Jump to content

Just Replace the Log


Inmountains

Recommended Posts

 

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worthy trip with or without a cache, I would rather have the opportunity to place a new cache because the old one had been archived than to be dragged out there for a cache that no longer exists, or that is in really poor condition.

 

You wouldn't have the opportunity to place a new cache there as it would be over 6300 miles from your home location. As I said, if the CO no longer is interested in maintaining the cache it's in a location where there isn't likely going to be someone else placing a new cache there anytime soon. Unless you happened to be in China for an extended visit it would be unlikely that someone "local" would place another there for you to find.

 

My point is that, for some, context matters. A P&G cache a mile from home just isn't the same as one that's 6300 miles away on a wall built in the 15th century.

 

 

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.

 

Give it up Sage we'll never change these people....the good news is they won't change us so keep up the good work.

Link to comment

My point is that, for some, context matters.

 

+1

I've noticed a lot of generalization in this forum. How often CO's should check on their caches, whether adding a log sheet is sinful, etc. IMO, what's appropriate for some caches may differ from what's appropriate for other caches. High terrain caches that are visited only a few times each year are different from P&G caches attached to guardrails, and so the effect of adding a dry log sheet to one isn't the same as adding a dry log sheet to the other.

 

And regarding 'full' logsheets. In the context of BAU (business as usual), then the CO should certainly get a replacement log sheet into the cache. But if I'm caching around Seattle in mid-August and come across a full log sheet, then I don't think it's harmful to add a log sheet and then log a Found It + NM - rather than expecting the CO to come by same-day to ensure there's a blank log sheet for the next hundred cachers that have descended on the area. So, another context to consider is the proximity of mega events.

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.

 

 

Finding a moldy cache at a spot with a nice view, certainly doesn't enhance the experience.

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.

 

 

Finding a moldy cache at a spot with a nice view, certainly doesn't enhance the experience.

 

Nope, but it doesn't need to ruin it, either. Enjoy the view, log NM, carry on and spend your emotional energy remembering caches you loved.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

You wouldn't have the opportunity to place a new cache there as it would be over 6300 miles from your home location. As I said, if the CO no longer is interested in maintaining the cache it's in a location where there isn't likely going to be someone else placing a new cache there anytime soon.

 

Then archive the thing already. You act like the existience of this cache is some kind of right. It is not.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment
My point is that, for some, context matters. A P&G cache a mile from home just isn't the same as one that's 6300 miles away on a wall built in the 15th century.

 

But... but... but... that would require *gasp* using common sense!

 

We can't have that! There must be RULES to cover every conceivable eventuality!

 

We need more RULES!

Link to comment

 

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.

 

You wouldn't have the opportunity to place a new cache there as it would be over 6300 miles from your home location. As I said, if the CO no longer is interested in maintaining the cache it's in a location where there isn't likely going to be someone else placing a new cache there anytime soon.

 

Then archive the thing already. You act like the existience of this cache is some kind of right. It is not.

 

I'd also put in that it's hardly the only reason for going there anyway. For most big tourist destinations, a cache is a pleasant bonus...not a primary destination in itself. But maybe that's just me and my silly priorities...

Link to comment

My point is that, for some, context matters.

 

And regarding 'full' logsheets. In the context of BAU (business as usual), then the CO should certainly get a replacement log sheet into the cache. But if I'm caching around Seattle in mid-August and come across a full log sheet, then I don't think it's harmful to add a log sheet and then log a Found It + NM - rather than expecting the CO to come by same-day to ensure there's a blank log sheet for the next hundred cachers that have descended on the area. So, another context to consider is the proximity of mega events.

 

A CO should be aware of when a Mega event is occurring and have their caches prepared for the huge influx of cachers, not use it as some excuse for lazy ownership.

Link to comment
A CO should be aware of when a Mega event is occurring and have their caches prepared for the huge influx of cachers, not use it as some excuse for lazy ownership.

 

Thanks for the tip. I will be sure to disable and temporarily remove my caches when a mega event occurs nearby so that people like you won't criticize them for not being perfect.

