Jump to content

Silly reasons for archiving caches.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I've noticed the reviewers in my area are archiving caches that are still in place. They are archiving some just because they have wet logs too. If that's the case, they may as well archive half the caches in the world lol. All this does is create geo-litter that will just sit there and not be found anymore even though some of these caches are still there! Even if the CO isn't active anymore, leave the cache up UNTIL it gets some DNFs or is obviously destroyed. As long as the cache is there and is good to be found still, who cares if the CO is active or not. All the reviewers are doing is basically turning good caches into trash now that will just sit there. Are the reviewers going out and picking up these caches that they are archiving? At least wait until it's missing or there is a REAL problem with the cache besides a wet log. Anybody can replace a wet log as I do all the time. C'mon...

Edited by Nite*Owls
  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nite*Owls said:

All this does is create geo-litter that will just sit there

Agreed. Maybe a way could be introduced to get finders to pick this abandoned cache up and dispose of it properly. After the reviewer has placed a notice on this cache and given time for the owner to do maintenance, maybe the reviewed could do a log, plus a note above the description, saying this cache is to be archived. Could the next finder please take the case, etc and dispose of it responsibly and make a note they have done this. Then the reviewer archives it.

  • Surprised 1
Posted

Apparently inactive geocachers will not respond. They don’t care about their old caches. 
 

Maybe a note could be placed on the cache page that a pending archive is scheduled and active cachers could provide the service of removing the cache, noting on the cache page that it has been removed, and that could trigger the archive.

 

Maybe some of this could be accomplished through area caching groups at the state, province, or some other level.

 

Some sort of a CITO for a soon to be archived cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Smitherington said:

Some sort of a CITO for a soon to be archived cache.

I have done this a couple of times. After the CO of a cache, in response to a NM, just archived the cache and left it to rot, sometime later I was in the area and checked on this cache. Found the crumbling cache and removed it. Then I found another cache of this CO in the same condition, so because of their last lack of action in retrieving their litter previously, I took this cache with me and noted as the last cache in similar condition was just left there, I took this one and disposed of it, to save this also being abandoned to rot.

Posted (edited)

My main issue is caches in my area are getting archived because of found logs saying the paper log is wet. But the cache is still in place and doing fine and still getting found up until it gets disabled/archived. Even if the CO isn't active anymore, the cache is still good besides a wet log. Half the caches in the world have wet logs now and then. Is this really a good reason to disable and archive a cache?? And yes maybe the CO isn't responding, but why disable the cache in the first place just for a wet log? This does not make sense.

 

To add to this... if caches are now going to be disabled for just having a wet log, HQ may as well go ahead and disable half the active caches out there now. And we all know how ridiculous that would be. Caches should really only be disabled and eventually archived if they have 3 or more DNFs, or there's proof the cache is missing or destroyed, not just because it has a wet log. Wet logs are very, very common and not a big deal at all, and is expected in this hobby. I carry extra paper with me to help replace wet logs since it's so common.

 

Edited by Nite*Owls
Adding another point I wanted to make.
  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Nite*Owls said:

but why disable the cache in the first place just for a wet log? This does not make sense.

It makes sense to me. The CO is not maintaining the cache, and if the log is wet it often means the cache is leaking; either cracked, or an unsuitable container for the placement. A new log is likely to get wet as well.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

It makes sense to me. The CO is not maintaining the cache, and if the log is wet it often means the cache is leaking; either cracked, or an unsuitable container for the placement. A new log is likely to get wet as well.

I've seen wet logs in everything from nanos to ammo cans and everything in-between. Like I said, half the caches out there seem to have wet logs. I guess they should all automatically get disabled now. Then you'll see a lot of good caches get archived since there's a lot of inactive CO's too. And that just means a lot of caches sitting out there that won't show up in searches. So basically just litter. Not a good idea... A wet log does NOT necessarily mean a bad cache. It could be a really neat and unique cache that just has a wet log (not a big deal) and an inactive CO. But would I still like to be able to find that cache if in the area, of course!

Posted
11 minutes ago, Nite*Owls said:

I've seen wet logs in everything from nanos to ammo cans and everything in-between.

I've seen one or two myself 😀.

