Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
beckidimond

wet logbook?

Recommended Posts

i am wondering how do i deal with a wet log book....do i take the old one and leave a dry? leave the wet and give a dry? and with a micro/nano, there is not room for two, so do i just leave it wet and let the owner?... dont want to do anything wrong or make someone mad

Share this post


Link to post

i am wondering how do i deal with a wet log book....do i take the old one and leave a dry? leave the wet and give a dry? and with a micro/nano, there is not room for two, so do i just leave it wet and let the owner?... dont want to do anything wrong or make someone mad

If you add a dry one to wet contents, there will become two wet log books. Sign the (wet) log or sign a piece of paper, or don't sign at all (whichever is appropriate at the time), and leave an online “Needs Maintenance” log (and your “Found It” log if you want to). Pour out any standing water. The Cache Owner may already have a plan to replace the container, so the NM log is a good idea.

 

You usually should not seal a wet log book in its ziplock bag, since it could never dry like that -- if the container leaks, the water may someday drain or evaporate.

 

I can usually dry a micro log sheet in a few minutes (Hint: Visit cache spots where you'd love to hang out for at least a few minutes while log sheets dry). I also carry a set of o-rings that fit most Micros, so if I can dry the container and log sheet, I do that, and change the o-ring. If I don't feel like going to all that trouble, I at least mention the wet log, and usually do a NM log.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

i wouldnt just put the dry one in with the wet, i carry extra zip lock bags..... figured that was common sence,...lol...i have left a NM... just wanted to make sure i was doing what i should..thank you..i was mainly concerned with the micros...didnt want to take the wet log,but wanted to leave a dry one, wanted to sign the log, so just wanted to clarify thanks again

Share this post


Link to post

i wouldnt just put the dry one in with the wet, i carry extra zip lock bags..... figured that was common sence,...lol...i have left a NM... just wanted to make sure i was doing what i should..thank you..i was mainly concerned with the micros...didnt want to take the wet log,but wanted to leave a dry one, wanted to sign the log, so just wanted to clarify thanks again

I've added a specially designed waterproof paper "Emergency Log Book" in a ziplock bag, to a few containers that seemed to be kinda humid -- that might end up with a soaking wet log book pretty soon. So, sure, that's fine (adding dry log books). But a ziplock bag is for storing a sandwich for lunch :anicute:. It will soon be just as wet as everything else. So it's only a temporary fix.

 

If you remove an old log sheet (if there's otherwise no room to add more paper), it's best to ask the Cache Owner if they would like it, or what they want to do. So far, nobody's wanted the old log when I had to remove it, but you never know.

 

I replaced a nano container for a guy serving overseas. I removed the old, wet log and photographed it, front and back, posted the pics, then placed the new container with its new log. Maybe posting pictures of the log sheet would be good.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

It is. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

It is. :anicute:

I'm not clear on what BlueDeuce is saying. Some steps, like pouring out standing water, would be okay with any CO. It would seem thoughtless NOT to pour out the water. Replacing a log book is deucey, I mean dicey. Adding a ziplock bag is a nice courtesy, and those bags work successfully in many caches, as long as the amount of water getting into the cache is very low. Taking anything away from the cache (even a soaked log) starts to be like stepping on the toes of the CO.

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

 

Because they're being helpful friendly people, rather than selfish grumps.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

i am wondering how do i deal with a wet log book....do i take the old one and leave a dry? leave the wet and give a dry? and with a micro/nano, there is not room for two, so do i just leave it wet and let the owner?... dont want to do anything wrong or make someone mad

 

First of all, take a close look at the container. Is there a reason the log is wet? If the container's cracked or a bison tube's lost it's o-ring, the new log will get wet in short order, so no need to replace, just log a Needs Maintenance.

 

Presuming there's nothing wrong with the container and someone just opened it in the rain or didn't close it properly....

 

If it's a micro/nano, just take the old logbook and post a note on the cache page or email the owner to let them know you have it if they want it. I've done this tons of times and have yet to have a request for the log back.

