Soggy Logs

[+Phil100]

What is the "normal etiquette" with regard to those "soggy, mushy" logs that we all come across at some time or another - usually in a 35mm film canister?

 

I usually try to carry spare logs, of varying sizes, but when I find a log that is completely mushy I'm not sure if I should remove it and replace it, or not!

 

I have in the past removed and replaced full log rolls, particularly nanos, offered to send the full logs on to the CO, and I can't remember an instance when the CO has even responded!!

[+Clipper.]

What is the "normal etiquette" with regard to those "soggy, mushy" logs that we all come across at some time or another - usually in a 35mm film canister?

 

I usually try to carry spare logs, of varying sizes, but when I find a log that is completely mushy I'm not sure if I should remove it and replace it, or not!

 

I have in the past removed and replaced full log rolls, particularly nanos, offered to send the full logs on to the CO, and I can't remember an instance when the CO has even responded!!

 

Remove the mess, replace with a new one - I can't see any reason why a CO would want a ruined log! If the log was full and readable, then offer to send to the CO, but if it is a ball of paper machie, then I would still replace, offer it to the CO in a message, and get ready to bin it

[+squirtchy]

I've always gone by "do to a cache what you would want others to do to yours" If you would want someone removing your wet logs and replacing them then go ahead. I've been on long trails where i've done maintenance for the CO so he/she didn't have to, it's all down to personal preference, if you want to, do it

[+dartymoor]

I have scanned and emailed logs I've pulled, but never once even had an acknowledgement, so I don't bother now.

[+perth pathfinders]

If it was one of mine - I would love you to throw out the 'mush' and replace the log book, and I would email and thank you and also put a note log on the page praising 'what a nice gesture'. (I had better grovel here incase there is anyone i have forgotten).

 

A lot of cachers up here carry maintenance kit, drying cloth, even replace a complete box, for which we are all extremely grateful and happy to return the favour or get a new box back to that person.

 

If I have the kit with me and I am stood at the cache, I see no point in making the CO come all the way back when I can do something to sort the cache out which takes a couple of minutes. I don't worry about thanks, It should be me thanking the CO for taking trouble to hide the cache in the first place.

 

Weather happens!!

 

(If it should be an abandoned cache where the CO no longer caches, a NEEDS ARCHIVED would be the way to go).

Edited April 10, 2012 by perth pathfinders

[+DizzyPair]

Those “Soggy Mushy” logs …Now they’re a mystery.

 

Person idontcare discovers geocaching, finds a handful of filmpot caches, and thinks “Wow ….This is great fun! I’m going to place a cache myself”.

 

They salvage a filmpot from the bin and put a thick wad of paper in it…..all folded up tightly and shoved in a money bag, so that all the finders can enjoy unfolding it and then struggling to fold it again and get it back in that bag that is splitting, so that it’ll just about squeeze into that infamous film pot….Never mind that the lid will not fit properly, ‘cause the filmpot will let in the moisture anyway.

 

The “cache” is not far from home, so idontcare might see the cachers fumbling around in the woods that are just round the corner from where idontcare lives.

 

The clock is ticking, the rain is falling, the log is getting damp, then wet, then it’s a soggy, mushy mess.

 

The nice people write of their experiences.

 

“FTF…I am so chuffed…Another FTF to add to my list. Great spot for a cache. TFTC”.

 

“Found easily. The log is damp. TFTC”.

 

“An easy find. The log is wet. TFTC”.

 

“Found it but could not sign because the log is a soggy mushy mess”.

 

“Needs maintenance”.

 

“Needs maintenance….The log is unsignable….Please do something”

 

Nobody visits for a few months because they’ve read the logs about the soggy mushy mess.

 

In the meantime, person idontcare has given up with caching and has not logged onto geocaching.com for 6 months.

 

In the meantime, cacher ICARE has been exploring in the area and has discovered a long lost disused rail bridge that would be an ideal place to put a D1 T5 regular sized cache.

 

But…Shame…..It is too close to idontcare’s cache.

 

ICARE is patient…He has seen the logs that say idontcare’s cache has been neglected, so waits to see if it will be archived.

 

If it is archived, ICARE can place his cache, which lots of people will enjoy finding, and ICARE will really enjoy reading their logs as they write about their experience….The finders will find a new, well maintained regular sized cache, and ICARE will have the satisfaction that he has provided pleasure for a lot of people.

