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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

archived for trivial reasons (in the case that prompted this discussion, a log that's a bit tattered and nearly full on one side).

 

I would argue that responsible cache ownership isn't trivial.

 

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

To this end, and because this is becoming problematic in other parts of the state as well, a couple of years back Geocaching New South Wales formalised this Community Cache arrangement with our local reviewer.

 

Was this sanctioned by GCHQ? It goes against the current TOU.  From the NSW page:

 

 

Quote

 

We have been in talks with the NSW reviewer (Tiddalik) who has kindly given us some practical advice on the matter.

How to maintain a significant cache when you are not the owner

As part of your local geocaching community you’ve established that the CO is no longer on the scene, the following points need to occur:

  1. Place a 'Write Note' on the cache listing, stating that you wish to maintain the cache on behalf of the CO. (effectively making it a Community Cache)
  2. Place the cache listing on your watch list.
  3. Attend to all DNF's or 'Need Maintenance' logs, and place a 'Write Note' to inform the reviewer what you have done.
  4. Upkeep the cache as if it was your own.

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 There's one near me that was hidden in 2008, its CO long gone, that has one outstanding NM dating back to 2010, posted by someone as a heads-up to the CO about roadworks in the area that might have disturbed the cache.

It turns out they didn't, the cache survived unscathed and has gone on to have 177 finds logged since then, the most recent being just before Christmas.

Back then, an NM was just a wave to the CO suggesting they might want to check on the cache, it didn't mean the cache was unserviceable and ought to be archived if the CO didn't respond.

Back then, that's what an NA log was for.

 

Excuse me, but I don't feel many think of 2010 as "back then"...      :)

 

That's odd, I don't remember anything changing other than "other" .

NM for logbook or container has always meant that there's an issue that needs to be taken care of, not a "heads up".  

A "might need to check soon.." or similar  really should be in with the Found It log.

We've left "only a couple of lines left on the log..." ,  "Thin crack, water's not leaking in yet.." additions in our Found It logs since we started...

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Excuse me, but I don't feel many think of 2010 as "back then"...      :)

 

That's odd, I don't remember anything changing other than "other" .

NM for logbook or container has always meant that there's an issue that needs to be taken care of, not a "heads up".  

A "might need to check soon.." or similar  really should be in with the Found It log.

We've left "only a couple of lines left on the log..." ,  "Thin crack, water's not leaking in yet.." additions in our Found It logs since we started...

 

The Help Centre really doesn't say much at all about when to log an NM other than to list the "Report a Problem" options, but I'm sure it never directly implied the cache is damaged or missing, at least in the way it was used around here. I've seen NMs logged for all sorts of reasons to advise the CO that something's changed at GZ or along the way, such as temporary road closures, fallen trees, hazard reduction burns or flooding, and had the benefit of capturing the CO's attention more than just a mention somewhere in a found log or WN. This worked fine back when an NM was just between the logger and the CO, but is problematic now that reviewers are becoming involved and an NM has effectively become the same as an NA.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I would argue that responsible cache ownership isn't trivial.

 

But the owner's already gone and bringing them back isn't an option. The only choices are to deal with the half-full log that's a bit tattered or archive the cache. Which better serves the community in places where caches are few and far between and there's little likelihood of a new one popping up to replace it?

 

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Was this sanctioned by GCHQ? It goes against the current TOU.  From the NSW page:

 

 

Quote

 

We have been in talks with the NSW reviewer (Tiddalik) who has kindly given us some practical advice on the matter.

How to maintain a significant cache when you are not the owner

As part of your local geocaching community you’ve established that the CO is no longer on the scene, the following points need to occur:

  1. Place a 'Write Note' on the cache listing, stating that you wish to maintain the cache on behalf of the CO. (effectively making it a Community Cache)
  2. Place the cache listing on your watch list.
  3. Attend to all DNF's or 'Need Maintenance' logs, and place a 'Write Note' to inform the reviewer what you have done.
  4. Upkeep the cache as if it was your own.

 

 

 

I don't know as I'm not on the committee, but it was no doubt done as a compromise solution to the growing problem of keeping the game alive in cache-poor regions, and will likely become an even bigger concern in the wake of the current fires. You can't go caching when there are no caches left to find.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

From the NSW page:

 

 

Quote

 

We have been in talks with the NSW reviewer (Tiddalik) who has kindly given us some practical advice on the matter.

