which is a shame because the area is beautiful and everyone who went to the cache loved going there .

[+sTeamTraen]

But I do think that there is a certain amount of deliberate trashing. Certainly from my limited experience I do find it odd that everytime I stated that I had done a maintance visit or restocked one of my caches it was emptied of all contents within 24 hours. This cache had 5 people watching it - a large number of interested parties for a traditional cache.

Ah, well, a large percentage of petty crime (2/3 of all shoplifting, I think I read somewhere) consists of "inside jobs". Maybe you should restock a cache with nice goodies covered with that staining compound they use to prevent theft (clear, goes purple on your hands) 24 hours before a local cache meet and see who doesn't turn up, claiming a "cold".

[+Snosrap]

I have a few caches which are in high footfall areas (town or city centres mostly) and I have set micros in these specifically because I think they might be compromised. Easy job to pop round and re-set them and no problems with TBs or goodies going missing.

 

As has been pointed out the easy answer if you are concerned with non-members finding (and deliberately trashing) your cache is to make them 'members only'.

[+Sensei TSKC]

What is the point of setting a cache in the first place?

 

1. Is it to hide it in such a way that no one but the ardent cacher will find it?

2. Is it so that GeoCachers will find it and benefit from the location?

3. Or is it so that only Premium Members can find them?

 

IMHO I believe option 2 is the main reason. Therefore making caches 'Members Only', reduces the amount of cachers that can find it. not the best option if you want your cache to be found and become popular. Don't we set these caches for the enjoyment of others?

 

The answer, initially, is to try to ensure that caches are re-hidden in the best way possible.

[+Travers]

It's a judgement call for the powers that be to decide whether they want to make membership compulsory. It's not very expensive but I think it would be a shame because not everyone has the funds - for the reasons you mention.

 

Plus, it's nice to be able to 'try before you buy' and the aspect that the game is free encourages new people to join and keep things fresh. Even after having to replace a couple of our caches two or three times, I still think the same (and, no, they were definitely not in areas where they would be accidentally discovered). I suspect that most of the caches that are removed are found accidentally though.

 

When we first started I tried to pay my fees because it just seemed the right thing to do, but for some reason I had trouble with paypal and to be honest, I've never tried again - maybe it's easier now. Compulsory fees would undoubtably mean less cachers - if you're in a high density area that may not be a bad thing, if not I would assume that there would be so few people playing that I would be bored waiting for new locations and lose interest pretty quickly.

[nobby.nobbs]

i'd agree that lots do get trashed by people blundering accross them but there is also a fair few done by people who log onto the site.

 

how about a simple solution of two levels of memberships?

basic at say 5 quid per year and then premium membership?

 

if someone has to register their details and pay even the smallest amount they are less likely to if they are just intent on destruction. big diffference in visiting a site without any details given to find and trash a cache than having to say who you are and actuallly pay something.

i don't think we'd loose too many potential cachers at the basic level of membership.

[+Snosrap]

A few people now have mentioned that they know of caches which have been trashed by people who logged onto the gc.com site.

 

Is there any evidence of this and was any action taken against these people.?

[+Us 4 and Jess]

I think that is a good idea, a basic membership for folks like me who just want to print off the cache sheets and go caching using no pda's and not downloading huge amounts waypoints ect

 

and a higher level of membership for you clever ones who use the technology

 

(but I think a higher price than nobby maybe £10 and £20 or maybe even £15 and £30) because as many of you have mentioned this also keeps the forums working for us, and I would beleive the larger majority of us must work to pay for gps's and petrol and swaps ect this is really not a cheap hobby!

 

and maybe new members get 2 weeks free trial (even a month free trial)

 

I know the odd one will try to keep changing their screename to keep to having a free trial or the cache wreckers might do this too, but I am sure the the honest and reliable new cachers will far out weigh the dishonest ones and i am sure that changing the screenames can be overcome by checking isp numbers

 

anyway thanks for all of your opinions it has made for interesting reading

[+John Stead]

A few people now have mentioned that they know of caches which have been trashed by people who logged onto the gc.com site.

I may be wrong but I don't think it is possible to do that.

 

Generally I think the present arrangement is right and access to GC.COM should be free on the basis of try it and see being the way most of us got into it. But perhaps there is some merit in Nobby.Nobbs idea of two tier membership coupled with only a limited number of free accesses if that were possible.

 

The question of care in rehiding is a pet bee in my bonnet. The number of times I have come across caches which have been put back with little care seems to be increasing. Of course caches may be disturbed accidentally or by animals foraging but too many times it seems that the finder has not taken any care to use the hiding method chosen by the owner. Yesterday I visited an excellent cache and spotted it from 15 yds. The previous finder was an experienced cacher whom I respect but had made the find in the dark when it would not have been clear that the placement of the cover was less than ideal.

