Replace the log?

[+TeamGreenHadwin]

We havent been geocaching very long and unsure of the etiquette of replacing a sodden log book. If there is room in the cache I thought it would be nice to pop in a new zippy bag and a fresh log - is this acceptable? I think its nice to keep the cache going but I understand it might be masking a CO thats not active any longer?

[+L0ne.R]

It will get sodden again. 

[+mellers]

2 hours ago, TeamGreenHadwin said:

 I thought it would be nice to pop in a new zippy bag and a fresh log - is this acceptable?

 

Certainly. Many COs will be grateful to you for ADDING a new log to an existing soggy one. That will save them visiting GZ and it's not uncommon for visiting cachers to do this. As you mention, popping the new log in a bag (to protect it from contamination from the damp of the existing log) is a good idea. 

ADDING a new log, is different from REPLACING a soggy log (i.e. taking the old log away)... which should really only be done  with the CO's permission or if the existing log is completely unreadable.

It's all to do with who has signed the log and who is able to claim the find. The paper log is really the only true record of who has found the cache and should the CO wish to check on-line logs against it, they can tick it back. Not everyone does that, but you should get the CO's permission to take the old log away (if it's still readable).  If that's not possible in advance, it's also acceptable to remove a readable (but soggy) log and mention that you have done so in your on-line log. Always offer to return the paper log to the CO if you do that, and give them a reasonable timescale (say a week or two) and then throw it away if they don't get in touch. 

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

It will get sodden again. 

This is, indeed, the bottom line: don't think you're fixing the cache by adding a log. As you get more experience, you'll find that baggies aren't as useful for keeping logs dry as you think, by the way.

 

But to your question "is it acceptable?", the answer's yes, it's acceptable, but not required. Don't worry about "masking" a larger problem. If you think there's a problem, file an NM. That's what flags that there's an issue a moves the cache towards archival if it's failing, so that's when you have to consider whether the cache deserves that. Filing the NM is completely independent of whether you put some dry paper in the cache so you can sign it.

[+Optimist on the run]

I'll add a new log if it's necessary and I have one on me. The only time I'll replace a log is in magnetic nanos, as there generally isn't room for a second one. In this case I'll leave a note in the log stating that I'm happy to send the old log to the CO if they want it. So far no-one's requested it.

[+cerberus1]

Similar to others I guess, I'll add a log (usually just a Rite in Rain strip in a tiny baggie). 

 - That's only to give the CO some spare time until they can fix it themselves. 

I'll look at the cache page when I get home, to see if regular maintenance is done, or any interaction by that CO.

 - I feel it helps me decide if my log mentions are good enough, or log a NM in addition.  We act on mentions in logs, and figure others do too.

With nanos,  if the tiny "log" is that bad, I'll take a sharpie and find some faded spot to sign over another, then place a NM.

 Odds are that cache page has a few logs already mentioning it's condition...

[+Wild-Skye]

I tend to maintain my own caches regularly -- simply because they are very local and easy to maintain.  Out in field I will add a dry log if necessary to another COs cache or even replace -- but if I need to replace  because the container wont hold another log -- I will keep the original and contact CO -- so far COs contacted have simply said "ditch the log"  but I believe I must give hem the choice, I would want to be offered