"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
OMY130
Posts: 285
Joined: 08 January 05 10:55 pm

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by OMY130 » 31 December 12 4:46 pm

On my old Jolly Roger Cache, there was an angel cache left as there was a string of DNF's. When I finally archived the cache I found the Angel Cache within 1mtr of the real one. :shock: At the time, I did thank the angel cache dropper for their good deed.

Up here in Brisbane, we have more than our share of 'Professional Cachers' who demand that a cache is missing if they can't find it.

My pet hate is the person who drops an Angel Cache then has the hide to log as a find. One of my recent DNF's has beccome a victim of this. [-(

User avatar
Richary
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 4171
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Richary » 31 December 12 11:15 pm

As CO, if someone places an Angel Cache in that location, then you go back and find the real one - you are entitled to delete their log if it isn't in the logbook of the real cache.

Technically you could delete the logs of following finders who have signed the wrong one as well, but that isn't really fair on them who thought they had the right one.

I'm against it, unless asked by the CO to do so. As said I will perform maintenance on remote caches, but I wouldn't replace one without getting permission. If you are convinced it is gone then post a Needs Archived log. At the same time if you think the location deserves one then place one nearby (but not close enough to be confused with the original in case it is still there). Once the cache is archived then list yours.

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 » 01 January 13 11:30 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.
I agree. As a CO of over 100 caches we do try to read all our logs but at peak times like school holidays that is quite difficult. So a needs Maintenance or Needs Archiving will certainly get our attention.

We are often frustrated when someone writes that a cache needs maintenance in a found it log and we don't see it then realise after 5 more logs #-o

If they had just logged a needs maintenance we would have been straight onto it.

So from a CO's perspective thanks for alerting the CO :lol:

Laighside Legends
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 1286
Joined: 05 October 10 10:20 pm
Location: Yorke Peninsula, South Australia

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Laighside Legends » 03 January 13 10:33 pm

The following has happened to my caches a few times:
The last log was a 'found it' 4+ months ago. Someone looks for it and can't find it so they ring there friend who found it 6-12 months ago. There friend tells them where its meant to be and they still can't find it. So they plant a replacement and claim a find.

The annoying part of all this is that I don't even get the chance to fix my own cache! I hope they don't expect me to fix there caches...

I think the better solution to this is to ring/email the cache owner and tell them you can't find it and suspect its missing. After discussing it with them place a replacement if they can't fix it in the next week or two.

User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by noikmeister » 04 January 13 7:25 am

I think these fall into 2 categories:

* Prearranged with the CO and a good idea
* Not prearranged and misguided or self serving

If the cache is gone then log a needs archiving log. These are not the aggressive attacks that many people make them out to be. They are a way of communicating something to the CO and GroundSpeak. If you go a long way knowing that perhaps there will be a DNF and you come armed with a cache then you are self serving.

If you drop a new cache without the permission/cooperation of the CO then there is no way of updating the listing for changes in circumstance, cache size, cache location, hint etc. Just don't do it. If the CO isn't active then log a NA and then wait a couple of months and the location will be open for a new cache that hopefully has a CO that will lovingly maintain the cache.

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 » 04 January 13 7:32 am

noikmeister wrote:I think these fall into 2 categories:

* Prearranged with the CO and a good idea
* Not prearranged and misguided or self serving

If the cache is gone then log a needs archiving log. These are not the aggressive attacks that many people make them out to be. They are a way of communicating something to the CO and GroundSpeak. If you go a long way knowing that perhaps there will be a DNF and you come armed with a cache then you are self serving.

If you drop a new cache without the permission/cooperation of the CO then there is no way of updating the listing for changes in circumstance, cache size, cache location, hint etc. Just don't do it. If the CO isn't active then log a NA and then wait a couple of months and the location will be open for a new cache that hopefully has a CO that will lovingly maintain the cache.
It's so simple it's almost too logical!

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 » 04 January 13 8:18 am

Laighside Legends wrote:The annoying part of all this is that I don't even get the chance to fix my own cache!
The good part is that you don't have to. The good Samaritans have (maybe correctly) determined that your cache is missing by investigating via a friend.

Remember that whilst sitting at GZ it is not always possible or practical to phone a cache owner because of phone coverage; and also not all phone numbers are in the public domain.

