Replacing Log When Not The Cache Owner

[+RuckerMC]

I'm new to Geocaching, and loving it so far!  I'm wondering what is the expectation when I find a full log in a cache and have a blank log to replace it with.  Do I remove the full log or keep it in the cache along with the new blank log?

[+GC2220]

Let the cache-owner always know that the log in a geocache is full. Therefore you can write a need maintenance (= NM), so the cache-owner can do cache-maintenance. Never remove the original full log, because it contains all the nicknames of the geocachers that have found the geocache.

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, RuckerMC said:

I'm new to Geocaching, and loving it so far!  I'm wondering what is the expectation when I find a full log in a cache and have a blank log to replace it with.  Do I remove the full log or keep it in the cache along with the new blank log?

Funny you mentioned that because just today I saw a log from someone with two finds saying they would have replaced the full log but they didn't bring an extra with them. The CO may need that log! If the cache log is full the CO needs to know, but I don't have a problem leaving an extra piece of paper with my name on it if there is really really no room to fit my name on the current log.

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, GC2220 said:

Let the cache-owner always know that the log in a geocache is full. Therefore you can write a need maintenance (= NM), so the cache-owner can do cache-maintenance. Never remove the original full log, because it contains all the nicknames of the geocachers that have found the geocache.

 

As a CO, my preference would be to get an NM alerting me that the log is almost full, so I can replace it at my leisure before it becomes a problem, but that's unlikely to ever happen since none of my caches get enough finds to ever come close to filling their logbooks. Others, perhaps most, have different expectations, particularly those who put out lots of micros and nanos. Leaving the original log when adding a new one sounds good in theory, but numerous times I've found micro caches jammed full of multiple logsheet generations, the older ones either sodden or falling to pieces. If the old log is in good condition, there's plenty of room to add a replacement without compromising the cache's seal and you have a suitable replacement, fine, otherwise it might be better to just squeeze your signature (or even just initials) in wherever you can and add a Logbook is full NM.

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

If the old log is in good condition, there's plenty of room to add a replacement without compromising the cache's seal and you have a suitable replacement, fine, otherwise it might be better to just squeeze your signature (or even just initials) in wherever you can and add a Logbook is full NM.

Just to add - this is what we do when we come across a generally in good shape cache and there is room to add another logsheet.  In some cases, there is no room for another, or the container is otherwise compromised; then it gets the NM to alert the cache owner.  This is in cases where we do not know the CO or know we will not be seeing the CO anytime soon.

 

I only remove the old log to make room for a new one IF we know the CO, and know we will be seeing him/her soon - then I contact the CO, let them know I have the old logsheet and its condition, and keep it until it's returned to them, or tossed according to their wishes.  The logsheet, regardless of its condition, still is the property of the CO, so unless you know the CO pretty well, I wouldn't remove the logsheet.

[+peter-tvm]

I also recommend logging an "needs maintenance" before the log book is completely filled. If an owner get notified when there are 5-10 rows left they can plan an visit to the cache when to an time that fits them.

 

Unfortunately fewer and fewer finders logs "needs maintenance" before the log book is filled, or even when the log has been filled for some time, in my area. One reason to this is that some owners have responded with hate and mocking towards those that report caches. 

 

If you do place an new log always let the old one remain in the container. It is the owners responsibility to check the signatures compared to the web logs. So therefore the log books needs to be left for the owner to collected it.

At least this is how the cache ownership is supposed to work in an ideal world.

[+RuckerMC]

Thanks everyone for the quick and helpful responses!

[+dprovan]

12 hours ago, RuckerMC said:

I'm new to Geocaching, and loving it so far!  I'm wondering what is the expectation when I find a full log in a cache and have a blank log to replace it with.  Do I remove the full log or keep it in the cache along with the new blank log?

I would say the expectation is that you mention the log is full in your found log. If you want and there's room, you can add to the log, by which I mean add more log sheets, but leave the old log there. The only reason not to leave the old log is if there's no room for it. I think different places have different standards when there is no room for a new log. I personally don't have a problem with you replacing the log, but, as you can see, some COs will be annoyed. All I'll say is that *if* you decide to remove the old log, post pictures of it in your found log so the CO can see who signed it. If you want, you can also ask the CO whether he wants the physical log and work out a way to get it to him.

 

I disagree with the others about filing an NM. I think that's overkill even though the system now encourages it.

[+SeekTheCache]

My two cents on this matter, as a very, very recent cache owner, is that your caches are a bit like your children. Your first born will give you all the thrills, the sleepless nights waiting for birth, clicking F5 on your “newest caches in the area” page to see if it’s already there.

Then they are born, and you hover, become a helicopter parent for some time.

Eventually you will want to stop babying them and hope that they will have strong legs to stand on and live a long independent life.

You will, however, care for them for the rest of their lives.

And specifically, as a geocache owner, you are responsible for whatever you put out into the environment.

So, in my opinion, it’s with good reason that the hiding guidelines clearly say:

        -    Don't hide caches far from home.

• Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

Regarding the question about replacing the logbook, when I come across that situation when I’m geocaching, I leave an SOS logbook when I have one with me and there is space in the container for both the old one and the new. I NEVER remove the old one. When there is no space or if I have nothing on me that I can use, I usually take a picture of the old log to let the owner know the current state that it’s in.

Recently, since I have read that NM logs are unwelcomed by some owners, I have opted for leaving a NOTE separately from my “found it” log, as a way to try to get the owner’s attention. As a cache owner, I would also appreciate being given a “heads-up” before the logbook is totally useless, but personally, I have nothing against a NM log. Again, according to the guidelines, it’s the right thing to do. I think it’s also the best way to get your attention, especially if you own quite a few and even more if those are in high traffic areas. It will become difficult to get that information from the regular “found it” logs unless you want to read them all in full. I usually do, but I realize that in high traffic areas, it can become a full-time job.

I think that when you decide to hide a geocache, you are committing to the responsibility of maintaining it, so you should be willing to go there and respond to NM logs and do whatever needs to be done.

[+cerberus1]

21 hours ago, RuckerMC said:

I'm new to Geocaching, and loving it so far!  I'm wondering what is the expectation when I find a full log in a cache and have a blank log to replace it with.  Do I remove the full log or keep it in the cache along with the new blank log?

 

If we know the cacher, we'll simply mention in the log that the log is full.  We read and act on logs and know others that do the same.

You don't need to add your "paper", but we'll leave a strip of RIR paper to tide the cache over until they get there.   

An area I don't know, or lackadaisical owner, I'll leave a NM after my log, and leave that same RIR strip. 

I won't leave a replacement, and won't remove another's log.  That's their maintenance...  

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

If we know the cacher, we'll simply mention in the log that the log is full.  We read and act on logs and know others that do the same.

You don't need to add your "paper", but we'll leave a strip of RIR paper to tide the cache over until they get there.   

An area I don't know, or lackadaisical owner, I'll leave a NM after my log, and leave that same RIR strip. 

I won't leave a replacement, and won't remove another's log.  That's their maintenance...  

 

I'm wondering why logging an NM when you know the CO or if they aren't lackadaisical is a bad thing. The NM log is meant to be helpful to COs, not reprimanding them. I got caught out badly a few years back when someone vaguely mentioned towards the end of a long log something suggesting the cache wasn't where it was meant to be, and it was only after another friend mentioned it a few weeks later that I realised there was a problem. Had they logged an NM, even if just to say "this doesn't look right and I think you should check", I would have been onto it right away.

 

NMs have the big advantage over mentions in a log that they're sticky and won't go away until an OM is logged. It's too easy, for me anyway, to see a mention of some minor issue in a find log (say damaged camo or a missing pencil), think I must take a replacement next time I go out there, then prompty forget about it until I make the long hike on a routine check a few months later only to realise when I get there that I should have brought that replacement.

[+kunarion]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm wondering why logging an NM when you know the CO or if they aren't lackadaisical is a bad thing. The NM log is meant to be helpful to COs, not reprimanding them.

 

+1

 

I have a cache with a decent sized log book, and a recent log mentioned it was "wet, but signable".  I go check on these if a cache log is said to be "Wet" in any log type.  But an "NM" would have been better... the log book was dripping wet in its ziplock bag, there was standing water!  It was kind of suspicious how much water there was, when it only affected the contents of that ziplock, because it tends to be wet cache, dry log book in a ziplock bag, not the other way around.

 

But in this atmosphere of Cache Health Scores and hot-headed cache owners, I guess I can let it go.  Also, if it's obvious or suspected "muggling", I kind of prefer that nobody makes much of the issue (and just casually mentions a problem).  The muggler may have expected to get a rise out of it, and today found that all that work was barely even noticed.  That could be a good thing.  

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, kunarion said:

It was kind of suspicious how much water there was, when it only affected the contents of that ziplock, because it tends to be wet cache, dry log book in a ziplock bag, not the other way around.

 

I've encountered that a few times, the logbook and its ziplock bag full of water but the cache dry. I suspect the leaky container is able to dry out in hot weather but the bag is better sealed, plus the logbook itself can soak up a lot of water and retain it, so it stays wet. There was one I did just recently where there was an old log in its bag totally saturated but the new log sheet a previous finder had added a couple of months earlier was bone dry. Closer examination of the Sistema container revealed a substantial clump of dirt caught in the seal which was probably where the water was getting in and out, so I cleaned that up and removed the old log and bag to stop them releasing water back into the now-sealed container. This is a good example of where leaving the old log behind when replacing it is a bad idea.

[+RuckerMC]

17 hours ago, dprovan said:

... 

I disagree with the others about filing an NM. I think that's overkill even though the system now encourages it.

I will always file a NM if the log is full

[+cerberus1]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm wondering why logging an NM when you know the CO or if they aren't lackadaisical is a bad thing.

 

Looking for definition of "the" again?  I didn't say it was a "bad thing"...

People we know check logs, same as us.  There's no need to log an NM...  Sheesh...

 

[Rock Chalk]

Closing at request of the OP.