Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
jonnycouk

"I replaced the log"

Recommended Posts

I've seen a number of caches where people have said they've replaced the log because it was wet.

 

What does this actually mean? I assume they've not taken away then existing log and replaced it with an empty one? Wouldn't this upset the CO? Or, where a damp log is found, is it considered good practice to remove the damp log altogether and put in a replacement?

Share this post


Link to post

I typed in "Replaced wet log" and got sixteen pages of threads on this subject in the search.

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen a number of caches where people have said they've replaced the log because it was wet.

 

What does this actually mean? I assume they've not taken away then existing log and replaced it with an empty one? Wouldn't this upset the CO? Or, where a damp log is found, is it considered good practice to remove the damp log altogether and put in a replacement?

Yes, that's what it means. It's kinda dumb since if the log you found is wet, the one you replace it with is just going to get wet, too.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks guys. I read (or read most of) the thread Cerberus1 offered up. I was if the mind not to interfere with someone elses cache, leave them to manage it. Maybe through a NM note. On the other hand, I found a cache that was full of water. I emptied it, dried it and messaged the CO. I heard nothing back.

 

In these cases, I've posted a Find but said I didn't sign the log.

 

Maybe a new flag of "Needs Maintenance" (a tick box when logging the Geocache in the App) would be nice then after x amount of logs, with this flag set to TRUE, this automatically raises a NM request with the CO?

Edited by jonnycouk

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks guys. I read (or read most of) the thread Cerberus1 offered up. I was if the mind not to interfere with someone elses cache, leave them to manage it. Maybe through a NM note. On the other hand, I found a cache that was full of water. I emptied it, dried it and messaged the CO. I heard nothing back.

 

In these cases, I've posted a Find but said I didn't sign the log.

 

Maybe a new flag of "Needs Maintenance" (a tick box when logging the Geocache in the App) would be nice then after x amount of logs, with this flag set to TRUE, this automatically raises a NM request with the CO?

 

The cache owner gets an email every time someone logs a find, a DNF, an NM, NA or a note.

 

If they ignore the 'wet log' in the found logs, and 'wet log' in the first NM log, it's unlikely that they'd respond to the 3rd new kind of NM flag. That's where the NA log comes in, it alerts the reviewer. Sometimes once the reviewer steps in, the cache owner pays attention and either fixes the cache (hopefully with a container that will keep the contents dry) or archives it themselves. The reviewer has more clout and can disable and eventually archive the cache if it continues to be ignored.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. But if I add a piece of paper (which will soon be wet), my signature is in the cache. Of course, I also add the NM.

 

I've seen a number of caches where people have said they've replaced the log because it was wet.

 

What does this actually mean? I assume they've not taken away then existing log and replaced it with an empty one? Wouldn't this upset the CO? Or, where a damp log is found, is it considered good practice to remove the damp log altogether and put in a replacement?

Yes, that's what it means. It's kinda dumb since if the log you found is wet, the one you replace it with is just going to get wet, too.

Share this post


Link to post

It's kinda dumb since if the log you found is wet, the one you replace it with is just going to get wet, too.

 

I make my repair logs from write in the rain paper and place them in little zip baggies. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I try to leave every cache the best I can so it's in the best condition for the next visitor. When I started Geocaching frequently, I put together a CamelBak Geocaching pack that I keep stocked with replacement logs of all sizes, plenty of replacement bags of all sizes, pens, camo duct tape, superglue, electrical tape,and a Leatherman. I never take the original log as this is the ONLY physical record of finders. I leave a brand new log in a brand new bag so the new log stays dry. I personally think this is best practice!

Share this post


Link to post

I try to leave every cache the best I can so it's in the best condition for the next visitor. When I started Geocaching frequently, I put together a CamelBak Geocaching pack that I keep stocked with replacement logs of all sizes, plenty of replacement bags of all sizes, pens, camo duct tape, superglue, electrical tape,and a Leatherman. I never take the original log as this is the ONLY physical record of finders. I leave a brand new log in a brand new bag so the new log stays dry. I personally think this is best practice!