 

12 minutes ago, Nite*Owls said:

half the caches out there seem to have wet logs.

This likely depends where one lives.

 

13 minutes ago, Nite*Owls said:

an inactive CO

I don't think that caches should be archived because of an inactive CO, as long as the cache is still in okay condition. I also don't think a cache being maintained (especially old, and rare remote caches) by others should be archived. I do think that those caches that have no historical value, are not a rare remote cache, where there are plenty of other caches, should be archived, if the cache needs maintenance and the CO isn't maintaining the cache.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think that caches should be archived because of an inactive CO, as long as the cache is still in okay condition. I also don't think a cache being maintained (especially old, and rare remote caches) by others should be archived. I do think that those caches that have no historical value, are not a rare remote cache, where there are plenty of other caches, should be archived, if the cache needs maintenance and the CO isn't maintaining the cache.

Ok I can agree that nanos and pill bottles with constant wet logs and no maintenance can be archived. They are a dime a dozen. :) Although this still creates litter with a cache in place but not showing up in searches. I just don't want to see any unique caches get disabled/archived just because of a wet log, whether the CO is active or not. I'd be nice for those types to stay in place until muggled or damaged/destroyed.

  • Funny 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

should be archived, if the cache needs maintenance and the CO isn't maintaining the cache.

Yes, but I disagree with the belief that a wet log really requires maintenence -- and at the very least they should not require the cache to be archived. My containers are waterproof and I haven't gotten any wet log reports in my 30 or so caches, but if I do, I doubt I will rush over there to add a new log. Cachers can replace the log, they can take a picture of it, or sign with a decent pen (depending on the state of it).

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

Yes, but I disagree with the belief that a wet log really requires maintenence -- and at the very least they should not require the cache to be archived. My containers are waterproof and I haven't gotten any wet log reports in my 30 or so caches, but if I do, I doubt I will rush over there to add a new log. Cachers can replace the log, they can take a picture of it, or sign with a decent pen (depending on the state of it).

I agree. Wet logs are just too common to justify disabling and archiving a cache over it. I see a lot of wet logs mentioned and the CO's are very active but they don't go out to replace the wet logs often. I play by the 'no sign - no find' rule so I always carry extra paper with me in case I need to replace a wet log. And I know that piece of paper will probably get wet eventually too but still, no reason to archive a cache IMO.

Posted

I recently found one that the previous signer added paper because of a wet log but all they had was a piece of paper towel.  What a wad of wet gunk I encountered.  Removed and replaced log and container.  No comments from the owner.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

Yes, but I disagree with the belief that a wet log really requires maintenence -- and at the very least they should not require the cache to be archived. My containers are waterproof and I haven't gotten any wet log reports in my 30 or so caches, but if I do, I doubt I will rush over there to add a new log. Cachers can replace the log, they can take a picture of it, or sign with a decent pen (depending on the state of it).

 

No wonder there's a problem. I have 56 active physical caches and, to the best of my knowledge, none has a wet log and most have never had a wet log. On a few occasions when one of my logs has become wet, it's been because of a damaged container or a poor container choice for the location (usually because what I thought was a dry rock overhang turns into an underground watercourse in heavy rain). Whatever the reason, there's a problem with my cache and it's my responsibility to fix it, not that of the next finder or some other kind passer-by. I put a lot of effort into the presentation of my logbooks (yes books, not sheets) and don't want them being replaced with whatever scrap of paper someone might have on hand. If any of my logs become wet or containers get damaged I want to know about it, preferably through an OAR (NM) log since those are sticky and can't be easily overlooked or forgotten if I get distracted. Likewise if my original choice of container turned out to be unsuitable, I'll replace it with something more waterproof or redesign it completely so it won't keep getting wet into the future, and if I can't find a long term solution I'm happy with, I'll archive it myself.

 

5 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

Wet logs are just too common to justify disabling and archiving a cache over it. I see a lot of wet logs mentioned and the CO's are very active but they don't go out to replace the wet logs often. I play by the 'no sign - no find' rule so I always carry extra paper with me in case I need to replace a wet log. And I know that piece of paper will probably get wet eventually too but still, no reason to archive a cache IMO.

