Confused?

[JKK1997]

Just read the latest newsletter and am baffled:

 

About 4 hours from Geocaching HQ in Seattle, sitting atop Liberty Bell Mountain is Tensegrity on Liberty (GC1G5BY), the oldest unfound geocache in Washington State. The reason it remains unfound? It’s a Difficulty 5, Terrain 5 geocache that requires a long hike, a scramble and 400 feet of fifth-class technical climbing.

 

In our new video, Geocaching HQ’er Derek, along with a muggle friend, attempts to be the FTF and earn the new Geocaching Road Trip ‘15 Let’s Get Extreme souvenir. You’ll probably recognize him from some of our other videos, but outside of (trying to) act and writing things for Geocaching.com, Derek is an avid rock climber. Watch the new video to see if they make it.

 

A throwdown by one, an FTF by his partner and a feature in the newsletter?

[Keystone]

A replacement cache isn't a "throwdown" when it is placed with the advance permission of the cache owner -- which was mentioned in the video.

 

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

The newsletter feature is designed to promote the latest Geocaching Road Trip theme (finding a D5 or T5 cache).

 

None of that baffles me.

 

The only thing that baffled me was their trying to rely on cell reception in such a remote location. I would have brought a "real" GPS on such an epic trip.

[+narcissa]

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

Just to be clear, the assertion here is that the person who arranges to replace the cache on behalf of the cache owner is never allowed to log the find? Wow.

[+cheech gang]

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

Just to be clear, the assertion here is that the person who arranges to replace the cache on behalf of the cache owner is never allowed to log the find? Wow.

 

an opinion that it is "bad form" = "never allowed"? I believe there is more than a subtle difference.

Edited July 23, 2015 by cheech gang

[+BAMBOOZLE]

A replacement cache isn't a "throwdown" when it is placed with the advance permission of the cache owner -- which was mentioned in the video.

 

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

The newsletter feature is designed to promote the latest Geocaching Road Trip theme (finding a D5 or T5 cache).

 

None of that baffles me.

 

The only thing that baffled me was their trying to rely on cell reception in such a remote location. I would have brought a "real" GPS on such an epic trip.

 

+1 on not having a GPS, hard to believe ( I would have brought at least two )

[+cheech gang]

A throwdown by one, an FTF by his partner and a feature in the newsletter?

 

There is no evidence that the FTF was by his partner.

 

The two gents on the "replacement" mission were bearded.

According to the posted photos of the two different gents on the next day's FTF climb they were without beards.

There may or may not be some connection between the four, but that would be speculation.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A throwdown by one, an FTF by his partner and a feature in the newsletter?

 

The cache was rated 5 starts for difficulty. Assuming that it was accurately rated, it should have been very difficult to find the container after climbing up to GZ. How long did they search before dropping a "replacement" cache?

Edited July 23, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[+Team Microdot]

I haven't watched the video yet but from the description above I'd think Groundspeak were advocating throwdowns too.

[+cheech gang]

I haven't watched the video yet but from the description above I'd think Groundspeak were advocating throwdowns too.

 

Yet Keystone profers that since the replacement was given permission by the owner it does not fit the "definition" of a throwdown.

 

It sounds like Groundspeak does not endorse unrequested replacements, but dispatching a cache replacement team is okay...

[+cerberus1]

A throwdown by one, an FTF by his partner and a feature in the newsletter?

Unusual that in little more than a week you know what a throwdown is, and understand the FTF sidegame .

Now go find some caches yourself.

Edited July 23, 2015 by cerberus1

[+narcissa]

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

Just to be clear, the assertion here is that the person who arranges to replace the cache on behalf of the cache owner is never allowed to log the find? Wow.

 

an opinion that it is "bad form" = "never allowed"? I believe there is more than a subtle difference.

 

So, cacher A agrees to replace the cache on behalf of cacher B, who can't make it out to replace it themselves.

 

Cacher A goes with cacher C to replace the cache. Cacher A doesn't log the find, but cacher C does.

