bad cache box

[Mustard Hill Gang]

If I know a cache box is bad, can I replace it or is that the sole responsability of the owner?

[+EraSeek]

If the box is busted, leaking, or just useless in the long run and you are certain your replacement will do the cache some good, then I see no reason why the owner of the cache would not appreciate the help. If there is some uniqueness to the original box, then you might check with the owner first.

[+Prime Suspect]

If I know a cache box is bad, can I replace it or is that the sole responsability of the owner?

Put the whole thing in a zip-lock baggie, and inform the owner. But replacing the box without the owner's permission? I'd say No. That's how you end up with a bad cache that just seem to limp along, instead of either getting properly fixed by the owner, or archived so that someone else can put out a cache that will be maintained.

[+EraSeek]

Well I mildly disagree with that. I'd say it is incumbent upon the whole of the geocaching comunity to help maintain the health of a cache, each and every time they visit one.

[+michigansnorkelers]

I did just that on Christmas Eve.

 

Found a trashed cache in a nice area. It appears that the cache has been neglected for some time according to logs since September 30. Yeah, almost three months. By the time I got to it, there was virtually nothing left.

 

I happened to have a suitable cache container in my van, so I went back and replaced it, complete with a bunch of decent swag.

 

I was planning on hiding my very first cache, but decided to fix this one instead. My way of giving back to the geocaching community.

 

I emailed the owner, but have not yet heard back.

[+welch]

Well I mildly disagree with that. I'd say it is incumbent upon the whole of the geocaching comunity to help maintain the health of a cache, each and every time they visit one.

 

Sort of... if the owners still around then it doesn't really matter, because fixing things just helps them out.

But if the owner has dropped off the edge of the planet, doesn't log in doesn't answer email, fixing their caches is only a temp fix until the next problem, which the owner won't fix it either because they're gone. Besides that, noone has control of the cache's page, and noone is reading/responding to the emails addressed to the owner of that cache. Keeping the cache fixed up for an owner that isn't around makes it harder to identify those that orphans that should be offically adopted, or archived and removed.

At least thats the way I look at it, there are bound to be lots of differing views.

[+mrring]

We have fixed a couple of caches and then tried to contact the owner. One, as it turns out, had passed on without anyone in the geocaching community knowing about it. So we felt really good about that fix. (Her caches were put up for adoption and we were given the adoption on the one that we fixed.) The other owner has not responded and is still hiding caches. They are active according to their profile and still hiding in questionable containers. (Light weight plastic that will not last the winter.)

 

We'll do what we can to fix containers if possible or contact our reviewer to intervene.

 

Happy Caching in the New Year.

[+srt4guy]

I did just that on Christmas Eve.

 

Found a trashed cache in a nice area. It appears that the cache has been neglected for some time according to logs since September 30. Yeah, almost three months. By the time I got to it, there was virtually nothing left.

 

I happened to have a suitable cache container in my van, so I went back and replaced it, complete with a bunch of decent swag.

 

I was planning on hiding my very first cache, but decided to fix this one instead. My way of giving back to the geocaching community.

 

I emailed the owner, but have not yet heard back.

 

I have done this, also i carry extra log books for when i find a full one, and extra swag in my bag in case i hit an empty one. i note this in my log. usually the owner contacts me and says thanks.

Tim

[+hikemeister]

I typically help, rather than complain or report -- pretty much always carrying an extra log book or two and some plastic bags with me when we cache. We have replaced (always leaving the original there) many a moldy wet log. I figure that it helps the general community of cachers, even if it is supporting someone who might be too lazy to keep their caches in good shape.

[+BlueDeuce]

Helping out an active cacher is one thing, maintaining an abandoned cache is another. Supplying an abandoned cache looks like you are supporting the community but really you are doing a disservice.

 

Archive or Adopt.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ouch! That's rough.

For the vast majority, I'd say that's true. (Of course, I'd also say that the majority of active caches would be better off archived. But that's a different discussion area.) I replaced a leaky container once. It's a good cache, but not a great one. The owner has since died. The cache will die in its own time. Far too far away for me to want to adopt. And, yes, far too many mediocre caches are kept alive this way.

I would just hate to see some of the old historic caches die for this reason. Not my regular caching area, but great caches. Oh, well. The past is the pst.

