Jump to content

Wet/full Log Books


webmel

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, webmel said:

Tried posting this question a few days ago but seems it didn't go through.

If a log book is wet or full and I have a spare (currently waiting for my first batch to arrive) do I replace?   What do you do with with the old one? 

 

 There's a reason the log is wet,  best for the CO to take a look at it.   Sign where you can, or leave a small piece of a log, and leave a NM.

I don't take another's log with me unless asked by the CO.

I stopped replacing "full" logs on micros, thinking that the CO chose that cache type, and they should have realized that they'd have more maintenance.   Nanos especially...

I'll add a half or full log strip to what's there for "full" log, and again, log a NM so the CO can fix it.   

 

Curious, what "batch" are you waiting for ?   Log strips ?

We're finding logs made out of plain copy paper than "official" logs.

 - Seems a waste to replace someone's piece off a calendar with a decent log strip (to me)...      :)

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 There's a reason the log is wet,  best for the CO to take a look at it.   Sign where you can, or leave a small piece of a log, and leave a NM.

I don't take another's log with me unless asked by the CO.

I stopped replacing "full" logs on micros, thinking that the CO chose that cache type, and they should have realized that they'd have more maintenance.   Nanos especially...

I'll add a half or full log strip to what's there for "full" log, and again, log a NM so the CO can fix it.   

 

Curious, what "batch" are you waiting for ?   Log strips ?

We're finding logs made out of plain copy paper than "official" logs.

 - Seems a waste to replace someone's piece off a calendar with a decent log strip (to me)...      :)

 

 

Hey, in both cases that I found a wet log it was because the container wasn't closed properly. I was able to clean off threads /re-roll logs to close tightly to avoid more moisture but good to know that best practice is to contact the CO for maintenance. 

 

To satisfy your curiosity, I'm waiting for a batch of log strips and one container from the geocache online store. At 59 finds I'm starting to think about where I would plant caches. Still learning though so won't plant until sure it'll be a decent one! 

 

 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I stopped replacing "full" logs on micros, thinking that the CO chose that cache type, and they should have realized that they'd have more maintenance.   Nanos especially...

My thoughts exactly. They chose this, even when often a bigger cache could have been used, so this can be a lesson how much maintenance these need. Unfortunately I find that people who choose to use nanos and micros over larger caches, are less likely to maintain them. Throw away world; throw away cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Others have covered the practical issue: if your dry log won't stay dry, what's the point?

 

Personally, I've decided that it's really not my question to ask whether the log will stay dry, so I just mention it's wet in my find log and leave it up to the CO to replace it or do whatever maintenance needs to be done. If the log is wet for structural reasons, such as a cracked container, that calls for an NM to explain the more fundamental problem.

 

As to your last question, naturally you'll offer to return the log to the CO, but one easy thing to do, assuming the log is still readable, is post pictures of it so anyone that wants, including the CO, can look at the signatures that were on it.

Link to comment
On 12/14/2019 at 12:51 AM, cerberus1 said:

I stopped replacing "full" logs on micros, thinking that the CO chose that cache type, and they should have realized that they'd have more maintenance.   Nanos especially...

I'll add a half or full log strip to what's there for "full" log, and again, log a NM so the CO can fix it.  

 

My new approach, which applies more to soaking wet caches than just "full log books", is to add no log strip at all anymore.  I'm making a DNF and a NM.  I'll return if it's ever fixed.  If the future finders sign an added strip of paper in a ziplock bag, it's not fixed.  I'm not sure my new plan doesn't add to the confusion, because although it's still in Need of Maintenance, there is a strip of paper in a ziplock bag somewhere in there.  And the logs say that the "log sheet is dry".  But it won't be that way for long, when yet another ziplock bag will be added to the mess.

 

I may not have a lot of guaranteed smileys this way.  But if it gets even some of the caches actually fixed it's worth it.  I go there because it seems like it's a cool place.  If it is, I enjoy returning. You know, to the place with that fresh clean cache container. :P

 

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, kunarion said:

My new approach, which applies more to soaking wet caches than just "full log books", is to add no log strip at all anymore. 

I'm making a DNF and a NM.  I'll return if it's ever fixed.  If the future finders sign an added strip of paper in a ziplock bag, it's not fixed. 

