Geo-juice cache. A good cache?

[+L0ne.R]

When asked if they would post an NA (there is one NM posted in 2016, 22 finds, the CO stopped playing in 2013), the person who found it a couple of weeks ago said, "But if you do it to explore, with geocaches being something that lures you to places you otherwise wouldn't have known existed, this is a good cache."

Agree or disagree? 

 

It looked like this in 2014.

 

[+niraD]

NM.

If there is already an unanswered NM (say, from 2014 when the earlier photo was taken), then NA.

Edit to add: I reread the OP and aw that there is already an NM, so: NA

Edited October 24, 2017 by niraD
addendum

[+K13]

NA.

If the location is that great, someone will likely place a new cache there.

[+J Grouchy]

Yes.  NA.

If the location is really that awesome, someone else can put a new cache there and hopefully do a better job of maintaining it.

[+J Grouchy]

2 minutes ago, K13 said:

NA.

If the location is that great, someone will likely place a new cache there.

HA!  Simultaneous posts that say almost the exact same thing!

[+Manville Possum]

I replaced a few just like it last week with new containers and logs because I enjoyed the location. 

[+K13]

13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

HA!  Simultaneous posts that say almost the exact same thing!

My Geocaching brother-from-another-mother!

[+L0ne.R]

What floors me is that anyone who found a cache in this state would not log an NA on this cache because they consider it a good cache. And that's after reading the consensus from  everyone who responded in the forum topic, that the cache is gross and needs to be archived. She won't log an NA.

Edited October 24, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+Manville Possum]

16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What floors me is that anyone who found a cache in this state would not log an NA on this cache because they consider it a good cache. And that's after reading the consensus from  everyone who responded in the forum topic, that the cache is gross and needs to be archived. She won't log an NA.

 

Well, logging NA may cause problems with that community. 

[+hzoi]

 

[+noncentric]

2 hours ago, K13 said:

If the location is that great, someone will likely place a new cache there.

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

If the location is really that awesome, someone else can put a new cache there and hopefully do a better job of maintaining it.

From what I've seen, whether an archived cache gets replaced (with a new cache listing) depends on how difficult it is to get to the location.  The Terrain rating.

A city park or other urban/suburban neighborhood, sure - someone will probably utilize a space that's free'd up when other caches are archived.  A rural/mountain trail that requires a hike to get to, nope - that trail is much less likely to see a new cache placed, regardless of how great a view or adventure it is to get there. From what I've seen.

 

[+noncentric]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

When asked if they would post an NA (there is one NM posted in 2016, 22 finds, the CO stopped playing in 2013), the person who found it a couple of weeks ago said, "But if you do it to explore, with geocaches being something that lures you to places you otherwise wouldn't have known existed, this is a good cache."

Agree or disagree?

Tough to answer without knowing where the cache is located.

I think there's some merit to the idea that a cache can be a "good cache", even if it's in "bad condition". But that's my opinion, and the great thing is that everyone is entitled to have their own opinion.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

7 minutes ago, noncentric said:

From what I've seen, whether an archived cache gets replaced (with a new cache listing) depends on how difficult it is to get to the location.  The Terrain rating.

A city park or other urban/suburban neighborhood, sure - someone will probably utilize a space that's free'd up when other caches are archived.  A rural/mountain trail that requires a hike to get to, nope - that trail is much less likely to see a new cache placed, regardless of how great a view or adventure it is to get there. From what I've seen.

Agreed.  The "free up the spot so that someone will place a better container that is maintained" argument doesn't really hold any water unless someone actually places a new cache at the same location.  I've seen the argument made about caches in a location that was miles away from the nearest other cache and there were likely many nearby spots which wouldn't have proximity issues that nobody had yet placed a cache.  There's a lot of open space out there where caches can be placed.

In this particular case, a cache in that condition isn't helping.  Imagine the new geocacher that is trying to game for the first time and decides to hike to that spot, and that is what they find.  To me, not having a cache at all at that location is better that what's there now.

[+geocat_]

Boy, considering the chronic condition of that cache, it would have to be one hell of a location for me to call it anything but trash!  NA!

[+boisestate]

Yeah that looks gross for sure...Cache maintenance is not too tough, this CO has obviously let the cache go. Archive for sure and If the location is amazing, someone else that is willing to maintain the cache should republish and maintain it.

Edited October 25, 2017 by boisestate

[+narcissa]

The cache needs to be NMed or NAed due to its condition.

The need for maintenance is not really relevant to whether or not it is a "good cache." The condition of the container has very little impact on my overall enjoyment of a geocaching excursion. This is a cache in need of maintenance. I don't know if it is good or bad overall.

If I was just interested in looking at squeaky clean containers, I would to the housewares department at Walmart.

[+MartyBartfast]

Another vote to NA, then someone else can put one up there if it's such a great area.