Found log when only logbook is found?

[+Rie29]

So I recently was looking for a cache and found only a logbook, no container. I was unsure if the logbook had been removed from the cache and I just couldn't find the container, so I logged DNF. A few other people have since visited the cache and have logged "found it", but they say they have only found the logbook like I did. I have now logged a needs maitenence as it seems like the container is missing. I'm just wondering if I should change my log to a found? I'm relatively new and have never encountered this situation before so I don't know what to do. I feel a bit dishonest logging a find, but is that common practice for a situation like this? I probably won't be able to get back to the cache for another year or two. Here is the cache code for reference: GC4MH8M. Thanks for your help!

[+pppingme]

Signing the log is considered by most people the number one requirement for counting it as a find.

 

You signed the log.

 

You obviously found at least parts of the cache.

 

There's a good chance someone just swiped (stole) the container.

 

I'd count it as a find, since its so easily obvious you found contents of the cache.

 

Now if you'd only found a tupperware lid, or some tupperware bowl, I wouldn't be so quick to say its a find.

[+Great Scott!]

Seems by the pictures and logs posted there are two different logs to sign and possible two containers.

The person that found it before you stated they placed a new 20 signature log.

I think you did the right thing by posting a DNF and a NM.

If it were me, I wouldn't even plan on returning to find it again.

CO has made no effort to fix or replace the geocache.

Log and/or container have been wet or broken for more than a year.

Resist the urge to change to a found even if the CO contacts you to change your log since you found a log.

[+L0ne.R]

CO has made no effort to fix or replace the geocache.

Log and/or container have been wet or broken for more than a year.

 

I'd be logging an NA - "Needs attention. The container has been wet, broken and now missing for over a year."

As a finder I am realllllyyy getting tired of all the junk caches out there, and people who log finds on the junk, often with a "Awesome. Thanks." log. So I hunt for the cache expecting at least a decent cache only to find a moldy log in a baggie or broken container. It's so irritating. And happening more and more these days. So many people will not log an NM and just about nobody will log an NA.

Edited August 31, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+Rie29]

Seems by the pictures and logs posted there are two different logs to sign and possible two containers.

The person that found it before you stated they placed a new 20 signature log.

I think you did the right thing by posting a DNF and a NM.

If it were me, I wouldn't even plan on returning to find it again.

CO has made no effort to fix or replace the geocache.

Log and/or container have been wet or broken for more than a year.

Resist the urge to change to a found even if the CO contacts you to change your log since you found a log.

 

I was confused when the person before me said they left a new log when the one I found was definitely old. The picture posted on 8/16/15 also is not the location where I found the logbook. This leads me to think I didn't even find where the cache should be, that maybe the person who left the new log didn't throw out the old log I found and now it is misleading people. Or the container could be missing. I really won't know unless the owner checks on it, which as you pointed out seems unlikely. Thanks for your input on this situation!

[+Rie29]

CO has made no effort to fix or replace the geocache.

Log and/or container have been wet or broken for more than a year.

 

I'd be logging an NA - "Needs attention. The container has been wet, broken and now missing for over a year."

As a finder I am realllllyyy getting tired of all the junk caches out there, and people who log finds on the junk, often with a "Awesome. Thanks." log. So I hunt for the cache expecting at least a decent cache only to find a moldy log in a baggie or broken container. It's so irritating. And happening more and more these days. So many people will not log an NM and just about nobody will log an NA.

 

I agree. I don't like junk caches either. They frustrate me. I wish there was a log type between "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived". Sometimes the cache doesn't need to be archived, (I feel that should be left for more serious issues like the cache on private property, danger, etc.) but it REALLY needs to be fixed (container obviously missing/broken for a while like this case etc.) I feel some owners (especially ones with lots of hides) often ignore a Needs Maintenance assuming it is a wet log or it isn't serious. However if they see a Needs Archived they will probably check to see what's wrong, assuming they're active on the site, which is a whole other issue. (The owner of this cache IS active, which means all of the Needs Maintenance on this cache have been ignored). Something in between that would alert the owner that the cache is in really bad shape, not just a slight crack in the container or wet logbook that is often left until a polite cacher fixes it, the owner notices, or it stays that way. (I'm not saying those shouldn't be fixed, they should). Anyways that was a bit off topic, but if that log type existed I would use it on this cache for sure. Thanks for your reply and helping me make sense of this situation!

