Replacing a cache w/o the owner knowing it?

[+GeoScooter1]

I didn't do this and it is not my cache, but I went looking for a micro the other day and looked and looked. I do not use logs when I cache and the few that I glanced at indicated that the cache was still there. I later looked back through the logs and some guy had posted a note that HE had replaced the cache and moved it several feet away. He even suggested a new clue for it. The owner didn't know this (must have missed seeing the note) and she went looking for it and couldn't find it. The guy who replaced it finally sent her pics of the cache so she could find it and now she has put it back online with his info. I am going later today to look for it with HIS new coordinates.

 

I don't think she is too happy about him doing this without her permission and I guess where he moved it to has nothing to do with the original name and placement of the cache. The guy doesn't even live here and just goes around replacing caches---according to his profile.

 

This really isn't the way to deal with a cache that doesn't belong to you, is it?

 

Edited after another cup of coffee to correct spelling/typos/grammer.

Edited August 31, 2007 by GeoScooter1

[+cache_test_dummies]

It's not appropriate to replace a cache presumed to be missing without prior approval of the cache owner. It's one thing to help out a cache owner by doing a bit of maintenance, but replace the whole cache because the old one appears to be missing? Nope.

 

And yet it happens all the time.

[+welch]

This really isn't the way to deal with a cache that doesn't belong to you, is it?

Unless I misunderstand, techinally they didn't do anything to the 'cache' that didn't belong to them

But I do get your point, changing things is best coordinated with the owner. That way changes made in the field actually get put onto the webpage.

[+GeoScooter1]

This really isn't the way to deal with a cache that doesn't belong to you, is it?

Unless I misunderstand, techinally they didn't do anything to the 'cache' that didn't belong to them

But I do get your point, changing things is best coordinated with the owner. That way changes made in the field actually get put onto the webpage.

 

Actually, he replaced it with one of his own caches and moved it to a location he thought was less muggle friendly.

[+DavidMac]

Actually, he replaced it with one of his own caches and moved it to a location he thought was less muggle friendly.

 

His intentions were probably good, but that really isn't as helpful to the owner or subsequent finders as he probably realized. In most cases, it's best just to get home and send the owner an email explaining any problems with the cache. One notable exception would be if the owner posts a note to the cache page to the effect of This one needs to be moved a few feet back to it's original hiding spot, and I will not be able to visit until Saturday.. In that case, I'd be glad to help the owner out.

 

I've known more than one hider who had a bad habit of performing the "service" of cache maintenance if they couldn't find a micro in the first place they looked. They never mentioned this on the cache page, and we always suspected that they were on a numbers run and just didn't want to spend more than 10 seconds searching for a cache . It was always a hassle when checking the paper log against the online one, since half of the logs would be mysteriously missing, and you'd have to make another trip out the site to search the area for the other container.

[+J-Way]

Actually, he replaced it with one of his own caches and moved it to a location he thought was less muggle friendly.

Wait... did he REMOVE the original cache before replacing it with his own, or did he find the cache already missing and place a "better" container in a "better" location?

 

If he removed the original, then that's bad in many ways. If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good. If the owner wants the cache back in the original spot he/she can move it back, or replace it with his/her own container. Since the cache was missing maintenance was required anyway, so no extra work required.

[+cache_test_dummies]

If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good.

How can someone be sure the cache is missing? Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it's not there. If it really is there and a well intentioned individual places their own substitute cache, you now have two caches.

 

If someone can't find the cache, they should log it that way, and leave it up to the owner to decide how to handle it.

[+The Moop Along]

If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good.

How can someone be sure the cache is missing? Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it's not there. If it really is there and a well intentioned individual places their own substitute cache, you now have two caches.

 

If someone can't find the cache, they should log it that way, and leave it up to the owner to decide how to handle it.

