Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Goldenwattle

Some COs don't take kindly to NM, and then the NA (because the NM was ignored)

Recommended Posts

Some COs don't take a NM in the spirit that it is meant and act on it, which is to give the CO information on the condition of their cache, or they simply ignore the NM and hope someone else will fix their cache problem. It is not a slur on them, as long as they act on it; it is information. If a log on one of my caches was full and I had a NM I would be pleased I was informed, thank the person and and act on it. I recently put a NM on several caches on a power trail. Then when nothing was done after a month I posted a NA, but only on ONE of the caches to give the CO a nudge. This is the conversation. The CO also messaged me and told me that "Normal cachers" generally replace full or wet logs and that they do.

I left the dates off to make it harder to identify the CO.

 

___________________________________________________________

I am pleased to report that the CO replaced the full logs.

 

 

The reviewer came in and told the CO that a NM is not malicious.

 

(CO) Temporarily Disable Listing (They wrote this on each of their caches that needed maintenance, whether it was one I place a NM on, or one someone else placed the NM on.)

Due to a troublemaker within the community, I have disabled this cache until it can be looked at. Please do not be malicious - it is a GAME only and people do have lives and family which come before caching.

 

(Me) Write note

A NM should be all that's necessary.

 

(CO) Write note

Log will be replaced soon. You could have messaged me privately with your archive request.

(When I did message them they had no interest in discussing this. I would like to put that conversation here too and their response, but I consider message conversations to be private.)

 

 

(My NA after over a month and no word or action from the CO)

Over a month now and still no action or word from the CO concerning the full log. A number of caches along this road have maintenance logs that mention full logs. They all need new logs. I didn't want to make a NA, but the NM logs have been ignored. Maybe you are busy, but making a log that you will get to the issue soon, but can't now, would have confirmed you at least noticed the issue. (Several caches are in the same condition but only made one NA log as a nudge.)

 

 

(My NM) NM

Log is full and needs a new one.

 

(My log)

Quick find. Log is full and needs a new one. I squeezed in GW. TFTC ‘name of CO’.

 

(Another geocacher) NM

This geocacher reported that the logbook is full.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The CO also messaged me and told me that "Normal cachers" generally replace full or wet logs and that they do.

 

Yep. I had that reaction from COs too. I've even had the 'you should have messaged me privately' message. Or finders leave snarky comments. The next finders put in a logsheet and leave a comment about how 'cachers generally do the right thing and replace logs'. Or mysteriously ;), a dry log appears and the next finders say 'I don't know why someone logged an NM/NA the log is dry and in good shape' (or the missing/damaged cache is actually there and in good shape--not mentioning they left a throwdown). The person in the wrong is the guy who posts the NM/NA, never the owner. 

 

Once that kind of culture hits an area it doesn't leave. The people who value throwdown, set-em-and-forget-em, community-maintenance become the dominant force.  And we can thank GCHQ for lifting the PT rule in 2010 and turning a blind eye to maintenance. They tacitly sanctioned throwdowns and community maintenance (see their blog/newsletter posts about the ET) when the PT rule was lifted, but only for PTs (nudge-nudge-wink-wink). 

 

Thankfully some reviewers step in and back up those who post NMs/NAs by sending a more authoritative message to COs. 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

Yep. I had that reaction from COs too. I've even had the 'you should have messaged me privately' message. Or finders leave snarky comments. The next finders put in a logsheet and leave a comment about how 'cachers generally do the right thing and replace logs'. Or mysteriously ;), a dry log appears and the next finders say 'I don't know why someone logged an NM/NA the log is dry and in good shape' (or the missing/damaged cache is actually there and in good shape--not mentioning they left a throwdown). The person in the wrong is the guy who posts the NM/NA, never the owner. 

 

Once that kind of culture hits an area it doesn't leave. The people who value throwdown, set-em-and-forget-em, community-maintenance become the dominant force.  And we can thank GCHQ for lifting the PT rule in 2010 and turning a blind eye to maintenance--actually sanctioning throwdowns and community maintenance (see their blog/newsletter posts about the ET) once the PT rule was lifted, but only for PTs (nudge-nudge-wink-wink). 

 

Thankfully some reviewers step in and may back up those who post NMs/NAs by sending a more authoritative message to COs. 

 

Yep!

Share this post


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

Thankfully some reviewers step in

Yes, I was grateful the reviewer posted a public comment for all to see. It was diplomatic and carefully worded, but it backed me up. I was tempted to write a note and say I was the malicious troublemaker, because I make a NM and when the CO ignored this a NA, and even started writing a response, but then thought better of it and decided escalating this was not the way to go.

What is PT?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes, I was grateful the reviewer posted a public comment for all to see. It was diplomatic and carefully worded, but it backed me up. I was tempted to write a note and say I was the malicious troublemaker, because I make a NM and when the CO ignored this a NA, and even started writing a response, but then thought better of it and decided escalating this was not the way to go.

What is PT?

Power Trail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

community maintenance

I don't mind community maintenance on remote caches, where if they go they won't/can't be replaced and then that area will have no caches, maybe for 100s of kms, but not for the majority of caches, where there are other caches and it can be replaced. I only replace caches in very remote areas (they are maintained by the occasional traveller) or when I have permission of the CO. Otherwise, it's a NM, not a throw-down.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I wish more people would use the NM feature. My case. I had to Temporarily Disable one of mine last week. It had been over twelve months since I last checked it but in that time a few things have got in the way of my doing routine checks e.g. being overseas, a couple of stints in hospital, a case of shingles and a motorcycle accident with multiple fractures of my left foot, meant tree climbing was out of the question. This cache was in a tree. So, I have relied on checking logs for any mention of problems. This cache seemed to be traveling fine until 2 weeks ago a Found It log mentioned the cache was wet. No other mention of this in previous logs. On checking the cache I found a sorry wet, mess. It would appear that a finder had left a swap item which was a tad too big for the container thereby preventing the lid from sealing properly. The log was wet in its (undamaged) baggie. And there was mould starting to grow. It must have been like this for a while, so it seems finders just logged their Found It and moved on. I wish one of them had logged a NM when it was first discovered with a wet log. If I couldn't get too it at lest I could TD it until I could. I'm somewhat embarrassed that a cache of mine was found in that condition.

  • Helpful 2
  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

OP, you do know that it's the finder's responsibility to maintain power trail owner's caches, right? You were totally wrong not taking care of those caches when you went to find them. Shame on you! :P

 

 

 

Kidding of course. I'm not sure why so many PT owners have that mentality. <_<

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, colleda said:

I wish one of them had logged a NM when it was first discovered with a wet log. If I couldn't get too it at lest I could TD it until I could. I'm somewhat embarrassed that a cache of mine was found in that condition.

