Jump to content

Just Replace the Log


Inmountains

Recommended Posts

While I agree that cache maintenance is important, and I try to do my best, I think that all cachers should carry a few extra logs with them. I always have ten or more in my kit. I have replaced hundreds of logs over the years. Damaged logs, full logs, stupid logs ( store receipts, food boxes, etc...) get replaced by me all the time. So instead of posting "needs new log" or "log is full", lets see a lot more "replaced log" in the cache notes! Thank you!

Link to comment

While I agree that cache maintenance is important, and I try to do my best, I think that all cachers should carry a few extra logs with them. I always have ten or more in my kit. I have replaced hundreds of logs over the years. Damaged logs, full logs, stupid logs ( store receipts, food boxes, etc...) get replaced by me all the time. So instead of posting "needs new log" or "log is full", lets see a lot more "replaced log" in the cache notes! Thank you!

 

You are preaching to the choir here as anybody who reads the forum knows. I have always been a big proponent of assisting in field cache maint. and we have probably replaced close to 1000 logs I would imagine. I print different sizes in Excel and cut them with a paper cutter and put each in a ziplock....a sack of these stays in the truck and we carry several on our person.I carry a ziplock with o-rings for bisons and match holders. I also carry a rag for wiping out caches and a varied selection of containers as well.If there is room I try to ADD a new log but if the old one is soaked or moldy I throw it away ( they are unreadable anyway).

Prepare to get hammered but please keep up the good work as it is really appreciated by most cache owners...I recently received several emails thanking us for maint. done on a recent trip.

Link to comment

While I agree that cache maintenance is important, and I try to do my best, I think that all cachers should carry a few extra logs with them. I always have ten or more in my kit. I have replaced hundreds of logs over the years. Damaged logs, full logs, stupid logs ( store receipts, food boxes, etc...) get replaced by me all the time. So instead of posting "needs new log" or "log is full", lets see a lot more "replaced log" in the cache notes! Thank you!

 

Yeah I see where you're coming from, but I have no interest in maintaining other CO's caches when I could use those spare logs in my bag to maintain my own caches. Feel free to go about helping absent COs with their caches, but don't expect others to do the same.

Link to comment

If a log needs replacing because it is damaged by water, cachers being overzealous in retrieval or CO's not providing a robust enough log(post it notes in particular cut up to fit) or the cache has been damaged, then the cache needs a NM log. If the cache is full, it is not up to me to replace it, particularly if there has been multiple posts saying the log is full and people are slipping shopping dockets into the cache to keep the cache alive, the cache needs a NM posted. All of the above indicate a lazy CO or one who lives too far away from the cache who probably should not have placed the cache in the first place or are out of the game and the cache needs archiving.

 

So I guess I will cop a lot of flack from these statements, but I have made them because I do not expect anybody to maintain my caches and expect them to post NMs as required as I have hidden the caches for others to find and they are my responsibility. If I cannot look after them, I will offer them up for adoption or archive them.

Link to comment

I never "replace" a log. At best I'll throw another piece of paper in if the existing log is too wet to sign...but only if I have one on me. I never go to a cache prepared to replace a log sheet...and I never would. If ever anyone started asking or expecting someone to maintain their cache, I'd immediately post a NA log since they obviously have no interest in doing their (very minor) duty of maintaining what they agreed to maintain.

Link to comment

Some CO's take the log sheet on D4-5/T4-5 seriously. If you replace it, you put at risk the logs of all who signed it before you. But I think in most cases, you are not going to find those logs in serious need of replacement in the first place.

 

For a 2/2 I have no problem either adding paper (full log) or replacing (mouldy, pages stuck together, etc.).

Link to comment

While I agree that cache maintenance is important, and I try to do my best, I think that all cachers should carry a few extra logs with them. I always have ten or more in my kit. I have replaced hundreds of logs over the years. Damaged logs, full logs, stupid logs ( store receipts, food boxes, etc...) get replaced by me all the time. So instead of posting "needs new log" or "log is full", lets see a lot more "replaced log" in the cache notes! Thank you!

