replacing logs etc

[+Colonial Cats]

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.

That's not really possible, is it?

[+ngrrfan]

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.

That's not really possible, is it?

You would be surprised...

[+narcissa]

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.

 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should assume a cache owner doesn't need/want your "maintenance."

[+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.

 

Re-reading this, it reminds me of the GCRM/GCRL idea. I have heard that if someone submits their cache with a GCRM/L allowance in the description, the cache will not be approved. You must have a maintenance plan, and the plan can't be... someone else will maintain it.

 

 

 

[+wmpastor]

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.

Should this post have been posted in "The Stands"?

 

I have one container that snaps shut and is covered, so it's doubly protected. However, twice it was replaced upside down. No water problem but greater risk of that. I put a "This Side Up" label on the top!

Edited December 8, 2014 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

A quite agressive thread.

Yes, a bit strong. The OP's intentions are good, even if many of us disagree with many of the details. He *was* sort of thrown under the bus.

[+coachstahly]

 

I don't buy the argument that COs don't need/want help. Pretty sure I don't see the reviewer or owner chastising me for replacing the log, which was more black than white due to the mold.

 

Based on the responses here, there are two sides that have interpreted the guidelines differently in this situation and I'm fine with that. That's part of the appeal to our game. There's no single right way to play, just our personal interpretations of how we play.

 

Most of the time I find myself "siding" with narcissa's thoughts and ideas, but in this case, I have to disagree. "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should assume a cache owner doesn't need/want your "maintenance."

 

You can disagree with me all you want to about how I play the game, but please don't tell me how to play because you believe your way is the "right" way. Here's what I "heard" when reading. "I should assume that a cache owner doesn't need or want my "maintenance." If you had said this instead - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume a cache owner doesn't need/want my "maintenance." - I would have been just fine with that because it's what you believe, but you stated what MY beliefs should be based on your interpretation in this situation. That's telling me how to play the game.

 

I'm not telling anyone that they MUST replace logs because it's the right way to play, only that I believe it's ok to do so, and even then, not in every situation. I don't find anything wrong with that but I do understand the point that the other side is making, since as a CO, it's my responsibility to maintain my caches. I just don't think it's that big a deal if someone does it for one of my caches or if I do it for someone else's cache, unless told specifically NOT to perform maintenance. Of the two logs I would want back, one log is my first hide and the other log is a very nice leather bound log chosen specifically for the cache in which it's been placed and both are placed in ammo cans and ziploc bags, just in case. All the rest are just pieces of paper placed in the cache to allow someone to sign to show proof they found the cache and are not worth anything to me, either financially or sentimentally. I was tongue in cheek on my post about COs writing NO MAINTENANCE in their descriptions (sarcasm never really translates well on ANY forum), but based on how adamant some people seem to be, perhaps it's not that bad an idea and could be incorporated into the "New Attributes".

[+L0ne.R]

 

I don't buy the argument that COs don't need/want help. Pretty sure I don't see the reviewer or owner chastising me for replacing the log, which was more black than white due to the mold.

 

Based on the responses here, there are two sides that have interpreted the guidelines differently in this situation and I'm fine with that. That's part of the appeal to our game. There's no single right way to play, just our personal interpretations of how we play.

 

Most of the time I find myself "siding" with narcissa's thoughts and ideas, but in this case, I have to disagree. "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should assume a cache owner doesn't need/want your "maintenance."

 

You can disagree with me all you want to about how I play the game, but please don't tell me how to play because you believe your way is the "right" way. Here's what I "heard" when reading. "I should assume that a cache owner doesn't need or want my "maintenance." If you had said this instead - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume a cache owner doesn't need/want my "maintenance." - I would have been just fine with that because it's what you believe, but you stated what MY beliefs should be based on your interpretation in this situation. That's telling me how to play the game.

 

I'm not telling anyone that they MUST replace logs because it's the right way to play, only that I believe it's ok to do so, and even then, not in every situation. I don't find anything wrong with that but I do understand the point that the other side is making, since as a CO, it's my responsibility to maintain my caches. I just don't think it's that big a deal if someone does it for one of my caches or if I do it for someone else's cache, unless told specifically NOT to perform maintenance. Of the two logs I would want back, one log is my first hide and the other log is a very nice leather bound log chosen specifically for the cache in which it's been placed and both are placed in ammo cans and ziploc bags, just in case. All the rest are just pieces of paper placed in the cache to allow someone to sign to show proof they found the cache and are not worth anything to me, either financially or sentimentally. I was tongue in cheek on my post about COs writing NO MAINTENANCE in their descriptions (sarcasm never really translates well on ANY forum), but based on how adamant some people seem to be, perhaps it's not that bad an idea and could be incorporated into the "New Attributes".