 

Yes, I'm the same. One of my caches had migrated out from under its rock ledge and was sitting in the open just covered with a bit of bark and leaf litter. A finder vaguely mentioned at the end of his long log something about covering it a bit better than he'd found it, but I didn't twig until another caching friend suggested I should check on it. Gosh, I'm surprised it didn't get muggled where I found it sitting. Even if it's something trivial like a missing or broken pencil when the description says there's a pencil in the cache, I want to know about it and an NM is the surest way of grabbing my attention.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

OP, you do know that it's the finder's responsibility to maintain power trail owner's caches, right?

 

I came across a cache description [ yes, one in a power trail] that included that the cache was "self-maintaining".  Spot checking, I didn't find that statement in the other cache descriptions, so I couldn't decide whether that meant what Mudfrog jokes about, or whether it might be a hint about its appearance.  (I didn't go to find out.)

Share this post


Link to post

I've believed that the GCRM icon on cache pages would be considered an ALR by a Reviewer.  Those who never saw it ...gcrm.

Maybe folks just aren't saying anything, nothing new.

Lately we're still seeing examples in caches linked to when folks post, and thought that odd that they're still around..

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Even if it's something trivial like a missing or broken pencil when the description says there's a pencil in the cache, I want to know about it and an NM is the surest way of grabbing my attention.

 

We don't mind a NM, but it'd be nice if it was for something that needed maintenance.  Most NMs we get aren't for maintenance at all...

Can't find , full log (when the other side's not touched) ... a wet Rite in Rain log wasn't wet, their sweaty hands were dripping all over it, and a person who cached with them even posted a pic of their nose dripping sweat into the ammo can.  Yuck !

We read logs.  It's easy to see "log damp/full/whatever" that most these days seem to add in passing in their Found it.   :)

 

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We read logs.  It's easy to see "log damp/full/whatever" that most these days seem to add in passing in their Found it.

Unfortunately too many COs ignore comments in logs. Log after log might have log is full for instance and the CO does nothing. I now often log NMs to lesson the chance of the maintenance issue being ignored. Although that is influenced by whose cache it is (as I know that some COs are responsible and read their logs) and what has been written in other logs. I am less likely to make a NM when in a foreign country. I leave that up to the locals who know the local situation better.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

 I now often log NMs to lesson the chance of the maintenance issue being ignored. Although that is influenced by whose cache it is (as I know that some COs are responsible and read their logs) and what has been written in other logs. I am less likely to make a NM when in a foreign country. I leave that up to the locals who know the local situation better.

 

I read the logs to see if others have mentioned "soaked/wet" or similar.  No mention by the CO decides that (for me), wherever it is.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Some COs don't take a NM in the spirit that it is meant and act on it

- snip -

(CO) Temporarily Disable Listing (They wrote this on each of their caches that needed maintenance, whether it was one I place a NM on, or one someone else placed the NM on.)

Due to a troublemaker within the community, I have disabled this cache until it can be looked at. Please do not be malicious - it is a GAME only and people do have lives and family which come before caching.

 

I believe this is the biggest reason many won't place an action log.    The CO's inaction is now your fault, and they're telling everybody.    :)

I explained people like this once in another thread, and got pooh-poohed away by another.

There's a lot of people who aren't comfortable, feeling they're  confronting someone ...  on something as simple as placing a NM.  

 - As you found, you don't often know who you'll be dealing with.  I really don't blame them much.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I've believed that the GCRM icon on cache pages would be considered an ALR by a Reviewer.  Those who never saw it ...gcrm.

Maybe folks just aren't saying anything, nothing new.

Lately we're still seeing examples in caches linked to when folks post, and thought that odd that they're still around..

I can't see where the GCRM means you HAVE to do anything, it just gives a finder blanket permission to replace logs/container. It's giving owner permission ahead of time, but the finder still has the choice if they WILL do maintenance.  Like any of the old ALR's it's optional.

Share this post


Link to post

I carry around spare logs and will replace one when it's full (making sure to check both sides).  I won't file a NM for a full log on a cache (if I don't have my replacements with me) and will instead send a PM to the CO, letting them know that their log is full.  I don't feel that this particular situation is worth lowering the CHS score by filing the NM log because other than the full log, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the hide or the container, only the log inside.   I will always send a PM to the CO, letting them know I have the old log and will get it to them if they wish.  To date, only one CO has asked for a picture of the old log that was in there.  

 

If the log is wet and full due to the container being compromised, I'll still most likely put a new log in with a small baggie but I WILL file the NM log because it's obvious the container is no longer watertight.  If the log is in such bad shape that it will compromise the replacement log, I'll take out the old log and put in the new one, being sure to notify the CO that I have the old log and will get it to them (or take a picture of it) if they would like for me to do so.  If the log and container are in such bad shape that the replacement log I place in there will be ruined by the time I'm 5 minutes down the road, I won't toss in a replacement log.  If the container can survive a bit longer by cleaning it up a bit, I'll clean it up a bit (not repair it but dry it out).  That way, any finders who find it before the CO can get out there to fix it will have a slightly better experience than I did.  It still gets a NM log.  No action taken after roughly a month, I'll follow it up with a NA log.  My "help" was meant to be a temporary fix, not a permanent one.

 

14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I only replace caches in very remote areas (they are maintained by the occasional traveller) or when I have permission of the CO.

 

Nope to the first part.  That's a throwdown, any way you describe it.  You'll file a NM log for a full log but will put a throwdown out for a container in a remote area that you believe to be missing and not file a NM log because everything is fine now.  I don't really see the consistency of these two actions with regard to maintenance towards someone else's cache. What if the cache in the remote area was there but had a full log?  If you're willing to replace the container, I would assume you'd be willing to replace the log as well. Would this get a NM log?

 

Yes to the second part, although I rarely do even that any more.  If the CO really wanted to keep it going, they'd have been out there to replace it on their own.  I imagine I could have some exceptions to this - something has happened to the CO that prohibits their maintenance - but in normal situations, I don't really bother any more.

 

As to the initial premise of this post, you're absolutely right.  Some COs don't take kindly to what is basically information feedback about the status of their cache.  

 

15 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Once that kind of culture hits an area it doesn't leave. The people who value throwdown, set-em-and-forget-em, community-maintenance become the dominant force.

 

I agree with this, to some extent.  When a CO assumes that others will take care of their caches and does absolutely NOTHING to maintain them, then there's an issue with that CO.  However, if a cacher occasionally replaces a full or wet log for a CO who normally takes care of those types of things, I see no reason to get overly upset.  If the CO expects one the next few finders to replace the full logs (and does so frequently), then there's certainly an issue.  Replacement of a log, while not required or to be expected, is one of the easiest and most unobtrusive means of helping cachers and COs have better experiences within the community.  The CO is saved from making a trip out to replace a piece of paper and future finders get a new log to sign.  It's not something COs should ever expect and if a CO wishes for it not to happen, all they have to do is state so in their descriptions, which I've seen some COs do.  Otherwise, I see it as nothing more than a simple courtesy offered in in the spirit of being a helpful community member.