 

The clock is ticking….

 

Person ihelp comes along and finds idontcare’s cache…It is still wet, soggy, and mushy. …Ihelp delves in his pocket and finds an old printed off cache page.

 

Removes the soggy mess, tears some off the dry sheet of paper and shoves it in the filmpot….

 

Voila! ……………idontcares cache is now fixed and people start to “find” it again.

 

Ihelp toddles off to the next one.

 

ICARE thinks ….”What a stupid thing to do!”........ Idontcare is no longer caching, doesn’t care about his cache, and by that cache still being active, means that no-one else can place a cache in that area.[/font][/size][/size]

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What do we do??

 

If we know the cache owner is still 'active', then we replace the log.

 

If we know they're not, then we don't.

 

Are we right? or are we wrong?

 

In 10 years time, when you cannot find a space to place a new cache, then come back here and read this.

 

{post edited by mod to reduce font size}

Edited April 11, 2012 by castagnari

[+bones1]

I have now since i started caching replaced 471 log books that are soggy,wet or totaly full, i dont do maintainance logs as i have the cache right in my hands so whats the point in writing a seperate log for maintainance to make the CO come all the way out to the cache that i have in my hands (repeated i know)i just try and help out the caching community as some sort of pay back. please dont post any replies that go like this= RULES, IT IS UP TO THE CACHE OWNER TO MAINTAIN HIS CACHES, unless there is something major, it would be really nice if more folk replaced logs. happy caching jeff=bones1.

[+Mark+Karen]

And well done for that too . Is this sort of action that keeps caching active for the entire community.

[+Us 4 and Jess]

I know I am going to be the odd "man" out here but this is my opinion

 

If one of my caches has a wet log book, put a note on the cache page saying it is wet, and I will replace it when I can.

 

In my humble opinion it it my cache I placed it and it is my responsibility to maintain it, I have also asked cachers not to replace caches of mine that are "missing" for the same reasons if a person can not find a cache it is not necessarily "missing" and several times now people who thought they were doing me a good turn have placed a cache which I have had to go and remove because the original was still in place, so making me visit a cache that was not needing maintenance.

 

Mandy

[+Mark+Karen]

And BTW that film pot in Herrington is temporary pending a 'proper' cache, as I wasn't planning to put that out, just so I don't get accused of film pottery

[+Us 4 and Jess]

And BTW that film pot in Herrington is temporary pending a 'proper' cache, as I wasn't planning to put that out, just so I don't get accused of film pottery

 

I am heading to HCP next week for a meeting with the Rangers about the upcoming event and about setting more caches in the park, I have two caches to maintain while I am there also.

 

I will check out your film pottery while I am there

 

Mandy

[+Amberel]

... I have also asked cachers not to replace caches of mine that are "missing" for the same reasons if a person can not find a cache it is not necessarily "missing" and several times now people who thought they were doing me a good turn have placed a cache which I have had to go and remove because the original was still in place, so making me visit a cache that was not needing maintenance.

 

Mandy

Exactly the same thing has happened to me a couple of times (one of the "perpetrators" being someone who has contributed to this thread ).

 

I will replace a cache for a cache owner, but ONLY by prior arrangement, and I wish people would stick to the same principle with my caches.

 

Of course, replacing a cache isn't the same as replacing a log. But I would only want someone to replace a log book of mine if they were also prepared to post me the old one.

 

Rgds, Andy

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

Replace the soggy log with a new fresh one. Place it in a possibly waterproof bag to maintain it's short life. State the fact on the cache page. Sorted.

 

Not sure why this replacing the log thread has been hijacked with replacing the cache remarks.

Edited April 10, 2012 by JoLuc

[+firestars]

And this all ties in nicely with my reluctance to sign Nano logs or the logs of caches that are wet or dirty - No one CARES about the scrappy pieces of paper! - So what difference is it to anyone if people choose to sign them or not.

 

Paper logs - the biggest waste of time in Geocaching.

[+Mark+Karen]

And this all ties in nicely with my reluctance to sign Nano logs or the logs of caches that are wet or dirty - No one CARES about the scrappy pieces of paper! - So what difference is it to anyone if people choose to sign them or not.

 

Paper logs - the biggest waste of time in Geocaching.