[+lee737]

We have heaps of this sort of cache around here - the cache is there, but wet/mouldy/full of ants etc..... I would log a NA given the previous 3-4 NM logs have been ignored... The CO seems too busy finding caches to maintain this one.

[+NeverSummer]

So I recently was looking for a cache and found only a logbook, no container. I was unsure if the logbook had been removed from the cache and I just couldn't find the container, so I logged DNF. A few other people have since visited the cache and have logged "found it", but they say they have only found the logbook like I did. I have now logged a needs maitenence as it seems like the container is missing. I'm just wondering if I should change my log to a found? I'm relatively new and have never encountered this situation before so I don't know what to do. I feel a bit dishonest logging a find, but is that common practice for a situation like this? I probably won't be able to get back to the cache for another year or two. Here is the cache code for reference: GC4MH8M. Thanks for your help!

Not dishonest to log a "Found it" at all. You found the item of key requirement and signed it. That's a "find" for the online portion of logging and keeping track of your finds.

 

Log the "Found it", and log a "Needs Maintenance".

[+NeverSummer]

So I recently was looking for a cache and found only a logbook, no container. I was unsure if the logbook had been removed from the cache and I just couldn't find the container, so I logged DNF. A few other people have since visited the cache and have logged "found it", but they say they have only found the logbook like I did. I have now logged a needs maitenence as it seems like the container is missing. I'm just wondering if I should change my log to a found? I'm relatively new and have never encountered this situation before so I don't know what to do. I feel a bit dishonest logging a find, but is that common practice for a situation like this? I probably won't be able to get back to the cache for another year or two. Here is the cache code for reference: GC4MH8M. Thanks for your help!

Not dishonest to log a "Found it" at all. You found the item of key requirement and signed it. That's a "find" for the online portion of logging and keeping track of your finds.

 

Log the "Found it", and log a "Needs Maintenance".

We have heaps of this sort of cache around here - the cache is there, but wet/mouldy/full of ants etc..... I would log a NA given the previous 3-4 NM logs have been ignored... The CO seems too busy finding caches to maintain this one.

 

Ah, yes.

 

And, if you notice that there is no action taken by the cache owner after your NM log, go ahead and log a "Needs Archived" log, citing your experience and the previous logs noting that the container was missing.

[+WarNinjas]

If you found the log with many signatures then you found it. In my opinion anyways.

[+J Grouchy]

CO has made no effort to fix or replace the geocache.

Log and/or container have been wet or broken for more than a year.

 

I'd be logging an NA - "Needs attention. The container has been wet, broken and now missing for over a year."

As a finder I am realllllyyy getting tired of all the junk caches out there, and people who log finds on the junk, often with a "Awesome. Thanks." log. So I hunt for the cache expecting at least a decent cache only to find a moldy log in a baggie or broken container. It's so irritating. And happening more and more these days. So many people will not log an NM and just about nobody will log an NA.

 

I agree. I don't like junk caches either. They frustrate me. I wish there was a log type between "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived". Sometimes the cache doesn't need to be archived, (I feel that should be left for more serious issues like the cache on private property, danger, etc.) but it REALLY needs to be fixed (container obviously missing/broken for a while like this case etc.) I feel some owners (especially ones with lots of hides) often ignore a Needs Maintenance assuming it is a wet log or it isn't serious. However if they see a Needs Archived they will probably check to see what's wrong, assuming they're active on the site, which is a whole other issue. (The owner of this cache IS active, which means all of the Needs Maintenance on this cache have been ignored). Something in between that would alert the owner that the cache is in really bad shape, not just a slight crack in the container or wet logbook that is often left until a polite cacher fixes it, the owner notices, or it stays that way. (I'm not saying those shouldn't be fixed, they should). Anyways that was a bit off topic, but if that log type existed I would use it on this cache for sure. Thanks for your reply and helping me make sense of this situation!

 

I think the system is fine as it is. A 'needs archived' log doesn't archive the cache...it merely brings it to the reviewer's attention. It's up to the reviewer at that point. Chances are the reviewer will disable it, then, after 30 days (give or take a week) they will archive it.

 

I used to think that perhaps there needed to be a "Needs Reviewer Attention" type of log for people who were afraid to commit to a "Needs Archived" log...but then I realized it's that way for a reason. Anything less than "Needs Archived" would see too much use. We'd start seeing "Needs Reviewer Attention" logs pop up all over the place for anything from a (potentially) missing cache to a damp, moldy log sheet. It would become almost meaningless.

