Jump to content

Cache owner won't respond


Recommended Posts

I found a key holder cache yesterday at a scenic overlook on a popular trail in my area. Needless to say it's a great spot for a quick grab.

 

The log was completely full, dated back several years, and also had been compromised by moisture. I added a few scrap sheets I had along with a baggie.

 

When I got home I posted my find log and also a maintenance notice. This morning I checked the log more thoroughly and there have been several mentions of the need for a new log, along with another maintenance notice on 3/30.

 

The CO's profile shows he hasn't logged on since 3/21.

 

So, my question is what's next? I'd hate to see this cache be archived. Can a reviewer force an adoption to another user? Or is there nothing to be done except wait?

Link to comment

Well, I wouldn't call somebody who hasn't been onto the site in 2 months an inactive owner. How active were they before that? I suppose you could bring the cache to the reviewers attention based on the lack of maintainence, but assuming the cache itself is still in good shape with the exception of the full log I think that's a little extreme.

 

To answer your question, yes, all you can do is wait if you decide not the contact the reviewer, and then all you can do is wait even if you do contact them. Adoptions have to be initiated by the CO, and won't be done unless that happens.

Link to comment

I found a key holder cache yesterday at a scenic overlook on a popular trail in my area. Needless to say it's a great spot for a quick grab.

 

The log was completely full, dated back several years, and also had been compromised by moisture. I added a few scrap sheets I had along with a baggie.

 

When I got home I posted my find log and also a maintenance notice. This morning I checked the log more thoroughly and there have been several mentions of the need for a new log, along with another maintenance notice on 3/30.

 

The CO's profile shows he hasn't logged on since 3/21.

 

So, my question is what's next? I'd hate to see this cache be archived. Can a reviewer force an adoption to another user? Or is there nothing to be done except wait?

 

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

Link to comment

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

That's already the policy -- at least in our reviewing area.

Link to comment

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

That's already the policy -- at least in our reviewing area.

 

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

Link to comment

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

Earlier today, in another thread, you posted this...

 

The great thing about caching to me is people can play it any way they want...

Link to comment

His profile shows 14 finds, with 4 hides.

 

-One has been archived already due to inactivity.

-Another active cache has a request for changing out the log.

-I didn't realize it at the time but a cache I found down the trail is his and it was in terrible shape, with a scrap of paper for the log, probably placed there by someone else.

 

I sent him an email through GC.com in hopes he'd be willing to give it up in the event he's had some life changing situation and can't get out there.

 

How can I look up reviewers in my area? I'm surprised one hasn't commented on this cache considering the fact that a maintenance post was logged on 3/30.

Link to comment

How can I look up reviewers in my area?

Look at the first log (the Publish log) on one of the newer caches in your area.

 

I'm surprised one hasn't commented on this cache considering the fact that a maintenance post was logged on 3/30.

Needs Maintenance logs do not notify reviewers. The Needs Archive log is the only one that does that.

Link to comment

If its wet perhaps a NA is needed. But just a full logsheet? Most cachers would just replace it.

Next time I'm out there I plan to do so. Fortunately I had a couple pieces of scrap paper in my sock. I left the old log in case the guy wants to keep it. Some of the signatures date back to '08
Link to comment

Since there are already a few NMs that have gone unheeded, I'd just issue a NA and when it is gone if I liked the spot I'd put my own cache there.

+1

No need to drag it out. NA forces the CO to do something, or else! It's a good tool, when used properly. Not something to overuse though.

+1 on both these posts. If the CO won't maintain it, post a NA and claim the spot as your own once it's been archived.

 

I've seen caches that have DNF's and NM posted to them for over 6 months and I've never understood why people are so hesitant about using the NA option when the CO clearly has no intention of maintaining a cache after it's been placed. To me, it doesn't matter if the cache has been there 10 years or 10 days, if the cache is broken or missing and the CO won't do anything about it, then they shouldn't be a CO and the cache should be archived.

Link to comment

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

How do you know those aren't high-quality caches that simply don't require much maintenance? If you use quality containers and place them in areas that don't get hit often, there's no reason why a cache can't go for years without requiring a maintenance visit. I can point you to hundreds of such caches in my area alone. There are some near me that have been out for over 10 years with no maintenance issues at all. If care is taken in hiding them, there's no reason why a cacher can't be the owner of hundreds of caches.

High quantity does not necessarily mean low quality.

Link to comment

His profile shows 14 finds, with 4 hides.

 

-One has been archived already due to inactivity.

-Another active cache has a request for changing out the log.