 

Maybe the climate here is friendlier to caches, as it's pretty rare for me to encounter a wet log amongst my finds. The most recent was in November on a cache that was only two months old and clearly a poor choice of container:

 

a36189fe-d183-4896-833f-ba6b0438ed59.jpg

 

If its owner doesn't want to fix it then it really should be archived, as caches like these don't give the game a good look or encourage beginners to stick with it. Their owners shouldn't expect me or any other finder to do their maintenance for them. Encouraging maintenance-shirkers just breeds more maintenance-shirkers.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Posted

If my first cache was an obvious unmaintained piece of moldy garbage it would have been my last cache. Fortunately that was not the case. Though my last caching outing 3/11 had nasty logs and problems. If the CO does not maintain them regardless of the state of the cache they need to go. 

 

I'd welcome a change of the terms of service to say that caches get automatically archived if abandoned. Maintenance logs could extend the life of a cache. Until then we rely on the volunteer reviewers to do their job and address issues as they become aware of them. BTW much appreciated.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Posted
19 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Agreed. Maybe a way could be introduced to get finders to pick this abandoned cache up and dispose of it properly. After the reviewer has placed a notice on this cache and given time for the owner to do maintenance, maybe the reviewed could do a log, plus a note above the description, saying this cache is to be archived. Could the next finder please take the case, etc and dispose of it responsibly and make a note they have done this. Then the reviewer archives it.

 

BUT .......... It doesn't belong to you!

 

A cache is private property. Groundspeak has NO authority to direct or even ask someone to go get it and throw it away.

 

Yes, that means that junk might sit out there, but it's not abandoned until the local law says it's abandoned. Does your state/province/town/country specify how long it has to be there before it's abandoned? Should GS keep track of that and tell people to go get this one, but leave THAT one alone?

 

If I have a cache in front of my house and I don't respond to anyone's messages in a game I might no longer play, do you have the right to come into my yard and throw it away, or perhaps steal my ammo box and use it yourself?

 

Even if it's NOT on my property, do you know if I have permission to leave it there?

 

The ONLY thing GS can do is remove the listing from their service, meaning Archiving the cache.

 

Anything else is theft.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

A cache is private property. Groundspeak has NO authority to direct or even ask someone to go get it and throw it away.

 

Actually no, not any more. The Terms of Use was changed a few years back, adding paragrpah 3.6 that says:

 

    1. Inactive or abandoned geocaches.

      One of our goals as a company is to keep the world free of abandoned and/or unmaintained geocaches. As a geocache owner, you give us permission to allow other individuals to remove and/or dispose of your physical geocache(s) if any one or more of the following situations are met:
      1. We have a reasonable belief that you are no longer active in the game.
      2. You fail to respond to a communication from us that relates to a complaint from a landowner or law enforcement official within a reasonable period of time.
      3. We have a reasonable belief that the geocache has been abandoned (e.g. it’s not actively being maintained or your geocache listing has been archived but the physical container is still in place).
      4. We believe the removal of the geocache container is in the best interest of the geocaching game and/or community. If possible under the circumstances, we will make a reasonable attempt to contact you before we take any of the actions above. In the event that your geocache is removed and/or disposed of pursuant to this section, you agree to hold harmless and release from all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache. Learn more about how we address unmaintained caches in our Help Center.

Every time you submit a new cache you tick a box saying you agree to these Terms of Use, so at least for caches published after that paragraph was added, they do have the right to get someone to remove your cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 6
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

BUT .......... It doesn't belong to you!

 

A cache is private property. Groundspeak has NO authority to direct or even ask someone to go get it and throw it away.

 

Yes, that means that junk might sit out there, but it's not abandoned until the local law says it's abandoned. Does your state/province/town/country specify how long it has to be there before it's abandoned? Should GS keep track of that and tell people to go get this one, but leave THAT one alone?

 

If I have a cache in front of my house and I don't respond to anyone's messages in a game I might no longer play, do you have the right to come into my yard and throw it away, or perhaps steal my ammo box and use it yourself?

 

Even if it's NOT on my property, do you know if I have permission to leave it there?

 

The ONLY thing GS can do is remove the listing from their service, meaning Archiving the cache.

 

Anything else is theft.