 

I agree with this logic completely. This year at MWGB, a new cache was posted at one of the fairgrounds entrances. After 3 DNFs, my girlfriend and I went out and snagged the FTF. The next day, we were pulling back in the entrance, and saw someone holding a mini-beach container. Thinking we were "coming to find it", they ducked it behind their back. I rolled down the window and told them "Don't worry, that's not the cache". The puzzled look meant I needed to get out and chat. As I was walking towards them, a second looker found a matchstick, and exclaimed "I've got it". Now, since I didn't say it before, the cache was a 35mm canister

 

So here we have one dude holding the beach container, another lady holding a matchstick, and after a small amount of looking, me showing them the Actual 35mm container. It turns out, that after more than 100 finds, only 5 were scribed on the 35mm container log. Two LAZY cachers had DNFed the 35mm container, and left their own in it's place. One of those dudes was DOUBLE lazy and DNFed the matchstick too, thus causing the beach container placement.

 

If you have found the cache before, and know the owner, I suppose considering a replacement doesn't hurt. But, if you simply can't find it, and want to log the smiley? Come on.

[+GeoScooter1]

Actually, he replaced it with one of his own caches and moved it to a location he thought was less muggle friendly.

Wait... did he REMOVE the original cache before replacing it with his own, or did he find the cache already missing and place a "better" container in a "better" location?

 

If he removed the original, then that's bad in many ways. If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good. If the owner wants the cache back in the original spot he/she can move it back, or replace it with his/her own container. Since the cache was missing maintenance was required anyway, so no extra work required.

 

I do not know if he took the original or not. I think he makes it a mission of his to find caches that "go missing" and replace them with ones he makes. And according to the logs for this cache,the owner reported that she was temporarily disabling it until she could come up with something better because it kept getting mugggled. Several weeks later, this other guy writes a note that he has placed one of his caches, changed the coordinates and suggests another clue for the new hide. He doesn't email the cache owner he has done this...just posts a note. Someone finds it (using the info about the new coordinates/clue in the note) and logs it so now the owner knows it has been replaced and she removes the temporarily disabled status. Time passes and there are several DNFs probably because (like me) they didn't use/see the logs with the new info.

The owner again temporarily disables it and NOW the guy who replaced it (obviously is watching the logs) posts that he GUARANTEES it has not been muggled. The owner goes looking for it, can't find it and takes it offline for maintenance. The guy who replaced it now sends photos to the cache owner along with his suggested clue/coordinates and the cache is now back up.

 

Also, he likes to point out in his note when he is replacing the cache that he is NOT going to log a find. Well...how the heck can you log a find for a cache that the owner has disabled because it is missing?

 

Another edit because the cache owner has now changed the name of the cache to: "HIJACKED BY ______" and remarks that it is no longer one of her orginal caches.

Edited August 31, 2007 by GeoScooter1

[+boda]

If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good.

How can someone be sure the cache is missing? Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it's not there. If it really is there and a well intentioned individual places their own substitute cache, you now have two caches.

 

If someone can't find the cache, they should log it that way, and leave it up to the owner to decide how to handle it.

This happened to us a couple of weeks ago. I found the cache and backed away to let the others find it. When all had found the cache, the person retreiving it pulled out something entirely different than what I, and one other finder, had found. We recovered that one, signed both logs (can't be too careful - what if we signed the wrong one?), and put them both back in the same place. We logged the double find in our post to let the CO know. Out of 7 finders after us, only one logged the double cache, however some of of them may have been found earlier in the day.

 

I think there are times when placing a replacement cache is OK, but only with the owner's involvement. It is their cache - and everything that changes it's status should have owner input.

[+J-Way]

If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good.

If you have found the cache before, and know the owner, I suppose considering a replacement doesn't hurt. But, if you simply can't find it, and want to log the smiley? Come on.

My post doesn't read this way, but this is what I meant. There are waaay too many variables to be absolutely sure a cache you didn't find is absolutely missing. But in this situation I thought it sounded like the cache was KNOWN to be missing, and someone in the area helped out by placing a new cache. But I do agree with everyone else that the "helper" should have asked the owner first, or at least should have done more than just post a note.