Link to comment

Personally, I would rather find a cache with a wet log (or even containing mold) at the Great Wall then no cache at all. I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

Of course, if the location is amazing, I'll enjoy it regardless. But for me a cache (in a good location) is a bonus, regardless of its condition.

 

For the Great Wall specifically, I was lucky enough to visit it once (Simatai section). It was before I knew about Geocaching. Yes I enjoyed it.

 

On the other hand, if the location is poor (or mediocre), the quality of the container and condition become more important to me. A wet, moldy cache in a parking lot is about as low as it gets. But I might like a unique, clever hide (in good condition) even in a parking lot.

Link to comment

I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

I'd like to think though that the caches in those amazing places are placed by CO's who will keep them in good condition rather than just rely on the amazing location making up for their crappy box and, if they can't be bothered to maintain the cache to a high standard, that they release the location to someone else who will.

Link to comment

I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

I'd like to think though that the caches in those amazing places are placed by CO's who will keep them in good condition rather than just rely on the amazing location making up for their crappy box and, if they can't be bothered to maintain the cache to a high standard, that they release the location to someone else who will.

 

I agree! Although i don't hear this very often, i love it when a person tells me something like, "while you're at that amazing place, be sure to try for so and so cache. It's a great cache".

 

Of course, i do look up caches ahead of time when planning a trip to an amazing place. I look up favorite points, read through some of the logs, and check to see if there are any maintenance issues. These give me a good indication as to whether i want to go for a cache or not. Reading a comment stating "the cache was wet, replaced with a temporary slip of paper", with no owner intervention afterwards, usually takes the cache off my to do list.

Link to comment

I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

I'd like to think though that the caches in those amazing places are placed by CO's who will keep them in good condition rather than just rely on the amazing location making up for their crappy box and, if they can't be bothered to maintain the cache to a high standard, that they release the location to someone else who will.

 

Yes, ideally. But I am agreeing with NYPaddleCacher that context is important. With the Great Wall, it's not just about the amazing location, but that caches are rare there. So I am more tolerant of less than pristine caches than I am at home (in a cache dense area). If a cacher isn't maintaining their caches locally (great location or poor location) I would prefer to see the cache archived. But in a rare/remote place, no. I'm not saying there should be different rules; just that MY REACTION is different.

 

Here is a real example. Tasek Lama I

 

There are only 13 caches in the whole country. (When I was there, there were 4 I think). When I found this cache, it was showing NM, and reports that the log was wet. That didn't stop me arranging a nights hotel and a lay-over mainly so I could climb up and find this cache. I found the cache, and yes, the log was wet (though possible to sign). I still gave it a favorite point, and would not wish to have it archived, as it likely would be a long time before anyone put a cache there. I was thrilled and excited to find the cache, I DID NOT think "This damp cache has spoiled my visit".

 

If you read the logs, you will see the owner is not maintaining it, and various people have replaced the container (though I found the original). So you can argue it should be archived. But if you go to Bandar Seri Begawan, I recommend you look for this cache.

Link to comment

I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

I'd like to think though that the caches in those amazing places are placed by CO's who will keep them in good condition rather than just rely on the amazing location making up for their crappy box and, if they can't be bothered to maintain the cache to a high standard, that they release the location to someone else who will.

 

Yes, ideally. But I am agreeing with NYPaddleCacher that context is important. With the Great Wall, it's not just about the amazing location, but that caches are rare there. So I am more tolerant of less than pristine caches than I am at home (in a cache dense area). If a cacher isn't maintaining their caches locally (great location or poor location) I would prefer to see the cache archived. But in a rare/remote place, no. I'm not saying there should be different rules; just that MY REACTION is different.

 

Here is a real example. Tasek Lama I

 

There are only 13 caches in the whole country. (When I was there, there were 4 I think). When I found this cache, it was showing NM, and reports that the log was wet. That didn't stop me arranging a nights hotel and a lay-over mainly so I could climb up and find this cache. I found the cache, and yes, the log was wet (though possible to sign). I still gave it a favorite point, and would not wish to have it archived, as it likely would be a long time before anyone put a cache there. I was thrilled and excited to find the cache, I DID NOT think "This damp cache has spoiled my visit".

