Cache owner won't respond

[+Shop99er]

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.

Yup. Do exactly that with some degree of regularity. A full log is not a reason to get all cache-police on someone.

 

Like most noobs, you're all bent out of shape because a CO isn't doing things the way you think he should be, or as fast as you require.

 

Step back, take a deep breath, and go find another one.

 

You're all wigged out over a non-issue.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

I simply don't have time to read all of the responses right now, but I must say that this surprises me. I think that archiving a cache because of a full log is a gross over-reaction, especially since the OP said that they basically took care of the problem by adding paper to the cache. From the OP, the NMs started at about the same time that the CO last logged on, 3 months ago. Did the consensus of what makes a cacher inactive change? Since the cache no longer needs maintenance, do we get it archived simply because the CO hasn't logged on for 3 months?

[ll JK ll]

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.

Yup. Do exactly that with some degree of regularity. A full log is not a reason to get all cache-police on someone.

 

Like most noobs, you're all bent out of shape because a CO isn't doing things the way you think he should be, or as fast as you require.

 

Step back, take a deep breath, and go find another one.

 

You're all wigged out over a non-issue.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me, OG cacher. If I may, your highness, please allow this noob to explain.

 

I'm not bent out of shape. As a matter of fact I'm cooler than the other side of the pillow.

 

Another thing, I'm not "wigging out" over this. Geocaching occupies a very small portion of my daily concerns. In the grand scheme of things, this guy not caring for his caches isn't a big deal whatsoever. However, since I'm participating in the activity I want to do my part to make it enjoyable for others.

 

The lack of maintenance on this one cache isn't the cause for my concern. It's the fact that out of the four caches this guy has one has been archived due to lack of attention, another is an old, rusty box that is full of trash with a scrap of paper for a log, the third is potentially on private property and then there's this one.

 

So, I add all this up and what do I come up with? A bunch of garbage caches (mainly aimed at kids, mind you) on the most popular trail in the city. I think it sucks that kids have to write their names over top of other people's names because this CO won't do his part.

 

Instead of sitting back and doing nothing about it, I'm trying to be proactive.

 

What's the problem with that? Why do you feel the need to hurl lame insults at me when I'm trying to improve this game for others? I have no self righteous intentions here. I'm not trying to be the "cache police".

 

Thanks for the assumptions though chief, I appreciate it.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

 

I simply don't have time to read all of the responses right now, but I must say that this surprises me. I think that archiving a cache because of a full log is a gross over-reaction, especially since the OP said that they basically took care of the problem by adding paper to the cache. From the OP, the NMs started at about the same time that the CO last logged on, 3 months ago. Did the consensus of what makes a cacher inactive change? Since the cache no longer needs maintenance, do we get it archived simply because the CO hasn't logged on for 3 months?

 

Posting a NA because the logsheet is full is definitely a gross overreaction, that will usually upset the CO and other cachers. Adding another logsheet or ignoring it are the best options.

Edited June 5, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[ll JK ll]

After giving it some thought I've decided that a NA log is a little extreme at this point.

 

The only reason I was considering it is because I want to take the spot over to ensure it's properly maintained, and also because I was planning on adding a slightly larger container. This trail is a high kid-traffic area and the more caches with toys to trade, the better for them.

 

I've contacted the CO directly about me potentially taking it over in case he's no longer able to care for it. If I get no response I'll go back and add a proper log sheet and leave it at that.

[+Team Dennis]

After giving it some thought I've decided that a NA log is a little extreme at this point.

 

The only reason I was considering it is because I want to take the spot over to ensure it's properly maintained, and also because I was planning on adding a slightly larger container. This trail is a high kid-traffic area and the more caches with toys to trade, the better for them.

 

I've contacted the CO directly about me potentially taking it over in case he's no longer able to care for it. If I get no response I'll go back and add a proper log sheet and leave it at that.

 

After reading through this entire thread I think this is a good course of action for you to take. If nothing else, you've created good karma for yourself by not only helping the cache owner but also by giving future finders a log to sign.

[+Gamaliel]

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.

 

It's not ideal, but it happens all the time. I think I find a full log at least once a month. If I got mad every time that happened, I'd use up a lot of rage I could save for these forums.

 

It shouldn't be the responsibility of the finder, but sometimes it is. That's just part of the game, like missing finds and bad weather.

[+L0ne.R]

Posting a NA because the logsheet is full is definitely a gross overreaction, that will usually upset the CO and other cachers. Adding another logsheet or ignoring it are the best options.

 

If these are trash caches and abandoned, an NM/NA might actually be secretly welcomed by those who are uncomfortable with posting NMs and NAs. It will open up the area to someone who will hopefully maintain a cache. There may even be someone waiting in the wings for a spot to open up. If the caches are not abandoned an NM/NA may be just the spur the CO needs to go out and check on the cache.

Edited June 6, 2012 by L0ne R

[AZcachemeister]

 

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.

 

Only a 'PURITAN' would consider replacing a full or otherwise compromised log, since we all know that there is no real need to sign the log in the first place.

The guidelines only suggest that signing the log is a good practice, not a REQUIREMENT...right?

If the log is full, SO WHAT?

You visited the location the CO wanted you to go, so there is no reason to get worked up over a full or soggy log, a damaged container, or any of that.

 

EDITED: 'cause I left out an 's'. Here's few more just in case.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Edited June 6, 2012 by AZcachemeister

[+The A-Team]

@JK_81: Just to remind you, in case you missed the earlier posts, you still need to go back and do some photo editing/deleting. You've displayed the tracking code of that TB in a lot of photos, which is a big no-no. The owner of that TB might not be happy if a ton of people start virtually logging it and Groundspeak locks it for misuse. I went ahead and made a list of the offending photos for you back in post 23 (plus the one on your log for the originally discussed cache, GC1DHF1 "Island Overlook").

[ll JK ll]

A-Team - I actually did miss the posts. Thanks for letting me know, I'd hate for the TB to be locked. Rookie mistake, I'll flip the tag over in future pics

[+dakboy]

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?

I never wait. I log the find and write "email on its way." Then I send the CO the requested information. If he doesn't like it, he can delete the log.

[knowschad]

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?

I never wait. I log the find and write "email on its way." Then I send the CO the requested information. If he doesn't like it, he can delete the log.

 

+1 I think that's how most of us log them. I've never had a problem with logging virts or ECs that way.