Jump to content

Is it okay to fix a cache if the CO is long gone?


Senvies
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

Thats what you should do.

 

If you want to help out the cache owner, it is perfectly okay also. Just say 4wheelin_fool gave you blanket permission to do so. :blink:

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

Thats what you should do.

 

If you want to help out the cache owner, it is perfectly okay also. Just say 4wheelin_fool gave you blanket permission to do so. :blink:

I said That's what you could do...

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

I think the best thing is to try to contact the CO. If the CO is non-responsive, then let the local reviewer know. If the local reviewer can't get a response from the CO, he or she (the reviewer) will probably archive the cache, and then you can put in a replacement. You don't have to reference the old cache, of course, in the new cache's description (tho I have done so in the past).

 

If the CO does respond to you, though, and is unable to maintain the cache, then offer to adopt it. That way, you get the cache turned over to you to fix up right and proper (and you take on the responsibility to watch over it in the future) (assuming, of course, that's what you want to do).

 

That's only my gut feeling on the situation, tho, and should not be taken as geocaching canon. ; ) When in doubt, write your local reviewer.

Link to comment

Do not replace the cache or else some poor soul in the future is going to be stuck in the same spot you are only they will be stuck replacing YOUR cache.

 

If the CO is gone, then the cache has been abandoned. Log a 'needs maintanence' or 'needs archived'.

 

I might even just take the container and log the 'needs archived'. I hate to see geocache owners abandon their caches to let them degrade and turn in to trash. Thats not cool.

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

First question: do you plan to perform regular maintenance on that cache?

- If the answer is 'No', then submit a "needs maintenance" and move on. You can even check back in a few months, and submit a "needs archived" if the cache wasn't fixed.

- If the answer is 'Yes', then:

 

Second question: Why do you want to maintain a cache that's not yours?

- If the answer is "because it's close to home", or "is in a nice location", or simply "because it's nice to help others", then submit a "needs maintenance", followed after some time by a "needs archived" if it wasn't fixed. Once archived you could place your own cache, if you want.

- If the answer is "because the cache has a history worth preserving", then try contacting the owner and arrange to adopt the cache. If the owner doesn't respond in a timely fashion (or cannot be contacted), then reevaluate your feelings towards this cache, and if you still want to maintain it, go out and perform the maintenance.

Link to comment
If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

Absolutely! The question is not whether it's acceptable behavior though. The question is, will it benefit the overall game? If the cache has special meaning to you, or has some historical significance, by all means, do an informal adoption by adding it to your watchlist and fixing it up. If you replace the cache with a nice, sturdy ammo can, it should remain viable for years, giving the rest of the caching community the opportunity to experience whatever it was about it that caused it to strum on your heart strings.

 

If the only appeal is the location, post a "Needs Archived" and hide your own cache there.

 

If it was just another cache, with no special significance and a ho hum location, file a "Needs Archived" and walk away.

Link to comment

You can replace the container, but you cannot maintain the listing.

 

Early in my caching career I replaced a badly damaged plastic container with an ammo can. It's a great location, it's on a number of favorites lists.

 

everything on the listing is wrong.

The physical description ("about 30 feet from the run" it's over 300 feet, "just off trail" again over 300 ft")

the container,

the hint,

the terrain rating (a 1! - it's one of the toughest 300 foot bushwhacks in Florida, whether done from the river by paddle craft, or hiking in on trail)

the difficulty .... (a 5! once you're there, it's 1.5)

 

I should have logged a DNF, trashed out the plastic shards, and considered my own hide there.

Link to comment

i've done it, a typical urban hide, just close to me decided to place a new container after a few DNFs and my own. The game is what you make of it. There comes a time when you realize that reporting a cache has a soaked unsignable log to when you take a fresh new one out of your pocket and post that you dropped a new one. sure this idea isnt applicable to all hides but sometimes theres too few and far between hides in an area to just let things go. low an behold the cache has become active again...

Link to comment

My opinion, for what its worth, is that there is nothing wrong with replacing it. Like someone else said, if it means something to you, then I would def. replace it. Also, if it is an older hide (2007 or before) with one of the harder to find diff/terr combos that a lot of people might use for the WRC Challenges then why not replace it? You can make a new cache but you cant replace the age factor.

