"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
Bunya
Posts: 418
Joined: 10 May 05 5:51 pm
Location: South Australia

"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Bunya » 29 December 12 4:33 pm

I have noticed the following situation happening a number of times and wondered what the attitude of other geocachers is to it.
An “experienced” geocacher goes to try to find a cache which has a number of DNF s on it.
They decide the cache really has gone and place a new cache at GZ and log a find.
I’ve had a look on the US forums and found this behaviour referred to as either a “throwdown” or an “angel cache”.
In their comments, some cachers there see this behaviour as tantamount to logging your own cache, while others see it as a helpful thing to do.
I haven’t been able to find a thread on this forum on the topic, so thought I’d raise it to see how others feel about it.

User avatar
fluffyfish
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 331
Joined: 09 January 09 10:21 pm
Location: Perth

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by fluffyfish » 29 December 12 4:37 pm

Reckon they should log it for maintenance or log it for archiving rather than put another out. If the owner isn't maintaining it, then putting an angel cache out just perpetuates the problem.

User avatar
Marcus Vitruvius
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 297
Joined: 23 July 07 12:35 pm
Location: Newcastle, NSW

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Marcus Vitruvius » 29 December 12 5:01 pm

The only time I would replace a cache is if the cache container was cracked or broken etc. If there was no cache at all to be found...I would log a DNF and report a Needs Maintenance log, and leave it at that...unless I made prior arrangements with the CO beforehand. If there were multiple DNF logs with no owner response...I would probably log a Needs Archive log just to get something happening with the cache.

ian-and-penny
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 1067
Joined: 13 October 03 11:45 am
Location: Travelling Australia using a Garmin Montana 650T

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by ian-and-penny » 30 December 12 9:53 am

Bunya wrote:An “experienced” geocacher goes to try to find a cache which has a number of DNF s on it.
They decide the cache really has gone and place a new cache at GZ and log a find.
Yes we have done this on many occasions. The reasons are many and varied but include such things as:
  • Being helpful
  • Keeping the game alive
  • Sometimes it's not possible for the owner to visit their cache in a timely manner.
  • Preventing disappointment for other finders (and ourselves), especially in remote areas.
For us, it's not about the numbers, but about doing a good deed.

It's really interesting to note that "experienced" cachers have a "caring" attitude to caching and will nearly always do some sort of maintenance to caches they visit (put in a pen, log sheet or even a new container), whereas "newbies" tend to be more selfish and just whinge in their log but not even bother to log a maintenance request. - - -Go Figure!

User avatar
PesceVerde
700 or more Caches found
700 or more Caches  found
Posts: 452
Joined: 07 February 08 12:12 pm
Location: Arana Hills.

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by PesceVerde » 30 December 12 12:37 pm

As you have looks-like gathered, there are various opinions about the topic and a variety in thickness of rose-coloured glasses.

Circumstances change with time; cache owners move away from the cache area and/or caching. If you feel that you must place your own container at someone's cache site, 'for the good of the game', don't claim you Found it. So it's a win/win 'cause it's not about the numbers and the cache lives on. :gnome

User avatar
tronador
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 1542
Joined: 04 November 05 10:18 pm
Location: Lidcombe,Sydney, NSW

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by tronador » 30 December 12 12:54 pm

What MV said!

User avatar
Chwiliwr
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 886
Joined: 10 April 05 10:39 pm
Location: Leeming Western Australia

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Chwiliwr » 30 December 12 1:02 pm

Even 'experienced' cachers can have trouble finding containers and being 'experienced' does not guarantee that the container is not still there somewhere even though they cannot find it.

There are too many instances when another cacher comes along and finds the container after 'experenced' cachers have not found it for this to be used as a justification of replacing a container.

RebornCyclist
1850 or more caches found
1850 or more caches found
Posts: 116
Joined: 17 December 09 1:41 pm
Location: Kingborough

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by RebornCyclist » 30 December 12 7:45 pm

I have to say that I'm torn here.
My daughter and I went to find a cache at the end of a two hour walk, and found it missing. I just accepted that it wasn't there and logged a DNF and didn't really mind, because the walk and the destination were worth it.
The next searcher after that was a DNF, and the one after that also didn't find it, so they put their own container there and claimed a find.
Given that the owner seems to be not participating any more, maybe that's a good thing. Or maybe it should be archived, and the new placer puts their own there. To me, that would seem more sensible.
I wouldn't personally feel comfortable claiming a find on a cache that I just placed (or helped place), but there seem to be an increasing number of strange ways to claim a find.