 

Is cacher A ever permitted to log the find? Would a separate, second trip make it okay, or would it still be "bad form" to log the cache? Does cacher A have to wait for cacher B to replace it again? When is it okay for cacher A to log this find?

[RuideAlmeida]

... but dispatching a cache replacement team is okay...

 

What will be more correct?

Contacting the owner days before you try to search for a given cache or contacting him after you reach the GZ?

The main point is: With authorization from the owner it is OK, without any previous authorization it is just a throwdown. Can't be simpler.

[+Mudfrog]

A throwdown by one, an FTF by his partner and a feature in the newsletter?

 

The cache was rated 5 starts for difficulty. Assuming that it was accurately rated, it should have been very difficult to find the container after climbing up to GZ. How long did they search before dropping a "replacement" cache?

 

It's a cache that's supposedly unfound so i'm not sure why, i as finder, would automatically think the cache might be missing in the first place. The 5 difficulty tells me that it was hidden well so a nice long search is probably in order. On top of that, their search was hampered even more if they did in fact, rely solely on phones. I just cannot fathom anyone trying for a cache like this without use of a dedicated, more rugged, handheld gpsr. I figure there's a good chance there are two caches up there now.

[+Team Microdot]

The main point is: With authorization from the owner it is OK, without any previous authorization it is just a throwdown. Can't be simpler.

 

Yep - can't be any simpler - guaranteed find

 

DNF's are for losers

 

oops - typo

Edited July 23, 2015 by Team Microdot

[RuideAlmeida]

guaranteed find

 

The geocacher that replaced it, logged a DNF, so...

[+Mudfrog]

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

Just to be clear, the assertion here is that the person who arranges to replace the cache on behalf of the cache owner is never allowed to log the find? Wow.

 

an opinion that it is "bad form" = "never allowed"? I believe there is more than a subtle difference.

 

So, cacher A agrees to replace the cache on behalf of cacher B, who can't make it out to replace it themselves.

 

Cacher A goes with cacher C to replace the cache. Cacher A doesn't log the find, but cacher C does.

 

Is cacher A ever permitted to log the find? Would a separate, second trip make it okay, or would it still be "bad form" to log the cache? Does cacher A have to wait for cacher B to replace it again? When is it okay for cacher A to log this find?

 

Cacher A can do what he wants, as long as the CO goes along with it.

 

I myself would just forget about it (yes, i've been down this road already). Whether it's my own cache or one i replaced for someone else, it's one that i placed and one that i think would be silly to claim as found.

[+lumbricus]

By the way, I like the video! Well done Derek (and the team).

[+redsox_mark]

My view:

 

1. Yes, replacing a missing container with the owner's permission is allowed. The policy says "Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner". Which implies that it is OK with the permission of the owner. Yes, there is a risk that the original actually was there and they could not find it. (Though that can happen even with the owner, I know I've returned later and have been unable to find my own cache).

 

2. I think geocaches should either be 1) owned by me, 2) found by me, or 3) be available to be found by me (assuming I am able to). For that reason I personally don't agree that logging a "found it" when replacing a cache is a bad thing. I understand the logic of "you can't find something if you know where it is".. but I don't like the logic of a cache which have had in my hands but I'm not allowed to log as found. I find it even stranger logic that if 2 people (A and B ) go together, and A brings the replacement cache, it is bad form for A to log it found but OK for B.

Edited July 23, 2015 by redsox_mark

[+narcissa]

It does appear like the other geocacher logged a find on the replacement cache, whereas Derek logged a DNF. It's bad form to log a find on your own replacement cache, but reasonable minds can differ about others who were part of the group.

 

Just to be clear, the assertion here is that the person who arranges to replace the cache on behalf of the cache owner is never allowed to log the find? Wow.

 

an opinion that it is "bad form" = "never allowed"? I believe there is more than a subtle difference.

 

So, cacher A agrees to replace the cache on behalf of cacher B, who can't make it out to replace it themselves.

 

Cacher A goes with cacher C to replace the cache. Cacher A doesn't log the find, but cacher C does.