I'm not sure my new plan doesn't add to the confusion, because although it's still in Need of Maintenance, there is a strip of paper in a ziplock bag somewhere in there.  And the logs say that the "log sheet is dry".  But it won't be that way for long, when yet another ziplock bag will be added to the mess.

 

I may not have a lot of guaranteed smileys this way.  But if it gets even some of the caches actually fixed it's worth it.  I go there because it seems like it's a cool place.  If it is, I enjoy returning. You know, to the place with that fresh clean cache container. :P

 

That's odd, you could have captured what I said on "wet" logs instead, but it wasn't much different.  :) 

My answer was  "Sign where you can, or leave a small piece of a log, and leave a NM"  ...

Hiking long before this hobby,   many areas in a few states now the only thing "cool" is the container on a day I feel like or need to go geocaching,  when promotions like this 3...2..1.. one has outings needed. 

"Outings"  for some reason doesn't include DNFs, only Found Its.   If it's there, by the site's rules, I gotta claim it.   ;)

Though only someone and I didn't claim a  "nothing there but the nano's cap " recently...

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

My answer was  "Sign where you can, or leave a small piece of a log, and leave a NM"  ...

Hiking long before this hobby,   many areas in a few states now the only thing "cool" is the container on a day I feel like or need to go geocaching,  when promotions like this 3...2..1.. one has outings needed. 

"Outings"  for some reason doesn't include DNFs, only Found Its.   If it's there, by the site's rules, I gotta claim it.   ;)

Though only someone and I didn't claim a  "nothing there but the nano's cap " recently...

 

 

Yeah.  When I'm on the clock, I'll miss out on Souvenirs if I don't claim the wads of mush as Finds :P.  That's kind of what I always did before -- see a medicine bottle of wet paper wads, add a slip of paper, claim a Find.  It makes people angry if I don't.  The throwdown people are angry that I claim it's in need of maintenance, they fixed it with that slip of paper (which is now soaking wet).  The CO is angry that he has to go clean it up -- he hasn't had to touch the thing in years.  I've upset the balance of the universe.  The only thing I accomplished was make people think I'm CRAZY. ^_^

 

I haven't had a CO tell me to add a log sheet, but I have had some tell me to log it anyway.  Including when the whole thing was missing, just as 50 previous "finders" did.  Now that's crazy.  :cute:

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Everyone has their opinion, here's mine. I generally carry a small cache repair kit that contains extra log sheets, small zlock bags, etc. If I come on a cache with a full log i will add my own sheet, sign it, and place it in a new zlock bag. If the original log is dry i will put it in the bag as well. I do this because I want to sign the log and receive credit for the find. If its a nano and the original log must be removed to accommodate the new log ( this has only happened to me twice) I will PM the CO and offer to scan and email the log to them. I have never received a request to do so. My PM would look something like this:

 

Hello, Cacheowner 2347. I have logged your cache on 12/46/1642 as CacheSeeker356. The log in the nano was full, so I removed it and replaced it with a fresh log. The cache is otherwise clean, dry, well hidden and in good shape. If you would like the original log back, please PM me and i would be happy to scan and email it to you.

Link to comment

I had a nano  and a couple micros just last week.  All needed some sorta maintenance with logs soaked n frozen.

I removed the tiny, frozen wad from the nano, and replaced with a log with "room enough" 'til the CO can fix it.

The micros were similar (one actually called a "small"...), frozen science projects placed in a baggie for my pocket, so I don't start growing things too.

They all got a "room enough" replacement 'til the CO can fix it, and NMs too.  All got a "want it?" mail, and none responded.

 

I've yet to find a full "dry" log in a nano.   Usually it just looks like a spitball stuck in there...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 12/14/2019 at 12:14 AM, webmel said:

Tried posting this question a few days ago but seems it didn't go through. If a log book is wet or full and I have a spare (currently waiting for my first batch to arrive) do I replace? What do you do with with the old one? 

i would put new one in container, but leave the old one there if there is room. also im pretty new to geocache so sorry if this is incorrect.

Edited by spookypants
Link to comment
On 4/5/2020 at 5:55 PM, GiddyinHisGrace said:

I had a couple like that yesterday.. there was no more room, so I had to add a new one and take the old one out..

 

I always offer the CO (via message, email, AND the log to cover all the bases) an opportunity to claim their old log/s whenever I replace them.  I'm happy to mail it, take a photo, or hand deliver it (realistic driving time).  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:


Assuming it’s a like for like replacement, why would maintenance be necessary?