 

Maybe, but the argument is that getting to the log is part of retrieving the cache and it wouldn't be "geocaching" without that.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

And this all ties in nicely with my reluctance to sign Nano logs or the logs of caches that are wet or dirty - No one CARES about the scrappy pieces of paper! - So what difference is it to anyone if people choose to sign them or not.

 

Paper logs - the biggest waste of time in Geocaching.

 

Maybe, but the argument is that getting to the log is part of retrieving the cache and it wouldn't be "geocaching" without that.

 

Couldn't agree more that paper logs do not remain in good condition in many circumstances.

 

I personally would welcome a Contact or RF type of logging system but It will never fit Groundspeak's ideal that geocaching will remain open to everyone because of the extra cost incurred. It would be nice to eliminate some of the less ideal placements by the extra set up costs to the CO though.

 

As it stands no signature for a cache with a physical placement and you have no legitimate claim to the find.

With a little bit of resolve most can still be signed, just try harder.

[+Delta68]

As it stands no signature for a cache with a physical placement and you have no legitimate claim to the find.

With a little bit of resolve most can still be signed, just try harder.

 

Yup! One of my colleges doesn't bother to sign logbooks.

In fact, most of the time he doesn't even bother to open the cache.

 

This is not a problem though because he doesn't log finds on-line either!

 

For him, Geocaching is just something he does when he's on holiday and the fact that a cache has been paced somewhere gives him a reason to go there for a walk

 

 

Mark

[+perth pathfinders]

The soggy log may not always be due to a non-waterproof container.

 

We all get caught caching in the rain, we open that micro in the rain, we sign it with our wet fingers, we spend an age rolling the wee piece of paper back up in our wet hands, the container by this time is getting full of raindrops ........

 

sometimes it is better not to sign the log book

 

just another spanner .......

[+Legochugglers]

Those “Soggy Mushy” logs …Now they’re a mystery.

 

Person idontcare discovers geocaching, finds a handful of filmpot caches, and thinks “Wow ….This is great fun! I’m going to place a cache myself”.

 

They salvage a filmpot from the bin and put a thick wad of paper in it…..all folded up tightly and shoved in a money bag, so that all the finders can enjoy unfolding it and then struggling to fold it again and get it back in that bag that is splitting, so that it’ll just about squeeze into that infamous film pot….Never mind that the lid will not fit properly, ‘cause the filmpot will let in the moisture anyway.

 

The “cache” is not far from home, so idontcare might see the cachers fumbling around in the woods that are just round the corner from where idontcare lives.

 

The clock is ticking, the rain is falling, the log is getting damp, then wet, then it’s a soggy, mushy mess.

 

The nice people write of their experiences.

 

“FTF…I am so chuffed…Another FTF to add to my list. Great spot for a cache. TFTC”.

 

I think ICARE was far too patient with this cache. About 14 days after the NM button was pressed he should have checked the cache himself and if the log book was still unsignable and the owners had still not logged on/acknowledged in any way then he should have pressed 'Needs Archived' on the basis that no signable log existed.

 

“Found easily. The log is damp. TFTC”.

 

“An easy find. The log is wet. TFTC”.

 

“Found it but could not sign because the log is a soggy mushy mess”.

 

“Needs maintenance”.

 

“Needs maintenance….The log is unsignable….Please do something”

 

Nobody visits for a few months because they’ve read the logs about the soggy mushy mess.

 

In the meantime, person idontcare has given up with caching and has not logged onto geocaching.com for 6 months.

 

In the meantime, cacher ICARE has been exploring in the area and has discovered a long lost disused rail bridge that would be an ideal place to put a D1 T5 regular sized cache.

 

But…Shame…..It is too close to idontcare’s cache.

 

ICARE is patient…He has seen the logs that say idontcare’s cache has been neglected, so waits to see if it will be archived.

 

If it is archived, ICARE can place his cache, which lots of people will enjoy finding, and ICARE will really enjoy reading their logs as they write about their experience….The finders will find a new, well maintained regular sized cache, and ICARE will have the satisfaction that he has provided pleasure for a lot of people.

 

The clock is ticking….

 

Person ihelp comes along and finds idontcare’s cache…It is still wet, soggy, and mushy. …Ihelp delves in his pocket and finds an old printed off cache page.

 

Removes the soggy mess, tears some off the dry sheet of paper and shoves it in the filmpot….

