Where's the Support

[+BryanX9X]

Gitchee-Gummee and Lone R why do you consider this a 'vitrual' cache. There is obviously a container there just look at the photos posted by the OP and added to this thread by Knowschad. The only issue is a poor cache container where the log sometimes falls out or gets wet. I understand a cache needs a log, and as I said in my last post a great CO would replace that sorry key holder with a matchstick. I've been to many caches nano to regular where the log was full, wet, damp, or flat out missing. That doesn't make those caches virtual just in need of maintenance. I feel this cache falls into the quality gray area that cannot be enforced. It does not violate guidelines, it is there, and the owner is active.

 

The reason this would be a virtual, is because the CO refuses to maintain the cache. The CO does NOT care if there is a log or not. The CO only cares that the container is there in what ever condition it might be in & that people are still logging the finds.

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is. Without these two things, this is NOT a cache. So then it would be a virtual, or a waymark.

[+BryanX9X]

GFYS is shorthand for something that would get any of us banned from this forum.

 

*ding ding ding* we have a winner!

 

My thoughts exactly. This is the type of geocacher that you do not want in the game. This is the type of person that screws it up for everyone else.

[+dakboy]

GFYS is shorthand for something that would get any of us banned from this forum.

 

*ding ding ding* we have a winner!

 

My thoughts exactly. This is the type of geocacher that you do not want in the game. This is the type of person that screws it up for everyone else.

Report him to abuse@ or contact@geocaching.com (or maybe there's a better address, I'm not sure) on the basis of those logs, not the cache itself

[+BryanX9X]

Report him to abuse@ or contact@geocaching.com (or maybe there's a better address, I'm not sure) on the basis of those logs, not the cache itself

 

He actually deleted his post about douche baggins. He must have thought that he would get in trouble for that one. Guess he was not thinking about the GFYS one.

[+BryanX9X]

HA HA HA HA

 

The CO has since deleted my posts for Needs Maintenance!! =)

 

Maybe he knows that he has something to hide. Something he does not want people to see, does not want the ADMINs to see. Like the fact that his cache is BROKEN!

 

HA HA HA too funny.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Reviewers and Groundspeak Lackeys can see deleted logs.

[+BryanX9X]

Report him to abuse@ or contact@geocaching.com (or maybe there's a better address, I'm not sure) on the basis of those logs, not the cache itself

 

Not sure if there is a abuse@ but i will give it a go. =) If not i'll just use the contact us page & see where they would like to direct me.

[+sbell111]

But this particular cache IS getting "Found it" logs. You can't (by guidelines) log a cache as found unless you have signed the log. Therefore, it follows logically that those others have been able to sign the log.

You are misunderstanding the guidelines. The guidelines forbid a cache owner from deleting a log if the logbook was signed (with a few exceptions). The guidelines do not mandate that all finders must sign the logbook.

[+Ike 13]

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is.

Sorry but that is not true. While it is suggested it is not a requirement.

[+Ike 13]

This CO is obviously over the line in their replies and very rude. That is wrong. But I still so ne reason to archive.

[+BryanX9X]

Sorry but that is not true. While it is suggested it is not a requirement.

 

Well then maybe you would like to re-read the requirements as stated in the geocaching.com guidelines.

 

Quoted straight out of these guides:

"Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching."

 

"Cache containers include a logsheet. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit."

 

So yeah, just as i stated, a cache MUST contain a logbook, & it MUST contain a "cache note"

 

Not my rules. *shrugs*

[+sbell111]

The problem is that it has been posted as a candidate for archival three times now & nothing as yet has been done about it. =(

Just because you keep saying that the cache needs to be archived, doesn’t make it so.

 

Read the CO's notes on that cache. He's said that if you can't sign the log because it's wet, you can still log it as a find. He doesn't care whether you've signed it or not.

Many, many cache owners would allow find logs if you couldn’t sign the log do to wetness. That doesn’t make those caches virts.

 

I just posted a note, sorry, could not help myself.

You might note that cache pages are not supposed to be used for these kind of discussions. They are not forums.

