A true example why not to place a Throw Down!

[+JPreto]

There is already a post regarding this absolute amazing First To Find (FTF):

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325436

 

But I think it is more than just a great find by being 12 years 1 month 3 days after the hide and among that period it was never found... at least the original container from the:

 

Puppet Theatre stash on the Mont Blanc

 

In July 2014 a geocacher said that, after talking with the owner, he was allowed to place a new container if I wasn´t hable to find the original cache. As the geocacher didn´t find the original cache, an excuse served to place a new container:

 

"I think Philipp killed the original box but we replaced it with permission."

 

The funny part is that a total of at least 4 geocachers attempted to find this cache and all posted DNFs. Why wouldn´t they just place a Throwdown and say the same:

 

"We placed a new box with the owner permit and we found it!!!"

 

What you expect in a situation like this:

 

"Congrats?!?!? Congrats on finding the cache you just placed?!?!?!"

 

Groundspeak is very clear on this subject and has a Help Center article on this matter:

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

So, in my interpretation, it´s pretty clear what Groundspeak expects from a Owner when a Throwdown is placed "Just go there and check if your cache is still there and remove the Throwdown" and what expect from a player about placing a Throwdown: "Just don´t do it!!!!"

 

This is just a great example why:

 

1) Never place a Throwdown even if you have permit of the owner because you don´t know the exact place of the geocache, you can be placing it in the wrong spot;

 

2) Even if many people can´t find the cache it doesn´t mean it´s not there, only the owner can confirm that;

 

3) Be righteous and respect the other players who like the find the original caches placed by the original owners, after all they are the actual owners the cache.

 

I know many don´t agree with my opinion and say there are cases that a Throwdown is acceptable... well, I really can´t relate with that because if you really think the cache is in a great place and the owner just doesn´t care about it, just let it be archived and place a new one there, that you can take care and be the rightful owner!

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Hey, we love throw downs around here.....I just got a note I threw down on one of my own caches.

[+JPreto]

Hey, we love throw downs around here.....I just got a note I threw down on one of my own caches.

 

I guess yo also like numbers! I also like them, but prefer them to be honest finds...

[+Manville Possum]

If it were not for TD's I would have to maintain my own geocaches. I'm a Premium Member and my caches are PMO, that is what I pay for.

[+allrounder]

Philipp has changed his log to a DNF

[+JPreto]

Philipp has changed his log to a DNF

And?!?!?!? Does this change the fact he placed a throwdown and logged a find when the actual cache was still there to be found?

 

I´m very glad that he corrected one of his mistakes but still wondering who will go there and recover the throwdown?!?!?!

[+Manville Possum]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

[+wmpastor]

Philipp has changed his log to a DNF

And?!?!?!? Does this change the fact he placed a throwdown and logged a find when the actual cache was still there to be found?

 

I´m very glad that he corrected one of his mistakes but still wondering who will go there and recover the throwdown?!?!?!

Agreed that throwdowns are bad, & that one of the problems is that there are then potentially two caches out there.

 

This highly-interesting Mont Blanc story has a couple of twists. The true FTF log notes problems with the original container (not surprising after 10 years in a harsh climate). The finder tells of how he patched it up - he didn't have a spare container like the throwdown guy. A NM log would be in order, but somehow doesn't seem fitting amidst the excitement. Surprisingly the true FTF did not see (& remove) the very recent throwdown.

 

In this case fortunately both the original container and throwdown are well-described, so a finder of the throwdown won't be misled & can remove it.

 

A minor side issue was how the cache contained food -- candy, chocolate & tea bags -- & could be said to promote the Estonian puppetry venue (a legendary arts center around since the 1950's).

[+wmpastor]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

The FTF removed the chocolate, tea & candy (see my post #7) but the cache has an agenda - promoting an Estonian puppetry venue. 'stone the reviewer!

[+JPreto]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

 

2002 guidelines or 2014 guidelines? Do you know the concept of "Grandfathered Geoaches"?

[+tozainamboku]

Philipp has changed his log to a DNF

And?!?!?!? Does this change the fact he placed a throwdown and logged a find when the actual cache was still there to be found?

 

I´m very glad that he corrected one of his mistakes but still wondering who will go there and recover the throwdown?!?!?!

Does it matter? You go find a cache on Mt. Blanc and have great fun doing it. It seems this was an adventure for all those who looked, whether or not they found cache and even whether or not they left a throwdown. And someone even got to claim FTF honors by finding the original container. I'm at a loss as to why anyone would get their knickers twisted over this cache.

