What's the etiquette around maintenance of caches you don't own?

[+Carpincha]

I'm posting a few of what might be noob questions, but I just started geocaching about a week ago (even if I initially registered here a long time ago), so please be patient.

 

In my area there are a few caches owned by someone who doesn't seem to be active anymore (their last find was about two years ago, last online almost a year ago, I hope they're ok and just are too busy or got bored).

 

One of their caches that I will try to find soon has several logs and a request for maintenance saying the logbook is full. The cache is otherwise in good shape. Is it acceptable to replace the logbook if the CO is unlikely to do it? If so, what do you do with the old one?

 

Another one looks to be gone. The last few logs said the cache was in disrepair, and from some of the comments I'm pretty sure I found the hiding place, but there was nothing there. Given the location, it wouldn't suprise me if it was found by an NCP who, considering the state it was described to be in, thought it was just rubbish. I flagged it as needing maintenance, but I wonder if I should have flagged it for reviewer attention instead, given the context, even if the previous few people did find something.

 

What kind of maintenance is considered acceptable without stepping on the CO's toes?

 

I've seen that cache ownership can be transferred, but that can only be initiated by the CO, not requested, right? I wouldn't take over any of these, anyway, I'm planning to move away soon and we'd be back in the same situation.

Edited January 17 by Carpincha

[+kunarion]

19 minutes ago, Carpincha said:

I'm posting a few of what might be noob questions, but I just started geocaching about a week ago (even if I initially registered here a long time ago), so please be patient.

 

In my area there are a few caches owned by someone who doesn't seem to be active anymore (their last find was about two years ago, last online almost a year ago, I hope they're ok and just are too busy or got bored).

 

One of their caches that I will try to find soon has several logs and a request for maintenance saying the logbook is full. The cache is otherwise in good shape. Is it acceptable to replace the logbook if the CO is unlikely to do it? If so, what do you do with the old one?

 

Another one looks to be gone. The last few logs said the cache was in disrepair, and from some of the comments in pretty sure I found the hiding place, but there was nothing there. Given the location, it wouldn't suprise me if it was found by an NPC who, considering the state it was described to be in, thought it was just rubbish. I flagged it as needing maintenance, but I wonder if I should have flagged it for reviewer attention instead, given the context, even if the previous few people did find something.

 

What kind of maintenance is considered acceptable without stepping on the CO's toes?

 

I've seen that cache ownership can be transferred, but that can only be initiated by the CO, not requested, right? I wouldn't take over any of these, anyway, I'm planning to move away soon and we'd be back in the same situation.

 

If it's mine, please never maintain my cache.  Pretty please.  Some of mine are a challenge to keep alive, for various reasons, and I have a new plan for when I need to overhaul it.  Even if you were just adding more paper or a log book you brought, I had one ready to go already.  Frankly, I'm gonna toss that community maintenance log book, and place mine in my cache.  And now I get to not step on your toes while doing it.  Sure, you may not have the instant gratification of a cache find, unless you create the Find out of that non-maintained non-cache.

 

There are many threads about cache etiquette.  And there's a Help Center Page all about this.  One of the best things you can do is to make suitable logs.  And if it's still pretty much Findable, but kind of wet or kind of broken, mention that, before it becomes complete trash.

 

Edited January 17 by kunarion

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, Carpincha said:

Is it acceptable to replace the logbook if the CO is unlikely to do it? If so, what do you do with the old one?

NEVER take the old log away. Some geocachers actually check logs to find proof that someone found the cache. I do. I'm not keen either on someone leaving a new log. Maybe if the cache is remote or there is something special about it (old cache) that would be okay, but no throw-downs (replacement caches) if no cache is found. Unless with permission from the CO. The situation, depends. Better though until you become more experienced not to replace a log. Log an Owner Attention Requested log, especially if others have mentioned the problem before you. A few owners get upset about this. Ignore them. There are always, delicate, precious people out there. LOL, that's how I think about them. (What I am prepared to write here ), so now they don't worry me so much anymore. Plus they should be doing maintenance, as that's their job. An 'Owner Attention Requested' is a thoughtful thing to do when the cache need maintenance. It's letting the owner know.

 

Don't do a Reviewer Attention Requested for the first maintenance log. The first maintenance log is the Owner Attention Requested. Then it needs one or two months before it's upgraded to Reviewer Attention Requested. A full log might not be enough for that.