 

So basically I agree this one needs an NA log. If this issue has been mentioned numerous times with no action by the CO (with or without NM logs), then you need to step up the issue. The CO receives all the found it logs and should be at least skimming them. Not everyone posts NM logs when there is an issue, so ignoring a missing container for so long seems to earn it a higher-level 'service ticket'.

[+narcissa]

It's really up to you. I don't think any reasonable person would give you grief if you decided to call it a find, but if you think it should be a DNF that's understandable too. Don't worry about other people's shenanigans too much.

[+BCandMsKitty]

CO has made no effort to fix or replace the geocache.

Log and/or container have been wet or broken for more than a year.

 

I'd be logging an NA - "Needs attention. The container has been wet, broken and now missing for over a year."

As a finder I am realllllyyy getting tired of all the junk caches out there, and people who log finds on the junk, often with a "Awesome. Thanks." log. So I hunt for the cache expecting at least a decent cache only to find a moldy log in a baggie or broken container. It's so irritating. And happening more and more these days. So many people will not log an NM and just about nobody will log an NA.

 

I agree. I don't like junk caches either. They frustrate me. I wish there was a log type between "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived". Sometimes the cache doesn't need to be archived, (I feel that should be left for more serious issues like the cache on private property, danger, etc.) but it REALLY needs to be fixed (container obviously missing/broken for a while like this case etc.) I feel some owners (especially ones with lots of hides) often ignore a Needs Maintenance assuming it is a wet log or it isn't serious. However if they see a Needs Archived they will probably check to see what's wrong, assuming they're active on the site, which is a whole other issue. (The owner of this cache IS active, which means all of the Needs Maintenance on this cache have been ignored). Something in between that would alert the owner that the cache is in really bad shape, not just a slight crack in the container or wet logbook that is often left until a polite cacher fixes it, the owner notices, or it stays that way. (I'm not saying those shouldn't be fixed, they should). Anyways that was a bit off topic, but if that log type existed I would use it on this cache for sure. Thanks for your reply and helping me make sense of this situation!

 

I think the system is fine as it is. A 'needs archived' log doesn't archive the cache...it merely brings it to the reviewer's attention. It's up to the reviewer at that point. Chances are the reviewer will disable it, then, after 30 days (give or take a week) they will archive it.

 

I used to think that perhaps there needed to be a "Needs Reviewer Attention" type of log for people who were afraid to commit to a "Needs Archived" log...but then I realized it's that way for a reason. Anything less than "Needs Archived" would see too much use. We'd start seeing "Needs Reviewer Attention" logs pop up all over the place for anything from a (potentially) missing cache to a damp, moldy log sheet. It would become almost meaningless.

 

So basically I agree this one needs an NA log. If this issue has been mentioned numerous times with no action by the CO (with or without NM logs), then you need to step up the issue. The CO receives all the found it logs and should be at least skimming them. Not everyone posts NM logs when there is an issue, so ignoring a missing container for so long seems to earn it a higher-level 'service ticket'.

^

This

[+dprovan]

So I recently was looking for a cache and found only a logbook, no container. I was unsure if the logbook had been removed from the cache and I just couldn't find the container, so I logged DNF. A few other people have since visited the cache and have logged "found it", but they say they have only found the logbook like I did. I have now logged a needs maitenence as it seems like the container is missing. I'm just wondering if I should change my log to a found? I'm relatively new and have never encountered this situation before so I don't know what to do. I feel a bit dishonest logging a find, but is that common practice for a situation like this? I probably won't be able to get back to the cache for another year or two. Here is the cache code for reference: GC4MH8M. Thanks for your help!

If I'm sure what I've found and signed is definitely one of the cache's logs, I'll claim the find every time. I'll normally continue looking and try to find the container. Whether I log an NM or an NA is an unrelated issue.

 

I agree. I don't like junk caches either. They frustrate me. I wish there was a log type between "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived". Sometimes the cache doesn't need to be archived, (I feel that should be left for more serious issues like the cache on private property, danger, etc.) but it REALLY needs to be fixed (container obviously missing/broken for a while like this case etc.)