 

Yes, we know JPreto does not like throwdowns. He has started more than enough threads on the subject. He seems to think that he can somehow stop throwdowns. He even finds some comment in the Groundspeak help center article that he wants to interpret as showing that Groundspeak is 100% opposed to throwdowns.

 

Whether or not Groundspeak (or maybe just some unnamed lackey) is opposed to throwdowns 100% of the time, what they have decided that it is the cache owner who is responsible for dealing with throwdowns. Once a cache owner is going to allow the throwdown, there isn't much JPreto can do. Perhaps the real issue it that teams from other countries shouldn't be allowed to place cache on difficult mountaineering routes where they are unlikely going to be able to do maintenance.

[+Manville Possum]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

 

2002 guidelines or 2014 guidelines? Do you know the concept of "Grandfathered Geoaches"?

Yeah, in Tennessee it is illegal by State Law to place a geocache in a cemetery. When Groundspeak became aware the what they were publishing was illegal, they "Grandfathered" those illegal caches. They are no less illegal, but GS will no longer publish them in adhearing to the State Law.

I know the concept of minding my own business and not worry about something as silly as my hobby of geocaching, but I agree that Phlippe should not have tossed a TD on this said geocache.

[+Manville Possum]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

The FTF removed the chocolate, tea & candy (see my post #7) but the cache has an agenda - promoting an Estonian puppetry venue. 'stone the reviewer!

Oh, my bad. Glad they removed that stuff, suppose a mud weasel ate it and got sick?

Leave the poor Elbonian reviewer alone, it's bad enough to have to live there.

[+JPreto]

I'm at a loss as to why anyone would get their knickers twisted over this cache.

Great that you think this way!!!!

 

So you can now stop counter-posting whenever I say that I am against a Throwdown... This way your knickers won´t get twisted since clearly, I don´t mind twisting mines!!!!

[+allrounder]

Philipp has changed his log to a DNF

And?!?!?!? Does this change the fact he placed a throwdown and logged a find when the actual cache was still there to be found?

 

I´m very glad that he corrected one of his mistakes but still wondering who will go there and recover the throwdown?!?!?!

 

I was just pointing out that, despite the journey, Philipp is obviously not about the numbers and, no, it doesn't change the fact that he placed a throwdown.

 

However if the cache owner allowed the throwdown, as appears to be the case, then it is the cache owner's responsibility to sort the issue out (as you pointed out earlier in this thread).

 

If you feel so strongly about this matter, why don't you go get it?

[cezanne]

1) Never place a Throwdown even if you have permit of the owner because you don´t know the exact place of the geocache, you can be placing it in the wrong spot;

 

Could happen to the cache owner as well after a couple of years.

 

2) Even if many people can´t find the cache it doesn´t mean it´s not there, only the owner can confirm that;

 

Not necessarily. Caches move. It happened to me several times that I believed a cache that I have found previously was gone. I pass some caches often and whereever I look for them, they are at different places.

I have encountered many cases where the cache owner placed a new container and then ended up with more than one.

 

I know many don´t agree with my opinion and say there are cases that a Throwdown is acceptable... well, I really can´t relate with that because if you really think the cache is in a great place and the owner just doesn´t care about it, just let it be archived and place a new one there, that you can take care and be the rightful owner!

 

For caches high up on mountains this will rarely happen. Hardly any cacher will be climbing for example the Grossglockner or the Mont Blanc regularly. It's a completely different thing to place a container once on your tour then to take care of it regularly. I'm not in favour of throwdowns and would not leave one, however in case of caches that are very remote and have a hideout which is easy to identify and where finding the cache is not the intended challenge, I think it is ok to place a replacement container in accordance with the cache owner (then I do not regard it as a throwdown by the way - for a throwdown it is necessary that the cache owners did not provide their ok). The case brought up by you is special due to the find situation. If the cache before had 30 finds before it disappeared, I would not have any issues with a replacement container placed in accordance with the cache owner.

 

With strict rules like the ones you would prefer there would hardly exist caches in very remote places. When climbing up a high mountain, it is nice however to be able to log a cache (I would not even say to search for a cache as the preferred mode in such locations of most cachers is to find the cache instantly via hints, photos or whatever and not to waste time with searching that when might not be available on the long way back.)

 

 

Cezanne

[+wmpastor]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

The FTF removed the chocolate, tea & candy (see my post #7) but the cache has an agenda - promoting an Estonian puppetry venue. 'stone the reviewer!

Oh, my bad. Glad they removed that stuff, suppose a mud weasel ate it and got sick?

Leave the poor Elbonian reviewer alone, it's bad enough to have to live there.