 

Also, those types of COs described above only become the dominant force in the area if the other COs choose to follow their lead.  Just because one CO does it that way does not mean that every subsequent CO that follows will do it the same way.  There's no absolute "if this, then that" equivalency here.  I've seen and cached in areas that have become like that and I've seen and cached in areas where one hider is like that but the rest of the COs in the area aren't like that at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, The Jester said:
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I've believed that the GCRM icon on cache pages would be considered an ALR by a Reviewer.  Those who never saw it ...gcrm.

Maybe folks just aren't saying anything, nothing new.

Lately we're still seeing examples in caches linked to when folks post, and thought that odd that they're still around..

I can't see where the GCRM means you HAVE to do anything, it just gives a finder blanket permission to replace logs/container. It's giving owner permission ahead of time, but the finder still has the choice if they WILL do maintenance.  Like any of the old ALR's it's optional.

True. The problem with GCRM is not that it is an ALR.

 

The problem with GCRM is that having finders perform maintenance for you is not an acceptable maintenance plan.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, niraD said:

The problem with GCRM is that having finders perform maintenance for you is not an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

Objection, maintenance plan is required only for holiday caches. " If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. "

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

ALL geocache placements require compliance with the cache maintenance section of the Geocache Hiding Guidelines.

 

Posting a GCRM logo/link is a way of saying "I want to rely on others to do maintenance for me," which is not an acceptable maintenance plan.  Therefore, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not publish caches that include the GCRM logo/link.  If you see a cache page with that logo/link, it was either added post-publication, published before Geocaching HQ got wind of GCRM many years ago, or published in error.*

 

*Many reviewers are dogs.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately too many COs ignore comments in logs. Log after log might have log is full for instance and the CO does nothing. I now often log NMs to lesson the chance of the maintenance issue being ignored. Although that is influenced by whose cache it is (as I know that some COs are responsible and read their logs) and what has been written in other logs. I am less likely to make a NM when in a foreign country. I leave that up to the locals who know the local situation better.

I'll log a NM in a foreign country same as I would at home. I recently cited (somewhere here) my experience in Edinburgh of full logs in micros where other cachers have mentioned the full log  repeatedly in FIs but no NM. Some COs don't read FI logs so how are they top know there is a problem unless an NM is logged and, possibly, later followed up with an NA.Maintenance guidelines are the same wherever you go. As for leaving it up to the locals in tourist places like Edinburgh, I would guess that 99% or more of the loggers are tourists not locals who are being let down by inattentive COs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I believe this is the biggest reason many won't place an action log.    The CO's inaction is now your fault, and they're telling everybody.    :)

I explained people like this once in another thread, and got pooh-poohed away by another.

There's a lot of people who aren't comfortable, feeling they're  confronting someone ...  on something as simple as placing a NM.  

 - As you found, you don't often know who you'll be dealing with.  I really don't blame them much.

:DHa, ha, I'm an adult; I can handle fools like this. This would be unlikely to deter me. I even thought of logging a note to say that was me who was the malicious person who kindly logged (if someone does this to my cache when it NM I'm grateful and I thank the person) to let them know it needed maintenance, but then decided escalating this was not the right thing to do, especially as the CO appeared to me that they might have issues beyond geocaching, and so didn't. Others could read for themselves what had happened; as did the reviewer who backed me up.  The reviewer worded their answer very carefully and delicately though; perhaps also thinking that the CO might have issues happening beyond geocaching. It wasn't only one cache; but a number of caches along their power trail. If someone puts in a power trail they should be willing to maintain it. Too many power trails are put in and not maintained by the CO, who expects others to maintain it. Other people SHOULD NOT maintain it for them, as there are already too many power trails.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, colleda said:

I'll log a NM in a foreign country same as I would at home. I recently cited (somewhere here) my experience in Edinburgh of full logs in micros where other cachers have mentioned the full log  repeatedly in FIs but no NM. Some COs don't read FI logs so how are they top know there is a problem unless an NM is logged and, possibly, later followed up with an NA.Maintenance guidelines are the same wherever you go. As for leaving it up to the locals in tourist places like Edinburgh, I would guess that 99% or more of the loggers are tourists not locals who are being let down by inattentive COs.

I do still log some NM in other countries; I just don't do it as readily. If there was a string of mentions (if I can read the logs) mentioning full log, etc, or the log was mush, I would likely log a NM; but if the log is just damp I might not, and if I couldn't read the language of previous logs, I mightn't log a NM either, because I don't know what has or has not been written already to let the CO know. And I don't want to be the blow-in making trouble.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I carry around spare logs and will replace one when it's full (making sure to check both sides).  I won't file a NM for a full log on a cache (if I don't have my replacements with me) and will instead send a PM to the CO, letting them know that their log is full.  I don't feel that this particular situation is worth lowering the CHS score by filing the NM log because other than the full log, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the hide or the container, only the log inside.   I will always send a PM to the CO, letting them know I have the old log and will get it to them if they wish.  To date, only one CO has asked for a picture of the old log that was in there.  

 

If the log is wet and full due to the container being compromised, I'll still most likely put a new log in with a small baggie but I WILL file the NM log because it's obvious the container is no longer watertight.  If the log is in such bad shape that it will compromise the replacement log, I'll take out the old log and put in the new one, being sure to notify the CO that I have the old log and will get it to them (or take a picture of it) if they would like for me to do so.  If the log and container are in such bad shape that the replacement log I place in there will be ruined by the time I'm 5 minutes down the road, I won't toss in a replacement log.  If the container can survive a bit longer by cleaning it up a bit, I'll clean it up a bit (not repair it but dry it out).  That way, any finders who find it before the CO can get out there to fix it will have a slightly better experience than I did.  It still gets a NM log.  No action taken after roughly a month, I'll follow it up with a NA log.  My "help" was meant to be a temporary fix, not a permanent one.

 

 

Nope to the first part.  That's a throwdown, any way you describe it.  You'll file a NM log for a full log but will put a throwdown out for a container in a remote area that you believe to be missing and not file a NM log because everything is fine now.  I don't really see the consistency of these two actions with regard to maintenance towards someone else's cache. What if the cache in the remote area was there but had a full log?  If you're willing to replace the container, I would assume you'd be willing to replace the log as well. Would this get a NM log?

 

Yes to the second part, although I rarely do even that any more.  If the CO really wanted to keep it going, they'd have been out there to replace it on their own.  I imagine I could have some exceptions to this - something has happened to the CO that prohibits their maintenance - but in normal situations, I don't really bother any more.

