Maintenance Etiquette

[+4CAN2]

If you happen upon a cache whose log is wet and moldy, is it okay to replace it (the particular cache in question is in my neighborhood but I am not the CO)? Or is that rude?

Edited April 8, 2014 by 4CAN2

[+mar1sa]

Hi

 

If I come across that type of cache, I will normally bag the yuk one in a new little bag and put another log book or paper in and then let the CO know they will need to replace

[+Bear and Ragged]

Not if others have been saying "wet" etc in their logs.

CO really does need to look after their own cache, and not leave it for other cachers to do.

 

However... If it's recently wet, yes, small time quick repair (new log) will help.

[+TriciaG]

What I'd do: Post a Needs Maintenance log. If one has already been posted by someone else more than a month ago (but recently), log a Needs Archived. If in a month or two nothing has been one on my NM log, I'd then log an NA. The CO in that case is definitely not maintaining the cache. If the CO hasn't been active (no caches found and not logged in within, say, the last 6 months), I'd log a NA even without the NM log. I'd explain all the circumstances (moldy log, CO inactive for more than 6 months) and let the reviewer handle it from there.

[+L0ne.R]

What I'd do: Post a Needs Maintenance log. If one has already been posted by someone else more than a month ago (but recently), log a Needs Archived. If in a month or two nothing has been one on my NM log, I'd then log an NA. The CO in that case is definitely not maintaining the cache. If the CO hasn't been active (no caches found and not logged in within, say, the last 6 months), I'd log a NA even without the NM log. I'd explain all the circumstances (moldy log, CO inactive for more than 6 months) and let the reviewer handle it from there.

 

+1

 

Example: A moldy cache like this needs everything replaced - starting with the container which is not watertight. A logsheet added to these moldy contents will become a moldy sheet in no time. Adding a logsheet condones abandonment.

 

Edited April 9, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+Faycocache]

If I have a log book with me I will replaced the baggie and the log book. If I don't have a log book and baggie with me, I will mark it as needs maintenance when I get back home and am logging my finds for the day.

[+pkohler01]

One member of this community wrote me an impassioned accounting of his belief that I am a "horrible person" and "the worst thing to happen to geocaching on Long Island" in response to me replacing a log in a cache near where I walk my dog. I felt somehow proud of being declared "the worst thing to happen to geocaching on Long Island" because of that action. Someday I hope to be declared "the worst thing to happen to pineapple shakes at Sonic" for buying them when I happen across one of those wonderful drive-in havens.

 

I will usually have spare logs, bags, pens, some misc. materials, and some tools (a Gerber multi-tool, log roller, etc) specifically for light maintenance purposes. I'll usually have a small cache and a few spare microcaches on me, as well, in case I come across a good hiding spot, and am not hesitant about cannibalizing those for the sake of maintaining a cache out in the woods somewhere.

[+4CAN2]

What I'd do: Post a Needs Maintenance log. If one has already been posted by someone else more than a month ago (but recently), log a Needs Archived. If in a month or two nothing has been one on my NM log, I'd then log an NA. The CO in that case is definitely not maintaining the cache. If the CO hasn't been active (no caches found and not logged in within, say, the last 6 months), I'd log a NA even without the NM log. I'd explain all the circumstances (moldy log, CO inactive for more than 6 months) and let the reviewer handle it from there.

 

Great! This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for such a clear answer. It was my original thought that caches should be kept forever, but I guess if the CO isn't maintaining it, then it just needs to be archived.

[+-CJ-]

There are two different worlds that you will observe after playing the game for a while In the first world there are people who say that COs should take care of their caches, go out and replace logs, and your best behaviour would be to log this cache either NM or NA, depending on circumstances. In the second world there live happy COs who send you grateful messages after you replace or dry their wet logs. The first world is bigger though

[+JPreto]

What I'd do: Post a Needs Maintenance log. If one has already been posted by someone else more than a month ago (but recently), log a Needs Archived. If in a month or two nothing has been one on my NM log, I'd then log an NA. The CO in that case is definitely not maintaining the cache. If the CO hasn't been active (no caches found and not logged in within, say, the last 6 months), I'd log a NA even without the NM log. I'd explain all the circumstances (moldy log, CO inactive for more than 6 months) and let the reviewer handle it from there.

 

Clear as water! I feel the same way except here in Brazil, and since there are so few caches, before posting a NA log I wait at least 6 months after the NM log.

 

But it all depends on the way people geocache in your region.

[+-CJ-]

JPreto, I wonder - and this question relates to anyone who supports the "clear as water" idea - when you post your second (NM) log, do you visit the location again before posting this NM log?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

JPreto, I wonder - and this question relates to anyone who supports the "clear as water" idea - when you post your second (NM) log, do you visit the location again before posting this NM log?

I think I know where you are going with this question, CJ. I expect the CO to post an OM or Note. Without that, I assume no change has been made.

[+QuiltinNana]

When the log is wet and unsignable, we will usually put in a new logsheet in a new baggy if the container is still good. But if the container itself is compromised with cracks, holes, etc. we will put in a new logsheet in a new baggy and then marked the cache with a NM when we get home. I don't usually check back to see if the maintenance has been performed. I guess I leave that to the reviewer and subsequent cachers to keep logging NM's if the problem is not rectified.

[+-CJ-]

I think I know where you are going with this question, CJ. I expect the CO to post an OM or Note. Without that, I assume no change has been made.