Your comments are a good example of why I always argue against anything softer the "needs archived". When you say a cache "really needs to be fixed", that always implies that if it isn't fixed, it will have to be archived. That's how junk caches are eliminated. If you have so many junk caches in your area that you find them frustrating, perhaps that's because not enough people understand that part of the process. Adding a hand-wringing log type between "needs fixed" and "hasn't been fixed, so time to move on" will just make it that much more likely that caches that have fallen into disrepair will stay around indefinitely. Caches that aren't junk can be maintained even after the NA is posted.

[+niraD]

When you say a cache "really needs to be fixed", that always implies that if it isn't fixed, it will have to be archived.

Exactly. I think of the Needs Archived log as an "Unless the problem is fixed, this Needs to be Archived" log.

 

That also helps keep various problems in perspective. The pen/pencil doesn't work? The TB inventory is inaccurate? The label on the outside of the container doesn't have the GC code on it? No, those aren't worth logging NA.

[+NeverSummer]

When you say a cache "really needs to be fixed", that always implies that if it isn't fixed, it will have to be archived.

Exactly. I think of the Needs Archived log as an "Unless the problem is fixed, this Needs to be Archived" log.

 

That also helps keep various problems in perspective. The pen/pencil doesn't work? The TB inventory is inaccurate? The label on the outside of the container doesn't have the GC code on it? No, those aren't worth logging NA.

And, for more perspective, no real harm is done if someone did log a NA for something as "silly" as a pen that doesn't work, or a Trackable inventory isn't correct, or there isn't a label with GC code on it, etc. An owner can handle the NA appropriately, which is to log an owner note (Owner Maintenance, especially to clear any NM logs) and state that they have either taken care of the problem, or that "there is nothing to see here". A Volunteer Reviewer will be along to check on the NA log, and take note of any work an owner has undertaken to deal with the NM or NA logs. If it is sufficient, and the cache still meets the guidelines (including the requirement that the owner maintain the listing and the cache/cache site), the Reviewer will take no action.

 

If the Reviewer really wants to, they can post a long that "there is nothing to see here", or whatever is appropriate if action needs to be taken on the cache or cache listing.

 

We are all cache cops.

 

If we each take the job seriously, we would log NM and NA whenever we feel it is suited. Then, by nature of the community we all take part in, any newbie will start to learn what necessitates a NM or NA log, and in what cases they might want to simply log neither. I know that's how most everyone who started playing this game, using the log types provided by Groundspeak, learned what the guidelines were, and when a cache was in need of maintenance, versus when it is not meeting the guidelines for publication.

[+The A-Team]

The CO seems too busy finding caches to maintain this one.

This is my number one pet-peeve in geocaching. It's frustrating to see caches languishing in desperate need of maintenance while the owner is happily gallivanting about finding loads of caches. It's a very selfish attitude ("I just care about getting more smileys, so those who are trying to find my caches can go take a flying leap."). Someone needs to kick this CO in the rear by logging an NA on their unmaintained caches (of which there appear at-a-glance to be several).

[+Rie29]

The CO seems too busy finding caches to maintain this one.

This is my number one pet-peeve in geocaching. It's frustrating to see caches languishing in desperate need of maintenance while the owner is happily gallivanting about finding loads of caches. It's a very selfish attitude ("I just care about getting more smileys, so those who are trying to find my caches can go take a flying leap."). Someone needs to kick this CO in the rear by logging an NA on their unmaintained caches (of which there appear at-a-glance to be several).

 

I agree with you! It is very selfish to not at least post a note explaining if they can't replace it, yet they go out and find many other caches. I will log NA on this cache if it is not repaired by the owner or a generous cacher at the end of the EX (the cache is on the grounds of a popular fair). Thanks for your input!

[+TriciaG]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

[+NeverSummer]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

[+Rie29]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I agree that throwdowns don't equal cache maintenance , because the person who is replacing it won't know how it was originally hidden, and it won't remove the needs maintenance icon. However, I do think it is better than it not having been fixed at all. At least now people will be finding an actual cache, and not just claiming a find on a wet logbook. As for what you said about requiring the owner to check on it: if they didn't respond to the cache desperately needing maintenance to the point of someone else having to do it for them, they won't respond to a reviewer asking them to check on it.