 

A very large number of this CO's caches (I've found/looked for several of them myself) would fit in very well on Waymarking.com. They're of the "oh, there's a <object>, I'll put a cache here" variety. 2 types of objects in particular.

I can think of few better reasons to hide a cache than to show off something cool.

 

A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

You might remember that Waymarking is an entirely different game. There’s no reason that a particular location couldn’t have a geocache and a waymark and a letterbox and a one-of-those-other-sites-cache.

 

[REDACTED] is shorthand for something that would get any of us banned from this forum.

In that case, one wonders why you chose to post the offending acronym in this forum.

 

I just posted a note, sorry, could not help myself.

Well if you have not checked back you might want to. He is now rudely remarking to you!

mermaidb50 - "once again a voice heard from after never stopping by the cache. sorry but the game has never stated a cache must have a top only a site to visit and a lo9g to find GFYS"

mermaidb50 - "frank you remaid me of Toilken and one of his unpublished characters.Douche Bagginns"

 

It is obvious that this CO has never read the rules or guidelines around what is required for a cache. Even though i had posted on his cache earlier the quote from the requirements that a cache must contain a log. & the CO's intelligence factor is openly shown by commenting that (in his opinion) a cache container does NOT need a lid.

It’s also obvious that you and Frank are not aware that you shouldn’t be posting those comments to his cache page. You reported the cache that you felt was in violation of the guidelines. A reviewer stated that it was not in violation. Let it go.

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is. Without these two things, this is NOT a cache. So then it would be a virtual, or a waymark.

Now you are just making stuff up. Edited October 12, 2011 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Sorry but that is not true. While it is suggested it is not a requirement.

 

Well then maybe you would like to re-read the requirements as stated in the geocaching.com guidelines.

 

Quoted straight out of these guides:

"Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching."

 

"Cache containers include a logsheet. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit."

 

So yeah, just as i stated, a cache MUST contain a logbook, & it MUST contain a "cache note"

 

Not my rules. *shrugs*

From the actual guidelines:

3.Geocache Contents

Geocache containers include a logsheet.

Contents are family-friendly.

Contents are appropriate for outdoor life.

Edited October 12, 2011 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

Great thread. Seems another war between the puritans and the heretics. The OP and his supporters have turned to the "rules" citing guidelines for caches to have containers and log sheets; and applying puritan logic that a broken container or wet log sheet doesn't meet these guideline so maintenance is required. When this maintenance doesn't happen in a reasonable time they expect the reviewers to archive the cache.

 

Keystone had it right. It's supposed to be a fun game. If people are finding the cache then there is no reason to archive it. At some point the container degrades to the point it no longer a cache (and perhaps this one has reach that point). If the cache owner isn't going to do maintenance then, a needs archive would be in order and would likely get a response. Cachers can always replace wet logs. A new baggie can keep the log dry at least for a while.

 

Puritans are so enamored by their belief that you must sign the log that a cache owner saying that if the log is wet and you can't sign they will still accept your find is interpreted as saying this is a virtual cache. Cache owners should accept logs like this, though if wet logs are a continuing issue they should do maintenance to address this.

 

I suspect this cache will likely be archived based on the CO's logs. The sad part is that when it does get archived the puritans will claim that it was their effort at enforcing "rules" that got the cache archive and this shows that heretical cache owners need to do maintenance if their cache doesn't meet the puritans requirements of a dry log to sign. They will probably also point out the cache owner was accepting found logs when the physical log was not signed and interpret this to mean that owners should be deleting such found logs.

 

I can't help but think that if people would just stop maintaining caches that they do not own caches like this would go away quicker.

Perhaps. However, this is supposed to be a fun game. If you find a cache in a degraded condition it is certainly nicer for the following finders (not for the cache owner) if you take time to fix it up a little if you are able. Many cachers carry dry log sheets, baggies, pencils, duct tape, and even containers as well as swag for containers where the swag has degraded. These caches are then more fun for the next person to find. Granted this has escalated to cachers leaving throw downs when they can't find a cache. If a cache is missing or needs major maintenance, I agree that you should have the CO's permission before doing this.

