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

[4wheelin_fool]

Just because you fixed a cache and gave it another 5 years of life, doesn't mean that you are responsible for it. You don't need to cuddle and massage it. Just smoke a cigarette and take off!

[+simpjkee]

You are not obligated to maintain another cacher's cache. If you choose to do so, you are placing the burden upon yourself. If you are willing to take that burden on, then it is perfectly acceptable to unoficially maintain a cache.

 

Where you're drifting away from reality is your interjection of the words "Having to" and the words "because they disappeared". In the hypothetical scenario, you would be choosing to maintain the previously abandoned cache, not being forced to do so. So long as you are still a creature of free will, nothing that you choose to do can ever be mandatory. As for the reasons behind why you might choose to maintain a hypothetical previously abandoned cache? It's not because the previous owner disappeared. That's just the event that led to your making a choice. The reason for maintaining it would be your own, whatever it may be, and could include things like, the find was somehow special to you, or the cache has some historical significance which you wish to preserve in an active state.

 

You're right Clan Riffster. I don't 'have to' maintain it. That was a poor choice of words on my part. But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about choosing to repair the container, I'm talking about choosing to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter. This I'd regard as cache maintanence. Though you are right that I'm not 'forced' to log the NM or NA and/or remove the litter, it is the appropriate log to describe the visit and the appropriate thing to do for the enviroment and leave no trace principles yadda yadda yadda.

[+Klondike Mike]

Even if you maintain the cache, eventually someone comes along who isn't willing to help out, and instead posts a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

Yeah, not sure how to correct that one. Can a reviewer remove a "Needs Maintenance" icon, or would that level of editting have to come from the Lily Pad? I don't think I'd have to worry about the hypothetical cache being archived by any of our three local reviewers just because of the icon, as all three of them would be aware that any real issues would be addressed and corrected by me.

 

Yes a reviewer can and has removed the needs maintenance icon

[Clan Riffster]

I'm talking about choosing to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter.

We all appreciate your sacrifice.

There is nothing wrong with your approach, if that's what you want to do. There is also nothing wrong with replacing the hypothetical container, if that's what you choose to do. No would here would question the fact that the original owner would be in violation of the guidelines. The question was, "Is it OK to replace a container belonging to an absent owner". There are no guidelines prohibiting this. Since the guidelines are what most of us use to determine if a particular behavior is acceptable or not, the only accurate answer to that question is "Yes".

[+simpjkee]

Even if you maintain the cache, eventually someone comes along who isn't willing to help out, and instead posts a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

Yeah, not sure how to correct that one. Can a reviewer remove a "Needs Maintenance" icon, or would that level of editting have to come from the Lily Pad? I don't think I'd have to worry about the hypothetical cache being archived by any of our three local reviewers just because of the icon, as all three of them would be aware that any real issues would be addressed and corrected by me.

 

Yes a reviewer can and has removed the needs maintenance icon

 

Can/Will the reviewer remove the icon at the request of a cacher who doesn't own the listing, but did physical maintanence on it?

[+Chrysalides]

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

But no one is asking or forcing you to take on the task. No one expects you to. So why would it be a burden to you?

 

Would Clan Riffster taking on an abandoned geocache and maintaining it be a burden to you?

[+Chrysalides]

Can/Will the reviewer remove the icon at the request of a cacher who doesn't own the listing, but did physical maintanence on it?

Yes.

[+simpjkee]

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

But no one is asking or forcing you to take on the task. No one expects you to. So why would it be a burden to you?

 

Would Clan Riffster taking on an abandoned geocache and maintaining it be a burden to you?

 

I don't 'have to' maintain it. That was a poor choice of words on my part. But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about choosing to repair the container, I'm talking about choosing to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter. This I'd regard as cache maintenance. Though you are right that I'm not 'forced' to log the NM or NA and/or remove the litter, it is the appropriate log to describe the visit and the appropriate thing to do for the enviroment and leave no trace principles yadda yadda yadda.

 

As far as your second question, that is a good question. I can only say that Clan Riffster appears to be a veteran cacher, who understands the commitment he is entering himself in to when choosing to replace and maintain the cache. Though I don't agree with it, if someone is going to do it, I'm glad it's someone like Riffster. However, I think he is a rare case and a much more likely case is the case of the OP who considered replacing the cache without any intention of maintaining it. If the OP replaced the cache and abandon it, just as the owner did, the cycle continues until eventually someone comes along and makes the decision to archive it once and for all.

[+simpjkee]

I think there is two different situations here:

 

1. The OP's case where they considered replacing a cache and then abandoning it for future cachers to deal with as the owner did.

