Manx Geocaches

[AfricanShadowMan]

Folks,many of the caches on the Island are in a shoddy condition, please take note of the messages that are left on your sites (if you hace hidden a cache).

I would say that over half of the caches I have found are in need of fixing, logs full, caches full of water etc etc.

If we are going to play the game lets play properly.

Happy hunting.

ASM.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Posting a "Needs Maintenance" log would flag it better than just leaving a comment in your "Found it" log...

(Not all cachers/cache hiders are forum visitors, in fact it's a very small percentage)

[Deceangi]

In the first instance, post a Needs Maintence Log, as well as a Found log. This is copied to the cache Owner. If the Cacher owner fails to action a number of Needs Maintence logs, or there area number of logs confirming that the container is missing, then post a Needs Archived log. These are copied to both the cache owner and also to Reviewers.

 

As the Reviewer responcible for the IoM. I try to check for IoM NA, logs every day, and will action them after a appropiate period.

 

Deci

[AfricanShadowMan]

In the first instance, post a Needs Maintence Log, as well as a Found log. This is copied to the cache Owner. If the Cacher owner fails to action a number of Needs Maintence logs, or there area number of logs confirming that the container is missing, then post a Needs Archived log. These are copied to both the cache owner and also to Reviewers.

 

As the Reviewer responcible for the IoM. I try to check for IoM NA, logs every day, and will action them after a appropiate period.

 

Deci

Thanks Guys, I will also go back over my finds and see if any need to be flagged that I have missed.

[+thehoomer]

I have flagged several of the IOM caches to the reviewers.

[+Gushoneybun]

Folks,many of the caches on the Island are in a shoddy condition, please take note of the messages that are left on your sites (if you hace hidden a cache).

I would say that over half of the caches I have found are in need of fixing, logs full, caches full of water etc etc.

If we are going to play the game lets play properly.

Happy hunting.

ASM.

As a finder it is a good idea where possible to carry a few spare logs and cloth to dry caches out. This does not remove the need for owners to maintain caches but if you come across one that is damp (maybe the last finder found it in a heavy rain shower) or the log is full you can help out.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have flagged several of the IOM caches to the reviewers.

It's been very wet and windy over there for a long time now, so no surprise that a number of caches are suffering. Which ones did you flag for maintenance? You don't seem to have logged them yet.

Several cache owners are also rather rare visitors to the site nowadays as well, so it might be best to do a bit of maintenance on their behalf instead of flagging them up to the reviewer. If the ones you found are up on the hills, it's a shame if you didn't sort them out. The next opportunity for the cache owner might be yet another storm-ridden day.

[+thehoomer]

I have flagged several of the IOM caches to the reviewers.

It's been very wet and windy over there for a long time now, so no surprise that a number of caches are suffering. Which ones did you flag for maintenance? You don't seem to have logged them yet.

Several cache owners are also rather rare visitors to the site nowadays as well, so it might be best to do a bit of maintenance on their behalf instead of flagging them up to the reviewer. If the ones you found are up on the hills, it's a shame if you didn't sort them out. The next opportunity for the cache owner might be yet another storm-ridden day.

We haven't found (or tried to find) any of those we have flagged for review.

The caches we have flagged have been unavailable for 6 months or longer.

[+Happy Humphrey]

In that case, if you've taken on the role of Manx Cache Overseer I'd suggest getting in touch with the more active cachers in the area (and/or cache owners) and asking them to look into it. It might be that the locals aren't worried about disabled caches too much, so you could end up merely causing bad feeling and geolitter if they eventually get archived.

AfricanShadowMan is in a different position because he's been disappointed by the state of some caches, so it's fair enough to report a NM for them.

[+thehoomer]

In that case, if you've taken on the role of Manx Cache Overseer I'd suggest getting in touch with the more active cachers in the area (and/or cache owners) and asking them to look into it. It might be that the locals aren't worried about disabled caches too much, so you could end up merely causing bad feeling and geolitter if they eventually get archived.

AfricanShadowMan is in a different position because he's been disappointed by the state of some caches, so it's fair enough to report a NM for them.

As far as I am aware, we all have the right to report any none/badly maintained caches to the reviewers. It is not within my remit of Manx cache overseer, to individually contact random IOM cachers to ask them to maintain caches which don't belong to them.

