BryanX9X

HA HA HA good point, but no, nothing like that. The scenarios are more like, we are out with friends & we take them by to visit ones that we know are in the area & that are quick little grabs just to show them what it is like. You get there & you find the cache in the same horrible shape that it was in 6 months (or more) ago when we first logged it. Well like i said the container is getting full of the various pieces of paper, there is no room to put in a new log. I do not feel right taking the old log just to put a new one in. All of those sheets would just end up in the recycle. Besides, it is not our job to maintain someone else's cache. Helping out a little, alright. But if the log was full 6 months ago & the CO was made aware of it, i am not going to help out a second time around.

Both good to know & thanXX for letting me know. So just curious, not trying to start another huge war on here. (it seems like on here curiosity killed the cat because it sparked off the hot coals of some raging feud) Since the reviewers do not get the needs maintenance logs, one of the posts on here suggested that i e-mail the reviewers a copy of the needs maintenance log. Is that a good suggestion? Granted my thoughts were just to only do that only after the original needs maintenance log went unmaintained by the CO. Also just curious. I know that you said that since in the end people keep maintaining this cache for the CO, you can not really archive it for not having a log any longer. I get that. I just wonder if there is anything that could be done since the CO has openly stated that he does not care about cache maintenance. I ask because i have heard it a bunch of times from COs in the area. This same mentality of if you can find some piece of the original container then you can log it. A mentality of once they put the cache out there they don't care what happens to it. The other one that i will not get started on is the obvious lack of or questionable permission for placing a cache.

For the last time: I don't have a problem with the CO, aside from the lack of maintenance. I don't have a problem with this cache, aside from it needing maintenance. There is nothing personal about it, just a request for them to do their job. I have many other caches like this one & more COs like this one. If i find a cache that needs maintenance i will flag it. I will do what i can to assist, but flag it none the less. If i visit the cache again at a later point & it is still in need of maintenance i will flag it for needing to be archived. There is one cache that comes to mind that i have logged as needing maintenance because it's log book is so full & so old that it has burst it's binding. Cachers are just dropping scraps of paper into the container to log their find. The container is almost full of just scraps of paper. I have flagged it as needing to be archived. Not because it can not be found, but because it needs maintenance & the CO is not doing it. I am sure that most of these COs are well liked at events, my guess would be because most people found their cache when it was in good condition, & most people did not re-visit the cache again. Out of sight out of mind type of scenario.

As i have said already, i seem to have failed on expressing myself correctly on that one. I was not making any accusations or allegations of that nature. I was trying to say that i would hope that such things would not happen. I was not saying that they do or did happen.

NO! Not at all. I was trying to say that i would hope that that would NEVER happen. But it seems that i have failed in trying to express myself clearly enough. Sorry. =(

To be honest, i do not know how this has gotten so far out of hand or why so many people are getting the wrong impression, even with me restating it over & over. The purpose of this thread was to find out if there was another course of action, someone else to contact in regards to this problem. After the first 3 responses i got my answer. I was out of luck unless i wanted to try & contact GS directly. Their has been no direct obsession with this particular cache or with the CO. The only problem with the CO is that a large majority of his caches need maintenance & he refuses to do so. The original question was posed vague for a reason, because there are a number of caches that i have gone for that have been missing or in need of maintenance. A lot of those caches have not been archived or maintained, so i was curious as to what could be done about it. The only thoughts about the reviewers prior to this thread were that they must be busy if they have not looked into posts & e-mails that i sent out over a year ago. That is all no obsessions. That is good to know, thanXX. But in response to that, is it possible to have more than one reviewer for a particular state or area? I will admit, that i do not know the intricate details surrounding the various reviewers, or what it takes to become one. So your info is very helpful. The "groundless speculation" was just an honest response to the question posed, a proposition not a speculation. Not knowing the finer details of the reviewers history, or the rules regarding a reviewer's account, i would have to simply rely on logic & the information that i knew at the time. Are there multiple reviewers? I do not know. Can a reviewer have an account for reviewing & one for geocaching? I don't know. Can they have different account names? I do not know. Do they have to be linked to the same e-mail account? I don't know. Do i know the reviewer personally or have i ever met the reviewer? No. Do i know the CO personally or have i ever met the CO? No. So when asked if i had considered that the CO was also one of the ADMINs, i answered honestly based on the info that i had at the time, logic said that it was possible. I would hope that it was not probable, but it was possible. Please note though that my comments were from the mindset that i would hope that it were NOT true. I would hope that the reviewers/admins would stick to the rules, & that as you pointed out, that they would not have been a reviewer for so long if they had not done so. After re-reading my statement i can see where it could be taken another way, but it was not my intent. My intent was that yes it could be possible, but i would hope that it were not true. Again there were no allegations, just a simple hypothesis, a proposal of one possible way that things might have transpired. No allegations what so ever. I am sorry if you or any of the others took it that way. I in no way was saying that, that is what transpired, because i do not have all of the details. I am in no way accusing the reviewers of such acts, & i apologize if it has been seen otherwise.

+1

Don't worry i will & i hope that i will see your name among those that find it & log it!!

No offense but i disagree. Since i have been to this cache multiple times & on each occasion i have found it wet. Not to mention that i am not the only one who has made note of this log being wet. Yes the cache is hidden under something but that does not stop it from getting wet. Why would you care if the container is compromised? Really? So just because the ONE time the CO stopped by to take a look they found the log dry, you are going to just overlook the other numerous postings of where others have found the log wet? So the word of the CO holds more value than the word of the numerous cachers who have tried to be friendly & helpful & let the CO know that the cache needs TLC. How many wet log postings does it take before someone will say "Hey i think you might want to think about using another type of container for your caches" The CO himself noted that he is aware of the container's tendency to get broken, but he obviously does not care as he keeps buying more & putting them out there.