[+Carpincha]

5 hours ago, kunarion said:

Sure, you may not have the instant gratification of a cache find

 

That is definitely not the motivation. I thought we were all interested in keeping caches alive for everybody's enjoyment, and adding a piece of paper, a bit of duct tape, or a bag of silica gel would be kind, but I guess I'm mistaken.

Like I said in the OP, in the case that got me wondering this, whatever happened to the CO, it really doesn't look  like they're going to do any kind of maintenance to their caches (a few already got archived for not responding to a request for action by a reviewer). It just seems a bit silly to let a cache doomed to be archived when the only problem is there's nowhere for people to sign. But if that's the thing to do, that's what I shall do. That's why I'm asking. I had seen the guidelines you linked, but I was wondering about what people do in the real world with all its universe of possible nuances.

 

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Log an Owner Attention Requested log, especially if others have mentioned the problem before you. A few owners get upset about this.

Yeah, I'm already getting this feeling, although I could be misinterpreting the tone.

 

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Don't do a Reviewer Attention Requested for the first maintenance log. The first maintenance log is the Owner Attention Requested. Then it needs one or two months before it's upgraded to Reviewer Attention Requested. A full log might not be enough for that.

 
Do you also do that if the cache is not likely to be found by many people, due to either high difficulty or being premium only? And what if the previous logs were photologs but should really have been Owner Attention Requested (months earlier, couldn't sign, container was outside its hiding place, full of water, with the lid meters away)?

Edited January 17 by Carpincha

[+Goldenwattle]

31 minutes ago, Carpincha said:

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Don't do a Reviewer Attention Requested for the first maintenance log. The first maintenance log is the Owner Attention Requested. Then it needs one or two months before it's upgraded to Reviewer Attention Requested. A full log might not be enough for that.

 
Do you also do that if the cache is not likely to be found by many people, due to either high difficulty or being premium only? And what if the previous logs were photologs but should really have been Owner Attention Requested (months earlier, couldn't sign, container was outside its hiding place, full of water, with the lid meters away)?

If there has been an 'Owner Attention Requested' at least a month ago and still no action by the owner, and the log, etc is in very bad condition, then it might be time for a 'Reviewer Attention Requested' log instead. If no previous 'Owner Attention Requested', do one of these first and then put a watch on the cache and if the problem is not fixed in a month or two, then consider a 'Reviewer Attention Requested' .

 

I should have said before; welcome to geocaching, and I hope you enjoy the game. Look out for meet and greets where you live, as that is a chance to meet other geocachers. Well done in enquiring about the things to do re cache condition. However, as you are a beginner you might not be taken as seriously as a longer term player would be, when logging an 'Owner Attention Requested' or a 'Reviewer Attention Requested'. Maybe only put these on the very worst examples at present, until you get more experience.

Edited January 17 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

56 minutes ago, Carpincha said:

but I was wondering about what people do in the real world with all its universe of possible nuances.

 

In the real world of mundane urban micros, finders generally just replace full logsheets. If there's room to leave the old one in the cache as well, then do so, but if not then what I'd do is take it home and send a message to the CO letting them know I have it and asking what they'd like me to do with it.

 

It's a different story with wet logs. If the log is wet, most of the time that means there's a problem with the container leaking and any new log sheet you add will end up just as wet the next time it rains. Fixing that really is a job for the CO.

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, Carpincha said:

What kind of maintenance is considered acceptable without stepping on the CO's toes?

 

Any maintenance you have agreed with the CO is acceptable. Sometimes you have to do some maintenance without consulting the owner just to be able to sign the logbook or replace the cache in the original position. For example, add a logsheet to the full logbook or repair a broken part to hide it properly.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

If there's room to leave the old one in the cache as well, then do so, but if not then what I'd do is take it home and send a message to the CO letting them know I have it and asking what they'd like me to do with it.

Please, never remove logs.

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, Carpincha said:

 

That is definitely not the motivation. I thought we were all interested in keeping caches alive for everybody's enjoyment, and adding a piece of paper, a bit of duct tape, or a bag of silica gel would be kind, but I guess I'm mistaken.

