Abandoned cache

[+shomemule]

I logged a cache today as NM. The cache was water logged and frozen, the log was wet, the pencil encrusted in ice. The CO has no finds, one hide (this one) and hasn't logged on since 2007. This cache is close to my home and I would be willing to replace the cache and contents. Is this good etiquette? I haven't tried to contact the owner as of this writing. Cache is GC151M3

[Mr.Yuck]

I logged a cache today as NM. The cache was water logged and frozen, the log was wet, the pencil encrusted in ice. The CO has no finds, one hide (this one) and hasn't logged on since 2007. This cache is close to my home and I would be willing to replace the cache and contents. Is this good etiquette? I haven't tried to contact the owner as of this writing. Cache is GC151M3

 

They hadn't logged in since 3 days after the cache was placed in 2007. That sounded suspiciously sock-puppety to me, so I read all the logs. Look at the very first log after publishing. An experienced cacher "helped" place the cache!! I would definitely try to contact them, or the 0 find owner.

[hoosier guy]

Shoot an email to the owner, wait a couple days then log a NA. Once it is archived put out a good cache for your compatriots to find.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I am going to simply suggest a "Needs Archived" log.

 

CO hasn't been active for 5+ years -- and then what, for three days? Time to put it where it belongs.

 

Somebody who cares can then place one there.

 

 

That's a "hide and dash", rather than a "cache and dash".

Edited November 30, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+The_Incredibles_]

Does the cache have any special history significance?

 

If not, maybe just don't bother replacing it. The Needs Maintenance request you posted was correct.

 

I"m not quite sure if qualifies for Needs Archived status yet, as it only recently has had problems with moisture and the container is still there.

 

Are you sure the container needs replacing? Perhaps it just needs a good drying out.

Edited November 30, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+shomemule]

 

Are you sure the container needs replacing? Perhaps it just needs a good drying out.

The container is similar to those used for leftover food like a Glad Storage Container and it is placed on the ground.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

Are you sure the container needs replacing? Perhaps it just needs a good drying out.

The container is similar to those used for leftover food like a Glad Storage Container and it is placed on the ground.

 

Yes, I saw a picture of it. It's not the ideal container, however it does seem to have held up for 5 years. I'm just saying I went through the logs and only saw concerns about moisture recently.

 

I've found caches before that were soaked due to someone not closing the lid properly or opening in the rain. After a good drying out, they were fine again.

 

I would suggest if you want to do something, dry it and replace. If moisture concerns come up again, you know it's the container.

[+dprovan]

I logged a cache today as NM. The cache was water logged and frozen, the log was wet, the pencil encrusted in ice. The CO has no finds, one hide (this one) and hasn't logged on since 2007. This cache is close to my home and I would be willing to replace the cache and contents. Is this good etiquette? I haven't tried to contact the owner as of this writing. Cache is GC151M3

No, definitely don't replace it. I'd say you can just forget it, but if you're interested, you could keep an eye on it, and someday you might want to urge it along with an NA. Caches that need maintenance are a fact of life, so unless there are other considerations -- such as you want the spot! -- there's no rush to get it off the map.

 

I think you should ignore all the things you think you know about the CO. Other indicators such as a lot of DNFs and previous troubles might make you want to call for an archive quicker, but in the absence of those, it's best to always give the CO the benefit of the doubt and react only to his actions, never his statistics. So in this case, for example, think about whether you have any evidence that despite being out of the game, he's not going to jump in and fix the cache as soon as you report the problem, anyway. Sure, it's unlikely, but there's no particular reason why you shouldn't proceed as if he's a regular, active cacher and see what happens next before you decide.

[+Don_J]

I logged a cache today as NM. The cache was water logged and frozen, the log was wet, the pencil encrusted in ice. The CO has no finds, one hide (this one) and hasn't logged on since 2007. This cache is close to my home and I would be willing to replace the cache and contents. Is this good etiquette? I haven't tried to contact the owner as of this writing. Cache is GC151M3

No, definitely don't replace it. I'd say you can just forget it, but if you're interested, you could keep an eye on it, and someday you might want to urge it along with an NA. Caches that need maintenance are a fact of life, so unless there are other considerations -- such as you want the spot! -- there's no rush to get it off the map.

 

I think you should ignore all the things you think you know about the CO. Other indicators such as a lot of DNFs and previous troubles might make you want to call for an archive quicker, but in the absence of those, it's best to always give the CO the benefit of the doubt and react only to his actions, never his statistics. So in this case, for example, think about whether you have any evidence that despite being out of the game, he's not going to jump in and fix the cache as soon as you report the problem, anyway. Sure, it's unlikely, but there's no particular reason why you shouldn't proceed as if he's a regular, active cacher and see what happens next before you decide.

