Etiquette query - replacing full log - return to CO?

[+tREENity]

I'm an advocate for cache maintenance, and usually have a small stock of replacement logs and baggies when I cache.

 

On occasion, I come across a full log, which I replace, or a soaking wet one, which I try to dry out and repackage as best I can. Sometimes a wet log just disintegrates, or it's moldy.

 

My question is: do cache owners want to original log back if it can be dried out (relatively undamaged) over time? Or if it's full and the container doesn't readily accommodate multiple pages?

 

I'm in the habit of contacting the cache owner when these conditions occur, but was wondering if there's a point of etiquette or SOP I'm unaware of.

 

My thanks for any input!

 

Be well, Cache me if you can

 

tREENity

FLA/USA

[+jwmoe1973]

I think you're on the right track. Hopefully, the CO would be out there replacing their own full logs, but we all know that doesn't always happen. Some may want the logs, some won't.

 

I'd replace a log that obviously needed it, bag it, and make sure I marked the GC# and name of the cache on the bag and do everything possible to contact the CO to offer it back.

 

There was only once that I didn't keep the log I replaced as it was COMPLETE pulp with NO readable sigs.

[+L0ne.R]

I have from time to time left a slip of paper that will tide a cache over for about a month until the cache owner can do maintenance. That is, I'll do that for caches that are in good quality containers hwere it looks like the cache owner has tried to provide a good experience for cachers - generally maintained cache in decent shape with an active owner. I'm a firm believer in cache owners taking responsibility for their caches and, in Clan Riffster's motto "Don't be a crappy cache enabler". I will leave a note about a full log if the other finders haven't already mentioned it. If there are already notes, then I will post a Needs Maintenance (some COs filter out regular find emails but will look at NM and NAs). I never remove the original log. If it's a nano, I'm especially adamant about not helping a CO that places these. They place a nano they should know that more maintenance is required.

[+NanCycle]

I have taken some logs that were either full or wet or both, and left new dry ones in their place. I then take them home, scan them (drying them out first if needed) and post the scans to the cache page. I also email the CO and offer to mail the logs to them, but I've never had anyone respond to the offer.

[+captnemo]

When I find a log that needs help I will leave a new 1 page log and if necessary remove the old one. If I do remove an old log I will email the CO ask if thy want it and toss it after a reasonable amount of time. I have NEVER had a CO want the old log in over 12 years!

 

In any case I will post a NM log.

[+luvvinbird]

Just today I added a small strip of paper alongside a completely full nano log. As a CO, I would appreciate that gesture. On my caches, I've had many cachers comment about wet logs and that they added a piece of paper. I like that. Soon after, I'll generally do a full blown maintenance. I like to keep all the logs but I draw the line at hanging on to the moldy ones, lol.

[+tREENity]

My thanks, Friends. It seems I've been on the right track.

 

Much appreciated.

 

Be well!

[+WarNinjas]

My thought would be to just snap a pic of the old log. If the CO was concerned you would have the info. I only know of one cacher who might care. He would get over it I am sure.

[+L0ne.R]

I would recommend the snap a photo as evidence option. What's the point of replacing a log if COs generally don't care about the log. those that do will likely be happy you took the photo and didn't take their log. Put an NM on the cache. If the CO doesn't maintain the cache it should be archived. And please don't do something like in the photo below - put a temporary log into a junk cache. How does this enhance the experience for the next cacher, unless you think that the whole point of geocaching is the smiley and that the next cacher also thinks the whole point of geocaching is the smiley. The cache in the photo should be archived not encouraged to limp along just so people can feel better about signing a log to claim a smiley. Take the photo. Claim a find. Then log the NM or NA if there's already an NM and no response from the CO. You'd be doing the community a better favour. :

 

Edited October 5, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+Pork King]

I have taken some logs that were either full or wet or both, and left new dry ones in their place. I then take them home, scan them (drying them out first if needed) and post the scans to the cache page. I also email the CO and offer to mail the logs to them, but I've never had anyone respond to the offer.

 

I usually cache very light, so I rarely have replacement logs, baggies, etc on me. One the few occasions I did, I took a picture of every page/side of the old log and posted the pictures with my comments. I've never contacted the CO about returning the log, but I held on to 'em for a few days in case they contacted me.

 

Here is an example of one such log on a cache that I adopted, adopted out, then readopted shortly after this cache maintenance.

Becker Bottoms cache maintenance

[+Pork King]

I would recommend the snap a photo as evidence option. What's the point of replacing a log if COs generally don't care about the log. those that do should will likely be happy you took the photo and didn't take their log. Put an NM on the cache. If the CO doesn't maintain the cache it should be archived. And please don't do something like in the photo below - put a temporary log into a junk cache. How does this enhance the experience for the next cacher, unless you think that the whole point of geocaching is the smiley and that the next cacher also thinks the whole point of geocaching is the smiley. The cache in the photo should be archived not encouraged to limp along just so people can feel better about signing a log to claim a smiley. Take the photo. Claim a find. Then log the NM or NA if there's already an NM and no response from the CO. You'd be doing the community a better favour. :

 

 

Hear, hear! +1! Favorite Point!

[+dprovan]

So ignoring the possibility of a bad cache (which has just been covered with some valid points), I think there are a few answers depending on the exact angle of the question:

 

1. In my experiences, most owners don't care what you do with the old log.

 

2. It is nice to ask, if you want to.

 

3. The best solution I've seen is posting pictures of the old log so everyone including the CO can peruse all the signatures.

 

4. It was nice enough of you to replace the full log, so it's just bonus points if you do anything but throw out the old one.