 

If it's a larger container, you could put the wet logbook in a baggie, but maybe best just to remove it.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

 

Personally, it depends on who that cache owner is. If I can help out another active cacher with their trailside cache, I'll happily do so. An abandoned urban micro, nope.

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

 

Because they're being helpful friendly people, rather than selfish grumps.

 

While that is admirable, it can create problems in itself. Each situation is different and it takes a little bit of experience to learn how to evaluate those situations. Sometimes, you are simply prolonging the inevitable. Putting a new log into a crummy container, which the CO has abandoned is simply a short term solution.

Edited by Don_J

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

 

Because they're being helpful friendly people, rather than selfish grumps.

 

While that is admirable, it can create problems in itself. Each situation is different and it takes a little bit of experience to learn how to evaluate those situations. Sometimes, you are simply prolonging the inevitable. Putting a new log into a crummy container, which the CO has abandoned is simply a short term solution.

 

Here's a quote from Clan Riffster that I like....."Fixing crappy hides strips the owners of such drivel of the learning

experience. Since they don't get to go out and fix their crappy cache

themselves, they are oft left with the impression that their crappy

cache is perfectly acceptable, and hide more of them. Don't be a crappy cache enabler. "

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Some of you say " if it's an abandoned cache not being maintained" not to do anything but put a NM/NA log on it.

 

I realize that these are the days of portable information but when I am out in the woods, I am not looking up a page to see if the cache is abandoned before I decide to add a fresh log book.

I see why we don't want to have abandoned caches out there, but what would you have us do in the woods with no info on hand? Would it be better to fix the issue at hand or leave it a mess?

 

My thought is that you take a moment and clean it up and post the NM later. I as a seeker appreciate the effort to make the cache at least serviceable until the NA is done. I went all this way to find it, I don't want someone else to have to find the crummy log that I did.

Share this post


Link to post

First I look for damage on the cache, cracks, holes, etc.. I keep duck tape in my geo-pack and will do a simple tape the hole/crack repair... Then I will add 1 new log sheet in a new ziplock for wet cache and dry the container out with tissues. If a lid is missing or container is smashed I don't try to fix or repair. Either way I add a maintence log so the CO knows... There are a couple of CO's in my area that don't maintain their caches anymore... I don't do any repairs on caches owned by them... Never had an issue with any of the nano-type caches I've found, all have been dry, knock on wood! B):rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't the first response to let the owner take care of their cache, as they should?

 

thumbsup.gif

Edited by Lieblweb

Share this post


Link to post

Some of you say " if it's an abandoned cache not being maintained" not to do anything but put a NM/NA log on it.

 

I realize that these are the days of portable information but when I am out in the woods, I am not looking up a page to see if the cache is abandoned before I decide to add a fresh log book.

I see why we don't want to have abandoned caches out there, but what would you have us do in the woods with no info on hand? Would it be better to fix the issue at hand or leave it a mess?

 

My thought is that you take a moment and clean it up and post the NM later. I as a seeker appreciate the effort to make the cache at least serviceable until the NA is done. I went all this way to find it, I don't want someone else to have to find the crummy log that I did.

I think people are commenting on what to do in a situation with perfect information. I doubt anyone would be upset with you fixing up a cache that someone else with more information would have just picked up as geolitter. Worst case, it prolongs a cache that isn't being maintained, but if you've put the cache back in operational condition unilaterally, I can't see how anyone can legitimately complain. It would be exactly as if the CO had made one last effort to maintain the cache before he disappeared forever again.

 

Although, on the other hand, I think some people are thinking of caches with no redeeming value even when they're in good shape, but that doesn't sound like the kind of cache you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

I've decided to lead by example, adopting just 2 rules.

Leaving the cache as I would like to find it. And always posting a NA post, just as I would like a seeker to do with mine.

Just saying what I would do, i have found far to many wet logs, I'm now taking around spare paper. And it takes little time for me to wipe down a damp cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I've decided to lead by example, adopting just 2 rules.