 

Why prolong the inevitable? Post the NA and get it over with. A cache is in bad shape and has been for years. CO hasn't been active since he placed it. It's a container that was NEVER suitable for a cache. Post the NA. Two things can happen. The CO fixes it or it gets archived and no longer serves a bad example of a geocache. All too often everyone want to turn a blind eye. Let someone else worry about it. Afraid to offend the CO. Afraid to be called the Cache Police. As a result, we have garbage sitting out there being called geocaches. If I had found some of this stuff on my first hunt, I'd have never looked for another one again.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I logged a cache today as NM. The cache was water logged and frozen, the log was wet, the pencil encrusted in ice. The CO has no finds, one hide (this one) and hasn't logged on since 2007. This cache is close to my home and I would be willing to replace the cache and contents. Is this good etiquette? I haven't tried to contact the owner as of this writing. Cache is GC151M3

No, definitely don't replace it. I'd say you can just forget it, but if you're interested, you could keep an eye on it, and someday you might want to urge it along with an NA. Caches that need maintenance are a fact of life, so unless there are other considerations -- such as you want the spot! -- there's no rush to get it off the map.

 

I think you should ignore all the things you think you know about the CO. Other indicators such as a lot of DNFs and previous troubles might make you want to call for an archive quicker, but in the absence of those, it's best to always give the CO the benefit of the doubt and react only to his actions, never his statistics. So in this case, for example, think about whether you have any evidence that despite being out of the game, he's not going to jump in and fix the cache as soon as you report the problem, anyway. Sure, it's unlikely, but there's no particular reason why you shouldn't proceed as if he's a regular, active cacher and see what happens next before you decide.

 

Why prolong the inevitable? Post the NA and get it over with. A cache is in bad shape and has been for years. CO hasn't been active since he placed it. It's a container that was NEVER suitable for a cache. Post the NA. Two things can happen. The CO fixes it or it gets archived and no longer serves a bad example of a geocache. All too often everyone want to turn a blind eye. Let someone else worry about it. Afraid to offend the CO. Afraid to be called the Cache Police. As a result, we have garbage sitting out there being called geocaches. If I had found some of this stuff on my first hunt, I'd have never looked for another one again.

 

Needs Archived? Bad shape for years? Are we looking at the same cache?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC151M3+&Submit6=Go

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Needs Archived? Bad shape for years? Are we looking at the same cache?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC151M3+&Submit6=Go

 

The earliest complaint on the cache you linked to was 04/04/2010. That's over two years ago, so I think it qualifies, technically, as a plural in terms of years. That thing shouldn't be sitting out there in that condition for that long. Even a vacation cache could be maintained at least once a year. I would say that it needs to be archived, but I hope a previous finder would be kind enough to go out and remove the remains, if it is.

[+Don_J]

I logged a cache today as NM. The cache was water logged and frozen, the log was wet, the pencil encrusted in ice. The CO has no finds, one hide (this one) and hasn't logged on since 2007. This cache is close to my home and I would be willing to replace the cache and contents. Is this good etiquette? I haven't tried to contact the owner as of this writing. Cache is GC151M3

No, definitely don't replace it. I'd say you can just forget it, but if you're interested, you could keep an eye on it, and someday you might want to urge it along with an NA. Caches that need maintenance are a fact of life, so unless there are other considerations -- such as you want the spot! -- there's no rush to get it off the map.

 

I think you should ignore all the things you think you know about the CO. Other indicators such as a lot of DNFs and previous troubles might make you want to call for an archive quicker, but in the absence of those, it's best to always give the CO the benefit of the doubt and react only to his actions, never his statistics. So in this case, for example, think about whether you have any evidence that despite being out of the game, he's not going to jump in and fix the cache as soon as you report the problem, anyway. Sure, it's unlikely, but there's no particular reason why you shouldn't proceed as if he's a regular, active cacher and see what happens next before you decide.

 

Why prolong the inevitable? Post the NA and get it over with. A cache is in bad shape and has been for years. CO hasn't been active since he placed it. It's a container that was NEVER suitable for a cache. Post the NA. Two things can happen. The CO fixes it or it gets archived and no longer serves a bad example of a geocache. All too often everyone want to turn a blind eye. Let someone else worry about it. Afraid to offend the CO. Afraid to be called the Cache Police. As a result, we have garbage sitting out there being called geocaches. If I had found some of this stuff on my first hunt, I'd have never looked for another one again.

 

Needs Archived? Bad shape for years? Are we looking at the same cache?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC151M3+&Submit6=Go

 

Okay, one year. It doesn't change my opinion however.

[+dprovan]

The earliest complaint on the cache you linked to was 04/04/2010. That's over two years ago, so I think it qualifies, technically, as a plural in terms of years. That thing shouldn't be sitting out there in that condition for that long. Even a vacation cache could be maintained at least once a year. I would say that it needs to be archived, but I hope a previous finder would be kind enough to go out and remove the remains, if it is.