 

2. Clan Riffsters case where he replaces a cache, watches it, and volunteers to do everything he can to keep the cache up and running as smoothly as possible.

 

Though I disagree with both, I find #2 more agreeable than #1.

[+Chrysalides]

But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about choosing to repair the container, I'm talking about choosing to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter. This I'd regard as cache maintenance. Though you are right that I'm not 'forced' to log the NM or NA and/or remove the litter, it is the appropriate log to describe the visit and the appropriate thing to do for the enviroment and leave no trace principles yadda yadda yadda.

To me, picking up pieces of an abandoned cache and logging a NA or NM is not a burden - this game is all about volunteering your own money and time. Hundreds of people hid caches so that I have found them. Picking up the occasional piece, adding a log sheet, etc. is not a burden to me. If at any point it starts being a burden to me, I will have to question myself that perhaps I should take a break, or to move on to another hobby.

 

If I fix a cache, I'm not fixing it for the absentee owner (or at least, just for the owner). I'm fixing it for those who finds it after me. Ditto for filing a NA / NM and picking up the pieces. Ditto for cleaning up trash in a park - I'm not doing it for the person who threw it there, but for other park users.

 

There are many reasons why caches get abandoned. The ultimate being the hider died. Have you made provisions for your hides if you were to suddenly expire? I haven't, and I doubt most do - it is human nature not to want to think about such things.

[Clan Riffster]

I think there is two different situations here:

Agreed. For me, replacing a cache container once the original owner has called it quits is kinda like feeding a stray kitten. The act is not lightly entered into, as my actions would have deliberately contributed to that cache's continued existence, potentially blocking the placement of a new cache at that spot. At that point, I would feel obligated to ensure that the cache stayed viable. It would be, in my eyes, an adoption in everything but name, and I would only do this for caches that either had some special significance to me, or had some unique historical perspective.

 

<disclaimer>

I should note that these "rules" apply only to me, and should not be considered as guidance for others.

</disclaimer>

 

There are many different versions regarding when a cache should be archived. My version is:

If the cache is in serious violation of the guidelines.

or

If the cache is no longer viable, is not being maintained by the community, and the owner is no longer active.

 

If some kind soul replaces a cache container, returning it to a viable state, it doesn't meet my personal SBA standard. History tells us that it will reach that standard eventually, at which time the people who encounter it will need to evaluate their options and decide on a course of action. Using its past history as an example, (surviving for 9 years), replacing the container with a comparable one could conceivably make that cache viable for another 9 years. The idea of an 18 year old viable cache seems pretty kewl to me.

[+simpjkee]

But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about choosing to repair the container, I'm talking about choosing to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter. This I'd regard as cache maintenance. Though you are right that I'm not 'forced' to log the NM or NA and/or remove the litter, it is the appropriate log to describe the visit and the appropriate thing to do for the enviroment and leave no trace principles yadda yadda yadda.

To me, picking up pieces of an abandoned cache and logging a NA or NM is not a burden - this game is all about volunteering your own money and time. Hundreds of people hid caches so that I have found them. Picking up the occasional piece, adding a log sheet, etc. is not a burden to me. If at any point it starts being a burden to me, I will have to question myself that perhaps I should take a break, or to move on to another hobby.

 

If I fix a cache, I'm not fixing it for the absentee owner (or at least, just for the owner). I'm fixing it for those who finds it after me. Ditto for filing a NA / NM and picking up the pieces. Ditto for cleaning up trash in a park - I'm not doing it for the person who threw it there, but for other park users.

 

There are many reasons why caches get abandoned. The ultimate being the hider died. Have you made provisions for your hides if you were to suddenly expire? I haven't, and I doubt most do - it is human nature not to want to think about such things.

 

I think you are confusing the words 'burden' and 'inconvenience'. Picking up pieces of an abandoned cache and logging a NA or NM is a burden. You can then feel convenienced or inconvenienced by this burden. Like you, I feel convenienced by this burden because like you, I love to geocache. If at any point the burden starts being an inconvenience to me, I will have to question myself that perhaps I should take a break, or to move on to another hobby. Make sense?

Edited February 26, 2010 by simpjkee

[+Chrysalides]

I think you are confusing the words 'burden' and 'inconvenience'. Picking up pieces of an abandoned cache and logging a NA or NM is a burden. You can then feel convenienced or inconvenienced by this burden. Like you, I feel convenienced by this burden because like you, I love to geocache. If at any point the burden starts being an inconvenience to me, I will have to question myself that perhaps I should take a break, or to move on to another hobby. Make sense?

Actually, I think you're confusing the two.

 

Inconvenient - something giving trouble or annoyance.

Burden - oppressive or worrisome.

 

Merriam Webster's definition, not only mine.

