replacing logs etc

[+bones1]

Great news folks on friday i replaced my 1000th log since i started caching in 2004 ive made a mission out of it, helping all of us cachers as it takes roughly 7 seconds to replace a wet,soggy,damp log book and about an hour minumum for the cache owner to saddle up and get out there and no cluttering up of the relevant cache page with a needs maintainance, a few seconds extra if i have to replace the plastic bag aswell, i know we all need a pen,but spare log books and tweezers are the three main items you need.so could we start a replace logs club. (: any ideas welcome, oh please no cut and paste of "its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches", please lets try and only have positive answers to my friendly posting. happy caching jeff=bones1.

[+cheech gang]

[Pup Patrol]

Great news folks on friday i replaced my 1000th log since i started caching in 2004 ive made a mission out of it, helping all of us cachers as it takes roughly 7 seconds to replace a wet,soggy,damp log book and about an hour minumum for the cache owner to saddle up and get out there and no cluttering up of the relevant cache page with a needs maintainance, a few seconds extra if i have to replace the plastic bag aswell, i know we all need a pen,but spare log books and tweezers are the three main items you need.so could we start a replace logs club. (: any ideas welcome, oh please no cut and paste of "its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches", please lets try and only have positive answers to my friendly posting. happy caching jeff=bones1.

 

So you only want responses that agree with you? Why post on the forum then?

 

I hope no one takes this attitude with caches that I own. I would much prefer to see a "needs maintenance" posted than someone coming along and doing whatever they want with MY cache.

 

The worst part of having a cache stolen was that the log book was gone. I really enjoyed that log book, and I don't appreciate anyone just taking it without my permission, whether it's in good shape or not.

 

Unless the owner posts an "owner maintenance" log, then the cache page is still "cluttered" with a Needs Maintenance attribute. People will still filter out caches with NM's on their pocket queries.

 

Oh, this isn't a post to say how wonderful you are, going around messing with other people's caches. Too bad, eh, but that's what happens when you post on a forum. Other people, who don't have the same opinion as yours, get to post their thoughts and opinions.

 

The idea of starting a "replace other people's property" club is ridiculous. If people can't take care of their caches, then they shouldn't be placing them. Owner maintenance is a basic tenant, as is the saturation guideline. Geocaching 101, if you will.

 

 

B.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Pup Patrol

[+cerberus1]

...oh please no cut and paste of "its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches", please lets try and only have positive answers to my friendly posting. happy caching jeff=bones1.

Good luck with that...

[+Touchstone]

So one of those paying it forward ideas. OK, I get it.

[+NanCycle]

I've replaced a few soggy lumps with new log sheets, but I'm certainly not keeping count of them. And not bragging about them. Well, goody goody for you.

[+Traditional Bill]

Since the OP prefers to have no opposition, I'll simply say that I disagree with him and I don't believe it's a cache finders job to maintain unmaintained caches. Have a nice day!

[+Manville Possum]

"its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches"

[+wimseyguy]

Replacing the occasional cache log-that's a nice thing to do.

Making it the finder's responsibility-nope.

Replacing the occasional torn baggie-that's also nice.

Feeling obligated to do so-nope.

Replacing a missing container-NOPE, throw down caches are a bad thing.

[+niraD]

"its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches"

 

SICNR, but what do you expect when your opening post tries to limit replies to those that agree with you. Maybe could try posting to a blog, rather than to a forum.

[+Touchstone]

"its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches"

 

SICNR, but what do you expect when your opening post tries to limit replies to those that agree with you. Maybe could try posting to a blog, rather than to a forum.

 

Kind of ironic that folks criticize the Mods/Groundspeak for "censorship", but some of the worst offenders I've seen are the OP's trying to limit discussion, like in this case. Color me confused.

[+PlantAKiss]

I just found a cache that was in really bad shape. I posted a Needs Main. log. I also emailed the CO to ASK if it would be helpful if I provided a new, watertight container as it seemed like the CO hasn't been active in a while. I pass by the location twice a week. BUT unless the CO responds, I won't touch it despite the poor condition. It's their cache. But at least they've been notified and I'll help ONLY if the CO wants to take me up on my offer. Maybe just posting a Maintenance note would be the better route than taking it upon yourself to replace a log, even if your intentions are good.