I don't believe in logs being replaced (except in exceptional circumstances) without permission. If the CO gives permission, that's fine. That is the CO's job. If they aren't willing to do this than they shouldn't have placed the cache. All caches that need maintenance should have a NM, including mine PLEASE. I don't want other people to replace my logs. I want a NM so I know to go do it. I find it's the micros and especially nanos which get the least maintenance. They need more maintenance and if COs are reminded every time they need maintaining by a NM rather than do the maintenance for them, and later by a NA if the maintenance isn't done, than more people might start placing larger caches with larger logs that don't need maintaining so often, to avoid so many NM logs. Replacing logs is pandering to COs who are too lazy to maintain their caches and treat them as disposable, place and forget.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't believe in logs being replaced (except in exceptional circumstances) without permission. If the CO gives permission, that's fine. That is the CO's job. If they aren't willing to do this than they shouldn't have placed the cache. All caches that need maintenance should have a NM, including mine PLEASE. I don't want other people to replace my logs. I want a NM so I know to go do it. I find it's the micros and especially nanos which get the least maintenance. They need more maintenance and if COs are reminded every time they need maintaining by a NM rather than do the maintenance for them, and later by a NA if the maintenance isn't done, than more people might start placing larger caches with larger logs that don't need maintaining so often, to avoid so many NM logs. Replacing logs is pandering to COs who are too lazy to maintain their caches and treat them as disposable, place and forget.

Agreed. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't believe in logs being replaced (except in exceptional circumstances) without permission. If the CO gives permission, that's fine. That is the CO's job. If they aren't willing to do this than they shouldn't have placed the cache. All caches that need maintenance should have a NM, including mine PLEASE. I don't want other people to replace my logs. I want a NM so I know to go do it. I find it's the micros and especially nanos which get the least maintenance. They need more maintenance and if COs are reminded every time they need maintaining by a NM rather than do the maintenance for them, and later by a NA if the maintenance isn't done, than more people might start placing larger caches with larger logs that don't need maintaining so often, to avoid so many NM logs. Replacing logs is pandering to COs who are too lazy to maintain their caches and treat them as disposable, place and forget.

You're not being very friendly. In fact, you're being quite judgemental. A log is just a piece of paper. I see no reason to act as if the CO's pieces of paper are any better than what anyone might rip out of their notepad and stuck in the cache as a log extension. A full log is a sign of a good cache that's lasted a long time, hardly evidence that the CO is irresponsible and lazy.

 

It makes me crazy when I see how many people in these forums view COs as nothing but servants.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


Assuming it’s a like for like replacement, why would maintenance be necessary?

I don't believe in logs being replaced (except in exceptional circumstances) without permission. If the CO gives permission, that's fine. That is the CO's job. If they aren't willing to do this than they shouldn't have placed the cache. All caches that need maintenance should have a NM, including mine PLEASE. I don't want other people to replace my logs. I want a NM so I know to go do it. I find it's the micros and especially nanos which get the least maintenance. They need more maintenance and if COs are reminded every time they need maintaining by a NM rather than do the maintenance for them, and later by a NA if the maintenance isn't done, than more people might start placing larger caches with larger logs that don't need maintaining so often, to avoid so many NM logs. Replacing logs is pandering to COs who are too lazy to maintain their caches and treat them as disposable, place and forget.

 

On 3/21/2020 at 11:40 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I can't take over a cache that's 100s or 1,000s of kms away from where I live. No one else is likely to be able to either for a remote cache, as no geocacher lives within 100s of kms of those caches, and very few people at all live there. I have maintained a cache in a remote area, and naturally I have not logged a DNF, NM or NA. I wouldn't want it archived. Others passing through the area are likely to do the same, maintain those caches placed there before the distance rule came in. Otherwise there would be no caches to be found.

 

Hmmm...  So it's ok for caches you like, but not for those you don't?

Edited by IceColdUK
Link to comment
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

You're not being very friendly. In fact, you're being quite judgemental. A log is just a piece of paper. I see no reason to act as if the CO's pieces of paper are any better than what anyone might rip out of their notepad and stuck in the cache as a log extension. A full log is a sign of a good cache that's lasted a long time, hardly evidence that the CO is irresponsible and lazy.

 

It makes me crazy when I see how many people in these forums view COs as nothing but servants.

