"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
riblit
It's the journey.
It's the journey.
Posts: 3444
Joined: 04 April 03 6:30 pm
Location: Land Grant of John Campbell

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by riblit » 13 January 13 2:46 pm

Richary wrote:
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
Now that is an exceptional idea

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 » 13 January 13 9:59 pm


User avatar
tronador
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1546
Joined: 04 November 05 10:18 pm
Location: Lidcombe,Sydney, NSW

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by tronador » 13 January 13 10:11 pm

noikmeister wrote:Yep. That's a throwdown.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 7492eadb52
I'd delete the log, especially since a NM was logged in the previous log.

User avatar
Happy Chappies
2000 or more caches found
2000 or more caches found
Posts: 506
Joined: 04 July 09 12:18 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Happy Chappies » 15 January 13 6:21 pm

noikmeister wrote:Yep. That's a throwdown.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 7492eadb52

I saw that too... As I've been waiting for that to come back online so I can finally log the 100th. I must admit I was a bit torn as I came back from holidays via that cache today and wondered if I should take the opportunity to sign the new log. While I'm not keen on throwdowns, there's a chance that this could end up becoming THE cache, and then I'd be kicking myself if I didn't bother to sign it. So I did, but I'm still deciding whether to log it or not. There's been no response from the CO about the missing cache (both in the log and in a separate email we sent), which is disappointing given the rather important nature of it to those doing the run. I think this is an inherent problem of such power run series - that people doing it will be more keen than normal on ensuring a find on the final, and might resort to a throwdown when they might not otherwise. I know the thought crossed my mind when we turned up after 8 hours, hot and exhausted, to find an empty hide - But I couldn't bring myself to do it (and had no container anyway!)

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 » 15 January 13 6:59 pm

Happy Chappies wrote:
noikmeister wrote:Yep. That's a throwdown.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 7492eadb52

I saw that too... As I've been waiting for that to come back online so I can finally log the 100th. I must admit I was a bit torn as I came back from holidays via that cache today and wondered if I should take the opportunity to sign the new log. While I'm not keen on throwdowns, there's a chance that this could end up becoming THE cache, and then I'd be kicking myself if I didn't bother to sign it. So I did, but I'm still deciding whether to log it or not. There's been no response from the CO about the missing cache (both in the log and in a separate email we sent), which is disappointing given the rather important nature of it to those doing the run. I think this is an inherent problem of such power run series - that people doing it will be more keen than normal on ensuring a find on the final, and might resort to a throwdown when they might not otherwise. I know the thought crossed my mind when we turned up after 8 hours, hot and exhausted, to find an empty hide - But I couldn't bring myself to do it (and had no container anyway!)
I DNF'd it and I had driven down from Canberra to do it, but it never occurred to me to do something like this. It is just part of caching.

biggles1024
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 99
Joined: 15 June 12 9:42 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by biggles1024 » 16 January 13 12:27 pm

Happy Chappies wrote:
noikmeister wrote:Yep. That's a throwdown.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... 7492eadb52

I saw that too... As I've been waiting for that to come back online so I can finally log the 100th. I must admit I was a bit torn as I came back from holidays via that cache today and wondered if I should take the opportunity to sign the new log. While I'm not keen on throwdowns, there's a chance that this could end up becoming THE cache, and then I'd be kicking myself if I didn't bother to sign it. So I did, but I'm still deciding whether to log it or not. There's been no response from the CO about the missing cache (both in the log and in a separate email we sent), which is disappointing given the rather important nature of it to those doing the run. I think this is an inherent problem of such power run series - that people doing it will be more keen than normal on ensuring a find on the final, and might resort to a throwdown when they might not otherwise. I know the thought crossed my mind when we turned up after 8 hours, hot and exhausted, to find an empty hide - But I couldn't bring myself to do it (and had no container anyway!)
FWIW, the CO is doing a Maintenance Run this Sunday, 20 January 2013. Anyone who wants to accompany her is welcome to do so. There are a few of us going along, in front of the CO that is. There is also a group of us doing the Bass Coast Rail Trail series the day before. Come along and join the fun. :)

btw, these announcements were made in the Victorian Geocachers group on Facebook.

Cheers,

b.