How to maintain a significant cache when you are not the owner

As part of your local geocaching community you’ve established that the CO is no longer on the scene, the following points need to occur:

  1. Place a 'Write Note' on the cache listing, stating that you wish to maintain the cache on behalf of the CO. (effectively making it a Community Cache)
  2. Place the cache listing on your watch list.
  3. Attend to all DNF's or 'Need Maintenance' logs, and place a 'Write Note' to inform the reviewer what you have done.
  4. Upkeep the cache as if it was your own.


If this arrangement requires a cacher to state that they are prepared to maintain the cache, and then to upkeep the cache as their own, then why would they not be prepared to see the abandoned cache archived, and place their own in its place?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

But the owner's already gone and bringing them back isn't an option. The only choices are to deal with the half-full log that's a bit tattered or archive the cache. Which better serves the community in places where caches are few and far between and there's little likelihood of a new one popping up to replace it?

Convince your reviewer or HQ to grant an exception. Otherwise, nope. A user who has broken their agreement faces their active geocache listings that they've abandoned being archived. Them's the rules. As much as it might hurt. Blame the abandoner.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Why, anyone who wants to be a responsible cache owner, of course.

I know your point is that in your area there are few of those people at best, so a cache archival like that is more a reduction in geocaching options than other regions.  But that doesn't change the underlying point. Cache owners who abandon their listings are at fault here. Not HQ. It really is unfortunate if no one in a community wants to help keep the experience of the cache that was just abandoned and archived going for others to enjoy, but fundamentally speaking, that cache owner has to be active to keep their listing current.

 

If a community wants to keep a good cache going that's owned by a known AWOL owner, then they'll have to keep it their proxy maintenance going covertly, under the table, and encourage anyone who may find the cache to not post a NM log which sets a flag that only the CO can remove. And it would need to be under the table, because certainly if it became widely known that geocachers were propping up maintenance-shirkers' caches - whatever their condition - it's a good bet HQ would step in somehow.

 

Not anyone.  One must live within a reasonable proximity to the location to maintain a cache.

 

At one time we had a small geocaching community in my area.  That's really no longer the case.  There is a somewhat active community about 50 miles north of here but I haven't seen a find on any of my caches by anyone local in at least a year,  and there has only been 4 new caches placed within 20 miles in the last 6 months.   Maybe in more active area, caches which are archived are replaced with another hide by another geocacher but I suspect that in most places in the world that isn't the case.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Not anyone.  One must live within a reasonable proximity to the location to maintain a cache.

 

At one time we had a small geocaching community in my area.  That's really no longer the case.  There is a somewhat active community about 50 miles north of here but I haven't seen a find on any of my caches by anyone local in at least a year,  and there has only been 4 new caches placed within 20 miles in the last 6 months.   Maybe in more active area, caches which are archived are replaced with another hide by another geocacher but I suspect that in most places in the world that isn't the case.  

If it's an active community 50 miles/80kms away from you I am surprised they aren't placing caches in your area. But maybe, although active, they are a relatively small community. I know that locally, many cachers place caches right out to the allowed distance limit. I though like my few caches to be closer.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Why, anyone who wants to be a responsible cache owner, of course.

I know your point is that in your area there are few of those people at best...

 

Not anyone.  One must live within a reasonable proximity to the location to maintain a cache.

 

...Well, yes. (see bold, and remainder of comment)

 

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There is a somewhat active community about 50 miles north of here but I haven't seen a find on any of my caches by anyone local in at least a year,  and there has only been 4 new caches placed within 20 miles in the last 6 months.   Maybe in more active area, caches which are archived are replaced with another hide by another geocacher but I suspect that in most places in the world that isn't the case.

 

Yep.

And this is moving into that other discussion about what someone would or could do in the geocaching hobby if they're in a slow, sparse, inactive region. And there've been threads for that too.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


If this arrangement requires a cacher to state that they are prepared to maintain the cache, and then to upkeep the cache as their own, then why would they not be prepared to see the abandoned cache archived, and place their own in its place?

 

Excellent point. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


If this arrangement requires a cacher to state that they are prepared to maintain the cache, and then to upkeep the cache as their own, then why would they not be prepared to see the abandoned cache archived, and place their own in its place?

