Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
garyo1954

Cleaning out a cache

Recommended Posts

Had a cache bugging me.

The first time I found it, the log was soaked. There was other waterlogged paper that was nothing but pulp in the bottom. Being new I just signed a piece of paper, left some swag.

Then two things happened. It was suppose to contain a Suncatcher Geocoin which I didn't see.
And we had a couple of days bad thunderstorms.

Went to check it today. Yes, took a roll of toilet tissue and a box of ziplocks.

Removed everything. Separated the rusty metal and paper balls from what was in good shape.
Wiped it thoroughly and replaced the log with a pocket notebook in a ziplock.

No coin.

So what do you do with all the wet paper and rusty metal whatnot? (I put it in a second ziplock and brought it home, but not sure if that's the right thing to do.)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Your last two finds seem to be neglected caches with ongoing maintenance issues. They already have an NM on them from a previous finder. If I were you I would left them as they were and log a NA (Needs Archive). With experience, you will find that maintaining caches like these is wasted effort because they will keep on deteriorating due to the continuing issue of poor/broken containers. Best to put them out of their misery. We were like you when we started out but eventually came to our senses.

If they do get archived and you like the spots you may want to place a (better) cache of your own.

As for the whatnot, bin it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I normally don't "maintain" caches not mine.  Maybe a piece of RiR paper in baggie (with a NM) that'll hold until the COs can do it themselves.

  - Too late for you, so if it doesn't have anything to do with the cache (as in the log, or "what is geocaching?" card) and now just a buncha carp,  I'd take it home and pitch it.

If in a good mood, and the container looks like it might hold up for a while, you might put swag in as a replacement if you sorta feel guilty about removing all that carp, but I think most would be happy that it got some sorta maintenance by somebody.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

So what do you do with all the wet paper and rusty metal whatnot?

Take a picture of the old log and attach it to your log. I hope that your effort to take care the cache will be recognized with new finds. This is a very good exercise before you make your own caches.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

You didn't say, did you mention "no coin" in your log?  You can leave a Write Note on that trackable's page as well (without having to know that code).

Maybe the TO is a bit more awake than the CO and take notice.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

arisoft, that is a good idea. Making an effort to let them know what was removed will make me feel better too.

cerberus1, wrote a note that the log was replaced.

I'll do the picture, edit the log and write a note on the coin page.

I tried to contact this owner a couple of weeks ago to adopt a cache since they are no longer in the area. They haven't logged in since June, 2015. No response.

Thanks!

 



 

Share this post


Link to post

The date showing the last time they logged in to the site DOES NOT account for times they may have viewed/logged in via an app, so you can discount that bit of information.  Their lack of response to logs or notes may be a personal issue. 

Log a Needs Maintenance relating your experience with the cache. If they don't respond in a month or so, log a NA.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, K13 said:

The date showing the last time they logged in to the site DOES NOT account for times they may have viewed/logged in via an app, so you can discount that bit of information.  Their lack of response to logs or notes may be a personal issue. 

Log a Needs Maintenance relating your experience with the cache. If they don't respond in a month or so, log a NA.

Good to know K13. Wasn't aware they could do that.

I probably need to take a step back for a bit and reconsider. I am learning that messaging doesn't work to get their attention.

Since we were rained out, got four Sterlite boxes and a roll of camo duct tape thinking to replace some of the missing caches. 
Then saw the word "throwdown."
And read the word "enabler."

Second thoughts set in. Perhaps these owners are relying on the community to replace and maintain that cache while reserving that spot for them in case they ever choose to make use of it again.

It would be quite a letdown to place a cache and maintain it to suddenly find it missing with one from the neglectful owner who suddenly decided they wanted to use that spot again. 

And from the overall perspective it would be a bit childish for me to harbor ill feeling toward someone who reserved a spot years ago whether they use it or not. I suspect the same is true of my expectation that they would drop a message back, or pay attention to a log entry. I can accept a person gets attached to a spot they planted a cache being reluctant to give it up. And its their choice whether they read a log or respond to a message.

What's left then is to find new spots, place and maintain caches in those, ignoring the ones in disrepair and missing. Don't know how many times I have to read it until it sinks in, but some leave the area and some leave the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 4:14 PM, arisoft said:

Take a picture of the old log and attach it to your log. I hope that your effort to take care the cache will be recognized with new finds. This is a very good exercise before you make your own caches.