Sorry to report that you're going to have to say "oh, my bad" one more time.

 

Weasels are carnivores - they don't like chocolate or candy!

 

And just so I get my geography straight - is Elbonia half way between Albania and Estonia?

[+J Grouchy]

I gotta say, I don't really approve of throwdowns in ANY instance. If someone can't find it, the CO needs to be the one to replace it. If they honestly cannot replace their own cache, they can't maintain it and therefore really ought to adopt it out or archive it.

 

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

 

So far I've only had one instance where a person left a throwdown, but at least he left a 'note' log instead of a 'found it'. My original container was actually still there where I'd put it, so I went over and grabbed the throwdown and ended up using it elsewhere.

Edited August 25, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+sbell111]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

 

2002 guidelines or 2014 guidelines? Do you know the concept of "Grandfathered Geoaches"?

Yeah, in Tennessee it is illegal by State Law to place a geocache in a cemetery. When Groundspeak became aware the what they were publishing was illegal, they "Grandfathered" those illegal caches. They are no less illegal, but GS will no longer publish them in adhearing to the State Law.

I know the concept of minding my own business and not worry about something as silly as my hobby of geocaching, but I agree that Phlippe should not have tossed a TD on this said geocache.

Another thread would be better for this conversation, but if you think about how the law is written TPTB's actions seem appropriate. The law is a huge over reach and is written so broadly that I doubt that any cache seeker should be concerned about it very much. It basically states that no one can play a game or amusement in a cemetery.

 

TPTB's response to it was not to allow future cemetery caches and to immediately archive any that are complained about.

Edited August 25, 2014 by sbell111

[+JPreto]

With strict rules like the ones you would prefer there would hardly exist caches in very remote places. When climbing up a high mountain, it is nice however to be able to log a cache (I would not even say to search for a cache as the preferred mode in such locations of most cachers is to find the cache instantly via hints, photos or whatever and not to waste time with searching that when might not be available on the long way back.)

Here you clearly show, for me, that numbers are more important than the game itself.

 

So, for what I interpret from your words is that geocachers are excluded from doing maintenance of their own caches if they are placed in remote places?

 

And another thing, if you climb a mountain for the mountain for the pleasure of it you will never be upset by not finding a cache, just log a DNF and climb another, or the same mountain another day. If you climb the mountain for the geocaching you will be more obsessed about finding one, to the point of placing a box just to say FOUND IT!!!

[cezanne]

If they honestly cannot replace their own cache, they can't maintain it and therefore really ought to adopt it out or archive it.

 

The cache has been hidden in 2002. When they had not allowed caches hidden by people living farther away, geocaching would not exist by now in most regions in Europe.

 

Moreover, for caches at locations like the Mont Blanc there should be a bit more leeway. Noone can guarantee to be able to visit such a cache within a short period of time or on

regular basis. Many people even if they are locals visit such places once or twice in their life time. It is nice however to have geocaches at such locations too and

it is not such an issue if finders help with maintaining such caches. If all such caches get archived or never hidden, it's a real pity for those who would like to add a geocaching component to

an amazing trip.

[+JPreto]

I was just pointing out that, despite the journey, Philipp is obviously not about the numbers and, no, it doesn't change the fact that he placed a throwdown.

Great that he isn´t about the numbers, it sure looks like it! But if that was true he would have placed a note and never a FOUND IT! for something he actually didn´t found, he just placed there.

[+sbell111]

I gotta say, I don't really approve of throwdowns in ANY instance. If someone can't find it, the CO needs to be the one to replace it. If they honestly cannot replace their own cache, they can't maintain it and therefore really ought to adopt it out or archive it.

I strongly disagree with this. It has always been the norm that a cache owner can assign some maintenance duties to be performed by others on his behalf. 'Throwdowns' with permission of the cache owner is, therefore, owner maintenance. If that maintenance ends up requiring the cache to need additional maintenance (because the original cache was still in place or the replacement was defective) then the owner needs to make a maintenance visit or arrange for someone else to.

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

It isn't much different, but either way it doesn't matter. The cache owner is the arbiter of whether it is a find. If he's good with it, why in the world should I care? Edited August 25, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I was just pointing out that, despite the journey, Philipp is obviously not about the numbers and, no, it doesn't change the fact that he placed a throwdown.

Great that he isn´t about the numbers, it sure looks like it! But if that was true he would have placed a note and never a FOUND IT! for something he actually didn´t found, he just placed there.

He climbed a mountain to find a single cache. That's not a hallmark of someone who is trying to rack up a big score.

