"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6944
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 10:09 am

ian-and-penny wrote: Once again: Doesn't anybody place decent sized containers any more?
I saw a non-sarcastic log the other day saying 'WOW, what a huge cache' for a 600ml container. That made me sad :(

Those 250ml sistemas have become regular sized containers for most folks now.

Laighside Legends
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 1272
Joined: 05 October 10 10:20 pm
Location: Yorke Peninsula, South Australia

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Laighside Legends » 04 January 13 10:16 am

ian-and-penny wrote:
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
I'm not referring to what you did that time. You contacted me and we came to the conclusion it was missing and I couldn't replace it until a month later. I don't have any problems with that and I think that's the way it should be done!

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 10:23 am

noikmeister wrote:Any other case of cache replacement by someone who hasn't found the cache is self serving by the person to avoid a DNF.
I could possibly explain my replacements as"Significant and Worth Preserving".

I certainly don't intend to drive long distances into an out of the way place, go to all the trouble of maintaining or replacing a "significant" cache, just log a DNF! I'm going to log the find.

If I revisit the area 12 months later to attempt a nearby cache should I still ignore this one, or can I attempt it?

Everybody plays the game their own way, and this seems to have changed (for the worse) over the years. I aspire to set an example to all those newbies out there, and really hope that an eclipse tin under a bush doesn't become the norm.

Oh yeah, If the CO finally goes out to inspect their cache and finds a second container - -well they can remove it and have a freebie to place somewhere else. Win - Win hey!!

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 10:29 am

Laighside Legends wrote:I'm not referring to what you did that time. You contacted me and we came to the conclusion it was missing and I couldn't replace it until a month later. I don't have any problems with that and I think that's the way it should be done!
True.

I didn't intend my post to be a criticism, (my apologies if it appeared that way.)

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 11:17 am

ian-and-penny wrote: I certainly don't intend to drive long distances into an out of the way place, go to all the trouble of maintaining or replacing a "significant" cache, just log a DNF! I'm going to log the find.
Hence my comment about the replacement being self serving. Try getting in contact with the CO in advance and getting their agreement to maintain it if required. It isn't your cache and just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there.
ian-and-penny wrote: Oh yeah, If the CO finally goes out to inspect their cache and finds a second container - -well they can remove it and have a freebie to place somewhere else. Win - Win hey!!
Would you count it as a Win-Win if they also deleted your "Found" log, since you didn't actually find the cache?
Last edited by noikmeister on 13 January 13 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 04 January 13 11:19 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?
One cache in the south was a sea-shell-looking fake rock placed in the dunes among similar seaside debris.
After a string of finds, it then had 7 DNFs in a row, then 2 finds (together), then another 7 DNFs, then was replaced (with "found" log) by another cacher using a film canister.
Ok, there's now another cache at or near the spot - assuming the first one really IS gone - but it's not at all in keeping with the original hide, so why bother?

Disclaimer: before I get jumped on, this is not intended as an attack on the particular cacher who replaced this particular cache, but as an example of the problems with this DNF/replace/find technique.

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 12:18 pm

noikmeister wrote:
ian-and-penny wrote: I certainly don't intend to drive long distances into an out of the way place, go to all the trouble of maintaining or replacing a "significant" cache, just log a DNF! I'm going to log the find.
Hence my comment about the replacement being self serving. Try getting in contact with the CO in advance and getting their agreement to maintain it if required. It isn't your cache and just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Depends on circumstances doesn't it? I respect your right to express your opinion, but I'm never going to agree with you on this issue.

If we believe the cache is actually there - no recent DNF's in the latest PQ, then why wouldn't we go out there to look for it? Then when we get there there is absolutely no doubt that the cache is missing (and there are many methods to determine this) what's wrong with replacing it?

I don't see it as self serving. I see it as doing a favour to the CO and the community in general. Then If I log it, It's my business (and the way we play the game).

I have taken note of cachers in this thread that have expressed negativity to this sort of "good-will" cache maintenance, and sadly we're not going to be inclined to "maintain" one of their caches. ](*,) ](*,)

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 » 04 January 13 1:11 pm

I would only ever replace the container, if the container was all broken in some way.AND it was in quite a remote area. I would let the CO know. I personally think replacing a cache just because you can't find it, so you can log Found it, instead of DNF, is a little arrogant. If its a DNF its a DNF, if its questionable whether its there, log a needs maintenance as well, if that has been done log a needs archived. Certainly gets a CO attention. Shouldn't matter if the cache is in a remote location, if it's missing its up to the CO to decide if they want to replace it or archive it. If they are having trouble getting back to the location, all they need to do is note it on the cache page and maybe organise for one to be dropped off. BUT it is the CO decision as to what the course of action will be.

jonnosan+2
Posts: 48
Joined: 20 September 11 10:29 pm
Location: Leura, NSW, Oz

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by jonnosan+2 » 04 January 13 2:47 pm

I am all for replacing a cache that has been found in a damaged state, especially as tronador says, ones in remote areas.