Edited by cw1710
Link to comment
Also, if it is an older hide (2007 or before)

Aside from the sheer silliness of 3 years as "older", once you drop your replacement, it isn't "an older hide". It's your new box.

Even if it happened to be the oldest cache in the state... there will be a new "oldest cache in the state" once that one is gone. Now... the FIRST cache in the state may be worth saving, but that's another story.
Link to comment

The question is not whether it's acceptable behavior though. The question is, will it benefit the overall game? If the cache has special meaning to you, or has some historical significance, by all means, do an informal adoption by adding it to your watchlist and fixing it up.

Yes, the broken cache had better have a lot going for it, if I’m going to perpetuate it for the lost CO. But I also resist doing batch NAs. You know – going to a new area, and finding every steekin one is cracked and soaked. And the owners haven’t been there in years.

 

If I log a just a “Needs Maintenance”, such caches get tend to get archived immediately, and I feel like a one-man wrecking ball. Everyone sees me ready to start my log, and they shout, “Here comes kunarion the Cache Killer!!” Sometimes I only do a “it was kinda full of mud and pigeons, so I cleaned it out” log note, and let the next cacher kill it.

 

There are areas around here where the local cache club keeps stray caches active. Group fix. So at least some folks think it’s fine to patch things up.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

First question: do you plan to perform regular maintenance on that cache?

- If the answer is 'No', then submit a "needs maintenance" and move on. You can even check back in a few months, and submit a "needs archived" if the cache wasn't fixed.

- If the answer is 'Yes', then:

 

Second question: Why do you want to maintain a cache that's not yours?

- If the answer is "because it's close to home", or "is in a nice location", or simply "because it's nice to help others", then submit a "needs maintenance", followed after some time by a "needs archived" if it wasn't fixed. Once archived you could place your own cache, if you want.

- If the answer is "because the cache has a history worth preserving", then try contacting the owner and arrange to adopt the cache. If the owner doesn't respond in a timely fashion (or cannot be contacted), then reevaluate your feelings towards this cache, and if you still want to maintain it, go out and perform the maintenance.

+1

Well stated!

Link to comment

The question is not whether it's acceptable behavior though. The question is, will it benefit the overall game? If the cache has special meaning to you, or has some historical significance, by all means, do an informal adoption by adding it to your watchlist and fixing it up.

Yes, the broken cache had better have a lot going for it, if I’m going to perpetuate it for the lost CO. But I also resist doing batch NAs. You know – going to a new area, and finding every steekin one is cracked and soaked. And the owners haven’t been there in years.

 

If I log a just a “Needs Maintenance”, such caches get tend to get archived immediately, and I feel like a one-man wrecking ball. Everyone sees me ready to start my log, and they shout, “Here comes kunarion the Cache Killer!!” Sometimes I only do a “it was kinda full of mud and pigeons, so I cleaned it out” log note, and let the next cacher kill it.

 

There are areas around here where the local cache club keeps stray caches active. Group fix. So at least some folks think it’s fine to patch things up.

 

If people look at you as a cache killer, they are reacting irrationally. You didn't kill the cache, the cache was killed when the owner abandon it. You are the responsible person going out of your way to clean up someone else mess. By logging a “it was kinda full of mud and pigeons, so I cleaned it out” log, you're only passing the responsibility to the next cacher. When the next cacher does the right thing and logs the NA or NM do you look at them as a "one-man wrecking ball" or "cache killer"?

 

I think the good intentioned 'cache club' is causing more problems than they're solving.

Link to comment

i've done it, a typical urban hide, just close to me decided to place a new container after a few DNFs and my own. The game is what you make of it. There comes a time when you realize that reporting a cache has a soaked unsignable log to when you take a fresh new one out of your pocket and post that you dropped a new one. sure this idea isnt applicable to all hides but sometimes theres too few and far between hides in an area to just let things go. low an behold the cache has become active again...

Replacing a log sheet that you've found is one thing. Throwing down a new container when you haven't found the original is WRONG. You have no way of knowing for sure if you just missed it. Even with a few other DNFs you should at most post needs maintenance or needs archived. You shouldn't just throw down a container.

Link to comment
Also, if it is an older hide (2007 or before)

 

Aside from the sheer silliness of 3 years as "older", once you drop your replacement, it isn't "an older hide". It's your new box.

