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

On 9/15/2019 at 2:04 PM, 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...

 

+1

 

No need for me to do it all.  One cacher logs NM, another logs NA.  Spread the wealth. :)

 

I’ve picked up little shards of sandwich box, but other than that, I haven’t had to collect someone’s archived container for them.  I don’t even know who grabs the pill bottles.  They just go away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, kunarion said:

No need for me to do it all.  One cacher logs NM, another logs NA.  Spread the wealth. :)

 

I’ve picked up little shards of sandwich box, but other than that, I haven’t had to collect someone’s archived container for them.  I don’t even know who grabs the pill bottles.  They just go away.

:D

I  find it odd when some hover over another's cache like fierce Snoopy the vulture, ready to pounce.

Keeping track, as if they have a tickle file that sets the alarm when "that day" comes,  just seems so unhealthy to me.   

This is a hobby...  

Sure some need to go bye-bye,  and I understand that sometimes it seems to take way too long, but they do eventually go bye-bye.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

 If I return to the area and it hasn't been fixed after a few months I put an NA. I camp almost every other weekend in State Parks throughout the area so I return to those areas a few times a year. Makes it easy to follow up.  There is no vendetta. Just using the tools the way they were meant to be used

 

Actually, I don't believe that's correct as said...

The guidelines even say "Do not select this option if :   The cache needs repairs — select another “Needs maintenance” option."

Oddly, even the selected option now reads: "You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Actually, I don't believe that's correct as said...

The guidelines even say "Do not select this option if :   The cache needs repairs — select another “Needs maintenance” option."

Oddly, even the selected option now reads: "You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

 

 

That whole section of the Help Centre seems to be worded rather strangely. How are you supposed to deal with, say, a cracked container with a missing lid, a lump of pulp for a logbook and a CO who hasn't been active for many years (or is even dead)? The dead don't respond to NMs no matter how many you post. And conversely, why does a hard-to-find cache (maybe a D3 or higher) need an NA just because you couldn't find it and there are several other DNFs on the cache page (not in a row, just at any time in the entire life of the cache) with no owner response.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

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.

 

Most of my caches get few finds (seven are still in single digits) and, being a small caching community, most of those finds are by people I know and trust to do the right thing, so I rarely check the logbooks to verify finds. Usually the online logs are fairly detailed anyway so it's pretty clear they went there. On one of the rare occasions when an online log gave me cause to wonder, I found it almost impossible to correlate the physical logbook with the online logs. Some of the dates didn't match, some people had used different names in the logbook to what their online name was, some of the signatures in the logbook were illegible, etc. About all I could say was that there were about the same number of entries in the logbook as there were online logs.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

I have explained my reasons many times. Not doing it again, and you are not changing my opinions, or the customs of many here too.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Irrelevant, it's still not your property.

 

 

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)

 

 

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.

There are anti-littering laws and if someone is not maintaining a cache to the point the plastic is crumbling into the ground, they are committing an offence as the cache has become litter. I would remove the cache to stop geocaching falling foul of this law and getting a bad reputation. I don't see that a CO in this situation would have much argument; otherwise everyone who threw a drink container from the car could yell 'don't pick that up; that's mine'. Some people (and therefore COs) don't care about this law. If that wasn't the case there wouldn't be rubbish floating about the countryside, or caches left to rot.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

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.

 

Not true for many areas.

Very few will post an NM. Let's say 10% of finders. Then of those 10% willing to post an NM, only 1% of those folks will post an NA. It could take years, before someone posts the NA. That's probably one of the reasons that reviewers have had to scan for multiple NMs and strings of DNFs. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

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.

 

My sister and I were hiding a few caches along a trail.  I said "Look.  There's an ammo can!"  She said "Probably the final to the multi that I could not find."  We checked it out.  It had been archived four years previously.  The first stage was missing.  Not listed on any other site.  In our Found It logs, we noted that we had removed the archived cache.  No response from the CO who had abandoned it four years previously.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

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

 

Contest away! Then come to SW Ohio for a week! :) There's plenty! 

 

Then come to SW Ontario for a week. Lots of neglected caches and lots of find logs noting a problem. Very few NMs. Reviewers have had to take charge. There was a few months where  there was a sweep one reviewer posted NMs (mostly on strings of DNFs). There was no follow-up and now over 2 years later and most are not followed up by NAs posted by the community. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

My sister and I were hiding a few caches along a trail.  I said "Look.  There's an ammo can!"  She said "Probably the final to the multi that I could not find."  We checked it out.  It had been archived four years previously.  The first stage was missing.  Not listed on any other site.  In our Found It logs, we noted that we had removed the archived cache.  No response from the CO who had abandoned it four years previously.

 

I found one of those! It was an ammo box that had been crushed and covered by a falling tree.  The cache was archived (“lost”), then the tree rotted away and somebody found it and placed it at the edge of the forest.  The contents, including the original log book, were in pretty good shape.  I returned it to the CO.  I counted it as a Find :D.

 

There was a piece of shed snake skin stuck to the log book.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

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.

 

Going back to the original post for a moment.  While the cache owner owes a duty to the community at large to maintain their caches, that shouldn't be confused with their having a duty to respond to your logs in particular. And sure, if a cache owner feels they are being called out in public by a self-appointed cache cop, they may get defensive about it.

 

We have a cache health score and reaper reviewers for a reason.  You are not a reviewer, and your responsibility arguably ended at the point where you posted a NM log, or certainly at the point where you posted an NA log.

 

In sum, yes, I'm going to trot out the old graphic again:

 

ab65d6b2-3e56-48d9-89f1-7cbcf432e8f0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

Going back to the original post for a moment.  While the cache owner owes a duty to the community at large to maintain their caches, that shouldn't be confused with their having a duty to respond to your logs in particular. And sure, if a cache owner feels they are being called out in public by a self-appointed cache cop, they may get defensive about it.

