Sagefox

Yep. Helping new or unaware owners and finders learn not to post the tracking number is peer-to-peer training. Logging virtual (fake, false) discoveries is always done from the shadows - the posters know there is a bit of dark-sidedness involved.

I don't know the answer to this. In the early years the posting of the "SECRET" tracking number was always done in error by newbie trackable owners or newbie finders. I don't think it is safe to assume that a posted tracking number means the owner wants false discover logs posted. What is it on that side of the Atlantic that causes such a large number of people to want to log fake finds on trackables? The virtual logging of virtual caches around the world was also a hot European fad. You would LOVE surveying in the United States. We have loggable benchmarks!

Thanks for doing this. You probably don't realize how many people use this, but I've gotten several e-mails in the last 24 hours -- "is the bookmark list up yet?" -- so know that your work is appreciated by many. Yes, indeed. There would be no life without the your bookmark and the clever GSAK route numbering macro which allows us to rename the caches with the route number leading the name. Very cool.

What a great caching partner. Love that graying face.

To add another fun forest hazard to the list: Caching along the trail and coming from the last cache find before I decided to eat my Starbuck's snack-pack finger food lunch I met up with a very friendly dog who instantly filled my palm with viscus snot-slobber. It doesn't get any better than that! It made me think about this forum topic right there on the spot.

My wife and I have been opening moldy, mushy, swampy, yucky, grimy, mildewy containers since late 2001. And some are even worse than that! I used to worry about it a tad and I do have small bottles of hand sanitizer in the geobags. Sometimes I even remember to use the sanitizer before eating snacks while geocaching... but not always. I rarely get sick and when norovirus slammed our immediate family of nine in three generations four years back I and my 5-year-old granddaughter whom I took caching frequently at that time both escaped with only minor or no symptoms. Two weeks ago I warded off noro type symptoms which were brief and mild. That's about it for me over the past 14 years. Maybe a couple of colds. This could likely be due to a genetically strong immune system but it shows me that I have not been harmed by handling funky cache containers. We live in the Pacific coast wet zone and containers can get bad very quickly. When I first took my young grandkids geocaching I was concerned about exposing them to some bad germs and I wondered if some of the gifts should be cleaned at home before they could play with them. My son and daughter, both with science backgrounds and jobs, said they wanted their kids out rummaging around in the dirt to be exposed to a broader range of bacteria than our sanitized homes provide in order to boost their immune systems. I haven't seen any evidence in our family that geocaching has resulted in illness. Events are about the same as any other party, group gathering or shopping outings as far a disease transmission goes. Colds, flu and norovirus can spread anywhere people gather but the incidence is VERY LOW otherwise everyone would be constantly sick. Washing hands before eating at an event might be a good idea but I never seem to remember to do that.

At least a proxy is an actual physical object with a tracking number typically traveling around from cache to cache.

You might do better by posting this request in the UK/Ireland forum.

Using my own words from the rest of the paragraph you previously quoted from my post #112, "It will be weeded out eventually, just not the day I visit and decide to do something. Time will work it all out." What is the hurry? Do we have an obligation to hasten a cache's demise simply because we suspect (or even know) it is a failure at a basic level? Can you show me that there is any actual harm done in letting the cache live five finders longer?

I already told you what I would do in post #105. I don't think you read my posts in total based on your responses to them.

Sounds to me like you don't care if subsequent finders have an unpleasant experience, just as long as you get your smilie and the knowledge you put off its inevitable death a little longer. That is an oddly illogical take and it's curious to me why you chose that item out of the entire post. Because I did maintenance subsequent finders will have a better experience than I did, be it slightly better because of a new log or much better because I cleaned out the mess. I don't know why this point is so hard to get across. If all I was after was a smiley why would I even consider doing any maintenance?

I think this game is still more experimental than institutional. In this topic we are looking at essentially two different ways of handling caches found in need of maintenance other than ignoring them. (This is a separate condition from replacing a container that appears to be missing.) One premise is that if the cache needs a new log or other maintenance the finders should not do any work unless first contacting the owner and should post a Needs Maintenance log if they, the finders, don't correct the problem and that this procedure should be followed in nearly all cases. This more on the institutional side. The other is that some folks choose to do a bit maintenance on the spot usually without contacting anyone when the conditions seem to warrant an action. This is typically done, to coin a phrase often used in the forum old days, "in the spirit of geocaching". It's done on a case-by-case basis depending on several factors. This is more of an experimental approach because there is no set policy by the finders to take action or not or how often they will do so. NMs and NAs may, or may not be posted if this cacher does not do maintenance. These two methods will continue for as long as the game goes on because most geocachers don't read the forums and it certainly will never be resolved here anyway. Whenever this topic comes up many of us jump back in because it seems that the readers, new to the forums, should hear both sides and make their own decisions. I don't see anything wrong with either method and have done my share of both. In 14 years of geocaching I have posted over 60 NAs and all but a few were archived a short time later because the COs never responded. The key is in reading the situation and assuming what will happen next. When I do maintenance on a cache that I know is doomed I am not concerned about its future. It will be weeded out eventually, just not the day I visit and decide to do something. Time will work it all out.