 

That being said, logging a find on a throwdown is like collecting $500 for landing on Free Parking. It is simply a part of the game for many people, even though it is not in the rules. Whether something like that is a 'find' or not completely depends on the cache owner's judgement.

[+JPreto]

He climbed a mountain to find a single cache. That's not a hallmark of someone who is trying to rack up a big score.

I also climbed mountains... not that high but high for Brazil. 5 hours up and 3 hours down, in the middle of the jungle (the problem is not the temperature but the animals can literally kill you) does not allow me to make a find. In some cases I posted a DNF and a Needs Archive directly because the CO was absent from the game!

[+J Grouchy]

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

It isn't much different, but either way it doesn't matter. The cache owner is the arbiter of whether it is a find. If he's good with it, why in the world should I care?

 

I never said otherwise. Only what is okay for me personally. If I was made aware that someone tried to put a throwdown for one of my own caches then claimed a find, I would delete it. They didn't find my cache. Simple as that.

[cezanne]

I never said otherwise. Only what is okay for me personally. If I was made aware that someone tried to put a throwdown for one of my own caches then claimed a find, I would delete it. They didn't find my cache. Simple as that.

 

I think that it makes a difference whether someone places a throwdown without asking the cache owner (a no-go in my opinion) or whether the cache finder arranges with the owner to leave a new container and gets the permission to log a find from the owner. In the end, it also helps the cache owner if he gets help in maintaining the cache and it is not the ultimate solution to simply archive all caches at remote locations where the owner cannot get to soon. Noone really wins in that case.

 

I've seen many caches that were hidden on a team hike where the members of the team who are not owning the cache logged a find even though they were present while the cache was hidden and clearly say so in their logs.

I would not do that, but I somehow can understand the logic behind. Often these are caches at locations one visits only once.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

He climbed a mountain to find a single cache. That's not a hallmark of someone who is trying to rack up a big score.

I also climbed mountains... not that high but high for Brazil. 5 hours up and 3 hours down, in the middle of the jungle (the problem is not the temperature but the animals can literally kill you) does not allow me to make a find. In some cases I posted a DNF and a Needs Archive directly because the CO was absent from the game!

Your post didnt seem to have much to do with mine. In fact, it really just supports my point that mountain climbing is not an efficient way to ratchet up the old find count.

 

It also doesn't change the fact that whether replacing a cache should count as a find, or not, is completely up to the cache owner.

Edited August 25, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

It isn't much different, but either way it doesn't matter. The cache owner is the arbiter of whether it is a find. If he's good with it, why in the world should I care?

 

I never said otherwise. Only what is okay for me personally. If I was made aware that someone tried to put a throwdown for one of my own caches then claimed a find, I would delete it. They didn't find my cache. Simple as that.

That is a completely appropriate attitude to have for yourself as both a cache seeker and a cache owner. When you ascribe your beliefs onto other cache owners, however, as you seem to do in your earlier post, it becomes less appropriate.

[+J Grouchy]

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

It isn't much different, but either way it doesn't matter. The cache owner is the arbiter of whether it is a find. If he's good with it, why in the world should I care?

 

I never said otherwise. Only what is okay for me personally. If I was made aware that someone tried to put a throwdown for one of my own caches then claimed a find, I would delete it. They didn't find my cache. Simple as that.

That is a completely appropriate attitude to have for yourself as both a cache seeker and a cache owner. When you ascribe your beliefs onto other cache owners, however, as you seem to do in your earlier post, it becomes less appropriate.

 

I honestly did no such thing. I'm perfectly free to say what I believe OUGHT to be done, but I would never try to tell people what they NEED to do unless asked. It's what the forums are for...voicing opinions and sharing info. It's a ridiculous notion that I am "ascribing [my] beliefs onto other cache owners".

Edited August 25, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+sbell111]

[snip]

Edited August 25, 2014 by sbell111

[4wheelin_fool]

I gotta say, I don't really approve of throwdowns in ANY instance. If someone can't find it, the CO needs to be the one to replace it. If they honestly cannot replace their own cache, they can't maintain it and therefore really ought to adopt it out or archive it.

I strongly disagree with this. It has always been the norm that a cache owner can assign some maintenance duties to be performed by others on his behalf. 'Throwdowns' with permission of the cache owner is, therefore, owner maintenance. If that maintenance ends up requiring the cache to need additional maintenance (because the original cache was still in place or the replacement was defective) then the owner needs to make a maintenance visit or arrange for someone else to.

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

It isn't much different, but either way it doesn't matter. The cache owner is the arbiter of whether it is a find. If he's good with it, why in the world should I care?