Older as in to qualify for the WRC grid. Some of them require it hidden before a certain date either in 07 or 08 depending on the state. In my area the closest of some diff/terr combos is over 100 miles away with the next being out of the state. If you are after a WRC that is state specific how will the next older cache help if it isnt in the state and wont qualify? Just because you replaced the box doesnt make it a new hide. If someone that has found it before confirms the spot then why not replace it? Sometimes the replacement could last years. Almost all of the original states hides have been changed numerous times and they are still the "oldest in the state".

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

 

Prolonging the agony or prolonging the fun? If the original piece of tupperware lasted for three or four years, the replacement could easily last another 3 or 4 years.

 

I'd rather see the history of the existing cache preserved instead of archived.

 

Why can't caches be adopted when the owner goes AWOL?

Link to comment

Prolonging the agony or prolonging the fun? If the original piece of tupperware lasted for three or four years, the replacement could easily last another 3 or 4 years.

 

I'd rather see the history of the existing cache preserved instead of archived.

 

Why can't caches be adopted when the owner goes AWOL?

Why should a cache live on after it's owner goes AWOL? Once a CO is gone from the hobby, the caches are abandoned. Abandoned caches need to be cleaned up (removed) before they become trash (which is only a matter of time). This sentimental desire to have ownerless caches "live" on is hogwash. It's not like there is really any history to the second cache. Maybe the 100th and the 1,000th and the 1,000,000th but thats about it.

Link to comment

The two that I unofficially maintain are significant to me.

 

One is a local classic, and the other was my first find. In both cases I maintain the cache and the original owners will clear the NM log for me. I think I'm going to ask the owner of the latter to just adopt it to me the next time it needs maintenance though.

 

With that being said, yes I do encourage people to maintain caches that are significant to them. A new listing just isn't the same. The only time that I've done this, I moved the final location a significant distance (but kept the rest of the multi the same), and although it was quite successful, I'd have preferred to have been able to adopt the (now archived) original.

Edited by Taoiseach
Link to comment
Why can't caches be adopted when the owner goes AWOL?

Because there are all sorts of reasons why a CO might go AWOL, and some come back. If their cache is forcibly adopted there's going to be much unhappiness all around when the CO finds out about it.

 

If you mean unofficially adopt, then go ahead, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

By comparing community versus individual responsibility, I lean towards having the community feel a bit of responsibility for the caches that they find. However if the individual expects the community to take care of their cache for them, that is pushing it a bit far. The cache hider is ultimately responsible, but mostly places the cache as a gift to the community. Finding a nice area, good hiding spot, filling it with swag, and listing it, is mostly a gift with the owner only receiving "find" logs in return. When the community realizes a certain responsibility for them, then they usually are rehidden back well and are left in a way to make the next finder enjoy it. Sometimes cachers don't rehide caches back very well or close the lid on a bag inside (making it leak) and this sometimes causes a problem. Expecting the owner to run out and fix a simple issue that the next cacher can fix very easily all too often can cause cache owners to get angsty over the gift that they left.

 

If someone wants to help out a cache, then by all means do it if you feel that it deserves it. In other cases the cache should just be archived. If the owner is active, then you should ask first before you make any major fixes. Some caches are bad ideas right from the beginning and block good spots, while other caches should be repaired as many times as necessary long after the owner has passed away.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

 

Prolonging the agony or prolonging the fun? If the original piece of tupperware lasted for three or four years, the replacement could easily last another 3 or 4 years.

 

I'd rather see the history of the existing cache preserved instead of archived.

 

Why can't caches be adopted when the owner goes AWOL?

 

If the fun of the cache in that spot is worth it, you should get the maintanence needing abandoned cache archived and then place your own there and the fun continues. Only this time the cache will have an owner taking care of it instead of having an ownerless cache sit there and turn in to trash.

 

And as far as the history, if the cache is archived, that doesn't mean it disappears and all record of it is burned in a fire or anything. They may be hard to find since there is no archived cache search option, but you can always see old school caches in peoples profiles in the owned caches and found caches list. I'm kind of a dork for history so I like going in to some old school cachers profiles in my area and checking out all the archived caches they've found and owned from before my time. I would really really like to see an archived cache search of some sort fo sho.

Link to comment
...an ownerless cache sit there and turn in to trash.