It's fine to add a small piece of paper (that's not replacing the log), but then make a NM. Don't remove the old log. I have nothing against that, as it will be there until the CO gets to the cache to replace with a full log.

Servant:o. I can only conclude from that that you don't want to do maintenance; you want others to be YOUR servant and do it for you. If you are not prepared to do the maintenance, don't place caches. That's the reason I have not placed lots of caches; because I am not prepared to maintain any more than I have already.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Love 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, dprovan said:

You're not being very friendly. In fact, you're being quite judgemental. A log is just a piece of paper. I see no reason to act as if the CO's pieces of paper are any better than what anyone might rip out of their notepad and stuck in the cache as a log extension. A full log is a sign of a good cache that's lasted a long time, hardly evidence that the CO is irresponsible and lazy.

 

It makes me crazy when I see how many people in these forums view COs as nothing but servants.

 

It's not about servitude, it's about participating in a responsible activity.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's not about servitude, it's about participating in a responsible activity.

Drop everything to run out and add a piece of paper to a cache because poor old Goldenwattle never wants to encounter a full log? Servitude, plain and simple. All thoughts of the CO's previous efforts to set out the cache and maintain it, completely forgotten because there's not enough fresh paper in it.

 

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's fine to add a small piece of paper (that's not replacing the log), but then make a NM. Don't remove the old log. I have nothing against that, as it will be there until the CO gets to the cache to replace with a full log.

It's just a piece of paper. There's nothing magic about it, and no reason to insist that only the CO can replace it.

 

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Servant:o. I can only conclude from that that you don't want to do maintenance; you want others to be YOUR servant and do it for you. If you are not prepared to do the maintenance, don't place caches. That's the reason I have not placed lots of caches; because I am not prepared to maintain any more than I have already.

See? You're imagining adding paper to the cache as work. It's just something friendly you can do to return the favor to your friend that put out the cache. But you don't see us as friends playing a fun game together. You see the CO as a worker bee putting out caches for your pleasure.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Drop everything to run out and add a piece of paper to a cache because poor old Goldenwattle never wants to encounter a full log? Servitude, plain and simple. All thoughts of the CO's previous efforts to set out the cache and maintain it, completely forgotten because there's not enough fresh paper in it.

 

It's just a piece of paper. There's nothing magic about it, and no reason to insist that only the CO can replace it.

 

See? You're imagining adding paper to the cache as work. It's just something friendly you can do to return the favor to your friend that put out the cache. But you don't see us as friends playing a fun game together. You see the CO as a worker bee putting out caches for your pleasure.

Hard to answer that drama, except some of us don't make a big thing about servicing our caches. We just do it. If you are too busy to service your caches, don't place more than you have time for. But you are not the only one with a life away from geocaching.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
15 hours ago, dprovan said:

A log is just a piece of paper. I see no reason to act as if the CO's pieces of paper are any better than what anyone might rip out of their notepad and stuck in the cache as a log extension.

 

Some of my logbooks are more than just a piece of paper, like this one for example.

 

Logbook.jpg.a1d7ed5a5c012923e3e6ccff47428b15.jpg

 

Okay, granted it's unlikely to become full anytime soon as the cache has only had three finders, but should that day ever come I would rather have the opportunity to replace it myself with something similar to the original rather than have a well-intentioned cacher just replace it with something ripped out of their notepad. More so with my themed multis where the story's denouement is inside the front cover of the logbook.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
11 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Hmmm...  So it's ok for caches you like, but not for those you don't?

You are judging not me. I don't make that judgement.

 

If that came over as judgemental, my apologies.  I was just pointing out what I saw as an inconsistency between your actions as a community-minded cacher and your expectations as a conscientious CO.

 

When it comes to the merits of 'community maintenance', on the whole, I'm with you in quote #1 (way above, now) - maintenance is the responsibility of the CO.  But I also understand your position in quote #2 - there are situations where it would be sad to see caches disappearing from the map, so needs must.  (I've played my part, on occasion.)

 

However, you don't leave a NM on the remote cache (#2), presumably because it needs no further maintenance, yet you'd expect a NM on your own (#1), if the same were true.

 

Which brings us back to the question I was asking...

 

19 hours ago, IceColdUK said:
20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
On 4/5/2020 at 10:55 PM, GiddyinHisGrace said:

I had a couple like that yesterday.. there was no more room, so I had to add a new one and take the old one out..

 

I hope you made a NM as well. And send a photograph of the signatures to the CO.