User avatar
Happy Chappies
2000 or more caches found
2000 or more caches found
Posts: 506
Joined: 04 July 09 12:18 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by Happy Chappies » 16 January 13 2:02 pm

biggles1024 wrote:
FWIW, the CO is doing a Maintenance Run this Sunday, 20 January 2013. Anyone who wants to accompany her is welcome to do so. There are a few of us going along, in front of the CO that is. There is also a group of us doing the Bass Coast Rail Trail series the day before. Come along and join the fun. :)

btw, these announcements were made in the Victorian Geocachers group on Facebook.

Cheers,

b.
Thanks for that bit of information - Would have been helpful if the CO had mentioned that in the logs. Not everyone uses Facebook or is a member of that group (or this forum for that matter).

User avatar
2max
1 or more caches found
1 or more caches found
Posts: 79
Joined: 30 January 12 10:09 am
Location: South Gippsland
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by 2max » 26 January 13 11:59 pm

Interesting discussion re the for's and against's of helping with missing and broken caches. We found one today where the container is letting water in and the log book was soaking wet and feeling slimey. We logged a Needs Maintenance but are now pondering the idea of going back there and replacing the cache, with the same size container of course. There was a Needs Maintenance log posted back in Sep 2011 due to the wet cache and doesn't appear anything was done by the CO. Looked up their profile and they actually haven't logged in since June 2010. It's an interesting place and worthy of a cache, but what usually happens in these situations when the CO is no longer active? I know you guys have been discussing replacing caches when you have the CO's permission but that's not going to work here.. The cache is coming up on being 6 years old soon. So does the caching community just adopt the cache and keep it going?

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 » 27 January 13 7:48 am

2max wrote:Interesting discussion re the for's and against's of helping with missing and broken caches. We found one today where the container is letting water in and the log book was soaking wet and feeling slimey. We logged a Needs Maintenance but are now pondering the idea of going back there and replacing the cache, with the same size container of course. There was a Needs Maintenance log posted back in Sep 2011 due to the wet cache and doesn't appear anything was done by the CO. Looked up their profile and they actually haven't logged in since June 2010. It's an interesting place and worthy of a cache, but what usually happens in these situations when the CO is no longer active? I know you guys have been discussing replacing caches when you have the CO's permission but that's not going to work here.. The cache is coming up on being 6 years old soon. So does the caching community just adopt the cache and keep it going?
The question is "is it worth saving" not "is it old". There are plenty of caches around that were hidden in 2006/7 and if it is waterlogged then it is probably hidden in a problematic (AKA wet) location.

If the cache needs maintenance and the owner isn't logging on and isn't responding then the correct course of action is a "needs archive" log. After it is gone the you can hide a cache of your own there and maintain it with loving care.

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 » 27 January 13 10:15 am

2max wrote:Interesting discussion re the for's and against's of helping with missing and broken caches. We found one today where the container is letting water in and the log book was soaking wet and feeling slimey. We logged a Needs Maintenance but are now pondering the idea of going back there and replacing the cache, with the same size container of course. There was a Needs Maintenance log posted back in Sep 2011 due to the wet cache and doesn't appear anything was done by the CO. Looked up their profile and they actually haven't logged in since June 2010. It's an interesting place and worthy of a cache, but what usually happens in these situations when the CO is no longer active? I know you guys have been discussing replacing caches when you have the CO's permission but that's not going to work here.. The cache is coming up on being 6 years old soon. So does the caching community just adopt the cache and keep it going?
We certainly would have maintained the cache simply for the reason you have outlined "It's an interesting place and worthy of a cache".

The alternative will leave the location (and thus the caching community) without a cache for some time, maybe forever.
  • Logging a "Needs Archive" takes time to be achieved.
  • Then you or a local need to place another.
  • A local may not be interested, and if you aren't a local you won't be permitted without a maintainer.


Good on you for wanting to maintain the caches that you find that need a bit of TLC. It's really good to see someone else that pro-actively gives back to the game instead of just passing on through.

Also IMHO, if you maintained the cache it wouldn't be an Angel Cache

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

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by jonnosan+2 » 27 January 13 8:43 pm

My take on this is, if the CO isn't maintaining the cache, then it should be archived (and ideally a responsible cacher would go remove the remains to reduce the amount of geolitter).