[+Rie29]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

 

Yeah, the CO might not even know his cache was missing. But I think the important thing is that its now replaced, and people go back to can finding it normally-for now

[+Rie29]

Just to veer back to the original topic of this thread- whether or not I should log a find on this cache. So far 3 people say I should log as found, 1 person says log as DNF, and one person says either would be acceptable. Thanks for everyone's opinions on NM and NA logs and throwdowns, they have been very interesting to read. I am still open to opinions on whether or not I should log as found- I am still unsure to be honest, especially with the container recently being replaced by another cacher.

[+The A-Team]

Just to veer back to the original topic of this thread- whether or not I should log a find on this cache. So far 3 people say I should log as found, 1 person says log as DNF, and one person says either would be acceptable. Thanks for everyone's opinions on NM and NA logs and throwdowns, they have been very interesting to read. I am still open to opinions on whether or not I should log as found- I am still unsure to be honest, especially with the container recently being replaced by another cacher.

The answer is really, "it's up to you". As you can see by the 2898-post, 11-year-old Found It = Didn't Find It discussion, there are many views on how to log a cache under various circumstances. If you feel you found it, log a "Found it". If you feel like you really didn't find the cache, log a "Didn't find it". It really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks, because it's your conscience and ethics that will determine how you feel you should log it.

[+Rie29]

Just to veer back to the original topic of this thread- whether or not I should log a find on this cache. So far 3 people say I should log as found, 1 person says log as DNF, and one person says either would be acceptable. Thanks for everyone's opinions on NM and NA logs and throwdowns, they have been very interesting to read. I am still open to opinions on whether or not I should log as found- I am still unsure to be honest, especially with the container recently being replaced by another cacher.

The answer is really, "it's up to you". As you can see by the 2898-post, 11-year-old Found It = Didn't Find It discussion, there are many views on how to log a cache under various circumstances. If you feel you found it, log a "Found it". If you feel like you really didn't find the cache, log a "Didn't find it". It really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks, because it's your conscience and ethics that will determine how you feel you should log it.

 

Actually I should have worded that better. I guess I want to know what others would do in this situation, out of curiosity. Since I'm kind of new, I wanted insight on what more experienced cachers do in this situation. But you are right- it is everyone's personal decision what they consider a find. It is all in how you choose to play the game, because as that thread suggests everyone will never agree on the circumstances in which you can log a find.

[+TriciaG]

I've once logged such a find. The cache listing gave a very clear idea of where the cache was supposed to be. All we found was the log. We signed it, replaced it, and logged a NM (and later an NA).

[+L0ne.R]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

Edited September 2, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+J Grouchy]

Just to veer back to the original topic of this thread- whether or not I should log a find on this cache. So far 3 people say I should log as found, 1 person says log as DNF, and one person says either would be acceptable. Thanks for everyone's opinions on NM and NA logs and throwdowns, they have been very interesting to read. I am still open to opinions on whether or not I should log as found- I am still unsure to be honest, especially with the container recently being replaced by another cacher.

The answer is really, "it's up to you". As you can see by the 2898-post, 11-year-old Found It = Didn't Find It discussion, there are many views on how to log a cache under various circumstances. If you feel you found it, log a "Found it". If you feel like you really didn't find the cache, log a "Didn't find it". It really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks, because it's your conscience and ethics that will determine how you feel you should log it.

 

Also - and forgive me for being blunt - I think you are worrying about this WAY too much. The fact that you ask and are conflicted about it would indicate to me that you probably should just log NA and say what you found. If it gets archived, no loss. If it gets repaired, go back and find the cache and log the find. Boom. Problem solved.

Edited September 2, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+J Grouchy]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

 

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I found a geocache where all I found was the log and some swag lying around. As I happened to know the CO, and where he lived, I picked up everything, and hand delivered it to the CO. I didn't just drop it on his doorstep with no explanation, I delivered it directly into his hands, with an explanation. I also logged it as found because I signed the log, and then posted a Needs Maintenance. My logs explained exactly what I found and did. The CO is an active cacher, and hider. However, he did nothing on this. The next cacher (a year later) to come along posted a NA, and the reviewer finally had to archive it based on no response from the CO.

 

(Maybe I should cross-post this to the "What Irks You..." entry.)

 

Skye.