[+Isonzo Karst]

nevermind

Edited August 31, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+team moxiepup]

If all he did was place a new container after the original went missing then that's good.

How can someone be sure the cache is missing? Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it's not there. If it really is there and a well intentioned individual places their own substitute cache, you now have two caches.

 

If someone can't find the cache, they should log it that way, and leave it up to the owner to decide how to handle it.

 

I agree entirely. To take over from the owner without their involvement is just plain rude!

 

We had something happen recently at one of our hides, which is a well hidden nano. About a week ago, we got an e-mail from a local cacher who found a micro cache at the our site, but noted that there were no other signatures on the log. She knew that the cache had been found several times already and it seemed odd to her. Odd to us as well! We checked the cache, & sure enough, there was a micro placed not far from our nano.

 

We're not sure if this was intended as a "relacement" for what someone percieved as our missing cache (not missing- just well hidden! ), or if someone intended to hide a cache there, not realizing ours was there first, because it was listed as a member's only cache. We took the micro and contacted our reviewer to see if anyone had submitted a cache at that location. He had no submissions for that spot. We waited three days and then opened the cache to non premium members and posted a note saying if anyone placed the cache, that they should contact us & we would be happy to return it.

 

I'd like to think it was an honest mistake, and not that someone would be so pushy as to just "replace" our cache without contacting us first!

[+briansnat]

There is a term for it. It's called a throwdown cache. It's usually done by high numbers cachers who are so impressed by their own find count that they feel if they can't find the cache it simply must not be there.

 

And of course they can't walk away without a smiley, so they throw down a film canister with a slip of paper in it and go home to log a "find".

 

This practice sometimes results in two caches (and sometimes more) at the same spot because the original is still there.

[+GeoScooter1]

OK...now I am really TICKED OFF at this guy. I spend more time and gas today going back to find a cache he hijacked and then I go to find another cache (again I don't have the logs) but reading the cache description indicates that it is really easy. It is a 35mm film canister and pretty much in plain sight according to the cache page. I look and look and cannot find it so I leave to take care of other business, A friend who was there with me calls later and she finally finds it, but it is NOT a film cannister and not where indicated and she does have the logs and looks back and this freaking guy has replaced it and says you will probably need tweezers to get the log out. Just who the heck does this guy think he is? I wasn't going to use his cache name but now I will. COOLCACHE, QUIT REPLACING CACHES YOU DO NOT OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

Point the doofie to this thread for some gentle guidance from the ever loving and gentle forum crowd.

[+GeoScooter1]

Point the doofie to this thread for some gentle guidance from the ever loving and gentle forum crowd.

 

Oh...he thinks he is doing everyone a favor by this and can't understand why I am not happy because I mentioned it in the cache logs today. He sent me an email stating this and calling me a fool for complaining. He is doing the cache owner and all future cachers a favor by replacing caches that need maintenance or have been temporarily disabled. And yes...he is and that part is good. I just think he needs to contact the cache owner before he does it, especially so the cache owner can change any information that needs to be updated. Making a note in the logs will probably not work for most people.

[+Renegade Knight]

There is a way to do it and everone thanks you and a way to do it and piss everone off. It appears that there are a couple of nuances he needs to learn to move from being modly helpful, but also annoying at times to always Helpful.

[+welch]

This really isn't the way to deal with a cache that doesn't belong to you, is it?

Unless I misunderstand, techinally they didn't do anything to the 'cache' that didn't belong to them

But I do get your point, changing things is best coordinated with the owner. That way changes made in the field actually get put onto the webpage.

 

Actually, he replaced it with one of his own caches and moved it to a location he thought was less muggle friendly.

He picked up someone elses container, took it home and put out his own, then didn't bother telling/emailing anyone???

 

I took your first post to be that the person put out a new container because the orignal was, or at least they thought it was missing and replaced it!

