Jump to content

Soggy Caches, Sodden Logbooks


EmzyJanezy
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Three cheers for Earl Silas Tupper.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Tupper.  He made the life of a cache owners (and cache finders)  much better.  

 

I'm guessing you mean the modern invention of plastic kitchen storage containers, which many refer to with the general term "tupperware".  

 

geo2.JPG

 

But field use has shown that Tupperware(TM) is a poor container. I haven't found one in the wild that wasn't soggy after a couple of rains, because there's no gasket. After a year it's a moldy mess:

 

The arrow is pointing to the snowflake Tupperware logo on the lid:

94fc372e-8b36-4453-9301-2ffdbc80599d.jpg

Edited by L0ne.R
Typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I didn't know that it was possible to log a NM through Report a Problem. In fact, I assumed the RaP feature was for problems with the app. We have been getting some heavy rains on and off around here, and some of the caches I have found have had damp logs. I've noted that when I've logged my find. Some logs have been placed in small plastic zipper bags to protect them, but even then, sometimes the log gets wet. I found a bag of those plastic bags at Walmart and have added them to my tool bag, as I'm sure they will come in handy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

In a country where it rains a lot (though not lately!),  you will sometimes encounter damp/wet logs.    Even if it is a quality container (e.g a lock and lock or ammo can), if it is left open in the pouring rain whilst someone finds it, it will get wet. 

 

If it is minor dampness, I would mention it in the log, but not log NM.   I would not necessarily expect the CO to rush out to maintain the cache.   

If it looks like the one the OP posted, I would log a NM.  I would also include that photo in my log.   Any active CO who sees one of their caches in a state like that should want to do something about it. 

 

Often the caches in the worst state are owned by a cacher who is no longer active.   If there are previous NMs and no action for a long time then log an NA.  

 

Others are owned by active owners, who will maintain the cache, but it may take some time.   So at any point in time, even with the best will in the world, wet caches will be found.  If you feel they aren't acting fast enough you can log NA, but give the CO a bit of slack.   Logging an NA because someone logged NM a week ago, and nothing has happened yet, would not be appropriate in my view.   

 

Read some of the threads on quality and health score.   Groundspeak is trying to crack down on lack of maintenance.   

 

I maintained one of mine yesterday which had a wet and nasty logbook.   But the container (a genuine Lock and Lock) was in perfect shape.    It had somehow migrated to a completely different hide some 20 or more feet from where I hid it.   In whatever adventure caused it to move, perhaps the lid was left off for some time.     I cleaned it up and replaced the logbook.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

I have to agree that even the best containers can take on water in the rain, but also they can just be misused: one that My Dear Bethie_Biker has out regularly gets reported as having taken on water. When we check it, someone has always closed the Aircraft cable that retains it to the tree in the gasket of the 30mm can. Akin to the logs I'm always re-winding or re-folding so that they fit in a container when I'm caching ? I have the same issue on a 50caliber can that i have with a chain retainer. We maintain them regularly, and have inner containers for the logs.

 

Good containers are a start - good logs even better. Rite-in-the-Rain isn't mold-proof or destruction proof, but it makes for a much better experience over time, we find. And they're out there for cheap from several outlets, too, if you don't want to make your own.

 

A final comment on old containers; we're just back from adding another 15 Eastern counties to our Kentucky County Challenge (120 of them here in the state) and the best hide I found was just so simple: an Altoids tin in a GR cache. It was filled with 8 various RITR log sheets, and was a bit hard to open for some rust and having been bent - but all was dry and good inside even so. The cache was placed in 2006. I carefully un-bent the container so it worked better and gave a thought of thanks to the CO. Good planning, good upgrades over time, good maintenance and good reporting are all important to the life of a cache. So, enough from this whipper-snapper of a cacher ?