[+dprovan]

Great news folks on friday i replaced my 1000th log since i started caching in 2004 ive made a mission out of it, helping all of us cachers...

That's nice of you.

 

...as it takes roughly 7 seconds to replace a wet,soggy,damp log book and about an hour minumum for the cache owner to saddle up and get out there...

Well, I'm sure the owner visits the cache regularly and was probably planning a trip sometime soon, anyway, so I doubt you replacing the log really saved them any effort, especially since they still have to go out and replace the leaking container.

 

...and no cluttering up of the relevant cache page with a needs maintainance...

I don't think a note mentioning that there's something wrong with the container which resulted in a wet, soggy, damp log is clutter. Indeed, I think it's important information, well worth a place in the cache's history.

 

...a few seconds extra if i have to replace the plastic bag aswell...

A plastic bag don't really help much when the container has failed.

 

any ideas welcome, oh please no cut and paste of "its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches", please lets try and only have positive answers to my friendly posting.

Now you have my positive, friendly answers.

[Pup Patrol]

Great news folks on friday i replaced my 1000th log since i started caching in 2004 ive made a mission out of it, helping all of us cachers as it takes roughly 7 seconds to replace a wet,soggy,damp log book and about an hour minumum for the cache owner to saddle up and get out there and no cluttering up of the relevant cache page with a needs maintainance, a few seconds extra if i have to replace the plastic bag aswell, i know we all need a pen,but spare log books and tweezers are the three main items you need.so could we start a replace logs club. (: any ideas welcome, oh please no cut and paste of "its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches", please lets try and only have positive answers to my friendly posting. happy caching jeff=bones1.

 

Maybe you should focus on maintaining your own caches first.

 

Or are you counting on other people doing the work for you?

 

 

B.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Only if the log book is missing, or the log is too wet for me to write on. And that is very rare. And then I do log NM as well.

[+SageTracey]

OP obviously expects others to maintain his caches this way. A quick look at his list of hides shows a high percentage with soggy logs, NMs that have been in place for a long time without attention. There's even one in Australia from a UK cacher. Looks like that maintenance plan isn't working too well.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think you all are being a bit rough on the OP. Replacing wet logs is a good thing if you can photograph the old log. Often the log is wet from geocachers finding it in the rain, not from a container failure, as wet logs don't dry out in a sealed container.

[+L0ne.R]

New Title: Posting an NM and NA. Helping the caching community

I firmly believe that people need to learn from their mistakes. If they use a leaky container they need to see that it is not worth it both for the finder who gets a disappointing experience and for themselves, the cache owner, who has to go out to maintain the cache more often.

 

We need more quality caches. We need active responsible cache owners. We do not need more abandoned junk caches.

[JASTA 11]

"its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches"

 

You said it first, not me.

 

In some cases we'll replace the log, others not.

 

Sometimes the good intentions of replacing a wet logsheet just prolongs the death throws of an unattended cache placed by someone who quit the game long ago.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

From the listing guidelines on cache maintenance: (Emphasis mine)

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

It doesn't say "the caching community" is responsible for log replacements, fixing damaged containers, throwing down a film can so a find can be claimed thus avoiding that DNF. The CO is responsible.

[Mr.Yuck]

...oh please no cut and paste of "its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches", please lets try and only have positive answers to my friendly posting. happy caching jeff=bones1.

Good luck with that...

 

Either that, or we'll do the exact opposite, and have only negative answers.

[+BCandMsKitty]

"its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches"

[+niraD]

I think you all are being a bit rough on the OP.

Maybe. But IMHO the OP invited some grief by asking only those who agreed with his position to contribute to the thread.

 

Replacing wet logs is a good thing if you can photograph the old log. Often the log is wet from geocachers finding it in the rain, not from a container failure, as wet logs don't dry out in a sealed container.