 

As to the initial premise of this post, you're absolutely right.  Some COs don't take kindly to what is basically information feedback about the status of their cache.  

 

 

I agree with this, to some extent.  When a CO assumes that others will take care of their caches and does absolutely NOTHING to maintain them, then there's an issue with that CO.  However, if a cacher occasionally replaces a full or wet log for a CO who normally takes care of those types of things, I see no reason to get overly upset.  If the CO expects one the next few finders to replace the full logs (and does so frequently), then there's certainly an issue.  Replacement of a log, while not required or to be expected, is one of the easiest and most unobtrusive means of helping cachers and COs have better experiences within the community.  The CO is saved from making a trip out to replace a piece of paper and future finders get a new log to sign.  It's not something COs should ever expect and if a CO wishes for it not to happen, all they have to do is state so in their descriptions, which I've seen some COs do.  Otherwise, I see it as nothing more than a simple courtesy offered in in the spirit of being a helpful community member.

 

Also, those types of COs described above only become the dominant force in the area if the other COs choose to follow their lead.  Just because one CO does it that way does not mean that every subsequent CO that follows will do it the same way.  There's no absolute "if this, then that" equivalency here.  I've seen and cached in areas that have become like that and I've seen and cached in areas where one hider is like that but the rest of the COs in the area aren't like that at all.

I don't mind someone adding a new log if one of my cache logs are full, as long as they say in their log they are doing this (don't just do it and not say) and please DON'T remove the old log. Obviously the cache needed maintenance and I will then go and do that and check also the old log against the online logs. Mostly the signatures match, but sometimes they don't and I need to action that. Better though is just to make a NM; don't replace the log. Although I don't mind a temporary log added, I much prefer just to have a NM and the reason for this, if the log is full; then someone replacing the log. Actually NEVER replace the log; leave the old there; just add the temporary log until I can get to it.

As for replacing caches in remote areas (We have more remote areas than the USA. If you doubt that, check a road map of both countries and look in the central areas.), many of these caches were placed before the 161 km rule and if they are not replaced there will be no more caches in that area, because no geocacher lives close enough and very few people anyway. So, no caches for large parts of the country. People who don't have to face that I find are very fond of saying these caches shouldn't be replaced; because in their country they are 'alright Jack', they rarely face this situation of where there are no caches for 100s kms, so as they are alright, who cares about other situations.

Take this cache; GCQ9KE 100s kms to the next cache. If that was archived there will likely not be a replacement. Check where it is and how many caches nearby.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Other people SHOULD NOT maintain it for them, as there are already too many power trails.

 

This is only a wishfull thinking by a person who is not even interested to visit those caches. Many players who are hooked in numbers will maintain caches by all means they have just to get the point they delirably need. We need to lower the bar. Let's give them a found every time they post a NA log!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't mind someone adding a new log if one of my cache logs are full, as long as they say in their log they are doing this (don't just do it and not say) and please DON'T remove the old log. Obviously the cache needed maintenance and I will then go and do that and check also the old log against the online logs. Mostly the signatures match, but sometimes they don't and I need to action that. Better though is just to make a NM; don't replace the log. Although I don't mind a temporary log added, I much prefer just to have a NM and the reason for this, if the log is full; then someone replacing the log. Actually NEVER replace the log; leave the old there; just add the temporary log until I can get to it.

 

Even if the one who replaces it offers to get it back to you via mail, photo, or in person?  I ALWAYS send an email to the CO, offering up a return of the old log, especially if there's no room for both a new log and an old one.  I've had exactly 1 person get back to me about their log of the maybe 75(?) times I've done it.  If you're waiting until there's a full log to check signatures against online logs, you're probably waiting too long.  If an online log seems a bit off for some reason and I doubt the validity of the find, I'm going to verify it as soon as the log comes through, not wait until the log in the cache is full.  

 

Per the bolded part -  do you specify this in your cache description?  If so, then I'll gladly do as instructed but if not, I'll make the assumption that the CO won't mind this minor maintenance and I'll notify them I did so, both in my log and via a PM.  If it makes sense to leave the old log in there with the new one, I will do so but there are times when it doesn't make sense, particularly in micro containers.  There are also times when it doesn't make sense to put a new log in there at all.

 

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

As for replacing caches in remote areas (We have more remote areas than the USA. If you doubt that, check a road map of both countries and look in the central areas.), many of these caches were placed before the 161 km rule and if they are not replaced there will be no more caches in that area, because no geocacher lives close enough and very few people anyway. So, no caches for large parts of the country. People who don't have to face that I find are very fond of saying these caches shouldn't be replaced; because in their country they are 'alright Jack', they rarely face this situation of where there are no caches for 100s kms, so as they are alright, who cares about other situations.

Take this cache; GCQ9KE 100s kms to the next cache. If that was archived there will likely not be a replacement. Check where it is and how many caches nearby.

 

We have remote areas as well (particularly out west) where not many people live or visit.  I understand the reasons for trying to keep them going (which I agree with BTW) but I'm trying to point out the different standards you have in place, not debate the merits of keeping remote caches in good shape.  You'll go so far as to help maintain (even place a throwdown without the CO's permission) a remote cache but you won't take the simple step of replacing a full log just because there are more caches around.  Small minor maintenance like log replacement (or any maintenance for that matter) of a cache shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not there is one cache within 100 miles or 1000 caches within 100 miles, yet that is exactly what you're doing here.  If you're willing to provide help to a remote cache by replacing it without the CO's permission, then why aren't you willing to provide a less intrusive and less frowned upon type of help to less remote caches?  You've taken this massive bite out of the forbidden fruit but you won't even take a small nibble to replace a full log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

i replaced a full log yesterday. CO ignored the NM log from three months ago. Same CO had a  challenge cache with no actual finds in the last year and a half just folks logging qualifications, filed a NM and he immediately disabled it. Unless its a nano that requires special paper to fit definitely don't see a need for a nm.  But if I got one on my caches I'd definitely take care of it sooner than 3 months.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't log a NM for a full logsheet (I would mention it in my found log). I would for a soggy or otherwise ruined log.

 

Likewise, it's extremely rare that I would follow up on my own NM with a NA log. If I did follow a NM (mine or someone else) it would usually be for a cache that clearly seems missing or destroyed. 

 

I would rather a poorly maintained cache stay active than it be archived without being physically removed. A bad cache is still a cache. An archived, abandoned cache container is litter.

 

I have on occasion removed a geocache not owned by me, logging a NA accordingly, because a geocache is clearly ruined (container cannot reasonably be repaired, contents cannot be salvaged) to avoid in becoming geo-trash. Especially if a NM was logged more than a month ago with no indication from the CO that they will replace. (CO can always Disable and replace instead of Archiving.)

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Likewise, it's extremely rare that I would follow up on my own NM with a NA log.