[+A & J Tooling]

Come on now, people....

 

Ev'rybody's talking about

Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism

This-ism, that-ism

Isn't it the most

All we are saying is give peace a chance

All we are saying is give peace a chance

 

Ev'rybody's talking about

Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,

Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,

And bye bye, bye byes.

All we are saying is give peace a chance

All we are saying is give peace a chance

 

Let me tell you now

Ev'rybody's talking about

Revolution, Evolution, Mastication, Flagelolation, Regulations.

Integrations, Meditations, United Nations, Congratulations

All we are saying is give peace a chance

All we are saying is give peace a chance

 

Oh Let's stick to it

Ev'rybody's talking about

John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy smothers, Bob Dylan,

Tommy Cooper, Derek Tayor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,

Hare Krishna

All we are saying is give peace a chance

All we are saying is give peace a chance

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is.

 

Where'd you get that rule? I've never found a micro with a "cache note" in it. I think you're just making up rules because you're upset.

 

A cache needs to have a container and a log. It doesn't stop being a cache if the container is of poor quality and the log is wet. A wet log is not a reason for posting a Needs Archived log. (If it was, half the caches in North Carolina would need to be archived.)

 

I'm still trying to figure out why this one particular cache has you so bent out of shape. Surely it's not the only cache you've found in a poor container with a wet log? Why the stalker behavior?

[Pup Patrol]

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is. Without these two things, this is NOT a cache. So then it would be a virtual, or a waymark.

 

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is.

 

Where'd you get that rule? I've never found a micro with a "cache note" in it. I think you're just making up rules because you're upset.

 

Home → Guidelines → Placement Guidelines: governing physical locations → Other Placement Considerations

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=305

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container. Transparent containers help to show that the contents are harmless. If the container has any military markings, we recommend covering these permanently or removing them. Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching.

 

Home → Guidelines → Listing Guidelines: for publication on geocaching.com → Listing Guidelines that Apply to All Geocaches

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307

 

3. Geocache Contents

 

1. Cache containers include a logsheet. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+sbell111]

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is.

 

Where'd you get that rule? I've never found a micro with a "cache note" in it. I think you're just making up rules because you're upset.

 

Home → Guidelines → Placement Guidelines: governing physical locations → Other Placement Considerations

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=305

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container. Transparent containers help to show that the contents are harmless. If the container has any military markings, we recommend covering these permanently or removing them. Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching.

Can I assume that you are taking the position that every cache that is not labelled as a geocache or does not have a cache note is in violation and should be archived?

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is.

 

Where'd you get that rule? I've never found a micro with a "cache note" in it. I think you're just making up rules because you're upset.

 

Home → Guidelines → Placement Guidelines: governing physical locations → Other Placement Considerations

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=305

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container. Transparent containers help to show that the contents are harmless. If the container has any military markings, we recommend covering these permanently or removing them. Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching.

 

Well, based on that, we can now ask GS to archive every nanocache in existence.

[+Ike 13]

I'm not debating the logbook part I agree with that so scratch that out.

 

Home → Guidelines → Placement Guidelines: governing physical locations → Other Placement Considerations

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=305

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container. Transparent containers help to show that the contents are harmless. If the container has any military markings, we recommend covering these permanently or removing them. Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching.

 

 

Notice that is from the knowledgebook under considerations, not requirements. Is it a good idea to include a stash note? Yes. Is it required to contain a stash note to be considered a cache? No.

 

Under your the OP's logic if a cache is not clear or does not clearly say the word Geocache it should be archived.

Edited October 12, 2011 by IkeHurley13

[Pup Patrol]

 

A cache MUST contain a log, & it MUST contain a "cache note" describing what geocaching is.

 

Where'd you get that rule? I've never found a micro with a "cache note" in it. I think you're just making up rules because you're upset.

 

Home → Guidelines → Placement Guidelines: governing physical locations → Other Placement Considerations

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=305

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container. Transparent containers help to show that the contents are harmless. If the container has any military markings, we recommend covering these permanently or removing them. Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching.

Can I assume that you are taking the position that every cache that is not labelled as a geocache or does not have a cache note is in violation and should be archived?