Edited by Jimrky
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

There is a lot of good and helpful information on this thread.  It depends on several factors, such as how old the cache is, hold long since it has been found, is the CO active, etc....?  I usually carry a couple of extra logs, just in case the log is full, damaged or missing.  In my experience, damaged logs are caused by FINDERS more often than the CO.  Finders don't replace the lid correctly, or they place a heavy object on the lid that breaks the lid, or they put the cache in a more vulnerable spot.  Yes, the CO has the responsibility of maintenance, but, I believe that Finders also have the responsibility to leave the cache in good shape.  And it helps the community, as a whole, if a finder is able to do a small repair, such as taping a crack, replacing/adding to a new log sheet, etc....

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Inmountains said:

There is a lot of good and helpful information on this thread.  It depends on several factors, such as how old the cache is, hold long since it has been found, is the CO active, etc....?  I usually carry a couple of extra logs, just in case the log is full, damaged or missing.  In my experience, damaged logs are caused by FINDERS more often than the CO.  Finders don't replace the lid correctly, or they place a heavy object on the lid that breaks the lid, or they put the cache in a more vulnerable spot.  Yes, the CO has the responsibility of maintenance, but, I believe that Finders also have the responsibility to leave the cache in good shape.  And it helps the community, as a whole, if a finder is able to do a small repair, such as taping a crack, replacing/adding to a new log sheet, etc....

 

Fortunately caches with sodden logs are fairly rare around here, but one I found recently, and which I logged an NM on, the problem was that the container was no longer waterproof; I suspect it originally had a rubber o-ring seal that's either broken or fallen off. That's something the CO really needs to fix, as the cache is out in the open attached to a fence and replacing the log every time it rains isn't a long-term solution.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Fortunately caches with sodden logs are fairly rare around here, but one I found recently, and which I logged an NM on, the problem was that the container was no longer waterproof; I suspect it originally had a rubber o-ring seal that's either broken or fallen off. That's something the CO really needs to fix, as the cache is out in the open attached to a fence and replacing the log every time it rains isn't a long-term solution.

 

One that we patched up today I thought was missing a gasket but it turns out that military decon containers don't actually have a gasket so while they have a lid with a very positive locking action they are only water resistant rather than waterproof.

 

Strangely it must have been a soggy mess for a while before we found it but a number of previous loggers said nothing about that. Probably playing it safe and avoiding the ire of the caching mafia active in our region.

Edited by Team Microdot
Previous - not precious
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

One that we patched up today I thought was missing a gasket but it turns out that military decon containers don't actually have a gasket so while they have a lid with a very positive locking action they are only water resistant rather than waterproof.

 

Strangely it must have been a soggy mess for a while before we found it but a number of previous loggers said nothing about that. Probably playing it safe and avoiding the ire of the caching mafia active in our region.

Decon containers seem like great cache containers, and they were the canonical small size container for a while. After all, they are pretty weatherproof when closed properly.

 

The problem is that many geocachers don't close them properly. You have to press down on each corner until it snaps closed. If you press down until you hear a single snap of the lid, then it won't be fully closed.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, niraD said:
10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

One that we patched up today I thought was missing a gasket but it turns out that military decon containers don't actually have a gasket so while they have a lid with a very positive locking action they are only water resistant rather than waterproof.

 

Strangely it must have been a soggy mess for a while before we found it but a number of previous loggers said nothing about that. Probably playing it safe and avoiding the ire of the caching mafia active in our region.

Decon containers seem like great cache containers, and they were the canonical small size container for a while. After all, they are pretty weatherproof when closed properly.

 

The problem is that many geocachers don't close them properly. You have to press down on each corner until it snaps closed. If you press down until you hear a single snap of the lid, then it won't be fully closed.

 

Thanks for replying to one of my posts that hasn't been mysteriously and silently vanished for some unknown reason :lol:

 

I think what you describe might well be the achilles heel of these particular containers - because they do look extremely robust and I've never really understood why I am yet (as far as I remember) to find one that wasn't wet inside. It is quite true that they do look closed even when they haven't been clicked all the way around and some of them do require more digital strength to close fully than some cachers might be able to muster.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I do think its helpful when the community clean out the container and replace the log sheet and remove the junk, the next finder will be happy.

 

I'm glad you think we did the right thing.. however, looking at the wider picture, was it the right thing to do?