 

If you read the logs, you will see the owner is not maintaining it, and various people have replaced the container (though I found the original). So you can argue it should be archived. But if you go to Bandar Seri Begawan, I recommend you look for this cache.

 

The view you express is one I can subscribe to :)

 

My outlook has probably been tainted by finding stinking junk at several locations where it was obvious the CO had simply hoovered them up because of where they were and then utterly failed to perform any maintenance whatsoever - but still had time to contact me and invite me to look at his blog - and consistently ignore my repeated references to the boxes of rubbish he'd left out on various summits around the country - in places I expect others would love to have owned a cache but couldn't, because they were occupied by junky boxes full of tatty scraps of paper in various stages of decomposition :mad:

Link to comment

I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

I'd like to think though that the caches in those amazing places are placed by CO's who will keep them in good condition rather than just rely on the amazing location making up for their crappy box and, if they can't be bothered to maintain the cache to a high standard, that they release the location to someone else who will.

 

Yes, ideally. But I am agreeing with NYPaddleCacher that context is important. With the Great Wall, it's not just about the amazing location, but that caches are rare there. So I am more tolerant of less than pristine caches than I am at home (in a cache dense area). If a cacher isn't maintaining their caches locally (great location or poor location) I would prefer to see the cache archived. But in a rare/remote place, no. I'm not saying there should be different rules; just that MY REACTION is different.

 

 

Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. The cache I DNFd was also on a section of the wall that is rarely visited. The Badaling section is the closest to Beijing and it, combined with the Mutianya section, gets 10.7 million visitors a year. During our three hour hike on the wall I saw four other people. Maybe my (and your) reaction is different based our experience of finding (or trying to find) a cache in such a rare/remote location.

 

Here is a real example. Tasek Lama I

 

Coincidentally, I did some caching in the Malaysia part of that Island and was near a cache that many had reported as missing but didn't stop to try and find it after I saw that it was in a dirt parking area. I also found one in Kuching that had several recent DNFs.

Link to comment

Personally, I would rather find a cache with a wet log (or even containing mold) at the Great Wall then no cache at all. I enjoy finding caches at amazing places. Sure, I also like the caches to be in pristine condition, but for me that is secondary.

 

Of course, if the location is amazing, I'll enjoy it regardless. But for me a cache (in a good location) is a bonus, regardless of its condition.

 

For the Great Wall specifically, I was lucky enough to visit it once (Simatai section). It was before I knew about Geocaching. Yes I enjoyed it.

 

On the other hand, if the location is poor (or mediocre), the quality of the container and condition become more important to me. A wet, moldy cache in a parking lot is about as low as it gets. But I might like a unique, clever hide (in good condition) even in a parking lot.

 

This is my priority also.

#1 Location...scenery, history, etc.....far and away #1 for us.

#2 The hunt....we really enjoy the search.

#3 A distant 3 is the container...although we enjoy a good camo job and also unique containers.

Link to comment

I agree! Although i don't hear this very often, i love it when a person tells me something like, "while you're at that amazing place, be sure to try for so and so cache. It's a great cache".

 

Of course, i do look up caches ahead of time when planning a trip to an amazing place. I look up favorite points, read through some of the logs, and check to see if there are any maintenance issues. These give me a good indication as to whether i want to go for a cache or not. Reading a comment stating "the cache was wet, replaced with a temporary slip of paper", with no owner intervention afterwards, usually takes the cache off my to do list.

 

When visting a cache like at a remote location on the Great Wall, the cache (and my online cache log) serve as a memory for me about my visit to the awesome place. I definitely would go also for a cache with a temporary slip of paper and I even would prefer a cache in such a state provided it is quickly findable to a perfectly camouflaged container in superb condition that takes me 30 minutes to find it (more time than I would like to spend on geocaching while being on such a trip.

 

I definitely prefer a cache in a poor condition at a superb location I want to remember to no cache there at all (which is typically the alternative at such locations - it's not that people queue up to hide a cache at such locations.