 

We have a cache health score and reaper reviewers for a reason.  You are not a reviewer, and your responsibility arguably ended at the point where you posted a NM log, or certainly at the point where you posted an NA log.

 

In sum, yes, I'm going to trot out the old graphic again:

 

ab65d6b2-3e56-48d9-89f1-7cbcf432e8f0.jpg

What is your point? Are you trying to be argumentative? I logged a few needed NMs; the logs were very full; I made ONE NA, not on all of them, only on ONE of them as a reminder, as the CO had not responded. I wrote nothing rude. Then I did leave it up to the reviewer. I didn't mention that the CO told me not to message them (they who wrote I should have messaged them.) Except for a brief comment " A NM should be all that's necessary. " I didn't write anything else. Tempted, but didn't want to escalate this, as it was now up to the reviewer. So really, except that you want to be nasty, you are not making any sense in your point, because it was left up to the reviewer. Or are you trolling to get a response. Well congratulations your trolling worked; you did. Happy?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

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 agree with you completely and am tempted to leave it at that...but my thinking goes one step further. Yes, "but how can you be really sure?" is an important thing to consider, but I also go on to say, "and why's it a big deal?" Physically, an abandon container is exactly as much "trash" as an actively maintained container. Even when you've decided beyond all doubt that it is "abandoned" in terms of geocaching.com (or any other site), ecologically it's doing no more damage to the environment than it was doing when it was well maintained and being found once a day. While it's nice to keep an eye on it, this abandon cache is just a drop in the bucket of geocaching castoff when you consider the number of caches that roll down the hill or fall too far into a stump or are dropped in a river or are dragged off by varmints. Clear up trash when you want, but there's no reason to be militant about it. You aren't saving the planet, you aren't saving geocaching, you're just picking up one little piece of trash. If you want to pick up trash, there's probably a hundred times as many candy bar wrappers you walked by on the way to that one time GZ, and you don't have to worry for one second whether any of them are still useful to someone for some obscure reason, so pick them up, instead.

 

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

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.

On the other hand, if I do finally decide that cache really is abandoned and pick it up, I'm just going to add a note to the log saying what I did. No need to go to the ends of the earth to track down the owner. If he isn't reading the log, then I think it's fair to say he doesn't care. I think that's reasonable even if it's been pulled from geocaching.com but posted at another site.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Contest away! Then come to SW Ohio for a week! :) There's plenty!

I believe you. I'm just pointing out that that's a problem with SW Ohio, not with geocaching in general.

 

20 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

You make me sound like a stalker.

That's exactly what it sounds like.

 

20 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

I put a NM on the cache. If I return to the area and it hasn't been fixed after a few months I put an NA. I camp almost every other weekend in State Parks throughout the area so I return to those areas a few times a year. Makes it easy to follow up.  There is no vendetta. Just using the tools the way they were meant to be used. 

That's not what cerberus1 was complaining about. He was talking about people that don't let it go. Coming back later and finding the same situation and no one else has stepped up to take action, it's fine to post the NA. If that's what you're doing, I don't know why cerberus1's comment got your ire up because he wasn't talking about that. You aren't keeping track of your NMs, you're just coming back later and reviewing the situation as if you didn't post the NM. It's unfortunate you have to do that -- and the fact that no one else posts NAs helps explain the problem in SW Ohio -- but if no one else does, of course it's up to you. In this case, for two reasons: first, because the cache needs to be cleared off the books, but even more important to be an example of good geocaching behavior and how it gets back caches off the books.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I logged a few needed NMs; the logs were very full; I made ONE NA, not on all of them, only on ONE of them as a reminder, as the CO had not responded.

 

While you technically followed the guidelines, is this truly in the spirit of geocaching?  Is this what's best for the community or are you so certain that every guideline needs to be followed that you're willing to get caches archived for something like a full log?  If you're looking out for the community's best interest by prodding CO's to maintain their caches, then you're going against your own principles as well as the community's best interest with regard to actions you take for remote caches.  You're not prodding those CO's to maintain their caches; you're maintaining and propping up their caches.  If you're looking out for the community's best interest by making sure that cachers find caches that are maintained by helping out other COs with occasional maintenance, then you're going against your own principles as well as the community's best interest with regard to actions you take for caches in more cache dense areas.  Instead of helping them out with some minor maintenance, you choose to file the NA because the CO hasn't replaced a full log.

 

18 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have explained my reasons many times. Not doing it again, and you are not changing my opinions, or the customs of many here too.

 

Your only reason explained here is that the remote ones might/will disappear and that the ones in more cache dense areas can be replaced.  I'm here to tell you that the remote ones can be replaced as well; it's just more likely that they won't be replaced.  You and I both know the reason why they probably won't be replaced - due to the issue of maintenance.  The more remote the cache, the harder it is to maintain.  You go against guidelines to keep them alive by propping them up with throwdowns and not filing what should be a NM or NA log, based on previous logs, but then you file a NA (after the technically appropriate NM log) on a cache with a full log, which is an easy remedy for the issue at hand.  I just believe that your two methods are at odds with one another and that you can't come on here and discuss/complain about a CO's reaction to your NM and subsequent NA log based on your actions with remote caches, which completely contradict and invalidate the actions you took in this example.

