Found TB marked as "missing"

[djnva]

I found a TB yesterday and when I went to log it, I noticed it was marked as MISSING. I sent a message to the person that marked it as such (who was not listed as the owner) but have yet to hear back.

 

When I looked the TB up it showed that it seemed to be connected with an object, but there was no object with it.

 

What should I do to get it back in circulation?

[+justintim1999]

I found a TB yesterday and when I went to log it, I noticed it was marked as MISSING. I sent a message to the person that marked it as such (who was not listed as the owner) but have yet to hear back.

 

When I looked the TB up it showed that it seemed to be connected with an object, but there was no object with it.

 

What should I do to get it back in circulation?

 

It looks like the owner of the last cache the TB was in marked it as missing. Retrieve the travel bug by selecting "retrieved from somewhere else". This will remove it from the missing pile and place it in your possession. If your willing, send a message or e-mail to the TB owner explaining you have the TB and what it's current condition is. See what they want to do. If you receive no response I would try to attach something relevant to the tag and move it along.

[+dprovan]

It looks like the owner of the last cache the TB was in marked it as missing. Retrieve the travel bug by selecting "retrieved from somewhere else". This will remove it from the missing pile and place it in your possession. If your willing, send a message or e-mail to the TB owner explaining you have the TB and what it's current condition is. See what they want to do. If you receive no response I would try to attach something relevant to the tag and move it along.

Don't contact the TB's owner by e-mail: write the information into the grab log. There's no reason to keep this information secret, and every reason to make it part of the TB's history. If you want to give the TO time to ask you to do something other than move along what remains, you can put in the log that you'll hold on to it for N days just in case.

[djnva]

Okay thanks, sounds good. I appreciate the help.

[+justintim1999]

It looks like the owner of the last cache the TB was in marked it as missing. Retrieve the travel bug by selecting "retrieved from somewhere else". This will remove it from the missing pile and place it in your possession. If your willing, send a message or e-mail to the TB owner explaining you have the TB and what it's current condition is. See what they want to do. If you receive no response I would try to attach something relevant to the tag and move it along.

Don't contact the TB's owner by e-mail: write the information into the grab log. There's no reason to keep this information secret, and every reason to make it part of the TB's history. If you want to give the TO time to ask you to do something other than move along what remains, you can put in the log that you'll hold on to it for N days just in case.

 

What's the reason for not contacting the Travel bug owner directly via e-mail?

Edited January 7, 2016 by justintim1999

[+kunarion]

It looks like the owner of the last cache the TB was in marked it as missing. Retrieve the travel bug by selecting "retrieved from somewhere else". This will remove it from the missing pile and place it in your possession. If your willing, send a message or e-mail to the TB owner explaining you have the TB and what it's current condition is. See what they want to do. If you receive no response I would try to attach something relevant to the tag and move it along.

Don't contact the TB's owner by e-mail: write the information into the grab log. There's no reason to keep this information secret, and every reason to make it part of the TB's history. If you want to give the TO time to ask you to do something other than move along what remains, you can put in the log that you'll hold on to it for N days just in case.

 

What's the reason for not contacting the Travel bug owner directly via e-mail?

I like dprovan's response. The TB activity should be on the TB's page. The condition of the TB is suitable for a log. I would not suggest unitaterally adding any object to someone's TB tag (after all it is in play, it's evidently fine as is), but if I added an object, that most certainly is a log event, not for email.

 

The reason to not "contact the owner directly" is in the world of Groundspeak "email", you can't contact the owner directly. Most Geocachers do not use "email", rather "PM" which is a bootstrap version of anonymous email, through Groundspeak servers, to Internet email, and we know for sure messages get lost in either direction for a host of reasons.

 

If you post a log, and if the Owner can receive "email", the email happens along with the log.

Edited January 7, 2016 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

What's the reason for not contacting the Travel bug owner directly via e-mail?

The reason for contacting the TB owner though the grab log entry instead of via e-mail is that it creates a public record, something that might be useful for anyone interesting in the TB. Think, for example, about what happens if the OP contacts the TB owner privately, and the TB owner says to just move it along. Now the next person to find it discovers the same problem about the object no longer being there, so he contacts the TB owner privately and...

 

Besides, there's no downside: the OP has to log the grab anyway, so putting the information in the grab log is even easier than creating a separate e-mail. Similarly, the TB owner only has one e-mail to read instead of two, and that e-mail has the TB in the subject line instead of the OP's user name which won't mean anything to the TB owner.

 

The main point is that filing a log entry is contacting the owner, both for TBs and for caches. I think a lot of people forget that and think they have to send private e-mail even when there's nothing private about what they're saying.

[+fuzziebear3]

Glad that you found a missing one and are getting it back into the game!!

[+justintim1999]

What's the reason for not contacting the Travel bug owner directly via e-mail?

The reason for contacting the TB owner though the grab log entry instead of via e-mail is that it creates a public record, something that might be useful for anyone interesting in the TB. Think, for example, about what happens if the OP contacts the TB owner privately, and the TB owner says to just move it along. Now the next person to find it discovers the same problem about the object no longer being there, so he contacts the TB owner privately and...