Assuming it’s a like for like replacement, why would maintenance be necessary?

 

If the only issue with the cache was the full log, and this has been replaced by a reasonable substitute then - whether or not you or I agree with the action - surely no further maintenance is necessary.  Why would you expect a NM log?

 

Edited by IceColdUK
Reworded a bit.
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

If that came over as judgemental, my apologies.  I was just pointing out what I saw as an inconsistency between your actions as a community-minded cacher and your expectations as a conscientious CO.

 

When it comes to the merits of 'community maintenance', on the whole, I'm with you in quote #1 (way above, now) - maintenance is the responsibility of the CO.  But I also understand your position in quote #2 - there are situations where it would be sad to see caches disappearing from the map, so needs must.

 

However, you don't leave a NM on the remote cache (#2), presumably because it needs no further maintenance, yet you'd expect a NM on your own (#1), if the same were true.

 

Which brings us back to the question I was asking...

 

 

If the only issue with the cache was the full log, and this has been replaced by a reasonable substitute then - whether or not you or I agree with the action - surely no further maintenance is necessary.  Why would you expect a NM log?

 

I can only answer for myself. There are only a very few caches I would replace the log on and I wouldn't draw attention to those caches by logging a NM. I also have an loose agreement with a cacher whose series of caches are wide spread (over several countries) that it's okay to maintain any of these caches that need it, if I come upon one. In fact, on one occasion when they noticed I was in the area of one of these caches, I was contacted and asked if I will be finding such and such a cache and can I please do some maintenance. But that's by agreement; not taking it upon myself to maintain caches without contacting the CO. I have also been asked to maintain a cache for others when I am travelling and I'm willing to do this. I see this as CO maintenance. They might not physically be going to their cache themselves, but they have arranged for their cache to be maintained. Unfortunately there are too many COs who once they place a cache, especially after a few years, have no indention of maintaining the cache, or organising a helper to do it for them. Unless there is something very special about a cache, such as it's in an area with few or no caches and won't be replaced, I am unlikely to do more than add a small temporary scrap of paper. I will log that NM for the CO to place a proper log, if it's in an area with lots of caches. and where a replacement cache is a possibility. If the cache is not maintained it can be replaced, by hopefully someone who will.

So, if I replaced a log with another log, no I wouldn't make a NM. Otherwise, I am likely to make that NM. It also depends on who the CO is. If I know they maintain their caches and a mention in the log that the cache needs maintenance will get maintenance, I likely won't add a NM. But for those COs who are not maintaining their caches (lots of maintenance mentions in previous logs and no action from the CO is a strong clue to this) are likely to get a NM. It is not black and white, but each case is considered.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I can only answer for myself. There are only a very few caches I would replace the log on and I wouldn't draw attention to those caches by logging a NM. I also have an loose agreement with a cacher whose series of caches are wide spread (over several countries) that it's okay to maintain any of these caches that need it, if I come upon one. In fact, on one occasion when they noticed I was in the area of one of these caches, I was contacted and asked if I will be finding such and such a cache and can I please do some maintenance. But that's by agreement; not taking it upon myself to maintain caches without contacting the CO. I have also been asked to maintain a cache for others when I am travelling and I'm willing to do this. I see this as CO maintenance. They might not physically be going to their cache themselves, but they have arranged for their cache to be maintained. Unfortunately there are too many COs who once they place a cache, especially after a few years, have no indention of maintaining the cache, or organising a helper to do it for them. Unless there is something very special about a cache, such as it's in an area with few or no caches and won't be replaced, I am unlikely to do more than add a small temporary scrap of paper. I will log that NM for the CO to place a proper log, if it's in an area with lots of caches. and where a replacement cache is a possibility. If the cache is not maintained it can be replaced, by hopefully someone who will.

So, if I replaced a log with another log, no I wouldn't make a NM. Otherwise, I am likely to make that NM. It also depends on who the CO is. If I know they maintain their caches and a mention in the log that the cache needs maintenance will get maintenance, I likely won't add a NM. But for those COs who are not maintaining their caches (lots of maintenance mentions in previous logs and no action from the CO is a strong clue to this) are likely to get a NM. It is not black and white, but each case is considered.


Complete agreement. ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Some of my logbooks are more than just a piece of paper, like this one for example.