 

Is cacher A ever permitted to log the find? Would a separate, second trip make it okay, or would it still be "bad form" to log the cache? Does cacher A have to wait for cacher B to replace it again? When is it okay for cacher A to log this find?

 

Cacher A can do what he wants, as long as the CO goes along with it.

 

I myself would just forget about it (yes, i've been down this road already). Whether it's my own cache or one i replaced for someone else, it's one that i placed and one that i think would be silly to claim as found.

 

What you decide for your own logs is not the point.

 

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

[+cheech gang]

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

 

Is it remotely possible that what seems "obviously ridiculous" to you may not be ridiculous at all to somebody else.

[+narcissa]

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

 

Is it remotely possible that what seems "obviously ridiculous" to you may not be ridiculous at all to somebody else.

 

It is remotely possible that other geocachers take a highly punitive and severe approach to dealing with other geocachers, yes.

[+cheech gang]

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

 

Is it remotely possible that what seems "obviously ridiculous" to you may not be ridiculous at all to somebody else.

 

It is remotely possible that other geocachers take a highly punitive and severe approach to dealing with other geocachers, yes.

 

This is another area where reasonable may differ.

 

[AN ASIDE] Although not directly germane to this offshoot of the discussion, I personally would likely take the "bad form" option and log a smiley for a replacement I make with permission. Hasn't happened yet... [/AN ASIDE]

[+narcissa]

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

 

Is it remotely possible that what seems "obviously ridiculous" to you may not be ridiculous at all to somebody else.

 

It is remotely possible that other geocachers take a highly punitive and severe approach to dealing with other geocachers, yes.

 

This is another area where reasonable may differ.

 

[AN ASIDE] Although not directly germane to this offshoot of the discussion, I personally would likely take the "bad form" option and log a smiley for a replacement I make with permission. Hasn't happened yet... [/AN ASIDE]

 

It doesn't make any sense.

 

Cache owner: Hey, heard you were planning to visit my SUPER EXTREME CACHE. I think it might be missing. Would you mind bringing a replacement just in case?

 

Cache finder: Sure, no problem. I'm heading up there this weekend. I'll let you know what happens. Is a medium lock n' lock okay? I have a few on hand.

 

Cache owner. Sounds great, I appreciate the effort, and to thank you for helping me out, I FORBID YOU FROM LOGGING THE FIND FOREVER. IT'S BAD FORM.

[+Derek]

Hello everyone! Considering I'm the one in the video, I can probably answer a few questions for you:

 

– I did bring a GPS. If you'll notice in the dialog, I say that I have the app open because my GPS is on the fritz. For whatever reason, my GPSr decided to freeze up at the summit. My only the other option was to use the app.

 

– I got permission from the CO to replace the container if I couldn't find it. I spent quite a bit of time on the summit searching and following the instructions in the cache description. Like I said in the video, we search under every small ledge next to a patch of grass and even some small ledges that didn't have a patch of grass. I am confident that it is no longer there. The weather in the North Cascades is quite brutal and ever-changing, not to mention that the geology is also constantly in flux. Perhaps the ledge it was under fell down and covered it—or opened up and swallowed it. All of these are reasonable conclusions after 7 years of being up there.

 

– That being said, after replacing the container, I still logged the DNF. My friend who was with me (who, as stated in the video is not a geocacher), doesn't have an account, so he didn't log it. The climbers who found the replacement container were not a part of our group.

 

– I offered to replace the container, the CO didn't ask me to.

 

– The CO said I could log it if I wanted to. However, I don't really care if I get to log it or not. While some folks would be upset that they don't get the find, the stats or the supposed glory of a 5/5, that's not why I climbed it. Climbing to the summit was awesome enough.

 

– Haters gonna hate.

[+narcissa]

Hello everyone! Considering I'm the one in the video, I can probably answer a few questions for you:

 

– I did bring a GPS. If you'll notice in the dialog, I say that I have the app open because my GPS is on the fritz. For whatever reason, my GPSr decided to freeze up at the summit. My only the other option was to use the app.

