Log Paper Etiquette

[+litefoot13]

I'm a fairly new geocacher, though I lurk the forums pretty extensively and therefore have a decent knowledge. There is one topic that I think I'd like a little more information on, however, before I do anything that relates to it.

 

Logs. Suppose I find a cache and the log is missing/wet/full beyond belief.

What is the proper protocol?

If I have a replacement log paper on hand (as I am thinking of having in my geocaching bag, along with extra plastic bags of various size), should I replace? Add to? I imagine a replacement would be welcome for a missing log, but what if it is just full and/or soggy? Personally I would probably add a new sheet if there is room, but not add one if I would have to take out any log to do so. Unless the previous paper is disintegrated.

 

The other related question is virtually logging. I've seen a few comments on marking 'Needs Maintenance' for full/soggy logs that were very negative. Should I write a NM log for a cache if I find the log full...should I only log it NM if I am the umpteenth person to find it that way? Should I only write NM for damaged containers? What is generally acceptable?

[BCProspectors]

You can log a Needs Maintenance anytime there is something wrong with the cache that the cache owner will need to fix. Wet logbooks are something the owner will have to go and deal with, so it's fine to log a Needs Maintenance. You can still log a NM even if a previous cacher has done so already. The more NM logs the faster the cache owner will notice and repair the cache.

Edited April 24, 2010 by BCProspectors

[+DN_Chip]

I recently found a leaky cache and the logbook was a useless pulp. I added a sheet of paper in a new plastic bag and posted a "needs maintenance" and a find. I wouldn't remove a wet log since the owner may need it to compare the manual log with the online log. So, In my opinion, you have the right idea. I agree that more "needs maintenance" posts will get the attention of the owner or maybe geocaching.com.

[+NanCycle]

The more NM logs the faster the cache owner will notice and repair the cache.

 

I agree that more "needs maintenance" posts will get the attention of the owner or maybe geocaching.com.

 

May be true for you (for me, one NM log would get my attention) but first the CO has to care, so -- tain't necessarily so.

[+ShowStop]

I'm always appreciative of a Geocacher that assists with any maintenance needs on my caches. If the log is full/wet/torn and they replace it, I'm grateful for the assistance. Doing this kind of maintenance requires no prior permission on my part. Other cache owners may react differently, but it seems most don't have an issue with maintenance assistance like you mention.

 

If you have replaced the log, it doesn't require a NM log unless there are other outstanding issues that still need to be addressed.

[hoosier guy]

Sounds like you have a good plan with the extra paper and the ziploc bags. You would not only be helping your self by adding something to sign but fellow cachers & the CO as well.

 

When I have come across aproblem I will click on the CO's profile and send them a message via email. I have never gotten a negative response doing this and several folks have been appreciative since 99.9999% of CO's want their caches in good shape.

 

Happy Caching!

Edited April 23, 2010 by hoosier guy

[+litefoot13]

All right. Much thanks to all.

I think I will refrain from taking out any logs unless completely illegible...and if there is no space to add in a spare sheet I will not replace, just log a NM.

 

Like I said, I just wanted to check, because I have heard other posters call NM logs for full logsheets annoying and unnecessary. ^^

But I think I will do what I would want people to do for one of my caches. And if someone is angry at me for doing so, they can let me know! *grins*

[+wrtiii]

When replacing the log your should probaly put the old logbook if full (or leave it in a plastic bag) if wet. But You should not remove the old log book from the cache.

 

Let the cache owner know you replaced the log and the damaged log book is in the cache but could use to be removed.

 

A lot of cache owners make use of the years of history a log book may contain.

[+simpjkee]

Add a log but don't remove an old log.

 

If the log or cache needs maintanence, log a needs maintanence.

[+briansnat]

I'm always appreciative of a Geocacher that assists with any maintenance needs on my caches. If the log is full/wet/torn and they replace it, I'm grateful for the assistance. Doing this kind of maintenance requires no prior permission on my part. Other cache owners may react differently, but it seems most don't have an issue with maintenance assistance like you mention.

 

If you have replaced the log, it doesn't require a NM log unless there are other outstanding issues that still need to be addressed.

 

I'm one who prefers that the finder simply log a needs maintenance and lets me take care of my logbook.

 

As far as logging a NM if you've replaced the log, it all depends on what someone means by replacing it. If he just added a slip of paper that only has room for a few names, it's still a good idea to log a NM. Even if a full logbook was added, but there is still a soaked logbook the owner should stlll check on the cache to remove the wet logbook and find out why the cache got wet in the first place, so again a NM is appropriate.

 

If you just added a logbook because the original was full then no NM is necessary.

[+cache_r_joe]

for me it depends on the condition of the cache. If it is in so bad shape that it's just going to get wet again, I won't leave another log, but will post a NM and mention it in my log entry (NM doesn't give you credit for the cache). If I think that it will last out, I'll dry everything as much as possible, leave even a piece of paper to help out until the CO can get our to do the maintenance. It's helping the CO out. I don't know of anyone that would be offended by someone leaving a piece of paper there to help other cachers out.