Well, duh. But that's an even better example of my point: if your log did someday get filled (or, more likely, stolen), it would be idiotic for someone to conclude that you were a lazy CO that would be encouraged not to maintain your cache because someone else dropped a replacement log.

 

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I also have an loose agreement with a cacher whose series of caches are wide spread (over several countries) that it's okay to maintain any of these caches that need it, if I come upon one.

This is our basic disagreement: I think that you should consider yourself having a loose agreement with all COs to add log paper when needed. If you run into a cache that looks like it isn't being maintained, then by all means, don't waste time putting in a log and post an NM, but I would expect that to be the exception. I think your normal attitude, absent any evidence to the contrary, should be that COs are generally conscientious, so it's no big deal to help them out with trivial maintenance.

 

Maybe the problem is that almost all the COs in your area really are obnoxious brats that don't take responsibility for their caches. The COs of the caches I find are almost universally conscientious and diligent, so I think of them all as friends to cooperate with. Why wouldn't I do something simple so they can use their limited free time to go caching wherever they want instead of running out to put a log in the cache I'm holding?

Link to comment
On 4/7/2020 at 10:44 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't believe in logs being replaced (except in exceptional circumstances) without permission.  If the CO gives permission, that's fine. That is the CO's job. If they aren't willing to do this than they shouldn't have placed the cache. All caches that need maintenance should have a NM, including mine PLEASE. I don't want other people to replace my logs. I want a NM so I know to go do it. I find it's the micros and especially nanos which get the least maintenance. They need more maintenance and if COs are reminded every time they need maintaining by a NM rather than do the maintenance for them, and later by a NA if the maintenance isn't done, than more people might start placing larger caches with larger logs that don't need maintaining so often, to avoid so many NM logs. Replacing logs is pandering to COs who are too lazy to maintain their caches and treat them as disposable, place and forget.

If you are too busy to service your caches, don't place more than you have time for. 

If you are not prepared to do the maintenance, don't place caches.

But for those COs who are not maintaining their caches (lots of maintenance mentions in previous logs and no action from the CO is a strong clue to this) are likely to get a NM.

 

Great.  I really don't have any issue with most of this train of thought and am in full agreement with most of it as well.  Yet your exceptional circumstance applies to remote caches.  What's so exceptional about them, other than the fact that they're remote and probably won't be replaced with new ones if they go away? What is so important about "saving" a remote cache that gets visited perhaps twice a year?  Is it really a bad thing if there are no caches to find in remote areas?  Why MUST there be caches to find in remote areas?  Why does it matter if there's a single cache a few 100 Kms from anything else?  (Please don't post again, stating that I don't understand that these remote caches will disappear and no one will be able to put out new ones.  I do understand and fully grasp that the remoteness of these areas makes publishing caches virtually impossible. I realize that's not optimal for cachers who happen to be traveling through the area but I'm trying to figure out WHY you believe these caches are somehow exempt from the same type of CO attention that all other caches should have, beyond the notion that they'll disappear off the map.  What other reasons do you have for keeping these caches going, despite the lack of CO maintenance?)  The implication that you are making by doing the maintenance that the CO should be doing is that these remote caches should be allowed to stay there forever, being maintained by visitors instead of the COs who placed them.

 

Your actions regarding remote caches basically boils down to this - the cache is what's important, not the CO who is supposed to be maintaining them.  It seems to me that you're more concerned about the +1 that these remote caches represent than you are about the CO who is responsible for maintaining them.

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It's not about servitude, it's about participating in a responsible activity.

 

You're fully on board with GW's stated thoughts about COs and their responsibility toward maintaining their caches?  Great.  Thought so.  So am I.  

 

You're also fully on board with GW choosing to ignore their stated belief in CO responsibility and supporting/helping some COs who aren't responsible enough to maintain their own caches?  Caring more that the cache remain in play solely because it's remote over the responsibility of the CO to maintain it?  Seems to go against the stated belief that COs are the only ones responsible for the maintenance of their cache.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Your actions regarding remote caches basically boils down to this - the cache is what's important, not the CO who is supposed to be maintaining them.  It seems to me that you're more concerned about the +1 that these remote caches represent than you are about the CO who is responsible for maintaining them.

Have you ever found a remote cache? There are much easier ways to get that coveted +1 than finding a remote cache.