This is a terrible exercise.   Maintaining someone else's cache doesn't fix the bigger problem which is absentee cache owners.   Eventually someone else will find the same mess you did.  Better to post another Needs Maintenance  or even an Needs Archived.  If the current cache owner really want's to be a cache owner they'll get out there and fix it up.  If not than better it's removed from play and open up the space for another cacher who may actually care enough to maintain it.  

Don't get me wrong, like Cerberus1 I sometimes will add a new log or remove something that's particularly horrifying.  Either way I always post a NM because letting the owner know that their cache needs attention is the best help I can give them.   Fixing up their cache just enables them to continue doing nothing.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

This is a terrible exercise.   Maintaining someone else's cache doesn't fix the bigger problem which is absentee cache owners.

The reason for the exercise is to learn, not solve a problem. The problem is not the absentee cache owner but the existing cache seekers. The owner is completely innocent of the situation in the most cases. This is the lesson you can get from the exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The reason for the exercise is to learn, not solve a problem. The problem is not the absentee cache owner but the existing cache seekers. The owner is completely innocent of the situation in the most cases. This is the lesson you can get from the exercise.

Your encouraging the practice of maintaining someone else's cache.   What are they to learn from that?    It's ok to ignore your own cache because someone else will fix it for me?   Sorry but I don't buy the owner is completely innocent of the situation in most cases.  I also don't by that the owner is unaware of the situation in most cases.  Advising cachers to fix up and clean out someone else's cache is not good advice.   

I admit I did it for a while when I first started until I realized what I was really  doing was enabling bad cache owner to continue to own caches.

The best advice I could give the OP is to consistently post the right logs based on your experience.   In this case post a NM or a NA.  One of two things will happen.   The owner will fix the cache and we'll all be happy.   A reviewer will disable it and archive it if the cache owner doesn't fix it up and we'll all be happy.   

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The reason for the exercise is to learn, not solve a problem. The problem is not the absentee cache owner but the existing cache seekers. The owner is completely innocent of the situation in the most cases. This is the lesson you can get from the exercise.

I agree with justintim1999.
I gave it serious thought. There may be a few exceptions but for the most part, it is better to remove these abandoned/ill cared for caches. Its geo-garbage or whatever euphemism you prefer.

I disagree that the players are responsible. If you agree to place and maintain a cache, you (the owner) is responsible. 
You can't place blame on the players for not performing proper owner maintenance. 

Looking at the top ten caches with the most days out, five belong to one owner, two belong to another owner. The other three are by three others.

If you read the logs for these caches, there is some commonality. For example, one log shows....

3/18/2017 looked all over. GPS was jumping around like crazy. Maybe we will revisit another day.
3/20/2017 (same person) Looked twice, for more than an hour. the only idea is a hole in a tree trunk full of water.....we'd like a hint.....
3/24/2017 (different person) Went out on two separate occasion.....weren't able to find it. Was wondering if the owner would go out an check on it?

How do you blame the cache seekers? They looked, didn't find. Made polite logs, asking the owner to do his part.
Over a year ago. Nothing from the owner.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

How do you blame the cache seekers?

It is not the CO who breaks the cache or leaves the lid open. It must be someone else.

By fixing a cache one can learn how many visitors it will last until it is broken again. By using this knowledge one can decide is it worth of doing any similar geocaches. All experiences are valuable before you make your own caches.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

It is not the CO who breaks the cache or leaves the lid open. It must be someone else.

By fixing a cache one can learn how many visitors it will last until it is broken again. By using this knowledge one can decide is it worth of doing any similar geocaches. All experiences are valuable before you make your own caches.

Ahhh...you're speaking to a specific situation.

The cache in the original post is a plastic pickle jar. Those don't have a proper airtight seal so condensation develops inside causing the damage, mold/mildew build up. Form-a-Gasket or making a gasket from cork material might work, but I would replace the whole thing.

The site has so much history. One of the oldest cemeteries in Texas, site of one of the oldest churches, soldiers from the Texas Army and confederates interred there. Great place for a cache.

And here's the BUT......

The owner has left the area, hasn't responded to messages......AND may well hand the adoption over to someone else at any given time. 

To be clear no matter what a seeker did, the cache would come to disrepair without constant maintenance.

Edited by garyo1954
add comment
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

The cache in the original post is a plastic pickle jar. Those don't have a proper airtight seal so condensation develops inside causing the damage, mold/mildew build up. Form-a-Gasket or making a gasket from cork material might work, but I would replace the whole thing.