I carry spare logs printed on weatherproof paper, and I've left them in caches that have had full or unsignable logs. I also carry duct tape and spare O-rings and other repair supplies. But I consider field repairs a favor to the cache owner, not a mission, and not an obligation for finders, or part of a "replace logs club". And I try to avoid prolonging the life of abandoned caches that really should be archived. Ultimately, It Is the Responsibility of Cache Owners To Maintain Their Caches™.

 

And I don't consider NM logs "clutter". And I don't remove the existing log when I add one of mine to the cache. And I've come to the conclusion that putting the log in a plastic bag doesn't really help keep it dry in the long term (although it can make it easier to find the log amongst a pile of trade items in a larger well-stocked cache).

 

But then again, the OP wanted only positive friendly answers agreeing with his position.

[+narcissa]

Now that winter's here, my "pack lame caches with snow" club is about to have its first outing of the season.

[+NanCycle]

. . . .

 

Maybe you should focus on maintaining your own caches first.

 

Or are you counting on other people doing the work for you?

 

 

Wow that is really a lot of red wrenches/spanners!

[4wheelin_fool]

I think you all are being a bit rough on the OP.

Maybe. But IMHO the OP invited some grief by asking only those who agreed with his position to contribute to the thread.

 

Replacing wet logs is a good thing if you can photograph the old log. Often the log is wet from geocachers finding it in the rain, not from a container failure, as wet logs don't dry out in a sealed container.

I carry spare logs printed on weatherproof paper, and I've left them in caches that have had full or unsignable logs. I also carry duct tape and spare O-rings and other repair supplies. But I consider field repairs a favor to the cache owner, not a mission, and not an obligation for finders, or part of a "replace logs club". And I try to avoid prolonging the life of abandoned caches that really should be archived. Ultimately, It Is the Responsibility of Cache Owners To Maintain Their Caches™.

 

And I don't consider NM logs "clutter". And I don't remove the existing log when I add one of mine to the cache. And I've come to the conclusion that putting the log in a plastic bag doesn't really help keep it dry in the long term (although it can make it easier to find the log amongst a pile of trade items in a larger well-stocked cache).

 

But then again, the OP wanted only positive friendly answers agreeing with his position.

 

Well, I thought the OP was reasonable and that replacing logs when possible is a good thing. I do it.

 

Until I noticed that he archives caches if they get a Needs Maintenance request. Others are abandoned for the reviewer to deal with. Community maintenance is a great thing and encourages responsibility among finders, up until it's expected. Once the community starts expecting that their hides should be maintained by others, then there are problems. This attitude leads to people not posting Needs Maintenance notes, but not doing any maintenance either because the area becomes a large inventory of geocaches in lousy condition due to lousy containers. Every finder is then tasked to do maintenance, or to carry scraps of paper to scratch their name onto. Soon after the game turns into people making treks to piles of garbage and logging finds based on the confirmation that it used to be a geocache. Logs will indicate piles of wet pulp for several years, but any NM and NA loggers will be scorned at for being cache cops. It doesn't sound like too much fun to me.

[+wmpastor]

Well, I thought the OP was reasonable and that replacing logs when possible is a good thing. I do it.

 

Until I noticed that he archives caches if they get a Needs Maintenance request.

 

Let's sort through our notes, Detective. His archived caches had a good 5 year run before archiving. Not too shabby.

 

He's more into finding than owning - 24,000 finds, 100 caches owned. Busy cacher.

 

Nothing to book him on. Case closed. Send a memo to the Ministry of Accolades.

[+WarNinjas]

I think it is a very nice thing to do. There are exceptions if the CO is no longer active or if the container needs more then just a new log. I am more then happy if someone changes a full log for me. Not that I wouldn't get to it because I will but it can save me a trip for something that can be (like the original poster said) easily done by a cacher who is already there. Would I expect another cacher to do it for me...NO way but if they did I would be grateful! I will often do it for cachers I know and occasionally on other caches. I usually look up the other cachers stats to see if they are still active.

This is a hard crowd here. I think the OP had good intentions by replacing them and was proud of it. I personally don't keep a count of the ones I replace but he did and wanted to share. I probably have a couple of caches I would like for him to find right now!