[+derrylynne]

It is a shame that caches are trashed. But have to agree that making payment to view this site would be self defeating. Although I am now a premium member, it was by visiting this site that I got into the sport. If I had to pay I would have not taken my interest any further. We want new members and making it a fee paying site only would not achieve this. Of course it is in members interests to stub up the £17 fee and become premium members, and through these fees the site can be made better. We have come across a cache we hunted in a stupid place, a busy area with muggles, and nice park bench with bush behind, and stash thrown into the hedge and no attempt to hide it. How long will it last, not long probably because some kids will find it, and take it someday. If caches are put in places that are a bit off the beaten track, and well hidden, then mostly they will be ok. But new cachers should be aware that stealth if often needed when retrieving or hiding caches. Probably most the caches that have been trashed have been because someone has been observed doing one of the afore mentioned acts. As was mentions, although upsetting, s**t happens sometimes, and we have to accept it. I doubt if there are many kids armed with an etrex scanning the sites looking for sites to trash and anyway the value of the caches are usually extremely low. We had one of our caches muggled, but lucky for us, the muggle left a nice note to say he had found it, and swopped a trinket and left his address. Nice one. Pity they were not all like that. Needless to say we dropped a note around to him to thank him for what he did, and offered him support should his interest have been hightened.

[+rutson]

...Yesterday I visited an excellent cache and spotted it from 15 yds. The previous finder was an experienced cacher whom I respect but had made the find in the dark when it would not have been clear that the placement of the cover was less than ideal.

Consider yourself lucky! Took us ages to find that, had one of THOSE days, spent most of it on the phone to Sue from aRRKS!

[+Simply Paul]

I'm seeing an increasing number of logs saying "The location was overlooked and I felt conspicuous looking for the cache with so many muggle eyes on me. Still found it in the end" and "Some people were where I needed to hunt but I went for it anyway. Easy find" - Sometimes it seems the 'greed' for a find outweighs the desire to keep the location of a cache secret. After all, if it gets muggled because of them, it's not they who'll be replacing it. A year ago I read more 'The final location was busy so I'll be back another time' logs than I do these days. A worrying trend, which can only lead to more lost and trashed caches.

 

SP

[nobby.nobbs]

thing is are we just flapping our gums or is the thread going to be pointed out to those with the ability to do something?

 

the problem with the free access is that muggles are not likely to keep coming to find caches to trash. it'll be the first and prob only visit when they'll find the local cache to them. hence the idea of the cheap low membership. yeah we wouldn't be able to stop anyone from joining but how likely is it that a bored individual will go to the trouble of joining to just trash a cache? far easier to go onto some other website to be destructive.......

 

sorry prob just repeating myself but if someone can aford to buy a gps then another 5 quid isn't going to stop them becoming a geocacher.

[+2202]

The real problem is that the caches are not hidden properly. Clear plastic tupperware boxes wrapped in black plastic bin liners do not help and certainly not a pile of firewood. Spot them a mile off.

Only one answer and that is get some proper camoflaged containers and think about how and where it is placed.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

The real problem is that the caches are not hidden properly. Clear plastic tupperware boxes wrapped in black plastic bin liners do not help and certainly not a pile of firewood. Spot them a mile off.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. We have only had one of our caches properly muggled, and it was the last stage of a multi. It's likely that someone stumbled upon it rather than deliberately did the multi to trash the final cache.

 

The hide of the final cache was to fit in with the theme of the cache, rather than being in a really good natural hiding place. It was the only one of our caches that is/was 'in a bush, covered with pile of sticks'. We generally prefer more natural hiding places. The more stuff you have to cover it with, the more likely it is to be spotted.

 

As for bin liners, don't get me started. We found a cache yesterday that was only 2 weeks old, and the bin liner was already stinking.

 

T

[Harry_Bristol_UK]

Sounds like the age old problem of the few spoiling it for the many.

 

I am new to Geocaching (started just under 2 weeks ago and have found time to find 5 so far).

 

If the site was chargeable I probably wouldn't have got into this. Now I have started, I'm hooked!

 

I have been going out with a mate (Toibs) and using his GPS as I only have GPS in the car at the moment (I can drive to within metres of a cache, then I'm stuffed )

 

Once I get my own handheld I will certainly subscribe for the extra features. (Would have purchased one before now but have to go into Hospital next week for an op so have had to put some aspects of my life on hold )

 

The caches I have found so far I have ensured are well hidden and protected from the elements before leaving them. It's common courtesy to do so. If people are going to bother themselves to download co-ordinates to find a cache only to "muggle" it, I think they will find a way to do so regardless of whether the site has restrictions on it. I believe that restricting the site will probably also restrict the expansion of the sport.

[+-Phoenix-]

The real problem is that the caches are not hidden properly. Clear plastic tupperware boxes wrapped in black plastic bin liners do not help and certainly not a pile of firewood. Spot them a mile off.

Only one answer and that is get some proper camoflaged containers and think about how and where it is placed.

Making camoflaged containers is easy, Im surprised that so few people bother, so Im guessing nobody knows the secret (so here it is).