🤣. Once you put it on public land (which is owned by the government) you can't claim you still own it. Basically you have dumped it. If it's on your private land (very few caches are) that's different. If here Clean up Australia comes along they won't be accused of stealing if they clean it up. No permission was asked for most cache placement, at least here in Australia. I never have had to ask for permission. If you want to continue to claim ownership and have the right to do this, put it on your own land. Otherwise, who are you going to go to complain to?  "They stole my property, the plastic box I put under a tree on land I don't own." Some realism needed here.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Posted
19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

No wonder there's a problem. I have 56 active physical caches and, to the best of my knowledge, none has a wet log and most have never had a wet log. On a few occasions when one of my logs has become wet, it's been because of a damaged container or a poor container choice for the location (usually because what I thought was a dry rock overhang turns into an underground watercourse in heavy rain). Whatever the reason, there's a problem with my cache and it's my responsibility to fix it, not that of the next finder or some other kind passer-by. I put a lot of effort into the presentation of my logbooks (yes books, not sheets) and don't want them being replaced with whatever scrap of paper someone might have on hand. If any of my logs become wet or containers get damaged I want to know about it, preferably through an OAR (NM) log since those are sticky and can't be easily overlooked or forgotten if I get distracted. Likewise if my original choice of container turned out to be unsuitable, I'll replace it with something more waterproof or redesign it completely so it won't keep getting wet into the future, and if I can't find a long term solution I'm happy with, I'll archive it myself.

 

I've seen some of your hides on these forums. They are way better than mine. I only have a few caches that I've really placed a good deal of effort on the find / container / experience. I'm more of a puzzle guru... so I'll spend hours developing puzzles 

 

But if one day you go inactive, I don't think your caches should get archived because in a recent storm your logbook got wet.

If one day I go inactive, my puzzles will still be as evil as ever and finders should still be able to find + log them, even if the logbook is wet.

I feel like actually signing the log is just a tiny part of the geocaching experience, especially with puzzles, multis, custom containers, etc. I often end up posting photos of the log either way and I'm fine if people do that on my finds if they can't sign. Not a huge fan of COs that will delete a log if there is no signature on a logbook, even if another proof of find was provided.

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If its owner doesn't want to fix it then it really should be archived, as caches like these don't give the game a good look or encourage beginners to stick with it. Their owners shouldn't expect me or any other finder to do their maintenance for them. Encouraging maintenance-shirkers just breeds more maintenance-shirkers.

Recently went to a trip to Colombia. My city has thousands of caches. A similar sized city in Colombia has 5 or so. Some of them have wet logs. Almost all of them have inactive owners. Many have wet logs, but archiving them because of that will eliminate the tiny bit of sprouting of new caches there.

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

a36189fe-d183-4896-833f-ba6b0438ed59.jpg

A pen should still work on that, if your write carefully :)

(and yes, wet logs are much more common here)

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

I've seen some of your hides on these forums.

  

I found one of barefootjeff's hides while visiting Sydney for Christmas (I thought I have to see one of these hides :laughing:), and it was in great condition...as advertised here. Near a village called Cowan. Last finder before me July 2024. 

 

39386fae-8b67-4fb1-9d47-73a979cfdd4a.jpg

Posted
1 hour ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

But if one day you go inactive, I don't think your caches should get archived because in a recent storm your logbook got wet.

 

When that time comes and I can't take care of my caches when issues arise, I'd like them to be archived so the next generation of cachers can reinterpret those locations, if any wish to do so. My hope is that it'll be a gradual enough process that I can manage it myself and retrieve the containers that are becoming too difficult to get to in my dotage, or perhaps get some help from friends to do that. I don't think any of my caches are special or unique enough to warrant propping up when I'm no longer around.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Posted (edited)
On 1/13/2025 at 8:31 PM, The_Jumping_Pig said:

But if one day you go inactive, I don't think your caches should get archived because in a recent storm your logbook got wet.

They won't be archived because the logbook got wet, but they might be archived because they no longer have an active owner.

Edited by niraD
typo
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Posted

Archived geocache containers on public land are abandoned property.

 

If the CO can't be bothered to respond to maintenance requests and can't be bothered to remove the archived container themselves then I don't forsee them bothering to try to get the container back. 