[+coachstahly]

 

The worst part of having a cache stolen was that the log book was gone. I really enjoyed that log book, and I don't appreciate anyone just taking it without my permission, whether it's in good shape or not.

 

The idea of starting a "replace other people's property" club is ridiculous. If people can't take care of their caches, then they shouldn't be placing them. Owner maintenance is a basic tenant, as is the saturation guideline. Geocaching 101, if you will.

 

 

B.

I agree with your second statement but I ALWAYS make sure to hold onto the log I replaced for a bit and, if I remember, mention that I replaced it and the CO can contact me to retrieve it (or make arrangements to get it to them). However, I've NEVER had a CO contact me to get it back. Granted, most of the CO logs have been run of the mill paper logs that you print off a variety of sites that I've replaced. If it's a different type of log that is wet and/or needs replacing, I'll place my replacement log in the cache and NOT take the original one in there.

[+cheech gang]

Interesting that the OP has 38 active caches with NEEDS MAINTENANCE attribute currently applied.

Edited December 1, 2014 by cheech gang

[4wheelin_fool]

Interesting that the OP has 38 active caches with NEEDS MAINTENANCE attribute currently applied.

 

They must be old, as newer NM notes appear to trigger archival. Doing this with a simple note

complaints

could be considered a form of passive aggressive bullying. Someone sees that and they may likely be discouraged from posting NM, or even a DNF. It's rather odd that he does more maintenance on other caches than his own. Edited December 1, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Zepp914]

 

I agree with your second statement but I ALWAYS make sure to hold onto the log I replaced for a bit and, if I remember, mention that I replaced it and the CO can contact me to retrieve it (or make arrangements to get it to them). However, I've NEVER had a CO contact me to get it back. Granted, most of the CO logs have been run of the mill paper logs that you print off a variety of sites that I've replaced. If it's a different type of log that is wet and/or needs replacing, I'll place my replacement log in the cache and NOT take the original one in there.

 

Whenever I replace a log, I email the CO and hold onto it until he/she says I can throw it away. So far not a single one of them has wanted the log or even a picture of the log. When I started geocaching, I incorrectly assumed that CO's compared their paper logs and their online logs.

[+_Pebcak_]

I think it's a nice gesture, but I wouldn't remove a log from someone else's cache unless I had asked him for permission first.

[+J Grouchy]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

Edited December 1, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+Zepp914]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

 

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents.

[+narcissa]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

 

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents.

 

You really should have the CO's explicit permission before you go around removing things. If you can't cram more paper in, then find a corner or somewhere to squeeze your name into the log.

[+dprovan]

Whenever I replace a log, I email the CO and hold onto it until he/she says I can throw it away.

It's better to take pictures and post them in the log.

 

So far not a single one of them has wanted the log or even a picture of the log. When I started geocaching, I incorrectly assumed that CO's compared their paper logs and their online logs.

This doesn't prove COs don't compare, it just shows that they don't bother to get logs back after someone takes them. It's true that comparing is rare, particularly among COs that let their logs get full, but I don't think your experience is evidence.

[+L0ne.R]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

 

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents.

 

This gets my goat when it applies to power trails or people who carpet bomb an area. If someone is going to hide 100s of caches, they need to be prepared to maintain those caches. Replacing logs only encourages more and more carpet bombing practices, more and more junk caches, more and more abandoned caches, more and more caching for the numbers, and fewer places for responsible owners to place better caches.

[4wheelin_fool]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

 

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents.

 

Replacing a log is fine if the old one is wet or falling apart. I don't think not many would want it mailed to them, but uploading a picture would work, or letting it dry out for 15 minutes. Leaving a wet log in a container and adding a new one is asinine, as the new one will get wet also. Some people find caches in the rain which causes that. However if it's a container failure, then a new log won't last either.

Edited December 1, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+-CJ-]

A quite agressive thread.

[+J Grouchy]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

 

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents.

 

Replacing a log is fine if the old one is wet or falling apart. I don't think not many would want it mailed to them, but uploading a picture would work, or letting it dry out for 15 minutes. Leaving a wet log in a container and adding a new one is asinine, as the new one will get wet also. Some people find caches in the rain which causes that. However if it's a container failure, then a new log won't last either.

