Cache Finding Etiquette for Experienced Cachers

[+hugesinker]

These are several of my recommendations for a cache finding etiquette for experienced cachers.  They're a bit beyond the basics, and intended to make this hobby even better for cache owners and finders alike-- as well as ways to set a positive example:

 

• If you find a good cache, try to leave a good activity log.  TFTC logs should be reserved for crappy caches, or not used at all.
• Endeavor to leave a cache as intended based on the description and hint, if you can clearly tell what the intent is.  Otherwise leave as found.  That is, unless the placement is likely to be muggled, moved, or otherwise destroyed.  If you move the cache from an intended position, message CO with a photo of your new placement and offer to move it again if they want.
• Try to verify a cache's current TB inventory if there is any.  If a TB is missing, comment as such on that TBs activity log.  Discover present TBs you don't take.
• Tiny nano caches only need your initials, no date.  Mention your initials in the activity log.
• If you take the last line on a log sheet or start a new page of a log sheet, say so in your activity log.
• If you need to add a fresh log sheet, prefer to leave older log sheets for CO unless there is not enough room or if an old log sheet is in very poor condition.
• If you remove a log sheet, try to open it carefully and photograph it to record the signatures, then include those photos in your activity log entry before throwing out the old log sheet.
• Replace plastic baggie for log sheet when needed if you can.
• It is nice to offer to replace a cache that is verified missing-- but DO NOT replace a cache without approval of the cache owner, confirmed with an activity log entry made by them. (say no to throwdowns)  If the cache owner is no longer active and you cannot adopt the cache, flag it to make room for something new.

 

If you have any points that you think should be added, or you disagree with any of these, let me know.

Edited April 21, 2021 by hugesinker
typo

[+humboldt flier]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

The above is exactly what we've done since 2006.

 

You might add:

• Log a NM if something is wrong with a cache.
• Log a NA if there's a problem with a cache and it clear the CO is no longer active (no visit on the website, no finds or new caches placed for a long time)

 

"back in the day" I used to log a DNF and wore my DNF's as badges of honor / honour ... with the advent of the "cache health algorithm" I have ceased that.  I am more likely to log via a "write note" that issues may exist with a cache.

 

Anyone who has seen the various threads on Cache Health, NA, NM may have a know my stance.

[+humboldt flier]

Numerous spurious logs for GC262JQ near Poway, California got me rather "Jacked Up" and I could not help myself:

 

Perhaps I went a bit over the top, however.

 

Dear Cache, (HERE COMES MY GRIPES). To those who have not succeeded in locating you and who have called for archival >>> they need use their geosenses and look. For those who spout off about different containers etc, etc they have been led astray by the throw-down twits. Those who play the "throw down game" cheat themselves and lead others astray. I note from old logs variances from the actual cache container. ( YES ) I found the real deal. (I AM FED UP WITH A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF "WANNA-BE CACHERS" THINKING THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A FIND AND START WHINING AND PLAYING THE ARCHIVAL CARD WHEN THEY CAN NOT LOCATE A CACHE). Participation ribbons are for T-Ball, kindergarten and your pre-school play dates. Be Safe Out There and stop dropping NM and NA bombs.

Edited April 20, 2021 by humboldt flier
typo correction

[+humboldt flier]

Interestingly,  

 

        All of the NA and NM logs from the referenced cache page have been "vacated" since my visit and logging.

 

For "on4bam" I support your stance and admire it ... take care be well and be safe.

 

with respect to the aforementioned cache although it is a good one it probably needs to be archived given that the original owner has not visited the site in multiple years and I see no reference to a MX program in place.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

DNF/NM/NA are logs about the state of a cache

 

I really wish DNF logs weren't considered to be about the state of a cache because most of the time they're not, they're about an unsuccessful search for a cache that has nothing wrong with it. Or, if DNF really does have to be an action-required log now, perhaps we need a new log type for saying I failed in my search today because of - you name it - muggles, mosquitoes, failing light, rain, dead batteries, tired kids, navigational embarrassment, cache-blindness, a snake blocking the way, couldn't climb that high, ladder too short, wrong tide, big seas...or whatever, there are plenty more ways to not find a cache. Across all the caches I've hidden there have been 74 DNFs but only 3 were due to a problem with the cache, likewise out of the 149 DNFs I've logged, on about 90% of those the cache was fine and I simply couldn't complete the find for reasons like the ones I listed. On most of the latter, I've gone back another day better prepared and made the find.

Edited April 20, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, hugesinker said:

• Tiny nano caches only need your initials, no date.  Mention your initials in the activity log.

