noikmeister wrote:For replacing a "decent size" cache with a mint tin? Really? You think this is doing anyone a favour except the self serving finder?ian-and-penny wrote:If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
"Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
- tronador
- 6500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1555
- Joined: 04 November 05 10:18 pm
- Location: Lidcombe,Sydney, NSW
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
-
- 4500 or more caches found
- Posts: 727
- Joined: 08 August 09 12:04 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
+1noikmeister wrote:For replacing a "decent size" cache with a mint tin? Really? You think this is doing anyone a favour except the self serving finder?ian-and-penny wrote:If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
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.
- Big Matt and Shell
- 6500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
- Twitter: BigMattandShell
- Contact:
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
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.ian-and-penny wrote:If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
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.
-
- 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"?
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.Big Matt and Shell wrote: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.ian-and-penny wrote:If it were my cache, I would say thanks for doing the maintenance run.Richary wrote:Personally if it was my cache I would delete the log and stuff their streak.
(And was this the only cache they did in the streak? )
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.
As a responsible CO, I would now be organising a maintenance run.. . until the co can restore the larger one
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!
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: 06 April 12 7:20 pm
- Twitter: Vikingolly
- Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
- Contact:
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
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.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.
- noikmeister
- 5000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: 10 July 09 12:29 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
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 DNFVikingOlly wrote: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.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.
- Big Matt and Shell
- 6500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
- Twitter: BigMattandShell
- Contact:
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
I think that has been missed by a few.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 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.
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
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).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.
- Yurt
- 4500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: 01 May 09 10:08 pm
- Location: Northern Suburbs, Sydney
Re: "Throwdown" or "angel cache"?
Who needs to find the cache? Just being there is enough!
http://coord.info/GLB0DC64
http://coord.info/GLB0DC64