 

To me, inconvenience is a minor irritation. A burden keeps me awake at night.

 

But we're not here to quibble over the language. Even if I replace the word burden with, say, "minor irritation", I still fail to see how somebody else repairing an abandoned geocache would affect you negatively. Statistically, you are just as likely to stumble onto a non viable geocache, whether someone repairs it or not. Actually, if more people repair it when possible, you are less likely to stumble across a non viable cache.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Chrysalides

[+briansnat]

...because maintaining the listing is part of maintaining the cache.

Which could be done with notes, posted to the cache page.

 

Notes drop toward the bottom after time. With more and finds they might not be noticed. Who reads every log on every cache before going out (besides the handful of exceptions here who will chime in and claim they do?) And with more and more people going paperless those notes may never be seen. Things like hint changes, coordinate updates, container switches, new contact information, etc. won't be available to most paperless cachers once they fall off the first few logs.

 

Besides, that information doesn't belong in the logs, it belongs in the cache page text. That is where people will be looking for it.

 

Look, if someone wants to unofficially adopt a cache, or if the community wants to take on maintenance of a cache, that is their business. Heck, I've done it myself with a few of the "historic" caches around here.

 

But in the overwhelming majority of instances these abandoned caches should be archived the area opened up to someone who hopefully will take care of his cache.

[+briansnat]

Can/Will the reviewer remove the icon at the request of a cacher who doesn't own the listing, but did physical maintanence on it?

Yes.

 

It's not a blanket yes. Some may remove the the icon and some may not. Updating listings for abandoned caches is not part of a reviewer's job description.

[+sbell111]

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived. The online logs stay there. From the condition you described the log is probably useless anyway, so once you replace the logbook and container you have nothing of the physical "history" left anyway.

The history will be buried in the bowels of the Internet. For those who appreciate those kinds of things, archiving the cache forever strips them of the opportunity to have their cache name affixed to the same cache page as those who found it eight years ago. For those who don't care about such things, keeping the cache viable through an informal adoption should have no impact, unless they want the spot for themselves or they want someone else to hide a cache there so they can increase their find count. Personally, I like old caches. I think it's kinda neat to scroll through years of "Found It" logs, seeing who all found it. It's even kewler, for me, if my name is included in the history.

 

I side with Clan Riffster in this case. The cache has been placed in 2001, the owner went missing in 2002, the cache needs maintenance in 2010. It survived for 9 years with no maintenance, it will most likely survive another 9 once the container has been replaced. The logbook can be dried and put in a ziploc (or scanned and reprinted if it's in a really bad shape), and the history will be preserved. The location is worth visiting, and having a GC+3 cache at the end of the hike makes the hunt more exciting, and the trip more memorable!

 

(Full disclosure: Since 2007 I'm also the unofficial maintainer of a cache placed in 2001, whose owner went missing.)

 

So what happens if say the stump it was hidden in disintegrated to the point where you need to move it to a boulder 15 feet away? How do you update the hint that says "In the stump"? What if someone posts a "Needs maintenance" and you fix it. How do you remove the needs maintenance flag? How about if you replace the original flimsy Gladware with an ammo box, but the text on the page says "...in a Gladware container"? How will the land owner/manager contact you if there is an issue with the cache?

What if a meteor hits the cache? Should you rehide it in the crater, or find another nearby stump?

 

What ifs are pointless.

[+sbell111]

... If the OP replaced the cache and abandon it, just as the owner did, the cycle continues until eventually someone comes along and makes the decision to archive it once and for all.

The bolded part is true of every single cache on the planet.

 

The fact is, it really makes no difference if the person doing maintenance is the 'owner' or just some other cacher that recognized that a problem existed. It still boils down to this: Every single cache on teh planet either needs maintenance or doesn't. If it doesn't need maintenance right at this moment, there is no need for anyone to even consider archiving it. In fact, from a cache finder's perspective, there is no difference between the cache being owned by a paranoid cache owner who makes a maintenance run on every single Saturday and the cache owner who shipped out to the land of sand ten months prior.

Edited February 26, 2010 by sbell111

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

Too bad this thread wasn't closed after a definitive answer was given. Folks who come here to learn something about the game should find good questions and good answers, once a good answer is given it shouldn't be buried in endless trivial debate making it hard to find.

[+sbell111]

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?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

Too bad this thread wasn't closed after a definitive answer was given. Folks who come here to learn something about the game should find good questions and good answers, once a good answer is given it shouldn't be buried in endless trivial debate making it hard to find.

As I read Moose Mob's post, it is apparent that a personal opinion was given, not a definitive answer. Moose Mob made this perfectly clear by describing the "posts that I agree with".