 

From the first paragraph of the Geocaching NSW page (with my bolding):

 

Quote

In a recent question to the Committee, we were asked to come up with a way to help look after old and significant geocaches where the CO no longer plays the game or cannot maintain the cache themselves. The proposal was to have active players watch over these caches and maintain the cache when necessary, even though they aren’t officially the owner.

 

This isn't intended for just any old P&G, it's primarily aimed at caches that have survived from the very early days of caching and just need a little TLC to keep them going. An example is the one placed in 2003 on which I replaced the brittle and cracked Sistema container with an identical new one a couple of months ago. It has the original logbook still in excellent condition, all it really needed was a new lid but I replaced the container body as well as you can't just buy the lids. It's had no NMs and just 3 DNFs in its entire life, so there's nothing on the cache page that needs any attention. Its CO was one of the very early caching pioneers in this country. It doesn't need archiving, no-one will benefit from it being archived, no-one is likely to want to put another cache there (the approval process alone now is a lot more daunting), and if it did get archived and a new cache put there, it would be a 2020 cache not the historical 2003 one.

 

If history doesn't matter, why not archive Mingo? It's had 11 NMs logged on it, at least one of which has been outstanding for at least a year (I got tired of scrolling back through the logs trying to find it), so its CO is clearly not maintaining it. Get rid of it and place an LPC called Son of Mingo under the nearest lamp-post, no-one will care.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If history doesn't matter, why not archive Mingo? It's had 11 NMs logged on it, at least one of which has been outstanding for at least a year (I got tired of scrolling back through the logs trying to find it), so its CO is clearly not maintaining it. Get rid of it and place an LPC called Son of Mingo under the nearest lamp-post, no-one will care.


I do get the issue about scarcity of caches, but to answer this point, personally I’d prefer a well maintained new cache (though maybe not a LPC!) to a poorly maintained ‘historical’ cache.  Maybe it’s just because I’m never likely to complete my Jasmer grid...

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:


I do get the issue about scarcity of caches, but to answer this point, personally I’d prefer a well maintained new cache (though maybe not a LPC!) to a poorly maintained ‘historical’ cache.  Maybe it’s just because I’m never likely to complete my Jasmer grid...

 

With the community chipping in from time to time to keep those old caches in good condition, you can have both your history and a good cache.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

With the community chipping in from time to time to keep those old caches in good condition, you can have both your history and a good cache.

 

The communities I’ve seen chip in by adding a dry logsheet to wet contents. Not even removing the moldy contents. Or they replace the sandwich size container with a 50ml pill bottle. I hear that tiny  Mint tins are popular there. 

img_4238.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, L0ne.R said:

I hear that tiny  Mint tins are popular there.

:anitongue::surprise:  And then called a 'small'. Yikes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/1/2020 at 7:09 AM, cerberus1 said:

 

When I hear "kindly replaced", I'm automatically thinking of a throwdown.    :)

Guess it's up to you, but you did leave a NM.  I'd move on and forgetaboutit. 

You say they aren't interesting places.  You wouldn't want that mediocre spot, right ?  

I feel keeping track after leaving an NM is a "getting even" mean thing.  We've heard of a couple that keep track to the day and add an NA.

Not sure if they're micro-managers , or what, but it seems creepy that someone pays that much attention and it's not theirs...

 

We haven't seen Tupperware containers used in over ten years. If the site worked I could see where you're finding them.  :D

Funny, but when we joined, the message was "the language of location", and we looked for and hid caches at cool locations,  the container (and it's coordinates) was the means to get you there.

 

Place your own, maintained hides.    Do you want to keep up someone else's carp, or have a rep for your cool caches ?  ;)

 

Thanks - I'm going to take that advice and go for my own cool caches :D 

 

I'm in the UK and so far have found a mixture of really interesting cache containers in nice places, Tupperware in nice places, and Tupperware in boring places, so quite a lot of Tupperware! Sounds like I need to come to America!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/1/2020 at 7:09 AM, cerberus1 said:

We haven't seen Tupperware containers used in over ten years. If the site worked I could see where you're finding them. 


In the UK, tupperware (with a small ‘t’) is still used as a generic term for pretty much any plastic container for storing food.

 

That well known geocaching definition seems to do the same: “using multi-million dollar satellites to find tupperware in the woods”.

 

People still hoover their carpets over here too. ;-)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

In the UK, tupperware (with a small ‘t’) is still used as a generic term for pretty much any plastic container for storing food.