You will find that airtight is not always the answer of all problems. Mostly because geocachers do not close the container airtight for several reasons. PET-preforms should be almost the ultimate cache type what comes to being airtight but you can find a one filled with water because a geocacher made a hole to the cap to lift the cache out from the hole using a screw. The basic case is that a geocacher forget to close the cap tightly. With other container types the airtightness degrades due to dirt exposed to the seal by putting the lid onto ground. The basic maintenance is to clean the seal periodically after some visitors to keep it airtight. Let's keep the bad CO busy and not to clean the seal. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You will find that airtight is not always the answer of all problems. Mostly because geocachers do not close the container airtight for several reasons. PET-preforms should be almost the ultimate cache type what comes to being airtight but you can find a one filled with water because a geocacher made a hole to the cap to lift the cache out from the hole using a screw. The basic case is that a geocacher forget to close the cap tightly. With other container types the airtightness degrades due to dirt exposed to the seal by putting the lid onto ground. The basic maintenance is to clean the seal periodically after some visitors to keep it airtight. Let's keep the bad CO busy and not to clean the seal. ;)

Again, you're talking specific situations which do not apply in this case. This particular cache is 5 foot off the ground, nestled between branches, well protected from rain and sunlight.

None of the caches I've seen had holes in the cap. Even the one quite literally stuffed into a branch was easily removed with a twist. So again you're pointing to a specific case. One that doesn't appear to be the norm.

Naturally we have to go back to the your word bad/my choice absentee CO since it is by agreement the job of the CO to maintain the cache.

But then, maybe what you are referring too is the norm. How many owners put out caches expecting others to replace the logs, clean the mold/mildew, replace the canister when necessary, and perform all the tasks the owner otherwise agrees to do?

If that is the norm then many of these caches are going to rot into the ground before they get repaired. Too, if the owner doesn't care to maintain it, then why not disable it? Why not archive it and give up that spot? Why rely on others to fulfill your obligation?

Nope, seekers are the least responsible. They are generally the persons who point out the need of maintenance and the missing contents and/or even the missing cache. If an owner were responsible there would not be a year of DNF, Missing and NM logs. Think about it:

How hard is it when your neighbor calls and says, "I noticed your water hose was on" to go out and make sure you turned it off. And you would without hesitation go out and check, I'm sure.

I have found a total of one cache with no top/no lid. How does a cache lose a lid? In that case I would agree. Somebody didn't pay attention to what they were doing. Or the cache never had a lid (It was in a secure high and dry location that may not have closed if it had one).


 

Edited by garyo1954
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

But then, maybe what you are referring too is the norm. How many owners put out caches expecting others to replace the logs, clean the mold/mildew, replace the canister when necessary, and perform all the tasks the owner otherwise agrees to do?

I guess no cache owner relies on other geocachers to help but all of them, after getting some experience, relies on that what ever they do some geocacher will break it for sure, earlier or later. At least, some will expose the cache to muggles and then it may disappear shortly.

Fixing the cache is not favor to the absent cache owner but the next finder if the cache is worth of it. I fixed one broken cache eight years ago by replacing the container and it is still on-line. Once the log was wet but it has dried itself.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

But then, maybe what you are referring too is the norm. How many owners put out caches expecting others to replace the logs, clean the mold/mildew, replace the canister when necessary, and perform all the tasks the owner otherwise agrees to do?

Honestly, I don't think that most CO's intend for others to maintain their cache for them. I think that what happens is that some CO's place caches without realizing how much maintenance is really required. They place a cache thinking it's going to be easy to maintain and they'll just pop down to visit it when needed, but then something goes wrong and they just can't get motivated enough to go deal with it.  Or they go and fix it and then something goes wrong again, and again, and again, and then they just get fed up with it and ignore it.

And there are CO's that may intend to fix their cache when someone tells them there's a problem, but then another cacher goes ahead and fixes it for them before they get to it. Great for them. Saves them a trip. They shouldn't be deemed irresponsible because someone else went ahead and fixed their cache for them.

 

52 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

If that is the norm then many of these caches are going to rot into the ground before they get repaired. Too, if the owner doesn't care to maintain it, then why not disable it? Why not archive it and give up that spot? Why rely on others to fulfill your obligation?

Mostly because owners are no longer 'in the game'.  If someone has given up geocaching, or has died, then of course they aren't going to log into the website to disable/archive/adopt out the cache. They're checked out. They don't care anymore. They don't care to fix it, or to do anything with it.