Needs maintenance tags only mean the owner didn't clear them by posting an Owner Maintenance tag. I know of many very well maintained caches that still have Needs Maintenance icons showing up. But as I pointed out above, this cache owner does seem to have a bit of a history of just letting his caches to until a reviewer eventually shuts them down. Not to be REALLY picky, but, if the CO goes out & does the maintenance on the cache but then does not post an Owner Maintenance, then in a way the CO has still failed. They did the cache maintenance, but they forgot the cache page maintenance, both of which are part of their jobs. But that is just being really picky, when it more than likely just boils down to forgetting to do step 2. But it does look negatively upon the CO, because how are you to know if anything has been done or not. It is like a cache that has 5 DNFs on it, someone posts a NM, now lets say the CO goes out & either replaces the cache or finds it in good health, if the CO never posts an OM then you don't know if you should go & hunt for it or not.

did it ever occur to you that maybe he is one of the ADMINs? To be honest, yes it did cross my mind. He might be an ADMIN or he might be a close friend of an ADMIN, who knows. It also gave me a shiver down my spine. If he were an ADMIN, then i would fear for the future of the game/sport. Since these ADMINs are supposed to uphold the rules. To have an ADMIN that refuses to do routine maintenance on their own caches. Honestly though (not knowing what the rules are for ADMINs) i do not think that an ADMIN should be able to review their own caches. Or their friend's caches for that matter. Not to say that an ADMIN can not be friends with other cachers, just that the reviews should be unbiased.

"Irkage" I can go with. I like that word. Having read through the cache page logs, I can empathise (or even empathize) with your irkage. I, too, would probably be verging on some degree of irkiness regarding this cache and the attitude of its owner. You have now done all you can. Step back quietly from this cache listing and tiptoe away, leaving it to its miserable, soggy existance. Maybe when you look for the listing again in 6 months time it'll have gone. MrsB ha ha ha yeah i'll send you an e-mail when the cache has a pretty little line through it & we can raise a glass to the end of this one little bit of irkage! =)

ThanXX PupPatrol, at least one other person knew what i was referencing. Now that this has gotten SO far off topic. No i was not implying anything with my statement. Just making a point. & i will consent that the "cache note" is optional, but recommended. Everything else aside. Back to the reason for the post. This CO refuses to maintain his caches. Am i upset about it? No, never was. This CO is rude & gives the sport/"game" a bad name. The problem is that i would hope that there would be something that we could do about it. After attempting to resolve things on four levels, i thought that i would see if there were any other avenues that i have not tried. That is all. No anger, no stress. Just a slight case of irkage maybe. =)

Well then maybe you would like to re-read the requirements as stated in the geocaching.com guidelines. Quoted straight out of these guides: So yeah, just as i stated, a cache MUST contain a logbook, & it MUST contain a "cache note" Not my rules. *shrugs*

Not sure if there is a abuse@ but i will give it a go. =) If not i'll just use the contact us page & see where they would like to direct me.

HA HA HA HA The CO has since deleted my posts for Needs Maintenance!! =) Maybe he knows that he has something to hide. Something he does not want people to see, does not want the ADMINs to see. Like the fact that his cache is BROKEN! HA HA HA too funny.

He actually deleted his post about douche baggins. He must have thought that he would get in trouble for that one. Guess he was not thinking about the GFYS one.

*ding ding ding* we have a winner! My thoughts exactly. This is the type of geocacher that you do not want in the game. This is the type of person that screws it up for everyone else.

The reason this would be a virtual, is because the CO refuses to maintain the cache. The CO does NOT care if there is a log or not. The CO only cares that the container is there in what ever condition it might be in & that people are still logging the finds. A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is. Without these two things, this is NOT a cache. So then it would be a virtual, or a waymark.

Well if you have not checked back you might want to. He is now rudely remarking to you! It is obvious that this CO has never read the rules or guidelines around what is required for a cache. Even though i had posted on his cache earlier the quote from the requirements that a cache must contain a log. & the CO's intelligence factor is openly shown by commenting that (in his opinion) a cache container does NOT need a lid.

Bells & Angels, yeah i have done a lot of this COs caches as well. I waited about a year for him to get around to replacing one that had gone missing. In that time the ADMINs did nothing again & the cache remained open & active. A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

The problem is that it has been posted as a candidate for archival three times now & nothing as yet has been done about it. =( (aside) whats wrong with cooking bacon in the nude? =)

Just because the CO is responding on the page does NOT mean that they are doing anything about their broken cache. Just because they post a log saying that they did maintenance does not mean that it really happened. The fact that the container is still broken & that people are still commenting that it is broken & that the log is wet, is proof of that. Yes posting a response is better than no response, but it does not mean that they are actively maintaining their caches.

I agree. While i do not mind adding a bit of paper or a new baggie to hold things over, so that others can enjoy the cache. It is NOT my responsibility to maintain their cache. & this type of CO should NOT be allowed to continue to think that this is an allowable behavior. That was the whole purpose for trying to get the ADMINs to step in & talk with the CO.

I am sorry if it seems like i am worked up about it. I'm not really that bothered by the cache or the CO, but i am just bothered by the seemingly lack of response by the ADMINs. But as it was pointed out earlier, they have been swamped. I was just curious if there were other levels of support. As for the lack of DNFs, my response to that is that this cache in the state that it is in is equivalent to just putting a Geocaching sticker at the GZ site. It is more of a benchmark or a waymark more than a cache. If you do not have a log to sign, then how is it a cache? & yes i know you were not saying that you agree with it. I am just saying, "where is the support". =)