-I didn't realize it at the time but a cache I found down the trail is his and it was in terrible shape, with a scrap of paper for the log, probably placed there by someone else.

 

I sent him an email through GC.com in hopes he'd be willing to give it up in the event he's had some life changing situation and can't get out there.

 

How can I look up reviewers in my area? I'm surprised one hasn't commented on this cache considering the fact that a maintenance post was logged on 3/30.

 

Please return to the log on this cache and edit out the Travel bug tracking code you included in the photo. Tracking codes are never to be displayed in photos.:(

Link to comment

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

That's already the policy -- at least in our reviewing area.

 

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

 

320+ hides here. Not one LPC, not one parking lot, or strip mall or big box store. Very few micros. I had a few guardrail hides but only because they offered a nice view from the location. I like to think all are quality hides (well one wasn't but that was something of a joke) and I think I do a pretty good job of maintaining them.

 

I also work full time and have a very full life outside of geocaching. I know other cachers who are in the same boat with a hundred or more quality, well maintained caches and a full life outside of geocaching.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I found a key holder cache yesterday at a scenic overlook on a popular trail in my area. Needless to say it's a great spot for a quick grab.

 

The log was completely full, dated back several years, and also had been compromised by moisture. I added a few scrap sheets I had along with a baggie.

 

When I got home I posted my find log and also a maintenance notice. This morning I checked the log more thoroughly and there have been several mentions of the need for a new log, along with another maintenance notice on 3/30.

 

The CO's profile shows he hasn't logged on since 3/21.

 

So, my question is what's next? I'd hate to see this cache be archived. Can a reviewer force an adoption to another user? Or is there nothing to be done except wait?

 

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

 

There was a similar thread awhile back where it turned out that the cache owner was deployed in Afghanistan, had found someone to maintain the cache locally, but couldn't respond to email as quickly as he might if he was not on the other side of the world.

 

Let's not make assumptions about why a cache owner can't run out on a moments notice when a log gets full.

Link to comment

Please return to the log on this cache and edit out the Travel bug tracking code you included in the photo. Tracking codes are never to be displayed in photos.:(

And the photos on the following logs:

-The cache log for GC3CJKC Road to Nowhere

-The TB log for GC3KQRC Castle Rocks Tree

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC29YA0 Where Muggles Fear to Tread

-The TB log for GC1TT4Z Very Sketchy

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC2QXEX What Floats Your Boat?

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC1AE0Q Tango's Treasure

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC363PF Bobletts lookout

-The TB log for GC2PRNC Welcom to Buffalo Land

-And maybe the TB log for GC38T93 Lake Trail Omega (just to be safe, someone might be able to just make it out)

 

I see one person has already virtually discovered it.

Link to comment

Please return to the log on this cache and edit out the Travel bug tracking code you included in the photo. Tracking codes are never to be displayed in photos.:(

And the photos on the following logs:

-The cache log for GC3CJKC Road to Nowhere

-The TB log for GC3KQRC Castle Rocks Tree

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC29YA0 Where Muggles Fear to Tread

-The TB log for GC1TT4Z Very Sketchy

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC2QXEX What Floats Your Boat?

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC1AE0Q Tango's Treasure

-Both the cache and TB logs for GC363PF Bobletts lookout

-The TB log for GC2PRNC Welcom to Buffalo Land

-And maybe the TB log for GC38T93 Lake Trail Omega (just to be safe, someone might be able to just make it out)

 

I see one person has already virtually discovered it.

 

I saw all of those but didn't feel like naming all of them. Thank you for taking the time!!!:)

Link to comment

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

Earlier today, in another thread, you posted this...

 

The great thing about caching to me is people can play it any way they want...

 

What's your point? The other post is how people play the game here, I am talking about maintence and ownership responsibility of the c/o. So it's really apples and something completely different like vacuums....sorry if something simple went way over your head.

Link to comment

I found a key holder cache yesterday at a scenic overlook on a popular trail in my area. Needless to say it's a great spot for a quick grab.

 

The log was completely full, dated back several years, and also had been compromised by moisture. I added a few scrap sheets I had along with a baggie.

 

When I got home I posted my find log and also a maintenance notice. This morning I checked the log more thoroughly and there have been several mentions of the need for a new log, along with another maintenance notice on 3/30.

 

The CO's profile shows he hasn't logged on since 3/21.

 

So, my question is what's next? I'd hate to see this cache be archived. Can a reviewer force an adoption to another user? Or is there nothing to be done except wait?