 

52 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Nope, seekers are the least responsible. They are generally the persons who point out the need of maintenance and the missing contents and/or even the missing cache. If an owner were responsible there would not be a year of DNF, Missing and NM logs. Think about it:

For the specific cemetery cache you mentioned, it could be argued that seekers are responsible to flag the cache as being in disrepair.  There were logs going back 2 years where cachers mentioned in their Found It logs that there were issues, but it wasn't until a few months ago that someone finally logged an NM.  The area where cache seekers are responsible is that they should (1) flag caches with NM, instead of just a Found It log, when a cache needs TLC from the CO and (2) exercise care in retrieving/replacing the cache to avoid damaging the container in such a way that it is more prone to problems than when the CO placed it.

 

52 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

I have found a total of one cache with no top/no lid. How does a cache lose a lid? In that case I would agree. Somebody didn't pay attention to what they were doing. Or the cache never had a lid (It was in a secure high and dry location that may not have closed if it had one).

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but you are a very new cacher. When you say that you've only seen 1 cache without a lid, then imagine how many a cacher with 1000 finds might've seen.  1/16 --> 60+/1000   I have seen lid issues because cachers put swag into a container that was too big for the container, so the lid wouldn't close correctly. I've seen cachers close lids with a piece of swag or plastic bag in the threads of the lid, which allows moisture to seep in.  I've also found caches where I promptly dropped the lid into the grass and spent more time looking for the lid than I'd spent finding the cache in the first place.

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Fixing the cache is not favor to the absent cache owner but the next finder if the cache is worth of it.

Uggghh. The number of times cachers have "fixed" caches for the next cacher and what I see is a wet moldy cache with a dry bit of paper inside. It is no favor to me. In fact, I would have preferred to skip it. Funny how those people who leave a dry bit of paper never remove the moldy mess, and wipe down the container. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I guess no cache owner relies on other geocachers to help but all of them, after getting some experience, relies on that what ever they do some geocacher will break it for sure, earlier or later. At least, some will expose the cache to muggles and then it may disappear shortly.

Fixing the cache is not favor to the absent cache owner but the next finder if the cache is worth of it. I fixed one broken cache eight years ago by replacing the container and it is still on-line. Once the log was wet but it has dried itself.

You're making excuses for absentee owners which doesn't solve the problem.
And pointing the fingers at the people who most often are going to let you know something is amiss.

If you feel someone is going to break it, just don't put any out. If people keep breaking it, disable it or archive it.
At the same time, don't expect others to do the job you agreed to do when you placed the cache.

Its like that water hose, it doesn't matter how it got turned on, you are going to turn it off because it is your responsibility (since you pay the bill).

Whatever the cause of the disrepair, you, the owner have an agreement which makes, you, the owner is ultimately responsible.
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I've also found caches where I promptly dropped the lid into the grass and spent more time looking for the lid than I'd spent finding the cache in the first place.

I hate it when that happens. :)

I've also found an ammo can with the lid unlatched. There was nothing wrong with it. Someone just couldn't figure out how to relatch it.

And I've seen newbies, who were geocaching with me, stare in horror when the ammo-can lid came off the hinge after they had just opened it. They thought they had somehow broken an all-metal cache container.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

If you feel someone is going to break it, just don't put any out. If people keep breaking it, disable it or archive it.
At the same time, don't expect others to do the job you agreed to do when you placed the cache.

Again, I think it's often the case that CO's don't realize the problems that are going to arise when they place a cache. I think that's what arisoft means, partly, when he says this is a learning experience for cachers that want to become CO's.  Seeing the issues that arise with caches they find helps them learn what may, or may not, work with caches that they place in the future.

Some cachers come to the forums to mention their 'great idea' for a cache, only to have more experienced cachers tell them all the problems they are likely to face with their 'great idea' container or location.

 

16 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Its like that water hose, it doesn't matter how it got turned on, you are going to turn it off because it is your responsibility (since you pay the bill).

Whatever the cause of the disrepair, you, the owner have an agreement which makes, you, the owner is ultimately responsible.

The problem with your water hose analogy is that you're incentivized to turn off the hose because leaving it running costs you money.  For CO's that don't care about their caches, there is no penalty for not fixing the cache.

And yes, the CO's are ultimately responsible, but the problem is that some of them just don't care.

 

14 minutes ago, niraD said:

I've also found an ammo can with the lid unlatched. There was nothing wrong with it. Someone just couldn't figure out how to relatch it.