 

How did you jump to that conclusion?????

 

I was quoting the Guidelines to show that the OP was not making this stuff up.

 

Did I post anything other than what is clearly in the Guidelines? No.

 

Did I post an opinion about the Guidelines? No.

 

Any assumption you make is just something you've made up, and not based on anything that I've posted.

 

[+Ike 13]

 

How did you jump to that conclusion?????

 

I was quoting the Guidelines to show that the OP was not making this stuff up.

 

Did I post anything other than what is clearly in the Guidelines? No.

 

Did I post an opinion about the Guidelines? No.

 

Any assumption you make is just something you've made up, and not based on anything that I've posted.

 

Okay that is fair sorry Pup Patrol. I see your point. I guess sbell and I thought you were agreeing with the OP. So I need to add By the Op's logic to my post

[+Sol seaker]

Okay, I have cut and pasted the "Listing Guidelines" below. This is directly out of the mouth of Groundspeak.

 

I can understand why the thread owner here is upset. The Cache owner has replied with rude comments and not done maintenance as required.

 

Yet, only so much can be done.

I would suggest writing to the reviewer in your area, I guess that's Sapience Trek, and tell him/ her that the guy has many, many caches that have NM remarks on them and that he/she doesn't understand that as a cache owner you are supposed to maintain them. I would also mention that the cache owner is responding in a rude un-family-friendly manner when you have posted "needs maintenance."

 

Now, that's it. End of story.

It's up to the reviewer to respond once they've got the whole story.

After that, forget it. Move on. There are too many caches out there to be found to waste your time with this one cache.

 

If you find another of this guy's caches that needs maintenance, repeat the above formula (post NM, and write the exact same note to the reviewer, with NO anger or added remarks that this is the second, third, fourth, whatever time you've written the reviewer about this guy, then move on. Just the exact same note, saying you've posted a NM and this guy isn't responding except for nasty notes (if he does that again) and then MOVE ON.

 

Don't let one bad cache owner ruin your game.

Whether you let someone ruin your fun is up to you.

It is just a game, and it is just a tupperware box. This is not dying children in Africa or something.

Move on. Let it go.

 

 

 

 

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com.

 

Before a geocache is published on the website, a volunteer reviewer will look at the page for compliance with these guidelines. The physical geocache site is not verified. As the geocache owner, you retain all responsibility for your geocache listings and you are responsible for the placement and care of your geocache.

 

Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches

Technical Requirements

Listing must contain GPS coordinates.

Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable.

Geocache Maintenance

Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep.

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

Geocache Contents

Geocache containers include a logsheet.

Contents are family-friendly.

Contents are appropriate for outdoor life.

[+BryanX9X]

ThanXX PupPatrol, at least one other person knew what i was referencing.

 

Now that this has gotten SO far off topic. No i was not implying anything with my statement. Just making a point. & i will consent that the "cache note" is optional, but recommended.

 

Everything else aside. Back to the reason for the post. This CO refuses to maintain his caches. Am i upset about it? No, never was. This CO is rude & gives the sport/"game" a bad name.

 

The problem is that i would hope that there would be something that we could do about it. After attempting to resolve things on four levels, i thought that i would see if there were any other avenues that i have not tried. That is all. No anger, no stress. Just a slight case of irkage maybe. =)

[+The Blorenges]

... The problem is that i would hope that there would be something that we could do about it. After attempting to resolve things on four levels, i thought that i would see if there were any other avenues that i have not tried. That is all. No anger, no stress. Just a slight case of irkage maybe. =)

 

"Irkage" I can go with. I like that word. Having read through the cache page logs, I can empathise (or even empathize) with your irkage. I, too, would probably be verging on some degree of irkiness regarding this cache and the attitude of its owner.

 

You have now done all you can. Step back quietly from this cache listing and tiptoe away, leaving it to its miserable, soggy existance. Maybe when you look for the listing again in 6 months time it'll have gone.

 

MrsB

[+baloo&bd]

This CO refuses to maintain his caches. Am i upset about it? No, never was.