The owner(s) of the cache in question has over 500 cache hides. They are active cachers (logged in this month). Looked at the latest page of hidden caches and most of their archived caches were archived by a reviewer with no response from the team/owner. They are however quick to thank people for maintaining their caches with OM's like this one: "Thanks for the maintenance, Che K! Today's typical prissy little girl Geocacher dressed in his finest pink frilly dress is probably more interested in searching for those little magnetic thumbtack sized pieces of crap hidden inside lamp skirts at the Wally World parking lot, then going to drink a lahtey at Starbucks and grumble about how he worked up a sweat than get out in the wild and get bloody muddy...."

 

I think it's not good for the pastime to encourage set-em-and-forget-em cache ownership.

 

[+narcissa]

That's telling me how to play the game.

 

No, it's telling you not to mess with other people's geocaches without their permission.

[+narcissa]

 

The owner(s) of the cache in question has over 500 cache hides. They are active cachers (logged in this month). Looked at the latest page of hidden caches and most of their archived caches were archived by a reviewer with no response from the team/owner. They are however quick to thank people for maintaining their caches with OM's like this one: "Thanks for the maintenance, Che K! Today's typical prissy little girl Geocacher dressed in his finest pink frilly dress is probably more interested in searching for those little magnetic thumbtack sized pieces of crap hidden inside lamp skirts at the Wally World parking lot, then going to drink a lahtey at Starbucks and grumble about how he worked up a sweat than get out in the wild and get bloody muddy...." [/size]

 

I think it's not good for the pastime to encourage set-em-and-forget-em cache ownership.

 

 

That's charming.

[4wheelin_fool]

A quite agressive thread.

Yes, a bit strong. The OP's intentions are good, even if many of us disagree with many of the details. He *was* sort of thrown under the bus.

 

Rather he was laying in the middle of the street in front of a bus stop, instead of doing maintenance.

[+narcissa]

A quite agressive thread.

Yes, a bit strong. The OP's intentions are good, even if many of us disagree with many of the details. He *was* sort of thrown under the bus.

 

No actually, they aren't good. He wasn't thrown under the bus, he posted something obviously inflammatory.

[+coachstahly]

That's telling me how to play the game.

 

No, it's telling you not to mess with other people's geocaches without their permission.

You're telling me NOT to do this, the implication being that you're telling me to play the game differently than I do now. Spin it anyway you like it, it's still telling me to change how I choose to cache, albeit in a very specific situation. Can you honestly say that you assume to know the COs' minds with regard to the replacement of a log? Do ALL COs feel this way? If so, great for you but you're making a judgment call based on your idea of the way it should be, not on what the CO actually thinks. Your way might be how they think and my way might be how they think. I don't assume to know how they all think, just how I think, and I think a courteous gesture is usually appreciated, so that's the way I choose to resolve this situation. I like to think the best of people will show through, not that they'll be mad at me if I "...mess with other people's geocaches without their permission". If they are, then they'll let me know and I'll know what they think about log replacement and won't do it again for them. My next negative email about changing the full or wet log will be my first. There is NO hard and fast rule that forbids the replacement of a log by someone other than the CO, only one that says COs should have a maintenance plan in place. You find it for me, I'll change my tune as well as the way I play the game.

 

I occasionally replace a log; I don't take the container. I replace it where I found it, not 15 feet away in a better hiding spot, and I attempt to cover it up a bit so no one happens upon it and takes it . I CITO when the site demands it. I restock low swag containers with more swag. I trade even or trade up on the few occasions when I actually do take something. I won't replace a container unless I have the permission of the CO and I don't do throw downs. Occasionally I replace an o-ring as well so that the next cacher hopefully has a slightly better experience than I did. If I break a cache (and I have when digging it out of snow and ice once), I would send an email to the CO, go to the store, buy a replacement of similar nature, restock it and replace it for them and then let them have the option to replace it with one of theirs. If a magnetic container had a magnet come loose while I'm there, I'll get some glue and repair it. It may not be mine, but it "broke" while in my hands. I'm not going to be the one who broke it and then left it for the CO to fix. How is that being a responsible cacher? I take responsibility for my mistakes, unintended or not, and fix them so the CO doesn't have to fork out more money or time for something that I did. I like leaving things in a better state than when I arrived. I maintain my caches as best as I can and am thankful to those that help this conscientious owner with minor maintenance on my caches. I don't expect them to do it, but am appreciative when they do. That's how I play the game and you're telling me I'm wrong and can't do that. I don't see how you can differently interpret the fact that you told me how to play the game in a manner different than I do now.