Myth & hyperbole. Just because an owner has stepped away from their GPSr, doesn't automatically mean their cache will turn into detritus. An ammo can has a pretty amazing life span, if not subjected to environmental extremes. So long as the person replacing the cache is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities, they should not feel compelled to pull the trigger on a viable cache. Personally, I enjoy the history that is inherent in an old hide, reading about what folks did several years ago, (note to self: Only in geocaching and hamster husbandry can "a few years" be considered "old"), and knowing that others are going to be able to link themselves to that history directly.

Link to comment
...an ownerless cache sit there and turn in to trash.

Myth & hyperbole. Just because an owner has stepped away from their GPSr, doesn't automatically mean their cache will turn into detritus. An ammo can has a pretty amazing life span, if not subjected to environmental extremes. So long as the person replacing the cache is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities, they should not feel compelled to pull the trigger on a viable cache. Personally, I enjoy the history that is inherent in an old hide, reading about what folks did several years ago, (note to self: Only in geocaching and hamster husbandry can "a few years" be considered "old"), and knowing that others are going to be able to link themselves to that history directly.

 

I would imagine that people who replace old caches rarely do so with the intent of assuming full maintenance responsibilities. I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

Edited by simpjkee
Link to comment
I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. ;)

 

who knows how it will ultimately work out. its fun to talk about it though <_<

Link to comment
I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. <_<

I, too, enjoy pulling up older caches and reading the logs. A new cache in the same spot definately would not have the fun of reading like the originals.

Link to comment

Senvies I would like to say do what YOU want. If you feel the need to replace a container that needs some help, do so. :P

 

There are different ways of applying logic to it.

 

 

Owner maintenance versus Cacher maintenance? :laughing: Given the average life of tupperware (assuming that is what it is) in the elements, if you have given the cache a year of life with a new container, how is that any different than what the Owner did had he maintained it? Even if the Owner said "this is the last time" it would still live another year.

 

 

Some would say "only if it is an area ,or the cache itself is, of some significance". ;) If we followed that logic there would have been a lot fewer LPC's. I wish more Owners would ask themselves about that before they hid a cache.

 

 

What if the Owner is going through a 'rough spot" in his/her life and is not really AWOL??

 

 

I am not posting this for debate, although I am confident there will be plenty responses. :laughing: I am just pointing out there are two sides to every debate, and in the end YOU decide which side you are on.

 

Sounds to me like you might have made that decision before you even posted, and just wanted reassurance. I say "follow your own path".

 

There are going to be those who speak out "pro" or "con" to every thread and topic you put out there. I don't find fault with any of them. I may not agree, but hey!

 

I personally think it is just a kindness to do a favor for another. In caching or in any other aspect of life. I dont fault anyone who doesnt feel that way. Many feel the same, but dont have time, or funds, or some other reason. I say if it is within all your "means" to do it, and you want to, have at it!! Someone will appreciate it, even if it is just the next finder! And if that finder is me, and I read the log ahead of mine saying you replaced the container, you can bet I will thank you in my post.!! :)

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

The answer to your question is in bold.

 

If a cache is in need of repair at some future time (regardless of whether someone performed some maintenance today or whether that person was the owner or some random cacher), the issue can be addressed at that point. In the time between today and the point at which the cache (any cache) is in need of maintenance, the cache is jake regardless of whether the cache owner is 'active' at that moment.

 

As an aside, I am amused that some of the people that would suggest that no maintenance should be done by others and teh caches should simply be archived are the same people who bellyache about having to do maintenance on their caches.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The question is not whether it's acceptable behavior though. The question is, will it benefit the overall game? If the cache has special meaning to you, or has some historical significance, by all means, do an informal adoption by adding it to your watchlist and fixing it up.

Yes, the broken cache had better have a lot going for it, if I'm going to perpetuate it for the lost CO. But I also resist doing batch NAs. You know – going to a new area, and finding every steekin one is cracked and soaked. And the owners haven't been there in years.

 

If I log a just a "Needs Maintenance", such caches get tend to get archived immediately, and I feel like a one-man wrecking ball. Everyone sees me ready to start my log, and they shout, "Here comes kunarion the Cache Killer!!" Sometimes I only do a "it was kinda full of mud and pigeons, so I cleaned it out" log note, and let the next cacher kill it.

 

There are areas around here where the local cache club keeps stray caches active. Group fix. So at least some folks think it's fine to patch things up.