 

Really? After 20 posts here, who knows how many posts/logs on the caches page and emails to GS for something that should have been let go after your first NM log, that statements going to be a hard sell.

 

This CO is rude & gives the sport/"game" a bad name.

 

Not sure about that, aside from the fact that since the game is user driven this is going to happen from time to time and most understand that, not that many knew about the particular caches issue until it was made a "thing" here in the thread.

 

As noted elsewhere, the rest of the community in the immediate area there don't seem to see it as a big issue. Post your log, send an email to the CO and maybe GS, and then it was no longer your issue. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Go find some caches, have fun.

Edited October 12, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+BryanX9X]

... The problem is that i would hope that there would be something that we could do about it. After attempting to resolve things on four levels, i thought that i would see if there were any other avenues that i have not tried. That is all. No anger, no stress. Just a slight case of irkage maybe. =)

 

"Irkage" I can go with. I like that word. Having read through the cache page logs, I can empathise (or even empathize) with your irkage. I, too, would probably be verging on some degree of irkiness regarding this cache and the attitude of its owner.

 

You have now done all you can. Step back quietly from this cache listing and tiptoe away, leaving it to its miserable, soggy existance. Maybe when you look for the listing again in 6 months time it'll have gone.

 

MrsB

 

ha ha ha yeah i'll send you an e-mail when the cache has a pretty little line through it & we can raise a glass to the end of this one little bit of irkage! =)

[+GeoBain]

Sorry but that is not true. While it is suggested it is not a requirement.

 

Well then maybe you would like to re-read the requirements as stated in the geocaching.com guidelines.

 

Quoted straight out of these guides:

"Include a printed "cache note" inside your geocache explaining what it is and providing a brief description of geocaching."

 

"Cache containers include a logsheet. For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit."

 

So yeah, just as i stated, a cache MUST contain a logbook, & it MUST contain a "cache note"

 

Not my rules. *shrugs*

 

You better get to work. You got a LOT more NA logs to post.

[+hzoi]

You have now done all you can. Step back quietly from this cache listing and tiptoe away, leaving it to its miserable, soggy existance. Maybe when you look for the listing again in 6 months time it'll have gone.

 

MrsB

 

ha ha ha yeah i'll send you an e-mail when the cache has a pretty little line through it & we can raise a glass to the end of this one little bit of irkage! =)

 

Rather than "done all you can," I'd say you did far, far more than you needed to do, especially for an unremarkable park and grab magnetic keyholder.

 

Somehow I don't think Mrs B really cares enough to raise anything other than an eyebrow if you continue to follow up on this cache, though I suspect she's too polite to say so.

 

You ain't a reviewer. Quit wasting your time (and our forum space) on this cache. Move on with your life. Let it go, man. It's too late to be the bigger man about this, but you can certainly walk away.

 

If you must obsess about a cache, then for crying out loud consider finding another, more worthy cache to become the object of your obsession than a flippin' magnetic key hide without a lid.

[+fizzymagic]

Great thread. Seems another war between the puritans and the heretics.

 

Why do you keep insisting on using that word? Haven't you been told often enough that it is offensive? And isn't it more about holding yourself to a high standard rather than others?

 

In this case, I would come down firmly on the side of the CO. I don't know why the OP has a bee in his bonnet over this cache, but IMO as long as there is a container and I can sign something I am OK with the cache.

 

Here's a picture of a cache we found a couple of months ago. The tree had grown around it! How cool. It was not possible to sign the log so we signed the lid. And emailed the CO. It was a fun cache.

 

[+popokiiti]

Cache page isn't the place for "discussion" - I would leave this alone now. However, it does make me wonder how easy it is to do maintenance when you have 340 caches to look after. Maybe it's too many for this CO?

[+Frank Broughton]

I just posted a note, sorry, could not help myself.

 

And you got a GFYS out of the deal. C'mon Frank, help yourself next time.

 

Marvelous - Rule 3 of my bbs days, do not dish it out if you cannot take it. I can take it.

 

Actually the whole community should take this opportunity to cry out against these type of situations and that kind of attitude, the attitude is as lame as these power users putting out this garbage and not taking care of it.

