Team Smokey

Read the forums.

We live on the east coast and could have sworn we heard someone shout ""Hay, what's that?!"". Forget assault rifles, I hope the US doesn't get invaded by enemies with lawn mowers.

Whenever I come across a cache that has specific logging requirements, I think to myself whether or not I want to comply with them. If I feel that I don't, I'll just skip that cache. There are thousands more instead. But if it looks like an interesting cache or might make a nice hike (still not wanting to adhere to their logging requirements), nothing's stopping me from finding the cache, signing the log and logging it online. If the owner deletes it, fine - I didn't abide by their requirements. Doesn't mean I didn't have a nice hike.

We personally don't have any caches on our property, but if you're going to place a cache on your property that would look like private property to Joe Cacher, you should probably say on your cache page that it is on private property but that you have permission to hide it there. I think, in general, cachers respect private property and would not enter unless they knew it was OK. You don't necessarily have to admit that it's where YOU live.

We must be doing something wrong. 9.8 is our closest.

Interesting that he screws it up right in the third paragraph. There are only three rules to the game: You take something from the cache. You leave something in its place. You record the visit in the enclosed log book. [site] see link to the actual post in the OP [/site] I didn't know one of the rules was "I take something from the cache." I always thought that IF I took something, THEN I leave something. Can't I just leave something? Edit: thought Electa was a woman, not positive and don't want to assume, changing to anonymous "he".

I agree, it put him in a no win situation. Not sure that even if he had found the cache that it would have made a difference. If someone is heck bent on thinking your suspicious, nothing's going to change their mind. Especially an ammo can that the mystery person just supposedly "found" [church lady] how conveeeenient [/church lady]. That's why I think the cache hider did the smart thing by changing the counting stages and doesn't put his fellow cacher in that situation.

P.S. If that's one of the most ridiculious statements you have ever read in the forums then you just don't have enough of a posting history. Did you really say that briansnat's 19000 posts aren't enough of a history? Sorry - OT.

I agree with you whole heartedly that a SBA be used very sparingly. Contact the cache owner first if you think there is a problem with their cache. See what they have to say before causing a commotion. As far as the NM log goes, why would this be taken as a slap in the face? All regular caches are going to need maintenance sooner or later. I know that a maintenance issue can be stated in the "found" or "dnf" log but it's still not a big deal if a "needs maintenance" log comes in. And for the record, we had a NM log come in on one of our caches after hurricane Rita went through last year. It worked the way it was supposed to do and got my attention quickly. Oh, and it certainly didn't offend me in any way. Amen. I don't see how saying - "hey cacher - your cache needs a new log" is a slap in the face. I'm glad the majority of you all think the NM logs are helpful and useful.

I understand what you are saying, but do you realize that is exactly what a pedophile would say too? (I assume)

Ummmm.......did you stop to think that maybe CCCooperAgency paid a maintenance visit and fixed the problem? If someone posted a NM on one of my caches, that is exactly what I would do - fix the problem and either delete the NM or change it to a find. Ummmm........did you ever think that the next cacher who found the cache said the log was full too? Ummmm........if she is such a great on the ball person with geocaching, why did she not clear the needs maintenance attribute after doing the maintenance?

Wow, what a response. I was really just looking for direction. Thanks mtn-man for clearing it up. I guess I wrongly assumed that the local reviewers use the "needs maintenance" logs. I just expected that the local reviewers would not allow caches to continue when they have not been maintained properly as per Groundspeak's guidelines. This seems to be true, but needs to be done via the SBA log. So I guess if a cache owner doesn't maintain the cache, it can continue to exist, no matter how horribly maintained, until someone submits the SBA log. Thanks for the clarification. At least this kept a few of us occupied today.

I'm glad you changed your cache. I don't like doing playground caches and would have a VERY difficult time going to a SCHOOL playground even if it were just to count things. I don't know that it was wrong, as much as it was just disliked by many people. Glad you thought it through and changed it. By the way, I do go after playground caches, I just don't like them. I've never done any sort of cache on school grounds even just counting things. I know that the cops where I live patrol the school grounds and despite being able to "talk my way out of it", it would be much simpler to avoid the situation.

Found around 9:00am, deleted around 1:00pm the same day.

I agree, if the problem is fixed, by all means go ahead - delete the log. Point is - the problem has not been fixed at least for this one.

Am I reading this right? Did CCC leave the old cache behind when she replaced it? After going back an reading the logs, yes she did, with an acceptable (to me) reason for doing it. Several other logs made reference to the old cache being jammed in it's hiding place so tightly they could not remove it either. Ok, so did Team Smoky use his superhuman strength to remove the cache and find the full logsheet? Actually it doesn't matter if he did or not. The fact is that she deleted legitimate logs because she didn't like the way it makes her cache look and sound. Those logs are part of the cache's history and should have stayed. She could have posted right above them with any explanation that she wanted and not have to worry that future cachers would be discouraged. Team Smoky, i'll just go ahead and say it here. I'm sure that CCCA is a fine person but she certainly doesn't cache like the majority of us do. There have been plenty of threads regarding this and i wouldn't doubt that each has the same few people defending her actions. I'd leave this one alone as she does have the right to do what she did, even if it was petty! Thanks Mudfrog. I agree, she probably is a fine person and despite saying this before, I will say it again, I mean no disrespect to her. It's no big deal to me to skip any of her caches next time. There are plenty of others hidden in the area and quite frankly, there was nothing that exciting about any of hers that I found that I really enjoyed anyway. I mean, yes, I like the hunt, and not having mosquitos nagging me is quite a plus, but going to a gas station because it is .1 mile from the last cache is not that great of a thrill for me. There were some nicely hidden urban caches in the area that we DID find fun because they were cleverly hidden. Rattlesnake Bites comes to mind. I also agree with many of you, I think it was rude. Your fellow cachers are trying to help you out by letting you know that your cache is in need of something and you do delete the logs. Yes, that's rude IMO. It just seemed to me that she was trying to beat the system by deleting the "needs maintenence" logs. I was wondering if there was anything that could be done about it. I know that around my home town the local reviewers are really on the ball and have tried to get the cache owners to maintain their caches, and I have seen quite a few caches get archived because of it. I think that this is great - not because the caches were bad, not because I don't think highly of the hider, but because when I go look for a cache, there is an expectation that the cache has been maintained. If it is not being maintained, let someone else adopt it or place their own in that location. I really feel bad for recumbrick who I imagine was not able to sign the log. I used up the last iota of space. I don't think that it is nice to let this continue and was hoping something else could be done.