Leaving the cache as I would like to find it. And always posting a NA post, just as I would like a seeker to do with mine.

Just saying what I would do, i have found far to many wet logs, I'm now taking around spare paper. And it takes little time for me to wipe down a damp cache.

 

I think (hope) you meant to say: always post a NM log (Needs Maintenance), not an NA (Needs Archived) log.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. I try to stay away from acronyms for this exact reason. Lol. I meant needs maintenance log. (Although I may have meant needs attention. Oh dear!)

Share this post


Link to post

I've decided to lead by example, adopting just 2 rules.

Leaving the cache as I would like to find it. And always posting a NA post, just as I would like a seeker to do with mine.

Just saying what I would do, i have found far to many wet logs, I'm now taking around spare paper. And it takes little time for me to wipe down a damp cache.

 

It's hard for me to get a perspective when someone posts that they will always do this or do that because I don't know what kind of caches they are finding.

 

I treat each situation individually. If someone didn't seal my cache five miles up a mountain trail and you want to put a dry log in it, I'll have no objections, and I will do the same for you if the situation warrants. If I hike five miles and find a pile of plastic dust from the Tupperware container that you placed five years ago, one day before you quit geocaching, I'm going to pack out what I can and post a Needs Archived as there is no longer a cache there to find. If you are actively leaving new caches at every single spot on the face of the Earth that you visit, yet I find one that you placed a month ago and it's already a mess, fix it yourself.

 

I look at the overall picture before deciding what to do. Who is the CO and are they active? Is there a long history of maintenance problems with the cache or the CO? Is it an older cache that is being maintained by the community. Is it a park n grab or a five mile hike? Will whatever I do help, or just help to prolong a problem?

 

The one "never" that I have applies to two specific cachers that are actively placing several caches a week, while ignoring DNF, NM logs, reviewer warnings, and forcing the reviewer to archive their problem caches after the warning period. I will NEVER do anything to help these two cachers.

Share this post


Link to post

I never looked at the need archiving log as an option before, buck the more I've read on the forums, if I'm to take this seriously and hopefully make it better for others, your right, I need 'to look at the bigger picture'

My recent post is just a snipit of my current change of attitude, I used to just leave a needs maintenance log. And that was it, I thought it was the owners duty to go and sort it out, but I have now found too many where somebody has found a cache the day before and logged a NM log but left it in a disgrace. This is what I had done in the past. It takes no time to clean it up. But your right, I will check the activity of the owner, and then act accordingly.

To keep the game interesting enough for other, I do think their lies some responsibility on the players involved. Even if it's the minority, they have to practice what they preach.

I'm taking advice all the time. (or learning from mistakes, however you want to put it!lol)

Share this post


Link to post

I leave it as it is and post a maintenance log.  If it is too wet to sign, I might push my pen into it to get a little stain or something.  It's not my cache, and I don't feel I have the right to change it.  Plus, it's part of the cache experience.  It is honest; it is what the cache has become.  I don't wish to mess with that history by putting a mask on it.  Geocaching isn't only about finding perfect caches.  It's about the experience of each cache, including the well-worn ones.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/1/2013 at 6:45 AM, beckidimond said:

i am wondering how do i deal with a wet log book....do i take the old one and leave a dry? leave the wet and give a dry? and with a micro/nano, there is not room for two, so do i just leave it wet and let the owner?... dont want to do anything wrong or make someone mad

 

In some cases you only need to let the container open to let the logbook to dry. Next finder can close the container.

 

If I can not sign a wet log, I try to dry it immediatelly with available methods, if there is no space for additional logsheets.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

In some cases you only need to let the container open to let the logbook to dry. Next finder can close the container.

unless it rains or snows in the meantime. Then you'd have a mess.

 

Generally, if you can dry it out a bit while you're there, do it. Always leave the log there (unless you're going to your car, drying it out, and returning it right away). You can add paper to the cache with your sig, but it'll get wet, too.