Link to comment

Here is a real example. Tasek Lama I

I like this example very much. One of my favorite things about geocaching is the "I never would've known of this place if it wasn't for geocaching". We have visited a few places that we wouldn't have known were accessible, if there hadn't been a geocache placed there. Places with great views and/or interesting natural features. Some of these caches had 'issues' with water, although the logs were still signable. It would be unfortunate if these caches were just archived away, since they were in places where a replacement cache would not likely be placed. Without a cache there, even a mediocre one, cachers wouldn't know about the location unless they were locals and had the 'inside scoop' about all the nooks and crannies of their area.

 

There are only 13 caches in the whole country.

Off-topic, but another example of why the 'minimum finds before hiding' rule shouldn't be generalized to all locations. If there was a minimum finds number before hiding, then cachers in that country wouldn't be able to hide any caches without international travel first. Again, context matters.

Link to comment

One more thread on "minor cache maintenance" ;)

 

It's so simple.

 

1. I don't do any maintenance to a cache which (in your opinion) is badly organized (poor container or hiding place).

2. For all other caches: if a logsheet/logbook is full I simply add some paper.

 

I always carry a small/cheap notebook with me for this purpose.

Link to comment

With regard to Microdot's summit comment.

 

Community maintenance is needed on most of the summit caches as they were placed BEFORE the permission rule so the location cannot be reused if they are archived. In places such as the Peak District on Kinder Scout, the National Trust do not reply to ANY emails regarding permission for caches so for most caches in the Peak District its a case of once theyre gone theyre gone.

 

I'm sure future finders will love not being able to log caches in the Peak District due to Pencil pushers like on these forums having summit caches archived due to a wet piece of paper.

Link to comment

With regard to Microdot's summit comment.

 

Community maintenance is needed on most of the summit caches as they were placed BEFORE the permission rule so the location cannot be reused if they are archived. In places such as the Peak District on Kinder Scout, the National Trust do not reply to ANY emails regarding permission for caches so for most caches in the Peak District its a case of once theyre gone theyre gone.

 

I'm sure future finders will love not being able to log caches in the Peak District due to Pencil pushers like on these forums having summit caches archived due to a wet piece of paper.

 

Does a cache in a great area that isn't being maintained, despite it's age or whether or not it had landowner permission at the time, deserve to remain? I don't think so. Given the amount of caches that are being published without landowner permission; oh, did I say that :shocked: , I'm not overly confident that a new cache wouldn't actually go through :unsure: .

 

As to the reply to the main thread: No I will not be carrying spare logs with me as it is the cache owners responsibility to carry out cache maintenance. I can't be bothered to check the guidelines so I stand to be corrected but I am under the assumption that caches should be marked with at least the GC code and the fact that it is a geocache. That is most often on the log book/ sheet/ roll so how can that be adequately prepared beforehand? In addition; as has already been stated, if a cache is in need of maintenance of any kind it is generally not being maintained by the CO and thereby should be heading for the chopping block. Why put in a new log just to extend it's pitiful life?

 

I will quite consciously put my hand up above the parapet and state that I would rather visit a remote location that didn't have a cache rather than go and find a poorly/ none maintained one.

 

Happy caching.

 

Cheers

 

Schnuz.

 

Hahaarrgghh yeah goin' to PIRATEMANIA 9 (not that it's been arranged yet, more details in the future)? Be thar or be keel hauled!

The only MEGA PIRATE event in the UK to attend?

 

Hahaarrgghh, be seein' yah thar yah filthy landlubber!

Link to comment

With regard to Microdot's summit comment.

 

Community maintenance is needed on most of the summit caches as they were placed BEFORE the permission rule

 

I disagree.

 

If community maintenance were needed on most of the summit caches - whatever that means - it would be nothing to do with permission guidelines (I think that's what you meant) and everything to do with the CO failing to maintain the caches.

 

so the location cannot be reused if they are archived. In places such as the Peak District on Kinder Scout, the National Trust do not reply to ANY emails regarding permission for caches so for most caches in the Peak District its a case of once theyre gone theyre gone.