 

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

 

There was a similar thread awhile back where it turned out that the cache owner was deployed in Afghanistan, had found someone to maintain the cache locally, but couldn't respond to email as quickly as he might if he was not on the other side of the world.

 

Let's not make assumptions about why a cache owner can't run out on a moments notice when a log gets full.

 

As a former military man myself I can tell you it's rare that you are deployed without good warning most of the time I had months notice....

Link to comment

I got a question a spin off from the original....I recently did a ghost cache and answered the required questions and the c/o requests an email with the answers before I log my find which I did a week ago, how long should I wait before I follow up or log my find without a response?

Link to comment

I got a question a spin off from the original....I recently did a ghost cache and answered the required questions and the c/o requests an email with the answers before I log my find which I did a week ago, how long should I wait before I follow up or log my find without a response?

You mean a virtual? There's no requirement that the owner respond to tell you to log it. In my experience, most of the time you won't ever get a response. If you visited the site and have satisfied the requirements as set out on the cache listing, you can go ahead and log it, though there may be the occasional virtual or Earthcache where the owner will tell you in the listing to wait for their response to log.

Link to comment

I got a question a spin off from the original....I recently did a ghost cache and answered the required questions and the c/o requests an email with the answers before I log my find which I did a week ago, how long should I wait before I follow up or log my find without a response?

You mean a virtual? There's no requirement that the owner respond to tell you to log it. In my experience, most of the time you won't ever get a response. If you visited the site and have satisfied the requirements as set out on the cache listing, you can go ahead and log it, though there may be the occasional virtual or Earthcache where the owner will tell you in the listing to wait for their response to log.

 

Yeah sorry I meant virtual. This is one of those times an owner requested us to wait, which I understand it's I get so impatient waiting lol.

Link to comment

I just re-read your post. I missed the initial part about not wanting it archived. In contacting the reviewer, that may be the end result, depending on the communication between the CO and the reviewer.

 

The reviewer may also request that you post an NA before they take action.

Link to comment

I got a question a spin off from the original....I recently did a ghost cache and answered the required questions and the c/o requests an email with the answers before I log my find which I did a week ago, how long should I wait before I follow up or log my find without a response?

You mean a virtual? There's no requirement that the owner respond to tell you to log it. In my experience, most of the time you won't ever get a response. If you visited the site and have satisfied the requirements as set out on the cache listing, you can go ahead and log it, though there may be the occasional virtual or Earthcache where the owner will tell you in the listing to wait for their response to log.

 

Yeah sorry I meant virtual. This is one of those times an owner requested us to wait, which I understand it's I get so impatient waiting lol.

 

I would say go ahead and write your online log. If there is a problem, they can delete it. I'm not one to wait for unresponsive owners, and I like to keep all my logs in order.

Link to comment

Yeah sorry I meant virtual. This is one of those times an owner requested us to wait, which I understand it's I get so impatient waiting lol.

I looked up the virtuals within about 50 miles of your recent finds, and none of them say to wait before logging. Is it somewhere else?

Link to comment

Yeah sorry I meant virtual. This is one of those times an owner requested us to wait, which I understand it's I get so impatient waiting lol.

I looked up the virtuals within about 50 miles of your recent finds, and none of them say to wait before logging. Is it somewhere else?

 

Yeah is in a small town called Barbourville ky its called Judicial regular quadrilateral.

Link to comment

I don't see what the big deal is here. The next cacher can bring a fresh log. Caches have survived much worse things than a wet log.

So, you'd be cool with finding a cache that has a full log with absolutely no place to sign? The first NM log was posted 64 days ago...more than enough time for the CO to take care of it.

 

Of course most cachers have spare writing materials and are able to provide a fresh log but I don't think it's the responsibility of the finder to maintain a cache. If there are extenuating circumstances preventing the CO from keeping it up so be it, but at least give some notice instead of leaving the cache hanging.

Link to comment

I'm not thrilled when I see a full logsheet, but have no problems putting my initials in the margins, or writing over someone's tag from 2 years ago. It's just a MKH in what sounds like a not so special place. Again, a full log sheet is not grounds for an NA log.

Link to comment

It seems like a new power trail pops up in my caching range almost weekly. I wish we could get back to quality*, not quantity, caches.*Note, when I mention "quality", I'm not neccessarily indicating just water-tight, maintenance-free containers, but rather caches that are interesting (scenic, clever, humorous, historic, educational, etc.), ie., the type that usually receives a lot of "favorites" points. I'd LOVE to find a power trail that is made entirely of such interesting caches, but unfortunately I've yet to find one that isn't more than a points booster with very oridinary hides taking me to very ordinary places.I guess I have the thinking that just because you "can" place caches 0.1 miles apart, does not mean that you "should".I know everyone likes to play the game differently, but honestly, I see very few favorite points assigned to power trail caches. This seems to indicate that although cachers will seek power trail caches, they usually aren't their preferred type of hide.Anyone care to comment?.......