 

The CO hasn't found a cache for over two years.  They moved away from the North West several years ago and since then haven't maintained a single one of the caches they left behind.

 

Of their 58 owned caches - all but 4 are now archived, many of them were served notice by the reviewer and archived by him because his request that the cache was checked by the CO was ignored.

 

Of their 58 owned caches - 36 of them have a red wrench (many of them have several DNF's and NM logs) all of which have been ignored.

 

Of their 4 remaining active caches, 3 have a red wrench going back months.  One of them is a nation-wide counties quest which holds information for a final.. this was a soggy mess with the numbers for the final unreadable for several months until a previous finder performed community maintenance on it.. so yes, there is a shiny new cache in place and cachers can continue to gather information for the final, but the red wrench will never be cleared.. and the abandoned cache will continue to limp along until the next time.

 

I fully understand that the grid-fillers NEED these old caches for their grids.. but at what cost?  New cachers like the OP being disappointed to find a pile of junk.. cache saturation because no matter how bad the condition of the cache we are urged to embrace *community spirit* and clean them up rather than post a NM and allow them ultimately to be archived by the reviewer, thus freeing up a nice spot for someone who cares to place a new cache there.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Many of the caches I have found to date have the log in a click seal plastic bag inside whatever container constitutes the cache.  However it seems finders are in the main incapable of either opening these without ripping them below the seal, or if they open them correctly then fail to zip them up again.  I would say that a third to a half of the bags I have found to date were either not fully re-sealed or were torn resulting in damp logs in most cases.  It is not rocket science to do this properly.

 

But after reading a thread here about how many caches people have found in a day I wonder if this speed caching is partly to blame.  If you are aiming to find for example 50 caches (a seemingly modest number by some claims!) in a day do you have time to open a container, open a plastic bag, sign, reseal carefully & return everything as found, or is it a "find, sign & move on fast" attitude that leads to sloppiness?  I have dried out the contents of several caches on my shirt or trousers, tried to make the log better able to be signed by the next finder by carrying a cloth to blot it with, & generally note on my log the state of anything I found that was less than satisfactory.  Often they do not need major maintenance by the CO, just a bit of care & respect from finders.  Sadly we live in a "me me me" society today when no-one else matters.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, grimpil said:

Many of the caches I have found to date have the log in a click seal plastic bag inside whatever container constitutes the cache.  However it seems finders are in the main incapable of either opening these without ripping them below the seal, or if they open them correctly then fail to zip them up again.  I would say that a third to a half of the bags I have found to date were either not fully re-sealed or were torn resulting in damp logs in most cases.  It is not rocket science to do this properly.

 

True, but these bags aren't designed to  be open and closed dozens of times as they might be when used in a cache.   They might stay closed after a few finds but they'll eventually start failing.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, grimpil said:

Many of the caches I have found to date have the log in a click seal plastic bag inside whatever container constitutes the cache.  However it seems finders are in the main incapable of either opening these without ripping them below the seal, or if they open them correctly then fail to zip them up again.  I would say that a third to a half of the bags I have found to date were either not fully re-sealed or were torn resulting in damp logs in most cases.  It is not rocket science to do this properly.

 

Or it could be that the bags are poor quality, or degrade with age and repeated openings / closings, or they are too big for the container which leads to the seal becoming distorted so that it won't click shut, or the bag is so tiny that it barely contains the log in the first place or tearing the bag while trying to extract the log is inevitable...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Inmountains said:

Yes, the CO has the responsibility of maintenance, but, I believe that Finders also have the responsibility to leave the cache in good shape.  And it helps the community, as a whole, if a finder is able to do a small repair, such as taping a crack, replacing/adding to a new log sheet, etc....

 

Or at the very least, as they found it. Technically, if everyone left the cache as they found it, it would never be worse off apart from unavoidable circumstances between cacher visits. But that's an ideal situation. Geocachers don't have a responsibility to leave a cache "in good shape", as that does imply cachers have a responsibility to maintain caches that are not theirs. But it is indeed good etiquette to at least leave the cache in a decent shape, not in a worse condition than you found it, and report issues that you think the CO should handle.  Technically, the geocacher has no responsibility, only the owner does, in regards to having the right to list the container on gc.com.