 

I agree, it would be a shame to see caches in such locations disappearing which is why I'm glad when I see CO's who find they can't maintain such caches adopting them over to new owners who can and will rather than just abandoning them, leaving them to rack and ruin and leaving cachers who have worked hard to get to a location to find a stinking box of rubbish which is known to have been that way for months on end.

 

I'm sure future finders will love not being able to log caches in the Peak District due to Pencil pushers like on these forums having summit caches archived due to a wet piece of paper.

 

I can't really help with this one other than to point out that the cache I referred to in the post you are referring to was suffering from far worse than just a wet piece of paper - it was a complete wreck if I remember correctly and had been that way for months on end without so much as a note from the CO and I can't imagine how that has anything at all to do with anyone on these forums :unsure:

Link to comment

A wet log does not mean it is a crappy cache. Maybe a previous finder didn't tighten the lid all the way or cross threaded the lid. I am not trying to relieve the CO of their responsibility. Of course the CO is responsible. But that doesn't mean that we can't be an occasional help. Maybe if more people would STOP saying, "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" The world might become a better place!

Link to comment

A wet log does not mean it is a crappy cache. Maybe a previous finder didn't tighten the lid all the way or cross threaded the lid. I am not trying to relieve the CO of their responsibility.

 

Right, it's still the cache owners responsibility to be diligent - watch comments in the cache, check on the cache when there are signs of trouble, especially if more logs come in reporting a wet log.

 

One comment about a wet log doesn't mean the cache is crappy. A diligent, responsible cache owner will keep an eye on the logs, maybe wait for the second report then go check on the cache.

 

The problem with many caches is you'll see wet log reports going back months, sometimes years with no response from cache owners, most of those owners stopped playing, some of the active owners plant too many to care for, some of those active owners never intended and never will do maintenance (maybe archive it once the reviewer note comes, but most will let the reviewer archive it as they continue to hide more caches).

I don't think there's a problem with the occasional quality container that doesn't get its lid put back on properly and gets one or two wet log reports. Most often cache owners that care about quality will watch and check their caches.

 

Link to comment

Maybe if more people would STOP saying, "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" The world might become a better place!

 

Yes - cache owners who knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish out there for people to find definitely should STOP saying "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" and then I agree - the world, the caching world at least would be a better place :)

Link to comment

Maybe if more people would STOP saying, "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" The world might become a better place!

 

Yes - cache owners who knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish out there for people to find definitely should STOP saying "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" and then I agree - the world, the caching world at least would be a better place :)

 

slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif

Link to comment

Maybe if more people would STOP saying, "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" The world might become a better place!

 

Yes - cache owners who knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish out there for people to find definitely should STOP saying "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" and then I agree - the world, the caching world at least would be a better place :)

 

+1.

Link to comment

"...knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish...."

I am NOT talking about poor caches, or cheaply hidden caches. I found a great cache this summer that had not been found in over two years. Needless to say, the log was wet, so I replaced it, NO BIG DEAL. And I let the owner know, a great fellow cacher. Not only did I replace the log, I replaced it with a WATERPROOF paper log. Some of you remind me of the story of the "Good Samaritan" and you guys are the so called "Religious Leaders" who don't want to help. As for me and my house, we will HELP our fellow man! WOW has the caching community CHANGED in the last 13 years, and NOT for the better!

Link to comment

"...knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish...."

I am NOT talking about poor caches, or cheaply hidden caches. I found a great cache this summer that had not been found in over two years. Needless to say, the log was wet, so I replaced it, NO BIG DEAL. And I let the owner know, a great fellow cacher. Not only did I replace the log, I replaced it with a WATERPROOF paper log. Some of you remind me of the story of the "Good Samaritan" and you guys are the so called "Religious Leaders" who don't want to help. As for me and my house, we will HELP our fellow man! WOW has the caching community CHANGED in the last 13 years, and NOT for the better!

 

I'm not sure you've actually read or understood the thread properly - or you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

 

Doesn't the good book say judge not lest ye be judged?

 

Or was that Monty Python's Life of Brian...

 

I've helped out plenty of caches in the past - Some that deserved help. Some that didn't.