 

I don't cary such a workshop with me but I always have a few spare zip bags, a notebook I can take a sheet of paper to make a temporary log and an adhesive tape (good for making ad hoc stripe logs).

As for the previous log, it depends. If it is unreadable anyway, I throw it out, if it was already a temporary thing (like a shopping receipt), I make a photo and attach it to my entry. If the cache can fit many logs I just add a new one. If the log is readable but the container won't fit any additional paper, I leave the cache as I found it (trying to log anywhere).

 

Despite what some are saying (if the CO doesn't maintain the cache it deserves to die) I think I went somewhere to find the cache and the others would like to do the same. It would be good if they could find something (especially that I still don't have caches on my own). E.g. there is a series around a very nice palace complex in Lower Silesia which attract cachers there to see it. The CO doesn't do any maintenance but it would be a shame if the caches vanished. I wouldn't have discovered the place if it weren't for that series.

Edited by TheVoytekBear

Share this post


Link to post

Some interesting views here. I've packed up a few "tools" to help a little if I can. I think I agree with TheVoytekBear's last but paragraph. I've seen a few nice places I'd now know existed if it weren't for the caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I carry around different logs and plastic baggies in my cache-bag to replace wet logs (its a wet winter here in Australia so I see a few).

 

If I cant dry out the old log, I put in a new log (with a note on the log saying its a 'replaced log'), write to the CO and take them home to dry. I take a photo of them and post an image to my 'Found' log for that cache and then send the original (and now dry) logs back to the CO if they want them.

 

auzzy_mate

Share this post


Link to post

I've found so many caches with completely wet, unreadable logs and the owners seem to have dropped off the face of the earth. I appreciate a nice fresh, dry log, and as a few have said, some of these are in really unique, cool places. Even if they are no longer maintained, and there are so many where the owner does not archive them, it would be nice for other geocacher's to find an intact cache. I do carry extra plastic bags, and I just added replacement logs to my backpack. If the log is complete mush, I replace them. If they are just damp, but still readable, I message the owner, and do not replace. If they are dry, but there is no more room to write, I will add a strip of new paper, and message the owner. I just don't understand why an owner, who no longer maintains the cache just doesn't archive them. It's not that difficult, and it would just be good geocaching manners to do so. I guess I have this unrealistic expectation, that all geocachers are good, ethical people, who care about the earth and care about their fellow geocachers. It seems this isn't always the case. So sad.

Share this post


Link to post

39ab8c37-71f3-4a71-877b-3ceaa377cec6_l.jpg

 

This was a very unpleasant find despite the fact that the last finder left a new log.

 

The cache owner was active, LOTS of cache hides, he just doesn't do maintenance. There were about 4 NMs on the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't replace logs. I started to do so when I first started out, but gave it up.

 

Usually when I'm caching, I'm also on my bicycle. I don't have room (or desire) to tote around spare logs, tape, etc.

 

I'm fortunate enough that I don't run into many logs I cannot sign. If I find a cache that needs maintenance, I log it as such.

 

The CO doesn't do any maintenance but it would be a shame if the caches vanished. I wouldn't have discovered the place if it weren't for that series.

My point of view is that if the caches get archived, another cacher can place new, maintained caches in the area. "Community-maintained-because-the-CO-doesn't" caches are not a service to the geocaching community, IMHO, as they are usually poorly maintained, if at all. It just causes the cache to limp along when a new cache could be placed (and actually maintained!) there.

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't seem there is an agreed upon solution to this problem. If the cachers are active, then why don't they maintain their own caches? I just don't understand. It seems like such a simple task.

Share this post


Link to post
I just don't understand why an owner, who no longer maintains the cache just doesn't archive them. It's not that difficult, and it would just be good geocaching manners to do so. I guess I have this unrealistic expectation, that all geocachers are good, ethical people, who care about the earth and care about their fellow geocachers. It seems this isn't always the case. So sad.