That well known geocaching definition seems to do the same: “using multi-million dollar satellites to find tupperware in the woods”.

People still hoover their carpets over here too. ;-)

:D

Thanks. 

We started placing caches using actual Tupperware (because of the tees saying so...), and I have to say, they were the worst containers we've ever used. 

No seals and flexible containers, good for the fridge, but not so much outside.

After looking at all the science experiments we were creating in the woods, we went to lock n locks, stowaways, and ammo cans.   :) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
21 hours ago, dprovan said:

As far as I know, no one's arguing responsibilities here.

Well, I am. The owner agreed to be responsible for the listing, not just the physical container.

Sorry for not being clear. What I meant was that no one's arguing against responsibilities here. We all agree that COs promise to maintain their caches when needed.

 

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But the community is not the listing, and no one can be blamed for "not getting the community memo" and making their decision based solely on what the [inaccurate] listing states. That's the point.

I specifically said that posting an NA would be fine. It's not even about "getting the memo": an individual is free to stand up and say that even though they recognize people are giving this cache slack, they aren't going to. My objection is with the powers that be jumping in from outside and forcing their will on the community. (I object, but I also recognize my objection is pointless since this is a fait accompli.

 

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree, up until someone not "in the community" complains about the cache that seems to be needing Need Maintenance for years. 

Anyone seeking, or even considering seeking, a cache in the area is, however temporarily, a member of the community. If they think something's wrong, they're free to post an NA. I just ask them to make an informed decision, not just knee jerk based on the same mindless logic that GS is pushing.

 

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The owner maintains the listing. If the owner abandons the listing, the listing will get archived.  Can't get simpler than that. (Even though in some circumstances it sucks)

The cache is enjoyable. It was archived unnecessarily. It can't get any simpler than that, either, even though in some circumstances...well, it's hard to exactly say what the downside is. I supposed the way I'd put it is, "even though in some circumstances, every cache you encounter won't be 100% perfect," except you're never going to get 100% perfect caches, with or without this policy.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:
21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree, up until someone not "in the community" complains about the cache that seems to be needing Need Maintenance for years. 

Anyone seeking, or even considering seeking, a cache in the area is, however temporarily, a member of the community. If they think something's wrong, they're free to post an NA. I just ask them to make an informed decision, not just knee jerk based on the same mindless logic that GS is pushing.

 

I was responding to what I understood from this statement: "if any individual in the community sees an NM and decided it warrants an NA, then they post it, and the reviewer then kicks into gear. If no one posts an NA, then the community accepts the problem of an errant NM, and GS and their reviewers shouldn't get involved."

To me this read that there's an implicit understanding by the community, and "the community accepts" -- but how can you guarantee that? Your putting an expectation on people expecting that "they're a part of the community so they should know", but that's certainly not the universal case.

It's not about expecting a perfect cache, it's about what the listing - apart from any other source of information - implies about itself. A cache with an outstanding NM flag is a cache that is stating "I may need maintenance", not whatever else prior logs imply about its state (which is not the same as having a NM flag).  And that flag can only be cleared by the cache owner, not "community" - regardless of what community may attempt to get across in the listing about its state. The listing itself says "I may need maintenance". Only the CO knows whether this is true or not, and can do anything about it.

 

6 minutes ago, dprovan said:
21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The owner maintains the listing. If the owner abandons the listing, the listing will get archived.  Can't get simpler than that. (Even though in some circumstances it sucks)

The cache is enjoyable. It was archived unnecessarily. It can't get any simpler than that, either, even though in some circumstances...well, it's hard to exactly say what the downside is.

 

Right. It sucks. But it's the rules, it's the cache owner responsibility. It's solely the cache owner's responsibility. And if the listing is archived because the cache owner has abandoned the listing which no longer presents a truthful description of the geocache for the public, then the listing will get archived because of the cache ownerEven if there's nothing wrong with any other aspect of the geocache. And yes, sometimes it sucks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Right. It sucks. But it's the rules, it's the cache owner responsibility. It's solely the cache owner's responsibility. And if the listing is archived because the cache owner has abandoned the listing which no longer presents a truthful description of the geocache for the public, then the listing will get archived because of the cache ownerEven if there's nothing wrong with any other aspect of the geocache. And yes, sometimes it sucks.