There was a cache here that the owner hid some apprently hard to find micro (I have never done this cache, but is what I understand happend from the cache owner), it got DNF by several of the FTF hounds (though I think 1-2 did find). After a week or two of this the owner goes and checks the cache, and decides to move it a little ways make it easier to find. Meanwhile the same day another cacher visits and decides the cache must be missing since all visits that week have been DNF and replaces the micro. Of course since its still pretty new people are still periodically trying to find it, but now they start finding and signing the 'replacement' cache. That night when the owner gets around to posting they moved the cache and updating the coords finds they can't figure out how/why everyone can suddenly find it, and why the 'spoiler logs' keep dropping the wrong clues. The next day, the person that 'replaced' it finally gets to a computer and posts a find, and explains the cache seems to be missing so they replaced it for the owner... Well meaning, but somehow the owner wasn't happy that they now have to go retrieve the wrong replacement, and sort how who actually found the cache vs. found the 'replacment' and notify those people to change their finds to notes or be deleted. Can you image trying to explain, "yea I know you found a bison tube at the coords but that wasn't my cache. What you found was a replacement placed by a visitor for a cache that wasn't actually missing."

[+nekom]

The only case I can see where it would be appropriate to replace a container would be to replace a severely damaged one with an identical or at least reasonably similar new one in the same spot. Other than that, you're stepping on toes.

[+GeoScooter1]

This really isn't the way to deal with a cache that doesn't belong to you, is it?

Unless I misunderstand, techinally they didn't do anything to the 'cache' that didn't belong to them

But I do get your point, changing things is best coordinated with the owner. That way changes made in the field actually get put onto the webpage.

 

Actually, he replaced it with one of his own caches and moved it to a location he thought was less muggle friendly.

He picked up someone elses container, took it home and put out his own, then didn't bother telling/emailing anyone???

 

I took your first post to be that the person put out a new container because the orignal was, or at least they thought it was missing and replaced it!

There was a cache here that the owner hid some apprently hard to find micro (I have never done this cache, but is what I understand happend from the cache owner), it got DNF by several of the FTF hounds (though I think 1-2 did find). After a week or two of this the owner goes and checks the cache, and decides to move it a little ways make it easier to find. Meanwhile the same day another cacher visits and decides the cache must be missing since all visits that week have been DNF and replaces the micro. Of course since its still pretty new people are still periodically trying to find it, but now they start finding and signing the 'replacement' cache. That night when the owner gets around to posting they moved the cache and updating the coords finds they can't figure out how/why everyone can suddenly find it, and why the 'spoiler logs' keep dropping the wrong clues. The next day, the person that 'replaced' it finally gets to a computer and posts a find, and explains the cache seems to be missing so they replaced it for the owner... Well meaning, but somehow the owner wasn't happy that they now have to go retrieve the wrong replacement, and sort how who actually found the cache vs. found the 'replacment' and notify those people to change their finds to notes or be deleted. Can you image trying to explain, "yea I know you found a bison tube at the coords but that wasn't my cache. What you found was a replacement placed by a visitor for a cache that wasn't actually missing."

 

The short version is that the original owner "temporarily disabled" the microcache because it kept getting muggled. It was posted on the cache as such in late May, I think. In late July, the owner posts another note saying she is thinking about how best to replace it but it is still disabled. Then this other guy in town visiting or whatever, decides to replace the cache she has archived and he moves it 40' away, posts a new clue suggestion and coordinates in a note on the log. Other cachers who also must not use the logs when they cache go looking for it based on the original info and can't find it. DNFs are posted, the owner goes looking for it, not realizing it has been moved (she did see that it had been replaced) and couldn't find it and archives it. The guy who replaced it emails her with pics of where he placed it and what it looks like and then new coordinates. She renames the cache "Hijacked by_______" and posts the new info. I go back today and find it and post that I am not happy with the guy who moved it, etc and it all just went to heck after that. He asks the owner to change the cache name and removes his logs from it and other some other stuff.