 

If the CO comes back six months later and has a story about being hospitalized or otherwise incapacitated and thus the abandonment was involuntary they will are welcome to contact me as the last-to-find remover of the archived container and, if is still usable and wasn't simply thrown out, I can certainly return the container if they really want it.

Posted

I absolutely think that caches with inactive owners should be archived once they need maintenance and aren't getting a response from their owner. As our games ages (I write this from a US perspective, where Geocaching has been popular since the beginning and we have plenty of caches. What I say here may well not apply to your country.) the condition of the caches that are out there keep getting worse. It's not good for our game when caches are in poor shape and don't have their owner around/willing to take proper care of them. In my area it's gotten to a point where I consider myself lucky when I find a cache in good shape. Now that won't stop me from Geocaching- after 15 years and 4800 finds I don't know what will- but it will stop new players from continuing to play. If someone's first 5 or 10 finds are all in poor shape, there's a very good chance that will turn them off from the game, costing us a new player.

 

And you might think that a wet log is not a good reason to archive a cache. But as others have mentioned- a wet log won't do that. The owner's (lack of) response will. If a reviewer disables your cache, all you have to do is respond to them and it won't get archived. Even if you need more than 30 days to actually fix it, a simple note is all it takes to prevent reviewer archival. If, however, the owner is not active and not responding to the cache page, then even a wet log is worthy justification for archival. Because without an active owner, that cache will just continue to degrade. It may just have a wet log today, but then it will be a soaked log. Then a damaged container. Then fragments of a container. And then the cache will eventually be indistinguishable from garbage. Or worse, a throwdown.

 

So I'll keep dropping Owner Attention Requested notes on caches that need maintenance, and eventually Reviewer Attention Requested notes on them when inactive players aren't responding to them. Because I don't want new players trying out Geocaching only to find pieces of garbage in our parks.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 4
Posted (edited)
On 1/14/2025 at 12:31 PM, The_Jumping_Pig said:

But if one day you go inactive, I don't think your caches should get archived because in a recent storm your logbook got wet.

 

As it happened, I just archived one of my multis, GC7KAGG placed in 2018. It's log wasn't wet, in fact its container and logbook are still in excellent condition, but the restaurant that was a virtual waypoint at the listed coordinates burnt down a couple of weeks ago. I could have reworked it to get the required digit from another location, but I already had to rework it once before when the restaurant changed its name and the whole theme of the multi was starting to become lost. Although it had 29 finds in its seven years and received 10 FPs, only one of those finds was in the last year and a half so I thought it would be best to retire it and free up the area around GZ for perhaps something new and different.

 

I don't know whether a restaurant burning down is a silly reason for archiving an otherwise fine cache but, well, it seemed the right thing to do.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Posted (edited)
On 1/13/2025 at 1:13 AM, Goldenwattle said:

It makes sense to me. The CO is not maintaining the cache, and if the log is wet it often means the cache is leaking; either cracked, or an unsuitable container for the placement. A new log is likely to get wet as well.

Or people are just logging in rainy conditions and/or don't close the container properly ... happens all the time here (the Netherlands), and I end up doing a lot of log replacements just because the logbook is wet. Even damp logbooks or hard to write on logbooks or paper is often seen as a legitimate reason to drop the issue with the co. In fact, most of the maintenance I need to do is exactly that: replacing wet logbooks 🙄 It's annoying. Last year we've had very wet conditions almost all the time through winter, spring and early summer, and there was no stopping in the constant stream of "Owner attention requested" logs.

Edited by NLBokkie
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, NLBokkie said:

Or people are just logging in rainy conditions and/or don't close the container properly ... happens all the time here (the Netherlands), and I end up doing a lot of log replacements just because the logbook is wet. Even damp logbooks or hard to write on logbooks or paper is often seen as a legitimate reason to drop the issue with the co. In fact, most of the maintenance I need to do is exactly that: replacing wet logbooks 🙄 It's annoying. Last year we've had very wet conditions almost all the time through winter, spring and early summer, and there was no stopping in the constant stream of "Owner attention requested" logs.