 

If you want to have more caches in remote areas, why don't you place them?  If the area is such a neat area to visit and the CO isn't maintaining the cache because they aren't around or don't want to, then why don't you either offer to adopt it or file the appropriate NM/NA logs (which you did for a full log but won't do for an apparently abandoned cache on the basis that it's a remote cache), have it archived and place one yourself?  I fully get what you say about remote caches and the fact that once they're gone, it's a good bet that there won't be any replacement caches.  I understand and even, to some extent, agree with your desire to keep them alive (up to the point where you put out a throwdown).  

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

That's probably one of the reasons that reviewers have had to scan for multiple NMs and strings of DNFs. 

 

That's not what reviewers have to do any more.  That's what the CHS does.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

On the other hand, if I do finally decide that cache really is abandoned and pick it up, I'm just going to add a note to the log saying what I did. No need to go to the ends of the earth to track down the owner. If he isn't reading the log, then I think it's fair to say he doesn't care. I think that's reasonable even if it's been pulled from geocaching.com but posted at another site.

 

I'll do this as well but it's really not that hard to track down the owner.  The owner is the CO listed at the top of the cache page and there's a link for their email as well as a message once you click on their caching name.  I'll send a message and an email, just to follow up on my actions.  No response, no further action needed on my part.  I get a response, then we'll see what further actions might be required.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

you're willing to get caches archived for something like a full log?

 

I think it's the other way around, the owner is willing to get his caches archived for something like a full log. He isn't going to go back to his caches and chooses instead to berate anyone who posts NMs/NAs. Doesn't sound responsible to me. Each time this topic comes up most of the anger is directed towards the the people  who post NMs and NAs. 

--------------------------------

From the guidelines:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

  • Visit the geocache regularly.
  • Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
  • Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
  • Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's not what reviewers have to do any more.  That's what the CHS does.

 

Yes, the CHS is  one of the tools used by reviewers. 

Share this post


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

I think it's the other way around, the owner is willing to get his caches archived for something like a full log.

 

The cache wouldn't be drawn to the attention of the reviewer without the NA log posted by the OP.  I get the point that your'e raising and fully understand that inaction by a CO constitutes possible reasons for archival but in the situation provided by the OP, they stated they were filing the NA log because the CO was unresponsive to a full log.  Is that truly a reason to request an archival for a cache?  Is a reviewer going to archive a cache because the only thing wrong with it is that there's a full log?  The OP then added, later in the topic, that they had no problem maintaining other peoples' caches, even to the point of placing a throwdown without permission.  You tell me.  Which of these two actions are the "correct" one?  If you're going to say that the NM/NA is correct, then the actions of the OP regarding remote caches is incorrect.  If you're going to say that the remote cache action is the correct one, then the NM/NA log is the incorrect one.  They both can't be correct yet for the OP,  they are.

 

I question the reasoning behind the actions of the OP when the two actions are diametrically opposed to each other.  I personally disagree with the NA for a full log (not the NM, although I'd not log it) because it's a very simple remedy that can be taken by anyone that doesn't really affect the integrity of the cache.  In fact, according to the survey from last year, 74% of those that took the survey agreed that replacement of a full log would go a long way to improving cache quality.  The only one that was greater was the use of the DNF/NM/NA logs, at 79%.  While technically correct to log a NA for an unattended to NM for a full log, I have to wonder if that's truly in the spirit of geocaching.  I fully get it when it's a container in bad shape but for something so minor as a full log seems to be going above and beyond the intent of what a NA is for.  In all other aspects, the cache is perfectly fine.  It's not damaged, it's still watertight, it's not on private property, it's not causing issues with the local residents, and it's being found.  The only issue is a full log. 

 

Would you be OK with requesting a cache be archived because you wanted to nudge the CO to take action on a full log, despite the fact that you are OK with performing maintenance on someone else's caches (including going so far as to put out a throwdown without permission)?

 

27 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

He isn't going to go back to his caches and chooses instead to berate anyone who posts NMs/NAs.

 

This isn't proper form either.  I'm not questioning their actions because their actions are consistent and in this case, consistently wrong.

 

28 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Doesn't sound responsible to me.

 

But it's responsible for the OP to file a NA on a cache for a full log but also take care of remote caches for COs either unwilling, unable, or not around any more to maintain their own caches?  

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

There are anti-littering laws and if someone is not maintaining a cache to the point the plastic is crumbling into the ground, they are committing an offence as the cache has become litter. I would remove the cache to stop geocaching falling foul of this law and getting a bad reputation. I don't see that a CO in this situation would have much argument; otherwise everyone who threw a drink container from the car could yell 'don't pick that up; that's mine'. Some people (and therefore COs) don't care about this law. If that wasn't the case there wouldn't be rubbish floating about the countryside, or caches left to rot.

 

As I said, you are making a moral judgment. I said it's not your responsibility, and yes, even then you are still taking someone's property. There's no way around that. It's their responsibility, not yours. So we make the judgment as to where the moral line is. But that doesn't change the fact that you are taking someone else's property that's not your responsibility.

 

21 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

My sister and I were hiding a few caches along a trail.  I said "Look.  There's an ammo can!"  She said "Probably the final to the multi that I could not find."  We checked it out.  It had been archived four years previously.  The first stage was missing.  Not listed on any other site.  In our Found It logs, we noted that we had removed the archived cache.  No response from the CO who had abandoned it four years previously.

 

Great. Again, I didn't say EVERY archived cache is owned by an active owner and only listed on GC. You did what I did, but in my case it was on another listing site. Though it wasn't archived 4 years prior. There are plenty of varieties of situations. None of it changes the base fact that if you remove property that was known to belong to someone, that isn't yours, then regardless of the reasoning, 1. it's not your responsibility and 2. it's still taking someone else's property. There's no way around that. The followup is that we make a moral judgment about at what point we believe we're justified to take such property without the behest of the owner. That's still theft. So the issue is how we handle that situation. Some of us would retrieve it and contact the owner informing them of our choice and reasoning and how best to followup. Others it seems wouldn't. I would condone the former presuming taking the property is justified in my mind, and not the latter.