[+Bad_CRC]

I say help it out. Be better than the bulk of people who aren't willing to help. Everyone benefits.

[+EraSeek]

Helping out an active cacher is one thing, maintaining an abandoned cache is another. Supplying an abandoned cache looks like you are supporting the community but really you are doing a disservice.

 

Archive or Adopt.

 

What is the disservice?

[+sbell111]

I say fix it if you can. If you have to replace the box and you have an appropriate one handy, go for it.

 

I've visited many 'community maintained' caches. They tend to be far better than average.

Edited January 2, 2007 by sbell111

[+Bamboogirl]

I struggled over It Ain't Mail for a while as it had been muggled, had a bad log and been through some messy stuff - basically dying. Since it was by my house, I figured it was my turn to do something good so I took a new container, dressed it up and set it loose. The owner has not been around for a while, but has several caches in the area. I figure helping this one along was a lot better than letting it rot as it gets a fair amount of traffic when the weather is good. If the owner has gone out of the area, I'll see about doing a formal adoption.

[+Natureboy56]

I have replaced a log or two, but never an actual cache. Unless you have the exact same container, I wouldn't risk it.

 

Natureboy56

Edited January 3, 2007 by Natureboy56

[+BlueDeuce]

I say fix it if you can. If you have to replace the box and you have an appropriate one handy, go for it.

 

I've visited many 'community maintained' caches. They tend to be far better than average.

 

Well of course it seems like they do, they have one or more responsible cachers maintaining it. But if you are leaving the game you have a responsibility to do something with your cache.

 

I can’t believe anybody is telling me it’s okay to simply ignore your cache until it finally reaches a point of decay that someone else has to step up to fix it, make sure it stays in place and from then on address any issues. “All that’s required is to replace the logbook and fix a leaky lid when necessary.” Baloney.

 

The disservice is that the owner plays an important part by responding to anything addressed through the cache page. What happens when the park manager sends them an email to address an issue and there’s no response? Do we simply say they should have posted a note? What about the cacher that asks the owner,…anything? What if the cache page needs updating? What happens when that person who was maintaining it decides to stop? Do we simply go through the decay process again?

 

Give me some time and I’ll think of a few more reasons.

 

An abandoned cache is half a cache, and beyond sentimentality, there is nothing lost by adopting, or archiving and replacing. I fail to see how ‘that’s rough’.

Edited January 3, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[ImpalaBob]

I would first say that anything you do to help the geocaching community is never a disservice! None of us like to go looking for a cache that is not there!!!!!

 

Log a "needs maintenance" first. NO RESPONSE within 2 weeks .... Log a "SBA" (Should Be Archived).

 

Once archived put out your own new cache if you think the area warrants a cache.

 

ImpalaBob

[+Harry Dolphin]

Log a "needs maintenance" first. NO RESPONSE within 2 weeks .... Log a "SBA" (Should Be Archived).

 

Once archived put out your own new cache if you think the area warrants a cache.

 

Wow! Wait two weeks then SBA??? Why bother waiting that long? If you have that little patience, SBA immediately! Put out your new cache while you're there, even.

[+AStargirl]

I'm new here, so I just wanted to ask (aside from the fix up or not debate) how do you archive or end a cache? Is this something someone else does if the owner of the cache is gone or not maintaining the cache or is this something that you do to your own caches if say, you move too far away to maintain an old cache?

[Digital_Cowboy]

I say fix it if you can. If you have to replace the box and you have an appropriate one handy, go for it.

 

I've visited many 'community maintained' caches. They tend to be far better than average.

 

Well of course it seems like they do, they have one or more responsible cachers maintaining it. But if you are leaving the game you have a responsibility to do something with your cache.

 

I can’t believe anybody is telling me it’s okay to simply ignore your cache until it finally reaches a point of decay that someone else has to step up to fix it, make sure it stays in place and from then on address any issues. “All that’s required is to replace the logbook and fix a leaky lid when necessary.” Baloney.

 

The disservice is that the owner plays an important part by responding to anything addressed through the cache page. What happens when the park manager sends them an email to address an issue and there’s no response? Do we simply say they should have posted a note? What about the cacher that asks the owner,…anything? What if the cache page needs updating? What happens when that person who was maintaining it decides to stop? Do we simply go through the decay process again?

 

Give me some time and I’ll think of a few more reasons.