[+dprovan]

I found a geocache where all I found was the log and some swag lying around. As I happened to know the CO, and where he lived, I picked up everything, and hand delivered it to the CO. I didn't just drop it on his doorstep with no explanation, I delivered it directly into his hands, with an explanation. I also logged it as found because I signed the log, and then posted a Needs Maintenance. My logs explained exactly what I found and did. The CO is an active cacher, and hider. However, he did nothing on this. The next cacher (a year later) to come along posted a NA, and the reviewer finally had to archive it based on no response from the CO.

I don't know to what degree you discussed this with the CO after your NM, but this is one of those rare cases where I'd claim it's your responsibility to log an NA on top of your own NM when you saw that the CO hadn't done anything. And I'd probably pull the trigger pretty quick if the CO didn't even disable the cache that I knew for a fact is no longer in place.

 

(Maybe I should cross-post this to the "What Irks You..." entry.)

Or maybe I should...

[+L0ne.R]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

 

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

 

 

What was really meant by that statement is...."this cache is 8 years old, so I would hate to see it archived... [i want it on my find list to qualify for a challenge cache so I'm going to put a throwdown here and claim it as a find]".

 

Their 07/19/2015 DNF log says:

"Was with EvyJones today in hopes of finding one cache for the day. This one meets an empty Jasmer square but we were unable to make the find."

 

When it gets archived (I expect it will), will the cacher pick up their throwdown? I expect not.

[+NeverSummer]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

 

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

 

 

What was really meant by that statement is...."this cache is 8 years old, so I would hate to see it archived... [i want it on my find list to qualify for a challenge cache so I'm going to put a throwdown here and claim it as a find]".

 

Their 07/19/2015 DNF log says:

"Was with EvyJones today in hopes of finding one cache for the day. This one meets an empty Jasmer square but we were unable to make the find."

 

When it gets archived (I expect it will), will the cacher pick up their throwdown? I expect not.

Had a bit of a "go-round" with our local Reviewer on this very topic.

 

A throwdown with absent owner is against the guidelines because the cache site and listing can no longer be maintained. D/T, Coordinates, Cache size, and other Editable parts of the listing cannot be maintained by "the community", even if they state changes in a "Found It" or "Write Note" log. That ended up being the nail in the coffin for some caches that needed archiving, even when the argument was that they were "historic" caches for the area (oldest, odd D/T, whatever...)

 

The bottom line is that geocachers are now getting so set up by Groundspeak to "fill a grid", "complete a challenge", or "earn a badge/souvenir". To that end, we're seeing far too many examples being paraded out of caches that need "saving" via throwdowns or so-called "community maintenance" like your example above. I really, really don't see how this is a helpful or consistent way for Reviewers to allow the game pieces to remain "in play"; they are prime examples of caches that need to be archived until the listing owner can prove that they are taking care of the cache, cache location, and cache listing as required by the Guidelines.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I found a geocache where all I found was the log and some swag lying around. As I happened to know the CO, and where he lived, I picked up everything, and hand delivered it to the CO. I didn't just drop it on his doorstep with no explanation, I delivered it directly into his hands, with an explanation. I also logged it as found because I signed the log, and then posted a Needs Maintenance. My logs explained exactly what I found and did. The CO is an active cacher, and hider. However, he did nothing on this. The next cacher (a year later) to come along posted a NA, and the reviewer finally had to archive it based on no response from the CO.

I don't know to what degree you discussed this with the CO after your NM, but this is one of those rare cases where I'd claim it's your responsibility to log an NA on top of your own NM when you saw that the CO hadn't done anything. And I'd probably pull the trigger pretty quick if the CO didn't even disable the cache that I knew for a fact is no longer in place.

 

(Maybe I should cross-post this to the "What Irks You..." entry.)

Or maybe I should...

 

Yeah, in hindsight I agree with you. Back when this happened, the CO said they would take care of this right away. I had seen him perform maintenance on a number of his other caches. So, I'm not sure why he didn't take care of this immediately, especially since it was so close to his house.

 

For me, when I post a NM, I don't do any follow-up. I'm thinking about changing that policy, especially given that there are several CO's in the area that ignore some (but not all) of the NM's on their caches. And it's not like these caches are anything special, they are lock-n-locks, bison tubes and/or pill bottles. Easy to obtain replacements. The only reason I know the history is that I recently saw the status change, and looked up what had happened on this cache.

 

Skye.