Ah yes, I've seen that a few times as well.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, noncentric said:

Honestly, I don't think that most CO's intend for others to maintain their cache for them. I think that what happens is that some CO's place caches without realizing how much maintenance is really required. They place a cache thinking it's going to be easy to maintain and they'll just pop down to visit it when needed, but then something goes wrong and they just can't get motivated enough to go deal with it.  Or they go and fix it and then something goes wrong again, and again, and again, and then they just get fed up with it and ignore it.

And there are CO's that may intend to fix their cache when someone tells them there's a problem, but then another cacher goes ahead and fixes it for them before they get to it. Great for them. Saves them a trip. They shouldn't be deemed irresponsible because someone else went ahead and fixed their cache for them.

 

Mostly because owners are no longer 'in the game'.  If someone has given up geocaching, or has died, then of course they aren't going to log into the website to disable/archive/adopt out the cache. They're checked out. They don't care anymore. They don't care to fix it, or to do anything with it.

 

For the specific cemetery cache you mentioned, it could be argued that seekers are responsible to flag the cache as being in disrepair.  There were logs going back 2 years where cachers mentioned in their Found It logs that there were issues, but it wasn't until a few months ago that someone finally logged an NM.  The area where cache seekers are responsible is that they should (1) flag caches with NM, instead of just a Found It log, and (2) exercise care in retrieving/replacing the cache to avoid damaging the container in such a way that it is more prone to problems than when the CO placed it.

 

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but you are a very new cacher. When you say that you've only seen 1 cache without a lid, then imagine how many a cacher with 1000 finds might've seen.  1/16 --> 60+/1000   I have seen lid issues because cachers put swag into a container that was too big for the container, so the lid wouldn't close correctly. I've seen cachers close lids with a piece of swag or plastic bag in the threads of the lid, which allows moisture to seep in.  I've also found caches where I promptly dropped the lid into the grass and spent more time looking for the lid than I'd spent finding the cache in the first place.

I don't take anything as snarky. Being new is a fact. Doing numbers and looking at logs for a month isn't the same as practical experience, granted.

The log I just quoted is over a year of nothing being done. No one (to my knowledge) has even looked for that cache in over a year. Not a week, not a month, not six months. One Whole Year with not a peep from the owner. If that's not being absent, then I don't know what to call it.

Arguments don't bring solutions. They bring more arguments. The cemetery owner knew they were leaving the area. They knew they wouldn't be able to perform maintenance and yet did nothing to disable/archive this cache. Although they did offer some (not that one) for adoption. But if they knew they couldn't do maintenance on the others, how did they expect to maintain this one? That's poor decision making on the owners part. Irresponsible actions. Your choice.

I make no excuses for being new.

But being new doesn't change the logs that show the owners aren't doing what they agreed to do. Being new doesn't make me oblivious to the need for people to be responsible for their caches. And new doesn't mean I can't look at a log and see it was missing in 2015, logged as a DNF in 2016, and (it appears) no one has looked for it since.

These are things I use to determine if I want to make a 30/50 mile drive to see if it is still there/if it is in good shape.

Fresh eyes sometimes see things in a new way. And that can't be all bad. But logs tell a story about a cache. When you see three DNFs, one Found, and three more DNFs, you know there is something not right.

Edited by garyo1954
remove extraeous spaces

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Arguments don't bring solutions. They bring more arguments. The cemetery owner knew they were leaving the area. They knew they wouldn't be able to perform maintenance and yet did nothing to disable/archive this cache. Although they did offer some (not that one) for adoption. But if they knew they couldn't do maintenance on the others, how did they expect to maintain this one? That's poor decision making on the owners part. Irresponsible actions. Your choice.

Maybe we're talking about different cemetery caches.  The one I looked at in your find history is from a CO that had 2 other caches and those caches didn't have any mention in their logs about them leaving the area or offering the caches for adoption.

 

3 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

The log I just quoted is over a year of nothing being done. No one (to my knowledge) has even looked for that cache in over a year. Not a week, not a month, not six months. One Whole Year with not a peep from the owner. If that's not being absent, then I don't know what to call it.

I don't know what cache this is, but if the CO is absent, then they're absent. Not sure that we disagree there.  There are plenty of caches with CO's that are no longer in the game. That doesn't mean that all of those caches are problematic. I prefer to evaluate each cache individually. Some have active owners and are in bad shape, some have inactive owners and are in great shape. I try not to generalize.

And caches that haven't been logged in a year doesn't mean much to me without full context of what that cache is. I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

 

3 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

I don't take anything as snarky. Being new is a fact. Doing numbers and looking at logs for a month isn't the same as practical experience, granted.
...