[+Amberel]

In that case, if you've taken on the role of Manx Cache Overseer I'd suggest getting in touch with the more active cachers in the area (and/or cache owners) and asking them to look into it. It might be that the locals aren't worried about disabled caches too much, so you could end up merely causing bad feeling and geolitter if they eventually get archived.

AfricanShadowMan is in a different position because he's been disappointed by the state of some caches, so it's fair enough to report a NM for them.

I know it's Chrismas, and time of goodwill and all that, but really, if a cache has been disabled for more than 6 months and the cache owner isn't responding, the cache should go. If the local cachers want a cache at that location they can just as easily hide another one there, and unlike the old one, the new cache hopefully will have a concientious owner.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Happy Humphrey]

In that case, if you've taken on the role of Manx Cache Overseer I'd suggest getting in touch with the more active cachers in the area (and/or cache owners) and asking them to look into it. It might be that the locals aren't worried about disabled caches too much, so you could end up merely causing bad feeling and geolitter if they eventually get archived.

AfricanShadowMan is in a different position because he's been disappointed by the state of some caches, so it's fair enough to report a NM for them.

I know it's Chrismas, and time of goodwill and all that, but really, if a cache has been disabled for more than 6 months and the cache owner isn't responding, the cache should go. If the local cachers want a cache at that location they can just as easily hide another one there, and unlike the old one, the new cache hopefully will have a concientious owner.

 

Rgds, Andy

Indeed; but if the cache is disabled then it won't cause trouble for a visitor, and if a local cacher wants to sort it out he's in a much better position to do so than someone from across the water. If no-one local seems to be bothered, then why not leave it be.

If the listing is archived the cache won't go, in fact it's more likely to stay where it is, forgotten, until it disintegrates totally. Keeping it Disabled will remind people of the problem.

[+thehoomer]

In that case, if you've taken on the role of Manx Cache Overseer I'd suggest getting in touch with the more active cachers in the area (and/or cache owners) and asking them to look into it. It might be that the locals aren't worried about disabled caches too much, so you could end up merely causing bad feeling and geolitter if they eventually get archived.

AfricanShadowMan is in a different position because he's been disappointed by the state of some caches, so it's fair enough to report a NM for them.

I know it's Chrismas, and time of goodwill and all that, but really, if a cache has been disabled for more than 6 months and the cache owner isn't responding, the cache should go. If the local cachers want a cache at that location they can just as easily hide another one there, and unlike the old one, the new cache hopefully will have a concientious owner.

 

Rgds, Andy

Indeed; but if the cache is disabled then it won't cause trouble for a visitor, and if a local cacher wants to sort it out he's in a much better position to do so than someone from across the water. If no-one local seems to be bothered, then why not leave it be.

If the listing is archived the cache won't go, in fact it's more likely to stay where it is, forgotten, until it disintegrates totally. Keeping it Disabled will remind people of the problem.

I can see where you are coming from HH but consider.......

Remind people of the problem for how long? If 6-7 months isn't long enough, what is? I am inclined to free up the area for a more conscientious cacher, than to sit back and watch a potentially great spot go undiscovered by fellow cachers because of a disabled cache.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can see where you are coming from HH but consider.......

Remind people of the problem for how long? If 6-7 months isn't long enough, what is? I am inclined to free up the area for a more conscientious cacher, than to sit back and watch a potentially great spot go undiscovered by fellow cachers because of a disabled cache.

Does it matter if it sits there disabled for years? If you're a local cacher who wants to use the same spot then you can check the cache situation and post a NA if necessary. If nobody does that, it's better that the listing continues to reflect the fact that there's (probably) a cache in place. Hopefully someone will get round to sorting it out, but if the cache is archived before this happens there's a good chance that a cache exists but isn't listed; i.e. geolitter.

 

IMO a reviewer should only archive the listing once he's fairly sure that there's no findable physical cache, but I believe that this check does not happen.

 

I know about one of the caches in question (GC2BMM5) - I know about it only too well!

[+Amberel]

Indeed; but if the cache is disabled then it won't cause trouble for a visitor, and if a local cacher wants to sort it out he's in a much better position to do so than someone from across the water. If no-one local seems to be bothered, then why not leave it be.

 

If the listing is archived the cache won't go, in fact it's more likely to stay where it is, forgotten, until it disintegrates totally. Keeping it Disabled will remind people of the problem.

If I thought there was a realistic chance that someone would deal with it after years of neglect I might possibly agree, but the chances are so small that I think it's not worth keeping dross in the listings. I think every listed cache should have an active, concientious owner.