Man it's hard to make a point here when people counter with edge cases already accounted for. :P

 

21 hours ago, kunarion said:

I found one of those! It was an ammo box that had been crushed and covered by a falling tree.  The cache was archived (“lost”), then the tree rotted away and somebody found it and placed it at the edge of the forest.  The contents, including the original log book, were in pretty good shape.  I returned it to the CO.  I counted it as a Find :D.

 

Yay!

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

I agree with you completely and am tempted to leave it at that...but my thinking goes one step further. Yes, "but how can you be really sure?" is an important thing to consider, but I also go on to say, "and why's it a big deal?" Physically, an abandon container is exactly as much "trash" as an actively maintained container.

 

Well, the difference being there is an active claim to ownership, rather than a passive, outdated, unconfirmable one.  If you're making the argument that something physical left in nature and owned is trashed, then everyone's car is trash.  Now you say "abandoned container", but how do you know it's abandoned? That's the issue now, that's where we make the personal judgment.  An "abandoned" container implies confirmation that it no longer has a claim of ownership, that it IS trash. We make a whole lot of judgments when we look at something and assume it's abandoned, and often to justify our moral decision to take it - even though it's not our responsibility.

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Clear up trash when you want, but there's no reason to be militant about it. You aren't saving the planet, you aren't saving geocaching, you're just picking up one little piece of trash. If you want to pick up trash, there's probably a hundred times as many candy bar wrappers you walked by on the way to that one time GZ, and you don't have to worry for one second whether any of them are still useful to someone for some obscure reason, so pick them up, instead.

 

Quite true.  The, as you put it, militant desire to clean up archived caches seems to be imbalanced, in the grand scheme, against picking up actual non-geocaching trash.  That's why we have CITOs after all =P  And that's why I will no longer assume that just because I think it's abandoned that it actually is. I'll do everything to contact the owner first before assuming I have the right to take it without permission.  Of course balanced against the moral line of cleaning up "trash" regardless of potential ownership.

Share this post


Link to post

Surprised at the defence of COs here. I think it is reasonable that for most caches within the space of a month for a CO to respond to a NM request. If not, after say two months, the cache could be changed to unmaintained, where either it can be adopted without needing the permission of the CO, or people would at least know the CO wasn't closely monitoring the logs.

 

I say that only because much as the CO is doing a positive thing for the community creating the log, likewise often people are going out of their way to try and find the GC. There are a few around here which have had DNFs over the course of several months. I don't think it is unreasonable in those circumstances for the CO to either check the cache, or mark it is temporarily disabled until they can check it.

 

No-one's asking COs to be a fourth emergency service but likewise if you've spent hours creating a cache, I don't think it's unreasonable to monitor your emails and disable the cache if needed. Would be good for it to be like another thing I am a member of, if you don't do something within xx weeks then your entire membership is disabled, but you can apply for it back and get it quickly if needed.

 

tl;dr this isn't a one sided thing, people may be making a special journey because your cache is on the map, so there is some reasonable responsibility to maintain it.

Edited by daddybeth
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, daddybeth said:

the cache could be changed to unmaintained, where either it can be adopted without needing the permission of the CO

Nope. Will never happen unless Groundspeak takes a very different legal approach to having people list property on the website. HQ has been firm on this.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

Nope. Will never happen unless Groundspeak takes a very different legal approach to having people list property on the website. HQ has been firm on this.

But what if you abandon your property, intentionally or otherwise?

 

I mean, if I was hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd love it if any caches I placed could be adopted by someone else rather than rot away.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Surprised at the defence of COs here. I think it is reasonable that for most caches within the space of a month for a CO to respond to a NM request.

If not, after say two months, the cache could be changed to unmaintained, where either it can be adopted without needing the permission of the CO

 

So, unknown to anyone, a cacher has a car accident and hospitalized.  You feel he needs to keep track of what's going on in a hobby ?

The many few times I've been hospitalized, the last thing I was concerned about was this hobby.    :D

Caches do not belong to the site.  They're private property. 

Someone can (and has ...) raise quite a stink if someone within the site decided they were going to give someone's property to another.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

But what if you abandon your property, intentionally or otherwise?

I mean, if I was hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd love it if any caches I placed could be adopted by someone else rather than rot away.

 

How do you know it was abandoned ?  It could be used for another hobby.  We know of four that are now letterboxes.

If you want cache adoption if something happened to you, you simply add that in your will, or tell someone in your family.

 - They'll need your password...

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, cerberus1 said:

 

So, unknown to anyone, a cacher has a car accident and hospitalized.  You feel he needs to keep track of what's going on in a hobby ?

The many few times I've been hospitalized, the last thing I was concerned about was this hobby.    :D

Caches do not belong to the site.  They're private property. 

Someone can (and has ...) raise quite a stink if someone within the site decided they were going to give someone's property to another.

Agree with you totally (head on crash with drunk driver, multiple bones in fragments) up until... I would rather someone is getting on with my stuff. There are several prolific GCs in my area who I would happily allow to take over my caches, and I'm sure would return them if asked.

 

I can only say as a new GC, it's disappointing to go to a cache, spend 20 mins searching, and then check the logs and see a string of DNFs and realise the cache has probably gone. I mean, you can be cynical and say people should check the logs first, but I try and avoid in case of spoilers. I just think as GCing turns.. what... 20? There needs to be a realisation that some COs have lost interest, some have died. And in honesty, can any of us say that we will be doing this in 2039? I can't, but if someone was maintaining my caches I wouldn't be complaining. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

I can only say as a new GC, it's disappointing to go to a cache, spend 20 mins searching, and then check the logs and see a string of DNFs and realise the cache has probably gone.