But being new doesn't change the logs that show the owners aren't doing what they agreed to do. Being new doesn't make me oblivious to the need for people to be responsible for their caches. And new doesn't mean I can't look at a log and see it was missing in 2015, logged as a DNF in 2016, and (it appears) no one has looked for it since.

Fresh eyes sometimes see things in a new way. And that can't be all bad.

My comment about you being new was specifically about the "no lid" comment you made. I wasn't saying that your being new was related to all the other things in your post. Fresh eyes are great. Experience is great. It's all good.

I'm not sure which cache is the one that missing in 2015, DNF'd in 2016, and not searched since then.  Is it possible that it's a difficult cache and the "missing in 2015" was just a seeker's opinion that it was missing, not a confirmation that it was missing.  Is it possible the 2015 and 2016 cachers simply missed it?  I've certainly found plenty of caches that had been deemed missing by previous seekers, even though the cache was right there.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

When you see three DNFs, one Found, and three more DNFs, you know there is something not right.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I've found well-camouflaged "hidden in plain sight" caches with high difficulty ratings, where multiple DNF logs in a row was normal and routine, and not at all a sign of "something not right". There are a number of those among my Favorites.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, noncentric said:

The problem with your water hose analogy is that you're incentivized to turn off the hose because leaving it running costs you money.  For CO's that don't care about their caches, there is no penalty for not fixing the cache.

And yes, the CO's are ultimately responsible, but the problem is that some of them just don't care.

 

I see the fact it cost you money as an incentive. It doesn't detract from the example. You are responsible both the water hose and the cache. It's about being responsible for both. But have it as you like.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Maybe we're talking about different cemetery caches.  The one I looked at in your find history is from a CO that had 2 other caches and those caches didn't have any mention in their logs about them leaving the area or offering the caches for adoption.

 

I don't know what cache this is, but if the CO is absent, then they're absent. Not sure that we disagree there.  There are plenty of caches with CO's that are no longer in the game. That doesn't mean that all of those caches are problematic. I prefer to evaluate each cache individually. Some have active owners and are in bad shape, some have inactive owners and are in great shape. I try not to generalize.

And caches that haven't been logged in a year doesn't mean much to me without full context of what that cache is. I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

 

My comment about you being new was specifically about the "no lid" comment you made. I wasn't saying that your being new was related to all the other things in your post. Fresh eyes are great. Experience is great. It's all good.

I'm not sure which cache is the one that missing in 2015, DNF'd in 2016, and not searched since then.  Is it possible that it's a difficult cache and the "missing in 2015" was just a seeker's opinion that it was missing, not a confirmation that it was missing.  Is it possible the 2015 and 2016 cachers simply missed it?  I've certainly found plenty of caches that had been deemed missing by previous seekers, even though the cache was right there.

I'm beginning to feel you get the impression I don't know my area and don't know how to read logs or descriptions.
That will get on my bad side right quick.

I may be new, but I'm not stupid. I've logged several cemeteries. Perhaps you aren't looking at the right one. But to question it simply because you can't find it is to say, "I don't believe you." And if you don't believe me, that's fine. I'm not in need of wanting people to believe me. But I'll go out and get pictures of the container and find the listings if you feel its necessary. I'm not going to call out people by name since some very negative connotations have been brought up, which wasn't my intent, or my doing. Name calling is completely unnecessary.

I will say for the record when an owner is asked for a hint, and asked to check the cache, and a year later has not not responded......that is irresponsible. (Or the owner is not in the game any longer).

You'll notice I didn't post all top ten longest not found caches. That's the reason you don't know which cache the 2015/2016 is.

It would be far easier if you make your reply in accordance with whatever point you don't understand than to have three or four point to address. I think that's where the confusion sets in and it becomes a matter of going from fire to fire without putting out any.





 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

I'm beginning to feel you get the impression I don't know my area and don't know how to read logs or descriptions.
That will get on my bad side right quick.

I may be new, but I'm not stupid. I've logged several cemeteries. Perhaps you aren't looking at the right one. But to question it simply because you can't find it is to say, "I don't believe you." And if you don't believe me, that's fine. I'm not in need of wanting people to believe me. But I'll go out and get pictures of the container and find the listings if you feel its necessary. I'm not going to call out people by name since some very negative connotations have been brought up, which wasn't my intent, or my doing. Name calling is completely unnecessary.