 

If you're a local cacher who wants to use the same spot then you can check the cache situation and post a NA if necessary.

For me that's a slightly tricky one. It's a situation that arose near me, but I felt uncomfortable logging an NA specifically to free up a spot for a new cache placement by myself, so I didn't.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+thehoomer]

Indeed; but if the cache is disabled then it won't cause trouble for a visitor, and if a local cacher wants to sort it out he's in a much better position to do so than someone from across the water. If no-one local seems to be bothered, then why not leave it be.

 

If the listing is archived the cache won't go, in fact it's more likely to stay where it is, forgotten, until it disintegrates totally. Keeping it Disabled will remind people of the problem.

If I thought there was a realistic chance that someone would deal with it after years of neglect I might possibly agree, but the chances are so small that I think it's not worth keeping dross in the listings. I think every listed cache should have an active, concientious owner.

 

If you're a local cacher who wants to use the same spot then you can check the cache situation and post a NA if necessary.

For me that's a slightly tricky one. It's a situation that arose near me, but I felt uncomfortable logging an NA specifically to free up a spot for a new cache placement by myself, so I didn't.

 

Rgds, Andy

Also, new cachers may not be aware that they can free up an area by having an un-maintained cache archived by means of an NA.

I make no apology that I take no prisoners when it comes to posting an NA log - for what I consider to be, the right reasons.

If no one ever used the NA facility for the purposes it was intended, Id venture that we would be inundated with copious sets of co ordinates, with no cache at the location. After all, a cache at the given co ordinates is why we all play the game.

[AfricanShadowMan]

I have not always flagged it up as needing maintenance but in my description or logging of the find I will always let the owner know, an email is sent to them when the cache is found (well I get one every time one of mine is found) I kind of thought that the cache owners would act on that information regardless if its flagged up with the little cross symbol.

However I will now include a cloth in my 'hunting kit' to dry off any wet caches I find, log books are another matter though.

Good responses Folks, wasnt sure if anyone went on the forums.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Also, new cachers may not be aware that they can free up an area by having an un-maintained cache archived by means of an NA.

I make no apology that I take no prisoners when it comes to posting an NA log - for what I consider to be, the right reasons.

If no one ever used the NA facility for the purposes it was intended, Id venture that we would be inundated with copious sets of co ordinates, with no cache at the location. After all, a cache at the given co ordinates is why we all play the game.

I know, and I'm not criticising your action which I know was taken for the right reasons even though I think it was counter-productive. But my point is that there probably IS a cache at the coordinates, and I'm trying to avoid having abandoned caches sitting around with no easy way of knowing where they are. If you'd been to check the cache before posting the NA it'd be a different matter, but I don't think people should be going through listings of distant caches and flagging up seemingly neglected ones. It seems that you've withdrawn the NA log anyway; thanks.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Does it matter if it sits there disabled for years? If you're a local cacher who wants to use the same spot then you can check the cache situation and post a NA if necessary. If nobody does that, it's better that the listing continues to reflect the fact that there's (probably) a cache in place. Hopefully someone will get round to sorting it out, but if the cache is archived before this happens there's a good chance that a cache exists but isn't listed; i.e. geolitter.

In the situation of a cache needing maintenance, and being disabled it IS geolitter if the CO isn't getting out there to sort the situation out -in a reasonably short time. Two months should be more than adequate time to do something, or at least post a note on the cache page to say when.

 

If the 'locals' aren't prepared to take action, there are cachers that will post NA (Should be called "Reviewer Attention Required" or similar) to try to speed things up.

[+Happy Humphrey]

In the situation of a cache needing maintenance, and being disabled it IS geolitter if the CO isn't getting out there to sort the situation out -in a reasonably short time.

It's not geolitter because anyone can go out there and retrieve the situation; it's quite clear where the cache is supposed to be. If the cache is just proving tricky to find, or is waterlogged or has a full log book then it doesn't seem right to abandon it and make its location secret. However negligent the cache owner.

 

Having said that, I'm aware that in many cases the cache is being archived because it's highly likely to have gone missing and I don't disagree with a remote NA in that case. Here's an example, archived today. I think it's highly unlikely that there is any abandoned cache littering the area there, and really the previous non-finders should at least have posted a NM log.

[+Bear and Ragged]

In the situation of a cache needing maintenance, and being disabled it IS geolitter if the CO isn't getting out there to sort the situation out -in a reasonably short time.