 

Tone seems to get lost. I'm not mad, just curious as to why we can't help out our fellow human beings (in this case, the act of log replacement). Are we so hard-hearted that we can't accept the occasional help without our permission with a smile and a thank you?

[+L0ne.R]

I'm not mad, just curious as to why we can't help out our fellow human beings (in this case, the act of log replacement). Are we so hard-hearted that we can't accept the occasional help without our permission with a smile and a thank you?

 

Regarding the Indiana cemetery cache that your refer to....There were at least 12 reports going back to 2006 about the log being wet and the jar being damaged (holes in the container). The log was replaced once by a finder and it too eventually became wet and moldy. The cache owners did nothing in 8 years. No response until you posted that you replaced the moldy log and the Reviewer left a note telling the cache owner they should post an OM. Replacing the moldy logsheet serves to enable this kind of behaviour.

 

I am not anti-help. Tiding a cache over is nice when it's done for a decent cache container and a responsible cache owner who generally strives to provide a good caching experience with regular maintenance and attention to their cache page - to all log reports whether it's a note in a Found It log or an NM.

 

A wipe down of an accidentally wet (otherwise watertight container); a bit of paper to get the cache through a month until the cache owner can get there; a bit of duct tape over a recent crack in a container to tide the cache over until the owner can replace it.

 

I say....take pride in your community's caches. Encourage active responsible owners who care about the overall cache experience. Don't enable lazy cache owners, set-em-n-forget-em caches, cheap leaky cache containers, planting more caches then one can handle, planting for the numbers. A cache with at least 12 reports of trouble dating back 8 years with no response from the owner, earns a Needs Archive log not a new logsheet.

Edited December 9, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+jellis]

I agree you can't make cachers carry replacement logs but it is a nice way to help others. I carry an assortment of them, and I don't always replace them because your not sure what kind of CO they maybe. Some want to do it themselves and some welcome it. I have one series of caches that you just can't replace it without the code. But I thank all those who replace my other ones so I don't have to make that extra trip.

[+coachstahly]

I know that most of the people who post here would probably be considered "dedicated" cachers and I would consider myself one as well. Let's call ourselves the vocal minority. How many regular contributors on here? A few hundred at best? I know most of my caching friends from the midwest rarely get on the forums because for them, they usually find the trips here not worth their time, for a variety of reasons. Let's call them the silent majority. If we're a few hundred and they're the rest, that means that there are thousands of them out there that don't post or frequent the forums, but do cache.

 

I belong to multiple FB groups in the midwest so I posted two polls on each page, each of which are quite active with views and comments - one in Chicago, one in Indianapolis, and one in Cincinnati/Dayton, reaching just over 1400 members. It wasn't done in a scientific method, by any stretch of the imagination. One poll was to repond as a CO and what cachers could do to perform maintenance on your cache and the other poll was to respond as a cacher who performs maintenance on someone else's cache. NO maintenance, NM log only; replace log and contact CO; replace log and mention in log, no email to CO; replace container and log, email CO; replace container and log, mention in log, no email to CO. As of this morning, I had just under a 10% rate of response for all members I hoped to reach.

 

Of course, in the comments people mentioned that it depends on the difficulty, how long it's been since the last find, the type of container (and the shape it was in), previous logs mentioning maintenance, whether or not it's truly missing, all the things discussed in this thread. A few mentioned contacting the CO while in the field to see if they could replace the container. There was no hard and fast rule, just various situations that called for various decisions.

 

112 votes in less than 12 hours and multiple comments discussing the same things we have here. Of the 112 votes cast, not a single person voted for no maintenance, post NM log only for either category. Sure, there were a few comments that said if the container was broken, they would post the NM log, but they'd replace/add a log anyway and either contact the CO or mention it in the log.