 

I refuse though to fix a cache where the CO is clearly still active - or at least reading email notifications or logs, knows that his caches have degraded to the level of stinking geolitter, does nothing about it but does find the time to contact me to invite me to find more of his caches and earn the 'kudos' of seeing my name on his online leaderboard.

Link to comment

I'm not sure you've actually read or understood the thread properly - or you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

And you will always go to the "stinking geolitter" level anytime someone mentions helping a fellow cacher. Did you read his post? A wet log does NOT equate to a bad cache/stinking geolitter/stinking boxes of rubbish. It can happen with a perfectly good ammo can when someone closes something in the seal. And the first person who finds with a wet log in a cache can help by drying the log, adding a dry sheet or such, since the CO has no idea that there is a wet log - until that find is posted.

Link to comment

I'm not sure you've actually read or understood the thread properly - or you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

And you will always go to the "stinking geolitter" level anytime someone mentions helping a fellow cacher. Did you read his post? A wet log does NOT equate to a bad cache/stinking geolitter/stinking boxes of rubbish. It can happen with a perfectly good ammo can when someone closes something in the seal. And the first person who finds with a wet log in a cache can help by drying the log, adding a dry sheet or such, since the CO has no idea that there is a wet log - until that find is posted.

 

Will I? Are you sure about that? Your mind-reading skills must be pretty sharp :blink:

 

Yes, I did read his post.

 

Yes I've replaced wet logs before.

 

Yes I've taken supplies along with me to provide first-aid to a cache that has known issues that can easily be resolved.

 

Yes I know that the first log that reports a problem might be the first a CO knows about it.

 

No doubt you've read my post and seen that the caches I won't fix up are that ones which are wrecked and abandoned by the CO? Yes? :)

Link to comment

"...knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish...."

I am NOT talking about poor caches, or cheaply hidden caches. I found a great cache this summer that had not been found in over two years. Needless to say, the log was wet, so I replaced it, NO BIG DEAL. And I let the owner know, a great fellow cacher. Not only did I replace the log, I replaced it with a WATERPROOF paper log. Some of you remind me of the story of the "Good Samaritan" and you guys are the so called "Religious Leaders" who don't want to help. As for me and my house, we will HELP our fellow man! WOW has the caching community CHANGED in the last 13 years, and NOT for the better!

 

The OP is a power cacher who hides power trails of caches, and doesn't want to maintain those PT caches. Your original reply may have inadvertently supported his argument/reprimand that other people should take care of his cache hides.

Link to comment

"...knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish...."

I am NOT talking about poor caches, or cheaply hidden caches. I found a great cache this summer that had not been found in over two years. Needless to say, the log was wet, so I replaced it, NO BIG DEAL. And I let the owner know, a great fellow cacher. Not only did I replace the log, I replaced it with a WATERPROOF paper log. Some of you remind me of the story of the "Good Samaritan" and you guys are the so called "Religious Leaders" who don't want to help. As for me and my house, we will HELP our fellow man! WOW has the caching community CHANGED in the last 13 years, and NOT for the better!

 

If someone found my cache in bad shape, and instead of telling me about it, decided to replace my logbook with one of those awful waterproof books that doesn't work with ink, I'd be irritated. That's not being a "Good Samaritin." It's just presumptuous and unwelcome.

Link to comment

The OP is a power cacher who hides power trails of caches, and doesn't want to maintain those PT caches. Your original reply may have inadvertently supported his argument/reprimand that other people should take care of his cache hides.

 

You've read a lot into the original post. (And... this IS the OP you are replying to.)

 

How did you determine they don't want to maintain their PT caches? It is not written in the opening post (original reply?) or his other two posts nor did I see any notes to that effect on the few cache pages I scanned.

 

Reprimand? I sure didn't find that anywhere.

 

Looking for "doesn't want to maintain those PT caches" from the opening post:

 

While I agree that cache maintenance is important, and I try to do my best

"I try to do my best." Nope, that's not it.

 

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.

Nope. Not here either.

 

I think that all cachers should carry a few extra logs with them. I always have ten or more in my kit.