I'm beginning to feel that you are getting a bit too defensive.  Where did I suggest that you don't know how to read logs or descriptions?  It's quite the stretch to assume that my comment about looking at the wrong cemetery cache means that "I don't believe you."   Geez.   I was saying that I might be evaluating the wrong cache and so might be speaking out of turn.

 

11 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

I will say for the record when an owner is asked for a hint, and asked to check the cache, and a year later has not not responded......that is irresponsible. (Or the owner is not in the game any longer).

Yes.  And as I said  "I don't know what cache this is, but if the CO is absent, then they're absent. Not sure that we disagree there."  Not sure why the animosity in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I'm beginning to feel that you are getting a bit too defensive.  Where did I suggest that you don't know how to read logs or descriptions?  It's quite the stretch to assume that my comment about looking at the wrong cemetery cache means that "I don't believe you."   Geez.   I was saying that I might be evaluating the wrong cache and so might be speaking out of turn.

 

Yes.  And as I said  "I don't know what cache this is, but if the CO is absent, then they're absent. Not sure that we disagree there."  Not sure why the animosity in your post.

You got me there...was busy sending a message...........(shakes head).

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 6:24 PM, arisoft said:

I guess no cache owner relies on other geocachers to help but all of them, after getting some experience, relies on that what ever they do some geocacher will break it for sure, earlier or later. At least, some will expose the cache to muggles and then it may disappear shortly.

Fixing the cache is not favor to the absent cache owner but the next finder if the cache is worth of it. I fixed one broken cache eight years ago by replacing the container and it is still on-line. Once the log was wet but it has dried itself.

Having to fix caches from time to time is part of the job of cache owner.   It's what we signed up for when we hit that submit button.   Fixing up the cache may help the next finder,  but what about the finder after that?    If nothing else we need to be consistent in how and when we log MN's.  Keep in mind a NM is not a black eye on a cache and it's certainly shouldn't be an inconvenience to a cache owner. 

 Ask yourself "if it were my cache wouldn't I want someone to tell me when something was wrong with it?"          

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:52 PM, niraD said:

Maybe. Maybe not.

I've found well-camouflaged "hidden in plain sight" caches with high difficulty ratings, where multiple DNF logs in a row was normal and routine, and not at all a sign of "something not right". There are a number of those among my Favorites.

niraD is right on this one.   That scenario doesn't necessarily mean that somethings wrong with the cache.

What I do like is your thought process regarding the situation.   If that were my cache I'd eye the find with a wrinkled brow and would probably look into it a little closer.   Or I could put all doubt to rest and just take a look for myself. 

The point I'm trying to make is,  if your paying attention to your caches you'll notice those things.   

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Ask yourself "if it were my cache wouldn't I want someone to tell me when something was wrong with it?"     

I can not ask but I can tell you that nowadays it is surprise if someone logs a DNF. For me it makes this game easier. As long as there is nothing in the log, I can focus to other CO duties. It is not CO's job to promote DNF and NA logs. CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I can not ask but I can tell you that nowadays it is surprise if someone logs a DNF. For me it makes this game easier. As long as there is nothing in the log, I can focus to other CO duties. It is not CO's job to promote DNF and NA logs. CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs.

A cache owner agrees to maintain their cache so if there's information in any log that suggests there may be something wrong,  than it's their responsibility to look into it. 

You did hit on one of the major problems.  People not posting accurate logs that describe their experience.    A cache finder shouldn't hesitate posting any log they feel accurately describes their experience or the condition of a cache.   A good cache owner will take notice of multiple dnf's (regardless of what's written in the log) and take action if they feel something is wrong.

In fact I find it harder to determine the significance of a dnf when one is posted without any information in the log at all. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs

You might want to review this Help Center page

7. Ownership after publication

and specifically

7.4 Maintenance expectations

Quote

 

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

Not a word about promoting geocachers to log their experiences. One of those resposibilities seems to be questionable.

"Choose an appropriate container that is watertight." is not always the best choise. Sometimes you need to drill severing and ventilation holes to keep the logbook dry. Making the cache watertight means that the logbook will never get opportunity to dry. Watertight does not mean vapor-tight like PET-preforms are. Many watertight containers will get wet because the water vapor condensation inside.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Not a word about promoting geocachers to log their experiences. One of those resposibilities seems to be questionable.

"Choose an appropriate container that is watertight." is not always the best choise. Sometimes you need to drill severing and ventilation holes to keep the logbook dry. Making the cache watertight means that the logbook will never get opportunity to dry. Watertight does not mean vapor-tight like PET-preforms are. Many watertight containers will get wet because the water vapor condensation inside.