The CO (or spouse and/or kids of) could be in the hospital, or rehab, and "oh I gotta take care of my caches !" is the last concern, maybe for some time.

- Or dead.

 

It's not always about rude, unethical, uncaring people...

Share this post


Link to post
I just don't understand why an owner, who no longer maintains the cache just doesn't archive them. It's not that difficult, and it would just be good geocaching manners to do so. I guess I have this unrealistic expectation, that all geocachers are good, ethical people, who care about the earth and care about their fellow geocachers. It seems this isn't always the case. So sad.

The CO (or spouse and/or kids of) could be in the hospital, or rehab, and "oh I gotta take care of my caches !" is the last concern, maybe for some time.

- Or dead.

 

It's not always about rude, unethical, uncaring people...

 

There are a lot of incapacitated and dead geocachers out there. Many who still walk the trails (zombies) and plant and find more caches.

 

3c3af1c1c391a62054c35305c0bec042.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
The CO doesn't do any maintenance but it would be a shame if the caches vanished. I wouldn't have discovered the place if it weren't for that series.

My point of view is that if the caches get archived, another cacher can place new, maintained caches in the area. "Community-maintained-because-the-CO-doesn't" caches are not a service to the geocaching community, IMHO, as they are usually poorly maintained, if at all. It just causes the cache to limp along when a new cache could be placed (and actually maintained!) there.

I agree.

We've been to many awesome spots we'd never believe exist because of this silly hobby.

- Most popular enough that if a CO abandoned his "spot", it'd be grabbed in little time by another who (hopefully) would provide a maintenance plan not dependent on others. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I typed in "Replaced wet log" and got sixteen pages of threads on this subject in the search.

 

Hope you're not implying that an ancient zombie thread should have been imprudently bumped! :anibad:

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I typed in "Replaced wet log" and got sixteen pages of threads on this subject in the search.

 

Hope you're not implying that an ancient zombie thread should have been imprudently bumped! :anibad:

:ph34r:

Nope, no pots needing to be stirred here either...

 

Simply casually showing others that often information one is looking for can be found in a simple search. :)

Share this post


Link to post
I just don't understand why an owner, who no longer maintains the cache just doesn't archive them. It's not that difficult, and it would just be good geocaching manners to do so. I guess I have this unrealistic expectation, that all geocachers are good, ethical people, who care about the earth and care about their fellow geocachers. It seems this isn't always the case. So sad.

The CO (or spouse and/or kids of) could be in the hospital, or rehab, and "oh I gotta take care of my caches !" is the last concern, maybe for some time.

- Or dead.

 

It's not always about rude, unethical, uncaring people...

 

There are a lot of incapacitated and dead geocachers out there. Many who still walk the trails (zombies) and plant and find more caches.

 

3c3af1c1c391a62054c35305c0bec042.jpg

 

I always get a kick out of the concept of 'Zombies with Glasses'.

 

I can't keep mine from falling off, and I'm told I'm at least mostly alive.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I agree that sometimes there is a legitimate reason why a cache is not maintained...and hopefully, once out of the hospital or whatever the reason (except dead) the owner archives the cache if it cannot be maintained. But the person who commented above somewhere...saw there was activity by that geocacher, so by mere speculation...that geocacher has some other reason for not taking care of his/her cache. This is what eludes me.

Share this post


Link to post
The CO doesn't do any maintenance but it would be a shame if the caches vanished. I wouldn't have discovered the place if it weren't for that series.

My point of view is that if the caches get archived, another cacher can place new, maintained caches in the area. "Community-maintained-because-the-CO-doesn't" caches are not a service to the geocaching community, IMHO, as they are usually poorly maintained, if at all. It just causes the cache to limp along when a new cache could be placed (and actually maintained!) there.

I agree.

We've been to many awesome spots we'd never believe exist because of this silly hobby.

- Most popular enough that if a CO abandoned his "spot", it'd be grabbed in little time by another who (hopefully) would provide a maintenance plan not dependent on others. :)

 

That might be the case in saturated areas. The place I was writing about is located away from large cities. Except from a long bike PT there is a very low cache saturation. Two of the caches from that series are already archived and no one used the spots...