I can imagine circumstances in which no cache was not found, but there is clear evidence of where it was originally placed, and in those circumstances, placing a new cache may be reasonable as well.

I do struggle though with logging a "found it!" when the cache wasn't actually found.

Having said that, I stopped caring about my numbers a while ago, I just want an experience. Some of my favourite such experiences in fact are DNFs (the first time I climbed Mt Solitary and didn't find "Point of No Regard", or when I climbed up Mt Mouin looking for a trig turns out to have been destroyed in the 70s.).

But... each to their own.

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 » 04 January 13 7:58 pm

noikmeister wrote: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.
I admit to being part of that on one of Sydney's early historical caches, that then got moved to GCA from GC before the owner lost interest. I was contacted by someone who wanted to find it but had no luck.

It was a short multi and stage one had gone missing. As I knew where the original was I returned to grab the coords and check it was still in place, then replaced the first little missing Berocca tube that contained the original sheet giving the final spot. Preserving some of Sydney's history that cost me 2 visits, 30 minutes (it was on the way home anyway) and a spare Berocca container, together with a laminated bit of paper that I could laminate for nothing at work.

Happy to do that to preserve history, but I wouldn't replace one I hadn't found without a request from the CO.

User avatar
Big Matt and Shell
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 1905
Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
Twitter: BigMattandShell
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Big Matt and Shell » 04 January 13 8:30 pm

tronador wrote:I would only ever replace the container, if the container was all broken in some way.AND it was in quite a remote area. I would let the CO know. I personally think replacing a cache just because you can't find it, so you can log Found it, instead of DNF, is a little arrogant. If its a DNF its a DNF, if its questionable whether its there, log a needs maintenance as well, if that has been done log a needs archived. Certainly gets a CO attention. Shouldn't matter if the cache is in a remote location, if it's missing its up to the CO to decide if they want to replace it or archive it. If they are having trouble getting back to the location, all they need to do is note it on the cache page and maybe organise for one to be dropped off. BUT it is the CO decision as to what the course of action will be.
+1

I have seen caches replaced that couldn't be found and then the original is located so now we have two caches.
I have seen regulars replaced with micros.
I have seen caches replaced after Ministro disables the cache as the owner no longer caches and then they get archived and the cache sits there as rubbish (I think Crew153 keeps track of them)

I have helped out a number of cachers in the past replacing caches but all have been done after talking to them first, to throw down a cache to then find it has always felt a bit dirty to me. A bit like finding your own cache.

covert
150 or more caches found
150 or more caches found
Posts: 476
Joined: 30 July 08 11:47 am
Location: VIC

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by covert » 07 January 13 12:19 pm

Per arranged with the CO = good (some common sense about doing it on worthwhile cache..)

No prior contact with the CO = bad.

User avatar
Yurt
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 1509
Joined: 01 May 09 10:08 pm
Location: Northern Suburbs, Sydney

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Yurt » 07 January 13 4:56 pm

There's the vexed question of heritage caches (placed 2000-2002) where the CO is gone from the game but the cache is considered iconic. I am sure most would support a previous finder replacing such a cache (not the DNFer) and letting it live on. GS doesn't need to know the CO is gone (nudge nudge).

In light of the Old School Challenge(s) this will become more important than ever.

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 » 07 January 13 10:15 pm

Yurt wrote:There's the vexed question of heritage caches (placed 2000-2002) where the CO is gone from the game but the cache is considered iconic. I am sure most would support a previous finder replacing such a cache (not the DNFer) and letting it live on. GS doesn't need to know the CO is gone (nudge nudge).

In light of the Old School Challenge(s) this will become more important than ever.
A purist would say to archive it. If it is gone, it is done. It is the "right" thing to do.

It becomes some sort of zombie cache, just kept alive for the satisfaction of others. It is against the rules of gc.com. Why not paint APE on an ammo tin and put them back into the game?

Note: that is a poor and odd metaphor.

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 » 07 January 13 11:55 pm

Yurt wrote:In light of the Old School Challenge(s) this will become more important than ever.
We considered this in setting up the Old School Challenge in NSW. If enough caches become unavailable it will be extended by another year. The idea is to get people to find some of the old (and hopefully better/harder caches), not to make it require all the serious treks to remote areas of the Snowy Mountains etc.

Perhaps as time goes on and newer caches are eligible we should rule out anything smaller than regular from being part of the challenge :D

Post Reply