Good etiquette in the finding of caches should be something we all encourage, but not to the extent of being a detriment and encouraging cache owner laziness.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Or at the very least, as they found it. Technically, if everyone left the cache as they found it, it would never be worse off apart from unavoidable circumstances between cacher visits. But that's an ideal situation. Geocachers don't have a responsibility to leave a cache "in good shape", as that does imply cachers have a responsibility to maintain caches that are not theirs. But it is indeed good etiquette to at least leave the cache in a decent shape, not in a worse condition than you found it, and report issues that you think the CO should handle.  Technically, the geocacher has no responsibility, only the owner does, in regards to having the right to list the container on gc.com.

Good etiquette in the finding of caches should be something we all encourage, but not to the extent of being a detriment and encouraging cache owner laziness.

 

 

The one that makes me chuckle is the cache page that asks you to replace the cache exactly as you found it which seems to miss the point that the cache could be in all sorts of conditions that the CO never intended by the time I find it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

The one that makes me chuckle is the cache page that asks you to replace the cache exactly as you found it which seems to miss the point that the cache could be in all sorts of conditions that the CO never intended by the time I find it.

I've found caches that included instructions for re-hiding the cache (complete with photos) inside the cache. I thought that was a good approach for caches that are particularly sensitive to being re-hidden incorrectly.

Link to comment

 

6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

True, but these bags aren't designed to  be open and closed dozens of times as they might be when used in a cache.   They might stay closed after a few finds but they'll eventually start failing.

 

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Or it could be that the bags are poor quality, or degrade with age and repeated openings / closings, or they are too big for the container which leads to the seal becoming distorted so that it won't click shut, or the bag is so tiny that it barely contains the log in the first place or tearing the bag while trying to extract the log is inevitable...

 

Both fair comments & I agree.  So why am I always the first to report on my logs about the state of these bags?  And I notice that those who log finds after me do not report the torn bags, damaged containers etc that I found the day before or even same day when it is unlikely the CO has been to repair them.  If people gave feedback the CO might get the message more quickl;y that their bags were not good enough.  Majority of unsealed bags I find can be resealed satisfactorily.  The torn ones should be reported by the finder who found this was the only way to get into the log.  Seems to me, having come late to this hobby, I  have missed much of the the past community spirit that I read about.  If I had to damage a container or bag to access a log I would report back in my log.  I have received PM thanks from COs for doing minor maintenance on caches.  I appreciate their placing the caches, they appreciate that I will try to help them in small ways to save them making a journey just to reseal a bag or dry a soggy log.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, grimpil said:

 

 

 

Both fair comments & I agree.  So why am I always the first to report on my logs about the state of these bags?  And I notice that those who log finds after me do not report the torn bags, damaged containers etc that I found the day before or even same day when it is unlikely the CO has been to repair them.  If people gave feedback the CO might get the message more quickl;y that their bags were not good enough.  Majority of unsealed bags I find can be resealed satisfactorily.  The torn ones should be reported by the finder who found this was the only way to get into the log.  Seems to me, having come late to this hobby, I  have missed much of the the past community spirit that I read about.  If I had to damage a container or bag to access a log I would report back in my log.  I have received PM thanks from COs for doing minor maintenance on caches.  I appreciate their placing the caches, they appreciate that I will try to help them in small ways to save them making a journey just to reseal a bag or dry a soggy log.

 

There's a baggie in each of these caches:

 

94fc372e-8b36-4453-9301-2ffdbc80599d.jpg  887aedc68ca53f42375e50e64361f384.jpg

 

ea961471-1d53-478f-8bc3-3cfdbbd36b4b.jpg7ceb0802cc7c42f4b3022a65eed18649.jpg23b54be3-812a-4e46-8e97-c0153d1e515b.jpg

 

When these caches get "maintained" by the community it's usually in the form of a dry log in a new baggie placed in the mess. Making it nice for the next finders is usually the reason given by people who carry a pocketful of new logs. 