It's not geolitter because anyone can go out there and retrieve the situation; it's quite clear where the cache is supposed to be. If the cache is just proving tricky to find, or is waterlogged or has a full log book then it doesn't seem right to abandon it and make its location secret. However negligent the cache owner.

 

Having said that, I'm aware that in many cases the cache is being archived because it's highly likely to have gone missing and I don't disagree with a remote NA in that case. Here's an example, archived today. I think it's highly unlikely that there is any abandoned cache littering the area there, and really the previous non-finders should at least have posted a NM log.

But, a string of DNF's as in the example, should alert a cache owner to a possible problem.

But, not helped by the fact that DNF's will generate further DNF's from the next cachers as they don't search for long, in the belief the cache has gone...

[+maxkim]

Also, new cachers may not be aware that they can free up an area by having an un-maintained cache archived by means of an NA.

I make no apology that I take no prisoners when it comes to posting an NA log - for what I consider to be, the right reasons.

If no one ever used the NA facility for the purposes it was intended, Id venture that we would be inundated with copious sets of co ordinates, with no cache at the location. After all, a cache at the given co ordinates is why we all play the game.

I know, and I'm not criticising your action which I know was taken for the right reasons even though I think it was counter-productive. But my point is that there probably IS a cache at the coordinates, and I'm trying to avoid having abandoned caches sitting around with no easy way of knowing where they are. If you'd been to check the cache before posting the NA it'd be a different matter, but I don't think people should be going through listings of distant caches and flagging up seemingly neglected ones. It seems that you've withdrawn the NA log anyway; thanks.

As I understand it even if deleted the NA log remains in the reviewers list... and they can ask the relevant questions... I hate to search for ages for a cache that, when you go online to look at is has 15 + DNFs etc against it. I don't agree with HH that others should maintain caches for someone that can't / don't maintain their own... and I admit I have failed myself on occasions and the NA does promt action... But to argue that it leaves litter if they are archived cannot be right or we wouldn't get rid of any. Round here local cachers make the effort to remove geolitter... maybe this could happen in the IOM? Cheers MaxKim.

[+thehoomer]

I haven't actually withdrawn any of my NA logs, one of them has been deleted by the CO but the reviewer will still see it. Two of the others have now been archived by the CO. This is a shame because I would sooner see the cache sorted and available again than archived but at least the CO has taken some action.

The NA facility is there for us all to use and providing it is not abused, is a very useful tool to ensure the game stays tidy, fair, effective and within the rules. Ive said this before but now seems an appropriate time to state the obvious again.... We go to great lengths to maintain our caches and would absolutely expect an NA on any of them should we not be doing right by the rest of the Geo-community.

 

I am unaware of any geographical constraints or the prerequisite of a DNF when posting a NA but perhaps I should've earned posting them until we come to spend our annual week on the island, marshalling the TT course? Would this have made our NA's more palatable perhaps?

[+Happy Humphrey]

I am unaware of any geographical constraints or the prerequisite of a DNF when posting a NA but perhaps I should've earned posting them until we come to spend our annual week on the island, marshalling the TT course? Would this have made our NA's more palatable perhaps?

It's not a case of being palatable, except that the CO might be more likely to take umbrage if someone who's never been near the cache decides to stick his oar in; and rather than get round to sorting the cache out merely archives it instead, even though it's actually in place. It's more to do with having made a physical check first so that you know what the situation is. I've been to caches with months of DNFs and found them within a few minutes; as Bear and Ragged mentions, sometimes a DNF effectively generates more.

[+thehoomer]

I respect your views HH but cannot share them.

I would hazzard a guess that most of the NA's we have ever posted are on caches which were set by cachers who 'loved' the game for a fortnight, set a few caches, moved on to their next hobby and then the caches turn to worms. As far as we are concerned, if you are unable or uninterested enough to not maintain your caches after 6 months of DNF's, without even posting a note,(difficulty accepting), they should be archived. We have never posted a NA on a cache where there has been regular/recent updates by the CO on the status of the cache. If a CO has left the game or is disinterested enough to not at least post a note on the page, we would have no hesitation in posting an NA and until a uniformed personage tells us different, will continue to do so, umbrage, warts and all.

 

Edited for typo.

Edited December 28, 2011 by thehoomer

[+a1nnie]

An interesting debate. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I it is pleasing to see that people can accept that other people's opinion may differ to theirs. I do often ponder on the issue of neglected physical caches, but will not be jumping into the above debate (cos I'm a coward!!