 

So I guess you'd agree that Mingo should be archived because it has a long-standing NM on it that the CO has ignored.

 

image.png.ce267bd041b8572819944595070f022a.png

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To me this read that there's an implicit understanding by the community, and "the community accepts" -- but how can you guarantee that?

I don't guarantee it at all. I only object to the reviewer coming in and making absolutely sure that it's not a community decision.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Only the CO knows whether this is true or not, and can do anything about it.

Well, first of all, the problem case is the one where the CO isn't involved. And the point is that anyone can, in fact, go to GZ, see that the cache is fine and that nothing needs to be done.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But it's the rules, it's the cache owner responsibility.

This is our basic disagreement. I say it's the cache owner's responsibility to fix the cache. If the cache fails and they don't fix it, have at. But I claim this clause is not pertinent until they fail to maintain the cache. It is not sufficient to show that if the cache ever did failed, at that future point in time, they wouldn't maintain it. I think that's what you're claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

So I guess you'd agree that Mingo should be archived because it has a long-standing NM on it that the CO has ignored.

Why would I agree to that?

I agree that the listing implies something might need maintenance about the cache. I agree that it can be misleading. I also agree that reviewers look at a cache listing and decide, because they're human (or dogs) whether or not action is warranted, or an exception is to be granted.  I don't always agree that reviewers' actions are warranted, and I don't always agree that reviewers' non-actions are warranted. But those are all my opinions. I recognize what the guidelines say should happen, what our base responsibilities are to keep in line with the guidelines, and that exceptions either way can also happen. Mingo is a very very big (and understandable, imo) exception.

 

And of course, because there's no precedent, I also realize that just because Mingo can be kept active with a long-standing NM flag doesn't mean that GCXYZ down the road can be left unmaintained for a year owned by an unresponsive user, even if it is in good condition and kept up by community.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So I guess you'd agree that Mingo should be archived because it has a long-standing NM on it that the CO has ignored.

 

image.png.ce267bd041b8572819944595070f022a.png

I would agree but I'm not a sentimental type when it comes to abandoned caches  regardless of age.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And of course, because there's no precedent, I also realize that just because Mingo can be kept active with a long-standing NM flag doesn't mean that GCXYZ down the road can be left unmaintained for a year owned by an unresponsive user, even if it is in good condition and kept up by community.

 

That sounds like a double standard to me. Your historically significant caches can be propped up by the community but ours can't.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

That sounds like a double standard to me. Your historically significant caches can be propped up by the community but ours can't.

 

Nope, I didn't say that.  I clearly explained the only 2 ways (that I'm aware of) that would "allow" a cache and listing that's been abandoned to remain active. It has nothing to do with country or whose community it's within.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, colleda said:
37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So I guess you'd agree that Mingo should be archived because it has a long-standing NM on it that the CO has ignored.

 

image.png.ce267bd041b8572819944595070f022a.png

I would agree but I'm not a sentimental type when it comes to abandoned caches  regardless of age.

 

Same here.

 

And Mingo is an example of cachers behaving badly. It was removed and road workers covered in the hole dug out by the original owner. So what do cachers do... they dig a hole and pour cement into making a more permanent hole for the cache. All for want of an old GC code. 

 

And now it is so often brought up as the shining example of why old abandoned caches should not be archived. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

The communities I’ve seen chip in by adding a dry logsheet to wet contents. Not even removing the moldy contents. Or they replace the sandwich size container with a 50ml pill bottle. I hear that tiny  Mint tins are popular there.

 

I've found 36 caches that are more than 15 years old and don't recall any having been replaced by mint tins. Most were still the original container with the original logbook, and those whose container had been repaired were a like-for-like replacement or an upgrade (a plastic box to an ammo can, for example). Of those 36, only one is a micro (an MKH in a guard rail overlooking Sydney harbour that I did in last year's Cache Carnival promotion), 2 are small, 27 are regular, 2 are large and 4 are other. Most are in relatively isolated bushland locations as I guess urban hides are much less likely to survive that long.

 

On the one where I recently replaced a container with a cracked lid, I went to considerable lengths to make sure my replacement was exactly the same as the original (a 2 litre Sistema):

 

DSC_0032.jpg.e336877aff2fb64347d49ec3cf06f708.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Simple thing to do would be allow a thirty day period before a cache is archived for someone to ask to be cache guardian. Taken on the basis it's a caretaker position that gives them CO privileges, but the actual CO can claim it back at any stage.