 

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.
Earlier today, in another thread, you posted this...
The great thing about caching to me is people can play it any way they want...
What's your point? The other post is how people play the game here, I am talking about maintence and ownership responsibility of the c/o. So it's really apples and something completely different like vacuums....sorry if something simple went way over your head.

 

You can play any way you want, but just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there..................

Link to comment

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

That's already the policy -- at least in our reviewing area.

 

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

 

I know plenty of cachers with 100+ hides that maintain them all quite nicely. In this case, the hider has hidden a total of 4 caches, 3 of which are still active, one of which is out of paper and the cache owner hasn't checked in for a couple of months. I hardly think this situation would be weeded out by some sort of "better rules when placing a cache".

Link to comment

I don't see what the big deal is here. The next cacher can bring a fresh log. Caches have survived much worse things than a wet log.

So, you'd be cool with finding a cache that has a full log with absolutely no place to sign? The first NM log was posted 64 days ago...more than enough time for the CO to take care of it.

 

I've never found a log so full that I couldn't sign the log. Never! Might just be my initials. Might even be in the space between someone else's log. But there's always room.

Or as my brother would say: Turn the page over!

Link to comment

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA!

 

I think I spilled Coke on my keyboard! An NA is in order here. Did I mention an NA is in order here? Isn't that a song?

Link to comment

I think this is a prime example why there should be better rules when placing a cache. If a cache owner isn't willing to do maintence in a given period of time they should be forced to archive, unless they post a valid reason why they are unable too.

That's already the policy -- at least in our reviewing area.

 

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

 

I know plenty of cachers with 100+ hides that maintain them all quite nicely. In this case, the hider has hidden a total of 4 caches, 3 of which are still active, one of which is out of paper and the cache owner hasn't checked in for a couple of months. I hardly think this situation would be weeded out by some sort of "better rules when placing a cache".

 

I don't mean to step on anyones ones toes, but the few people that do keep up with their hides seem to be rare. If people ask for maintence it should get done within a reasonable time frame. I think a c/o should agree to be able to fix a cache within a months time, unless unusual circumstance, if they cannot agree to that then it shouldn't be placed...I have seen were people with a lot of caches gets one muggled simply archive it rather then fix it.

 

I am curious how many active members there are vs a person who was interested one month made several caches got bored and never did anything again?

Link to comment

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

Earlier today, in another thread, you posted this...

 

The great thing about caching to me is people can play it any way they want...

What's your point? The other post is how people play the game here, I am talking about maintence and ownership responsibility of the c/o. So it's really apples and something completely different like vacuums....sorry if something simple went way over your head.

The great thing about caching is people can play it anyway they want. If they enjoy park-and-grab caches and want to hide a cache under a light pole, then they should be allowed to put a cache there. If other people don't enjoy finding those kinds of caches, then they don't have to. To each, their own.

Link to comment

I read on here a bunch of people talking about how they have 100+ hides I find that ridiculous, there is no way those are all quality hides and no way they could keep proper maintence of that amount unless they do not work or have no life outside of geocaching. Just because you find a light pole doesn't mean you should put a cache there.

Earlier today, in another thread, you posted this...

 

The great thing about caching to me is people can play it any way they want...

What's your point? The other post is how people play the game here, I am talking about maintence and ownership responsibility of the c/o. So it's really apples and something completely different like vacuums....sorry if something simple went way over your head.

The great thing about caching is people can play it anyway they want. If they enjoy park-and-grab caches and want to hide a cache under a light pole, then they should be allowed to put a cache there. If other people don't enjoy finding those kinds of caches, then they don't have to. To each, their own.

 

If someone wants to hide a cache under a light pole, and the way that they play is to assume they can do it with without permission, that still could impact me event if I choose not to find it. All it would take is for someone to call the police to report suspicious behavior in a parking lot...which may lead to a visit by a bomb squad to detonate a suspicious container which turns out to be a geocache. If that happens a few times in a small city, they just might say enough is enough and pass an ordinance banning geocaching in the city. I don't know of any cases where it's happened but it's certainly plausible.

 

Yes, it's great that geocaching can allow people to play how they want....up to the point that how they play the game negatively impacts how others play the game or is detrimental to the game itself.