[+dprovan]

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

I don't think "hate to see it archived" means that it shouldn't be archived even if it otherwise would be, so perhaps I'm not answering your question, but the magic is that the older caches connect us to the early history of caching, allowing us to follow in the footsteps of those early seekers and experience hides by those first COs. I feel closer to the community when I find a cache that has been found by essentially every other cacher in the area that's been caching longer than I have.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

I don't think "hate to see it archived" means that it shouldn't be archived even if it otherwise would be, so perhaps I'm not answering your question, but the magic is that the older caches connect us to the early history of caching, allowing us to follow in the footsteps of those early seekers and experience hides by those first COs. I feel closer to the community when I find a cache that has been found by essentially every other cacher in the area that's been caching longer than I have.

 

 

Most old caches are not the same cache they were when they were planted. What I find in 2002 will very likely be something quite different then what you find in 2015. I've looked for caches I found 5 years ago only to see that they had a new container (originally a palm size rubbermaid, now a preform tube), were moved slightly or quite a bit (hanging in a tree to a ground hide by the base of the tree) and 99% of the time the original logbook is gone, replaced several times. Even the cache write-up may have changed. Some of our caches have gone through write-up changes with better hints, more information about the cache site that will help cachers, puzzle changed to make it better, etc.

 

We are rarely preserving history by propping up abandoned old caches. And what most people really want is the old GC#, the cache history means little. The cacher in my example really wants it to fill a Jasmer grid. The preserving history/age angle for the community was a pretense to what was really important - the stats. Otherwise s/he wouldn't have claimed their throwdown as a find. It's probably not going to matter to her/him now if the cache gets archived because they got what they needed.

[+narcissa]

I don't really participate in grids or anything like that. We often go out of our way to find old caches, and we seem to be fortunate in having found many that still have the old logbooks intact. I'm sad to see those caches go, if only because it's likely they won't be replaced with anything interesting.

[+dprovan]

Most old caches are not the same cache they were when they were planted.

My experience is different. I'd say at least half of the old caches I've found were the original container and had the original log. What I've noticed is that the older caches that have survived are sturdier containers planted further away from parking and further off the trail. That results in them not being hunted as often and less likely to be found by accident, so there's less chance for them to be damaged or muggled.

 

We are rarely preserving history by propping up abandoned old caches.

And I'm not advocating propping up old caches. I was responding to a post that expressed an inability to understand the magic of old caches, so I'm responding to that. If that post had expressed an inability to understand why anyone would drop a throwdown on any cache, old or new, then I'd have just nodded my head and moved on.

 

And what most people really want is the old GC#, the cache history means little.

If you say so. I don't know the statistics, I just know that my reasons for considering older caches special is entirely valid. So valid, in fact, that even when someone goes after an old cache for purely numeric reasons, they're still likely to feel that connection when they see signatures from 15 years ago.

[+NeverSummer]

And what most people really want is the old GC#, the cache history means little.

If you say so. I don't know the statistics, I just know that my reasons for considering older caches special is entirely valid. So valid, in fact, that even when someone goes after an old cache for purely numeric reasons, they're still likely to feel that connection when they see signatures from 15 years ago.

And you're one, singular example we can draw from to say, "Not everyone wants the old GC#..."

 

But what we have are hundreds or thousands...tens of thousands of people logging challenge caches simply for the GC#. People who want to "fill their grid" for D/T, Date Hidden, Month Hidden, GC codes, and such for their own desire or to complete a challenge. This is to say, we have many, many examples to demonstrate that people are far more motivated by the simple GC code or hidden dates than they are about the cache and contents.

 

Sure, because an old ammo can in the Tillamook State Forest is still in place with original logbook, people will wax nostalgic. But for caches "alive" only for the "old cache" aspect, we're talking about propping them up simply to keep that "old cache" alive. That shouldn't happen if the owner can't maintain the cache site and listing.

 

Here is a recent example of someone wishing an "old cache" (type) could be revived, simply for a challenge qualification: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334707

Edited September 3, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+niraD]

Most old caches are not the same cache they were when they were planted. What I find in 2002 will very likely be something quite different then what you find in 2015.

Yep. This morning I found a cache that was first listed almost 10 years ago. But the container has been replaced a few times, and has been moved once or twice, and the current log sheet goes back only a few months. It was fun seeing the short GC code (GC#### rather than GC#####), but it wasn't at all the same as finding one of the more remote older caches where the original container and the original log book are still there.

[+The A-Team]

What I find in 2002 2000 will very likely be something quite different then what you find in 2015.