 

Of the 71 that responded about performing maintenance on soneone else's cache, 58 said they'd change the log and mention it in their log, 6 said container and log and a log mention, 5 said container and log with an email and 1 said log with an email. 100% would perform some level of maintenance on someone else's cache if they felt it needed it. NM logs only mentioned in the comments and only when they didn't have a similar container or didn't know the cacher. A few people made sure to mention that if they got a note from the CO expressing their displeasure, they would be OK with the CO deleting their log or going out to get the replacement log or container if it was feasible.

 

Of the 41 responses about being a CO and someone else performing maintenance on your caches, 34 said log replacement with a mention in the log was fine, 6 said both container and log and a mention in the log, and only 1 said log only with an email. 100% were OK with someone else performing some level of maintenance on their cache. Only one cacher said anything about posting a NM log on their caches (if there was a container issue), which I found a bit odd. Perhaps it's because the issues or maintenance by someone else would be mentioned in the log?

 

Disheartening to see (at least to me) is that enough people (10-15%) feel it's ok to replace a container, either as a CO or as a maintenance provider, without permission. Most clarified their votes by commenting that they'd only do it for caches of people they know and if it was a low difficulty hide. An even smaller percentage DID say that they would only replace the container with the express permission of the CO, but that they'd still replace the log if they hadn't heard a response by the time they left GZ. That's a small amount in a small sample size, but my guess is that it would hold up across the board. Also disheartening to see in the comments was that many people don't feel comfortable using the NM log. Only one person mentioned logging a NA if there were previous NM logs and the cacher was no longer active.

[+cerberus1]

When we're out, we often skip by lesser caches (pill bottles mostly, placed, "on the way" to another).

No pqs, only heading to caches we'll do, we often see red wrenches on those dropped, "because we can" hides surrounding the one we wish to access.

I'm happy to add a Rite In Rain strip to the rare cache we're headed to that may need it, used as a buffer until the CO can do maintenance of his own.

I rarely bother even looking at the carp hides anymore, thereby leaving the NM/NA to others.

Why someone would want to add longevity to a no-thought, dropped-and-done pill bottle hide...

- Guess I don't get it.

[+dprovan]

I belong to multiple FB groups in the midwest so I posted two polls on each page...

It is indeed important to know what standards are actually being practiced in the field, so I appreciate your efforts and the input. But keep in mind that this thread was started by someone crowing about replacing logs as an implicit accomplishment, the more the better. While different respondents have had different specific opinions about the details, the basic feedback, as I see it, is replacing logs can be good, it can be bad: it depends. Then reasons for that "it depends" have been presented, and one important one is to point out that you don't always know whether it will be appreciated and, in fact, it may make the CO angry.

 

I think those observations remain valid even in the face of statistics suggesting it's usually not the case. The bottom line is that there are things you need to consider, and the OP was presenting counting them as the only thing that's important. The responses you report argue against, too.

[+narcissa]

That's telling me how to play the game.

 

No, it's telling you not to mess with other people's geocaches without their permission.

You're telling me NOT to do this, the implication being that you're telling me to play the game differently than I do now.

 

If your version of the game involves changing other people's geocaches without their permission, then yes, I am telling you to play the game differently. You can call it "maintenance" if you'd like. I can go around replacing ammo cans with old margarine containers and call that maintenance too. That doesn't make it a reasonable thing to do.

[+hzoi]

I don't mind helping out with a wet log book now and then, as long as I have paper and it's clear to me that the owner is still involved in the game.

 

If a cache has needed maintenance for a while and I see that the owner is no longer active, I'm not going to help with maintenance. Doing so would reinforce the idea to other cachers that they don't need to worry about maintenance because someone else will take care of it, and they can simply adopt a "fire and forget" mentality. If this attitude spreads, crappy, unmaintained caches become the norm.

 

This is a nice thing to do once in a while for the right cache. But the wider solution is for cache owners to maintain their caches, either themselves or through a maintenance plan, and to archive or adopt out a cache if they can't maintain that responsibility.

[+coachstahly]

 

I think those observations remain valid even in the face of statistics suggesting it's usually not the case. The bottom line is that there are things you need to consider, and the OP was presenting counting them as the only thing that's important. The responses you report argue against, too.