User avatar
FelixII
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 December 10 9:12 pm
Location: Pearsall WA

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by FelixII » 30 December 12 8:26 pm

:-k We regularly log DNF's and the moveable race has certainly shown us that just because you can't find it doesnt mean it's not there many of us have found caches in a spot where somebody else couldn't.

We have only replaced caches when we have been travelling to remote areas and noticed some DNF's on a cache and thus emailed the CO in advance and asked if they want us to replace the cache and ask them to tell us where the cache should be hidden so that hopefully we check the appropriate spot as well as the surrounds because of course there is often cache creep so a cache is not always where it is supposed to be :roll:

We have also previously read logs about cache owners replacing caches and known where we found a previous cache and found 2 caches at the same location at the same time #-o . On those occasions we have amalgamated the caches and only left 1 cache in situ once we have left and emailing the CO notice of our actions.

So replacing caches is not without problems too. 8-[

User avatar
Richary
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Richary » 30 December 12 8:42 pm

I wouldn't replace a missing cache. Case in point, one in Adelaide in the early days had a number of DNFs, so the CO had replaced it. I then went and found the original which had moved to the other side of the bush because of cache creep. The same then happened to one of mine. Both ended up with 2 in the spot.

If I have spare containers with me I will replace broken caches in remote areas where the CO may not be able to get to easily - generally these have been the older ones before GC got quite so strict with maintainable distances. But just because I have 4000 finds doesn't mean that as an "experienced" cacher I don't still have my share of DNFs. Me not finding it is no guarantee that it is actually missing. A Needs Maintenanced or Archived is more appropriate if the owner is no longer active.

Throwing out a cache where you think it should be might be giving back to the hobby, but it is also buying a find by providing the container and logbook. To each their own, but it's not how I choose to play the game. Really, unless there is only one possible hiding spot within 20 metres (given the inacuraccy of early GPSr units or modern phone placed caches) then you can't guarantee where it should be unless the hint is a dead giveaway.

User avatar
Chrisval7
600 or more caches found
600 or more caches found
Posts: 48
Joined: 07 October 12 5:55 pm
Location: Barossa valley

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Chrisval7 » 31 December 12 11:38 am

We searched for a cache (GC2KZYO) the other day at a lovely bridge location in the small SA town of Greenock. After some fruitless searching I checked the previous logs and discovered that about three or four posts before, a fellow cacher had admitted to being a butter fingers (their language, not mine!) and dropping the cache into the river. They couldn't find it and it is gone!

So several folk have since then reported DNF's, as you would expect. The owner of the cache has a home location some distance away listed in his profile, and would appear not to be responding to the logs reporting problems finding it. I have emailed the CO and offered to replace it for them.

The location is lovely and it would be good to have a continuing GZ there. It is tempting to just replace it...but I have resisted the temptation.
Chris

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16114
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by caughtatwork » 31 December 12 11:40 am

Do the right thing. Log a "Should be Archived" against it. Don't let other suffer the fate of going to a cache you know if not there.

User avatar
Chrisval7
600 or more caches found
600 or more caches found
Posts: 48
Joined: 07 October 12 5:55 pm
Location: Barossa valley

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Chrisval7 » 31 December 12 1:05 pm

caughtatwork wrote:Do the right thing. Log a "Should be Archived" against it. Don't let other suffer the fate of going to a cache you know if not there.
OK, I will follow this sound advice.

Edit: I have now followed through on the action suggested above. I apologise if that is what I should have done at an earlier stage, but felt that if the CO was able to rectify matters that would be preferable. I now realise s/he has not responded to each of the logged comments and is unlikely to take corrective action at this stage.

User avatar
Chrisval7
600 or more caches found
600 or more caches found
Posts: 48
Joined: 07 October 12 5:55 pm
Location: Barossa valley

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Chrisval7 » 31 December 12 4:13 pm

Re the above posts relating to the Greenock cache, I have now had a reply from the CO. They had simply not been aware that it was in need of maintenance and as they had replaced the missing cache thought all was well. Apparently it had again disappeared more recently.

So they are now replacing the cache through means of a third party. As a matter of politeness I wish I had simply contacted them and asked if they wanted it fixed on their behalf. So Angel Caches can have a place....with permission from the CO :)

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16114
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by caughtatwork » 31 December 12 4:32 pm

Ahhh, but your log got the action that was necessary. A string of DNF's is never as powerful as the potential to get the cache archived. Now it's going to be replaced, all is well and you should stand proud you did the right thing.

Post Reply