"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
tronador
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1547
Joined: 04 November 05 10:18 pm
Location: Lidcombe,Sydney, NSW

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by tronador » 09 April 13 7:08 pm

noikmeister wrote:
ian-and-penny wrote:
Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.

(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
For replacing a "decent size" cache with a mint tin? Really? You think this is doing anyone a favour except the self serving finder?
[-X [-X #-o

LouiseAnn
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 727
Joined: 08 August 09 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by LouiseAnn » 09 April 13 8:00 pm

noikmeister wrote:
ian-and-penny wrote:
Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.

(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
For replacing a "decent size" cache with a mint tin? Really? You think this is doing anyone a favour except the self serving finder?
+1

User avatar
andiamo
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 302
Joined: 25 August 06 10:52 pm
Location: Elimbah

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by andiamo » 09 April 13 8:11 pm

However some people might want to dress it up, you could only call it cache maintenance if you have either previously found the cache, or you don't claim a smiley for it - otherwise it is a throwdown.

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 » 11 April 13 12:17 pm

ian-and-penny wrote:
Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.

(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
If it was my cache I would have disabled it so I could perform or organise someone to perform the maintenance not rely on someone to throw down a mint tin.

I'd be annoyed with this as they didn't find "the cache". Still there are plenty of people doing it! Amazing how many NA notes are followed by someone throwing down an incorrect size 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 » 11 April 13 4:59 pm

Big Matt and Shell wrote:
ian-and-penny wrote:
Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.

(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
If it was my cache I would have disabled it so I could perform or organise someone to perform the maintenance not rely on someone to throw down a mint tin.

I'd be annoyed with this as they didn't find "the cache". Still there are plenty of people doing it! Amazing how many NA notes are followed by someone throwing down an incorrect size cache.
I still stand by my comment. I don't know the cache or its history, or even if the CO does maintenance. If I were the CO I would have noticed this part of the log, which everyone else seems to be ignoring.
. . until the co can restore the larger one
As a responsible CO, I would now be organising a maintenance run.

I also stand by my earlier comment:
Well you could have done the CO a favour and replaced it too. Maybe, as you knew there were DNF's, even contacted the CO and asked if you could maintain it for them.

Win win all round hey!

VikingOlly
Posts: 66
Joined: 06 April 12 7:20 pm
Twitter: Vikingolly
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Contact:

Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?

Post by VikingOlly » 14 April 13 10:07 pm

Bunya wrote: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.
Did one today. I had previously been to the cache and logged it. So I knew where it was. I then took my Geowife and Geodaughter to the site. They couldn't find it as the cache was gone. I replaced it in the correct position with a similar container. Should be fine by me. I have also replaced a damaged container. Keeps the cache alive in my view.

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 » 14 April 13 10:34 pm

VikingOlly wrote:
Bunya wrote: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.
Did one today. I had previously been to the cache and logged it. So I knew where it was. I then took my Geowife and Geodaughter to the site. They couldn't find it as the cache was gone. I replaced it in the correct position with a similar container. Should be fine by me. I have also replaced a damaged container. Keeps the cache alive in my view.
This doesn't qualify as a throw down since you already found the cache. The argument is about people logging a find on a cache they have replaced to avoid logging a DNF

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 » 15 April 13 2:03 pm

noikmeister wrote:This doesn't qualify as a throw down since you already found the cache. The argument is about people logging a find on a cache they have replaced to avoid logging a DNF
I think that has been missed by a few.

I was always taught it's uncool to log more than one find on a cache no matter how many times you visit it and it's uncool to log a find on your own cache. IMHO that is what these people are doing. To me you cant "find" a cache you placed, you know where it is so therfore it's not really finding it.

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 » 15 April 13 2:51 pm

Big Matt and Shell wrote:.
I was always taught it's uncool to log more than one find on a cache no matter how many times you visit it and it's uncool to log a find on your own cache. IMHO that is what these people are doing. To me you cant "find" a cache you placed, you know where it is so therfore it's not really finding it.
I had thought this would have been obvious but from the actions of some, it appears not. My husband will not even claim as a find the caches we have hidden in my caching name - as he helped to hide them! Likewise I will not claim his hides. It seems some folk have strayed from the concept of this activity being a search for a cache and the thrill of the search (and find).

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 » 28 May 13 6:05 pm

Who needs to find the cache? Just being there is enough!
http://coord.info/GLB0DC64

Post Reply