 

If you think the container has failed such that it will never dry on its own, leave a NM. If it appears to be a fluke, and you've dried the log, and it doesn't look like the owner needs to do anything, don't leave a NM.

 

EDIT: Oops! Just noticed I'm answering a 6 year old thread. :blink:

Edited by TriciaG

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

EDIT: Oops! Just noticed I'm answering a 6 year old thread.

 

Nothing has changed in 6 years :-) I must admit that nowadays I see wet logbooks less often then before. Containers are smaller but better.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Nothing has changed in 6 years :-) I must admit that nowadays I see wet logbooks less often then before. Containers are smaller but better.

You are lucky in my neck of the woods I still see plenty of wet logbooks and this will continue to increase because most of them are on unmaintened power trails......

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

You are lucky in my neck of the woods I still see plenty of wet logbooks and this will continue to increase because most of them are on unmaintened power trails......

 

I avoid finding power trails because I don't enjoy repeating experiences. As far as I understand, the quality is not a factor when you are seeking power trails, right?

 

Anyway,  I have accidentally found some power trail caches and they were in a good shape. That is because PET preforms have replaced 35mm film canisters, mostly because of the end of the supply of film canisters due to digital photography.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TriciaG said:

EDIT: Oops! Just noticed I'm answering a 6 year old thread. :blink:

And we still have wet logs (or log books, at times)!  If I know the CO and know that I will meet him/her at an event to return the old log if they want it, I will replace the log with s clean, dry one, mention that in my log, and contact the CO to see if they want the old log.  Most cases, they don't, especially if it's a soggy wad of mush!

 

If I'm out of my home area, or not familiar enough with the CO to presume to maintain their cache, I will comment in my online log regarding the condition of the cache, and typically log the NM as well. I am more likely to log the NM if others before me have mentioned a wet log or other problem and NOT logged the NM.  If there is already a red wrench, I won't add a second. (Does it take two OM's to clear two NM's?)

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, arisoft said:

In some cases you only need to let the container open to let the logbook to dry. Next finder can close the container.

Hopefully the cache will have another finder in the next month, or it really will be wet. Many caches are found less than that.

 

If it's a remote cache with no other caches nearby, perhaps for a 100 plus kms even, I would be likely to replace the cache and log. I will now hear screams for doing this, but I did say remote, not where there are many such as in towns. I would not replace it where there are many caches (unless I had an understanding with the CO, as I do with one mostly Australian series - there's a few in other countries too.) If this rare, remote cache was not replaced there would be NO caches in that area. In non remote areas I would at least mention the log was wet, or log a NM.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post

Last spring I opened one cache and spent couple of hours waiting for it to try. I didn't dare to leave it open (to come back next day, for example) because showers could be quite unpredictable there.

 

Once I get my caching gear sorted, I was thinking of including a small gas cooker so I could  try to dry a cache more quickly.

Has anyone tried that?

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, papu66 said:

Once I get my caching gear sorted, I was thinking of including a small gas cooker so I could  try to dry a cache more quickly.

Has anyone tried that?

 

I have used car heating blower sometimes. It tooks few minutes to dry the entire logbook. Another trick is to put the logbook inside a bag of silica gel to let it dry with time.

Share this post


Link to post

In my purview, drying a log is something for the CO to handle.  I get my mark on the log, and add a Needs Maintenance Log after my Found It. YMMV

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, K13 said:

In my purview, drying a log is something for the CO to handle.  I get my mark on the log, and add a Needs Maintenance Log after my Found It. YMMV

 

If you can sign the log there is no need for maintenance.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

If you can sign the log there is no need for maintenance.

 

My experience says otherwise - numerous times. I have pens that will mark on the mushiest of wads of pulp.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, K13 said:

In my purview, drying a log is something for the CO to handle.  I get my mark on the log, and add a Needs Maintenance Log after my Found It. YMMV

Over the years, I've dried a few damp logs (in the sun, on the car defroster, whatever). I still think it can be helpful. But drying the log doesn't fix the problem that caused it to be damp/wet in the first place. So a NM log is still appropriate so the CO can take care of the underlying problem.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/24/2019 at 1:15 PM, arisoft said:

 

If you can sign the log there is no need for maintenance.