 

Just because an answer is given that you agree with, doesn't mean that it is the definitive answer or the only 'good answer'.

Edited February 26, 2010 by sbell111

[+L0ne.R]

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

But no one is asking or forcing you to take on the task. No one expects you to. So why would it be a burden to you?

 

Based on simpjkee's clarification:

 

(simpjkee @ Feb 25 2010, 10:09 PM) *

But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about choosing to repair the container, I'm talking about choosing to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter.

 

Some of us feel an obligation to the game and to the environment. That includes posting the NA when the cache is damaged (with multiple NMs), and then returning to clean up the mess when it is finally gets archived by the reviewer. Last year, I felt obligated to drive the 45 km round trip to toss the moldy container and contents in the trash container, otherwise it probably would remain in the woodlot for years. I was the one to post the NA, so I felt obligated to remove the container (who else was going to do it?). So, yeah, it is a bit of a burden but one I'm willing to do for the good of the game.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

But no one is asking or forcing you to take on the task. No one expects you to. So why would it be a burden to you?

 

Based on simpjkee's clarification:

 

(simpjkee @ Feb 25 2010, 10:09 PM) *

But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about

choosing

to repair the container, I'm talking about

choosing

to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter.

 

Some of us feel an obligation to the game and to the environment. That includes posting the NA when the cache is damaged (with multiple NMs), and then returning to clean up the mess when it is finally gets archived by the reviewer. Last year, I felt obligated to drive the 45 km round trip to toss the moldy container and contents in the trash container, otherwise it probably would remain in the woodlot for years. I was the one to post the NA, so I felt obligated to remove the container (who else was going to do it?). So, yeah, it is a bit of a burden but one I'm willing to do for the good of the game.

 

 

 

Sorry I have to disagree with some of this.(not directed at any one person in particular) The "Obligation" you feel is one of personal choice. You could have very easily chosen the "obligation" to repair the cache and make it viable again. Or is that not considered "contributing to the environment and the game"?

 

The part I find the most disturbing about all of this is... when you make a choice, or I make a choice, each of us is doing what we see best. The prevelant sentiment on this thread seems to be "you should make the same choice I did".

 

If I, or anyone else ,chooses to help maintain a cache, how has that hurt you in any way? You may say " well in the future I am going to have to clean that mess up and archive it." My response.... "how is that any different than what you would have done had you gotten there before I did?" Bottom line is... in between my maintenance, and your finding it an undefined period of time later, again in disrepair, and archiving it, the cache lived!!!

 

And to top it all off, neither of us "had" to do anything. We made a choice. My choices will not always match yours, nor vice-versa.

 

The only difference in what I am saying, and others are saying is, others want me to make their choice. I never asked others to maintain a cache, but many seem to be trying to force me to archive one.

 

The "what ifs" are pointless. It is up to the individual to decide what he/she wants to do, and do it.

 

I am not going to criticize someone who posted to archive a cache they didn't want to maintain. But in return I don't want to be criticized for trying to save one.

Edited February 26, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just because an answer is given that you agree with, doesn't mean that it is the definitive answer or the only 'good answer'.

True.

 

In this case it's not because it's an answer I agree with but because Moose Mob is as close to an authority with a definitive answer as we are likely to get here.

[+briansnat]

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?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

Too bad this thread wasn't closed after a definitive answer was given. Folks who come here to learn something about the game should find good questions and good answers, once a good answer is given it shouldn't be buried in endless trivial debate making it hard to find.

 

There is no definitive answer, but there were many good answers in this thread. Of course some people had to confuse matters by bringing in exceptional situations, but as a general practice I think Moose Mob had one of the good answers.

[+L0ne.R]

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

But no one is asking or forcing you to take on the task. No one expects you to. So why would it be a burden to you?

 

Based on simpjkee's clarification:

 

(simpjkee @ Feb 25 2010, 10:09 PM) *

But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about

choosing

to repair the container, I'm talking about

choosing

to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter.

 

Some of us feel an obligation to the game and to the environment. That includes posting the NA when the cache is damaged (with multiple NMs), and then returning to clean up the mess when it is finally gets archived by the reviewer. Last year, I felt obligated to drive the 45 km round trip to toss the moldy container and contents in the trash container, otherwise it probably would remain in the woodlot for years. I was the one to post the NA, so I felt obligated to remove the container (who else was going to do it?). So, yeah, it is a bit of a burden but one I'm willing to do for the good of the game.

 

Sorry I have to disagree with some of this.(not directed at any one person in particular) The "Obligation" you feel is one of personal choice. You could have very easily chosen the "obligation" to repair the cache and make it viable again. Or is that not considered "contributing to the environment and the game"?