Admittedly, I have a short geocaching name and small handwriting, but I've always been able to fit my name and date in one of the spaces on a typical nano-cache log scroll.

 

Here's a couple more:

• Don't stuff a cache container so full that it doesn't close properly. It doesn't matter what you're stuffing it with: trade items, trackables, new log sheets, plastic bags, whatever. If they get in the way of the container closing properly, then they don't belong in the cache.
• Even though you added a new log sheet, if the container still leaks, then the new log will get soaked too and the owner still needs to maintain the cache. Post a NM log even though you added a new log sheet.

[+justintim1999]

I do or have done all of these. 

 

As long as we're looking at all of these, except #2,  as suggestions.  In no way would I expect anyone to do any of these except replacing the cache as it was found. 

 

#1 is always nice but optional.   #4 is prudent.   The rest are the cache owners responsibility and I wouldn't want, even an experienced cacher, to think they were obligated to do anything but sign the log and replace the cache.   

 

In most cases a Needs Maintenance log is usually the best action.  

 

There's nothing wrong with helping out other cache owners as long as the "helping" doesn't become the maintenance.        

 

 

[+humboldt flier]

A number of years ago in N.W. California we had a cacher who hid "caches"".  >> check that >> he hid "GEO-TORTURE" would have been a more apt description.

 

     Those well conceived and well hidden maddeningly difficult caches were not considered caches at all.  They were called "GEO-TORTURE". and within the local community it was not uncommon to have posted six (6) or more DNF's prior to finding "the goods".  

 

     It was considered an honor to find more than twenty five (25) of cacher "XXXX's"  "Geo-Tortures".

 

     ***(in  twist of irony there was even greater honor in logging the tale of each and every search which ended in a DNF.***)

 

     Currently the "Cache Health Police" would be all over those caches like stink on a cow-pie.  

 

Cacher "XXXX" would not have been the happiest of cache owners had the "Cache Health Police" been up and running during the "GEO-TORTURE" days

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+justintim1999]

18 minutes ago, humboldt flier said:

A number of years ago in N.W. California we had a cacher who hid "caches"".  >> check that >> he hid "GEO-TORTURE" would have been a more apt description.

 

     Those well conceived and well hidden maddeningly difficult caches were not considered caches at all.  They were called "GEO-TORTURE". and within the local community it was not uncommon to have posted six (6) or more DNF's prior to finding "the goods".  

 

     It was considered an honor to find more than twenty five (25) of cacher "XXXX's"  "Geo-Tortures".

 

     ***(in  twist of irony there was even greater honor in logging the tale of each and every search which ended in a DNF.***)

 

     Currently the "Cache Health Police" would be all over those caches like stink on a cow-pie.  

 

Cacher "XXXX" would not have been the happiest of cache owners had the "Cache Health Police" been up and running during the "GEO-TORTURE" days

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think today this would involve a conversation with your reviewer.   I can't say I know exactly how the health score works.   I think the system generates a generic e-mail making the owner aware of a potential issue when a cache score falls below a certain level.   From what I understand the system doesn't disable or archive caches,  reviewers do that.    To have a cache published you have to describe the hide as well as the container.   I'd think most reviewers seeing the title of the series along with the hide info will have a pretty good idea of how difficult the caches will be.  Also,  the difficulty and terrain rating will have to be accurate.  

 

 A little understanding between the hider and the reviewer regarding multiple DNF's should solve the problem.   You may not be able to avoid the automatic e-mail but the reviewer should be less inclined to disable the cache because of a bunch of DNF's.   That being said there should be an agreed upon number of DNF's that will trigger the owner to take a look.

 

Having a bunch of tough or remote caches doesn't absolve the owner of some sort of maintenance plan.   This is one of those examples of when having other people help with maintenance would be beneficial.  

 

Again if I'm wrong about how the cache score system works than all this is out the window.  

 

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, hugesinker said:

If you have any points that you think should be added, or you disagree with any of these, let me know.

 

Thanks, but I'm not happy with relatively new people "offering suggestions" on how I should play this hobby.

Many of the suggestions we all may have used time-to-time, to some degree, and with no need to be micro-managed.

[+Lynx Humble]

2 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Currently the "Cache Health Police" would be all over those caches like stink on a cow-pie.  

 

Cacher "XXXX" would not have been the happiest of cache owners had the "Cache Health Police" been up and running during the "GEO-TORTURE" days

 

If they are D1 for sure the cache police will show up but more unlikely for D5.