 

I am hoping to visit Isle of Man in the summer, a fleeting one just to see what the island is like and to pick up a few caches so I can fill in that section on my statistics map. Noting all of the comments above, I shall take care which caches I choose to look for in the very short period of time that I shall have there.

[+thehoomer]

An interesting debate. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I it is pleasing to see that people can accept that other people's opinion may differ to theirs. I do often ponder on the issue of neglected physical caches, but will not be jumping into the above debate (cos I'm a coward!!

 

I am hoping to visit Isle of Man in the summer, a fleeting one just to see what the island is like and to pick up a few caches so I can fill in that section on my statistics map. Noting all of the comments above, I shall take care which caches I choose to look for in the very short period of time that I shall have there.

It's a truly magical island a1nnie, I hope you enjoy your visit. Don't forget to wave to the 'little people' if you go in in the vicinity of GC1TA19.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I respect your views HH but cannot share them.

I would hazzard a guess that most of the NA's we have ever posted are on caches which were set by cachers who 'loved' the game for a fortnight, set a few caches, moved on to their next hobby and then the caches turn to worms. As far as we are concerned, if you are unable or uninterested enough to not maintain your caches after 6 months of DNF's, without even posting a note,(difficulty accepting), they should be archived. We have never posted a NA on a cache where there has been regular/recent updates by the CO on the status of the cache. If a CO has left the game or is disinterested enough to not at least post a note on the page, we would have no hesitation in posting an NA and until a uniformed personage tells us different, will continue to do so, umbrage, warts and all.

 

Edited for typo.

Sorry to dig up this thread again! One of the caches in question has been archived now, but it seems that both stages are still in place (geolitter). As the cache owner is aware of the situation, hopefully he'll clear the geolitter. But I don't see what's been gained over and above a disabled cache.

The CO has set more than a "few" caches (80 in fact, including a Wherigo and a CITO); so doesn't fit in with your expected profile.

[+Amberel]

One of the caches in question has been archived now, but it seems that both stages are still in place (geolitter). As the cache owner is aware of the situation, hopefully he'll clear the geolitter. But I don't see what's been gained over and above a disabled cache.

The CO has set more than a "few" caches (80 in fact, including a Wherigo and a CITO); so doesn't fit in with your expected profile.

Maybe I can turn that round. In what way is a cache that has been disabled for 6 months, with no sign of it being dealt with in the forseeable future, any better than an archived cache?

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Happy Humphrey]

Maybe I can turn that round. In what way is a cache that has been disabled for 6 months, with no sign of it being dealt with in the forseeable future, any better than an archived cache?

Easy; you could still see the disabled cache listing quite easily, whereas the archived one has disappeared. So you get a realistic view; the cache is possibly findable but has a problem.

 

That's still the case but now the site doesn't reflect this. Quite possibly the CO will not bother recovering the cache, as there seems little incentive. Had the cache been left disabled - why would that cause a problem? It would be a reminder to the CO that something should be done.

And at least if someone wanted to place a cache nearby they'd be able to arrange to pick up the old one and get the listing archived via a NA log (assuming the CO didn't respond to an e-mail).

 

Earlier this month I went in search of a disabled cache which happened to be very close to my brother's house, so seemed worth a look while I was in the area.

The CO had disabled it because geocaching had seemingly fallen down the list of priorities and maintenence wasn't going to continue (he/she should have removed it, I know, but I'm not privy to his/her present circumstances). There hadn't been a problem with the cache and there still wasn't; it was in perfect condition.

Now the cache has been archived by the reviewer, but as far as I know it's still sitting there and has become litter. Good result? I don't think so.

[+Amberel]

Sorry HH, but I disagree with that (but you knew that already ). A cache that has been disabled for that length of time, with no prospect of it being sorted out, is a cache without a satisfactory owner. The owner may have been a very good owner in the past, but circumstances appear to have changed, and they no longer have the time to be a cache owner. It's better the cache is cleared off the map, and the cache recovered by others, which can probably be arranged by the reviewer if the cache owner really can't do it themselves.

 

I'm not at all keen on the idea of only issuing a NA log if and when I want to place a cache of my own within the proximity radius - it is far too easy for that to be misinterpreted!