 

If I had replaced the container (and logbook and pencil and swag because everything was covered in black hairy mold, the knock-off lock n lock had long ago lost 3 of its tabs) I would have felt a greater obligation to continue to maintain that cache - but it was in a so-so location, nothing special. If it had been a really nice location I would have preferred credit for the hide with access to the cache page, i.e. I would prefer to hide my own cache rather then maintain a cache that the CO abandoned (I don't want to encourage that type of behaviour).

[+NeecesandNephews]

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

But no one is asking or forcing you to take on the task. No one expects you to. So why would it be a burden to you?

 

Based on simpjkee's clarification:

 

(simpjkee @ Feb 25 2010, 10:09 PM) *

But when I say that I'm handed the burden of maintaining an abandoned cache, I'm not talking about

choosing

to repair the container, I'm talking about

choosing

to log the NM or NA so the next cacher doesn't have to and then removing their litter.

 

Some of us feel an obligation to the game and to the environment. That includes posting the NA when the cache is damaged (with multiple NMs), and then returning to clean up the mess when it is finally gets archived by the reviewer. Last year, I felt obligated to drive the 45 km round trip to toss the moldy container and contents in the trash container, otherwise it probably would remain in the woodlot for years. I was the one to post the NA, so I felt obligated to remove the container (who else was going to do it?). So, yeah, it is a bit of a burden but one I'm willing to do for the good of the game.

 

Sorry I have to disagree with some of this.(not directed at any one person in particular) The "Obligation" you feel is one of personal choice. You could have very easily chosen the "obligation" to repair the cache and make it viable again. Or is that not considered "contributing to the environment and the game"?

 

If I had replaced the container (and logbook and pencil and swag because everything was covered in black hairy mold, the knock-off lock n lock had long ago lost 3 of its tabs) I would have felt a greater obligation to continue to maintain that cache - but it was in a so-so location, nothing special. If it had been a really nice location I would have preferred credit for the hide with access to the cache page, i.e. I would prefer to hide my own cache rather then maintain a cache that the CO abandoned (I don't want to encourage that type of behaviour).

 

 

I didn't mean to single anyone out, including you Lone R, I was just utilizing your post to try and draw attention to a point I was trying to make.

 

I think you understand what i was trying to say, and in your response you point out to me why you made the choice you did. I respect that.

 

We all will make choices. I am just happy to see another cacher doing the responsible thing in response to his choice. I hope people will feel the same way if I choose to help a cache live on, if even for a short time.

[+sbell111]

Just because an answer is given that you agree with, doesn't mean that it is the definitive answer or the only 'good answer'.

True.

 

In this case it's not because it's an answer I agree with but because Moose Mob is as close to an authority with a definitive answer as we are likely to get here.

Moose Mob gave Moose Mob's opinion and presented it as such. If it was presented as Groundspeak policy, that would be different, but it was not.

[+StarBrand]

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?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

This seems like the way most sensible post in the bunch!!

[+Renegade Knight]

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?

 

Yes. It's entirly ok to be a cache angel.

[+Renegade Knight]

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?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

Too bad this thread wasn't closed after a definitive answer was given. Folks who come here to learn something about the game should find good questions and good answers, once a good answer is given it shouldn't be buried in endless trivial debate making it hard to find.

If only it was a good answer to begin with instead of starting with the fallacy that it needed archiving.

 

A better answer is.

 

1) Be a cache angel. The cache is now fine. This is what the OP acked about. But if they don't do this then:

2) Contact the owner (the assumption they are missing may or may not be valid) about the cache.

3) If the owner says "whoops, your right I need to get on that" you don't need the NA or the NM log.

4) If the owner says nothing you may consider the "NM" log since the cahce is viable (it can be found the log can be signed).

 

All of that before you ever hit the need to think about the NA log.

 

The NA log is not to be used just because finders like to be lazy and pawn the work off to a volunteer.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Renegade Knight

[+StarBrand]

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?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

This seems like the way most sensible post in the bunch!!

[+Cairngorm]

In the asteroid-sized State Park beside my home there's a lot - I can think of eight without even trying, and there could easily be 20 or more - of caches that don't comply with the owners' current "guidelines" on new placements (which our reviewers seem to take seriously). If those get archived, they're gone. Yeah, go out and replace the box, and thank you.

[Clan Riffster]

Too bad this thread wasn't closed after a definitive answer was given.

The problem with that logic is, who provided a definative answer?

The question was "Is this OK?"

The only accurate answer to that is "Yes", according to the Groundspeak guidelines.

The debate rages on because of the ideal that, just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should.

Had the OP asked, "Should I do this?", the answers would have been quite different.

 

I hope people will feel the same way if I choose to help a cache live on, if even for a short time.