 

Many times they are the same people who leave the "quality cache" right out in the open to get muggled.

[knowschad]

However, it does make me wonder how easy it is to do maintenance when you have 340 caches to look after. Maybe it's too many for this CO?

 

Quite a few of the OPs caches have been either archived or disabled by the reviewers for lack of maintenance and lack of response to their notes. In my opinion, active cachers should never leave a cache unmaintained long enough for the reviewer to have to archive it. Archive it yourself if you are not going to maintain it. Reviewers have enough to do cleaning up after absentee cache owners.

[+Sapience Trek]

I'm not really that bothered by the cache or the CO, but i am just bothered by the seemingly lack of response by the ADMINs.

 

You're in New York. Wet logs happen. People have found and signed the logbook before and after your NA. While it would be nice if the CO replaced the logbook with a dry one (which he recently did) and fixed the container, neither I nor New York Admin are going to archive a cache because the logbook is wet or the container is broken.

[+Frank Broughton]

Great thread. Seems another war between the puritans and the heretics. The OP and his supporters have turned to the "rules" citing guidelines for caches to have containers and log sheets; and applying puritan logic that a broken container or wet log sheet doesn't meet these guideline so maintenance is required. When this maintenance doesn't happen in a reasonable time they expect the reviewers to archive the cache.

 

Snipped...

 

 

Naw, some of us are just sick up and fed of power users placing junk out there, calling it a cache and in reality showing no respect for the game. There is no way anyone can take care of 300 caches - impossible. Thus why they do not. Look at the history of most of these power user cache placements. There are numerous needs maintenance logs and complaints and no did maintenance logs, just an archive when enough complain.

[+Frank Broughton]

Yet, only so much can be done.

I would suggest writing to the reviewer in your area, I guess that's Sapience Trek, and tell him/ her that the guy has many, many caches that have NM remarks on them and that he/she doesn't understand that as a cache owner you are supposed to maintain them. I would also mention that the cache owner is responding in a rude un-family-friendly manner when you have posted "needs maintenance."

 

Sapience Trek is one of the best reviewers in the country. She does a great job. ST's job is NOT cache maintenance. In no way would I drag him into this conversation. This is a chance to speak out more against the habits some power users have developed, as a community, with a goal of education. I mean, containers are cheap, good water proof ones. Money is not the issue. The issue is respect of the game. Ignoring it is fine and dandy, but it is just getting worse. I have seen the solution some have used to wet logbooks, a note that says "you found it, just log it" really I do not mind that. it is the foul smelling soggy logs that bug me, who knows what germs are growing in them.

[+Ike 13]

 

Naw, some of us are just sick up and fed of power users placing junk out there, calling it a cache and in reality showing no respect for the game. There is no way anyone can take care of 300 caches - impossible. Thus why they do not. Look at the history of most of these power user cache placements. There are numerous needs maintenance logs and complaints and no did maintenance logs, just an archive when enough complain.

 

I must respectfully disagree. Sure some owners who have 100's of caches are bad about maintenance, but the same can be said of someone with 10 hides. I know a CO who has a 450 caches (around 380 active) and always deals with maintenance right away. Recently we hit his area and hit some caches that had been stolen (around 5), a day after we posted the logs he got back to us to let us know they were indeed missing, but now replaced. That is amazing for any cache owner to do. And sure some of his caches are simple LPCs or GRCs but others are creative containers, puzzles, hikes, multis, and a lot of variety. Look we've all dealt with a CO who is horrible at maintenance and posting a NM is really all you can do in a case like this.

[+Frank Broughton]

Naw, some of us are just sick up and fed of power users placing junk out there, calling it a cache and in reality showing no respect for the game. There is no way anyone can take care of 300 caches - impossible. Thus why they do not. Look at the history of most of these power user cache placements. There are numerous needs maintenance logs and complaints and no did maintenance logs, just an archive when enough complain.