Sometimes (I'm with you), but not usually. I love the hunt. I'm totally with you here. Writing and posting the logs too. Found Its, DNFs and Notes - I love 'em all. I bet you meant to have this on your list too. When we lived in Northern California I traveled with poison oak clothes or, at least, a second set, because I had to get into it almost every full-day geocaching trip. I loved the challenge and somehow never got the rash. But there are searches I don't particularly care for as others have mentioned. Needle in the haystack for no logical reason: Ivy hides, pokey juniper plantings, hedges and the like. With lame hides I often hear myself grumbling but I can't say that I don't like looking for caches, especially if you mean that you don't like looking for all caches in general. Nope. I still love this game.

Yes, one could search through the photos to find the worst possible if one wanted to make a case against the absent owner. If I had found the container in your posted photo I would have posted a NM. But here, someone chose to add regular sized container and took the time to make it nice. Not exactly a prop-up throw-down. It's held up well through one of our wettest falls on record and it is in a very nice location. The cache is now probably in the best condition it's ever been in. Here is a pic that actually represents the current condition. No, it shows that people care about this one particular cache and want to keep it alive. If the situation gets to be irresponsible in the future, likely inevitable, then NM/NA will take care of it but, for now, folks get to keep their archive cannons holstered and go on about the business of having fun caching.

No. It is a nice sized watertight squarish plastic jar, pretzels maybe, fully camo-taped, in great condition, seemingly replaced by someone other than the CO though it could be the CO. There is a photo of it on the cache page.

Why, just this weekend up pops another chance to help out. There are some responsibilities that go along with removing a temporary log.

It says 10/31/15 now. Ever log a traveling cache? Says 11/01/15 now. Souvenirs will not "disappear" without Groundspeak intervention. To have the souvenir removed, and the glitch reported, contact GS: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request B. No moving caches logged. Will write to gs. Thanks.

How did I happen to get a souvenir from Denmark on 11/1/15 when I've never been to Europe nor did I cache on 11/1? I'm pretty sure that was a program glitch and the badge will soon be off my page but it was funny to see it there.

This is actually a social game that you are playing with many other people, most of them fine folks, and they will sometimes do things that they think will help the game for the others who come along behind them and for the COs. That you would be irritated with someone else's act of kindness is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they didn't get it the way you wanted it to be but they thought they were improving the situation. I hope you would not write these comments to someone who does put W-I-T-R paper in one of your caches which, quite likely, could happen. They would presume they were improving the situation and would think that action would be welcome. Just how bad would their actions be? You would have had to go out there to fix the original problem anyway so going out to replace the WP paper would not cost you any extra effort.

You've read a lot into the original post. (And... this IS the OP you are replying to.) How did you determine they don't want to maintain their PT caches? It is not written in the opening post (original reply?) or his other two posts nor did I see any notes to that effect on the few cache pages I scanned. Reprimand? I sure didn't find that anywhere. Looking for "doesn't want to maintain those PT caches" from the opening post: "I try to do my best." Nope, that's not it. Nope. Not here either. He has a kit. Presumably he uses it for cache maintenance and is demonstrating to us what he thinks others should do. This is not a request that others should maintain his caches. Groundspeak also recommends that we have a maintenance kit. I believe this is a general comment about all caches. Quoting it out of context and putting a little spin on it might produce what you are looking for but it can't really be used to accuse him of wanting you to maintain his caches for him.

...you aren't really doing me the huge favor you think. Huge favor? No. I always think of it as a small contribution to the next few finders. If you found my dry logsheet then you received my small favor. Actually, we haven't gotten that far into the conversation yet. I am quite clear about which caches will return to the prior condition. I do this for the next finders and it works for them and I do it for the cache owner whether, or not, they care about their cache. Nobody thinks that just adding a log to a moldy cache fixes the problem.

I think people who don't maintain their caches are not inclined to care one way or another whether someone helps their caches. People who do care appreciate the break they just got on that particular cache. You never know, maybe this will help them become part of "the village" and do someone else a favor.

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction. Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too? If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha... You are missing the point. If I choose to do some quick fixes then the cache will be in good shape when I leave and finders will not end up dealing with what I found. Yes, it could turn bad again. Future finders can then fix, NM or ignore the problem as they see fit. I am at a loss to understand how any harm has been done as a result of my actions.