Yep.

Similar, we don't understand why someone would want to be so involved,  to actually keep track  of a cache's time-frame to finally put that last nail in it's coffin.

Log that NM and move on with your life. 

 - It'd be different if those same people were interested enough that they're heading out to pick the cache up too...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2019 at 3:28 AM, Goldenwattle said:

 and people do have lives and family which come before caching

 

Hi Goldenwattle,

 

he is right that there are more important things sometimes (and family is always most important :-)).

 

BUT that does not mean that he does not have to take care for his caches but that he shouldn't have hidden so many caches as he can't maintain them. If he wouldn't have hidden a whole powertrail but only one or two individual caches he wouldn't have such a big problem. That is one reason why I never would hide a big powertrail - I wouldn't feel like changing logbooks and take care for any cache "of many".

Perhaps if (about) half of this trail gets archived he can handle the rest?

 

So it is completely his fault and should rethink his ownership. The nice thing is: you don't have to hide many caches, you only hide those you want to hide and which you can maintain.

 

And I agree fully to you: the least the owner should have done is writing a note that he had read the logs and will take care later. I think everyone understands that this will take some time.

 

I don't know if I would have logged NA only if the logbook is ful - but I don't see that you have done anything wrong. :-)

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I needed to check one of my caches yesterday. The last finder mentioned in their Found It that the cache did not appear to be where it should be but they replaced it where they found it. No NM. When I checked it the cache was right where it was supposed to be, fortunately. If it wasn't where it should have been, would it have been muggle? And, if I had not read the FI log, could it have gone missing for want of a NM. I would not have minded an NM, at least it tells me the finder knows how to use it and possibly realises that it is a valuable tool for the CO. Better a false alarm than a missing cache.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

I needed to check one of my caches yesterday. The last finder mentioned in their Found It that the cache did not appear to be where it should be but they replaced it where they found it. No NM. When I checked it the cache was right where it was supposed to be, fortunately. If it wasn't where it should have been, would it have been muggle? And, if I had not read the FI log, could it have gone missing for want of a NM. I would not have minded an NM, at least it tells me the finder knows how to use it and possibly realises that it is a valuable tool for the CO. Better a false alarm than a missing cache.

 

Not necessarily. If a group of people are out caching, with them handing the cache around to sign and the last one, who might not have seen where it was found, putting it back after everyone else has dashed off for the next one. Or maybe someone got distracted while signing the log (a phone call, perhaps) and couldn't remember exactly where it had been when they found it. Or perhaps someone who's just lazy, or even a newbie who doesn't know they're supposed to rehide it exactly the way they found it. I had that happen on a couple of my caches when a newbie was doing the rounds, like this one which I found left lying on the floor of the cave instead of being put back in the cavity behind the rock in the background.

 

NotRehidden.jpg.306eec610f700a09e6ead04b63c96b11.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Yep.

Similar, we don't understand why someone would want to be so involved,  to actually keep track  of a cache's time-frame to finally put that last nail in it's coffin.

Log that NM and move on with your life. 

 - It'd be different if those same people were interested enough that they're heading out to pick the cache up too...

 

That might depend on whether they actually logged a Found It or not.  If not found, one doesn't necessarily have to "keep track" of it.  Unless the cache is marked Ignore (which I almost never do), it'll keep showing up on PQs.  Generally, I will look to see if it's become findable again.  A couple of times this has happened to me.  A cache [in my area] that I'd marked NM a few months prior had a continued string of DNFs or FIs reporting problems, with no response from CO and no follow-up NM or NA logs.  Nobody was willing to pull the plug so I did the dirty deed (logged NA), even though I'd been the one to log the NM months before. 

That was before the cache health thingy was instituted. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Even if the one who replaces it offers to get it back to you via mail, photo, or in person?  I ALWAYS send an email to the CO, offering up a return of the old log, especially if there's no room for both a new log and an old one.  I've had exactly 1 person get back to me about their log of the maybe 75(?) times I've done it.  If you're waiting until there's a full log to check signatures against online logs, you're probably waiting too long.  If an online log seems a bit off for some reason and I doubt the validity of the find, I'm going to verify it as soon as the log comes through, not wait until the log in the cache is full.  

 

Per the bolded part -  do you specify this in your cache description?  If so, then I'll gladly do as instructed but if not, I'll make the assumption that the CO won't mind this minor maintenance and I'll notify them I did so, both in my log and via a PM.  If it makes sense to leave the old log in there with the new one, I will do so but there are times when it doesn't make sense, particularly in micro containers.  There are also times when it doesn't make sense to put a new log in there at all.

 

 

We have remote areas as well (particularly out west) where not many people live or visit.  I understand the reasons for trying to keep them going (which I agree with BTW) but I'm trying to point out the different standards you have in place, not debate the merits of keeping remote caches in good shape.  You'll go so far as to help maintain (even place a throwdown without the CO's permission) a remote cache but you won't take the simple step of replacing a full log just because there are more caches around.  Small minor maintenance like log replacement (or any maintenance for that matter) of a cache shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not there is one cache within 100 miles or 1000 caches within 100 miles, yet that is exactly what you're doing here.  If you're willing to provide help to a remote cache by replacing it without the CO's permission, then why aren't you willing to provide a less intrusive and less frowned upon type of help to less remote caches?  You've taken this massive bite out of the forbidden fruit but you won't even take a small nibble to replace a full log.

If someone changed the log and offered to send me the log, of course I would want it. I would need to check the log. Although a clear emailed photograph/scan might work as well and be more convenient. I don't understand COs who don't want it. I consider checking the log as one of the parts of being a CO.

I do regular maintenance on my caches; I don't wait until I get a NM, as I regularly check my caches and most times there is still plenty of room on the log left. Only once that I can remember I got a note saying the log was full, and when soon after I went to perform maintenance, I was very disappointed to find the log had been full for awhile and NO ONE had mentioned the log was full. I thanked the person who did tell me. Why, oh, why is it so hard for many people to write those simple words, "Log is full."?

I won't replace a log without the owners permission (in areas that are not remote), but I might add a temporary small scrap of paper (without removing the old log), which is enough until the owner does maintenance (hopefully) soon. I also will say the cache needs maintenance. I do have an established agreement with one cache owner who has caches spread out all over Australia and even in some other countries, that' it's okay to do maintenance on their caches. In fact when they realised I was near one of their caches they messaged me to ask if it would be possible for me to check on such and such a cache. I have also, with prior agreement, done maintenance on others' caches. But I don't do this without an agreement, unless, as I wrote in remote areas.