Share this post


Link to post
The CO doesn't do any maintenance but it would be a shame if the caches vanished. I wouldn't have discovered the place if it weren't for that series.

My point of view is that if the caches get archived, another cacher can place new, maintained caches in the area. "Community-maintained-because-the-CO-doesn't" caches are not a service to the geocaching community, IMHO, as they are usually poorly maintained, if at all. It just causes the cache to limp along when a new cache could be placed (and actually maintained!) there.

I agree.

We've been to many awesome spots we'd never believe exist because of this silly hobby.

- Most popular enough that if a CO abandoned his "spot", it'd be grabbed in little time by another who (hopefully) would provide a maintenance plan not dependent on others. :)

That might be the case in saturated areas. The place I was writing about is located away from large cities. Except from a long bike PT there is a very low cache saturation. Two of the caches from that series are already archived and no one used the spots...

Maybe if I lived near a large city I'd know what you're inferring. :)

It seems (to me) that often, the only reason some insist on keeping unmaintained caches going is simply due to their GC#, and challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't seem there is an agreed upon solution to this problem. If the cachers are active, then why don't they maintain their own caches? I just don't understand. It seems like such a simple task.

Well, I guess there's a little controversy, but I think the solution is clear: focus on the cache, report problems with the cache, suggest the cache needs to be archived. It makes no difference at all whether the CO is active, inactive, or dead. It makes no difference either way: if a community properly maintains a cache for a dear departed friend, there's no reason to act against it as long as there are no problems.

 

It's not always about rude, unethical, uncaring people...

This is a very important point. I always assume there are good reasons for people to act the way they do. I do it because I can't see any reason not to live in that rosy geocaching world whether it reflects reality or not, but maintaining that attitude also ensures that I don't accuse someone of being rude when the truth is they're merely dead.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I agree that sometimes there is a legitimate reason why a cache is not maintained...and hopefully, once out of the hospital or whatever the reason (except dead) the owner archives the cache if it cannot be maintained. But the person who commented above somewhere...saw there was activity by that geocacher, so by mere speculation...that geocacher has some other reason for not taking care of his/her cache. This is what eludes me.

 

One of the things I have always appreciated about the way the game is run is that it is fairly forgiving. If you flake out for a while and then come back, you can redeem yourself by getting your caches back in working order, and most geocachers will just be glad that you're back (the unforgiving ones are beneath regard). Reviewers always give plenty of time for response unless there's some sort of urgent issue that requires faster action, and you'll never have a reviewer tell you that you can't place a new cache because you dropped the ball on another cache three years ago or anything silly like that. What makes this game great is the variety of people who play it, and with variety in people comes variety in circumstance, ability, etc.

 

Instead of conducting these forensic investigations of someone's activity on the site, it's best to just focus on the problematic caches individually. It's not a good idea to get personal about it because you just don't know what is going on. You'll feel like a real heel if you're really hard on someone only to find out they've been stuck at home with a broken down car and a sick family member and just couldn't get to their caches outside walking distance. Or whatever. Things happen. Good geocachers forgive each other for a bit of poor cache maintenance and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
The CO doesn't do any maintenance but it would be a shame if the caches vanished. I wouldn't have discovered the place if it weren't for that series.

My point of view is that if the caches get archived, another cacher can place new, maintained caches in the area. "Community-maintained-because-the-CO-doesn't" caches are not a service to the geocaching community, IMHO, as they are usually poorly maintained, if at all. It just causes the cache to limp along when a new cache could be placed (and actually maintained!) there.

I agree.

We've been to many awesome spots we'd never believe exist because of this silly hobby.

- Most popular enough that if a CO abandoned his "spot", it'd be grabbed in little time by another who (hopefully) would provide a maintenance plan not dependent on others. :)

That might be the case in saturated areas. The place I was writing about is located away from large cities. Except from a long bike PT there is a very low cache saturation. Two of the caches from that series are already archived and no one used the spots...