 

I agree.  It's frustrating for older folks too...

This can be fixed very easily if folks would only log NMs.  They add up, and get noticed  by a Reviewer when someone finally logs an NA.    :)

Some social sites (I feel) are good examples of this problem...

 - If you simply disagree with another on some sites, you're  blocked.  Some people (I feel) sorta get used to not making any waves...

How many times do we see opening posts with the poster saying "Please don't yell at me" or similar as their first line ?

That thinking carries everywhere...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I agree.  It's frustrating for older folks too...

This can be fixed very easily if folks would only log NMs.  They add up, and get noticed  by a Reviewer when someone finally logs an NA.    :)

Some social sites (I feel) are good examples of this problem...

 - If you simply disagree with another on some sites, you're  blocked.  Some people (I feel) sorta get used to not making any waves...

How many times do we see opening posts with the poster saying "Please don't yell at me" or similar as their first line ?

That thinking carries everywhere...

I don't think it is unfair on GC, after all, someone with one find in exponentially less qualfied than someone with 10, or 100, or 1,000 etc. It's not a Facebook 1 like = 1 mug.

 

That said,  I don't think it is beyond possibilities to introduce some form of semi-AI to calculate the likelihood of finding a cache based on a combination of owner rep, owner recent activity, seeker feedback and seeker rep.

 

After all, we currently allow the CO to rate difficulty even though some I've found are considerably more or less than 1.5/1.5... why not allow those to be adjusted over time according to the number of F/DNFs? Lots of DNFs surely indicate more difficult than CO rating?

Edited by daddybeth
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yay!

 

Turns out, I actually logged that archived smashed ammo box as a Note only, not a Find log.  

 

But it it was the first one I ever logged as 

LNTECCAICHWMSL (Left nothing, took entire cache container and its contents home with me, signed log.)

 

 

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

After all, we currently allow the CO to rate difficulty even though some I've found are considerably more or less than 1.5/1.5... why not allow those to be adjusted over time according to the number of F/DNFs? Lots of DNFs surely indicate more difficult than CO rating?

 

In some cases perhaps, but there are others where such a one-size-fits-all approach wouldn't work. One of my hides (GC5H5G2), a D2/T3.5 traditional, gets a fair number of DNFs (currently 10 from 51 finds) but it really ought not to be that hard. The problem seems to be that there's a large feature that has "cache hiding place" written all over it but that's not where it is, it's in a much smaller feature close by which gets overlooked, then they start widening their search area and don't come back to where it is. Those that return for a second attempt can't believe how they missed it the first time, and I'm reluctant to raise its D rating above 2 because it really isn't all that hard to find, especially if you realise that the cache name actually describes the hiding place to a tee and trust where your GPSr is telling you to look.

 

I have other caches that sometimes get terrain-related DNFs (accessing GZ is tougher than they expected) or even DNFs that have nothing to do with the cache, like approaching storms, swarms of mosquitoes, failing light, high tide, big seas, no mobile reception, no torch on a torch-required cache, etc. Not all DNFs are due to an obscure hiding place. My EarthCache is only accessible at low tide with slight seas so sometimes gets DNFs from people who get that wrong. I don't think the ability to read a tide chart should be part of the D rating.

 

It gets further complicated when you bring multis and mysteries into the mix. With those, the D rating is a combination of the trickiness of the hide and the difficulty of solving whatever has to be solved to get there. People generally don't log a DNF if they can't solve a puzzle cache, so it's not uncommon to see D4 or D5 puzzles with no DNFs at all. And with challenge caches, the D rating is meant to represent the difficulty of the challenge, not the trickiness of the hide, so DNFs are irrelevant to this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

While you technically followed the guidelines, is this truly in the spirit of geocaching?  Is this what's best for the community or are you so certain that every guideline needs to be followed that you're willing to get caches archived for something like a full log?  If you're looking out for the community's best interest by prodding CO's to maintain their caches, then you're going against your own principles as well as the community's best interest with regard to actions you take for remote caches.  You're not prodding those CO's to maintain their caches; you're maintaining and propping up their caches.  If you're looking out for the community's best interest by making sure that cachers find caches that are maintained by helping out other COs with occasional maintenance, then you're going against your own principles as well as the community's best interest with regard to actions you take for caches in more cache dense areas.  Instead of helping them out with some minor maintenance, you choose to file the NA because the CO hasn't replaced a full log.

 

 

Your only reason explained here is that the remote ones might/will disappear and that the ones in more cache dense areas can be replaced.  I'm here to tell you that the remote ones can be replaced as well; it's just more likely that they won't be replaced.  You and I both know the reason why they probably won't be replaced - due to the issue of maintenance.  The more remote the cache, the harder it is to maintain.  You go against guidelines to keep them alive by propping them up with throwdowns and not filing what should be a NM or NA log, based on previous logs, but then you file a NA (after the technically appropriate NM log) on a cache with a full log, which is an easy remedy for the issue at hand.  I just believe that your two methods are at odds with one another and that you can't come on here and discuss/complain about a CO's reaction to your NM and subsequent NA log based on your actions with remote caches, which completely contradict and invalidate the actions you took in this example.

 

If you want to have more caches in remote areas, why don't you place them?  If the area is such a neat area to visit and the CO isn't maintaining the cache because they aren't around or don't want to, then why don't you either offer to adopt it or file the appropriate NM/NA logs (which you did for a full log but won't do for an apparently abandoned cache on the basis that it's a remote cache), have it archived and place one yourself?  I fully get what you say about remote caches and the fact that once they're gone, it's a good bet that there won't be any replacement caches.  I understand and even, to some extent, agree with your desire to keep them alive (up to the point where you put out a throwdown).  