If it's a really great spot and someone who is willing and able to maintain it wants to put a new cache in that area, then win-win : people who found the original cache get a reason to revisit.

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

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by jonnosan+2 » 27 January 13 8:58 pm

BTW I was involved in an episode which leads me to believe a 'needs archiving' is the best approach - related to http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 94afe6d33b

Situation was:
- A cache was placed (in a really beautiful area , but what in retrospect was not a suitable hiding spot)
- The cache was destroyed (due to being in a poor location)
- CO took no action
- Another cacher decided since the cache was such a great area, he would replace it with a new container in the same hiding spot
- since the hiding spot was poor, the new container suffered similar issues to the old one.
- I then rescued the new container, and moved it to a location where it would be safer
- but since neither I nor the other 'good samaritan' cacher was the CO, there was no way to update the cache listing with the new location.

So - I logged a NA, and the area become available for new caches in more suitable locations.

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 » 27 January 13 9:08 pm

jonnosan+2 wrote:BTW I was involved in an episode which leads me to believe a 'needs archiving' is the best approach - related to http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 94afe6d33b

Situation was:
- A cache was placed (in a really beautiful area , but what in retrospect was not a suitable hiding spot)
- The cache was destroyed (due to being in a poor location)
- CO took no action
- Another cacher decided since the cache was such a great area, he would replace it with a new container in the same hiding spot
- since the hiding spot was poor, the new container suffered similar issues to the old one.
- I then rescued the new container, and moved it to a location where it would be safer
- but since neither I nor the other 'good samaritan' cacher was the CO, there was no way to update the cache listing with the new location.

So - I logged a NA, and the area become available for new caches in more suitable locations.
There's a note on the cache page:
***********************NOTICE*******************************************
NOTE: This Cache has been reported by our last visitor as somewhat DAMP. Probably the container (sistema) needs replacing. Unfortunately I no longer live in the area, but I would love for this cache to live on. If the next visitor would like to install a NEW container for us I would be very grateful!

I'm not sure how it would work as I havent done it before, but if someone would like to take ownership of this cache, I would be happy to transfer it over to them. Given it is such a wet spot it probably needs more TLC than I can give it now.
****************************************************************************
So you possibly could have taken ownership (via the adoption process) and therefore circumvented all the hassles of archiving and replacing it.

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

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by jonnosan+2 » 27 January 13 10:10 pm

ian-and-penny wrote: There's a note on the cache page:
***********************NOTICE*******************************************
NOTE: This Cache has been reported by our last visitor as somewhat DAMP. Probably the container (sistema) needs replacing. Unfortunately I no longer live in the area, but I would love for this cache to live on. If the next visitor would like to install a NEW container for us I would be very grateful!

I'm not sure how it would work as I havent done it before, but if someone would like to take ownership of this cache, I would be happy to transfer it over to them. Given it is such a wet spot it probably needs more TLC than I can give it now.
****************************************************************************
So you possibly could have taken ownership (via the adoption process) and therefore circumvented all the hassles of archiving and replacing it.
That was tried and failed - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx ... f50ca89274

But I agree that if the CO had still been sufficiently contactable & motivated to authorise an adoption, that would have resolved the problems caused by simply replacing a container that was originally placed in an unsuitable spot.

User avatar
2max
1 or more caches found
1 or more caches found
Posts: 79
Joined: 30 January 12 10:09 am
Location: South Gippsland
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by 2max » 30 January 13 12:54 pm

Thanks noikmeister, ian-and-penny, and jonnosan+2 for replying to my post and giving me lots of angles to think about. In the few days since we found the cache GC12TXT, another cacher has looked for and found it and reported a NM log as well due to the poor condition of the container and log. They also mentioned something I hadn't considered before, in that (like us) they had trouble with the maths (it's a multi) and they wondered if there had been new sign boards erected since the cache was first placed (with possible different info).

A lot of people have really struggled with the maths and just went looking within the fenced reserve and made the find that way, so that could make a lot of sense. I think if that's the case, then it really lends support to archiving the cache... I just feel bad about it for some reason. We've only been caching for just on 12 months now so very much aware that we are still the new kids on the block, and don't want anyone to look badly on us.

Post Reply