Like I said in the OP, in the case that got me wondering this, whatever happened to the CO, it really doesn't look  like they're going to do any kind of maintenance to their caches (a few already got archived for not responding to a request for action by a reviewer). It just seems a bit silly to let a cache doomed to be archived when the only problem is there's nowhere for people to sign. But if that's the thing to do, that's what I shall do. That's why I'm asking. I had seen the guidelines you linked, but I was wondering about what people do in the real world with all its universe of possible nuances.

 

If it's a cacherfriend who is cool with me replacing a log sheet in his trail of leaky little pill bottles (and he's still active), I may place the new log.  I have them in my pack, ready to go.  For a really special exception.  Yes, nuances. 

 

But for a lonely, broken, unmaintained cache, maybe allow it to go.  You may be surprised by the cool, big, maintained cache that would be placed there if people didn't keep stuffing paper into that thing.

 

Edited January 17 by kunarion

[+SW00P]

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. That's what they agreed to when they hid it. Cache finders are only required to sign the log. Other requirements if earthcache or virtual.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Among other things Geocaching is a social game.  There is nothing wrong with a cacher  assisting cacher if both agree.

[+kunarion]

12 minutes ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

Among other things Geocaching is a social game.  There is nothing wrong with a cacher  assisting cacher if both agree.

 

The OP was about an inactive Cache Owner.  Non-responsive, so no agreeing occurred.  Assist by doing the NM and NA logs and clearing the game board for a new cache.

 

Edited January 17 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If there's room to leave the old one in the cache as well, then do so, but if not then what I'd do is take it home and send a message to the CO letting them know I have it and asking what they'd like me to do with it.

Please, never remove logs.

 

That's difficult to do if the cache is a nano or even a bison tube. If someone places one of those and can't be bothered regularly replacing the log before it gets full, they're probably not going to be that interested in cross-checking the physical logs with the online ones.

[+thebruce0]

Keep in mind that 'etiquette' will always produce for you a variety of opinions and personal etiquette, because as you say there is a lot of nuance. Very rarely is there a blanket statement that can apply in all cases. That's why (as we say) they are "guidelines" not "rules" (but in practice there are many that can be enforced as rules, by reviewers or HQ).

 

What's more important is looking at the spirit of what the guidelines are saying about things like maintenance. On one hand, cache owners should do their own maintenance always. Yet, it can be a nice gesture to do a quick minor fixup, unless the CO explicitly wants to do their own always. Yet, with explicit permission it could be okay to do a bigger maintenance run for a CO. And yet, doing such proxy maintenance too much could lead owners to being lazy and feeling it's right/okay to allow regular proxy or community maintenance and not take any responsibility for their own hides. And yet, in some rare cases such a maintenance strategy is permitted, unusually by HQ at the highest level... but there is a TOU document that all players and cache owners agree to, which is assumed to be read and agreed to with every new listings; and arguably most people have not say to read the agreement before checking that box.

So you see there can definitely be a lot of nuance to 'right' and 'wrong' etiquette   Be ready for dissenting opinions on some matters (usually a personal etiquette that one feels is the 'right' way that's in conflict with someone else's)

 

 

[+SW00P]

If a geocacher posts a NM log only the cache owner can clear it. As soon as a reviewer gets notification of inactivity the archive clock starts. 

 

I have done maintenance on many caches that aren't mine. Usually don't even get a thanks. Sometimes it's best to let the guidelines play out. 

[+cerberus1]

15 hours ago, Carpincha said:

One of their caches that I will try to find soon has several logs and a request for maintenance saying the logbook is full. The cache is otherwise in good shape. Is it acceptable to replace the logbook if the CO is unlikely to do it? If so, what do you do with the old one?

Notice it seems to differ by location...   

Here, I might add a Rite in Rain log strip, that's good enough until the COs can fix things themselves. I'll add an Owner Attention too.

That's added to whatever they have in there.  The cache isn't mine; I'm not taking their log.  I'd like others to do the same with mine.

We check our couple out, and removing a log for a 5T hide gives fakers the opportunity to play... 

If someone I know well and they're ill, hospitalized, on vacation, etc; I'll call and tell them I have their old log and replaced it with a full log sheet.

Hopefully they'd do the same for me...