 

For proper geo-etiquette the cache owner should send the page to the throwdowner through the adoption feature. Next, the throwdowner posts an Owner Maintenance log, and sends it back to them. Silly, yes, but it makes it official.

[+Manville Possum]

Oh no it can not be! That cache contains matches and candy, those items are prohibited!! The cache MUST be archive immeadiatly to preserve the integerty of geocaching. We all must play exactly by the guidelines. :laughing:

The FTF removed the chocolate, tea & candy (see my post #7) but the cache has an agenda - promoting an Estonian puppetry venue. 'stone the reviewer!

Oh, my bad. Glad they removed that stuff, suppose a mud weasel ate it and got sick?

Leave the poor Elbonian reviewer alone, it's bad enough to have to live there.

Sorry to report that you're going to have to say "oh, my bad" one more time.

 

Weasels are carnivores - they don't like chocolate or candy!

 

And just so I get my geography straight - is Elbonia half way between Albania and Estonia?

 

Oh, my bad again. What about pigs? There are pigs in Elbonia, but I don't think candy or tea would make them sick. Matches may upset their tummy, or give them bad gas, IDK.

 

The Republic of Elbonia is somewhere in Eastern Europe, I never been there.

But I am concerned about mud weasels, pigs, and geocaches there. The guidelines here are World Law.

[+sbell111]

I gotta say, I don't really approve of throwdowns in ANY instance. If someone can't find it, the CO needs to be the one to replace it. If they honestly cannot replace their own cache, they can't maintain it and therefore really ought to adopt it out or archive it.

I strongly disagree with this. It has always been the norm that a cache owner can assign some maintenance duties to be performed by others on his behalf. 'Throwdowns' with permission of the cache owner is, therefore, owner maintenance. If that maintenance ends up requiring the cache to need additional maintenance (because the original cache was still in place or the replacement was defective) then the owner needs to make a maintenance visit or arrange for someone else to.

I especially don't agree that a person ought to be able to "find" it if they are the ones that put it there! How is that any different than the CO claiming a find on their own cache?

It isn't much different, but either way it doesn't matter. The cache owner is the arbiter of whether it is a find. If he's good with it, why in the world should I care?

 

For proper geo-etiquette the cache owner should send the page to the throwdowner through the adoption feature. Next, the throwdowner posts an Owner Maintenance log, and sends it back to them. Silly, yes, but it makes it official.

That sure is silly.

 

Luckily, I don't see it as a breach in 'geo-etiquette' for one person to do a bit of maintenance for another. Certainly, if I dry out a log I don't expect to have to temporarily adopt the cache.

[+Inmountains]

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance

Doesn't this also mean that the geocache owner can DELEGATE cache maintenance to someone else? I have several Geocaches in Colorado, some that are very popular, but I moved to California. I always appreciate any help I can get if there is a problem. While I get back about once a year, if there is a wet log or a missing container, I ask a local cacher to fix it. I do not know who came up with the term "throwdown" but it is derogatory. When I replace a cache, nearly every time it is with a much better container and a waterproof log sheet. And I don't just replace a cache because I can't find it. I have found three caches this year that had not been found in over two years, I know the difference between a cache being difficult and a cache being muggled. My record is eight trips to a cache to actually find it, so I don't give up easily. But in urban caches, between the urban campers, the gardners, the kids and whoever else might be passing by, a muggled cache is as common as a piece of litter. Here is another scenario. I have already found a cache and I am visiting the area again and find the cache is now MISSING. So I replace it, write a note on the cache page that it was missing and I replaced it and for the CO to let me know if it was OK. So my assisting my fellow cacher is doing a "throwdown?" I like to think of it as more of a "hand up" or a "pick up" to assist the CO.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm at a loss as to why anyone would get their knickers twisted over this cache.

Great that you think this way!!!!

 

So you can now stop counter-posting whenever I say that I am against a Throwdown... This way your knickers won´t get twisted since clearly, I don´t mind twisting mines!!!!

By definition the idiom "getting your knickers in a twist" means that it is something that you do mind.

 

I have "gotten my knickers in a twist" over throwdowns, but only because I've been forced to deal with throwdowns on my own caches. My initial reaction in every case has been that I wish the person had not left the throwdown to begin with. Once it is there is where I have to make decisions that are not as east for me to make as they might be for you.

 

Someone who is puritanical about the use of the found log would certainly have no problem in telling someone who left a throwdown that they really have DNF and they can't log a find. I pesonally care little that some segment of the geocaching community had decided that replacement of a missing cache deserves a find. More correctly, I've learned not to care because there would be too many people who I count as friends who do this and it just isn't something I'm going to lose friends over.