 

All you need is three cans of car spray paint from Halfords and your ready to camoflage as many containers as you want, and heres the best bit.... the worse you are at spray painting the better!

 

for the unititated heres what you need

 

1 Can of primer... people who dont use primer tend to be the same people who wonder why their paint peals off, primer isnt an expensive undercoat or a posh basecoat, but a method of preparing the surface to recieve the paint so it wont peal off!.... and make sure you get a primer suitable for your type of container, dont use a metal primer on a plastic container

 

1 Can of cheapest dark green

1 Can of cheapest brown

 

Once you have primed your container then start spraying alternate coats of green and brown, dont bother trying to get an even finish, just keep on applying alternate coats until the container is covered.

 

TIP before you finish and put your cans of spray paint away, turn the can upside down and spray out the last of the paint in the tube and nozzel, this way you will have a good chance of finding its not clogged next time you want to use it.

Edited May 29, 2005 by -Phoenix-

[+niknrich]

I don't think that compulsory membership would prevent cache-trashing. Our only cache was muggled in March and something nasty left in it. The culprit even signed the log, and it was clear that the previous finder was observed (from a distance) replacing the cache. I think the solution is to take care you're not seen retrieving and replacing caches, and to hide them well. We would rather walk on and return later if there is any danger of being overlooked, as we know how upsetting it was to have our cache trashed.

 

In many cases, you'd need to be pretty determined to find a (well-hidden) cache from the website without a GPS. Of course, a 1/1* plus the hint/spoiler pic might be fairly easy, but you'd need at least an OS map for the harder rural ones, and even then it might take a while. If someone is that determined to make mischief, they'd just stump up the membership fee.

 

Most people who own a hand-held GPS will probably know about Geocaching anyway - we found out about it because our etrex had an icon with the website address. We bought ours originally for hill-walking, and I suspect that a lot of others do the same. IMO, if you enjoy the outdoors and are willing to spend a fair amount of money on a GPS, you're not likely to be the sort of yob who goes around vandalising things for fun.

[+paul.blitz]

As others have said, the skill is in the placement of the cache. Not only does it need to be "cleverly" hidden, but needs to be hidden in a way that others who follow will also be able to hide it as securely.

 

I have passed up hiding caches in quite a few locations for this very reason...

 

Paul

[+rutson]

On the primer issue, ammo cans (unless their rearly beat up) don't need it. They've already been proffessionally primed.

[+t.a.folk]

As long as the cache is off the trail,

 

Two of the five caches we found on friday were hidden beside fenced in foot paths .There was not anywhere we could take the cache to discreetly log our finds other than further along the paths ,which we did .

Both times we made sure the coast was clear when we retreived the caches ,but we caught both times by poeple coming along the path and passing us while we had the caches and log books out .Embarrissing for us because they were not the usual sorts of locations to be having a picnic with mac toys in tow .

 

I'm seeing an increasing number of logs saying "The location was overlooked and I felt conspicuous looking for the cache with so many muggle eyes on me.

Perhaps that is because there are an increasing number of caches hidden in places that are more or less permenently overlooked by walkers and seats or house windows e.t.c.

Perhaps the thinking could be "If the cache owner thought it o.k. to place the cache there they must have thought it o.k. to seek the cache there ."

If not ,perhaps the question is "why are some caches placed where if there are going to be few opportunities to seek it without being seen ".

[+-Phoenix-]

On the primer issue, ammo cans (unless their rearly beat up) don't need it. They've already been proffessionally primed.

True, primer only works on base metal or plastic, no good spraying primer on an already painted container

[+MartyBartfast]

There was not anywhere we could take the cache to discreetly log our finds other than further along the paths ,which we did

 

When this has happened to me a couple of times I've stuffed the cache into the top of my rucksack/daybag and then it just looks like you're rifling through your bag.

 

No good if you haven't got a bag with you though

[+Team Maddie UK]

Wow, so many good points made in this thread it's difficult to know where to start. Lynn and I have had three caches muggled in the last year of 17 (I think that we have placed. I have to admit that during the initial angry stages on discovering a muggled cache that I also have had thoughts of premium membership possibly becoming a necessity. However, once I've calmed down I dispel those thoughts again. Although we felt our caches were well hidden we simply hadn't thought laterally about all of the possibilities. Mark and Lynn will know what I mean by this specifically the case of the underwater micro-cache that we thought was quite clever at the time. We had failed to appreciate that people performing an equivalent of our CITO might treat the thing as trash. Ammo boxes (#2 that was muggled) need to be hidden well. The container itself is an attractive thing for many. I can imagine many an unscrupulous person thinking 'hmm... that would be useful in the garage'

We simply have to accept that occasionally caches will be muggled. It's a real bummer but we learn from our mistakes.

I think we should avoid making a membership a requirement at all costs. It goes completely against the 'altruistic' nature of the sport.

Lets just put as much effort into rehiding caches and being discrete as we put into finding them although I'm quite sure most of the contributors to this forum already do.

 

Martin & Lynn