 

I don't appreciate it when other cachers take it upon themselves to "maintain" my caches without checking in with me first. If the log is full, I'd like it as a keepsake. If it's wet, it means the container is compromised. If it's missing, it means the cache has been vandalized or muggled.

 

If the log is full/wet and you need to leave a piece of paper with your log on it, okay, but don't mess with the cache.

Link to comment

I often find there isn't room to add a new log without removing the old one. In those cases, I sometimes take the old log and offer to send it to the CO when I log the cache. I've only had one guy take me up on that; most don't seem to care. Sure, I could have just logged an NM, but it seems such a small thing to do if the cache is in otherwise good shape. I don't bother with crappy caches.

Link to comment

I often find there isn't room to add a new log without removing the old one. In those cases, I sometimes take the old log and offer to send it to the CO when I log the cache. I've only had one guy take me up on that; most don't seem to care. Sure, I could have just logged an NM, but it seems such a small thing to do if the cache is in otherwise good shape. I don't bother with crappy caches.

 

+1 on this. If I take the old log, I scan it and post the scan image to the cache log.

Link to comment

I agree in theory that kindness should lead me to assist in log maintenance. But in practice, if I did that, I'd be replacing the logs in more than half the caches I find. Which leads me to leaving maintenance completely up to the CO. And I would expect nothing less for my caches as well.

Link to comment

There are just too many junk caches out there. So many cache owners plant it and forget it. So many cache owners plant leaky containers (whatever food or pill jar they can recycle from the kitchen). By replacing logs, negligent cache ownership is enabled and perpetuated.

 

Instead I wish more people would report when a cache is almost full, giving the cache owner ample time to go out and replace it before it's full. But when there are already a couple of notes that the log is full (or wet and unsignable), post an NM.

In saturated areas, this behaviour is an increasing problem. Abandoned and often junk caches never go away because people keep propping them up.

 

Send the message that cache ownership is important to a thriving, fun activity.

 

 

Link to comment

If a log needs replacing because it is damaged by water, cachers being overzealous in retrieval or CO's not providing a robust enough log(post it notes in particular cut up to fit) or the cache has been damaged, then the cache needs a NM log. If the cache is full, it is not up to me to replace it, particularly if there has been multiple posts saying the log is full and people are slipping shopping dockets into the cache to keep the cache alive, the cache needs a NM posted. All of the above indicate a lazy CO or one who lives too far away from the cache who probably should not have placed the cache in the first place or are out of the game and the cache needs archiving.

 

So I guess I will cop a lot of flack from these statements, but I have made them because I do not expect anybody to maintain my caches and expect them to post NMs as required as I have hidden the caches for others to find and they are my responsibility. If I cannot look after them, I will offer them up for adoption or archive them.

No flack from here. IMO, your post is spot-on.

 

If replacing the logs in your own caches is so difficult that you need help from finders, then cache ownership just isn't for you. Don't feel bad, not everyone is cut out to be a cache owner.

Link to comment

I simply forget to bring spare logs most of the time. I also need to remember to bring a trash bag for the wet logs as I have no desire to stick wet, moldy paper in my pocket.

 

As this thread and others make clear: the majority of COs appreciate the maintenance, but a significant minority don't want others replacing their logs.

Link to comment

If a log needs replacing because it is damaged by water, cachers being overzealous in retrieval or CO's not providing a robust enough log(post it notes in particular cut up to fit) or the cache has been damaged, then the cache needs a NM log. If the cache is full, it is not up to me to replace it, particularly if there has been multiple posts saying the log is full and people are slipping shopping dockets into the cache to keep the cache alive, the cache needs a NM posted. All of the above indicate a lazy CO or one who lives too far away from the cache who probably should not have placed the cache in the first place or are out of the game and the cache needs archiving.