Too cold to grow mold up your way?  You should see what some of the paper pulp that was once a log can turn into here over time, especially in the summer.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I think of it more-or-less this way:

  • If the cache container "leaked a little," and you happen to have brought a replacement log (especially, waterproof paper) in Ye Olde Bag O' Tricks, that's always a nice thing to do.  Just note in your log that you did replace it.  ("Save the CO a trip."  Keep the old log with you.)
  • If something about the cache container has, say, cracked, then you have two choices:  a "needs maintenance" log (which will trigger reviewer attention), or a "private message to the cache owner."  Is the necessary maintenance "easy," as in, "hey, heads-up ..."?  Or might this be something that a Reviewer should put on their radar?
  • If you think that the cache is gone, or if something serious has happened to the setting where the cache is, "Needs Maintenance" is appropriate.
  • I almost never do "Needs Archived."  (That would be: "Whoa! IMHO, this cache never should have been approved!")
Edited by Team Bear-Cat

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

I almost never do "Needs Archived."  (That would be: "Whoa! IMHO, this cache never should have been approved!")

I disagree with this interpretation of "Needs Archived" logs.

 

Certainly, permission issues and other "never should have been approved" situations call for  a "Needs Archived". But there are also situations where something has changed, and whatever that is, if the CO does not address it appropriately, then the cache listing should be archived.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

Save the CO a trip.

 

This is very helpfull. There is no need to call service for what you can do immediatelly on-site yourself.

 

1 hour ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

Or might this be something that a Reviewer should put on their radar?

 

Need maintenance do not send anything to reviewers. No need to avoid using it correctly. It also informs other visitors about the situation.

 

1 hour ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

If you think that the cache is gone, or if something serious has happened to the setting where the cache is, "Needs Maintenance" is appropriate.

 

In that case NM is not the appropriate log type. The correct log type is Did Not Found (DNF). It tells everything what the CO and reviewer needs to know about the situation. If you can not see the cache at all you actually didn't find it. You can not be sure that it needs maintenance.

 

1 hour ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

I almost never do "Needs Archived."

 

Neither I,  but sometimes I do. Once I put NA after DNF because I didn't found the cache nor the place where the cache was said to be hidden.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

I almost never do "Needs Archived."  (That would be: "Whoa! IMHO, this cache never should have been approved!")

 

33 minutes ago, niraD said:

I disagree with this interpretation of "Needs Archived" logs.

 

Similar to niraD... 

 -  I'd add that caches are never "approved",  they're published (if/when they conform to guidelines). 

If a Reviewer ever had to "approve" caches, a lotta COs would probably be upset on wait-time.  :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Bear-Cat said:
  • If the cache container "leaked a little," and you happen to have brought a replacement log (especially, waterproof paper) in Ye Olde Bag O' Tricks, that's always a nice thing to do.  Just note in your log that you did replace it.  ("Save the CO a trip."  Keep the old log with you.)

If possible, leave the original log and add a new one in a separate bag if necessary. That way, the original log is still there if the CO wants it. Also, keep in mind that Rite-in-the-Rain paper is only water-resistant, and not waterproof. When left continuously wet, R-i-t-R paper will grow mold and break down just like any other paper. Trust me, I've seen lots of moldy R-i-t-R paper here on the west coast of Canada.

 

Quote
  • If something about the cache container has, say, cracked, then you have two choices:  a "needs maintenance" log (which will trigger reviewer attention), or a "private message to the cache owner."  Is the necessary maintenance "easy," as in, "hey, heads-up ..."?  Or might this be something that a Reviewer should put on their radar?

"Needs maintenance" does not trigger reviewer attention. Only "Needs archived" does. Reviewers may step in if maintenance issues go a long time without being addressed, but they don't need to be involved when maintenance issues initially arise.