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

So just how many people have found those & said nothing?  Just recorded a find & moved on?  The best thing to make those nice for the next finder would be to bin them & report them as AWOL!!  I would not dream of tidying up anything like that but I would give a graphic description in my log.  I don't replace logs or baggies.  There's is a difference between mopping out a damp cache, which is otherwise serviceable & clearing up utter cr@p!

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, grimpil said:

So just how many people have found those & said nothing?  Just recorded a find & moved on?  

 

That seems to be the norm in most areas we cache.  This forums not necessarily the view of many outside it ( "preaching to the choir" kinda thing).

Many logs we see (if they're even wordy) amount to little or nothing about the cache at all. 

  "Out caching with my good friend ........., 27 of 30 today.  Our stats are now .....  and you can see us at...." is popular with a bunch.  And selfies.

My favorites are when any log has "replaced the wet log - you're welcome. :) "  along with the added,  "thanks for placing and maintaining this for us to find"  that's always cut n paste directly after. 

Like the pics above show,  guess we're supposed to say thank you?    :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, grimpil said:

So why am I always the first to report on my logs about the state of these bags?

 

Well that really is the million dollar question.

 

Some people just don't care and never have.

 

Some people used to care but have been subjected to rude comments from the CO or another 'community member' sufficiently to make them decide it's not worth caring.

 

1 hour ago, grimpil said:

If people gave feedback the CO might get the message more quickl;y

 

Some CO's actively and forcefully reject feedback - unless it's positive. Some CO's receiving feedback they don't want to hear threaten to archive their caches and openly

lay the blame for that at the foot of the person providing the feedback.

 

 

1 hour ago, grimpil said:

Seems to me, having come late to this hobby, I  have missed much of the the past community spirit that I read about.

 

I'm not sure it ever existed.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Infuriating. Has GC officially sanctioned community maintenance? Do they think this is an example of a good caching experience? Is this what they want to advertise as a fun pastime?

:mad: 

 

 

Thats because the most important thing is to sign the log. As other threads show take a picture of that disgusting mess and they still can delete your log. So add a replacement piece of paper and declare victory.  I am truly sad that inform the CO about new log was even there should be file a NM log.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Infuriating. Has GC officially sanctioned community maintenance? Do they think this is an example of a good caching experience? Is this what they want to advertise as a fun pastime?

:mad: 

 

I'm not infuriated, but it does seem stupid. If ever there was a good example for posting an NM, this is it, yet they don't even mention that. Instead, we're supposed to quietly talk to the CO in order to to keep it a secret so no know else that might want to look for the cache knows it's a piece of junk. Sheesh. I'm not surprised by the "replace with fresh paper" suggestion even though it's unbelievably silly: ignoring the signatures, the log they show might have been added yesterday from the looks of it.

 

By the time I get through all that, I'm only mildly amused by the idea that they are, it's true, telling seekers that they are supposed to perform maintenance if they can. Astonishingly counterproductive.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

About 300 comments on that FaceBook post so far, and GC has responded to some of them. See this little nuggett:

 

5bad2d33ba01a_FBpost.thumb.jpg.aff72b1219a00e18b7e2669a113b1b2e.jpg

 

Wow. They had to add that last part that starts with "However". 

Seems they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. 

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Wow. They had to add that last part that starts with "However". 

Seems they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. 

 

Well, saying it's talking out of both sides of their mouth implies they're being deliberately deceitful. I think they're just spouting mantras without actually thinking about how they interact. It's standard practice in the modern world to dumb down everything because we don't expect people to be able to handle anything except black and white. There's nothing wrong with suggesting people help COs with simple problems like full logs. The problem is that they used the example a cache that's had a complete failure and must have owner attention.