Maybe if I lived near a large city I'd know what you're inferring. :)

It seems (to me) that often, the only reason some insist on keeping unmaintained caches going is simply due to their GC#, and challenges.

 

And because they believe themselves to uphold a set of principles as a finder - it's not a find until you sign a log, even if you supplied that log yourself.

Because of that principle, it makes it really difficult to weed the database of junk abandoned caches. And more and more caches look like the moldy mess in the cache photo above.

 

I don't really understand why people sign logs on PT trails. The cache owner is never going to check the logs. The logs are simply a formality. I bet most PT owners would rather "hide" virtuals every .1 miles if they could. Probably most finders wouldn't mind if their phone vibrated when they got near the spot and they could hit a 'capture' button instead of having to push through the scrub to sign a log (or drop a pre-signed film canister) nobody cares about. Not that I haven't done a few caches on PT trails and signed the logs, but I have started wondering about the futility of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I typed in "Replaced wet log" and got sixteen pages of threads on this subject in the search.

 

Hope you're not implying that an ancient zombie thread should have been imprudently bumped! :anibad:

:ph34r:

Nope, no pots needing to be stirred here either...

 

Simply casually showing others that often information one is looking for can be found in a simple search. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I use the forums on my phone. Where is the search on here? This looks like a bootstrapped, cut down version of the forum.

 

EDIT: I found more menus in the footer. I'll search next time.

Edited by jonnycouk

Share this post


Link to post

I use the forums on my phone. Where is the search on here? This looks like a bootstrapped, cut down version of the forum.

 

Yeah, you have to force your phone to call up the desktop version, otherwise it's terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Probably most finders wouldn't mind if their phone vibrated when they got near the spot and they could hit a 'capture' button instead of having to push through the scrub

You're too late, that is called "Pokemon Go". :D

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate folks that have a positive attitude no matter what the issue. And yes, I come across lots of wet, water filled containers. I clean them up the best I can and put in a fresh log, and notify the owner. It's nice to find a dry log to write on whenever possible. No matter what the reason for it's being abandoned, I enjoy the finds and greatly appreciate all the new adventures I've been on since starting caching. And while I am a factitious checker on my own cache's, only the universe knows what happened that led certain caches to be neglected.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate folks that have a positive attitude no matter what the issue. And yes, I come across lots of wet, water filled containers. I clean them up the best I can and put in a fresh log, and notify the owner. It's nice to find a dry log to write on whenever possible. No matter what the reason for it's being abandoned, I enjoy the finds and greatly appreciate all the new adventures I've been on since starting caching. And while I am a factitious checker on my own cache's, only the universe knows what happened that led certain caches to be neglected.

 

I like your positive attitude.

There is the occasional cache that is all-round quality with an owner that cares. Sometimes those caches accidentally end up wet. A wet authentic Lock&Lock ™ where the last finder left one of the tabs unlocked, or got the baggie caught in the lid. Wiping the cache down, and adding a dry logsheet would help a responsible cache owner tide the cache over until they can get out to have a closer look.

 

I would caution against putting a dry log in a cache owned by a CO who hides caches and then doesn't maintain them. It may encourage them to continue irresponsible and sometimes addictive cache ownership behaviour.

Encourage them to be responsible, like you and other cache owners who keep their caches clean as best they can.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate folks that have a positive attitude no matter what the issue. And yes, I come across lots of wet, water filled containers. I clean them up the best I can and put in a fresh log, and notify the owner. It's nice to find a dry log to write on whenever possible.

I'm not sure which positive attitude you're talking about, and I don't mind you adding fresh logs, but my positive attitude is that I still enjoy finding the cache even if the log is a mess, so it's OK for me for the log to stay a mess in case that turns out to foreshadow bigger maintenance lapses. For example, if the container's cracked and people keep replacing the log, the NA may never get posted even though all the new logs will continue to be a mess forever.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate folks that have a positive attitude no matter what the issue. And yes, I come across lots of wet, water filled containers. I clean them up the best I can and put in a fresh log, and notify the owner. It's nice to find a dry log to write on whenever possible.