Yes, it is a legitimate reason to let the CO know if the log book is wet. If it's only damp I normally just make a note in the log, to let the CO know, as it could get worse. I make a NM if the log is soaked. It's your job to do maintenance. The log needs to be writeable on. From memory I have only had one NM on my caches, as I maintain them, and I think I thanked them for the NM. The NM is to assist the CO know their cache needs maintenance. It's not rude; it's helpful! It is also no one else's job to change log books; that's the CO's job. I would rather people let me know so I can go do my job.

I don't have masses of caches, as I don't want more to maintain. I'm not a put and forget a cache CO, and then ignore all the messages about wet logs etc, expecting others to do the maintenance. I have had snide comments a couple of times for not replacing someone's log🙄. On one of them the reviewer came in and said that was the CO's job to do, and me doing a NM was not rude🤣. I do do maintenance on people's caches if they have given me permission. I have been contacted when travelling and asked by the CO if I go to their cache, could I please do some maintenance. I have no problem with being asked and I do this, as I have their permission. An exception is for rare, remote caches if they need some fixes, as they won't be replaced if archived. Often they are older caches too. But places with plenty of caches, that's the CO's job😏.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes, it is a legitimate reason to let the CO know if the log book is wet. If it's only damp I normally just make a note in the log, to let the CO know, as it could get worse. I make a NM if the log is soaked. It's your job to do maintenance. The log needs to be writeable on. From memory I have only had one NM on my caches, as I maintain them, and I think I thanked them for the NM. The NM is to assist the CO know their cache needs maintenance. It's not rude; it's helpful! It is also no one else's job to change log books; that's the CO's job. I would rather people let me know so I can go do my job.

I don't have masses of caches, as I don't want more to maintain. I'm not a put and forget a cache CO, and then ignore all the messages about wet logs etc, expecting others to do the maintenance. I have had snide comments a couple of times for not replacing someone's log🙄. On one of them the reviewer came in and said that was the CO's job to do, and me doing a NM was not rude🤣. I do do maintenance on people's caches if they have given me permission. I have been contacted when travelling and asked by the CO if I go to their cache, could I please do some maintenance. I have no problem with being asked and I do this, as I have their permission. An exception is for rare, remote caches if they need some fixes, as they won't be replaced if archived. Often they are older caches too. But places with plenty of caches, that's the CO's job😏.

I understand where you're coming from and agree. But only up to a certain level. As I feel it's also up to the finder to at least try to keep the logbook dry. I've had too many NM-notifications where completely new or just (re)placed logbooks were wet, only because a geocacher didn't bother to close the cache properly.

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, NLBokkie said:

I understand where you're coming from and agree. But only up to a certain level. As I feel it's also up to the finder to at least try to keep the logbook dry. I've had too many NM-notifications where completely new or just (re)placed logbooks were wet, only because a geocacher didn't bother to close the cache properly.

That's unfortunate, and maybe you need to replace the container with a better one, and look for more sheltered places to put your caches. But although it was caused by carelessness of another person, you still need to fix the problem. My caches that are doing best are under dry boulders, in a street library, in a vegetation 'cave' under a very thick bush, in road guards (they don't have to be ordinary; one of those has 37% (29 favourites)). Some of my caches are in more exposed hides, so I might put the log in a plastic bag, and double cache it.

It's been seriously pelting rain today here and I expect at least one of my problematic caches might have suffered, even though double bagged.

https://www.instagram.com/canberradaily/reel/DE1ukWgB6dl/

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1304535440979354

Edited by Goldenwattle
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, NLBokkie said:

I feel it's also up to the finder to at least try to keep the logbook dry. I've had too many NM-notifications where completely new or just (re)placed logbooks were wet, only because a geocacher didn't bother to close the cache properly.

 

A leetle extra care by finders would be awesome! 

 

Some of my caches had chronic issues due to cachers being incapable of closing an ammo box, or they open a Micro in the rain, and then give everything a good soak.  I've set up most of my caches to be simple to operate for even the stupidest persons.  But I've resigned to check certain caches more often.  Typically, there is no report of a problem until everything's ruined.