 

There are times a little seeker maintenance makes a little sense, but there are also times when serious attention by the CO is required. If you ask the question "Is seeker maintenance OK?" and insist it's a yes/no question -- as we often do in the forums -- it's shouldn't be a surprise when the answers don't make much sense.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Well, saying it's talking out of both sides of their mouth implies they're being deliberately deceitful. I think they're just spouting mantras without actually thinking about how they interact. It's standard practice in the modern world to dumb down everything because we don't expect people to be able to handle anything except black and white. There's nothing wrong with suggesting people help COs with simple problems like full logs. The problem is that they used the example a cache that's had a complete failure and must have owner attention.

 

There are times a little seeker maintenance makes a little sense, but there are also times when serious attention by the CO is required. If you ask the question "Is seeker maintenance OK?" and insist it's a yes/no question -- as we often do in the forums -- it's shouldn't be a surprise when the answers don't make much sense.

I agree, the optics on this are wrong. Why should I help prop up a cache that the CO doesn't care about, or the CO has stranded for whatever reason? If the log is moldy (like the one in the picture), how much of the contents are also moldy? On the other hand, if a cache has been kept up, I would be much more inclined to help out by adding more log paper when the log is full.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Why should I help prop up a cache that the CO doesn't care about, or the CO has stranded for whatever reason?

While those are good questions, I prefer the simpler question: why should I add a log to a container that can't protect its log? I don't see any point in assuming anything about the CO's attitude. It just took once finding a cache in trouble and later discovering that the CO died two years before to cure me of thinking negative thoughts about a CO based on a cache's condition. It doesn't hurt that COs always seem to be nice people even when some of their caches are broken.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
17 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not infuriated, but it does seem stupid. If ever there was a good example for posting an NM, this is it, yet they don't even mention that. Instead, we're supposed to quietly talk to the CO in order to to keep it a secret so no know else that might want to look for the cache knows it's a piece of junk. Sheesh. I'm not surprised by the "replace with fresh paper" suggestion even though it's unbelievably silly: ignoring the signatures, the log they show might have been added yesterday from the looks of it.

 

By the time I get through all that, I'm only mildly amused by the idea that they are, it's true, telling seekers that they are supposed to perform maintenance if they can. Astonishingly counterproductive.

 

This is going off topic just a little bit, but this isn't the first time they've chosen to omit something that should be included.  NM MUST be one of the options listed for this example, yet they chose to leave that off the list.  The CHS email doesn't even account for the possibility that it might be a false positive.

 

Both examples above are points of clarification that should be addressed so that they cover all the bases, not just the ones they think are more important.  

 

I'm pretty sure that I could get my name on the log pictured but I wouldn't drop a replacement log in that particular cache.  There's something else fundamentally wrong with that cache which a replacement log won't address.  If I didn't drop a replacement log, there would be no need to contact the CO as my NM log would sum up my thoughts about this particular cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Infuriating. Has GC officially sanctioned community maintenance? Do they think this is an example of a good caching experience? Is this what they want to advertise as a fun pastime?

:mad: 

 

 

Infuriating?  Annoying, certainly, but not red in the face angry.  

 

They obviously know this isn't a cache that would promote a "good caching experience", so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, as it pertains to this example.  It seems to me that they're trying to get caches that need maintenance, fixed to some extent so that cachers do have a good caching experience.  Dropping a log in that cache, however, isn't going to make the experience any better for the next cacher.

 

As to community maintenance, I think it's fine, depending on the maintenance provided and the frequency at which the maintenance is provided.  For me, that usually means replacement logs in containers that have a plausible chance of staying somewhat dry.  I'll never replace a container without the CO's permission.  I'll dry out/clean out a cache that looks to have a chance of still being in good shape once that's done - i.e. someone not closing the container properly, the seal has been compromised by dirt or swag, something that doesn't directly influence the integrity of the container.

 

If someone has recently replaced the log, or cleaned/dried the container and I find it in the shape they found it in before they did what they did, then there's something wrong with the container being used and my additional maintenance isn't going to help much.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

What coachstahly said. In the survey case, it's borderline, but strictly speaking, I think it could be fine to fix the log - we don't know why the log is the way it is; only that it's disgusting now. Leaving it that way for the next person wouldn't be helping provide a good caching experience. And even if I were to post a NM, who knows how many others will still come along and have the same icky experience before anything is done.