I can't replace remote caches because I don't live there and  many of those areas are 1000s of kms from where I live; WAY beyond the allowed 161kms. That's the same for almost 100% of the Australian population; they don't live near those caches. Those areas are really, really remote; as almost no-one lives near many of these caches, if anyone does at all. Some of these areas are not visited often either. The one I gave as an example is on a rough dirt 4WDtrack with no towns, no petrol for over a 1000km. You must carry petrol, supplies and car maintenance parts. That's why those caches are extremely unlikely to ever be replaced if they are archived. Not all the remote caches are quite as remote as the example given, but they are still remote. Most were placed there in the days before the rule of needing to live within 161kms, or regularly visit the area. Virtually no-one lives in many of those areas now; certainly no one who geocaches.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I'll do this as well but it's really not that hard to track down the owner.  The owner is the CO listed at the top of the cache page and there's a link for their email as well as a message once you click on their caching name.

Exactly. They're the owner. Posting "NA: I picked up the container" gets the message to the CO just as efficiently as sending a private message. If they don't get one, they won't get the other. If they ignore one, they'll ignore the other. There's no good reason to waste time going both ways, so I stick to the one that puts my actions in the public record.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

The cache wouldn't be drawn to the attention of the reviewer without the NA log posted by the OP.  I get the point that your'e raising and fully understand that inaction by a CO constitutes possible reasons for archival but in the situation provided by the OP, they stated they were filing the NA log because the CO was unresponsive to a full log.  Is that truly a reason to request an archival for a cache?  Is a reviewer going to archive a cache because the only thing wrong with it is that there's a full log?  The OP then added, later in the topic, that they had no problem maintaining other peoples' caches, even to the point of placing a throwdown without permission.  You tell me.  Which of these two actions are the "correct" one?  If you're going to say that the NM/NA is correct, then the actions of the OP regarding remote caches is incorrect.  If you're going to say that the remote cache action is the correct one, then the NM/NA log is the incorrect one.  They both can't be correct yet for the OP,  they are.

 

I question the reasoning behind the actions of the OP when the two actions are diametrically opposed to each other.  I personally disagree with the NA for a full log (not the NM, although I'd not log it) because it's a very simple remedy that can be taken by anyone that doesn't really affect the integrity of the cache.  In fact, according to the survey from last year, 74% of those that took the survey agreed that replacement of a full log would go a long way to improving cache quality.  The only one that was greater was the use of the DNF/NM/NA logs, at 79%.  While technically correct to log a NA for an unattended to NM for a full log, I have to wonder if that's truly in the spirit of geocaching.  I fully get it when it's a container in bad shape but for something so minor as a full log seems to be going above and beyond the intent of what a NA is for.  In all other aspects, the cache is perfectly fine.  It's not damaged, it's still watertight, it's not on private property, it's not causing issues with the local residents, and it's being found.  The only issue is a full log. 

 

Would you be OK with requesting a cache be archived because you wanted to nudge the CO to take action on a full log, despite the fact that you are OK with performing maintenance on someone else's caches (including going so far as to put out a throwdown without permission)?

 

 

This isn't proper form either.  I'm not questioning their actions because their actions are consistent and in this case, consistently wrong.

 

 

But it's responsible for the OP to file a NA on a cache for a full log but also take care of remote caches for COs either unwilling, unable, or not around any more to maintain their own caches?  

The CO is fully responsible. The caches are near where the CO lives. They can easily get to them and replace them. Many are still laying power trails (they have the time for this it seems), but not willing and no time to go back and service old power trails, but still the new caches get placed and the old caches not maintained as they should be. Logs are meant to be signed, but if there is no room left to sign, how can people. The case I mentioned there were a number of caches I placed NM on , and some other caches others placed NM on in that power trail series. You are all hung up about ONE NA. I only did ONE NA as a nudge. ALL the others I only did NM on and didn't add a NA. Other people had also been doing NM on these caches, both before and after me. The CO ignored the lot. You expect me to be responsible for replacing many logs. I don't own that many spare logs.

The remote ones are hard to get to, but it's nice that a cacher might be able to celebrate their epic journey by having a cache to sign when they get to this often historical cache. That's why I would assist (as others traditionally do)  maintaining these remote caches; for future travellers to be able to find a cache. There's a huge difference between these caches, and if you can't see it, I can't help you. And the replacements are not usually a thrown down pill bottle. It's usually a small sized good cache at least.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Well, the difference being there is an active claim to ownership, rather than a passive, outdated, unconfirmable one. 

My point was that the question of ownership is only an issue to begin with because you've decided there's a reason to pick up the container and take it away. If there's no reason to pick it up, it makes no difference what the cache means to anyone, owner or not.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Now you say "abandoned container", but how do you know it's abandoned?

Exactly. I was saying that even in the worst case, where you somehow know for a fact that it's abandoned, there's still no more reason to pick it up than there is to pick up any of the hundred soda cans you walked past getting there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

So, unknown to anyone, a cacher has a car accident and hospitalized.  You feel he needs to keep track of what's going on in a hobby ?

The many few times I've been hospitalized, the last thing I was concerned about was this hobby.    :D

Caches do not belong to the site.  They're private property. 

Someone can (and has ...) raise quite a stink if someone within the site decided they were going to give someone's property to another.

When I have been in hospital I still cared for my caches and trackables in my possession. Even beyond the cloud of morphine. I got a friend to look after them. If someone is unconscious this is a different matter, but I would hope to think that as I maintain my caches I wouldn't have lots of them suddenly needing maintenance.