 

So my caches do acquire "everything's wet" logs, even NMs.  But none have been archived due to me not responding.  I go fix it.  Or if it has proven to be impossible to maintain, I'm the one who archives it.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Posted
On 1/15/2025 at 7:30 AM, NLBokkie said:

 As I feel it's also up to the finder to at least try to keep the logbook dry. I've had too many NM-notifications where completely new or just (re)placed logbooks were wet, only because a geocacher didn't bother to close the cache properly.

Yep.  For some time we'd see groups of people trashing running through areas, and "It was pouring out today, glad we had good rain gear..." was the standard log.  We still put little Totes umbrellas in ammo cans with room, but we never see anyone use one.

We don't head out if raining, but if it might that day, bring some sorta umbrella to protect the cache contents, not us.

Posted (edited)
On 1/16/2025 at 12:14 AM, kunarion said:

So my caches do acquire "everything's wet" logs, even NMs. 

 

A couple of years ago, I got this log on an adopted cache on the headland across the bay at Palm Beach:

 

image.png.473fcb7268569bf88d231577951a53fc.png

It surprised me as the cache is under a rock ledge and shouldn't be getting damp, so a few days later I took the ferry over and did the hike up to check. Everything was bone dry with no evidence of the container or logbook ever having been wet.

 

The log before that one said:

 

image.png.1ed9ac097c33ac8ecd61fbfef3671cb6.png

so maybe the thing that was "a bit damp" was the surrounding bushland or the finder themselves and not the cache. Who knows?

 

Getting back to the OP, I hope they're not using an algorithm to search through logs for words like "wet" or "damp", as I'm sure I've used those words in logs where it's me getting wet, not the cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Posted
On 1/13/2025 at 3:35 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

Actually no, not any more. The Terms of Use was changed a few years back, adding paragrpah 3.6 that says:

 

    1. Inactive or abandoned geocaches.

      One of our goals as a company is to keep the world free of abandoned and/or unmaintained geocaches. As a geocache owner, you give us permission to allow other individuals to remove and/or dispose of your physical geocache(s) if any one or more of the following situations are met:
      1. We have a reasonable belief that you are no longer active in the game.
      2. You fail to respond to a communication from us that relates to a complaint from a landowner or law enforcement official within a reasonable period of time.
      3. We have a reasonable belief that the geocache has been abandoned (e.g. it’s not actively being maintained or your geocache listing has been archived but the physical container is still in place).
      4. We believe the removal of the geocache container is in the best interest of the geocaching game and/or community. If possible under the circumstances, we will make a reasonable attempt to contact you before we take any of the actions above. In the event that your geocache is removed and/or disposed of pursuant to this section, you agree to hold harmless and release from all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache. Learn more about how we address unmaintained caches in our Help Center.

Every time you submit a new cache you tick a box saying you agree to these Terms of Use, so at least for caches published after that paragraph was added, they do have the right to get someone to remove your cache.

 

Ahhh, but see, nowhere in the text of this clause does it say that GS will intentionally ask or direct anyone to physically remove your container.

 

All it says is that if someone DOES remove it, you agree to not file charges or sue.

 

It says that GS can 'allow' someone to remove it, but what does that mean? It's specious because they have no control over it, or the actions of any player. They can't 'ALLOW' me, for example, to drill a hole in someone's tree to place a cache because they have no jurisdiction over the tree! What's the source of the authority?

 

Same thing's true in this case. They recognize that the only parts of the game that 'belong' to them are the listings. That section of legalese only serves to protect them from lawsuits should someone remove your cache. Smart.

 

In section 4 it says "...before we take any of the actions above," but the only action on their part discussed above is that 'allowance'. 

 

Now, it could be that the intent was to have us agree to HAVE GS tell someone to go get it, but it doesn't. (MAYBE we'll soon see updated language making that change, but I suspect not.)

 

I'll bet the actual policy is that they'll NEVER ask, imply or directly encourage any player to specifically remove anyone's container, regardless of the cache status. That could be a minefield.

 

In the past, a regular part of this conversation was that someone would point out that Geocacing.com isn't the only listing service, and it's possible that a cache is part of two games! I don't know how many of those other, smaller games are still around. Is that "M" thing with the QR codes still a thing?

 

Any company's made-up posted rule does not supersede the law, and here, at least, if you have a land manager's permission to dump a box on a piece of property, then you can, and it's not abandoned.

 

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...