 

I think the argument could be made that preserving the cache--the opportunity for adventure in a remote location--is more important than making sure the CO maintains the cache--the container and its contents. But saying that the +1 is what's important undermines your argument.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, niraD said:

Have you ever found a remote cache? There are much easier ways to get that coveted +1 than finding a remote cache.

I think the argument could be made that preserving the cache--the opportunity for adventure in a remote location--is more important than making sure the CO maintains the cache--the container and its contents. But saying that the +1 is what's important undermines your argument.

 

Sorta agree.    If I was just looking for a "+1", there's a couple-hundred caches all-around me I could stop at.     :)

 - There's no other "points" given to one that takes all day to get to, than a cache n dash 10' from parking.

We realize that a large group of "distant" caches belonged to cachers who've been out of the hobby for years.

Some here got those folks to adopt-out their caches to them.  Many of those people are now long-gone as well.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Great.  I really don't have any issue with most of this train of thought and am in full agreement with most of it as well.  Yet your exceptional circumstance applies to remote caches.  What's so exceptional about them, other than the fact that they're remote and probably won't be replaced with new ones if they go away? What is so important about "saving" a remote cache that gets visited perhaps twice a year?  Is it really a bad thing if there are no caches to find in remote areas?  Why MUST there be caches to find in remote areas?  Why does it matter if there's a single cache a few 100 Kms from anything else?  (Please don't post again, stating that I don't understand that these remote caches will disappear and no one will be able to put out new ones.  I do understand and fully grasp that the remoteness of these areas makes publishing caches virtually impossible. I realize that's not optimal for cachers who happen to be traveling through the area but I'm trying to figure out WHY you believe these caches are somehow exempt from the same type of CO attention that all other caches should have, beyond the notion that they'll disappear off the map.  What other reasons do you have for keeping these caches going, despite the lack of CO maintenance?)  The implication that you are making by doing the maintenance that the CO should be doing is that these remote caches should be allowed to stay there forever, being maintained by visitors instead of the COs who placed them.

 

Your actions regarding remote caches basically boils down to this - the cache is what's important, not the CO who is supposed to be maintaining them.  It seems to me that you're more concerned about the +1 that these remote caches represent than you are about the CO who is responsible for maintaining them.

 

You ask me not to post certain comments again, but you have posted certain comments again. I have explained this before and and am tired of explaining it. I will add one more thing though, and that is that often these remote caches are left in good containers, such as as ammunition tins and need minimal maintenance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, niraD said:

Have you ever found a remote cache? There are much easier ways to get that coveted +1 than finding a remote cache.

 

I think the argument could be made that preserving the cache--the opportunity for adventure in a remote location--is more important than making sure the CO maintains the cache--the container and its contents. But saying that the +1 is what's important undermines your argument.

 

The +1 reference isn't so much the +1 for GW but the fact that it's being kept alive, despite the CO being inactive or unwilling to maintain their caches, for others to have the opportunity for a  cache to be there to find, hence the +1 as a more general term.  WHY is it so important that a cache that gets found roughly 2 times a year still be there despite the fact that the CO has abandoned their listing?  No one lives there so it's not like Jeff's situation where there's a geocaching community in dire need of an influx of new cachers.  No one goes that way regularly enough to place a new one, meaning it's a one off visit most times, so if the cache needs some sort of maintenance different than the previous finder performed (if it was performed at all), it's up to the next finder to provide the maintenance.  If they don't do it, then it's left to the next finder, and so on and so forth because there's no CO able to address any issues in a timely manner.  Basically, the only reason to keep it "alive" is so that someone else can find it.  If that's the reasoning, then why not keep all the other caches "alive" as well so that someone can find them.  Why is a cache that gets found 1-2 times a year more "important" than a cache that gets found 20-30 or 50-100 times a year and somehow deserves preferential treatment that goes against a stated belief that COs are responsible for maintenance?

 

I'm really not against these remote caches, even though it appears I am.  I would truly prefer they stick around so that cachers have the opportunity to find them.  The reason I keep referring to them is that the actions demonstrated contradict the stated beliefs regarding CO responsibility.  I would be far less inclined to post as frequently if GW's actions were not so diametrically opposed to the lengths they go to reinforce the notion that maintenance is the sole responsibility of the CO.  If every cache truly deserves a NM (and one subsequent NA that was filed) for a full log with no action allowed by a finder to replace it, then it stands to reason that every cache that has an issue deserves a NM and no action should be taken by any visitor to a cache.  It should be the sole responsibility of the CO to attend to whatever issue has arisen.  