Well, for one, because just deleting the log DOES discourage cachers from coming to your cache. They'll see the "needs maintanence" attribute set on your cache, but since you deleted the log, they don't know what it needs. So, instead of being able to read it just needs a new logsheet, and taking one with them, they have no idea and can't help. Second, if the cache doesn't need anything, instead of deleting the log, why not just post a "owner maintanence" log, explaining that the cache is fine, which also resets the attribute? Third, deleting logs is just rude, unless there's a very good reason for doing so. Like fake finds (although some who have posted in this thread would probably disagree with that), or major spoilers that the logger won't remove, or someone cursing you out in their log....... Nicely put.

One thing I don't like about multis are multis that really don't need to be multis. For instance, you start off and find one micro which is in the middle of nowhere, nothing to see, no reason for it, and then brings you to the final. To me, there is no reason to make this a multi. I like multis that are done for a reason. For example, there is one not too far that is a covered bridges cache that leads you to three covered bridges in the county. To me, this has a reason. Also, the cache listing says that the stages are all over and will require driving. Yes, these three could all have been separate caches, but I see the reason for the multi. Another good example of a multi is one where there are many trails in a park. The multi stages could be placed strategically to lead you through the trail system. Although, sometimes I like the hunt and trying to traverse the trail system myself, I can see how this is not a bad multi. One of the best mulits I have done was a two stage that led you into a gully where the GPS reception was poor at best. The first stage was near the parking lot and inside, which gave coordinates to the final, but more importantly, it gave laymen directions to the cache. There would probably be MANY DNFs on this one if it weren't for the directions. My two cents.

I have yet to verify this (thank goodness), but I figure that the bottom of my walking stick would produce a nice round indentation on the back of the local rattlesnakes which is why I started using one. I have found, as others have already posted, that it's great for crossing streams or walking on logs in muddy areas.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that we cache hiders just delete the "needs maintenence" logs. I thought protocol was to post a "performed maintenence" log. Oh yeah, and by the way, if you read the original post, I want to know "The question is, what can be done about cachers who are not playing by the rules and not maintaining their caches?"

You can take a look at the two caches in question. The next cacher that found the one said that same thing. The log is full. The other hasn't been found since me yet. It IS a difficult find.

Thanks for the "popcorn" info. I was indeed wondering. I haven't frequented the forums much. As for the being jealous reference, I don't really care that much about MY numbers much less anyone else's.

Back to the original question - why were the logs deleted? edit: for clarity For ONE of them, she said that she had just replaced the cache and that I must have found the "old" cache which presumable was full. So she deleted that cache log. OK, perhaps I did find the old cache and found that log full, and perhaps I did not find the "new" cache at that location. But, instead of deleting the log, why not post a note on top of it explaining this for EVERYONE. That COULD have happened. But the other log was just deleted. No reason what-so-ever. You know, it's not like I'm trying to get on her case, I'm trying to help her out by telling her that the log if full and needs replaced. Now I see that other cachers can't log because the log is full. I don't think that this is fair to the other cachers. I reported it needs maintenence, let's fix the problem for the next person. I mean, I was there. I know whether or not the cache log is full.

While I agree with your personal assessment of CCCA, it isn't up to the finders to maintain caches. Yes, it's a nice thing to do, however the hider is ultimately responsible for maintaining their hides. And, regardless of who the cacher is, when one person has literally hundreds of caches hidden, it's not a stretch to figure out that there's no way he/she can maintain all those caches all the time. Many of CCCA's hides require frequent maintnance, and while she makes a good attempt to fix them, certainly some fall through the cracks. Maybe there should be a cap on the number of enabled hides one person can have at one time. Certainly she's not the only person who has caches that need maintenance though. I have to wonder why the OP chose to single her out? I'm not trying to say anything personal about this gal, for all I know she's a great person. I'm not trying to put her down personally, I've never met her and cannot pass such judgement. I guess she was singled out because she deleted the "needs maintenence" logs, which I cannot for the life of me understand why, unless she doesn't want the local reviewers archiving her cache. The caches NEED MAINTENENCE. OK, let's MAINTAIN them. Don't delete the log and not do anything about it.

Um, SHE is one of our most respected geocachers, and her hides, along with her 15,000+ finds logged, may qualify her as the most experienced and highest finder in the world. I know her personally to be honest and reputable, and have to ask if there is not more to this than was explained. Lastly, replacing a full log, just dropping a new one in the cache, is standard operating procedure and one small way you can actually be of benefit to your caching community. Ed But if she is so reputable, WHY delete a "needs maintenence" log? Had there been one of these on the cache page, I could have been prepared with an empty log to replace it when I went to find it.