 

Edit : I am not targeting the reviewer at all doing their job but regular geocacher that would put NM/NA for the wrong reasons.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Lynx Humble
defining who is the 'cache police'

[+TeamRabbitRun]

10 hours ago, hugesinker said:

These are several of my recommendations for a cache finding etiquette for experienced cachers.  They're a bit beyond the basics, and intended to make this hobby even better for cache owners and finders alike-- as well as ways to set a positive example:

 

• If you find a good cache, try to leave a good activity log.  TFTC logs should be reserved for crappy caches, or not used at all.
• Endeavor to leave a cache as intended based on the description and hint, if you can clearly tell what the intent is.  Otherwise leave as found.  That is, unless the placement is likely to be muggled, moved, or otherwise destroyed.  If you move the cache from an intended position, message CO with a photo of your new placement and offer to move it again if they want.
• Try to verify a cache's current TB inventory if there is any.  If a TB is missing, comment as such on that TBs activity log.  Discover present caches you don't take.
• Tiny nano caches only need your initials, no date.  Mention your initials in the activity log.
• If you take the last line on a log sheet or start a new page of a log sheet, say so in your activity log.
• If you need to add a fresh log sheet, prefer to leave older log sheets for CO unless there is not enough room or if an old log sheet is in very poor condition.
• If you remove a log sheet, try to open it carefully and photograph it to record the signatures, then include those photos in your activity log entry before throwing out the old log sheet.
• Replace plastic baggie for log sheet when needed if you can.
• It is nice to offer to replace a cache that is verified missing-- but DO NOT replace a cache without approval of the cache owner, confirmed with an activity log entry made by them. (say no to throwdowns)  If the cache owner is no longer active and you cannot adopt the cache, flag it to make room for something new.

 

If you have any points that you think should be added, or you disagree with any of these, let me know.

 

 

Please expand the quoted text above if your view is compressed. 

 

 

First: No, TFTC logs should not be reserved for crappy caches. TFTC logs are disrespectful and shouldn't be used. You should always be able to say something.

 

Second: If you somehow determine the 'intended position", don't put it somewhere else. PERIOD. If you don't like the placement, send a suggestion to the CO. No one has any business changing a cache's location if it's where the CO placed it.

 

Third: No, a date should be added to every signature, regardless of the cache type. 

 

Fourth How about not discarding old log sheets at all? They don't belong to you. If there isn't room or it's in poor condition, contact the CO or file a NM.

 

Fifth: See #4.

 

Sixth: If the CO is not longer active, you cannot adopt the cache.

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by TeamRabbitRun

[Keystone]

I've objected previously to the use of the pejorative term "cache police" to describe the role of Community Volunteer Reviewers in following up on caches with a low Health Score.  It's disrespectful of our work.  Let's stick to using proper terminology, thanks.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 minute ago, Keystone said:

I've objected previously to the use of the pejorative term "cache police" to describe the role of Community Volunteer Reviewers in following up on caches with a low Health Score.  It's disrespectful of our work.  Let's stick to using proper terminology, thanks.

 

I heartily agree. The term should refer, usually in a tongue-in-cheek manner to people in the CACHING community who may be a little overeager, but never to the people who work FOR us, fighting the forces of entropy.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

7 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Those well conceived and well hidden maddeningly difficult caches were not considered caches at all.  They were called "GEO-TORTURE". and within the local community it was not uncommon to have posted six (6) or more DNF's prior to finding "the goods".  

 

At least a couple of the IndyMagicMan Shelter caches has well over 100 DNFs before they were first  found.   One of them now has 98 finds....and 345 DNFs.

 

Not all caches are meant to be easy to find.   That's why we have a Difficulty scale the goes from 1 to 5.  

[+humboldt flier]

5 hours ago, Keystone said:

I've objected previously to the use of the pejorative term "cache police" to describe the role of Community Volunteer Reviewers in following up on caches with a low Health Score.  It's disrespectful of our work.  Let's stick to using proper terminology, thanks.

Don't believe I have ever trash-mouthed a reviewer.  

Those valuable folks are stuck in the middle courtesy of some algorithm.  

Said algorithm, in my opinion, could stand a little massaging.

[+humboldt flier]

14 hours ago, on4bam said:

 

 if the algorithm is designed to "come to the wrong conclusion" the algorithm should be changed, not the way people log DNF/NM or NA.

 

Well stated, however, we are dragging this thread off topic.

[+hugesinker]

14 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Thanks, but I'm not happy with relatively new people "offering suggestions" on how I should play this hobby.

Many of the suggestions we all may have used time-to-time, to some degree, and with no need to be micro-managed.

 

Thank you for your suggestion that I shouldn't make suggestions. 

