I’m new here and I’m still learning some of the rules and/or caching etiquette stuff, but I’ll say that the person who left the Altoids container made a HUGE mistake.

Just because he/she was unable to locate the actual container is no reason to assume that the original one went missing and to create his/her own…even if he/she was trying to be “nice”. IMO it was wrong. Unfortunately, caching is kind of it’s own little world and there are no other examples in the world that I can think of to compare etitquette type stuff to.

I’m guessing that the person who placed the “replacement” container was a noob, who didn’t know the rules. He/she should have simply chalked it up as a DNF after several minutes, and should have been sure to log it that way, regardless of the circumstances.

Just as an example, I live here in Hartford, and we’ve had a lot of flooding of the Rubicon River that flows all the way through town. There are at least two caches that I know of along that river, and one has already been temporarily disabled by the owner due to the flooding. The other still might be there, but then again maybe not, since I don’t think anyone has logged it as a find since the flooding occured.

So do I go to that area, give it a decent chance, and then just leave another container if I can’t find it??? Of course not, because the original might very well still be there. As far as I’m concerned, if I can’t find it I’m still going to assume that the container is there…I just didn’t find it, and I’ll be sure to log it as a DNF. but for someone to place another container just because they’re too proud to log a DNF is ridiculous if you ask me.

I’ve never replaced someone else’s cache container…

Okay maybe there was this once where I went to a bogus puzzle coordinates site and alex made me do it…

-cheeto-

@Trudy & the beast wrote:

The rules of the game are quite clear,(…)
~tb

While I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with this one point. Most of the rules are “guidelines” including the .1 mile guideline.

Still… placing a new container to get another smiley even if there is almost no doubt the original is missing is just plain wrong. Would I delete the log? I couldn’t say until it happens to me.

I have a distinct feeling that the replacement was in part due to that cache being listed in the Lonely Cache Game.

I have replaced MIA caches, but only after confirming with the owners that the cache was actually gone first and only after getting permission to do so and a description of what the suspect cache was.

Lots of MIA caches have been replaced and put back into action this way over the last 6 months of the game. Ask Marc how many of his MIA caches have been replaced since January and then ask him if he thinks it a good idea. I know what his answer will be.

Sagasu and I have been playing the game hard and over the course of a half year have brought dozens of caches back from the dead, many of which have been logged MIA for months with no owner action. This is the TRUE intent of the game. To either get owners to archive missing caches or get them replaced and to that ends it has been quite successful.

That is not to say that an occasion does not arise when we make a mistake. I replaced an Ecorangers cache because I was dead certain it wasn’t there only to find out that Sagasu had replaced it the day before, right under my eyes.

For my part I always attempt to contact the owner of a suspect or troubled cache and get permission to fix it. 9 times out of ten the cache owner is VERY happy that I am taking the time out of my day to fix their cache.

So, if the intent of the “crazy antic” was to replace a suspected MIA cache and one of the LCG players did so without contacting you first, then they’ve learned their lesson, but their intent was not crazy. If it was just to get a smiley (which I very seriously doubt) then shame on them.

I will continue to play the Lonely Cache Game and seek permission to replace caches if indeed I can dialouge with the owners at GZ and confirm that a cache is gone.

“As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)”

If the owner doesn’t have the time or inclination to replace a MIA cache, the cache should be archived.

We’ve continued to play the LCG, even though there is absolutely no chance of us ever posting high number months, for the reasons s|s stated. In most cases, the caches are in very remote and beautiful spots, the same kind we like to hunt, anyway. Having just come off the DeLorme madness moments ahead of $4/gallon gas, we’re trying to plan with some mindfulness any trips now. Lonely Caches will be hunted if they fit into the plan.

Here’s my question on replacing caches……we’ve replaced three. Two were done with the owner’s blessing, contacting them ahead of replacement for specifics on container types and all that. One, the owner has never responded to emails, but it wasn’t out of our way and we’d found it previously, so we knew exactly what and where it should be, and it was kind of a cool spot. In that final example, since the owner seems to have left geocaching, never responded to emails offering to adopt it, maybe it should be archived instead of replaced for points? Thoughts?

@Trekkin’ and Birdin’ wrote:

Here’s my question on replacing caches……we’ve replaced three. Two were done with the owner’s blessing, contacting them ahead of replacement for specifics on container types and all that. One, the owner has never responded to emails, but it wasn’t out of our way and we’d found it previously, so we knew exactly what and where it should be, and it was kind of a cool spot. In that final example, since the owner seems to have left geocaching, never responded to emails offering to adopt it, maybe it should be archived instead of replaced for points? Thoughts?

This is how I would see it as well. It is OK, and even a good thing to do to replace a cache when you have contacted the owner and they OK it. I also think it is a good thing to replace a cache that is clearly gone, it has not been found for a long time, and by clicking on the owner’s profile you see they are not active in playing the game. And as S/S says, this is one of the beneficial aspects of the Lonely Cache Game.

But to Hemi’s original point, it is not cool to replace a cache like was done in the case of Barefoot Children in the Rain. I found that one not so long ago, and it was not a hard find at all. Given that it had recent finds, the cache owner is actively playing the game, and the folks who replaced it could not have looked long, it probably would have been better not to replace it, and just log the DNF. Just my opinion.

But it is just a game, so I guess I wouldnt let it raise my blood pressure too much. Just go, “Well, that was kinda uncool, but whatever,” and turn up the Buffett. 🙂

zuma