 

Voila! ……………idontcares cache is now fixed and people start to “find” it again.

 

Ihelp toddles off to the next one.

 

ICARE thinks ….”What a stupid thing to do!”........ Idontcare is no longer caching, doesn’t care about his cache, and by that cache still being active, means that no-one else can place a cache in that area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What do we do??

 

If we know the cache owner is still 'active', then we replace the log.

 

If we know they're not, then we don't.

 

Are we right? or are we wrong?

 

In 10 years time, when you cannot find a space to place a new cache, then come back here and read this.

Edited April 11, 2012 by castagnari

[+Legochugglers]

Those “Soggy Mushy” logs …Now they’re a mystery.

 

Person idontcare discovers geocaching, finds a handful of filmpot caches, and thinks “Wow ….This is great fun! I’m going to place a cache myself”.

 

They salvage a filmpot from the bin and put a thick wad of paper in it…..all folded up tightly and shoved in a money bag, so that all the finders can enjoy unfolding it and then struggling to fold it again and get it back in that bag that is splitting, so that it’ll just about squeeze into that infamous film pot….Never mind that the lid will not fit properly, ‘cause the filmpot will let in the moisture anyway.

 

The “cache” is not far from home, so idontcare might see the cachers fumbling around in the woods that are just round the corner from where idontcare lives.

 

The clock is ticking, the rain is falling, the log is getting damp, then wet, then it’s a soggy, mushy mess.

 

The nice people write of their experiences.

 

“FTF…I am so chuffed…Another FTF to add to my list. Great spot for a cache. TFTC”.

 

I think ICARE was far too patient with this cache. About 14 days after the NM button was pressed he should have checked the cache himself and if the log book was still unsignable and the owners had still not logged on/acknowledged in any way then he should have pressed 'Needs Archived' on the basis that no signable log existed.

 

“Found easily. The log is damp. TFTC”.

 

“An easy find. The log is wet. TFTC”.

 

“Found it but could not sign because the log is a soggy mushy mess”.

 

“Needs maintenance”.

 

“Needs maintenance….The log is unsignable….Please do something”

 

Nobody visits for a few months because they’ve read the logs about the soggy mushy mess.

 

In the meantime, person idontcare has given up with caching and has not logged onto geocaching.com for 6 months.

 

In the meantime, cacher ICARE has been exploring in the area and has discovered a long lost disused rail bridge that would be an ideal place to put a D1 T5 regular sized cache.

 

But…Shame…..It is too close to idontcare’s cache.

 

ICARE is patient…He has seen the logs that say idontcare’s cache has been neglected, so waits to see if it will be archived.

 

If it is archived, ICARE can place his cache, which lots of people will enjoy finding, and ICARE will really enjoy reading their logs as they write about their experience….The finders will find a new, well maintained regular sized cache, and ICARE will have the satisfaction that he has provided pleasure for a lot of people.

 

The clock is ticking….

 

Person ihelp comes along and finds idontcare’s cache…It is still wet, soggy, and mushy. …Ihelp delves in his pocket and finds an old printed off cache page.

 

Removes the soggy mess, tears some off the dry sheet of paper and shoves it in the filmpot….

 

Voila! ……………idontcares cache is now fixed and people start to “find” it again.

 

Ihelp toddles off to the next one.

 

ICARE thinks ….”What a stupid thing to do!”........ Idontcare is no longer caching, doesn’t care about his cache, and by that cache still being active, means that no-one else can place a cache in that area.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What do we do??

 

If we know the cache owner is still 'active', then we replace the log.

 

If we know they're not, then we don't.

 

Are we right? or are we wrong?

 

In 10 years time, when you cannot find a space to place a new cache, then come back here and read this.

I think ICARE was far too patient with this cache. Once the NM button had been pressed he should have waited about 14 days and then gone and checked the cache himself. If the log was still unable to be used and it was clear that the CO had still not logged on to the site then he should have pressed 'needs archived' on the basis that no usable log is in the cache. The Reviewer could then deal with the situation accordingly.

Edited April 11, 2012 by castagnari

[zahra2013]

well i was also wanted its answer here

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

So we have Castagnari and we also have Legochgugglers and now today we have Barrinthus. Who is who is who. Now wonder no one trusts TPTB. Stand up and be counted. Please.