 

Not my problem. That's the CO's problem...as has been stated by just about everyone else in this thread. Putting in a scrap of paper or additional log is a stop-gap to give others a chance to sign before the owner can do his or her maintenance. It doesn't remove the log - the property of the CO. It's more than is required, but less objectionable than physically removing the log that may have been there for years. It honestly doesn't matter whether the CO cares to have the log or not, it's not my place to take that decision away from them. If the container is too small for adding in additional paper, I either do my best to sign the wet or full log...or take a photo. I'm not enough of a purist to call it a DNF if there's no possible way to get my signature into the cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

Never replace. Adding is fine, but unless you honestly plan to try to give the original log to the CO AND have their prior permission, you have no right to actually remove the original from the cache.

 

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents.

 

Replacing a log is fine if the old one is wet or falling apart. I don't think not many would want it mailed to them, but uploading a picture would work, or letting it dry out for 15 minutes. Leaving a wet log in a container and adding a new one is asinine, as the new one will get wet also. Some people find caches in the rain which causes that. However if it's a container failure, then a new log won't last either.

 

Not my problem. That's the CO's problem...as has been stated by just about everyone else in this thread. Putting in a scrap of paper or additional log is a stop-gap to give others a chance to sign before the owner can do his or her maintenance. It doesn't remove the log - the property of the CO. It's more than is required, but less objectionable than physically removing the log that may have been there for years. It honestly doesn't matter whether the CO cares to have the log or not, it's not my place to take that decision away from them. If the container is too small for adding in additional paper, I either do my best to sign the wet or full log...or take a photo. I'm not enough of a purist to call it a DNF if there's no possible way to get my signature into the cache.

 

It may be the responsibility of the CO, but a problem for just about everyone who finds it. A photo uploaded of the existing logs is preserving the only value that is there and the sensible thing to do. I understand there are those that get annoyed when they find a wet log, and want the CO to feel their pain, but that's not helping the next person who finds it. If it's a defective container then I won't bother.

[+narcissa]

I have never understood the drama around wet or full logbooks. I can write my name on the back of the page even without lines. I can write small if the book is "full." I can use ink if it's wet. What's the issue?

[+coachstahly]

It doesn't remove the log - the property of the CO....It honestly doesn't matter whether the CO cares to have the log or not, it's not my place to take that decision away from them. If the container is too small for adding in additional paper, I either do my best to sign the wet or full log...or take a photo. I'm not enough of a purist to call it a DNF if there's no possible way to get my signature into the cache.

But you're purist enough to consider a piece of paper (perhaps original, perhaps not) that's wet amd moldy the property of the CO, not replaceable, and not something you should replace in ANY situation. Yes, I agree with you that COs should do maintenance on their caches, but in issues like this one (replacement of logs), I believe the help is almost always appreciated. In those rare instances when it might not be, I would have no problem respecting the wishes of the COs and would refrain from helping them again, but that's NEVER happened to me yet.

 

You're NOT taking that decision away from them if you hold onto it and let them know you have it and that you can get it to them. The decision is still theirs to make as to whether or not they want it back. The only decision you've taken into your own hands is the decision to replace a log that they would/should have gotten to eventually (hopefully). When a cacher RELIES on this type of help, then there's a problem, IMO. THAT'S when I'll draw the line - well that and a container that won't keep a new log dry in the first place.

 

I maintain my caches on a regular basis but I have NO problem when someone replaces one of my logs if it needs it. I would have gotten out there to do it (or wasn't aware there was a problem in the first place), but they saved me the time to do so. Of all the caches I have placed, there are only two logs that I want to keep if they ever need replacing. I don't know about others, but I put out my caches in the hope that it will be there a long time but with the understanding that it will probably get taken at some point in time. I'm not going to put much of value into something that I might lose and that means a generic log, either printed off a site or a small cheap little notebook. Most of the expense I incur goes into a good container and I usually buy two of them, just in case.

[+coachstahly]

I have never understood the drama around wet or full logbooks. I can write my name on the back of the page even without lines. I can write small if the book is "full." I can use ink if it's wet. What's the issue?