 

It's strange to me that such a judgement is made without checking the cache location. What if some other cacher already did maintenance, not the CO? What if such maintenance was done without any special notice? How we can judge a cache status without actually checking it / visiting the hiding place? Isn't this reviewer's competence only? (Exactly what QuiltinNana just said)

Edited April 15, 2014 by -CJ-

[+4CAN2]

When the log is wet and unsignable, we will usually put in a new logsheet in a new baggy if the container is still good. But if the container itself is compromised with cracks, holes, etc. we will put in a new logsheet in a new baggy and then marked the cache with a NM when we get home. I don't usually check back to see if the maintenance has been performed. I guess I leave that to the reviewer and subsequent cachers to keep logging NM's if the problem is not rectified.

 

so do you always keep a spare log with you?

[+The_Incredibles_]

I've done this many times. I usually post something in my log to the effect: "if you want the old logbook back, please let me know." Not a single person has ever wanted it back and I have gotten quite a few emails thanking me.

 

Now, if the container's crap, there's no point replacing the logbook...I only 'help' out with caches if the container is in good shape and suitable.

[+GMartinTX]

Empty glucometer tube from work: free

Log, baggie: pennies

A smiley where there was only harsh feelings over a missing cache: priceless.

 

A strip of paper here, a little duct tape there... it's not a big deal to me and my friends. It just keeps the game moving. If it's a missing elaborate hide - sure, DNF, NM and move on. NA a cache over a wet log? It's easier and less angst involved just to do a little first aid and help the community...

[+mvhayes1982]

Empty glucometer tube from work: free

Log, baggie: pennies

A smiley where there was only harsh feelings over a missing cache: priceless.

 

A strip of paper here, a little duct tape there... it's not a big deal to me and my friends. It just keeps the game moving. If it's a missing elaborate hide - sure, DNF, NM and move on. NA a cache over a wet log? It's easier and less angst involved just to do a little first aid and help the community...

 

Are you admitting to not only placing throwdowns, but logging them as a find as well?

[+GMartinTX]

Are you admitting to not only placing throwdowns, but logging them as a find as well?

 

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. A skirt hide in a parking lot? A stop along the Oklahoma Land Run where the hanger/holder is there but the container is MIA? You bet I'll put in a replacement log and/or cache, it's no sweat off my brow and virtually no investment from me.

 

A tricky/elaborate hide that I can't find? An ammo can in the woods? Don't be absurd, that's not what I said.

 

And yes, if I put a replacement container out so the site is viable again - I'll log it. Kind of pointless not to...

[+L0ne.R]

Are you admitting to not only placing throwdowns, but logging them as a find as well?

 

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. A skirt hide in a parking lot? A stop along the Oklahoma Land Run where the hanger/holder is there but the container is MIA? You bet I'll put in a replacement log and/or cache, it's no sweat off my brow and virtually no investment from me.

 

A tricky/elaborate hide that I can't find? An ammo can in the woods? Don't be absurd, that's not what I said.

 

And yes, if I put a replacement container out so the site is viable again - I'll log it. Kind of pointless not to...

 

https://support.Grou...ndly&id=19#p427

 

3.9. Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

Edited April 16, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+mvhayes1982]

Are you admitting to not only placing throwdowns, but logging them as a find as well?

 

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. A skirt hide in a parking lot? A stop along the Oklahoma Land Run where the hanger/holder is there but the container is MIA? You bet I'll put in a replacement log and/or cache, it's no sweat off my brow and virtually no investment from me.

 

A tricky/elaborate hide that I can't find? An ammo can in the woods? Don't be absurd, that's not what I said.

 

And yes, if I put a replacement container out so the site is viable again - I'll log it. Kind of pointless not to...

 

I'd reply, but Lone.R has beaten me to it. The guidelines specifically discourage throwdowns to begin with, and go even further to address those who place them despite the guidelines... The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

[+captnemo]

Are you admitting to not only placing throwdowns, but logging them as a find as well?

 

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. A skirt hide in a parking lot? A stop along the Oklahoma Land Run where the hanger/holder is there but the container is MIA? You bet I'll put in a replacement log and/or cache, it's no sweat off my brow and virtually no investment from me.

 

A tricky/elaborate hide that I can't find? An ammo can in the woods? Don't be absurd, that's not what I said.

 

And yes, if I put a replacement container out so the site is viable again - I'll log it. Kind of pointless not to...

 

I'd reply, but Lone.R has beaten me to it. The guidelines specifically discourage throwdowns to begin with, and go even further to address those who place them despite the guidelines... The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

+1. I will replace a log, but not a container. I will then post a NM log. I will not post a NA unless there is a history of several NM logs.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Empty glucometer tube from work: free

Log, baggie: pennies

A smiley where there was only harsh feelings over a missing cache: priceless.

 

A strip of paper here, a little duct tape there... it's not a big deal to me and my friends. It just keeps the game moving. If it's a missing elaborate hide - sure, DNF, NM and move on. NA a cache over a wet log? It's easier and less angst involved just to do a little first aid and help the community...

 

+1 big time. We carry a sack of logs in baggies and other items and its good to carry a rag for wiping out containers.

[GPS-Hermit]

In addition to the above said I send an email to the CO in hopes of a response. I will replace the whole thing if neccessary to keep a good cache going if it has good logs and it seems like everyone is enjoying the cache alot. I like to see the crowd having fun and keep it going. Sometimes the CO is out of the game and will eventually return. Other just disappear for unknown reasons. I still feel there should an option to adopt an abandoned cache if the reveiwer agrees it is the best for all. I am one that would like to preserve the history and logs of the original cache. Why is it so important to care how many have taken it over and cared about it. I good cache is a good cache! I love to read the comment of the finders for any given cache and enjoy their experiences!

Edited April 21, 2014 by GPS-Hermit