The photograph shows an example of remote with caches. The nearest cache to the example I gave of  GCQ9KE  (the centre right dot) is 314kms to the next cache over the  Canning Stock Route Track, Gibson Desert. Mind you, although remote, the caches I have helped maintain when travelling weren't as remote as this one. If caches like this are not maintained by travellers, they likely will never be replaced. Yes, there are one or two areas in the USA, when I checked the map, that could be classified as remote, but not the broad areas that Australia has.

Remote cache map.jpg

Canning_Stock_Route.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I have on occasion removed a geocache not owned by me, logging a NA accordingly, because a geocache is clearly ruined (container cannot reasonably be repaired, contents cannot be salvaged) to avoid in becoming geo-trash.

 

Don't forget that there are other listing websites, and that the item you're taking is not yours.  This is why HQ is and can only be concerned about the listings, not the physical property.  Keep in mind that the item is not your concern, it's the owner's concern, and you have zero responsibility or obligation to pick it up. A better course would be to contact the owner and tell them directly. At worst, say that you'll return to pick up the container if it's not maintained within a month, or some arbitrary period.

Now if the container is literally trash - broken, no log, indistinguishable from other garbage and refuse, then that's different. And this may be the state of the container you were referring to in the above quote.  In that case I would pick it up as trash as well, mainly because there's a good chance anyone would, and it's no longer a geocache. (then of course the owner shold be contacted)

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Now if the container is literally trash - broken, no log, indistinguishable from other garbage and refuse, then that's different. And this may be the state of the container you were referring to in the above quote.  In that case I would pick it up as trash as well, mainly because there's a good chance anyone would, and it's no longer a geocache. (then of course the owner shold be contacted)

 

This is one I encountered last year after the "cache smasher" had got to it. There was no logbook but its ample stock of swag, which included a deck of playing cards, was scattered along the track. I collected as much as I could and notified the owner, who duly archived it. Sad.

 

SmashedCache.jpg.60b2e5dbb8a7826c958878b1c4e43485.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Not necessarily. If a group of people are out caching, with them handing the cache around to sign and the last one, who might not have seen where it was found, putting it back after everyone else has dashed off for the next one. Or maybe someone got distracted while signing the log (a phone call, perhaps) and couldn't remember exactly where it had been when they found it. Or perhaps someone who's just lazy, or even a newbie who doesn't know they're supposed to rehide it exactly the way they found it. I had that happen on a couple of my caches when a newbie was doing the rounds, like this one which I found left lying on the floor of the cave instead of being put back in the cavity behind the rock in the background.

 

NotRehidden.jpg.306eec610f700a09e6ead04b63c96b11.jpg

Group caching is very rare around here, so rare I would say non existent. I can't recall any of my caches ever being signed with a group name. Occasionally there will be a couple of searchers doing my caches together. Three or more - rare - with the possible exception of last years' Mega.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, colleda said:

Group caching is very rare around here, so rare I would say non existent. I can't recall any of my caches ever being signed with a group name. Occasionally there will be a couple of searchers doing my caches together. Three or more - rare - with the possible exception of last years' Mega.

 

I recently had a group of eleven descend on two of my caches, most a bunch of scallywags from up your way, but as I was amongst them I could make sure everything was put back exactly how I like it :).

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Don't forget that there are other listing websites, and that the item you're taking is not yours.  This is why HQ is and can only be concerned about the listings, not the physical property.  Keep in mind that the item is not your concern, it's the owner's concern, and you have zero responsibility or obligation to pick it up. A better course would be to contact the owner and tell them directly. At worst, say that you'll return to pick up the container if it's not maintained within a month, or some arbitrary period.

Now if the container is literally trash - broken, no log, indistinguishable from other garbage and refuse, then that's different. And this may be the state of the container you were referring to in the above quote.  In that case I would pick it up as trash as well, mainly because there's a good chance anyone would, and it's no longer a geocache. (then of course the owner shold be contacted)

 

If the problem cache isn't close to home offering to return to retrieve it usually isn't an option. 

 

And I think I do have an obligation. "It's not your responsibility" and "it's someone else's problem" is a common dodge. Yes, it is the CO's responsibility, but if they're not being responsible (for whatever reason) then someone needs to step up otherwise the problem is just going to remain. And the problem is right there in front of me. I'm not expecting anyone to go looking for problems (unless it's your job), but when you willfully ignore a problem right in front of you then you're being irresponsible. 

 

And the "but it could be listed on another site!" argument is old. Realistically, all the other sites (at least in the US) see only marginal traffic. More importantly, once the container has been sufficiently damaged to be ruined the CO would have to remove it anyway. I will usually include a photo with my log showing the ruined container and contents.

 

Examples of what I'm talking about are usually broken or melted plastic containers, or burned & mangled ammo cans. A LnL full of water with all the latches gone or a hole in the lid, or the charred and twisted remains of an ammo can caught in a fire, are effectively garbage. Or the time I found a bag containing the contents of an ammo can cache. The container had been stolen and, being Florida, the bag of contents had been ruined by a month of rain and humidity. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't understand COs who don't want it.

 

In many cases, they've already checked their logs so the only ones left to view are the most recent ones.  My caches get found infrequently enough that checking my logs is easy and if someone replaced one of mine, I'd not want it back.  I adopted some caches from a friend that get found much more frequently and I really have no interest in getting any of those logs should they get replaced, as many of the hides are so easy that I don't feel the need to verify the signatures against the online logs.

 

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The photograph shows an example of remote with caches. The nearest cache to the example I gave of  GCQ9KE  (the centre right dot) is 314kms to the next cache over the  Canning Stock Route Track, Gibson Desert. Mind you, although remote, the caches I have helped maintain when travelling weren't as remote as this one. If caches like this are not maintained by travellers, they likely will never be replaced. Yes, there are one or two areas in the USA, when I checked the map, that could be classified as remote, but not the broad areas that Australia has.

 

Again, my point isn't about reasons for maintaining remote caches.  That seems to be your justification for allowing yourself to place a throwdown.  You go to the extreme of doing something specifically against what the help center states in 7.11. "Geocaches should not be replaced without the permission of the cache owner."  I'm not arguing against that (although I'm sure there are some on here who absolutely would pillory you for doing so).    Your sole justification for doing what you do is that they are remote caches.  Regardless of who provides it, maintenance of a cache shouldn't be based on how far away a cache is from everything else.  The expectation that GS has with ALL caches, regardless of where they are placed, is that they are maintained.  Just because a cache is in a remote area does not mean that maintenance expectations change. A cache placed on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean has the exact same maintenance expectations as a cache placed in the middle of New York City.  You are choosing to use one maintenance methodology for remote caches, which completely goes against what GS asks of us, yet you are choosing to use another maintenance methodology for more cache rich areas and going so far as to file the NA log if no action is taken on your NM log for a full log.