He has a kit. Presumably he uses it for cache maintenance and is demonstrating to us what he thinks others should do. This is not a request that others should maintain his caches. Groundspeak also recommends that we have a maintenance kit.

 

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 believe this is a general comment about all caches. Quoting it out of context and putting a little spin on it might produce what you are looking for but it can't really be used to accuse him of wanting you to maintain his caches for him.

Link to comment

If someone found my cache in bad shape, and instead of telling me about it, decided to replace my logbook with one of those awful waterproof books that doesn't work with ink, I'd be irritated.

This is actually a social game that you are playing with many other people, most of them fine folks, and they will sometimes do things that they think will help the game for the others who come along behind them and for the COs.

 

That you would be irritated with someone else's act of kindness is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they didn't get it the way you wanted it to be but they thought they were improving the situation.

 

That's not being a "Good Samaritin." It's just presumptuous and unwelcome.

I hope you would not write these comments to someone who does put W-I-T-R paper in one of your caches which, quite likely, could happen. They would presume they were improving the situation and would think that action would be welcome.

 

Just how bad would their actions be? You would have had to go out there to fix the original problem anyway so going out to replace the WP paper would not cost you any extra effort.

Link to comment
... it's still the cache owners responsibility to be diligent - watch comments in the cache, check on the cache when there are signs of trouble, especially if more logs come in reporting a wet log.

 

Could you show us? I am sure you are a diligent cache owner, since you speak with such authority about how it should be done. Perhaps a link to an example on one of your caches, where you received a NM log and went right out to fix it?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

"The OP is a power cacher who hides power trails of caches, and doesn't want to maintain those PT caches. Your original reply may have inadvertently supported his argument/reprimand that other people should take care of his cache hides. " Lone.R

 

Less than 15% of my cache finds are Power Trails. My uncle, age 75, came out this summer and wanted to do a power trail. So I took him out and did around 150 of the Route 66 and 302 of the H.E.L.L. power trail. He had a blast. And we had a good time, I am not sure how much longer he will be able to cache or how much longer I will have him in my life as he had a small stroke at the beginning of the year. I found my first cache in August, 2002, in Durango, CO and have since found caches in 17 states and 12 countries, including Russia, Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, etc.... I have found the OLDEST cache, Mingo. I have found the Original Cache Plaque. I have found and hidden caches at over 13,000 feet elevation. I know a LOT about caching, and enjoy helping my fellow cacher. I also replaced a cache of mine, YESTERDAY!

 

Look at https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2A0KE&title=bayfield-has-bridges-3&guid=ec3cb9b9-f19c-474d-8330-2d2bb3e5d0d8. About 200 finds and 58 Favorites. I have two short urban power trails, one has 10 caches, and one has 14 caches. Not exactly a true POWER TRAIL, but a fun little walk that takes a hour or two. And I maintain them meticulously.

Link to comment

 

Look at https://www.geocachi...0-2d2bb3e5d0d8. About 200 finds and 58 Favorites. I have two short urban power trails, one has 10 caches, and one has 14 caches. Not exactly a true POWER TRAIL, but a fun little walk that takes a hour or two. And I maintain them meticulously.

 

Oh my, a logbook (not a sheet) and an ammo can. Very nice.

Keep up the good work. :)

You've hidden a lot of caches, but I see that you're always monitoring your listings and responding to issues. Kudos.

 

I also have helped good caches and good cache owners. I've done my share of wiping out authentic Lock & Locks, ammo cans, pelican boxes, other gasketed caches. I've added some paper to tide the cache over until the cache owner can attend to the cache.

 

I feel strongly that responsible cache ownership is good for the game. Regular cache owner maintenance is good for the game. I will help out those cache owners that seem to feel the same way. Those that provide a good caching experience, complete with a quality cache container and haven't abandoned their cache.

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.

 

So, you have logged NM logs on more than half of your finds? Or don't you log NMs when the log needs replacing? (trick question, I know)

Link to comment
I feel strongly that responsible cache ownership is good for the game.

 

So do I. How about you show us that example I asked for, where you demonstrated good cache ownership on one of your own caches, so we can be assured that you are not asking other people to do something you're not willing to?