 

If people look at you as a cache killer, they are reacting irrationally. You didn't kill the cache, the cache was killed when the owner abandon it. You are the responsible person going out of your way to clean up someone else mess. By logging a "it was kinda full of mud and pigeons, so I cleaned it out" log, you're only passing the responsibility to the next cacher. When the next cacher does the right thing and logs the NA or NM do you look at them as a "one-man wrecking ball" or "cache killer"?

 

I think the good intentioned 'cache club' is causing more problems than they're solving.

To add to your already good advice, it should also be pointed out that the person that submits a Needs Archived note is NOT the person responsible if the cache gets archived by the reviewer. All you are doing is calling the reviewer's attention to a cache that has issues. Archiving it or not is the reviewer's call.
Link to comment

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

Link to comment

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

 

That's never been my experience. Our team cache locations have been snapped up once we got tired of maintaining them (usually 3-5 years) and then archive them (after putting a note about the impending archive, disabling the cache until we could get out to retrieve the box and then archiving the cache once it was removed), but I have never had the experience of someone deliberately making maintenance difficult for us so that we will give up the spot.

 

What's wrong with opening up a spot so others can enjoy the pleasure of planting a cache in a nice location? Sometimes I think hiders plant a cache like they are planting a flag and claiming that .1 mile radius of land as their own.

Link to comment

What's wrong with opening up a spot so others can enjoy the pleasure of planting a cache in a nice location? Sometimes I think hiders plant a cache like they are planting a flag and claiming that .1 mile radius of land as their own.

Nothing wrong with it....I just wonder about certain geocachers motivations is all. I can't say I have definitive proof either way. Just curious, thinking out loud, is all.

Link to comment
To add to your already good advice, it should also be pointed out that the person that submits a Needs Archived note is NOT the person responsible if the cache gets archived by the reviewer. All you are doing is calling the reviewer's attention to a cache that has issues. Archiving it or not is the reviewer's call.

However, executing the bearer of bad news is a time honored tradition :laughing:

Link to comment
Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

As I mentioned above... posting a NA log in no way, shape, or form, archives the cache.
Link to comment
I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. :laughing:

I, too, enjoy pulling up older caches and reading the logs. A new cache in the same spot definately would not have the fun of reading like the originals.

 

you can read archived listings. if a cache was archived it's not deleted from the site or anything.

Link to comment

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

The answer to your question is in bold.

 

If a cache is in need of repair at some future time (regardless of whether someone performed some maintenance today or whether that person was the owner or some random cacher), the issue can be addressed at that point. In the time between today and the point at which the cache (any cache) is in need of maintenance, the cache is jake regardless of whether the cache owner is 'active' at that moment.

 

As an aside, I am amused that some of the people that would suggest that no maintenance should be done by others and teh caches should simply be archived are the same people who bellyache about having to do maintenance on their caches.

 

I have never gotten that impression. More so the opposite impression. I hover over my caches and make sure their in tip top shape at all times. To see an ownerless cache turning in to trash rubs me the wrong. Disrespectful to the game, the community, the environment, etc. etc. That kind of cache has to go. If an owner can't keep their cache in even a halfway decent condition should they really own it? Why should I reward them by replacing their cache (that they've abandoned) for them?

Link to comment

Sometimes a cache is placed by a CO far, far away from his/hers origin. So is the case with GC17E2, one of the oldest caches in Norway, placed by a cacher from the "wrong side of the pond". This particular cache was placed out less than two months after the very first cache in Norway, and the time it was placed, it was the northernmost cache in Europe. This particular cache container was broken by some cachers last year, and the next finder(s) replaced the cache container with a new one, probably keeping most of the inventory, and a part of the original lid with the name of the cache.

 

In this case I guess the CO has no intention to do cache mainetance himself, because the cache is far too far away. A cache with such a long history, and with a CO with no practical possibility to maintain the cache, should be replaced when it is broken, but some care should be taken to keep the history intact.

 

This cache is also from the very early age of geocaching, and therefore it is important to keep it alive just because of it's history.

 

The cache owner in this particular case should really let a local cacher adopt the cache. But when the CO isn't reachable, another cacher may very well replace the cache. Most of the time it will be the container that is broken, and it is easily replacable with most of the old inventory intact. If the log book is no more usable, it can be replaced, with the old one still inside the cache, proving the history of it.

 

A cache just not found, or maybe disappeared, should not be replaced by another cacher.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...