GC30

 

 

[+on4bam]

GC30

 

It looks buried

 

NA anyone?

[+dprovan]

Sure, because an old ammo can in the Tillamook State Forest is still in place with original logbook, people will wax nostalgic. But for caches "alive" only for the "old cache" aspect, we're talking about propping them up simply to keep that "old cache" alive. That shouldn't happen if the owner can't maintain the cache site and listing.

I've denied repeatedly that I'm advocating propping them up. In fact, I'm against it.

Edited September 3, 2015 by dprovan

[+NeverSummer]

Sure, because an old ammo can in the Tillamook State Forest is still in place with original logbook, people will wax nostalgic. But for caches "alive" only for the "old cache" aspect, we're talking about propping them up simply to keep that "old cache" alive. That shouldn't happen if the owner can't maintain the cache site and listing.

I've denied repeatedly that I'm advocating propping them up. In fact, I'm against it.

I wasn't accusing you of anything. In fact, I understand where you're coming from, and that was my post.

 

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between your stated attitude, and that of the visible majority who want to prop caches up because they are "old" and help fill grids or complete challenges.

 

[+dprovan]

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between your stated attitude, and that of the visible majority who want to prop caches up because they are "old" and help fill grids or complete challenges.

So what's your point? Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't extol the virtues of old caches because other people's value systems are screwed up?

[+J Grouchy]

I'm actually (not-so-secretly) hoping the an unobtainable month pops up smack dab in the middle of the Jasmer grid. I can only imagine the uproar...

[+NeverSummer]

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between your stated attitude, and that of the visible majority who want to prop caches up because they are "old" and help fill grids or complete challenges.

So what's your point? Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't extol the virtues of old caches because other people's value systems are screwed up?

Oh. Good. Lord.

 

It's not personal.

 

I'm not "calling you out".

 

I'm not saying that you can't have your opinion.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with your opinion.

 

I'm saying that you are in the minority; you like old caches because of what they are (when maintained). Extol all you like!

 

It is clear that many more (a majority, it seems, with challenge caches, people who strive to complete challenge caches, and people who are "streaking" or "challenging themselves to complete X task for fun...) people out there want to see "old" caches stick around so that they can qualify for a grid-filler challenge or whatever. Then that attitude trumps the guidelines and simple geocache maintenance responsibilities of the cache owner. And then we have derelict caches, or caches with listings that are out of date (now a micro instead of a regular; now a 2/4 instead of a 1.5/2; etc.).

Edited September 4, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+Shawnonabike]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

 

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

 

I agree with your point of view, if the cache does not exist anymore, but finding a really old cache, especially if it has not been found in years, is really neat. Even if it is full of nothing but water and paper mush!

[+Team Microdot]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

 

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

 

I agree with your point of view, if the cache does not exist anymore, but finding a really old cache, especially if it has not been found in years, is really neat. Even if it is full of nothing but water and paper mush!

 

Nah.

 

It's actually worse tham lame because the pile of rubbish you find at GZ completely destroys the degree of esteem and high expectations that brought you to seek it out in the first place.

[+Shawnonabike]

Ah, but now someone has placed it in a new film canister, so the CO won't learn a thing.

And I'll just add that I wish the mentality of an NA in a case where a throwdown has been placed, the Reviewer would still require that the owner go out, confirm the cache is in good repair, and then log an OM log.

 

Throwdowns do not equal cache maintenance as required by the guidelines.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens to an abandoned missing cache that I placed an NA on, that subsequently had a throwdown placed.

 

I'm constantly bewildered by the "this cache is ___ years old, so I would hate to see it archived" argument. What magic age does a cache have to achieve to become exempt from the maintenance requirement?

 

I agree with your point of view, if the cache does not exist anymore, but finding a really old cache, especially if it has not been found in years, is really neat. Even if it is full of nothing but water and paper mush!

 

Nah.

 

It's actually worse tham lame because the pile of rubbish you find at GZ completely destroys the degree of esteem and high expectations that brought you to seek it out in the first place.

 

When I look around me and see a beautiful snowy mountainside and have the near certain knowledge that I'm the only human within kilometers, a soggy log doesn't bother me to that high a degree. Its all about what you value (and I am not putting down the values of others. This is just my opinion) And I value the journey a bit more than the destination. Mind you, I will attempt to clean the mess up and drop in another log book.