 

An abandoned cache is half a cache, and beyond sentimentality, there is nothing lost by adopting, or archiving and replacing. I fail to see how ‘that’s rough’.

 

And what happens when it turns out that the person who hid the cache has passed away, but no one in the geocaching community knows about it, or they are injured/sick and in the hospital and can't get out to maintain their cache? There are hundred if not thousands of reasons why someone may not be maintaining their cache/responding to posts through the cache page.

 

Digital_Cowboy

[Digital_Cowboy]

I would first say that anything you do to help the geocaching community is never a disservice! None of us like to go looking for a cache that is not there!!!!!

 

Log a "needs maintenance" first. NO RESPONSE within 2 weeks .... Log a "SBA" (Should Be Archived).

 

Once archived put out your own new cache if you think the area warrants a cache.

 

ImpalaBob

 

Given that there can be any number of reasons why someone may not respond to a "needs maintenance" log don't you think that waiting only two weeks before logging a "SBA" is a bit short? What about a person who despite a prolonged stay in the hospital is doing what they can to remain active in the sport/hobby/activity? Only to get out and find most/all of their caches have either been archived or adopted by others? I mean given that not everyone knows everyone within any given community it stands to reason that not everyone in the geocaching community knows everyone else. . .

 

Therefore it is very likely that a person can either pass away or be in the hospital for an extended stay without someone else in the community knowing anything about it. And two weeks therefore isn't really enough time to wait and see what is up with a cache/cache owner.

 

Digital_Cowboy

[+TeamHarrison]

Hmmm... ...sounds a lot like the quantity versus quality discussion to me. While some "community maintained caches" can be very high quality, my personal experience is that they are not. Your mileage may vary.

 

I carry pens, logbooks, zip-locs (assorted sizes), and duct tape to make impromptu repairs. "Battlefield repairs" are one thing, but ongoing maintenance is another. Replacing the entire container a totally other!

 

Unless it's a cache type no longer allowed or in an area not allowing new hides, stick to only light maintenance (add a new logbook, add a pen, tape a hole, etc.). If the whole thing needs replaced or restocked, that should be the responsibility of the owner. If they don't show, after a few weeks, Should Be Archived that bad boy. Rehide one better nearby! That NEW hide actually increases the findable number of caches in the area for longtime cachers and should therefore be prefered by them.

[+FamilyDNA]

I'm new here, so I just wanted to ask (aside from the fix up or not debate) how do you archive or end a cache? Is this something someone else does if the owner of the cache is gone or not maintaining the cache or is this something that you do to your own caches if say, you move too far away to maintain an old cache?

An owner can choose to archive their own cache.

 

In the case of unmaintained caches, a reviewer can archive an abandoned cache. The reviewers (at least in my area) typically post a note to a cache and wait a couple of weeks to a month before actually archiving.

[+welch]

And what happens when it turns out that the person who hid the cache has passed away, but no one in the geocaching community knows about it, or they are injured/sick and in the hospital and can't get out to maintain their cache? There are hundred if not thousands of reasons why someone may not be maintaining their cache/responding to posts through the cache page.

 

Digital_Cowboy

 

If the cache is in need of attention and nothing happens, eventally it attract a reviewer who may archive the listing.

If theres a good reason why a cache with a problem hasn't be tended to, then the person should take a minute to post that they broke their leg and can't geocache for 6months (or whatever). To me responding to emails and posting new info to the cache page is part of the owners maintance job. If the person doesn't fix a cache problem, and doesn't bother to explain whats going on or even log it, then its likely they'll be assumed gone/dead/MIA and 'missing owner' responses will happen.

[Digital_Cowboy]

 

If the cache is in need of attention and nothing happens, eventally it attract a reviewer who may archive the listing.

If theres a good reason why a cache with a problem hasn't be tended to, then the person should take a minute to post that they broke their leg and can't geocache for 6months (or whatever). To me responding to emails and posting new info to the cache page is part of the owners maintance job. If the person doesn't fix a cache problem, and doesn't bother to explain whats going on or even log it, then its likely they'll be assumed gone/dead/MIA and 'missing owner' responses will happen.

 

Welch,

 

That is a good thing, and hopefully it is not archived as soon as a problem is found with it.