 

So I guess I will cop a lot of flack from these statements, but I have made them because I do not expect anybody to maintain my caches and expect them to post NMs as required as I have hidden the caches for others to find and they are my responsibility. If I cannot look after them, I will offer them up for adoption or archive them.

 

I agree, +1, ditto, etc,,,! ;)

Link to comment
While I agree that cache maintenance is important, and I try to do my best, I think that all cachers should carry a few extra logs with them. I always have ten or more in my kit. I have replaced hundreds of logs over the years. Damaged logs, full logs, stupid logs ( store receipts, food boxes, etc...) get replaced by me all the time. So instead of posting "needs new log" or "log is full", lets see a lot more "replaced log" in the cache notes! Thank you!

If I know a CO is regular with maintenance, I'll leave a RIR strip until they can do their maintenance themselves.

Like others, we respond to mention of a rare full or wet log, with no need for a NM.

- But I won't be a crappy cache enabler.

 

I don't believe most cache owners appreciate others "fixing" their caches.

I'd bet less than half ever notice.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage of thank-yous from folks actually needing a bit O help and care enough to send a mail, to the almost thousand crappy caches another claims to have repaired.

Link to comment

If I know a CO is regular with maintenance, I'll leave a RIR strip until they can do their maintenance themselves.

Like others, we respond to mention of a rare full or wet log, with no need for a NM.

- But I won't be a crappy cache enabler.

 

I don't believe most cache owners appreciate others "fixing" their caches.

I'd bet less than half ever notice.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage

of thank-yous from folks actually needing a bit O help and care enough to send a mail, to the almost thousand crappy caches another claims to have repaired.

 

I couldn't agree with this post more.

Link to comment

I don't appreciate others leaving a log sheet in my caches without telling me about it. (NM Log!)

If there's a problem with a cache, I need to know (like leaking, or something) so I can get out and fix it. Others doing band-aid stuff just makes me look like a poor CO.

So ... if you're going to do something to my cache, make sure you post a NM Log too!

Link to comment

Others doing band-aid stuff just makes me look like a poor CO.

So ... if you're going to do something to my cache, make sure you post a NM Log too!

 

I wish there were there at least 50% of cache owners who felt this way.

Nice to see some pride in cache ownership (seems to be about 50% in the forums, but about 5% in the field).

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Today it's just a log.

Tomorrow it's just a seal on the container.

After that it's just a bit of camouflage.

After that it's just a container.

 

Do you want everyone else to do your cache page maintenance as well?

 

If you don't want the hassle of constantly replacing your logs i suggest putting out caches with bigger log books or just pull your caches in and forget about ownership.

Link to comment

 

If you don't want the hassle of constantly replacing your logs i suggest putting out caches with bigger log books or just pull your caches in and forget about ownership.

 

This made me have a look at the OP's cache hides. Looks like the OP hides power trail caches. So I take it that maintaining those caches is irritating the OP.

 

If someone wants to plant a power trail they need to be prepared to maintain it. Plant caches you want to return to and take care of. Don't plant so many that it makes you angry when people won't prop them up for you.

 

That's another reason, IMO not to replace logs. It might discourage the proliferation of power trails.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Looks like the OP hides power trail caches. So I take that maintaining those caches is irritating the OP.

The more important point is that many of their hides are micros. If you find replacing the log when it gets full is a hassle, you should hide larger caches with larger logs that need replacing less often.

Link to comment

"Just Replace the Log". You probably don't mean to, but you come off as patronizing and impatient. I like to leave caches better than I found them, but I don't carry around 10 spare logs. I feel a bit like I'm stepping on the owner's toes maintaining his/her cache. Then there's what to do with the nasty moldy wet log. I don't really want it in my vehicle. I don't even want to touch it, let alone hold on to it for a couple weeks while the owner decides if they want me to mail it to them. I think if I did that with every yucky log, there would be several inches of them festering on my dashboard. I'm not very comfortable with removing all the proof of previous finders. The most recent unsignable log I found, I left in place and added a new one in a zippy, then logged a NM online. I can always take a picture with my GPS and post a NM. Sometimes all I have on me is my GPS and a pen. So I will continue doing what I do as my conscience dictates. Thanx for opening this up for discussion.