I'm not sure which positive attitude you're talking about, and I don't mind you adding fresh logs, but my positive attitude is that I still enjoy finding the cache even if the log is a mess, so it's OK for me for the log to stay a mess in case that turns out to foreshadow bigger maintenance lapses. For example, if the container's cracked and people keep replacing the log, the NA may never get posted even though all the new logs will continue to be a mess forever.

+1

The last time I experienced this, there was a stack of pieces of paper (looked like bark) in the already-soaked baggy, in the water-filled gladware container, all just adding to the mess.

I did sharpie the top of that wad :D , and mine was the only NM.

Share this post


Link to post

Tricky subject.

 

Around here, it is fairly common practice for cachers to carry spare logs (often including plastic baggies), and if they find a very wet log, they will remove it and replace it with a new one. Then let the CO know they can have the old one if they like. How long this fix lasts depends on the state of the cache; sometimes a wet log is just because the container wasn't closed properly.

 

The cache owners who appreciate this the most are those with a lot of hides. I know some COs who have a lot, and while they do maintain them, they have to prioritize to keep up. So they will respond if the cache is broken, or appears missing; but a wet log (and especially a "damp log") will not get addressed, at least not in a timely manner. I'm happy to help out such a CO.

 

I have a small number of hides, and containers which should be waterproof. So if I see reports of wet logs I will investigate. But if someone replaces a log for me, I'm grateful.

 

A CO who is not active at all, and doesn't maintain, that's a different question. Often the "community" tries to keep it going, but in these cases it usually best to let it get archived eventually. Exceptions can be made for older caches with some history that the community wants to keep (though this is topic which has also been debated).

Share this post


Link to post

When I am contemplating a hide, I take into consideration where it is placed, and what the maintenance will require of me. If a log gets damp, I greatly appreciate a note, for sure. I just checked mine this week and I had a damp log. I replaced the log but figure it will get wet again because of the container. So, I'm replacing the container the next time I go out. I see the point being made that if a CO is not maintaining, and I replace a log, it will probably just get wet again without care....but I just can't help replace a pile of mush, even if it will eventually get wet again. It's like the cache is a homeless pet, and even though it will be hungry again, I just can't pass it by without feeding it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I agree that sometimes there is a legitimate reason why a cache is not maintained...and hopefully, once out of the hospital or whatever the reason (except dead) the owner archives the cache if it cannot be maintained. But the person who commented above somewhere...saw there was activity by that geocacher, so by mere speculation...that geocacher has some other reason for not taking care of his/her cache. This is what eludes me.

 

 

Instead of conducting these forensic investigations of someone's activity on the site, it's best to just focus on the problematic caches individually.

 

Perfectly worded....I love it.

Some folks will dig and find a CO's mothers maiden name of a second cousin once removed when they could have added a dry log in 5 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post

Tricky subject.

 

Around here, it is fairly common practice for cachers to carry spare logs (often including plastic baggies), and if they find a very wet log, they will remove it and replace it with a new one. Then let the CO know they can have the old one if they like. How long this fix lasts depends on the state of the cache; sometimes a wet log is just because the container wasn't closed properly.

 

The cache owners who appreciate this the most are those with a lot of hides. I know some COs who have a lot, and while they do maintain them, they have to prioritize to keep up. So they will respond if the cache is broken, or appears missing; but a wet log (and especially a "damp log") will not get addressed, at least not in a timely manner. I'm happy to help out such a CO.

 

I have a small number of hides, and containers which should be waterproof. So if I see reports of wet logs I will investigate. But if someone replaces a log for me, I'm grateful.

 

A CO who is not active at all, and doesn't maintain, that's a different question. Often the "community" tries to keep it going, but in these cases it usually best to let it get archived eventually. Exceptions can be made for older caches with some history that the community wants to keep (though this is topic which has also been debated).

 

+1 exactly.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...