 

Ok, and what about the person who is involved in an accident of some sort and is in a coma for several weeks/months, or even a year or longer? Or the person who is involved in an accident of some sort and is in a full body cast and cannot do anything for themselves, let alone logging in/onto The Net? Again there are a number of very legitimate reasons why someone is unable to either maintain their caches or to respond messages sent to them by a reviewer.

 

Hopefully, they'll be able to get someone to step in and help them out while they ar not able to do so themselves, but again that may not always be possible.

 

Digital_Cowboy

[+barondriver]

..I have replaced four containers in my geocaching since 2001 and have never regretted doing it. Three of the geocaches had owners who had just 'dropped off the face of the earth' and one's owner had died and I felt that it was a tribute to him to keep it alive..his daughter still watches it's email from time to time. I just add them to my watchlist and enjoy watching the logs.

[+welch]

 

That is a good thing, and hopefully it is not archived as soon as a problem is found with it.

 

Ok, and what about the person who is involved in an accident of some sort and is in a coma for several weeks/months, or even a year or longer? Or the person who is involved in an accident of some sort and is in a full body cast and cannot do anything for themselves, let alone logging in/onto The Net? Again there are a number of very legitimate reasons why someone is unable to either maintain their caches or to respond messages sent to them by a reviewer.

 

Hopefully, they'll be able to get someone to step in and help them out while they ar not able to do so themselves, but again that may not always be possible.

 

Digital_Cowboy

 

Check with your local reviewer, but mostly I think its weeks or months before a cache is archived. They are rarely 'archived as a problem is found with it'.

 

If someones in a coma, Long term in the hospital, etc etc etc they likely not concerned with their caches in the least. You can come up with all sorts of extending reasons why they might not respond, but the reality is unless they can communicate with others its to be assumed they're just gone and that their orphan caches need a more permanent solution.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If someones in a coma, Long term in the hospital, etc etc etc they likely not concerned with their caches in the least. You can come up with all sorts of extending reasons why they might not respond, but the reality is unless they can communicate with others its to be assumed they're just gone and that their orphan caches need a more permanent solution.

 

Then, the real question, which has neither been asked nor answered here, is: Should any cache, who's owner is no longer active, or hasn't signed in to the site in excess of (put number here) months be automatically archived? The owner is not or cannot be responding to e-mails. What is the diffrence if the cache is in need of help, and local cachers are willing to perform that service, or the cache is in great condition? I can think of quite a number that are still going strong (though the owner is inactive). Obviously, per Welch's and Blue Deuce's responses, these shoud be archived.

[+Prime Suspect]

Then, the real question, which has neither been asked nor answered here, is: Should any cache, who's owner is no longer active, or hasn't signed in to the site in excess of (put number here) months be automatically archived? The owner is not or cannot be responding to e-mails. What is the diffrence if the cache is in need of help, and local cachers are willing to perform that service, or the cache is in great condition? I can think of quite a number that are still going strong (though the owner is inactive). Obviously, per Welch's and Blue Deuce's responses, these shoud be archived.

I would think that the same rules would apply as they do for cache adoptions. If there's nothing wrong with the cache, non-responsiveness from the owner is not sufficient reason, by itself, for action to be taken.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Then, the real question, which has neither been asked nor answered here, is: Should any cache, who's owner is no longer active, or hasn't signed in to the site in excess of (put number here) months be automatically archived? The owner is not or cannot be responding to e-mails. What is the diffrence if the cache is in need of help, and local cachers are willing to perform that service, or the cache is in great condition? I can think of quite a number that are still going strong (though the owner is inactive). Obviously, per Welch's and Blue Deuce's responses, these shoud be archived.

I would think that the same rules would apply as they do for cache adoptions. If there's nothing wrong with the cache, non-responsiveness from the owner is not sufficient reason, by itself, for action to be taken.

 

I didn't think so either. What I did not understand was the difference between an abandoned cache in good condition, and an abandoned cache that a local cacher chose to repair. In either case we have an abandoned cache in good condition. Yet, several forum contributors have spoken vehemently against the second.

[+welch]

If someones in a coma, Long term in the hospital, etc etc etc they likely not concerned with their caches in the least. You can come up with all sorts of extending reasons why they might not respond, but the reality is unless they can communicate with others its to be assumed they're just gone and that their orphan caches need a more permanent solution.