Link to comment

Then there's what to do with the nasty moldy wet log.

If the log is wet or moldy, then there are likely other issues with the cache that need to be fixed by the owner anyway (e.g. cracked container, poorly-chosen container that needs to be upgraded, container needs to be moved, etc.). A finder replacing the log will only be fixing the symptoms, and the underlying problem will remain.

Link to comment

How about a thread titled "Just Place Better Caches ....and you won't need others to replace your cache logs" If a cache owner expects or desires finders to replace cache logs, then that Co needs to stick to finding instead of hiding caches.

Link to comment

Then there's what to do with the nasty moldy wet log.

If the log is wet or moldy, then there are likely other issues with the cache that need to be fixed by the owner anyway (e.g. cracked container, poorly-chosen container that needs to be upgraded, container needs to be moved, etc.). A finder replacing the log will only be fixing the symptoms, and the underlying problem will remain.

 

The problem is folks cache in the rain. The better your container is, including ammo cans, if you get water in it never leaves and you have a little terrarium where everything stays wet and gets moldy. My home base is in the wettest part of the cont. U.S. and it really helps if everyone pitches in with drying out caches and replacing logs.Other areas of the country are different....I laugh at some containers that do just fine in dessert areas.

Link to comment

We've replaced lots of logs over the years and often remove the old ones. The key is in reading the situation correctly.

 

CO Complaints: Never. It is only in this forum that I ever hear that it is a problem. I have not yet read anything here that makes me think I need to change my ways.

 

Old Log: Replaced if they are mush or will be unreadable after they dry out. If there is reasonable room in the container I ziploc it and leave it. If not (or circumstances tell me the log need not remain in the cache) I add to my log that I will hold it for a while to see if the CO wants it.

 

Old Log Returned: I've never had a CO ask me for the old log.

 

NM: If a problem can't be fixed on the spot only then is an NM posted.

 

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

Link to comment

We've replaced lots of logs over the years and often remove the old ones. The key is in reading the situation correctly.

 

CO Complaints: Never. It is only in this forum that I ever hear that it is a problem. I have not yet read anything here that makes me think I need to change my ways.

 

Old Log: Replaced if they are mush or will be unreadable after they dry out. If there is reasonable room in the container I ziploc it and leave it. If not (or circumstances tell me the log need not remain in the cache) I add to my log that I will hold it for a while to see if the CO wants it.

 

Old Log Returned: I've never had a CO ask me for the old log.

 

NM: If a problem can't be fixed on the spot only then is an NM posted.

 

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

 

Well written.....I agree 100%.

Link to comment

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

 

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha...

Link to comment

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

 

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha...

 

Exactly. I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign. For me geocaching is the full experience - the location, the watertight cache container, that is in decent shape so I can drop a signature item or discover/take travelbugs.

Link to comment

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

 

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha...

 

Exactly. I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign. For me geocaching is the full experience - the location, the watertight cache container, that is in decent shape so I can drop a signature item or discover/take travelbugs.

 

I've gotta agree with L0ne.R.

If the log sheet is all that's important, we wouldn't be required to have containers on caches, but just a bunch of log sheets in baggies all over the place.

Containers have to be maintained as well as the logs, and that is the job of the CO, not other cachers! If the CO is not willing, or unable to do the maintenance (based on appropriate NM logs) then the cache needs to be gone. I'll never understand the idea that it's up to everyone else to maintain someone's cache.

Why?

To keep it active?

Why bother?

What's so important about a cache anyway? If it's in need of maintenance, post a NM log. If the maintenance isn't being done, post NA and maybe get rid of it and make room for someone else to place a good one. IMO, that's the way the game is supposed to be played.