Edited by fizzymagic
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.

 

So, you have logged NM logs on more than half of your finds? Or don't you log NMs when the log needs replacing? (trick question, I know)

 

Not playing your game. Either maintain your caches or don't hide them. Your caches aren't my responsibility. Only my caches are my responsibility. And I don't care if that offends anyone. If one whines because I don't help maintain their caches, be sure to whine to someone that cares.

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.

 

So, you have logged NM logs on more than half of your finds? Or don't you log NMs when the log needs replacing? (trick question, I know)

 

Not playing your game. Either maintain your caches or don't hide them. Your caches aren't my responsibility. Only my caches are my responsibility. And I don't care if that offends anyone. If one whines because I don't help maintain their caches, be sure to whine to someone that cares.

 

No game. You said half. No, more than half. You know that I maintain my caches. I'm simply calling you out on your claim of "more than half". But I would agree with you if you said, "way too many".

Link to comment

I agree and let us all get over the fact that there are generous, albeit in my view, misguided people propping up caches that need to disappear and misguided people like my self who would like misguided COs to grow what it is ever needed to maintain their own caches so that we can all get back to enjoying the game. Have a good Christmas and hope you find many caches!

Link to comment

This really is a no brainer. I can usually look at a cache and get an indication of how well it's progressing. The container choice used is usually a give away as to whether i want to help. Replacing a log on a bad container is just prolonging the problem. I can also look at the logs of both the CO and finders to see if there is a pattern. It really doesn't take much research to figure out if the cache has ongoing problems and/or if a CO is active and doing maintenance. I certainly don't mind helping at times but i'm not going to if it's a junky cache with bad history.

Link to comment

If someone found my cache in bad shape, and instead of telling me about it, decided to replace my logbook with one of those awful waterproof books that doesn't work with ink, I'd be irritated.

This is actually a social game that you are playing with many other people, most of them fine folks, and they will sometimes do things that they think will help the game for the others who come along behind them and for the COs.

 

That you would be irritated with someone else's act of kindness is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they didn't get it the way you wanted it to be but they thought they were improving the situation.

 

That's not being a "Good Samaritin." It's just presumptuous and unwelcome.

I hope you would not write these comments to someone who does put W-I-T-R paper in one of your caches which, quite likely, could happen. They would presume they were improving the situation and would think that action would be welcome.

 

Just how bad would their actions be? You would have had to go out there to fix the original problem anyway so going out to replace the WP paper would not cost you any extra effort.

 

Happily, the cachers around here seem to be capable of using the social aspects of this website to shoot off a quick message before performing unsolicited and unwelcome "maintenance" on other people's caches.

Link to comment

I got tired of reading the back and forth and infighting about a third of the way down page 2. The forums seem to be devolving these days back to what they used to be back in 2007 when I first started, i.e., not a happy place. Lighten up, people.

 

Back on topic. As for my approach:

 

I carry spare logs when I can. I am judicious in their use. If I don't have a spare log, or if leaving one would make no use, then I log the best way I can and give the CO a heads up, either in my found it log or an NM log if it's appropriate. I always report if a log is getting full to give the CO a heads up.

 

As for owned caches, I always felt embarrassed when finders replaced my log for me. I appreciated it, but I felt lax. Of course, 9 times out of 10, when I would get the "full" log, I would discover that one side of the pages were full, the others were blank. Such is life. These days all but a few of our active caches are earthcaches, and we are reliant on local friends to maintain our few remaining physical caches, so we'd accept a replacement log on the three that might need one.

Link to comment

I might be at the extreme other end of the spectrum, but I am quite Liberal with adding new logs. It is just a personal issue but I like writing on a crisp, clean, new log. If the log is good that is there, I sign it. If it is really a crappy cache, I won't add a new log. But if the cache is a quality cache and the log is full or damaged, it doesn't bother me to add a new log sheet. The only time I actually remove a log is if it is a wet, moldy wad of mushy paper. I would guess that 95% of the time, I just add a new log IF it needs it. No harm, no foul. If the CO doesn't like it, they can remove it while doing Cache Maintenance.

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 agree

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