 

Quote
  • If you think that the cache is gone, or if something serious has happened to the setting where the cache is, "Needs Maintenance" is appropriate.

No, a Needs maintenance would not be appropriate just because you think it's gone. Of course, if the listing says it's in a tree and the only tree in the field has been cut down, then an NM would be appropriate. However, in general, not finding a cache is a DNF, not an NM.

 

Quote

I almost never do "Needs Archived."  (That would be: "Whoa! IMHO, this cache never should have been approved!")

For years, folks have been pushing to have this log type renamed to something like "Needs reviewer attention" to better describe what it's used for, because there are many cases where using it isn't actually suggesting that the cache should be archived. When used appropriately and without passing judgement, there's nothing wrong with submitted NA logs when a case warrants it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, arisoft said:
3 hours ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

If you think that the cache is gone, or if something serious has happened to the setting where the cache is, "Needs Maintenance" is appropriate.

 

In that case NM is not the appropriate log type. The correct log type is Did Not Found (DNF). It tells everything what the CO and reviewer needs to know about the situation. If you can not see the cache at all you actually didn't find it. You can not be sure that it needs maintenance.

 

So why is there a canned NM log on the new logging page that says "This geocacher has reported that the cache might be missing"? I think NM is absolutely the right log to use when all the evidence at GZ suggests it's highly likely that the cache is missing (for example, if there's only one place that matches the hint and the cache isn't there). Also, if something has happened at GZ that's likely to have taken out the cache, like if the hint says it's in a tree but all that's there now is a freshly cut tree stump, then an NM is appropriate. Really any situation where action by the owner is needed should be logged as an NM, even if it's just something minor like broken camo.

 

Also, in my book at least, a DNF by itself doesn't say "the cache might be missing", it just says "I couldn't find it today" and might also include one of the many reasons for that other than a missing cache, such as muggles encamped at GZ, an approaching storm, swarms of mosquitoes, too much of a needle in a haystack, etc. Not all caches are D1 and even D1s can defeat some seekers (like me).

 

Edit to add: Looking back over my last 20 DNF logs, only one turned out to be a "missing" cache (well the CO eventually found it but it was well away from where it was meant to be hidden, and on that one I did log a "might be missing" NM as well), the rest were just a case of Blind Freddy Jeff not finding it and I'd hate for any of those to infer the cache might be missing.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

Went looking for a cache today.  It looked interesting.  In a 245 year-old  tree.  If I had read the logs, I wouldn't have bothered.  The tree was knocked over by a storm last July.  Four 'Write Note' logs that the tree was destroyed and removed.  Come on, cachers, post 'Needs Archived', which is what I did.  CO inactive since last September.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Went looking for a cache today.  It looked interesting.  In a 245 year-old  tree.  If I had read the logs, I wouldn't have bothered.  The tree was knocked over by a storm last July.  Four 'Write Note' logs that the tree was destroyed and removed.  Come on, cachers, post 'Needs Archived', which is what I did.  CO inactive since last September.

I agree with you and ticked the like. However, I have found two caches where the tree went missing. One was sitting down next to the stump; the other was lying among the downed bits of tree, undamaged. I couldn't say the same for the tree. It's possible another geocacher found the first cache (after it fell out of the tree during removal) and placed it at GZ, or a workman found it and placed it at GZ. The cache with the  second tree was just lucky. I have also found the a cache after its bridge was removed. The old bridge was pulled down and replaced and I turned up with another cacher, so they could find the cache. We found the bridge missing; the new one not there yet. However I glanced at a tree nearby and there was the cache sitting safely and intact under the tree. Having found that cache myself before, I know it had been under the bridge, so I workman must have found it and safely put it aside, so it wasn't taken away with the old bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So why is there a canned NM log on the new logging page that says "This geocacher has reported that the cache might be missing"?

 

It is used, for example, when there is a line of DNF reports but the owner has not responded and the NM is made to alert the CO. The reason for the alert is not that you have not found the cache, but you suspect that it might be missing under these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×