 

As far as the one near your brother's house is concerned, it's not clear why the owner disabled it if it was in perfect condition, but the fault lies with the cache owner, not with the reviewer for archiving it. When I say "fault", of course I do allow the possibility of valid overriding circumstances for not recovering it, but all the cache owner had to do was to leave a note asking the next finder to lift it, then archive it themselves.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Happy Humphrey]

It's better the cache is cleared off the map, and the cache recovered by others, which can probably be arranged by the reviewer if the cache owner really can't do it themselves.

The cache won't be cleared off the map by the archiving; it will still be there but the listing will be cleared off the map and will then be invisible to other local cachers. You don't explain how that is a good thing. In theory a reviewer might arrange for the cache to be removed but in practice this doesn't happen (probably because reviewers don't have time).

 

I'm not at all keen on the idea of only issuing a NA log if and when I want to place a cache of my own within the proximity radius - it is far too easy for that to be misinterpreted!

Just to clarify; I'd only issue a NA log if my e-mail to the cache owner didn't get a reply.

 

As far as the one near your brother's house is concerned, it's not clear why the owner disabled it if it was in perfect condition, but the fault lies with the cache owner, not with the reviewer for archiving it. When I say "fault", of course I do allow the possibility of valid overriding circumstances for not recovering it, but all the cache owner had to do was to leave a note asking the next finder to lift it, then archive it themselves.

I'm not saying that the reviewer was at fault; all she was doing was following usual procedure. That the CO disabled it was a mistake, and he clearly has ignored geocaching for a while so probably wasn't aware of the warning.

I gave the example to show how a perfectly good cache can become litter, without so much as a DNF.

 

I suppose we can't agree because I don't have a problem with having disabled caches around whereas you see it as a bad thing.

 

And even if a cache has no active owner, as long as it's viable I don't see a big problem. It's only a cache, not a block of flats. Once the log book has got soaked or the container has cracked, then if a CO continues to ignore NM logs, I'd hope that the cache will be cleared away and then the archiving can take place. Some level of community action on local caches seems fair enough.

 

I also think that once a cache has been abandoned the listing should only be archived once it's seems likely that the cache physically no longer exists. That's because I believe that geocaches aren't litter, but only because they are identified by a cache listing. Once the listing has been removed, then a physical cache becomes litter. As I don't like litter I don't like the idea of littering via cache archiving.

[+Amberel]

It's better the cache is cleared off the map, and the cache recovered by others, which can probably be arranged by the reviewer if the cache owner really can't do it themselves.

The cache won't be cleared off the map by the archiving; it will still be there but the listing will be cleared off the map and will then be invisible to other local cachers. You don't explain how that is a good thing.

It's a good thing because the converse is a bad thing. Having loads of long term disabled caches is a disincentive to place good caches in those locations, and is a bad example to new cachers who will infer that it's perfectly OK to ignore your cache for very long periods.

In theory a reviewer might arrange for the cache to be removed but in practice this doesn't happen (probably because reviewers don't have time).

The archive log for the cache for which you provided a link states "Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist."

... That's because I believe that geocaches aren't litter, but only because they are identified by a cache listing. Once the listing has been removed, then a physical cache becomes litter. As I don't like litter I don't like the idea of littering via cache archiving.

The cache is the property of the cache owner (sorry if that sounds like a tautology), and not the listing site. As such, I think it becomes litter the moment the owner loses interest in it and is no longer prepared to maintain it.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+thehoomer]

In a lot of ways, I can see where HH is coming from and I agree with some of the points. I feel it’s important though, to not lose sight of Geocaching principals.

 

Please indulge me this bit of preaching preamble.....

Geocaching is a medium by which, we place boxes in the countryside, then publicise their location in order for others to come and find them.

I'm fairly sure that Geocaching would never have got off the ground (scuse the pun) if they advocated that it’s OK to 'forget' about these boxes when we fall out of love with the game. Geocaching & its participants/members must be seen to be caring for the environment and the NA log is one way of displaying this. Granted, it may not always work in the way that it should but I still feel it is an important and useful tool.

 

I recently deleted some of my NA logs whilst I chewed over the comments in this thread. After giving it some more thought and trying my very hardest to fully agree with HH, I’m afraid, that as a conscientious cache setter (not insinuating that HH isn't BTW), I remain qualm-free when it comes to posting NA’s.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I could answer the points made, but I feel that we've all made our opinions known well enough now and further discussion would just become repetitive.

Clearly there is more than one way of looking at this problem and I don't think that there are cut and dried solutions.