Hard to maintain a power trail? Then it shouldn't be there!

Don't want to maintain your caches? Then don't place them in the first place!

Link to comment

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

 

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha...

 

Unfortunately, numbers people don't care if it's a crappy cache. All is fine as long as they get that smiley.

Link to comment

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha...

 

You are missing the point.

 

If I choose to do some quick fixes then the cache will be in good shape when I leave and finders will not end up dealing with what I found.

 

Yes, it could turn bad again. Future finders can then fix, NM or ignore the problem as they see fit.

 

I am at a loss to understand how any harm has been done as a result of my actions.

Link to comment

Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. :D I do it for the subsequent finders.

Ah...so you don't mind later finders having to end up dealing with crappy caches? Gotcha...

 

You are missing the point.

 

If I choose to do some quick fixes then the cache will be in good shape when I leave and finders will not end up dealing with what I found.

 

Yes, it could turn bad again. Future finders can then fix, NM or ignore the problem as they see fit.

 

I am at a loss to understand how any harm has been done as a result of my actions.

 

You're reducing or eliminating the incentive for the CO to do any real maintenance runs...especially those who may be newer to the game. You put it in their head that it's some sort of "It Takes A Village" mentality for cache ownership.

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

Link to comment

You're reducing or eliminating the incentive for the CO to do any real maintenance runs...especially those who may be newer to the game.

 

I think people who don't maintain their caches are not inclined to care one way or another whether someone helps their caches. People who do care appreciate the break they just got on that particular cache.

 

You put it in their head that it's some sort of "It Takes A Village" mentality for cache ownership.

 

You never know, maybe this will help them become part of "the village" and do someone else a favor. B)

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

 

There always does seem to be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the threat of some dumpy, wet cache getting archived. Then it gets archived and everyone actually survives and moves on...usually with little to no real comment about the loss of another crappy cache, no matter how old it was.

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

 

Would the location make any difference? That is, would you be less inclined to replace a log sheet on a cache with a sopping wet log sheet if it was in a strip mall parking log or part of a series than on a cache in a location where there might not be anyone else that might hide one there? I ask because I DNFd a cache a week and a half ago that was on a not often visited section of the Great Wall in China. I suspect that if that cache were archived it would be a long time before someone else makes the difficult climb up the wall to place another one, and that the few cachers that do make the hike would prefer to have a cache with a log to sign rather than spend an hour so climbing the wall only to discover that it's missing or the log is too wet to sign.

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

 

Would the location make any difference? That is, would you be less inclined to replace a log sheet on a cache with a sopping wet log sheet if it was in a strip mall parking log or part of a series than on a cache in a location where there might not be anyone else that might hide one there? I ask because I DNFd a cache a week and a half ago that was on a not often visited section of the Great Wall in China. I suspect that if that cache were archived it would be a long time before someone else makes the difficult climb up the wall to place another one, and that the few cachers that do make the hike would prefer to have a cache with a log to sign rather than spend an hour so climbing the wall only to discover that it's missing or the log is too wet to sign.

 

For me it would spoil the moment if I climbed the remote area of the Great Wall to find this:

 

3e571e1a-807d-4c11-82bd-b9e2fe3491f2_l.png

 

I would rather just climb the Great Wall, enjoy the view and remember the event, without the disappointing moldy cache experience at the end of it.

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

 

Would the location make any difference? That is, would you be less inclined to replace a log sheet on a cache with a sopping wet log sheet if it was in a strip mall parking log or part of a series than on a cache in a location where there might not be anyone else that might hide one there? I ask because I DNFd a cache a week and a half ago that was on a not often visited section of the Great Wall in China. I suspect that if that cache were archived it would be a long time before someone else makes the difficult climb up the wall to place another one, and that the few cachers that do make the hike would prefer to have a cache with a log to sign rather than spend an hour so climbing the wall only to discover that it's missing or the log is too wet to sign.