 

So my problem is how to communicate that if someone is going to replace one of my caches that they get permission first. My attitude is that an unsolicited throwdown, especially by someone who had not found the cache before is an insult to the cache owner. It says "Your cache is a generic cache." I'm pretty sure that people who leave throwdowns don't view all caches as generic caches. However they seem to view most caches this way. If a cache goes missing, they reason the best thing to do is to leave a replacement so that others can have a cache to find. At least with permission I have a chance to provide a spoiler hint to help assure the cache is really missing and instructions as to what kind of replacement is acceptable.

 

Often the replacements that have been left on my caches are ones that after the fact I would find acceptable. Still I don't like the fact that someone took it on themselves to decide that I'm going to approve of what the left. And when I've objected to what someone has left, it has resulted in ill fealings that I could reject what they considered a selfless act (while they seem to have expected a find they will deny this).

 

My knickers are twisted because I haven't found a way to change the attitudes of those who believe that throwdowns are the right thing to do. Even Groundspeak writing a help center article doesn't help. It may contain a phase that implies throwdowns are bad, but I not sure there is a way to state this so that it is unequivocal. There are just too many cache owners who more than happy when someones helps maintenacce, as well those cases where the owner is MIA and there is no other way to maintain the caches, that such a rule could ever be enforced. The current policy of leaving it up to a cache owner seems the best approach. Though it's little help for me since I have to decide on case by case basis if the throwdown is acceptable. (Much less of chance of getting one's knickers in a twist if your are either puritan or anything-goes type).

 

For proper geo-etiquette the cache owner should send the page to the throwdowner through the adoption feature. Next, the throwdowner posts an Owner Maintenance log, and sends it back to them. Silly, yes, but it makes it official.

In one case, I got an email from someone who left a throwdown asking perimission to log a find. When I responded that I didn't like throwdowns I got another email accusing me of being ungrateful and leaving him with a cache he could now never log a find on. I should have archived the cache on the spot - what I now tend to do in these cases. Instead I replied that if he felt so compelled to maintain other people's caches he should adopt it. So he adopted the cache - and then immediately proceeded to log his find.

Edited August 25, 2014 by tozainamboku

[Mr.Yuck]

This whole thread makes us in the anti-throwdown faction look like a bunch of live and die by the rules radicals. And I am a card carrying member of the anti-throwdown faction. The guy who threw down here graciously changed his log to a DNF. And he originally threw down with prior consent of the CO. This has actually become commonplace with remote, never found caches. Lets not equate this to say the Power Couple in my area with 30,000+ finds apiece who throw down every single time they can't find the cache. And in their particular case, every log is copy and paste, so there is no indication that a cache was ever thrown down. Unless you happen to be on site, and find a micro which has their names first on the log.

[Clan Riffster]

Where I would argue with Groundspeak is on their definition of a throwdown. True, it's just semantics, but still. I feel if I have the owner's explicit permission to replace a cache they believe to be missing, my replacement is not a throwdown. It's a replacement. Groundspeak may see them as being one and the same, but I do not. Either way though, logging a "Found It!" would be inappropriate, since I 'found it' in my backpack.

[+frinklabs]

Where I would argue with Groundspeak is on their definition of a throwdown. True, it's just semantics, but still. I feel if I have the owner's explicit permission to replace a cache they believe to be missing, my replacement is not a throwdown. It's a replacement. Groundspeak may see them as being one and the same, but I do not. Either way though, logging a "Found It!" would be inappropriate, since I 'found it' in my backpack.

 

Your replacement is not a throwdown if you have been in communication with the CO. They can tell you where and how it was hidden so you can duplicate as close as possible the intentions of the CO.

 

Question: would you log a Found It on a CO-sanctioned container you replaced, if it was a challenge cache whose requirements you had met? It is a grey area because the Found It has double meaning in this context (but it doesn't have to).

[+Harry Dolphin]

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance

Here is another scenario. I have already found a cache and I am visiting the area again and find the cache is now MISSING. So I replace it, write a note on the cache page that it was missing and I replaced it and for the CO to let me know if it was OK. So my assisting my fellow cacher is doing a "throwdown?" I like to think of it as more of a "hand up" or a "pick up" to assist the CO.

 

That is definitely a 'throwdown'.

[+wmpastor]

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance

Here is another scenario. I have already found a cache and I am visiting the area again and find the cache is now MISSING. So I replace it, write a note on the cache page that it was missing and I replaced it and for the CO to let me know if it was OK. So my assisting my fellow cacher is doing a "throwdown?" I like to think of it as more of a "hand up" or a "pick up" to assist the CO.