 

Then, the real question, which has neither been asked nor answered here, is: Should any cache, who's owner is no longer active, or hasn't signed in to the site in excess of (put number here) months be automatically archived? The owner is not or cannot be responding to e-mails. What is the diffrence if the cache is in need of help, and local cachers are willing to perform that service, or the cache is in great condition? I can think of quite a number that are still going strong (though the owner is inactive). Obviously, per Welch's and Blue Deuce's responses, these shoud be archived.

Ideally the cache would be adopted not archived, but from my experience its often easier to get the cache archived .

There are lots of caches that the owner is not around, but usually only those that have fallen into disrepair get noticed and tagged for further attention. While an automated system would catch some caches that need attention, it would need to be fairly 'smart' or it will being sending off false alarms all the time. It would require some time to set up and troubleshoot (and never be 100% anyway), and still only duplicate what can be done now manually, which is why I don't see such a thing ever happening.

[+Prime Suspect]

Then, the real question, which has neither been asked nor answered here, is: Should any cache, who's owner is no longer active, or hasn't signed in to the site in excess of (put number here) months be automatically archived? The owner is not or cannot be responding to e-mails. What is the diffrence if the cache is in need of help, and local cachers are willing to perform that service, or the cache is in great condition? I can think of quite a number that are still going strong (though the owner is inactive). Obviously, per Welch's and Blue Deuce's responses, these shoud be archived.

I would think that the same rules would apply as they do for cache adoptions. If there's nothing wrong with the cache, non-responsiveness from the owner is not sufficient reason, by itself, for action to be taken.

 

I didn't think so either. What I did not understand was the difference between an abandoned cache in good condition, and an abandoned cache that a local cacher chose to repair. In either case we have an abandoned cache in good condition. Yet, several forum contributors have spoken vehemently against the second.

 

BTW, my statement applies just to physical caches. Virtual caches, which require email transactions to confirm a cache find, are another matter. If the owner is no longer responding to emails, it should be archived.

[skeeterz]

Then, the real question, which has neither been asked nor answered here, is: Should any cache, who's owner is no longer active, or hasn't signed in to the site in excess of (put number here) months be automatically archived? The owner is not or cannot be responding to e-mails. What is the diffrence if the cache is in need of help, and local cachers are willing to perform that service, or the cache is in great condition? I can think of quite a number that are still going strong (though the owner is inactive). Obviously, per Welch's and Blue Deuce's responses, these shoud be archived.

I would think that the same rules would apply as they do for cache adoptions. If there's nothing wrong with the cache, non-responsiveness from the owner is not sufficient reason, by itself, for action to be taken.

 

I didn't think so either. What I did not understand was the difference between an abandoned cache in good condition, and an abandoned cache that a local cacher chose to repair. In either case we have an abandoned cache in good condition. Yet, several forum contributors have spoken vehemently against the second.

 

BTW, my statement applies just to physical caches. Virtual caches, which require email transactions to confirm a cache find, are another matter. If the owner is no longer responding to emails, it should be archived.

[skeeterz]

Sorry, I'm a newbie, and am having trouble finding where to post my question. I'm wondering whether there is a way to find an archived cache, some info about one that I believe existed a few years ago, possibly still does, but it was found plundered. I was hoping to find further info about it.

[+welch]

Sorry, I'm a newbie, and am having trouble finding where to post my question. I'm wondering whether there is a way to find an archived cache, some info about one that I believe existed a few years ago, possibly still does, but it was found plundered. I was hoping to find further info about it.

If you the approximate area some could use the gc.com maps to zoom/pan the area looking for archived listings (but the maps are premium member feature).

You could also look it up if you knew the exact url for the cache, or know had found or hidden the cache as it would be listed in their stats.

There is not a 'simple' way to search for archived cache listings.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the box is busted, leaking, or just useless in the long run and you are certain your replacement will do the cache some good, then I see no reason why the owner of the cache would not appreciate the help. If there is some uniqueness to the original box, then you might check with the owner first.

That's fair enough. The only rule of thumb is don't replace an amm can with gladware. That doesn't go over well even if the ammo can leaks.

[+briansnat]

Sorry, I'm a newbie, and am having trouble finding where to post my question. I'm wondering whether there is a way to find an archived cache, some info about one that I believe existed a few years ago, possibly still does, but it was found plundered. I was hoping to find further info about it.

 

If you want to ask a new question, click on the "new topic" button.