 

– I got permission from the CO to replace the container if I couldn't find it. I spent quite a bit of time on the summit searching and following the instructions in the cache description. Like I said in the video, we search under every small ledge next to a patch of grass and even some small ledges that didn't have a patch of grass. I am confident that it is no longer there. The weather in the North Cascades is quite brutal and ever-changing, not to mention that the geology is also constantly in flux. Perhaps the ledge it was under fell down and covered it—or opened up and swallowed it. All of these are reasonable conclusions after 7 years of being up there.

 

– That being said, after replacing the container, I still logged the DNF. My friend who was with me (who, as stated in the video is not a geocacher), doesn't have an account, so he didn't log it. The climbers who found the replacement container were not a part of our group.

 

– I offered to replace the container, the CO didn't ask me to.

 

– The CO said I could log it if I wanted to. However, I don't really care if I get to log it or not. While some folks would be upset that they don't get the find, the stats or the supposed glory of a 5/5, that's not why I climbed it. Climbing to the summit was awesome enough.

 

– Haters gonna hate.

 

I don't think anyone is upset if you actually chose not to log the find.

 

It's someone else's top-down assertion that it's "bad form" that is problematic here. It should be a choice on the part of the finder, and that choice shouldn't be influenced by unfair, judgmental assertions about "bad form."

[+wmpastor]

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

 

Is it remotely possible that what seems "obviously ridiculous" to you may not be ridiculous at all to somebody else.

 

From this thread we already know there are different views and they're strongly felt. The person replacing the cache "did the work" of researching the cache location, etc., then getting to GZ and placing the replacement exactly where and how the CO told him to. It does seem every bit the equivalent to a find, but yet since it's not identical it could be debated until doomsday. Especially where there is huge effort involved (like T5, D5 or both), it seems fair to grant a find.

 

Distant analogy, but in some fields where continuing education is required, you can get credit for "attending" a course that you teach. Naturally, by the strictest logic you're not "taking" a course that you teach....

[+J Grouchy]

So the person who logged a find was with the group that went up? Seems to me that everyone in the group is pretty much responsible for replacing it; therefore, if the person who placed the new container logged a DNF, everyone else that was there with him ought to do the same, no? I mean, it seems like the replacement cache was basically a collective effort, therefore a collective DNF of the original container...? I'd probably be kind of annoyed if I - with the owner's permission - replaced a cache with a friend tagging along, then my friend decided to create a new account and log the find after I DNF the original. I don't think I'd really protest, but he certainly would get teased about it!

[+Derek]

So the person who logged a find was with the group that went up? Seems to me that everyone in the group is pretty much responsible for replacing it; therefore, if the person who placed the new container logged a DNF, everyone else that was there with him ought to do the same, no? I mean, it seems like the replacement cache was basically a collective effort, therefore a collective DNF of the original container...? I'd probably be kind of annoyed if I - with the owner's permission - replaced a cache with a friend tagging along, then my friend decided to create a new account and log the find after I DNF the original. I don't think I'd really protest, but he certainly would get teased about it!

 

Please read my post above. Third bullet.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Derek

[+narcissa]

It is obviously ridiculous to have another person help with maintenance on a terrain 5 cache and then tell them that they can never, ever log it as found.

 

Is it remotely possible that what seems "obviously ridiculous" to you may not be ridiculous at all to somebody else.

 

From this thread we already know there are different views and they're strongly felt. The person replacing the cache "did the work" of researching the cache location, etc., then getting to GZ and placing the replacement exactly where and how the CO told him to. It does seem every bit the equivalent to a find, but yet since it's not identical it could be debated until doomsday. Especially where there is huge effort involved (like T5, D5 or both), it seems fair to grant a find.

 

Distant analogy, but in some fields where continuing education is required, you can get credit for "attending" a course that you teach. Naturally, by the strictest logic you're not "taking" a course that you teach....

 

Apparently the cache owner was willing to "grant" a find. The finder chose not to. No problem.

 

But when a third party chimes in to assert that it's "bad form" to log that find, that's problematic.

[+dprovan]

It's someone else's top-down assertion that it's "bad form" that is problematic here. It should be a choice on the part of the finder, and that choice shouldn't be influenced by unfair, judgmental assertions about "bad form."