If you ever choose to add some life to an existing cache, you'll have my thanx and respect.

[+bittsen]

Caches are like dogs. If you find one in the middle of nowhere that's ready to die, take it home and care for it but don't toss it back in the wild to die a slow death.

Or, just let it's life end naturally. Or pull the trigger (Send a needs archived note).

[+Chrysalides]

Caches are like dogs. If you find one in the middle of nowhere that's ready to die, take it home and care for it but don't toss it back in the wild to die a slow death.

Or, just let it's life end naturally. Or pull the trigger (Send a needs archived note).

Caches are nothing like dogs.

[+bittsen]

Caches are like dogs. If you find one in the middle of nowhere that's ready to die, take it home and care for it but don't toss it back in the wild to die a slow death.

Or, just let it's life end naturally. Or pull the trigger (Send a needs archived note).

Caches are nothing like dogs.

 

OK, caches are like wild dogs.

[AZcachemeister]

Can/Will the reviewer remove the icon at the request of a cacher who doesn't own the listing, but did physical maintanence on it?

Yes.

 

But, forced adoptions without owner agreement are no longer allowed.

Geocaching.com does not own the caches, they are just a listing service.

Active caches require active owners

Caches are being archived just because the logbook is full, and the owner does not respond.

I might replace and/or add to the logbook, but the 'Needs Maintenance' attribute cannot be cleared by me. And so a reviewer comes along, notices the 'NM' that has been there for six months, and 'correctly' archives the cache.

 

Can anyone show us a reviewer note stating a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner?

 

I'm not saying I disagree with community maintenance of caches (especially particularly significant ones), but it just isn't in the best interest of Geocaching.com.

 

I'm also not saying I find that policy particularly appealing, but I understand the reasons for it.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Can anyone show us a reviewer note stating a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner?

 

 

I believe when this was mentioned in a previous post the "note" was left on the log by the person performing the non-owner upkeep, for the Reviewer to see, not left by the Reviewer.

[+Chrysalides]

Can anyone show us a reviewer note stating a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner?

No. But I know of one where a reviewer enabled a cache after the owner had passed away when someone else performed maintenance on it. No, I will not link to it, the attention would not be welcome.

[+simpjkee]

... If the OP replaced the cache and abandon it, just as the owner did, the cycle continues until eventually someone comes along and makes the decision to archive it once and for all.

The bolded part is true of every single cache on the planet.

 

The fact is, it really makes no difference if the person doing maintenance is the 'owner' or just some other cacher that recognized that a problem existed. It still boils down to this: Every single cache on teh planet either needs maintenance or doesn't. If it doesn't need maintenance right at this moment, there is no need for anyone to even consider archiving it. In fact, from a cache finder's perspective, there is no difference between the cache being owned by a paranoid cache owner who makes a maintenance run on every single Saturday and the cache owner who shipped out to the land of sand ten months prior.

 

What? Considering archiving a smooth running cache? I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested this or advocates for this. Where did you get that impression? We're talking about a broken cache that needs maintenance and has been abandoned by the owner. In this case it makes a huge difference from the perspective of a cache hunter if there is an owner to maintain the cache or not. Hence why this thread was started in the first place.

[+simpjkee]

The prevelant sentiment on this thread seems to be "you should make the same choice I did".

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would not purposely give you that impression. This issue is obviously gray and ambiguous. I'm not trying to force anyone to 'do what I do' or anything. I am however an adult engaging other adults in good ole healthy debate on a hot topic issue. Not because I think I can change the geocaching world, but because I'm a huge geocaching nerd, like to talk about it, and appreciate hearing other peoples opinions that differ from mine. I think it's fun and interesting conversation. I may disagree and debate, but we're all friends here. Thats how I see it at least.

[+simpjkee]

Can anyone show us a reviewer note stating a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner?

 

 

I believe when this was mentioned in a previous post the "note" was left on the log by the person performing the non-owner upkeep, for the Reviewer to see, not left by the Reviewer.

 

The reviewer won't see any logs other than 'needs archived' logs unless their attention is drawn to the cache page. You're right that in previous posts the note was left by a cacher not reviewer. Thats why it would be interesting to see a reviewer note saying that a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner (if such a note a note exists).

[+Chrysalides]

The prevelant sentiment on this thread seems to be "you should make the same choice I did".

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would not purposely give you that impression. This issue is obviously gray and ambiguous. I'm not trying to force anyone to 'do what I do' or anything. I am however an adult engaging other adults in good ole healthy debate on a hot topic issue. Not because I think I can change the geocaching world, but because I'm a huge geocaching nerd, like to talk about it, and appreciate hearing other peoples opinions that differ from mine. I think it's fun and interesting conversation. I may disagree and debate, but we're all friends here. Thats how I see it at least.