 

That is definitely a 'throwdown'.

As has already been noted, throwdown is not an official term - it is a pejorative colloquial term.

 

If the speaker believes that a replacement (the neutral, non-judgmental term) conforms with the rules of the game as he or she understands them, then he/she calls it a replacement. Otherwise, he/she calls it a throwdown, with a very slight snarl in the voice and a very slightly raised left eyebrow.

[Mr.Yuck]

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance

Here is another scenario. I have already found a cache and I am visiting the area again and find the cache is now MISSING. So I replace it, write a note on the cache page that it was missing and I replaced it and for the CO to let me know if it was OK. So my assisting my fellow cacher is doing a "throwdown?" I like to think of it as more of a "hand up" or a "pick up" to assist the CO.

 

That is definitely a 'throwdown'.

As has already been noted, throwdown is not an official term - it is a pejorative colloquial term.

 

If the speaker believes that a replacement (the neutral, non-judgmental term) conforms with the rules of the game as he or she understands them, then he/she calls it a replacement. Otherwise, he/she calls it a throwdown, with a very slight snarl in the voice and a very slightly raised left eyebrow.

 

Well, I suspect the Groundspeak Help Center articles are largely written by one person, but there is documented evidence of them being called throwdowns in an offical capacity via this article.

 

By the way, my favorite term used by the replacement crowd is "angel cache".

[Clan Riffster]

Blah, blah, blah...

 

Question: would you log a Found It on a CO-sanctioned container you replaced, if it was a challenge cache whose requirements you had met?

Only if I were feeling particularly snarky, and wanted to poke fun at a friend. I might make a "Found It!" log describing the challenge of locating an ammo can in my backpack, then delete it later once the CO got their chuckle. But as a serious find? Personally, no, I would not. I didn't find it, by my definitions.

[cezanne]

But as a serious find? Personally, no, I would not. I didn't find it, by my definitions.

 

Another question: Would you be willing to help the cache owner who cannot go and replace a cache on a high summit you are going to visit only once in your life time (of course under the assumption that the replacement action has been arranged with the owner)? Suppose you could schedule your visit and could alternatively try to wait until the cache gets replaced by someone else.

 

I'm not a fan of "found it" logs in case someone left a replacement container or was present at the process of hiding a cache, but on the other hand there are definitely caches where the description says everything about the cache or where the hideout is evident and no search whatsoever is necessary so that the term finding makes no sense anyway.

 

I do not have the slightest issues to log a find if I happen to read the hint in advance and for example know that the cache is at the summit cross at height 1m. Of course the individual logging styles differ, but I wonder whether it is really that much different when someone places a replacement container at a clearly defined location and logs a find. The real idea of caches like the cache at the Mont Blanc is any way to go there and not the search for a container. At such locations a search should not be necessary or very short.

[+JPreto]

But as a serious find? Personally, no, I would not. I didn't find it, by my definitions.

 

Another question: Would you be willing to help the cache owner who cannot go and replace a cache on a high summit you are going to visit only once in your life time (of course under the assumption that the replacement action has been arranged with the owner)? Suppose you could schedule your visit and could alternatively try to wait until the cache gets replaced by someone else.

This question is not addressed to me but this is a Forum... I will answer it with my opinion.

 

NO!!!!!! If the owner can´t maintain it the cache shouldn´t be there! Simple and those are the guidelines of the game...

[cezanne]

NO!!!!!! If the owner can´t maintain it the cache shouldn´t be there! Simple and those are the guidelines of the game...

 

So regardless of the location this raises another question: Are you in favour of archiving a cache that needs to be fixed and where the cache owner is temporarily unable (could be half a year or even longer, for example to health issues) to fix the cache? I'm not a fan of vacation caches and they are not any longer published anyway without a reliable maintenance plan. However, there are many cases where a cache owner needs to rely on help by others to fix a cache and cannot do it themselves. I'm against archiving all such caches - in many cases this leaves geolitter and I I regard geolitter as the much larger issue than if someone logs a find with the consent of the cache owner for a cache he/she replaced.

 

As caches on high summits are concerned. No one can seriously promise to be able to maintain them as promptly and in the same way than caches at easily reachable places. It would mean the end of such caches and I do not think that it harms the game if each visitor of such caches contributes to the maintainence of the caches. I prefer to have caches at such locations to no caches at all (which is the only alternative). It were a pity if the best locations were cacheless to end up with mainly boring caches at drive-in location.