Meh. I do think it's bad form, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't likely do it myself, and I'd definitely expect anyone else to do it. Derek sounds like a pretty cool guy to resist that temptation.

 

Furthermore, the final decision would be the CO's: since his cache wasn't found, it's within his rights to reject the find. On the other hand, it's within his rights to allow and even encourage the find in appreciation of the replacement.

 

Bottom line, though: the group the next day surely appreciated the effort.

[+J Grouchy]

So the person who logged a find was with the group that went up? Seems to me that everyone in the group is pretty much responsible for replacing it; therefore, if the person who placed the new container logged a DNF, everyone else that was there with him ought to do the same, no? I mean, it seems like the replacement cache was basically a collective effort, therefore a collective DNF of the original container...? I'd probably be kind of annoyed if I - with the owner's permission - replaced a cache with a friend tagging along, then my friend decided to create a new account and log the find after I DNF the original. I don't think I'd really protest, but he certainly would get teased about it!

 

Please read my post above. Third bullet.

 

D'oh! That's what I get for not reading every post!

[+narcissa]

It's someone else's top-down assertion that it's "bad form" that is problematic here. It should be a choice on the part of the finder, and that choice shouldn't be influenced by unfair, judgmental assertions about "bad form."

Meh. I do think it's bad form, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't likely do it myself, and I'd definitely expect anyone else to do it. Derek sounds like a pretty cool guy to resist that temptation.

 

Furthermore, the final decision would be the CO's: since his cache wasn't found, it's within his rights to reject the find. On the other hand, it's within his rights to allow and even encourage the find in appreciation of the replacement.

 

Bottom line, though: the group the next day surely appreciated the effort.

 

Why would you choose to do something if you think it's bad form? That doesn't make sense.

[+geodarts]

While I do not believe in throwdowns, I have logged finds on caches that I have replaced with the owner's permission. And cachers have logged finds on a few of mine that they replaced with my permission. But if you think it's bad form, then you should not do it. It makes it simple. And it avoids getting into that situation about twisted knickers that is often quoted in these forums.

Edited July 23, 2015 by geodarts

[+Dame Deco]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

[+L0ne.R]

I haven't watched the video yet but from the description above I'd think Groundspeak were advocating throwdowns too.

 

Yep. They did it here too: http://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/11/116-geocaches-an-hour-and-aliens/

and here they advocate containerless (pseudo-virtual) caches if the cache keeps disappearing: http://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/01/beyond-here-lay-dragons-gch52c-geocache-of-the-week-january-17-2013/

[+narcissa]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

 

It's common for geocachers to help each other with maintenance. I don't see why the age or previous finds are relevant. A cache is a cache.

[+Dame Deco]

It's just kind of lame.

[+L0ne.R]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

 

This. ^^^

[+J Grouchy]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

 

It's common for geocachers to help each other with maintenance. I don't see why the age or previous finds are relevant. A cache is a cache.

 

There's kind of a difference between "maintenance" and "placing a brand new container because the old one couldn't be found".

To me, maintenance is cleaning, repairing or replacing a damaged or messy or otherwise inadequate container.

 

But I guess as long as the person who replaced it didn't claim the find, it's the next best thing to actual maintenance.

[+L0ne.R]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

 

It's common for geocachers to help each other with maintenance. I don't see why the age or previous finds are relevant. A cache is a cache.

 

It encourages set-it-and-forget-get cache ownership. It discourages people posting NAs because a cache is of a certain age. It's a lie. The oldest unfound cache in Washington State is not actually there. Like saying "Washington slept here" but the originally house was burned in a fire 200 years ago and this one has been rebuilt (except for the foundation) a couple of times.

[cezanne]

Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous

 

I do not agree and I do not think that the cache has been rated as D=5* because it was hidden in a difficult manner, but rather due to the difficulty of getting there. For such caches it normally is about reaching the location and the experience on the way and not about playing a hide and seek game. I do not think that the story makes the hobby look ridiculous. All those powertrails make the hobby look much more ridiculous in my opinion.