I know and understand that changing a log might and can cause grief for the CO. I've not disputed that. Like some of the comments on my polls, if the CO wishes to take away my find or have me remove the log (and it's feasible for me to do so), I have no problem with them doing so. I won't dispute their decision. That's part of their prerogative as a CO. That's always a possibility but it's one I believe to be a much more remote possibility than the possibility that they won't mind. Unlike the OP, I don't do it all the time and I certainly don't count. If I had to make guess, it would be 2-5% (100-250) of the caches I've found where I've replaced a log. I'm not a serial maintainer.

[+coachstahly]

 

If your version of the game involves changing other people's geocaches without their permission, then yes, I am telling you to play the game differently. You can call it "maintenance" if you'd like. I can go around replacing ammo cans with old margarine containers and call that maintenance too. That doesn't make it a reasonable thing to do.

 

 

I would never presume to tell you how to play the game, even if I knew you well. I would certainly defend your right to play the game the way you want to because you have the option and right to do so.

 

change

CHānj

verb

1.

make or become different.

"a proposal to change the law"

 

I'm not adding camo to change the difficulty, I'm not changing the size of the container since I'm not replacing the container. I'm not changing the hiding spot to make it a different style or type of hide because I think it's a better location. None of those are reasonable options for ME to do, even if other people might think so and it's in the name of "maintenance".

 

If you believe this to be the case, that I'm changing the cache when I add/replace a log, then every time the CO comes out to add/replace the log, they're changing the cache too. Do they need to archive it and republish it since it's now changed from what it was when they first placed it? Speaking of change, once it's found, it's already changed without the CO's permission - perhaps it's not returned to the exact same spot; perhaps someone covered it better so it wouldn't get taken; perhaps someone didn't cover it up as much as it was when placed; perhaps someone swaps out swag.

 

Finally, a hypothetical situation. Windy day, over a river/stream/creek, bridge hide on a matchstick container with a magnet glued/taped to it. You get the log out and accidentally drop it into the water. Retrieval of the log isn't feasible because the water is flowing too fast. What do you do? Me - I replace the log because it was MY fault that the log got lost in the first place. I take responsibility for my actions and fix the problem that I created, not leave it to another to fix my mess.

[+L0ne.R]

Finally, a hypothetical situation. Windy day, over a river/stream/creek, bridge hide on a matchstick container with a magnet glued/taped to it. You get the log out and accidentally drop it into the water. Retrieval of the log isn't feasible because the water is flowing too fast. What do you do? Me - I replace the log because it was MY fault that the log got lost in the first place. I take responsibility for my actions and fix the problem that I created, not leave it to another to fix my mess.

 

Yes, in that case I agree....replace the log that accidentally went into the river. But in the case of the cemetery cache with an active delinquent owner who has ignored the cache for 8 years....it gets at least an NM followed up with an NA a couple of weeks later if there is no response from the CO.

[+J Grouchy]

 

I think those observations remain valid even in the face of statistics suggesting it's usually not the case. The bottom line is that there are things you need to consider, and the OP was presenting counting them as the only thing that's important. The responses you report argue against, too.

I know and understand that changing a log might and can cause grief for the CO. I've not disputed that. Like some of the comments on my polls, if the CO wishes to take away my find or have me remove the log (and it's feasible for me to do so), I have no problem with them doing so. I won't dispute their decision. That's part of their prerogative as a CO. That's always a possibility but it's one I believe to be a much more remote possibility than the possibility that they won't mind. Unlike the OP, I don't do it all the time and I certainly don't count. If I had to make guess, it would be 2-5% (100-250) of the caches I've found where I've replaced a log. I'm not a serial maintainer.

 

So...'beg forgiveness rather than ask permission'.

In many cases, it often sounds more like 'demand gratitude.'

[+narcissa]

I would never presume to tell you how to play the game

 

Bully for you.

 

I will presume to tell people to:

 

1. Maintain their own caches.

2. Put other people's caches back as they found them, and when necessary, write detailed logs about the cache condition.

3. Seek permission from cache owners before altering, repairing, moving, removing, or otherwise "maintaining" their caches for them.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

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.

 

My hats off to you for a great accomplishment and attitude.

We've been at it since '03 but I doubt I've added 1000 new logs but I'm sure we are well over 500.

Keep up the good work.....99.95% of CO's appreciate it.