 

For me it would spoil the moment if I climbed the remote area of the Great Wall to find this:

 

3e571e1a-807d-4c11-82bd-b9e2fe3491f2_l.png

 

I would rather just climb the Great Wall, enjoy the view and remember the event, without the disappointing moldy cache experience at the end of it.

 

Certainly finding a cache in that state is always be a disappointment. So is hoping to find a cache only to reading the previous logs while at GZ and discovering that it is missing. It's not so disappointing (to me) if it's just a P&G. As I said, I DNFd the cache on the Great Wall, and might have preferred to find a cache in poor shape rather than nothing at all.

Link to comment

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

If you found a soggy moldy log, dollars to donuts I'm going to find a soggy moldy log even it was dry and clean when you put it in the cache, so you aren't really doing me the huge favor you think. I don't mind that you tried, I just think it's funny that you think it will actually work. The important point is that if you didn't file an NM because you think adding a log fixed the problem, now I have to because the cache still leaks.

Link to comment

...someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign

...you aren't really doing me the huge favor you think.

Huge favor? No. I always think of it as a small contribution to the next few finders. If you found my dry logsheet then you received my small favor.

 

...I just think it's funny that you think it will actually work.
Actually, we haven't gotten that far into the conversation yet. I am quite clear about which caches will return to the prior condition. I do this for the next finders and it works for them and I do it for the cache owner whether, or not, they care about their cache.

 

...if you didn't file an NM because you think adding a log fixed the problem, now I have to because the cache still leaks.
Nobody thinks that just adding a log to a moldy cache fixes the problem. Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

 

Would the location make any difference? That is, would you be less inclined to replace a log sheet on a cache with a sopping wet log sheet if it was in a strip mall parking log or part of a series than on a cache in a location where there might not be anyone else that might hide one there? I ask because I DNFd a cache a week and a half ago that was on a not often visited section of the Great Wall in China. I suspect that if that cache were archived it would be a long time before someone else makes the difficult climb up the wall to place another one, and that the few cachers that do make the hike would prefer to have a cache with a log to sign rather than spend an hour so climbing the wall only to discover that it's missing or the log is too wet to sign.

 

While what you describe sounds like a very worthy trip with or without a cache, I would rather have the opportunity to place a new cache because the old one had been archived than to be dragged out there for a cache that no longer exists, or that is in really poor condition.

Link to comment

I would rather just climb the Great Wall, enjoy the view and remember the event, without the disappointing moldy cache experience at the end of it.

 

Good news! How you choose to react to a moldy cache is entirely up to you. The only one who can make it spoil your experience is you. Enjoy the view and log "Needs Maintenance" when you get home. No need to let it bother you beyond that.

Link to comment

I have found quite a few pristine logsheets in moldy, messy caches that has seen zero maintenance done by the cache owner (or the person who dropped the new logsheet).

 

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction.

 

I added that last part of the comment because you hinted in post #37, that you (and I assume you are suggesting others who drop logsheets) clean up the cache so the next finders have a pleasant caching experience:

 

"If I choose to do some quick fixes then the cache will be in good shape when I leave"

 

Personally I find it insulting that someone thinks all I care about, is a bit of paper to sign.

 

Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too?

 

If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable?

 

I think we differ widely in what we consider a pleasant caching experience. I like the swag aspect of geocaching so I'm very disappointed when I open up a cache and see moldy junk. I would rather have had the opportunity to skip that cache (I filter out caches with NMs) and spend my time finding quality, cared for caches.

 

In terms of micro caches, I generally don't hunt them. I live in a cache dense area and get frustrated when they get propped up and won't go away. If they go away there's a chance that some conscientious cache owner, who wants to provide a quality cache experience for a wider audience, will come along and place a swag size cache that they will take care of.

 

So when you prop up a cache, at least now you know that there are a lot of us out there that don't appreciate the new logsheet in a leaky abandoned cache. You are helping out those that have turned this pastime into a numbers game.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...