 

That way notable caches can be preserved the online listing can be properly updated but there are not the issues people fret about with someone else taking ownership of a 10 year old plastic container.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

Simple thing to do would be allow a thirty day period before a cache is archived for someone to ask to be cache guardian. Taken on the basis it's a caretaker position that gives them CO privileges, but the actual CO can claim it back at any stage.

 

That way notable caches can be preserved the online listing can be properly updated but there are not the issues people fret about with someone else taking ownership of a 10 year old plastic container.

Define "notable".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

I've found 36 caches that are more than 15 years old and don't recall any having been replaced by mint tins. Most were still the original container with the original logbook, and those whose container had been repaired were a like-for-like replacement or an upgrade (a plastic box to an ammo can, for example). Of those 36, only one is a micro (an MKH in a guard rail overlooking Sydney harbour that I did in last year's Cache Carnival promotion), 2 are small, 27 are regular, 2 are large and 4 are other. Most are in relatively isolated bushland locations as I guess urban hides are much less likely to survive that long.

 

On the one where I recently replaced a container with a cracked lid, I went to considerable lengths to make sure my replacement was exactly the same as the original (a 2 litre Sistema):

 

DSC_0032.jpg.e336877aff2fb64347d49ec3cf06f708.jpg

Exactly. I have found old caches and it would be rare if any had been replaced by 'pill bottles' or similar. Pill bottles, (or or more likely mintie tins - they rust, they let in water -  in Australia), are what's being placed down mainly by new geocachers for new caches. Most older caches that I have found with a replacement cache have been replaced with a similarly sized cache. The occasional regular might now be a (usually larger) small. I replaced the cache (which wasn't the original) of a 2001 cache. The log was still fine, but the plastic container had deteriorated in the hot Australian sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, colleda said:

I would agree but I'm not a sentimental type when it comes to abandoned caches  regardless of age.

Sometimes it's not sentimentality, but those challenges out there, which need several finds of old caches which might drive people to service older caches. Or it might be the only cache for a hundred or more kms and it won't/can't be replaced. Sentimentality might be way down the list of why it's repaired.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Pill bottles, (or or more likely mintie tins - they rust, they let in water -  in Australia), are what's being placed down mainly by new geocachers for new caches.

 

Most of the recent new caches locally are Sistemas, bison tubes, fake rocks or some sort of home-crafted novelty container. I'm perhaps the odd man out, as my five new hides last year consisted of three steel cash boxes (all hidden in sheltered locations), a Sistema attached to themed "camo" and a hollow log container I was given at a Cache Carnival event earlier in the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

Most of the recent new caches locally are Sistemas, bison tubes, fake rocks or some sort of home-crafted novelty container. I'm perhaps the odd man out, as my five new hides last year consisted of three steel cash boxes (all hidden in sheltered locations), a Sistema attached to themed "camo" and a hollow log container I was given at a Cache Carnival event earlier in the year.

I agree. I wasn't saying the mintie tins are necessarily the most common new cache; only that they are very popular with the new geocachers. Unfortunately many sistemas I am seeing are very small ones which are hard to fit trinkets into.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Sometimes it's not sentimentality, but those challenges out there, which need several finds of old caches which might drive people to service older caches. Or it might be the only cache for a hundred or more kms and it won't/can't be replaced. Sentimentality might be way down the list of why it's repaired.

 

Sometimes it's just a really great cache with a well-crafted cache page, a rollicking high adventure getting to GZ, an amazing view or geological feature at GZ, a themed container and a logbook that will become a Chronicle of Achievement for years to come. The sort of caches that are repeatedly talked about in awe at events. The ones they mean when they say "They don't make caches like that anymore."

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I agree. I wasn't saying the mintie tins are necessarily the most common new cache; only that they are very popular with the new geocachers. Unfortunately many sistemas I am seeing are very small ones which are hard to fit trinkets into.

 

I'm struggling to think of when I last saw a mint tin used in a new cache anywhere on the Central Coast. I've found a few older ones which have inevitably almost rusted away to nothing (they really don't last very long in this salty environment), but I suppose we don't get many new caches at all around here now (just 17 last year) and most of those were hidden by people who've been caching for at least a couple of years and have learnt enough not to try to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

we don't get many new caches at all around here now (just 17 last year)

 

Just for the record, the breakdown of these is 4 micro, 9 small and 4 regular.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

Just for the record, the breakdown of these is 4 micro, 9 small and 4 regular.