The "complaint" you speak of was an offhand comment on a Found log. I had to read very carefully to discover what you were talking about. The only NM posted was the one just posted by the OP. If the OP feels like the stray comments are proof that the CO is neglecting this cache, I'm fine with him hurrying archival to put the cache out of its misery. The case he presented to start the thread, however, was that the only thing that suggested the cache would not be maintained was that the CO hasn't logged in since he placed it, and that's what I said was bad criteria.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Needs Archived? Bad shape for years? Are we looking at the same cache?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC151M3+&Submit6=Go

 

The earliest complaint on the cache you linked to was 04/04/2010. That's over two years ago, so I think it qualifies, technically, as a plural in terms of years. That thing shouldn't be sitting out there in that condition for that long. Even a vacation cache could be maintained at least once a year. I would say that it needs to be archived, but I hope a previous finder would be kind enough to go out and remove the remains, if it is.

 

"a little damp"? Gosh, if that was the case, 1/2 the caches here would need archiving. I routinely find caches here that are wet inside, so much that I bring towels with me. It's not always a problem with the container or even the cachers opening it in the rain. Often it's just condensation. For all you know, the cacher made a mistake and the cache wasn't damp at all.

 

I'd love to hear a reviewer's opinion on this one.

 

For me, a cache that Needs Archiving either needs to have been:

 

• missing for many months
  
• moldy and/or disgusting for many months or even years
  

 

For instance:

 

Edited December 1, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The case he presented to start the thread, however, was that the only thing that suggested the cache would not be maintained was that the CO hasn't logged in since he placed it, and that's what I said was bad criteria.

 

Granted, it could be a sock puppet account, but a record of maintenance should still be posted. The 2010 comment received no recorded response. The current situation has received no response. An NM log is helpful for flagging a problem, but the owner should still be reading all logs and responding to problems. The NM log is just there to make a problem more visible.

 

"a little damp"? Gosh, if that was the case, 1/2 the caches here would need archiving.

 

"A little damp" is always sufficient for a maintenance visit. None was recorded. Did it happen off record? The current situation has been ongoing for a minimum of two and a half months. I could respond to a cache hundreds of miles away in less time than that. I never said that all caches that get a little damp should be archived. I do say that all caches that get a little damp should receive a visit from the owner. It hasn't happened on this cache, and I don't think it will. Do you really think, at this point, that the owner will ever check up on it? What say we give it a one-month deadline; if it gets a visit from the owner, then I'll concede defeat. If it doesn't, then I'll give you a resounding, "I told you so."

[+Don_J]

The earliest complaint on the cache you linked to was 04/04/2010. That's over two years ago, so I think it qualifies, technically, as a plural in terms of years. That thing shouldn't be sitting out there in that condition for that long. Even a vacation cache could be maintained at least once a year. I would say that it needs to be archived, but I hope a previous finder would be kind enough to go out and remove the remains, if it is.

The "complaint" you speak of was an offhand comment on a Found log. I had to read very carefully to discover what you were talking about. The only NM posted was the one just posted by the OP. If the OP feels like the stray comments are proof that the CO is neglecting this cache, I'm fine with him hurrying archival to put the cache out of its misery. The case he presented to start the thread, however, was that the only thing that suggested the cache would not be maintained was that the CO hasn't logged in since he placed it, and that's what I said was bad criteria.

 

There are seven of those "stray comments", so I do believe that the CO is neglecting the cache. The fact that the seven that commented were content on logging the find and not also logging a NM just exacerbates the problem.

[+Don_J]

Needs Archived? Bad shape for years? Are we looking at the same cache?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC151M3+&Submit6=Go

 

The earliest complaint on the cache you linked to was 04/04/2010. That's over two years ago, so I think it qualifies, technically, as a plural in terms of years. That thing shouldn't be sitting out there in that condition for that long. Even a vacation cache could be maintained at least once a year. I would say that it needs to be archived, but I hope a previous finder would be kind enough to go out and remove the remains, if it is.

 

"a little damp"? Gosh, if that was the case, 1/2 the caches here would need archiving. I routinely find caches here that are wet inside, so much that I bring towels with me. It's not always a problem with the container or even the cachers opening it in the rain. Often it's just condensation. For all you know, the cacher made a mistake and the cache wasn't damp at all.

 

I'd love to hear a reviewer's opinion on this one.

 

For me, a cache that Needs Archiving either needs to have been:

 

• missing for many months
  
• moldy and/or disgusting for many months or even years
  

 

For instance:

 

 

No, in 4/10 it probably needed to be replaced, not archived. It's 2 1/2 years later and the CO has done nothing. It went from slightly damp, to rusty to very wet to suffering from water damage. Considering that it probably doesn't have a cache owner, it may need to be archived. We post the log so that the reviewer can evaluate it and make that decision. That's the way the process works.

 

This is yet another example of why they need to change the name of the log. We really need a "Needs Reviewer Attention", or "Report to Reviewer" log that can be used when a cache needs maintenance, has been reported as such and then is ignored. If the CO is willing to fix the cache then of course it doesn't need to be archived. If the CO is not willing, then it does. Report it the reviewer and get the ball rolling.

[+Shop99er]

Just NA the thing.

 

If it's a sock-puppet, the CO probably won't say anything/ If the CO is really gone, and the cache is in that crappy of a condition, it needs to go.