It's in the forums so that I can get other ideas and corrections from other people.  These aren't dictates, though I'm glad to see that several other more experienced people are largely in agreement.  I'm sure there are things you wish other finders would take care to do more often.

[+hugesinker]

14 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

First: No, TFTC logs should not be reserved for crappy caches. TFTC logs are disrespectful and shouldn't be used. You should always be able to say something.

 

I'm good with that.  Though, if a cache is especially lousy, my logs tend to be shorter.  For example-- a cache called "LP cache", and the description is also "LP cache", and it's an unaltered Altoids tin under a lamp post skirt with a piece of notebook paper stuffed in it.  Sometimes it doesn't seem worth the effort if they haven't put much in themselves-- though now I've tried to make things more interesting with a joke or something if I can't think of anything nice to say.

 

14 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Second: If you somehow determine the 'intended position", don't put it somewhere else. PERIOD. If you don't like the placement, send a suggestion to the CO. No one has any business changing a cache's location if it's where the CO placed it.

 

I agree, but the exception I'm talking about is if the intended position has somehow been altered.  For example, the original placement was obviously in a tree stump, but now that stump is shredded into small bits of debris and the cache is sitting in the open on a sloped hill.  It seems reasonable to place it behind an adjacent tree and send a note.

 

14 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Third: No, a date should be added to every signature, regardless of the cache type. 

 

Ok, so your philosophy is-- if they didn't want you to add a date, they should have said so in the cache description?  That makes sense.  Still think it's a good idea to switch to initials unless you have a really short cacher name.

 

14 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Fourth How about not discarding old log sheets at all? They don't belong to you. If there isn't room or it's in poor condition, contact the CO or file a NM.

 

So, do you log a find without signing the log sheet?  That's something I want to avoid.  I figure if the cache is too full of old deteriorated log sheets, they've abandoned them and removing the oldest one, taking a photo that shows the signatures, and posting that photo is actually a better option because it preserves the log digitally.  I understand that this is doing maintenance that the CO should be doing, but they could have legitimate reasons or they could have abandoned the cache.  Ideally, I'd like to see otherwise functional abandoned caches continue to be enjoyed for as long as they can without being NM flagged into oblivion just for being stuffed full of old logs.

 

14 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Sixth: If the CO is not longer active, you cannot adopt the cache.

 

Yes, this suggestion is assuming they are still reachable.  This is a different topic, but I wonder if this is a policy that should be changed to preserve very old or iconic caches-- allow them to be put up for adoption if certain criteria are met.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by hugesinker

[+coachstahly]

On 4/20/2021 at 2:53 AM, hugesinker said:

These are several of my recommendations for a cache finding etiquette for experienced cachers.

 

Why are you choosing to single out experienced cachers?  Why wouldn't these recommendations be better suited to inexperienced cachers?  While I appreciate what you're trying to do, there really isn't any new ground being broken here.  You're not the first to offer up recommendations that you believe will make it better for everyone, and you won't be the last.  However, trying to get cachers to do things the way you believe they should be done is an exercise in futility.  Just look at the replies here that don't fully believe in the recommendations you've provided.  They may be close but they're not exactly like what you suggest.  Some may be "better" variations while some may be "worse", but with so many cachers with their own manner of caching, stating that your recommendations will make things better for all involved sounds like you think you have it figured out while the rest of us need some help.  Below are some small differences I disagree with but there's no way I'm recommending that my way is the "right" way.  It's just the way I choose to play.

 

19 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

First: No, TFTC logs should not be reserved for crappy caches. TFTC logs are disrespectful and shouldn't be used. You should always be able to say something.

 

I use TFTC in every cache I log, at the very beginning.  I also add more to the log than just that, even if it's just a sentence or two.  If the CO hadn't placed this cache, then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to make a find so I make sure to thank the CO, even if it is a crappy cache.

 

5 hours ago, hugesinker said:

For example, the original placement was obviously in a tree stump, but now that stump is shredded into small bits of debris and the cache is sitting in the open on a sloped hill.  It seems reasonable to place it behind an adjacent tree and send a note.

 

 

That may seem reasonable but it's still not your responsibility.  How adjacent are you talking? 50 feet? 100 feet? Log it as found, mention the issue in your found log, file the NM and move on.

 

20 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Third: No, a date should be added to every signature, regardless of the cache type

 

While I do this for every cache I find, I don't think a date needs to be required for everyone.  What does a date on the log really accomplish that you can't verify in the online log?

 

5 hours ago, hugesinker said:

...if they didn't want you to add a date, they should have said so in the cache description?