If they choose not to write a log that's fine but what's wrong with encouraging people to do so?    

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Not a word about promoting geocachers to log their experiences.

 

But with respect to your interpretation of CO responsibilities "CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs", the Help Center does not reflect that belief. Instead, a CO should:

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.

There is nothing that suggests a CO should respond to reports about issues only if the information is submitted in a DNF or NA log.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If they choose not to write a log that's fine but what's wrong with encouraging people to do so?    

It is wrong the same way that it is wrong to fix a broken cache which is not yours. The problem is that you have not agreed to do so and it is someone else's job. This argeement-argument is widely used here. This is the first time I am using it. Did I miss something important? :P

 

22 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

But with respect to your interpretation of CO responsibilities "CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs", the Help Center does not reflect that belief. Instead, a CO should:

The list you quoted earlier do not mention that CO should read any logs but should remove the red wrench attribute. Do you agree? In that case you can forget the DNF part of my statement because it is not mentioned. it is just my own stupid practice I may forget in future.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

CO has only agreed to respond to DNF and NA logs.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but where in the guidelines or Help Centre does it say a CO must respond to DNF logs?

Edit: Never mind, I hadn't read the last post when replying.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but where in the guidelines or Help Centre does it say a CO must respond to DNF logs?

Yes, it is true that there is no such "agreement" but if you do not respond to DNFs then the reviewer may respond. And there is also no agreement that you need to respond to reviewer notes. Conclusion: If there is no NM log you do not have to respond to anything regarding online logs. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

Yes, it is true that there is no such "agreement" but if you do not respond to DNFs then the reviewer may respond. And there is also no agreement that you need to respond to reviewer notes. Conclusion: If there is no NM log you do not have to respond to anything regarding online logs. :blink:

Huh? We're talking about DNFs, not NMs or NAs. I get DNFs saying the searcher got to GZ but was put off by swarms of mosquitoes. How am I supposed to fix that? Send them insect repellent through the post? Most DNFs aren't due to anything the CO can fix, they just mean the searcher didn't find it on the day for whatever reason, be it mosquitoes, approaching rain, failing light, tough terrain, muggles at GZ or just simply not looking in the right place or not seeing through the camo when they do. I really don't understand how DNF has come to mean "the cache is missing and the CO better do something about it straight away!". And what about the higher difficulty caches where DNFs are the norm and finds are the exception? The most recent DNF I had was from someone who messed up one of the virtual waypoints in a multi and ended up with coordinates that were out in the ocean, and if the reviewers here start requiring COs to "do something" in response to DNFs, I'll stop being a CO as I'm not interested in hiding roadside P&Gs where everyone's guaranteed a smiley.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Huh? We're talking about DNFs, not NMs or NAs

It is a Pandoras's box :lol: Do not open if you are not pleased with all consequences.

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

How am I supposed to fix that?

Responding have multiple ways. For example you may respond by blinking your eyes. Sometimes it may need more. But, as noted before, you do not have to even blink your eyes if someone posts a DNF.  Just skip over and forget as instructed.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

The original poster here was just trying to do a nice thing. We did the same when we first started.  There is nothing wrong with it. We grew tired of it and realized later in a lot of situations it is not the best thing to do but still nothing wrong with wanting to help the game out.  As for the rusted wet stuff just throw it out.

  There are some situations we might still do this.  There is a few CO that we know that we will help out.  I did this just a few months ago on a cache that is on federal land and no new caches can be placed there.  I went to find the one there and knew it had problems.  I cleaned it out and added new swagg.

  I have also done this for a cache that I thought the CO and I were cool and his cache had become open and all the stuff gone the replacement log was a gum wrapper.  I added a nice log and a baggie and some cool swagg.  That CO got upset that I did that.  So you never know.  

Just play the game the way you like.  If you feel like cleaning up a cache that is in need do it.  If not don't.  Most important thing is to have fun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:42 AM, arisoft said:

Yes, it is true that there is no such "agreement" but if you do not respond to DNFs then the reviewer may respond. And there is also no agreement that you need to respond to reviewer notes. Conclusion: If there is no NM log you do not have to respond to anything regarding online logs. :blink:

If your only goal is to keep GS off your back than, as a cache owner, you'll do as little as possible to accomplish that.   If your goal is to provide others with clean, well maintained caches than the information given in those other logs will be important to you.         

  • Upvote 2

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 2

×
×
  • Create New...