 

If you're willing to go against stated policy and maintain someone else's cache, then why this reluctance to provide a replacement log in someone else's cache?  Why do you have a need to file a NM and NA for a full log that you could easily rectify but not file a NM and NA for a cache that happens to be remote, is probably missing, and you will place a throwdown for?  You can't say that it's because the guidelines stipulate that a full log is grounds for a NM log because you've already shown that you're willing to do something that the guidelines prohibit/discourage by putting out a throwdown.  It can't be that you believe all maintenance should be done by the CO because you've already shown that you're willing to do maintenance on someone else's cache.  It can't be because you don't want other people providing some maintenance on your caches so you won't provide minor maintenance on other's caches because you've already shown that you're willing to do more than that on someone else's cache.  It can't be that you desire to keep all caches in play because you've already shown that you're willing to file a NA log on caches that the CO has ignored your NM for a full log.  Do you see the incongruity I'm trying to figure out?  

 

The reason I keep harping on this is that you're being hypocritical in your two approaches.  You claim to be in the right by stating that a full log is grounds for a NM and a subsequent NA because the CO has ignored the issue.  However, you also claim to be right by stating that remote caches are worth saving and you will go so far as to put out a throwdown or provide some other maintenance to keep it in good shape.  These two standards completely contradict each other.  You can't come on here and comment about how someone is hurt about your NM/NA procedures and then go and say that you won't do the exact same thing on some other cache just because it's remote.  Those actions completely go against what you did with the NM/NA caches and expose you as a hypocrite in this situation.  You are also demeaning the "value" of one CO's caches.  You're willing to provide maintenance on one set of caches because you find an inherent value in their remote location.  However, you're not willing to provide maintenance on another set of caches because they can be replaced.  Despite the fact that you said it's not a "...slur on them...", it actually is when you look at it in this manner.  Those remote caches are deserving of your maintenance/throwdown but these other caches are not.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

And I think I do have an obligation. "It's not your responsibility" and "it's someone else's problem" is a common dodge. Yes, it is the CO's responsibility, but if they're not being responsible (for whatever reason) then someone needs to step up otherwise the problem is just going to remain. And the problem is right there in front of me. I'm not expecting anyone to go looking for problems (unless it's your job), but when you willfully ignore a problem right in front of you then you're being irresponsible.

 

I'm speaking on property and ownership terms, not moral or ethical. It isn't your responsibility, because it's not your property. It's a judgment call YOU have to make if you decide to take that property on a moral decision to "clean up the environment".  As I also said, if it's indistinguishable from trash and no longer a geocache in any manner, then there's much less 'risk' of you being labeled a thief for knowingly taking someone else's property.  Again, this is why HQ takes the stance on cache adoptions that they take. They don't deal with the property, they only deal with the listings as they relate to property. They cannot assume that a new owner of the listing can legally or rightfully claim ownership of the physical property, because gc.com is only a listing service and there may be other uses for said property.  That same logic applies to whether you choose to remove an object that you are aware belongs to someone else - regardless of its quality or state.

 

I don't disagree with you on the moral point of cleaning up trash. I said as much. But you have to be aware that merely picking up something you know was left and is owned by another individual can constitute theft, strictly speaking.  Could it be taken to court? heh, unlikely. But none of us wants anyone to take our property, regardless of hwo much they believe they are doing a public service without contacting us first. Because it's our personal property.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

And the "but it could be listed on another site!" argument is old. Realistically, all the other sites (at least in the US) see only marginal traffic.

 

Irrelevant, it's still not your property.

 

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

More importantly, once the container has been sufficiently damaged to be ruined the CO would have to remove it anyway. I will usually include a photo with my log showing the ruined container and contents.

 

Sure. And if the owner says "HEY PUT THAT BACK!" It would indeed be my obligation to return it. Because it's not my property. Whatever reason they may have. It's still claimed and owned by someone, it's not abandoned litter.
(* ETA: Or take it to the owner so they can return it if you truly think it's trash and don't mind the owner hating you for life :P)

 

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Examples of what I'm talking about are usually broken or melted plastic containers, or burned & mangled ammo cans. A LnL full of water with all the latches gone or a hole in the lid, or the charred and twisted remains of an ammo can caught in a fire, are effectively garbage.

 

Still property if they are claimed by their owner. I won't pick it up until I have confirmed or have reasonable doubt that it is abandoned by its owner - or it is without a doubt indistinguishable from trash.

 

Remember, I'm not talking about moral or ethical concern for environment - what you do in that regards is a personal choice regardless of other potential blowback. I'm strictly saying that taking something that doesn't belong to you is effectively theft, and assuming that what is and was listed on geocaching.com has the only sole purpose of being a geocache there and taking the moral high ground of "cleaning up" based on your sole opinion that it is garbage, runs the risk of constituting theft, which is precisely why Groundspeak takes the hands-off approach to physical property ownership in regards to listings.

Do as you wish with what you think is trash. But please don't go picking up caches you think are abandoned without confirmation or being certain the owner has abandoned it.

 

 

I picked up a cache I thought was archived and left (and thus I assumed it was litter) by its owner, without attempting to contact them first. I posted the note on the archived listing saying as much, and got a quick response from the owner saying it was listed on another site and asked me to return it ASAP, which I did.  My opinion of 'litter' was not correct in that case nor did I contact the implied owner first.  THAT is why I'm saying what I am. One person's "trash" may still be another person's property.

 

Contact first.

Attempt contact a few times.

Then remove.

Or if it's essentially trash beyond any reasonable doubt, remove then contact - and keep for a time in order to return it to the owner.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 10:10 PM, L0ne.R said:

Or mysteriously ;), a dry log appears and the next finders say 'I don't know why someone logged an NM/NA the log is dry and in good shape' (or the missing/damaged cache is actually there and in good shape--not mentioning they left a throwdown). The person in the wrong is the guy who posts the NM/NA, never the owner. 

 

"NM" creates such havoc among locals, I almost always avoid posting that.  Yeah, when I do it's all my fault. :blink:

 

I once found yet another Micro listed as a Small (this happens frequently), and it was waaay wrong.  So I made an NM.   It's a pill bottle, not a "Small" Tupperware container as listed. It's a throwdown.  I found it on the side of a hill, 40 feet from GZ, and luck is what kept it from being blown by wind into the lake.  There aren't hidey spots now (logs have rotted away, the hint doesn't apply now), no place to tuck even a pill bottle, and animals are digging the ground. I had a golf ball, so I put it into the bottle at GZ so it might not blow away.  Anyway, I provided great detail on what the problem was.