 

But since you do mention wet and moldy logs, I'd like to make clear that I agree with L0ne.R that in that case, don't bother to replace the log at all since your replacement will likely be just as wet and moldy for the next person.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

But since you do mention wet and moldy logs, I'd like to make clear that I agree with L0ne.R that in that case, don't bother to replace the log at all since your replacement will likely be just as wet and moldy for the next person.

 

To me it depends on the cache. A cache in the parking lot of a strip mall in Anytown, USA might get treated differently than a cache at the top of a volcano in Costa Rica.

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

The two or three times this happened, the CO just kind of laughed it off and said 'no thanks'. Honestly, I figure most folks either don't care or decide they'd feel too silly to ask for a moldy piece of paper with a bunch of illegible signatures on it.

[+L0ne.R]

The two or three times this happened, the CO just kind of laughed it off and said 'no thanks'. Honestly, I figure most folks either don't care or decide they'd feel too silly to ask for a moldy piece of paper with a bunch of illegible signatures on it.

 

I keep all of my logbooks. But most of mine are handmade, so they have a little more value to me. The one time that someone accidentally took one of my logbooks, they asked for my address so they could mail it to me. It's not that I didn't care or want that logbook but I wasn't keen on giving them my address, so I told them they could keep it (or throw it away).

[Andronicus]

When I find a log that needs help I will leave a new 1 page log and if necessary remove the old one. If I do remove an old log I will email the CO ask if thy want it and toss it after a reasonable amount of time. I have NEVER had a CO want the old log in over 12 years!

 

In any case I will post a NM log.

This also reflects my experienc. Exept 5 years, not 12.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

My wife and I each carry a couple of spare logs in baggies and in addition I carry o-rings to fit bisons and match holders.I also carry a rag to wipe out caches and an assortment of Lock & Locks. If there is room I won't take the wet log although, as said, no one has ever wanted it.

[+ras_oscar]

When I add a new log sheet to a cache that won't also receive the old one, I take the old one with me and PM the CO offering to make it available to them if they choose. So far no takers.

[+chasclifton]

When I add a new log sheet to a cache that won't also receive the old one, I take the old one with me and PM the CO offering to make it available to them if they choose. So far no takers.

 

Me neither. I have a soggy log drying right now.

[+NeverSummer]

When I add a new log sheet to a cache that won't also receive the old one, I take the old one with me and PM the CO offering to make it available to them if they choose. So far no takers.

And I think that is a significant swing in how this game was played years ago. Logbooks used to be...books! You could read a couple of pages sometimes from one cacher and hear about the hike, the weather, and so on. It was fun to get that logbook back and see what was in there once it filled up.

 

Many things have compounded the seeming lack of interest in actually seeing the logbook anymore. That could be micro caches, general expansion of the game, bad maintenance habits, who knows.

 

I can say that I always want to see my logbooks. If one is noted as full or damaged, I'm the one that goes out and tries to replace it. Thankfully most folks just add a scrap of paper or another small scroll to help out until I can get there to refresh the cache. If someone removed the log without asking me first, I'd be pretty miffed, even if it was wet or full. Now, I'd also add that I would hope none of my logsheets are reduced to pulpy messes, as I do my best to have good containers, solid log bags, and write-in-the-rain paper.

 

All this to say to the OP, do contact the cache owner and see if they want it. You could get someone who doesn't care, or you could get someone like me who wants it back.

[+WarNinjas]

I once replaced a full logbook for a cacher I knew I was going to be kayaking with later. It was a nano log. I gave it to him as we were unloading the kayaks and he said thanks as he looked at me kind of weird and crumpled it up and threw it in his car. That said and as I said before I know another cacher who would definitely want it.

[+sholomar]

I replaced 3 logs on vacation and kept 2. The one I did not keep I was able to fit both logs in the container side by side. Not gonna mail them back or anything... given their profiles and their last time viewing them they should be happy I replaced the logs at all. I wouldnt need my full logs unless they are larger caches in which case the logs probably will not fill up around here for a long time....

Edited October 18, 2014 by sholomar

[+L0ne.R]

I replaced 3 logs on vacation and kept 2. The one I did not keep I was able to fit both logs in the container side by side. Not gonna mail them back or anything... given their profiles and their last time viewing them they should be happy I replaced the logs at all. I wouldnt need my full logs unless they are larger caches in which case the logs probably will not fill up around here for a long time....

 

Me, I'd post an NM instead (then put a watch on it and post an NA if the owner doesn't respond). People who hide caches, especially nanos (they require frequent log changes) and don't maintain them do not do this pastime a favour. Replacing logs may encourage abandonment.

Edited October 18, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+Sagefox]

Replacing logs may encourage abandonment.

 

A common comment here but I suspect abandonment happens independently of someone adding a log. The cache may have been abandoned long before the log was replaced.

 

The question is not whether someone has abandoned their cache but whether the cache is viable. Replacing a log makes it viable. The next cachers will not know or care if the owner has quietly slipped out the back door because there will be a cache with a log to sign.

 

If no one is interested in replacing the log then NM/NA will take care of it.

 

I see no harm in replacing a log.

[+L0ne.R]

1413652807[/url]' post='5439927']

1413638509[/url]' post='5439888']

Replacing logs may encourage abandonment.

 

A common comment here but I suspect abandonment happens independently of someone adding a log. The cache may have been abandoned long before the log was replaced.

 

The question is not whether someone has abandoned their cache but whether the cache is viable. Replacing a log makes it viable. The next cachers will not know or care if the owner has quietly slipped out the back door because there will be a cache with a log to sign.

 

If no one is interested in replacing the log then NM/NA will take care of it.

 

I see no harm in replacing a log.

 

The harm is in encouraging more cheap, hide 'em and forget 'em nanos/micros. Logging an NM on them might make others think twice before placing something that seems maintenance- free but may actually require more visits than larger good quality caches with a logbook.

Edited October 19, 2014 by L0ne.R