 

I must respectfully disagree. Sure some owners who have 100's of caches are bad about maintenance, but the same can be said of someone with 10 hides. I know a CO who has a 450 caches (around 380 active) and always deals with maintenance right away. Recently we hit his area and hit some caches that had been stolen (around 5), a day after we posted the logs he got back to us to let us know they were indeed missing, but now replaced. That is amazing for any cache owner to do. And sure some of his caches are simple LPCs or GRCs but others are creative containers, puzzles, hikes, multis, and a lot of variety. Look we've all dealt with a CO who is horrible at maintenance and posting a NM is really all you can do in a case like this.

 

I respectfully stand corrected... perhaps it IS possible and thus the rest of my argument more valid! The community CAN do something about this, and silence is it????

Edited October 13, 2011 by Frank Broughton

[+cache_test_dummies]

It was not possible to sign the log so we signed the lid. And emailed the CO. It was a fun cache.

I would think that signing a cache container would be considered disrespectful to the cache owner. Didn't someone else do that on a number of caches during one of the early 24 hour record attempts and get raked over the coals for it?

[+Harry Dolphin]

So what do you do when the CO refuses to repair their broken cache, & the ADMIN will not respond to e-mails or maintenance & archive postings?

 

Well, I guess you have your answer. The reviewers have done their job, and disagree with you. Two reviewers have told you so. The cache is satisfactory. (I have never heard of a requirement that a cache must have a top. Broken cache is not a reason for NA.)

So, as others have suggested, you should cease your vendetta pre-occupation with this particular cache. Ignore the CO, and continue to go geoacaching, and have fun! That's what this game is about: Having fun.

[+fizzymagic]

It was not possible to sign the log so we signed the lid. And emailed the CO. It was a fun cache.

I would think that signing a cache container would be considered disrespectful to the cache owner. Didn't someone else do that on a number of caches during one of the early 24 hour record attempts and get raked over the coals for it?

 

It's all context. We knew that the container would have to be replaced, so we felt it was OK to sign it. I have done it in other situations where only bits of the container could be found. I would never do it on a cache that had a working log.

[Clan Riffster]

neither I nor New York Admin are going to archive a cache because the logbook is wet or the container is broken.

Would either of you archive a cache if the owner used the cache page to sling vitriolic insults at people? Oh... Wait... This is New York, and I'm asking about simple civility... Nevermind.

[+tozainamboku]

Great thread. Seems another war between the puritans and the heretics. The OP and his supporters have turned to the "rules" citing guidelines for caches to have containers and log sheets; and applying puritan logic that a broken container or wet log sheet doesn't meet these guideline so maintenance is required. When this maintenance doesn't happen in a reasonable time they expect the reviewers to archive the cache.

 

Snipped...

 

 

Naw, some of us are just sick up and fed of power users placing junk out there, calling it a cache and in reality showing no respect for the game. There is no way anyone can take care of 300 caches - impossible. Thus why they do not. Look at the history of most of these power user cache placements. There are numerous needs maintenance logs and complaints and no did maintenance logs, just an archive when enough complain.

There certainly is an under current of frustration with poorly maintained caches. I'm not certain the problem is due to "power users" who hide more caches then they are capable of maintaining. In fact I think that more often you find the one cache hidden by a one weekend wonder, who went geocaching once, decided to hide a cache, and then never logged on to the website again. But it really doesn't matter the cause, the fact is that caches need maintenance from time to time. Some cache owners will bend over backwards and respond immediately when a problem is reported, but for most cache maintenance is not the highest priority and they may take a while to get to it. In particularly, a minor maintenance issue like a wet log might be ignored altogether. Logs dry out or get replaced by a cacher who carries spares. Reviewers have enough to deal with "Needs Archive" when there is a major problem - a missing cache or a permission issue. They probably aren't going to start archiving caches that have minor problems reported that can be fixed by the cache owner when they get around to it or get helped out by another cacher.

[+Lil Devil]

Wow. 94 posts because a reviewer wouldn't archive a cache with a wet logsheet.

[+GeoBain]

Wow. 94 posts because a reviewer wouldn't archive a cache with a wet logsheet.

 

95.... oops, make that 96.