[+welch]

... Then this other guy in town visiting or whatever, decides to replace the cache she has archived and he moves it 40' away, posts a new clue suggestion and coordinates in a note on the log. ...

yea I understand that they posted a note, but since it never made it onto the cache page it could have been written on the wall in the men's restroom for all the more it helps most cachers. IMO Most people do not have the ability to review all the old logs while at the cache site... What I mean is a week or two after they replaced the cache cache and posted the new info they should have checked that it actually got put on the page. I think they should emailed the owner from the start, but if not at that time, then later when they realize the info isn't getting transfered they should have. Posting a note and not looking back is like not telling anyone since after a few logs that note is going to fall out of 'common' view.

 

 

As for the owner of the cache in question, had it been my cache I would have left it archived and posted on the page that Xcacher was interested in placed a cache of their own in the area. Then emailed the person back and told them to list 'their' cache online (and also included whatever contact info I had if permission was needed in that area).

Fixing/replacing a cache can be a good thing, but just plopping out a new one near where an old one was and assuming that owner will take care of the cache is rude. Some would I am sure be happy to 'adopt', but changing the container, location, clue, etc is like giving someone a poodle puppy after their old golden retriever dies. Maybe they want a new dog, maybe not, maybe they do but hate poodles, you kinda need to know the person before showing up with one.

[Mag Magician]

Through all this, I seem to be missing a point. Was the original cache archived, or disabled?

[+GeoScooter1]

... Then this other guy in town visiting or whatever, decides to replace the cache she has archived and he moves it 40' away, posts a new clue suggestion and coordinates in a note on the log. ...

yea I understand that they posted a note, but since it never made it onto the cache page it could have been written on the wall in the men's restroom for all the more it helps most cachers. IMO Most people do not have the ability to review all the old logs while at the cache site... What I mean is a week or two after they replaced the cache cache and posted the new info they should have checked that it actually got put on the page. I think they should emailed the owner from the start, but if not at that time, then later when they realize the info isn't getting transfered they should have. Posting a note and not looking back is like not telling anyone since after a few logs that note is going to fall out of 'common' view.

 

 

As for the owner of the cache in question, had it been my cache I would have left it archived and posted on the page that Xcacher was interested in placed a cache of their own in the area. Then emailed the person back and told them to list 'their' cache online (and also included whatever contact info I had if permission was needed in that area).

Fixing/replacing a cache can be a good thing, but just plopping out a new one near where an old one was and assuming that owner will take care of the cache is rude. Some would I am sure be happy to 'adopt', but changing the container, location, clue, etc is like giving someone a poodle puppy after their old golden retriever dies. Maybe they want a new dog, maybe not, maybe they do but hate poodles, you kinda need to know the person before showing up with one.

 

I was emailed that I was an idiot and stupid for not using the logs and I got what I deserved. And since I only have a "whopping 50 finds I don't have any experience on any level". The owner was at first not upset about his replacing the cache, but later wasn't happy that it was moved that far away and now has nothing to do with what she originally named it and the intent of the cache. She noted that it was no longer one of her original caches.

[+GeoScooter1]

Through all this, I seem to be missing a point. Was the original cache archived, or disabled?

 

The owner had temporarily disabled it and had even posted a note in late July saying she was still trying to come up with something to put there so it wouldn't be muggled again.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The only case I can see where it would be appropriate to replace a container would be to replace a severely damaged one with an identical or at least reasonably similar new one in the same spot. Other than that, you're stepping on toes.

 

I agree with nekom! As Brian says this soundslike a throwdown by someone who could not find the cache.

Hey! If I'm still active, it's MY cache. I'll decide what to do with it! don't eve think of moving it to a 'less muggle' area. I put it there! That's where I want it to be!

[+GeoScooter1]

The only case I can see where it would be appropriate to replace a container would be to replace a severely damaged one with an identical or at least reasonably similar new one in the same spot. Other than that, you're stepping on toes.

 

I agree with nekom! As Brian says this soundslike a throwdown by someone who could not find the cache.

Hey! If I'm still active, it's MY cache. I'll decide what to do with it! don't eve think of moving it to a 'less muggle' area. I put it there! That's where I want it to be!