My position is that if you choose to log a NA / NM instead of repairing it, it's fine with me (it's stated in an earlier post, but I can't be bothered to look it up). I was under the impression, from your posts, that you view cache repair as wrong, and that it should not be done. Which is why I kept questioning how does it harm you.

 

Since I've already acknowledged there is nothing wrong (in my view) with what you do, I'm obviously not trying to change what you're doing. I'm only trying to understand why you think my position is flawed.

[+simpjkee]

Can/Will the reviewer remove the icon at the request of a cacher who doesn't own the listing, but did physical maintanence on it?

Yes.

 

But, forced adoptions without owner agreement are no longer allowed.

Geocaching.com does not own the caches, they are just a listing service.

Active caches require active owners

Caches are being archived just because the logbook is full, and the owner does not respond.

I might replace and/or add to the logbook, but the 'Needs Maintenance' attribute cannot be cleared by me. And so a reviewer comes along, notices the 'NM' that has been there for six months, and 'correctly' archives the cache.

 

Can anyone show us a reviewer note stating a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner?

 

I'm not saying I disagree with community maintenance of caches (especially particularly significant ones), but it just isn't in the best interest of Geocaching.com.

 

I'm also not saying I find that policy particularly appealing, but I understand the reasons for it.

 

There was a cache in our area that was abandoned, needed maintainence, and the cache page was way out of date. It was about 2 and a half years ago. Through e-mail, I explained the situation to the reviewer and got the coords and cache page updated, but the maintenance icon was never cleared and eventually the cache was archived because of the icon. I'm kinda curious if it's still sitting out there. I didn't request it, but I doubt a non owner can get the icon cleared or I assume it would have been on that cache.

[+Chrysalides]

There was a cache in our area that was abandoned, needed maintainence, and the cache page was way out of date. It was about 2 and a half years ago. Through e-mail, I explained the situation to the reviewer and got the coords and cache page updated, but the maintenance icon was never cleared and eventually the cache was archived because of the icon. I'm kinda curious if it's still sitting out there. I didn't request it, but I doubt a non owner can get the icon cleared or I assume it would have been on that cache.

Good question - I know a reviewer can enable and disable a cache. I do not know if they can edit a cache page, post a "owner maintenance" log, or otherwise affect those attributes.

 

I know that there are many completely viable caches around here with the maintenance flags set for years. Sometimes it is because the CO does not know how or forgot to.

[+Taoiseach]

Can anyone show us a reviewer note stating a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner?

 

 

I believe when this was mentioned in a previous post the "note" was left on the log by the person performing the non-owner upkeep, for the Reviewer to see, not left by the Reviewer.

 

The reviewer won't see any logs other than 'needs archived' logs unless their attention is drawn to the cache page. You're right that in previous posts the note was left by a cacher not reviewer. Thats why it would be interesting to see a reviewer note saying that a cache is being maintained by so-and-so in lieu of the actual owner (if such a note a note exists).

 

There is an example of that here. I too feel that providing a link to it in these forums is unwise...

[+NeecesandNephews]

The prevelant sentiment on this thread seems to be "you should make the same choice I did".

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would not purposely give you that impression. This issue is obviously gray and ambiguous. I'm not trying to force anyone to 'do what I do' or anything. I am however an adult engaging other adults in good ole healthy debate on a hot topic issue. Not because I think I can change the geocaching world, but because I'm a huge geocaching nerd, like to talk about it, and appreciate hearing other peoples opinions that differ from mine. I think it's fun and interesting conversation. I may disagree and debate, but we're all friends here. Thats how I see it at least.

My position is that if you choose to log a NA / NM instead of repairing it, it's fine with me (it's stated in an earlier post, but I can't be bothered to look it up). I was under the impression, from your posts, that you view cache repair as wrong, and that it should not be done. Which is why I kept questioning how does it harm you.

 

Since I've already acknowledged there is nothing wrong (in my view) with what you do, I'm obviously not trying to change what you're doing. I'm only trying to understand why you think my position is flawed.

 

 

Chrysalides I agree and said the same thing earlier. If that is what you (meaning anyone) want to do (NA/NM) I don't have a problem with it. Just don't fault me if I choose to do otherwise.

 

Simpjkee, we are all good!!! I am not getting in a twist over it, and I hope others aren't either. I love a good discussion about it myself!!