So, the first step may well be to replace the log. NEXT, though, would depend on further conditions, as stated above. There may well be a NM posted after cleaning up the log, especially if the container is in bad condition.  But if the log is like that because the last finder didn't put the lid on properly, a maint run will be pointless if my little fixup is sufficient to restore the cache's integrity.

 

So, while I think community maintenance to a degree is not a bad thing fundamentally, there are extenuating circumstances that can prompt additional action to dissuade lazy cache ownership. That little social survey could have done a little more to explain that, but as it stands it leaves it open to let people think that line doesn't exist or exists waaaay down the line, which would be the wrong impression.

 

A better survey, or perhaps a followup, would be to show an icky log and and broken/cracked container, and provide a NM choice.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I think it could be fine to fix the log - we don't know why the log is the way it is; only that it's disgusting now. Leaving it that way for the next person wouldn't be helping provide a good caching experience.

 

This is usually how someone makes it better for the next person....they leave the mess and drop a fresh logsheet in the wet mess (and they don't log an NM).

 

3e571e1a-807d-4c11-82bd-b9e2fe3491f2.png 099ea39f3546485fea54609ae1ca5503.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

This is usually how someone makes it better for the next person....they leave the mess and drop a fresh logsheet in the wet mess (and they don't log an NM).

 

 

Again with the generalities.  Some would do this but I know others who would clean out the container, remove the swag that couldn't be cleaned up, remove the log that's too wet to sign (and send a message to the CO that they have it), replace it with another log, and make this cache better for the next visitor.  The cache on the left, while not a great container, looks to be OK, so cleaning that one up would make sense to me.  There's no container on the right picture, so there's no way to determine if a replacement log would be a viable option because there's no way to ascertain the container's viability.  There's NO way I'd drop a replacement log without a baggie in that second situation.  That's like adding fuel to the fire.  Neither of these are good caching experiences, but the one on the left can at least be cleaned up a bit to make it a better experience for the next visitor.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I think it could be fine to fix the log - we don't know why the log is the way it is; only that it's disgusting now. Leaving it that way for the next person wouldn't be helping provide a good caching experience.

 

This is usually how someone makes it better for the next person....they leave the mess and drop a fresh logsheet in the wet mess (and they don't log an NM).

 

Ok, and not being an example of what I explained I do, that reflects on the ethic I'd espouse, how?

If you assume the rest of the cache contents are also  in bad condition and the container is undamaged - then providing an example of someone not leaving "a good experience for the next finder", but rather only leaving a pristine logsheet amongst disgusting contents, is not the ethic I'm describing.  I wouldn't recommend leaving the end result in either of the cases you describe above. If I left the cache that way I would most likely leave a NM (I wouldn't say it's a finder's responsibility to do so, but it would be a good thing to do), and for the left one probably a recommendation for a better container, even if it is still undamaged.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Again with the specificities.

 

You think you could patch them up so the post you're quoting is moot?

 

I don't think so.

 

Nowhere did I say her point was moot.  My second sentence even starts off with the concession that there are certainly some who would do this in my area.  I took issue with the "usually", which implies that's the normal or regular thing to do.  I disagree due to personal experience with many of the cachers in my area.  I know some would do just what LOne.R stated, but I know many who would do more than that, if the cache warranted it.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Nowhere did I say her point was moot.  My second sentence even starts off with the concession that there are certainly some who would do this in my area.  I took issue with the "usually", which implies that's the normal or regular thing to do.  I disagree due to personal experience with many of the cachers in my area

 

Oh good - so your opening sentence wasn't being condescending then - in which case I apologise.

 

Bold is mine - we all have personal experience and we all tend to speak from it.

 

I think that makes the point.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, coachstahly said:
20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Infuriating. Has GC officially sanctioned community maintenance? Do they think this is an example of a good caching experience? Is this what they want to advertise as a fun pastime?

:mad: 

 

 

Infuriating?  Annoying, certainly, but not red in the face angry.  

 

Looks like a yellow face to me :lol:

Link to comment

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...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...