On 4/7/2020 at 10:44 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't believe in logs being replaced (except in exceptional circumstances) without permission.

 

On 4/7/2020 at 10:44 AM, Goldenwattle said:

If they aren't willing to do this than they shouldn't have placed the cache.

 

On 4/7/2020 at 10:44 AM, Goldenwattle said:

All caches that need maintenance should have a NM, including mine

 

On 4/7/2020 at 10:44 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Replacing logs is pandering to COs who are too lazy to maintain their caches and treat them as disposable, place and forget.

 

On 4/7/2020 at 8:13 PM, Goldenwattle said:

If you are not prepared to do the maintenance, don't place caches.

 

On 4/8/2020 at 3:32 AM, Goldenwattle said:

If you are too busy to service your caches, don't place more than you have time for.

Where a cache is located should be, based on what I interpret from reading the quotes above (particularly the three bold quotes), irrelevant because all maintenance is clearly the sole responsibility of the CO. The willingness to involve a reviewer for a full log only reinforces this belief.  No less than 6 times were we told that the CO is responsible for maintenance - the CO is responsible for logs, the CO is responsible because they placed it, the CO is responsible because all caches that need maintenance should have a NM log that is attended to by the CO, the CO is responsible for logs, the CO is responsible because it was placed by them, the CO is responsible even if they're too busy - except for this cache because it's remote and suddenly the CO isn't responsible any more.  If the focus is to hold COs accountable for maintaining their caches, then it should be for every CO, not just most of them except for a select few.  Even these remote caches have been treated as disposable, place and forget caches by the "lazy" COs who have abandoned them.  This is a very strict interpretation of the maintenance guidelines that doesn't allow for any wiggle room, yet somehow GW has managed to find some wiggle room - a CO is always responsible for maintenance, except when they're not.

 

If there is room for maneuvering when it comes to maintenance offered up by a visitor instead of the CO (as it appears there is based on what GW does for remote caches and what other cachers sometimes do) then there should be some wiggle room for maneuvering when it comes to caches in less remote areas as well.  I'm certainly NOT saying that anyone should absolve COs from their responsibility of maintenance.  COs should be the ones primarily responsible for maintenance but that shouldn't mean that a full log can't get replaced by anyone but the CO.  That doesn't mean that COs should expect or demand log replacement.  That goes beyond what's acceptable.  It just means that someone other than the CO can, if they want to, offer up some minor help to the CO that doesn't affect the integrity of the cache - log replacement, wiping out a container that has some moisture in it due to it being closed improperly, cleaning up swag for the same reason - and not be required to file a NM log alerting the CO to a minor issue, despite the fact that the minor issue has been resolved.  I'm also not saying that they should offer up help that does affect the integrity of the cache - putting out a new container without the CO's permission (throwdown) or taping/repairing a cracked container - which require a NM log instead of any "help" that was offered.  Just because one can file a NM and NA log for a full log doesn't mean one should, especially if one is not willing to do the same thing for other caches that are found and in the same situation or worse. It's my guess that some variation of this interpretation of maintenance is held by a majority of cachers.  While still primarily placing the responsibility of cache maintenance at the feet of the CO, it allows for some minor maintenance to be performed by others, freely offered and not expected or demanded by the CO.  This more "lenient" version of maintenance allows for consistency while still letting there be some flexibility in the interpretation of what maintenance by anyone other than the CO could entail, as well as self-justification for maintenance that just might cross the line a bit, when compared to the guidelines set forth by GS.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

WHY is it so important that a cache that gets found roughly 2 times a year still be there despite the fact that the CO has abandoned their listing?

I look at this the other way: if a cache gets found twice a year, why's it so important the the CO keeps in in pristine condition. If a seeker finds the log full, why should he hesitate to put more paper in the log when only one person's going to see his scrap added the beautiful logbook that the CO won't have a chance to replace in the next 12 months?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, colleda said:

IMO these remote  caches to which GW often  refers, are no different to vacation caches (which they probably originally  were) and should  be treated as such.

That's correct. They were often placed during people's holidays in region years ago, before the locality distance rule came in. Some though I have found were placed by local geocachers, but further away than where they have placed most of their caches. They often involve leaving the main road and driving or walking (if not so far) along dirt tracks (can be rough) to find them. The season must be considered before venturing onto some of these tracks. Dry season, usually they are fine.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...