 

 

Cezanne

[+JPreto]

NO!!!!!! If the owner can´t maintain it the cache shouldn´t be there! Simple and those are the guidelines of the game...

 

So regardless of the location this raises another question: Are you in favour of archiving a cache that needs to be fixed and where the cache owner is temporarily unable (could be half a year or even longer, for example to health issues) to fix the cache?

 

There are 2 separate issues you are presenting:

 

1) Caches located in hard to reach and sometimes impossible.

2) The CO is unable to temporarily maintain the cache.

 

In the 1st case there is even a Attribute for this case, Seasonal caches. The cache that I give as example in the original post is, for me, a good example of that, a seasonal cache. Sometimes you can get it, sometimes you can´t, it´s all up to the weather conditions and nature. Be your own judge! So, if the CO says: "Sorry but I can only check the cache in 7 months because winter time is here and I can´t reach it", the cache should be disabled until he can do proper maintenance of the cache, when the climate or nature conditions allow. No need to archive.

 

In the 2nd case the CO, because of heath reasons or just because he is building a new one and it takes time is unable to rapidly maintain the cache, can´t do a fast maintenance of the cache. First, like in all cases that the CO verifies that there can be a problem with the cache, it must be disabled. If the CO is sick and can´t do it and a NM log goes to the process NM-D-NA done by reviewers but if the CO disables and explains that he can only verify or replace the cache in x months because of x reasons the cache can be disabled for a longer period.

 

As explained on the Help Center article:

A listing which is disabled for an extended period may be archived by a reviewer, unless there is some explanation on the listing. If you decide not to replace a missing geocache, please archive the listing.

 

These are all my opinions and my interpretations of the guidelines... Just that!

Edited August 26, 2014 by JPreto

[+gpicard]

If the current cache owner is no longer willing or able to maintain their cache the cache could go up for adoption rather than be archived.

[+sbell111]

But as a serious find? Personally, no, I would not. I didn't find it, by my definitions.

 

Another question: Would you be willing to help the cache owner who cannot go and replace a cache on a high summit you are going to visit only once in your life time (of course under the assumption that the replacement action has been arranged with the owner)? Suppose you could schedule your visit and could alternatively try to wait until the cache gets replaced by someone else.

This question is not addressed to me but this is a Forum... I will answer it with my opinion.

 

NO!!!!!! If the owner can´t maintain it the cache shouldn´t be there! Simple and those are the guidelines of the game...

TPTB recognize that some caches will be placed in locations where the cache owner will never be able to do maintenance on them. The typical resolution is that a local (player or nonplayer) has agreed to maintain the cache. However, that agreement is not always necessary. Sometimes, largely because of the extraordinary cache location, it has been accepted that future cache seekers can do the maintenance.

 

link

Edited August 26, 2014 by sbell111

[cezanne]

There are 2 separate issues you are presenting:

 

Of course. That's why I brought this up separately.

 

In the 1st case there is even a Attribute for this case, Seasonal caches. The cache that I give as example in the original post is, for me, a good example of that, a seasonal cache. Sometimes you can get it, sometimes you can´t, it´s all up to the weather conditions and nature. Be your own judge! So, if the CO says: "Sorry but I can only check the cache in 7 months because winter time is here and I can´t reach it", the cache should be disabled until he can do proper maintenance of the cache, when the climate or nature conditions allow. No need to archive.

 

I did not refer to seasonal access. Even in Summer time it is unrealistic that someone will climb a mountain like the Mont Blanc regularly.

 

In the 2nd case the CO, because of heath reasons or just because he is building a new one and it takes time is unable to rapidly maintain the cache, can´t do a fast maintenance of the cache. First, like in all cases that the CO verifies that there can be a problem with the cache, it must be disabled. If the CO is sick and can´t do it and a NM log goes to the process NM-D-NA done by reviewers but if the CO disables and explains that he can only verify or replace the cache in x months because of x reasons the cache can be disabled for a longer period.

 

It makes much more sense for me as a CO to send someone reliable for fixing the cache instead of having everyone else wait for six or months until I would again be physically able to maintain the cache myself. I have already used this approach myself and had no issue with it at all.

 

It goes without saying that one disables a cache that needs to be fixed as soon as one gets to know the problem. When I mentioned the possibility of archival I did not mean archival by a reviewer, but archival by the CO because people like yourself do not accept maintenance by someone else which I regard as pretty stubborn.

As others have said before Groundspeak has no rule that the owner has to be present at the maintenance action in person. What counts is that caches are properly maintained in the sense of the owner.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 26, 2014 by cezanne