 

Uh....this doesn't make much sense to me.  I can't think of ANY cache descriptions that require (or don't require) finders to put a date (or not put a date) next to your signature.  I'm sure there might be a few but generally speaking, it's a moot point.  The only requirement Groundspeak has in place to claim a find is whether or not the signature is on the log.  The date is noticeably absent from that guideline.

 

20 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Fourth How about not discarding old log sheets at all? They don't belong to you. If there isn't room or it's in poor condition, contact the CO or file a NM.

 

While I remove old logs when there's no room for a replacement, I don't discard them until at least a month later.  I mention it in my found log, I contact the CO directly (email and message) to let them know that I'm happy to mail it to them, bring it to them (if they're close or I'm in the area), or email them a photo of the log.  Of the approximately 125 logs I've removed to replace with a new one, I've heard back from about 5 of the COs who want the log, in some manner described above.  The large majority of them don't even reply while a slightly larger number of those who want the log reply to thank me.  Those caches with room for a replacement log that doesn't require removing the old logs get a replacement log.  If the cache is in terrible shape (the logs are soaking wet, which is why a replacement log is needed), then I file the corresponding NM log.

 

 

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, hugesinker said:

Still think it's a good idea to switch to initials unless you have a really short cacher name.

Well, yes. And a lot of people do that, writing simply LGD rather than LoquaciousGeocacherDesignation (for example).

 

Another way to help save space on log sheets is to use an informal team name when geocaching in a group, especially if the caches you're finding are small, or hard to maintain, or both. Then when you log online, mention the team name you used and everyone who was part of that group caching trip.

[+thebruce0]

On 4/20/2021 at 6:15 AM, barefootjeff said:

I really wish DNF logs weren't considered to be about the state of a cache because most of the time they're not, they're about an unsuccessful search for a cache that has nothing wrong with it.

 

Most often in my DNF logs I actually admit it may be there and I just failed in my geosenses.  On one hand that may be comfort for a followup searcher, and on the other hand the CO can decide based on my explanation whether I should have found it and it actually is missing.  Now if I'm sure it cannot possibly be there, I'll make that clear in the DNF as well, and add a comment that perhaps it should be checked on.  A NM will come if I'm positive that the cache actually needs maintenance.  It's a fine line on the extreme of dnf.  Point being, explanations go a long way to ensure people (everyone) can intimate what's actually going on.

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Another way to help save space on log sheets is to use an informal team name when geocaching in a group, especially if the caches you're finding are small, or hard to maintain, or both. Then when you log online, mention the team name you used and everyone who was part of that group caching trip.

 

Yep, unless otherwise desired, when I'm with friends we typically just make a potentially fun initialism of our names. Our crew is almost always a variant of team FARRT  It covers everyone for claiming the online log, and I try to make sure our names are mentioned in my brief 'day overview' sentence/paragraph.

[+RFF-Reid Family]

Thanks for the RECOMMENDATIONS. I would add:

 

Don't lecture other cachers when they don't follow your recommendations.

Edited June 17, 2023 by RFF-Reid Family
wanted to emphasize a point

[+SoonerCardsFan]

On 4/21/2021 at 9:14 AM, coachstahly said:

I use TFTC in every cache I log, at the very beginning.  I also add more to the log than just that, even if it's just a sentence or two.  If the CO hadn't placed this cache, then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to make a find so I make sure to thank the CO, even if it is a crappy cache.

I agree. I start every log with TFTC!  Then go on with more of a story or description pertaining to that find. 

 

On 4/21/2021 at 9:14 AM, coachstahly said:

While I remove old logs when there's no room for a replacement, I don't discard them until at least a month later.  I mention it in my found log, I contact the CO directly (email and message) to let them know that I'm happy to mail it to them, bring it to them (if they're close or I'm in the area), or email them a photo of the log.  Of the approximately 125 logs I've removed to replace with a new one, I've heard back from about 5 of the COs who want the log, in some manner described above.  The large majority of them don't even reply while a slightly larger number of those who want the log reply to thank me.  Those caches with room for a replacement log that doesn't require removing the old logs get a replacement log.  If the cache is in terrible shape (the logs are soaking wet, which is why a replacement log is needed), then I file the corresponding NM log.

 

 

We have a pretty large group of cachers, mostly very experienced, that meet once a month for lunch, have CITO events and other weekend long events a couple of times per year. Most all of us in the group and some others outside the group are in agreement that if any of us find missing, full or mushy logs that we're free to replace them. Only a couple want the old logs and everyone respects that. Also some don't mind and even appreciate the replacement of containers if you're absolutely sure it's missing.