 

It is not a throw down. He thinks he is a Geo Cache Samaritan/Golden Ruler. I will not comment on this any further because the guy who did it is harassing me and and another cacher who commented on his replacing a cache that is not his. He has sent several emails calling that cacher an idiot and stupid, etc. His emails are being looked into by someone from the goecaching site. It has gotten out of hand.

[+TrailGators]

There is a way to do it and everone thanks you and a way to do it and piss everone off. It appears that there are a couple of nuances he needs to learn to move from being modly helpful, but also annoying at times to always Helpful.

This is exactly right. It all depends on the circumstances. We call the owner to verify the location of the cache. If it is missing we'll replace it on the owners behalf and they are very appreciative. They often return the favor.

[+simpjkee]

Wow, I would never move or replace someone elses cache unless their cache was damaged and I had the exact same container in my pocket just to help them out.

[+rnrgrl]

Simply speaking, it just seems that some geocachers out there just can't log a DNF. So what if you can't find it? It is not like you are going to be tarred and feathered or burnt at the stake..

[+GeoScooter1]

Simply speaking, it just seems that some geocachers out there just can't log a DNF. So what if you can't find it? It is not like you are going to be tarred and feathered or burnt at the stake..

 

OK...have to comment. This is not a matter of DNFs or throwdowns with this guy. He makes it his mission to go around the U.S. (yes, the whole country) replacing caches that might need maintenance, have been listed as MIA or in the case I am speaking about, listed as "temporarily disabled" by the owner. He states he has done the owner a big FAVOR by replacing her cache until she can get there to take care of it. He didn't ask her permission and he moved it to a "better" place which changed the coordinates and rendered her clue useless. He states that he is doing all future cachers a FAVOR by replacing caches that might otherwise be archived and not available to be found. This part may be true, but it is not up to him to do this. They are not his caches. He logs new coordinates and clues, but never follows up with the cache owner to see if the information on the cache page is changed to reflect his little log that most people don't end up seeing. This is what happened to me. I went to 2 different caches and had DNFs only to discover that he had moved the cache, changed the container and changed clue info. I do not use the logs when I cache and the logs were no longer on the 1st page anyway so I wouldn't have seen them. I was not happy about spending time and gas on the 2 caches and posted a log stating so. Another cacher later posted a log saying pretty much the same thing and now he has sent harassing emails to both of us.

 

This might give you an idea of this guy's personality. On the one cache that he moved and I later found, the log is tightly rolled up in some kind of shell casing...not sure of the caliber and on the outside of the casing he has taken the time to engrave it with this name and some other info!!!!!

[CoyoteRed]

This person blew through our area a few months back. He replaced two caches one of which is now archived as he moved it 120 feet to in front of the sheriff's office.

 

Not only is he placing throw-downs, but because the caches all seem to have a bit of trouble he's placing caches that might get abandoned right away. Remember, he's leaving caches before he contacts the owner. The owner is left with the responsibility of cleaning up his mess.

 

Additionally, it's not as if he's always replacing the cache in the exact same spot, but sometimes well outside the circle of error.

 

So, let's see: throw-down cache, vacation cache, not replacing the cache where he found it (was supposed to be), different size cache, isn't that enough? What's left is pretty much a completely different cache so he log a find.

 

There are plenty of things wrong with this practice and, if it had been done on any of our caches, his log would have been deleted without warning.

 

To top it off he goes around on a kick scooter then complains about the accommodations.

[+GeoScooter1]

"So, let's see: throw-down cache, vacation cache, not replacing the cache where he found it (was supposed to be), different size cache, isn't that enough? What's left is pretty much a completely different cache so he log a find."

 

However, he makes a big deal out of saying that he will NOT log a find to show that his motive is pure. I say how can you log a find for something that is not even there in the case of caches that are actually gone. And how can you log a find on a cache you have placed? If that is possible, every cache owner would be the FTF on their own cache.

Edited September 1, 2007 by GeoScooter1