Not what we get here. Very rarely see an actual regular published. I would guess more micros than other sizes, when the real size is considered; not the rated size, as many which are rated as smalls are actually micros. They are too tiny to fit a TB in or a trinket (unless it's 'microscopic'). They barely fit a log.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not what we get here. Very rarely see an actual regular published. I would guess more micros than other sizes, when the real size is considered; not the rated size, as many which are rated as smalls are actually micros. They are too tiny to fit a TB in or a trinket (unless it's 'microscopic'). They barely fit a log.

 

Most of the smalls here are Sistemas or something similar in the 200-500ml range. Of the four regulars hidden last year, two were my cash boxes and the other two were 1 litre or bigger Sistemas. The micros were bison tubes or other small tubes (about 50ml I guess), no nanos amongst them.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Most of the smalls here are Sistemas or something similar in the 200-500ml range. Of the four regulars hidden last year, two were my cash boxes and the other two were 1 litre or bigger Sistemas. The micros were bison tubes or other small tubes (about 50ml I guess), no nanos amongst them.

I have two mint tins hidden on my Bison Trail series and each contains a bison tube. This because they are magnetically attached to their hide and out of the weather. They'll last years.

I also have two mint tins on my Fernleigh Track series which are lasting very well and are exposed to the weather but they have a good coat of Rustoleum protecting them, they last 2-3 years (if we don't get a (another) fire).

And I have one Altoid tin still doing ok even tough it get exposure to the elements but its an LPC so I haven't worried about making it weather proof as I wanted it to be typical of its type.

GC5JFF5

 

I picked up a couple more Altoid tins on my recent trip to US. They even smaller than the ones I already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, colleda said:

GC5JFF5

I get "Error 404: DNF" when I click on that link.

I needed to goggle what an Altoid tin is. The sort of cache that when it starts to rust is hard to remove the lid on; especially if it hasn't been opened for months/years. I've come across that problem.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Sometimes it's just a really great cache with a well-crafted cache page, a rollicking high adventure getting to GZ, an amazing view or geological feature at GZ, a themed container and a logbook that will become a Chronicle of Achievement for years to come. The sort of caches that are repeatedly talked about in awe at events. The ones they mean when they say "They don't make caches like that anymore."

 

See, if for whatever reason such a cache gets archived - because the cache owner has abandoned the listing - then how would a new identical listing not offer the exact same experience for people to continue to enjoy it? It's a "new" listing? The placed date is recent? The owner name is different? These are all statistical data points, nothing to do with the experience you mentioned. Ultimately there's no real reasonable reason you can really provide to defend keeping up an abandoned listing. Either, as I mentioned, get TPTB to allow a community upkeep, or do community upkeep covertly (not recommended), or just let it get archived (blame the abandoning cache owner) and publish a new identical one.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

See, if for whatever reason such a cache gets archived - because the cache owner has abandoned the listing - then how would a new identical listing not offer the exact same experience for people to continue to enjoy it? It's a "new" listing? The placed date is recent? The owner name is different? These are all statistical data points, nothing to do with the experience you mentioned.

 

I guess for the same reason that the remake of a movie or a cover version of a song rarely captures the magic of the original. For those who found the original, it's a case of been-there-done-that, and for others, the reincarnation just doesn't carry the mystique and aura of the original that everyone still talks about at events. It's a psychological thing as much as anything, probably because the original was breaking new ground but the imitation isn't.

 

Plus, there has to be someone willing to put the time and effort into creating that imitation of a once-great cache, something that's becoming increasingly difficult in a region with only a handful of active cachers, most of whom are now only creating P&Gs and puzzles. Archived caches are rarely replaced with anything new, they just become another spot on the map with no caches.

 

39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Ultimately there's no real reasonable reason you can really provide to defend keeping up an abandoned listing.

 

So why do you defend Mingo?

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It's a psychological thing as much as anything, probably because the original was breaking new ground but the imitation isn't.

The value you're describing is entirely in the listing details.  100% subjective.  IF the goodness of the cache experience is the journey, the location, the sights, then it shouldn't matter if the listing is 20 years old or 1 year old.  If your value is in the listing age (that's what you're describing, because there's no metric for "mystique and aura") then cache experience isn't the draw, so why would someone put a replacement? The listing has been abandoned, and there's no draw to the cache. Archive it. But if the cache is worth keeping, then republish it and provide the same wonderful experience.