[+brodiebunch]

It depends on my mood tbh, if a geocache is part of a power trail or in a great location that other people need to see or visit, I will replace the geocache with one of the small extra containers I carry in my backpack. I have sheets of paper for the replacement geocache but always leave the original log regardless of its condition. If a geocache needs maintenance there is almost a 100% certainty its log is a soggy or shredded mass of paper pulp but should be left in the geocache.

 

I never log what I have done.

 

But I suppose this is now my confession of what I have done. 

Edited January 17 by brodiebunch

[+BFMC]

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Keep in mind that 'etiquette' will always produce for you a variety of opinions and personal etiquette, because as you say there is a lot of nuance.

 

 

 

All of this. Hell, I don't even have a strict, consistent approach to what I will or wont do myself, let alone wish to see from others.

 

I will add some stone paper into a cache if it desperately needs it. Beyond that I will rarely do maintenance on someone else's cache (unless I have the all clear from them or know them well).

 

I would say I never take the log, but last week I did for the first time. The cache itself had been submerged in water at some point (last find was over a year ago). Log was (now dry) pulp, but also moldy as hell. Swag was rusty and filthy so the whole lot had to go in the bin (well, into my dry bag to be put in a bin at a later time). Only thing I was able to clean up and salvage was the container itself and a small stash card. CO hadn't been seen for over a year, but did reply to my message about what I did while at the cache within hours (and was appreciative as it was a T4.5 that he cant currently get to). I did offer him the log if he wanted it for some reason unbeknown to me. CO even offered to take me out to a T5 cache in his land & water atv as a result, an offer which sadly I couldn't take up due to time restrictions. Was a calculated decision that I normally wouldn't make, but for that particular cache I did.

 

As a CO, my preference is that if someone comes across a previously unreported issue with one of my caches then just mention it in your log and let me take care of it (short of adding some log paper if its needed and can be done without removing the existing log). I have had one cache replaced by a group of finders in the field but a) it was a T5 cache on a river, b) they didnt remove the existing cache (it was visible but not able to be retrieved from its hide anymore) and c) I know them and they messaged asking if I was OK with that and didnt log their find until I said yes. Push comes to shove a safe gamble on their part, if I wasn't OK with it then I would've had to head there anyway and could have removed the replacement (I wont call it a throwdown because they put some effort into the replacement)

 

I would (almost?) never replace a cache I couldn't find without confirmation from the CO, or if they are truly AWOL knowing from a friend who has found it exactly what and where it was. Have seen too many instances of throwdowns/replacements becoming a second cache because the original one was actually still there. Never take a container, but I have added to existing damaged containers either by placing it in a larger one or placing a smaller one inside it to protect the contents from weather for protection until CO can get there. Would be mentioned in my log and sent as a message as well.

 

Looking at it from a new cacher perspective, I wouldn't really consider doing any type of  finder maintenance until I had a lot of experience under my belt, and a feeling for the CO's in your area. Even now I wont do finder maintenance when travelling for the same reason.

 

YMMV.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 1/17/2024 at 9:43 PM, Carpincha said:

Do you also do that if the cache is not likely to be found by many people, due to either high difficulty or being premium only? And what if the previous logs were photologs but should really have been Owner Attention Requested (months earlier, couldn't sign, container was outside its hiding place, full of water, with the lid meters away)?

Sorry I just realised I didn't answer that properly. The rating does affect whether you do an Owner Attention Requested. If a 1 or 1.5D for instance, and say three DNFs, I would consider making an Owner Attention Requested, as either the cache is likely missing or it's rated wrongly and the rating should be corrected. However, some geocachers stubbornly rate all their caches low and won't give a correct rating. It also depends who made the DNFs. If all were experienced geocaches I would likely make an Owner Attention Requested, but not if they were all beginners. If a higher rating I might not make an Owner Attention Requested, and after only three DNFs I would most certainly not make an Owner Attention Requested if the difficult was say rated four. Yes, the rated difficult makes a difference.

The number of times a cache is found makes no difference, as a cache might be where not many people visit, and so it gets very few finds. If people have been giving photographs because they could not find the cache, treat those as DNFs. 

Edited January 21 by Goldenwattle

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 1/17/2024 at 8:15 AM, SW00P said:

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. That's what they agreed to when they hid it. Cache finders are only required to sign the log. Other requirements if earthcache or virtual.