(Please recall that we did replace one of your caches in this manner, and you were OK with this at the time.)
Laighside Legends wrote:I hope they don't expect me to fix there caches...
Nope, I don't expect. . . But isn't it a good idea to:
  • Do a small thing to give back to the caching community
  • Do a favour to the cache owner to say thanks for going to the trouble of putting the cache there
  • To save the CO a trip.
  • To forestall disappointment for future finders
  • Give back to the caching community in general.
  • Etc, etc.
Regards

Ian

User avatar
TiedyeSmileys
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 November 08 10:09 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by TiedyeSmileys » 04 January 13 8:46 am

We have sort of been 'burnt' by people trying to be kind. There have been caches that have been placed in a nice area that have gone with a string of DNFs and the CO no longer active online. We have put a needs archiving on these. We thought great, we can do something really special here with a cache. Then some kind soul passing through has thrown an eclipse tin or similar crappy container in a crappy spot and have said it is all okay again ](*,)

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16375
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by caughtatwork » 04 January 13 8:49 am

Does an ammo can gone missing, replaced by a film canister or eclipse tin help the CO or any future finder? Do people routinely carry around all sized suitable replacements? Or do they have a backpack with 10 eclipse thins that they "throwdown" to get the find, even if the replacement is nothing like the original?

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 » 04 January 13 9:01 am

caughtatwork wrote:Does an ammo can gone missing, replaced by a film canister or eclipse tin help the CO or any future finder? Do people routinely carry around all sized suitable replacements? Or do they have a backpack with 10 eclipse thins that they "throwdown" to get the find, even if the replacement is nothing like the original?
Wherever possible, we replace with a same size container. - And yes we do carry a wide variety of containers in various sizes.

(It's not that hard considering most caches we see these days are 200ml sistemas or smaller.
Doesn't anybody place decent sized containers any more?)

Toriaz
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 212
Joined: 21 August 10 9:03 am
Location: Springwood, NSW

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Toriaz » 04 January 13 9:26 am

ian-and-penny wrote: ...
Doesn't anybody place decent sized containers any more?)
2013 has been declared the Year of the Ammo Can in the Blue Mountains

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 » 04 January 13 9:27 am

ian-and-penny wrote:It's not that hard considering most caches we see these days are 200ml sistemas or smaller.
To follow on: It's actually quite likely that we have replaced missing containers with something that was better/larger/stocked better than the one that was missing.

We always replace with a cache that has a log book (in a bag) pen/pencil, and some swaps if it is large enough.

Of the 2441 caches we have found on our first year as full time travellers 1877 were under "Regular" size.
  • 25% (625) were Micro (or Nano)
  • 51% (1252) were Small
Part way through the year I started to delete caches in my Unfound database that had a Micro size attribute and contained the word "Nano" anywhere in the description. So had I not done that, our Micro count would certainly have been higher.

Once again: Doesn't anybody place decent sized containers any more?

User avatar
noikmeister
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by noikmeister » 04 January 13 9:35 am

I can only think of two exceptions where I think cache replacement is acceptable.

1: The aforementioned case where the CO has given their blessing
2: For a cache that has some historical significance and is worth preserving in its current form. And in this case it should be only replaced by someone who has already found the cache, knows where it was and replaces it with an identical (as near as practical) container hidden in the same manner.

Any other case of cache replacement by someone who hasn't found the cache is self serving by the person to avoid a DNF.

In Canberra we have two caches that fit the bill.
Can you hear the drums... err Bells Fernando: Hidden in 2002 and worth preserving for the 10 years worth of logs. Unfortunately it goes missing all the time, but the local community work with the CO to keep it alive.

Extreme Challenge - Tunnel of Terror
A cache which would just not get approved today and also has a long history of interesting logs. The Canberra caching community helped out to find a contact method for the CO and we were able to get it adopted out to someone who will maintain it.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16375
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by caughtatwork » 04 January 13 9:38 am

Yes, I do. They're ammo cans with 2 litre sistema containers inside. Problem for some is that they will all be GCA only cache listings. I have another 20-30 to go out west of Melbourne in Autumn (I'm not walking around in Summer with all that weight).

Thanks for the insight into what you replace I&P. I would certainly appreciate a genuinely missing cache being replace on a like-for-like basis. I do fear that your approach is probably, almost unique in that regards.

I replaced a very small tin (that had rusted shut and had to be forced open) with a 200ml sistema that I had in the boot just a few weeks ago. Not a throwdown as the original cache was there, but I think it was an upgrade.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6991
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by CraigRat » 04 January 13 9:43 am

noikmeister wrote:In Canberra we have two caches that fit the bill.
Can you hear the drums... err Bells Fernando: Hidden in 2002 and worth preserving for the 10 years worth of logs. Unfortunately it goes missing all the time, but the local community work with the CO to keep it alive.
I'm in the same boat.. I have replaced Tassies First a few times for historical preservation, but that's it.

If its just another cache in a park and it's missing, I won't be replacing it, and I wouldn't expect that of any of my caches. Repairing/draining/maintaining I will happily do however.

But I WILL quite happily place a NA log on a cache. People seem to be very fearful of placing these NA logs for some reason!

I've been caching where a replacement was placed at the time, but I never logged the find. I always fear that the cache is still in nearby proximity and I'll end up looking like more ofa fool than I already am. :lol:

Post Reply