 

Thing is... as I see it...the OP asked "would it be okay...?". My answer was "yes it would". I have noticed a great many responses were not started with "I would..." but rather " Do this!_____". (loosely paraphrasing)

 

 

The debate continues with whether or not once the NM shot has been fired, the caches days are numbered anyway. Many view the NM as a mortal wound to the listing. I find no hard evidence this is true. I have done a little searching in my area ,on caches found and unfound by me, and have found several with NM logs that are ages old. With no "maintenance done" logs from the owners. These caches continue to be found and logged. Some note maintenance performed by the finder.

 

My hope is to repair a damaged cache before a NM is logged. Who knows how long it could live with an absentee owner if I did that.

 

I personally know of one cache that has a NA posted on it that for some reason hasn't been archived. It is a two-stage multi, and the first part continues to be found, while the second has been noted missing in many logs. The owner disabled it last August !!! The NA was logged a couple weeks ago. The owner archived several of his caches recently, citing in the online log "don't play anymore" or "don't have time for it anymore" Another topic for another thread, I don't understand why a disabled cache is allowed to be carried on the listing pages this long. That is one instance I would not repair the cache. Unless the owner takes it off disabled, there would be no point.

 

Just as I did with my first response, I still hold out it is an individual choice.

[+simpjkee]

The prevelant sentiment on this thread seems to be "you should make the same choice I did".

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would not purposely give you that impression. This issue is obviously gray and ambiguous. I'm not trying to force anyone to 'do what I do' or anything. I am however an adult engaging other adults in good ole healthy debate on a hot topic issue. Not because I think I can change the geocaching world, but because I'm a huge geocaching nerd, like to talk about it, and appreciate hearing other peoples opinions that differ from mine. I think it's fun and interesting conversation. I may disagree and debate, but we're all friends here. Thats how I see it at least.

My position is that if you choose to log a NA / NM instead of repairing it, it's fine with me (it's stated in an earlier post, but I can't be bothered to look it up). I was under the impression, from your posts, that you view cache repair as wrong, and that it should not be done. Which is why I kept questioning how does it harm you.

 

Since I've already acknowledged there is nothing wrong (in my view) with what you do, I'm obviously not trying to change what you're doing. I'm only trying to understand why you think my position is flawed.

 

It's all good dude, but I have no idea how you got the impression that I "view cache repair is wrong" and that "it should not be done" or that I "think your position is flawed".

 

I think that replacing an abandoned cache that needs maintenance without the intent of continuing to maintain it is not the right thing to do.

 

Truth be told, there is no blanket position that satisfies all situations and there probably never will be. Thats why this is a good debate and an interesting conversation to engage in.

[+simpjkee]

There was a cache in our area that was abandoned, needed maintainence, and the cache page was way out of date. It was about 2 and a half years ago. Through e-mail, I explained the situation to the reviewer and got the coords and cache page updated, but the maintenance icon was never cleared and eventually the cache was archived because of the icon. I'm kinda curious if it's still sitting out there. I didn't request it, but I doubt a non owner can get the icon cleared or I assume it would have been on that cache.

Good question - I know a reviewer can enable and disable a cache. I do not know if they can edit a cache page, post a "owner maintenance" log, or otherwise affect those attributes.

 

I know that there are many completely viable caches around here with the maintenance flags set for years. Sometimes it is because the CO does not know how or forgot to.

 

The reviewer edited the coords and cache page because of my request, but did not clear the maintanence icon.

 

Maybe they aren't doing it everywhere, but in AZ a second reviewer comes through and disables caches with a maintenance icon on them. I think a lot of them are because the owner doesn't know how to deal with it and If it isn't addressed, then the cache gets archived regardless if the cache is operating smoothly or not. For example, a caches ends up archived because 2 years ago someone posted a needs maintenance because the log was full and the owner replaces the log but logs it online as a 'note' instead of an 'owner maintenance' and doesn't clear the icon.....Yeah, it's ridiculous.

[4wheelin_fool]

If it feels good, and you're not hurting anyone then there is nothing wrong with fixing it.

 

If you post a NA or NM log that leads to an archived log, then please go out and pick it up (after trying to contact the owner, of course)

[+gorillagal]

I've followed this thread, because I've been in this situation recently. For my 1000th find, I wanted to find one of the oldest caches in Colorado. Because of the last log on it, I knew it needed serious help. The owner had no current email, and hadn't even been on the site for years. I asked the opinion of folks in our local forum about whether to submit a NA log and put out a new cache or replace the cache and keep the historic listing. The overwhelming opinion was to preserve the historic cache. The container is different (and better), but the location is the same. I have the cache on my watch list and will treat it as one of my own as far as maintenance goes. There are a few older caches in the area that have been adopted (both officially and unofficially) to keep them going. By older caches, I'm talking about 2000 and 2001 placements. I have no issues with those who feel they should be archived and replaced. Around here, the consensus seems to be different. Cache on!