Then it's not really full, is it? If there's plenty of room on the backside, I won't replace it because it's not really full yet. As far as a wet log goes, for me it comes down to a personal thing. I want people to find dry logs in my caches so I try my hardest to maintain them so that's what they find. I don't want the cache experience diminished because of something I can control through maintenance. I don't find them a big deal when out caching, but if you're going to do something, you should do it right. A dry log (or write-in-rain log) is a small part that makes most people enjoy the experience just a little bit more than they would if they find a soggy log, or so I believe. That musty smell is what I associate with caching (you all know what smell I'm talking about I think), but there's just something a bit off-putting when you find a cache and have to handle a wet pulpy mass of paper to sign the log. If the log is wet, the swag is usually wet and slimy too, more often than not.

[+The A-Team]

Yes, I agree with you that COs should do maintenance on their caches, but in issues like this one (replacement of logs), I believe the help is almost always appreciated. In those rare instances when it might not be, I would have no problem respecting the wishes of the COs and would refrain from helping them again, but that's NEVER happened to me yet.

For the record, I would not appreciate someone replacing the logs for any of my caches. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining my own caches if problems are reported. I'd much rather someone notify me of a problem and let me check it out myself than have them fix one problem, while other unreported problems may still exist, including the root cause of why the log needed to be replaced at all.

 

When I visit a cache to replace a log, it also gives me a chance to check other maintenance aspects while I'm there, such as:

-Check whether the cache is still properly hidden in the correct spot

-Check whether the environment is being negatively affected and if I should move/archive the cache

-Inspect the container to see if it needs to be replaced

-Clean out the seal on the container

-Remove inappropriate swag/junk

 

Of course, this is all hypothetical. This isn't something that generally comes up, since I use quality containers and hide large enough containers that the log will last more than a few months (no micros).

 

Lastly, maintenance of your own caches should always take precedence over finding other caches or hiding new ones. Nothing irks me more than a cacher who can find all the time in the world to go looking for tons of caches or hide a bunch of new ones, while their existing caches languish in a state of disrepair. These cachers have their priorities completely backwards.

[+coachstahly]

For the record, I would not appreciate someone replacing the logs for any of my caches. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining my own caches if problems are reported. I'd much rather someone notify me of a problem and let me check it out myself than have them fix one problem, while other unreported problems may still exist, including the root cause of why the log needed to be replaced at all.

 

Knowing this, I'd never replace a log or perform maintenance on any of your caches. Pretty simple and problem solved. Perhaps COs should write in their cache description whether or not people can replace logs (or other maintenance) and then this issue is solved. I actually have seen a couple descriptions where maintenance is allowed if needed and I think I've only seen one where maintenance is discouraged. Is it more "work" for us? Certainly, but it clears up any issues that might arise with regard to maintenance.

[4wheelin_fool]

If an ongoing maintenance problem has been reported for several months, I don't think the owner is going to be anal about preserving the log. If they start to expect cachers to fix their caches, then it's probably time to archive them as being abandoned.

[+L0ne.R]

For the record, I would not appreciate someone replacing the logs for any of my caches. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining my own caches if problems are reported. I'd much rather someone notify me of a problem and let me check it out myself than have them fix one problem, while other unreported problems may still exist, including the root cause of why the log needed to be replaced at all.

 

Knowing this, I'd never replace a log or perform maintenance on any of your caches. Pretty simple and problem solved. Perhaps COs should write in their cache description whether or not people can replace logs (or other maintenance) and then this issue is solved. I actually have seen a couple descriptions where maintenance is allowed if needed and I think I've only seen one where maintenance is discouraged. Is it more "work" for us? Certainly, but it clears up any issues that might arise with regard to maintenance.

 

This reminds me of a recent forum discussion where some were arguing that if you don't want your cache treated like it's a power trail cache (move the logbook from one cache to another - I think it's called 3-cache-monte), then you should say so in the cache description.

[+cheech gang]

I don't want people to put lok-n-lok lids back on upside down. I'm in the process of adding that to all my cache descriptions. May take a while though.