Wow - short, sweet, and to the point.  Also, VERY accurate.  Well said.

[+Om_and_Nom]

My opinion - the ONLY "maintenance" I *might* do is to ADD a log if the cache logbook is full.  I don't take the original log book, and only add a book (or piece of paper) if there is room.  Even if reasonable, I try to NEVER assume intent.  As someone else stated, my only job is to sign the logbook and placing the cache back where I found it.  I don't want to do anything beyond that without expressed consent from the CO.  

 

I will add that I am probably more aggressive than some GC'ers when it comes to maintenance / archiving, if ONLY because there is approximately 30 days before asking to archive and ACTUAL archiving.  For example, a simple LPC, even if the last log had it being found and *I* can't find it 6 months later, I'll post a CO attention needed, then if no response, a few days later ask for archiving.  I don't fool around with the latter - if you are an active CO, there should be ZERO issues just responding (not fix, just RESPOND)  within 30+ days.  

Edited January 27 by Om_and_Nom

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, Om_and_Nom said:

My opinion - the ONLY "maintenance" I *might* do is to ADD a log if the cache logbook is full.  I don't take the original log book, and only add a book (or piece of paper) if there is room.  Even if reasonable, I try to NEVER assume intent.  As someone else stated, my only job is to sign the logbook and placing the cache back where I found it.  I don't want to do anything beyond that without expressed consent from the CO.  

 

I will add that I am probably more aggressive than some GC'ers when it comes to maintenance / archiving, if ONLY because there is approximately 30 days before asking to archive and ACTUAL archiving.  For example, a simple LPC, even if the last log had it being found and *I* can't find it 6 months later, I'll post a CO attention needed, then if no response, a few days later ask for archiving.  I don't fool around with the latter - if you are an active CO, there should be ZERO issues just responding (not fix, just RESPOND)  within 30+ days.  

With the exception of some old caches and remote caches, I agree. Others could be maintaining those, but often they can't make an OM. I have commented on some old caches (more than one) that the rating or whatever, needs updating, and a volunteer has messaged me to say they would like to do this, but the original owner, although inactive, won't relinquish the cache to others who are maintaining it. Therefore I am very hesitant to do a NM/NA on those caches. I do on others though, and have several caches pending, so to speak, before I put a NA on them.

I came upon a 2000 cache that someone had stolen the cache container of. The original log was still there though. All I could do was put the log in a plastic bag. There was no way I was going to make a NM log of a 2000 cache (we have so few in Australia), so I just mentioned in my log what I found and asked if the nest finder could bring a container. Just as well I didn't make that NM, as I didn't know that some  local geocachers were maintaining it, and next day it had a new container.

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 1/26/2024 at 7:16 PM, Goldenwattle said:

With the exception of some old caches and remote caches, I agree. Others could be maintaining those, but often they can't make an OM. I have commented on some old caches (more than one) that the rating or whatever, needs updating, and a volunteer has messaged me to say they would like to do this, but the original owner, although inactive, won't relinquish the cache to others who are maintaining it. Therefore I am very hesitant to do a NM/NA on those caches. I do on others though, and have several caches pending, so to speak, before I put a NA on them.

I came upon a 2000 cache that someone had stolen the cache container of. The original log was still there though. All I could do was put the log in a plastic bag. There was no way I was going to make a NM log of a 2000 cache (we have so few in Australia), so I just mentioned in my log what I found and asked if the nest finder could bring a container. Just as well I didn't make that NM, as I didn't know that some  local geocachers were maintaining it, and next day it had a new container.

 

Oh yeah sure - for a VERY old cache I would do the same thing (assuming I had the supplies), but probably still ping the owner and let them know JIC.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 2/2/2024 at 9:00 AM, Om_and_Nom said:

 

Oh yeah sure - for a VERY old cache I would do the same thing (assuming I had the supplies), but probably still ping the owner and let them know JIC.

Don't just contact the owner, but mention the problem in a log as well. Some COs are inactive and the cache is being maintained by volunteers, who won't see any message to the CO. They will though see logs. Likewise, the volunteers can't do maintenance logs and remove any NMs. Hence I don't make NMs on old caches, or possibly on rare, remote caches either.

[+ScribblyBear]

I usually have some extra paper on me and will add it if the log is full or too damp to use.