Your "mystique and aura" argument is pretty much the crux of the argument for people who want to keep old caches around merely for the sake of them being old.

 

 

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So why do you defend Mingo?

 

When did I "defend Mingo"?  When did I say Mingo should be kept around despite its long-term NM flag?  I didn't say it should be archived, but I didn't say it should be kept. What I said was:

 

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I agree that the listing implies something might need maintenance about the cache. I agree that it can be misleading. I also agree that reviewers look at a cache listing and decide, because they're human (or dogs) whether or not action is warranted, or an exception is to be granted.  I don't always agree that reviewers' actions are warranted, and I don't always agree that reviewers' non-actions are warranted. But those are all my opinions. I recognize what the guidelines say should happen, what our base responsibilities are to keep in line with the guidelines, and that exceptions either way can also happen. Mingo is a very very big (and understandable, imo) exception.

 

And of course, because there's no precedent, I also realize that just because Mingo can be kept active with a long-standing NM flag doesn't mean that GCXYZ down the road can be left unmaintained for a year owned by an unresponsive user, even if it is in good condition and kept up by community.

 

In short:  TPTB feel Mingo is worth making an exception for. And in my opinion, being the oldest active geocache in the world, I can understand that exception - provided it's cared for. If something comes along that means it should be archived, I wouldn't fight it. It might suck if it gets archived for something seemingly insignificant, but it's broken the guidelines, then that's what happens. If it's only alive by exception, then anything nullifying that exception means bye-bye.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

In short:  TPTB feel Mingo is worth making an exception for. And in my opinion, being the oldest active geocache in the world, I can understand that exception - provided it's cared for.

 

But if the only thing it has going for it is being the oldest active cache in the world, if it were archived some other cache would instantly become the oldest active cache in the world, so from that respect nothing is lost. Maybe that next-oldest cache even has an active CO and no outstanding NMs, so that might even be a good thing to happen.

 

On the other hand, if one of the classic caches in this region were to be archived, say the Panorama Cache (GC6A0) for want of an example (hidden in 2001 by a long-gone CO but still surviving well with no NMs, probably because its occasional finders take extra care to make sure it isn't compromised), it's pretty unlikely anything would replace it. It's at the end of a guelling half-day hike along what is now mostly a faint overgrown track. It's one I'm glad I had the chance to do, but it's not a hike I'd want to be making regular routine maintenance visits on even if they were only once every three or four years. When it goes, I doubt there'll be anything taking its place.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

But if the only thing it has going for it is being the oldest active cache in the world, if it were archived some other cache would instantly become the oldest active cache in the world, so from that respect nothing is lost. Maybe that next-oldest cache even has an active CO and no outstanding NMs, so that might even be a good thing to happen.

Sure, I don't disagree.

 

34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

On the other hand, if one of the classic caches in this region were to be archived...

Again, my point is, if you want to keep an abandoned listing for a good cache alive, you'll need to convince TPTB not to adhere to guidelines, and find a way to grant a reasonable exception. That's all.  Otherwise, it's an abandoned listing and falls under risk of being archived due to unresponsive ownership. That's all there is to it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, colleda said:

I would agree but I'm not a sentimental type when it comes to abandoned caches  regardless of age.

 

Yeah...me too... 

After a note I read on another thread  (finding that it was desired earlier than this latest TOU change), to keep as many "pioneer", "historic", or "legacy"  hides around, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post

One reason to save legacy caches is for stats. It’s a significant part of the game for a significant amount of players (at least, I assume it is). Project-gc.com specifically tracks it. One of the most well-known challenges is to complete Jasmer. Eventually Jasmer will become literally impossible, and then you’ll have “Jasmer 2002” or whatever oldest year is still do-able for new cachers. I’m not saying that’s a good or a bad thing, I can see pros/cons both ways, I’m just saying it’s “a thing”.

Share this post


Link to post

If one considers a Jasmer to be finding a cache every available month to the oldest active geocache month, then that covers now (every month since geocaching began), and 10 years from now when a few month may no longer be available.

 

I would say a Jasmer checker should consider a user qualified if they found a cache in every month that currently active geocaches have been published.

  • Helpful 1

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...