I do think someone who places a cache on public land would have a hard job arguing that someone had taken their abandoned cache (possession) when the shards were picked up to remove litter.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, daddybeth said:

But what if you abandon your property, intentionally or otherwise?

 

I mean, if I was hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd love it if any caches I placed could be adopted by someone else rather than rot away.

 

Kind of off-topic, but one thing you could do is ask someone if they'd adopt your caches in the event of your sudden demise. Then on your profile page leave a statement that cacher xxxx has agreed to adopt your active caches in the event of your death.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, dprovan said:

My point was that the question of ownership is only an issue to begin with because you've decided there's a reason to pick up the container and take it away. If there's no reason to pick it up, it makes no difference what the cache means to anyone, owner or not.

 

Exactly. I was saying that even in the worst case, where you somehow know for a fact that it's abandoned, there's still no more reason to pick it up than there is to pick up any of the hundred soda cans you walked past getting there.

By that logic no one should pick up any rubbish, as they don't own it. Leave it all there forever; in the case of an abandoned cache, even when the plastic container is now in tiny crumbling pieces, as was the last cache I picked up. The pieces were crumbling further as I handled them. Plastic pollution is a huge problem; especially when it gets washed into streams and makes it to the ocean. Sorry, but I am going to continue doing the right thing. If a cache is in this condition I will carefully pick up the crumbling pieces and dispose of them responsibly. It's a bad mark against our hobby if cachers don't do this and ignore what the CO is ignoring.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

By that logic no one should pick up any rubbish, as they don't own it.

Not even close. Pick up all the rubbish you want. Just don't pick on caches that might still have owners.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Not even close. Pick up all the rubbish you want. Just don't pick on caches that might still have owners.

So I should leave that crumbling pile of plastic without a log behind. No, I'm too responsible to leave that there to litter and continue to break further down to micro plastic which, depending where it is, could add to the micro plastic problem the environment has. I will continue to do the right thing and remove it. It only gives geocaching a bad name.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, daddybeth said:

After all, we currently allow the CO to rate difficulty even though some I've found are considerably more or less than 1.5/1.5... why not allow those to be adjusted over time according to the number of F/DNFs? Lots of DNFs surely indicate more difficult than CO rating?

 

That shouldn't be an automtism for many reasons (see following post by barefootjeff) BUT:

 

The logs of the cachers (finders and non-finders) should be detailed and honestly. If they think the rating is (very) inappropriate they should take the time to tell it to the owner.

The owners shouldn't ignore those logs, especially if many are coming. And they should decide to change the rating if the cachers are right.

Afterwards no one should complain about the changed rating now missing in any matrix.

 

In reality I find a terrain 1.5 cache where I have to walk 40 metres through thick bush or climb up 2 metres in a tree (or I find the terrain 4 cache in terrain 2 area?!). I tell that in my log. I read the other logs. No one even mentions anything. The owner doesn't care.

 

We have a "simple" (?) cache in the area with about 100 (logged!) DNFs which make about 20 % of the logs. As we know there are surely more DNFs which have been not logged. It took a long time to convince the owner that this is not a difficulty 1.5 cache. It is located very low under a bridge (you have to lay down and stretch to reach it; you have to do it very often as there are many possibilities) and many even go down in the river to spot the clever hide. It took a long time to convince the owner that it is not a terrain 1 cache.

I think it is D2.5/T1.5 now but could still be higher. But even 5 consecutive DNF logs in a row (with the cache in place) don't seem to make the owner think.

 

So it needs honest cachers and reasonable owners. But many forget that hiding something is easier than finding it. And especially with riddles it is hard to understand that others might have problems - you know the solution so it is easy?

 

I remember a friend's cache starting with D3/T1 which was changed to D5 (much harder than expected) and T3 (many plants especially in summer). It's possible to admit that you rating was wrong....

 

Ouh, that is offtopic, isn't it? Pardon....

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

That shouldn't be an automtism for many reasons (see following post by barefootjeff) BUT:

 

The logs of the cachers (finders and non-finders) should be detailed and honestly. If they think the rating is (very) inappropriate they should take the time to tell it to the owner.

The owners shouldn't ignore those logs, especially if many are coming. And they should decide to change the rating if the cachers are right.

Afterwards no one should complain about the changed rating now missing in any matrix.

 

In reality I find a terrain 1.5 cache where I have to walk 40 metres through thick bush or climb up 2 metres in a tree (or I find the terrain 4 cache in terrain 2 area?!). I tell that in my log. I read the other logs. No one even mentions anything. The owner doesn't care.

 

We have a "simple" (?) cache in the area with about 100 (logged!) DNFs which make about 20 % of the logs. As we know there are surely more DNFs which have been not logged. It took a long time to convince the owner that this is not a difficulty 1.5 cache. It is located very low under a bridge (you have to lay down and stretch to reach it; you have to do it very often as there are many possibilities) and many even go down in the river to spot the clever hide. It took a long time to convince the owner that it is not a terrain 1 cache.

I think it is D2.5/T1.5 now but could still be higher. But even 5 consecutive DNF logs in a row (with the cache in place) don't seem to make the owner think.

 

So it needs honest cachers and reasonable owners. But many forget that hiding something is easier than finding it. And especially with riddles it is hard to understand that others might have problems - you know the solution so it is easy?

 

I remember a friend's cache starting with D3/T1 which was changed to D5 (much harder than expected) and T3 (many plants especially in summer). It's possible to admit that you rating was wrong....

 

Ouh, that is offtopic, isn't it? Pardon....