 

Besides, there's no downside: the OP has to log the grab anyway, so putting the information in the grab log is even easier than creating a separate e-mail. Similarly, the TB owner only has one e-mail to read instead of two, and that e-mail has the TB in the subject line instead of the OP's user name which won't mean anything to the TB owner.

 

The main point is that filing a log entry is contacting the owner, both for TBs and for caches. I think a lot of people forget that and think they have to send private e-mail even when there's nothing private about what they're saying.

 

Makes sense. Thanks

[+Rincewind3]

Here's a scenario for you all: a newbie cacher has reached out on FB for help. She has located a TB that had gone missing in 2012. A proxy had been sent out in its place and is still live. For this reason she can't really release the original.

She emailed the owner BUT... it's a Jeep TB, the 'owner' isn't a geocache as such as these TBs were part of a competition (the profile shows the owner last logged on in 2004).

What does she do with the original TB?

I've about run out of ideas.

[+TriciaG]

Here's a scenario for you all: a newbie cacher has reached out on FB for help. She has located a TB that had gone missing in 2012. A proxy had been sent out in its place and is still live. For this reason she can't really release the original.

She emailed the owner BUT... it's a Jeep TB, the 'owner' isn't a geocache as such as these TBs were part of a competition (the profile shows the owner last logged on in 2004).

What does she do with the original TB?

I've about run out of ideas.

Ummm... keep it and watch the TB listing, and when the proxy goes missing, release the original?

 

EDIT: Or release the original, have two active TBs with the same code out there, and get everyone REALLY confused.

Edited January 13, 2016 by TriciaG

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Here's a scenario for you all: a newbie cacher has reached out on FB for help. She has located a TB that had gone missing in 2012. A proxy had been sent out in its place and is still live. For this reason she can't really release the original.

She emailed the owner BUT... it's a Jeep TB, the 'owner' isn't a geocache as such as these TBs were part of a competition (the profile shows the owner last logged on in 2004).

What does she do with the original TB?

I've about run out of ideas.

 

You mention that the TB was marked as missing in 2012, but the owner last logged on in 2004. So, it appears that there is a way to mark a TB as missing, yet not log on. This points out one the current 'holes' in the system. Not all geocaching activities require logging on, therefore looking at just the date last logged on is not a reliable indicator of whether or not a cacher is still active. You may want to look at the statistics for the owner, or look at their list of found geocaches to get a more accurate indication of whether they are still active.I would suggest sending an e-mail (don't use the message center, I believe that currently requires a person to log in to read), you might get lucky and get a reply.

 

Skye.

[+Auld Pharrrt]

Here's a scenario for you all: a newbie cacher has reached out on FB for help. She has located a TB that had gone missing in 2012. A proxy had been sent out in its place and is still live. For this reason she can't really release the original.

She emailed the owner BUT... it's a Jeep TB, the 'owner' isn't a geocache as such as these TBs were part of a competition (the profile shows the owner last logged on in 2004).

What does she do with the original TB?

I've about run out of ideas.

 

You mention that the TB was marked as missing in 2012, but the owner last logged on in 2004. So, it appears that there is a way to mark a TB as missing, yet not log on. This points out one the current 'holes' in the system. Not all geocaching activities require logging on, therefore looking at just the date last logged on is not a reliable indicator of whether or not a cacher is still active. You may want to look at the statistics for the owner, or look at their list of found geocaches to get a more accurate indication of whether they are still active.I would suggest sending an e-mail (don't use the message center, I believe that currently requires a person to log in to read), you might get lucky and get a reply.

 

Skye.

 

Sorry Skye, but there is more than one way to mark a TB as missing ... the TB owner can do it OR the cache owner it was last logged into. If said TB has gone missing from a cache, responsible cache owners check the cache physically to make sure it is not there then can mark it as missing (unknown location) therefore, the owner, who might not have logged on for years maybe knows nothing about it.

 

Personally, if it was me that found the original when a proxy copy is live I would add an NOTE to the TB's page telling everyone interested that this was the case. Then, if the owner is interested they can respond, OR if the next person to find the proxy agrees, they could destroy the proxy thereby allowing the original to go back into circulation.

 

More sensible answers might be forthcoming if we knew what the logs were prior to the original being found ... let us know which TB we are talking about.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Auld Pharrrt

[+fuzziebear3]

I would grab it from the current location/holder(as you have the 'real' one in your posession), and then drop it in the next cache I visit so it can move along.

 

Yes, there might be 2 active out there, but it will be okay anyway. The other proxy one might be also stuck. Or if not, the next person that finds it will see what happened, and can pull the proxy out of circulation if that is what is desired by the owner.

[+dprovan]

I would grab it from the current location/holder(as you have the 'real' one in your posession), and then drop it in the next cache I visit so it can move along.

Yeah, me, too. I've got the real TB in my possession, therefore the proxy is now invalid. Naturally I'd be very careful to explain in the log why I was making the grab, including how this long missing TB came into my possession and what makes me so sure it's the original.