[+Student Camper]

This topic (before it went off the rails) supports changing "needs archived" to "needs reviewer attention".

Many posters are reluctant to post an NA because they don't want to deal with the backlash that may occur.

If an NRA was posted, the CO would have to deal with the reviewer, How far would the CO have gotten if some of those comments were addressed to someone who could actually do something about it?

Not far, I think.

I'm not advocating increasing the reviewer workload but it's something to think about.

 

but then again, we wouldn't have had this most interesting thread.

[Mr.Yuck]

neither I nor New York Admin are going to archive a cache because the logbook is wet or the container is broken.

Would either of you archive a cache if the owner used the cache page to sling vitriolic insults at people? Oh... Wait... This is New York, and I'm asking about simple civility... Nevermind.

 

Well that's true. Buy my pal Frank now has a new nickname because of it; Douche Baggins. As a rude New Yorker, I rather like it.

[Mr.Yuck]

Naw, some of us are just sick up and fed of power users placing junk out there, calling it a cache and in reality showing no respect for the game. There is no way anyone can take care of 300 caches - impossible. Thus why they do not. Look at the history of most of these power user cache placements. There are numerous needs maintenance logs and complaints and no did maintenance logs, just an archive when enough complain.

 

I must respectfully disagree. Sure some owners who have 100's of caches are bad about maintenance, but the same can be said of someone with 10 hides. I know a CO who has a 450 caches (around 380 active) and always deals with maintenance right away. Recently we hit his area and hit some caches that had been stolen (around 5), a day after we posted the logs he got back to us to let us know they were indeed missing, but now replaced. That is amazing for any cache owner to do. And sure some of his caches are simple LPCs or GRCs but others are creative containers, puzzles, hikes, multis, and a lot of variety. Look we've all dealt with a CO who is horrible at maintenance and posting a NM is really all you can do in a case like this.

 

I respectfully stand corrected... perhaps it IS possible and thus the rest of my argument more valid! The community CAN do something about this, and silence is it????

 

I didn't know this until yesterday, but this appears to be the #1 cache hider in New York, with 340 hides. I knew about about a couple people on Long Island with about 275. Anywho, not to fling poo, but if you do nothing about a micro which is only a magnet for 3 months, and have the cache involuntarily disabled by a reviewer, then 340 caches is probably in over your head. This one.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

IBTL

 

It is not to ask why.

 

It is better to ask why are you asking why?

 

It is just to accept that which is, as opposed to that which is not.

 

All this over a micro? - When you do a PQ, do NOT include MICROS! Simple.

 

Shirley~

 

And, I say again.....IBTL

[+Frank Broughton]

neither I nor New York Admin are going to archive a cache because the logbook is wet or the container is broken.

Would either of you archive a cache if the owner used the cache page to sling vitriolic insults at people? Oh... Wait... This is New York, and I'm asking about simple civility... Nevermind.

 

Well that's true. Buy my pal Frank now has a new nickname because of it; Douche Baggins. As a rude New Yorker, I rather like it.

 

You are a new yorker indeed. A western one, rude - nope. Just add it to the billion other nick names I have earned over the decades. Bob, psycho or buckwheat being some I may have liked at the time. Remember the psycho what? days on 96.9 FM?

 

To me this is not a non issue, what is the issue to me is how so many just wink at this kind of garbage that goes on. Do not use junk containers. Good containers are cheap. I have in stock 7 ammo cans, 46 decent size lock 'n locks, and 30 or so water proof small to micro size containers for mutli caches. It is not exspensive to use a water proof appropriate container that will keep your log dry. NEVER an excuse for a germ filled filthy soggy cache EVER! and all the winking will not change that for me and I imagine many others too - but who are just to kind to say so.

 

I may be guilty of facilitating the lazy CO, I always carry numerous sized logs and baggies with me. I have even replaced whole containers. I think I should stop that practice and just start looking at this kind of cache as what it is - LITTER and do the right thing and toss it where it belongs - in the closest garbage receptacle. Will that make me a cache maggot or a good citizen? On several occasions I could not tell the difference anyways. Said kind of cache placed in an area shewn with garbage.