 

Jochen

Unfortunately some geocachers won't rate any cache above 2D/T. It used to be 1.5. It's so non-paying members can find it. Fair enough, but the caches should not be more difficult than 2 in that case; whereas often they aren't.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately some geocachers won't rate any cache above 2D/T. It used to be 1.5. It's so non-paying members can find it. Fair enough, but the caches should not be more difficult than 2 in that case; whereas often they aren't.

 

I think in many cases it is just lazyness.

 

In the beginning the default setting was 1/1 and most caches were listed 1/1.

Today the default setting is 1.5/1.5 and most caches are listed 1.5/1.5.

 

Groundspeak should get rid of the default setting so that any owner has to think about an individual setting. There are many possibilities in the www to find a good one.

 

I haven't thought about that what you write, Goldenwattle. To me it always looked like many cachers using the PMO status to keep away non-paying members. Reducing the difficulty (in reality or by just using the wrong one) to not keep them away is a new idea for me and I totally agree with you: nicely thought but than make the caches suiting to the low rating...

 

Thanks for your post!

Jochen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2019 at 3:08 AM, Goldenwattle said:

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.

Big +1! :)

BTW I file NM whenever it is needed, the same with NA if the CO does not react. No matter what country I am in. These tools are here for better geocaching experience of us all.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've found a cache or three over the years and I now find its affecting my determining of D ratings for new caches and I have to check myself occasionally. What may seem an easy find to me now is often not so easy for a lot of cachers who have less experience so I have to think carefully about the D rating I give.

Edited by colleda
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

I think in many cases it is just lazyness.

 

In the beginning the default setting was 1/1 and most caches were listed 1/1.

Today the default setting is 1.5/1.5 and most caches are listed 1.5/1.5.

 

Groundspeak should get rid of the default setting so that any owner has to think about an individual setting. There are many possibilities in the www to find a good one.

 

I haven't thought about that what you write, Goldenwattle. To me it always looked like many cachers using the PMO status to keep away non-paying members. Reducing the difficulty (in reality or by just using the wrong one) to not keep them away is a new idea for me and I totally agree with you: nicely thought but than make the caches suiting to the low rating...

 

Thanks for your post!

Jochen

Yes in some cases it's just laziness, but there are groups of geocaches (in one area west of where I live it appears the fashion) to not rate any cache higher than (now) 2 (even if it should be rated higher) so non paying members can find them. Almost all the caches used to be rated no higher than 1.5, but since the rating allowed for non-paying members has been raised to 2, many of the caches have now been raised to a 2 rating. When I found them, I didn't consider many of the caches were really 1.5 rating and now they have been raised to 2, obviously the CO didn't really believe they were only the 1.5 they rated them either. I don't believe all of them are only 2 now either, but that's the highest that allows non-paying members to view those COs' caches.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Kind of off-topic, but one thing you could do is ask someone if they'd adopt your caches in the event of your sudden demise. Then on your profile page leave a statement that cacher xxxx has agreed to adopt your active caches in the event of your death.

 

It would be interesting to hear if that's sufficient instruction for HQ to allow cache adoption in that user's case.

 

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

By that logic no one should pick up any rubbish, as they don't own it. Leave it all there forever; in the case of an abandoned cache, even when the plastic container is now in tiny crumbling pieces, as was the last cache I picked up. The pieces were crumbling further as I handled them.

 

As I said, we make a moral judgment as to whether picking up what we believe to be trash (now shards) outweighs the fact that I'm picking up someone else's property and responsibility. We never really have an issue when it is trash.  But here's a fringe example which I can say entirely is a possibility - what if what you think is 'trash' actually does have a purpose by its owner, which isn't geocaching-related? Well, we take that risk when we take what isn't ours. We make the assumption that what we see is trash, without confirmation. In the vast majority of cases (almost always), something that can no longer be a geocache at all truly is trash, and there's no issue with the owner. But if it still looks like a cache, then there could be an issue. Assuming "it's listed as archived on the website, but the container is still here, and therefore it is unowned and trash" is not a good start.  True? Maybe. But if you're fine with the risk of theft, then go ahead. I'm not. I'll contact first, since there's no rush, attempt contact again, until I'm reasonably certain that there is no longer a claim to ownership, and thus trash.

 

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Plastic pollution is a huge problem; especially when it gets washed into streams and makes it to the ocean. Sorry, but I am going to continue doing the right thing. If a cache is in this condition I will carefully pick up the crumbling pieces and dispose of them responsibly. It's a bad mark against our hobby if cachers don't do this and ignore what the CO is ignoring.

 

Likewise. In that case, our moral judgment has ruled that it is reasonable to 'take' someone else's property given our threshold for "trash" (knowing we haven't confirmed it's unowned).  In a case like this, we're still taking someone else's property, but the reason outweighs the charge.  If pikced up this 'trash', though, I would still be sure to make an effort to tell the owner. Because it's still their property, and not my responsibility.

 

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
7 hours ago, dprovan said:

Not even close. Pick up all the rubbish you want. Just don't pick on caches that might still have owners.

So I should leave that crumbling pile of plastic without a log behind. No, I'm too responsible to leave that there to litter and continue to break further down to micro plastic which, depending where it is, could add to the micro plastic problem the environment has. I will continue to do the right thing and remove it. It only gives geocaching a bad name.

 

Do you see the dilemma here? Why we're talking past each other? Surely you can.  We're not saying leave trash and don't clean up the environment. You're not saying that a merely abandoned cache is a crumbling pile of plastic without an owner. So how do we draw the line between "owned property" and "abandoned litter" when there no confirmation of the latter?  You make a judgment. You make an assumption. You make the value call - between 'picking up abandoned trash' and 'taking someone's personal property'. And there are soooo many factors relevant to that nebulous cloud of uncertainty.  Many can be safely assumed, many cannot.

 

 

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...