 

The CO made a special log just for me, "I don't know what the problem was".  And that it's super inconvenient for the CO that I made an NM when this cache is a long walk and is one of them "community maintained" ones.  Which means it is not maintained.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
I had to chase the cows back into the field.
  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, kunarion said:

"NM" creates such havoc among locals, I almost always avoid posting that.  Yeah, when I do it's all my fault. :blink:

 

I once found yet another Micro listed as a Small (this happens frequently), and it was waaay wrong.  So I made an NM.   It's a pill bottle, not a "Small" Tupperware container as listed. It's a throwdown.  I found it on the side of a hill, 40 feet from GZ, and luck is what kept it from being blown by wind into the lake.  There aren't hidey spots now (logs have rotted away, the hint doesn't apply now), no place to tuck even a pill bottle, and animals are digging the ground. I had a golf ball, so I put it into the bottle at GZ so it might not blow away.  Anyway, I provided great detail on what the problem was.

 

The CO made a special log just for me, "I don't know what the problem was".  And that it's super inconvenient for the CO that I made an NM when this cache is a long walk and is one of them "community maintained" ones.  Which means it is not maintained.

 

This forum really needs a "frowny face" reaction... :sad:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It would indeed be my obligation to return it. Because it's not my property. Whatever reason they may have. It's still claimed and owned by someone, it's not abandoned litter.

 

No response to multiple logs saying there was a problem. No response to NMs. No response to an NA (or multiple NAs). Archived by reviewers. I consider those abandoned litter.

 

I have had a container that I listed on 2 (sometimes 3) sites. My caches were well marked as listed on another site, and in good shape - no signs of being abandoned. 

 

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Or if it's essentially trash beyond any reasonable doubt, remove then contact - and keep for a time in order to return it to the owner.

 

I have kept containers in the garage but I draw the line at biohazard.

The peanut butter container with a smashed lid was so gross I didn't dare take it home with me. Even touching the container worried me. I picked it up with 2 sticks and carefully walked it arms-length to the nearest garbage container, gagging a few times along the way. It had been full of a gross stagnant brown liquid and smelled really bad. The other was a large mason jar covered inside in black mold. If either owner (who both stopped playing shortly after placing those caches) wanted them back I'd give them a good quality container. I have a small stock of authentic Lock & Locks. I"d even throw in a logbook, pencil and some swag.  

 

I've removed probably 5 containers over the years. Leaving notes about removing them (also logging NAs). None of the owners responded.

 

I have had someone take my container accidentally. I told him not to worry. No point making them drive back, or mail me the container, or meet-up (2 hours drive) for a $3 container. I  replaced the container. It's an investment I'm happy to make, for me it's part of cache ownership. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2019 at 2:04 PM, cerberus1 said:

Similar, we don't understand why someone would want to be so involved,  to actually keep track  of a cache's time-frame to finally put that last nail in it's coffin.

 

Because CO's that don't perform maintenance is becoming more and more common.

Because their inaction's are having a negative effect on the game by allowing neglected caches to multiply.

Because we catchers on the ground have been given the tools (NM & NA) to clean up the neglected caches.

Because we hold CITO events. So we shouldn't ignore the trash some CO's create.

Because archiving a cache that is not being maintained properly allows the chance for a more responsible CO to place one in its place.

 

Edited by RocTheCacheBox
splg
  • Upvote 5
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:
On 9/15/2019 at 11:04 AM, cerberus1 said:

Similar, we don't understand why someone would want to be so involved,  to actually keep track  of a cache's time-frame to finally put that last nail in it's coffin.

 

Because CO's that don't perform maintenance is becoming more and more common.

Because their inaction's are having a negative effect on the game by allowing neglected caches to multiply.

Because we catchers on the ground have been given the tools (NM & NA) to clean up the neglected caches.

Because we hold CITO events. So we shouldn't ignore the trash some CO's create.

Because archiving a cache that is not being maintained properly allows the chance for a more responsible CO to place one in its place.

I'm not seeing this raging increase in poor CO behavior or multiplying neglected caches, so I contest that part of your post.

 

But I do agree NMs and NAs should be used as needed. cerberus1's point, as I read it, isn't that you shouldn't post NMs and NAs when you see the need. It's that once you post the NM or NA, you should move on with your life. If you post an NM and the problem isn't resolved, someone else will come along later, see your NM and how much time has passed, and post the NA. When you post the NM and then sit there with your foot tapping waiting for whatever period you think is appropriate to pass, it makes me start to wonder if you aren't following a vendetta more than doing your part to clean up caches that have passed on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

No response to multiple logs saying there was a problem. No response to NMs. No response to an NA (or multiple NAs). Archived by reviewers. I consider those abandoned litter.

 

Sure, but as in other threads you never know. You do make a judgment call about what you personally consider "reasonable", but you may still end up with someone getting back at you for taking their stuff, regardless of your judgment. An unresponsive owner doesn't necessarily equate to abandoned litter.

 

50 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I have had a container that I listed on 2 (sometimes 3) sites. My caches were well marked as listed on another site, and in good shape - no signs of being abandoned. 

 

Great.

 

50 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I have kept containers in the garage but I draw the line at biohazard.

 

Note I keep saying within reason. Take an argument to the extreme if you like, doesn't change the point I'm making, and that which I made room for.

Whenever you take anything that was known to belong to someone, you are taking someone else's property. So you have to make a decision as to where the line is for reasonably assuming it's 100% entirely abandoned litter.  Whether you believe it to be effectively trash, and assuming it's not still with practical use and ownership elsewhere.

What if for example someone did have it listed on multiple sites, but gave up on gc.com, abandoning that account? The container is still actively used (regardless of whether we think it's "trash") and owned by an active individual who has not abandoned it (even if it's in awful condition). If you take it, you're still stealing someone else's property.

 

53 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I've removed probably 5 containers over the years. Leaving notes about removing them (also logging NAs). None of the owners responded.

 

Sure. Anecdotal. I never said it would happen often, or that it rarely happens. Only that it does. And if you or I decide that it's worth picking up a container because we believe it to be abandoned litter, we run the risk of being wrong and effectively stealing someone's property.

 

54 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I have had someone take my container accidentally. I told him not to worry. No point making them drive back, or mail me the container, or meet-up (2 hours drive) for a $3 container. I  replaced the container. It's an investment I'm happy to make, for me it's part of cache ownership. 

 

Good for you. (not sarcastic). But still irrelevant to the point.

 

 

The issue here isn't that unmaintained caches are being picked up - it's good not to leave trash. The issue is how we come to that decision and action - and people who assume that something is entirely abandoned run the risk of taking something that is not; so, what strategies do you employ to be confident that you're not stealing actively owned property?

 

I'm simply saying that merely because it's archived and left in place does not mean it's abandoned (let alone not yet archived).  Good chance, but not guaranteed.

 

Good practice, IMO, is if you do decide to pick something up that's not beyond anyone's doubt a piece of trash, then contact the presumed owner to let them know. Then deal with any potential response.  As a starting point, respect the owner (yes, even if it seems like the owner doesn't respect nature) because you don't know the reason why a cache is in the state it's in, and it's not your property.

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...