[+narcissa]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

 

It's common for geocachers to help each other with maintenance. I don't see why the age or previous finds are relevant. A cache is a cache.

 

It encourages set-it-and-forget-get cache ownership. It discourages people posting NAs because a cache is of a certain age. It's a lie. The oldest unfound cache in Washington State is not actually there. Like saying "Washington slept here" but the originally house was burned in a fire 200 years ago and this one has been rebuilt (except for the foundation) a couple of times.

 

But the cache owner didn't forget about it. The cache owner made arrangements to have it maintained.

 

If we're going with ridiculous, irrelevant similes, it's like saying "Washington slept here" but the original sign marking the house got knocked down by some pesky kids but the guy who originally made the sign was busy and so his buddy fixed it up instead.

 

And you people think the sign should be removed forever and replaced with an entirely different sign in the same spot because the original guy wasn't available to fix the one that he made.

[+Dame Deco]

The fact that it was never found is what's bugging me--replacing something that was never found seems really silly. The guy who replaced it should just create a new listing--the old CO might have been willing to archive his.

[+narcissa]

The fact that it was never found is what's bugging me--replacing something that was never found seems really silly. The guy who replaced it should just create a new listing--the old CO might have been willing to archive his.

 

Why? By this logic, any cache that ever goes missing should be archived instead of replaced.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous

I do not agree and I do not think that the cache has been rated as D=5* because it was hidden in a difficult manner, but rather due to the difficulty of getting there. For such caches it normally is about reaching the location and the experience on the way and not about playing a hide and seek game.

 

Thank makes one wonder what the T rating is for. Care to explain please?

[+Dame Deco]

Narcissa--in many cases, works for me! Archiving old caches so we can have new ones is not evil, especially if it's because the owner themselves isn't maintaining it.

[cezanne]

Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous

I do not agree and I do not think that the cache has been rated as D=5* because it was hidden in a difficult manner, but rather due to the difficulty of getting there. For such caches it normally is about reaching the location and the experience on the way and not about playing a hide and seek game.

 

Thank makes one wonder what the T rating is for. Care to explain please?

 

The rating has not done by me. However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

[cezanne]

Thank makes one wonder what the T rating is for. Care to explain please?

 

The rating has not done by me. However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

Edited July 23, 2015 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

Oldest unfound cache in Washington State? And it's missing? Archive the sucker! With or without permission, I would label the replacement cache as a throw down. The guy that hiked up there to replace it should just ask the CO to archive the old one and put his new one up there as a new listing. Replacing something that was never found so that the next group to come along can now say they have a find on a historic, hard to find cache just seems wrong--very against the spirit of geocaching. The whole story makes the hobby look ridiculous. Anything for a lonely cache 5/5 smiley, eh? I understand the replacement guy didn't log it--another group who came late logged it. The whole story still seems really, really silly to me.

 

It's common for geocachers to help each other with maintenance. I don't see why the age or previous finds are relevant. A cache is a cache.

 

It encourages set-it-and-forget-get cache ownership. It discourages people posting NAs because a cache is of a certain age. It's a lie. The oldest unfound cache in Washington State is not actually there. Like saying "Washington slept here" but the originally house was burned in a fire 200 years ago and this one has been rebuilt (except for the foundation) a couple of times.

 

But the cache owner didn't forget about it. The cache owner made arrangements to have it maintained.

 

 

It encourages set-it-and-never-intend -to-maintain-it-yourself behaviour -- wait for someone to come along and offer to throw down a cache.

Edited July 23, 2015 by L0ne.R

[Keystone]

Thank makes one wonder what the T rating is for. Care to explain please?

 

The rating has not done by me. However, it is quite unfortunate that special skills and tools are mentioned in both the explanation of the D and the T rating and this yields to many caches that are rated high on both T and D even when the major challenge does come from reaching the cache.

That was true last week, but it's no longer the case due to the recent clarification to the Difficulty / Terrain ratings. In any event, ratings aren't "policed", with limited exceptions not relevant here.