Link to comment

I don't see what the big deal is here. The next cacher can bring a fresh log. Caches have survived much worse things than a wet log.

So, you'd be cool with finding a cache that has a full log with absolutely no place to sign? The first NM log was posted 64 days ago...more than enough time for the CO to take care of it.

 

I've never found a log so full that I couldn't sign the log. Never! Might just be my initials. Might even be in the space between someone else's log. But there's always room.

Or as my brother would say: Turn the page over!

 

I have a bag of "full" logbooks taken from my caches after someone complained that the book was full. There are dozens of blank pages in every one of them.

Link to comment

The great thing about caching is people can play it anyway they want. If they enjoy park-and-grab caches and want to hide a cache under a light pole, then they should be allowed to put a cache there. If other people don't enjoy finding those kinds of caches, then they don't have to. To each, their own.

If someone wants to hide a cache under a light pole, and the way that they play is to assume they can do it with without permission, that still could impact me event if I choose not to find it. All it would take is for someone to call the police to report suspicious behavior in a parking lot...which may lead to a visit by a bomb squad to detonate a suspicious container which turns out to be a geocache. If that happens a few times in a small city, they just might say enough is enough and pass an ordinance banning geocaching in the city. I don't know of any cases where it's happened but it's certainly plausible.

Once again, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about hiding caches under a light pole. You're talking about hiding caches without adequate permission. I agree that people shouldn't hide caches without adequate permission. I also think people should be allowed to hide caches under a light pole if they do have adequate permission.

Link to comment

Yeah sorry I meant virtual. This is one of those times an owner requested us to wait, which I understand it's I get so impatient waiting lol.

I looked up the virtuals within about 50 miles of your recent finds, and none of them say to wait before logging. Is it somewhere else?

 

Yeah is in a small town called Barbourville ky its called Judicial regular quadrilateral.

I saw that one when I did my searching earlier, but it doesn't say anything about waiting for a response. It just asks that you send your answers before logging. If you've sent your answers, you can now log the cache and those two actions will be in the right order. :laughing:

Link to comment

I don't see what the big deal is here. The next cacher can bring a fresh log. Caches have survived much worse things than a wet log.

So, you'd be cool with finding a cache that has a full log with absolutely no place to sign? The first NM log was posted 64 days ago...more than enough time for the CO to take care of it.

 

Of course most cachers have spare writing materials and are able to provide a fresh log but I don't think it's the responsibility of the finder to maintain a cache. If there are extenuating circumstances preventing the CO from keeping it up so be it, but at least give some notice instead of leaving the cache hanging.

Back in the early days, geocachers helped each other out with maintenance. Replacing full log or one that got soaked was common. Even replacing a container that was cracked and leaking wasn't too much. Some even carried extra swag to replenish caches that needed it.

 

Certainly with more caches around - and particular cheap inexpensive urban hides in used mint tins or re-purposed medicine bottles - it doesn't seem as necessary to help out. There are certainly plenty of other caches to find and owners of these cheap urban hides don't seem to care much if their cache gets archived.

 

Still life sometimes gets in the way of geocaching and owners may have all sorts of reasons they can't fix the cache right away. I can see why some owners may ignore a NM for a cache over a full log or even one that gets wet. Wet logs dry out (at least if you live where it doesn't rain every day). People can squeeze there initials on even a full log. And for sure some people will still help out and replace the log sheet.

 

Righteous indignation over an owner shirking their maintenance responsibility is all good and well. But remember that helping out with a clean dry log makes the find much more pleasant for the next person.

 

I can remember when the Need Maintenance log was added. It was suppose to provide a strong message than a note in the log but not go as far as a Needs Archive and involve the reviewer. Since the Needs Maintenance log was tied to the Needs Maintenance attribute, it was hoped that cache owners would do owner maintenance to clear that flag. But the attribute was also supposed to be a sign to future finders to know what to expect. Those who aren't cool with finding a full log sheet or a leaky container could ignore these caches. Others would know to bring repair kits to fix them up.

 

The Needs Maintenance log doesn't seem to have had much effect on the maintenance of caches. If a cache owner wasn't doing maintenance before, they aren't doing it now. And instead of encouraging people to help out, it seems to have the opposite effect where we prefer to leave the cache languishing so we can attack lazy cache owners. And since helping out with maintenance doesn't clear the flag, and some cache owner don't know they can clear the flag if some has helped, the cache still appears to be abandoned by the owner even if all the problems get fixed.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...