Silly reasons for archiving caches.

[+Nite*Owls]

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 January 12 by Nite*Owls

[+Great Scott!]

GEOCACHE OWNERS!  REPLY TO THE REVIEWER'S NOTES AND YOUR GEOCACHE WON'T GET ARCHIVED!
No reply for consecutive months = abandoned geocache

Edited January 12 by Great Scott!

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+Smitherington]

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.

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, Nite*Owls said:

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? 

My volunteer job is to ask cache owners to address maintenance issues. If they don’t, any remaining consequences are on the cache owner, not me. 

[+Nite*Owls]

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 January 13 by Nite*Owls
Adding another point I wanted to make.

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+Nite*Owls]

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!

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+Nite*Owls]

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.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

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).

[+Nite*Owls]

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.

[+Smitherington]

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.

[+barefootjeff]

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:

 

 

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 January 13 by barefootjeff

[+MNTA]

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.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

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.

[+barefootjeff]

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:

 

• 6. 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 January 13 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

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 January 13 by Goldenwattle

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

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:

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

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 ), and it was in great condition...as advertised here. Near a village called Cowan. Last finder before me July 2024. 

 

[+barefootjeff]

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.

[+niraD]

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 January 15 by niraD
typo

[+JL_HSTRE]

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.

[+garretslarrity]

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.

[+barefootjeff]

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 January 15 by barefootjeff

[+NLBokkie]

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 January 15 by NLBokkie

[+Goldenwattle]

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 January 15 by Goldenwattle

[+NLBokkie]

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.

[+Goldenwattle]

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 January 15 by Goldenwattle

[+kunarion]

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 January 15 by kunarion

[+ChileHead]

Caches are never archived because they have wet logs.  Caches are archived because cache owners don't respond to problems.  I welcome archival of caches that have wads of goo as a log. 

[+cerberus1]

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.

[+barefootjeff]

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:

 

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:

 

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 January 16 by barefootjeff

[+TeamRabbitRun]

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:

 

• 6. 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.

 

[+gimligliders]

On 1/13/2025 at 12:35 AM, MNTA said:

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.

I completely agree with the automatically archived if abandoned. However, there should be some sort of criteria for the definition of abandoned. Maybe 2 unanswered communications from a reviewer? The last 10 logs are DNFs? (Especially for say, a difficulty level of 2.5 or less.) But I also understand that reviewers are busy and this adds to their work load. 

 

Something I've always wondered....if someone wishes to create a new hide, is there due diligence done by reviewers to determine if the CO currently has what appear to be abandoned hides? 

[+gimligliders]

As a courtesy, we try to deal with wet logs as we cache. If it seems like dampness is going to be a perennial issue, then whenever possible we insert a silica pack into the container or ziploc. We've also added a new dry ziploc & logsheet to the container if space allows. We carry duct tape to patch cracks in containers and have even replaced to occasional damaged container, especially those in more remote locations. It is always our hope that we can contribute to prolonging the life of the cache. It seems to us that this is one way that we can pay it forward to the CO as thanks for placing the cache in the first place. When logging the find, we always make a point of letting the CO know about the improvements we've made to the cache. The COs worth their salt have always messaged us their thanks. Those who don't respond....well, let's just say that I'm not always in a hurry to find any more of their caches....

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, gimligliders said:

....if someone wishes to create a new hide, is there due diligence done by reviewers to determine if the CO currently has what appear to be abandoned hides? 

In some cases, yes.  We have a cacher who hides a lot, but isn't so great at maintaining.  He hid one as a "FTF" opportunity for an event (kind of a tradition in this area), and we all expected to be able to log it the next day when it published, but it didn't publish. and after a week we contacted the CO - what's up?  He said he had too many caches with the NM (OAR) flag and the reviewer wouldn't publish it until he had "cleared" the flags by archiving or fixing the caches in question.  It took about a month, then we could finally log that cache!!

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, gimligliders said:

If it seems like dampness is going to be a perennial issue, then whenever possible we insert a silica pack into the container or ziploc.

 

Please don't do that. Silica gel is meant to go inside sealed bags or containers just to mop up any residual moisture, but if constantly exposed to dampness they'll reach saturation and start releasing water back into the cache. I've come across some that have turned into a soggy gooey mess and ruined whatever else was in the cache.

 

2 hours ago, gimligliders said:

It is always our hope that we can contribute to prolonging the life of the cache. It seems to us that this is one way that we can pay it forward to the CO as thanks for placing the cache in the first place. When logging the find, we always make a point of letting the CO know about the improvements we've made to the cache. The COs worth their salt have always messaged us their thanks. Those who don't respond....well, let's just say that I'm not always in a hurry to find any more of their caches....

 

If a cache has reached the end of its life, particularly if the CO is no longer active, I think it'd be better to have it archived and removed, making way for a new cache perhaps, rather than constantly propping it up and leaving it to future finders to do the same. While there are some exceptional old caches that ought to be preserved for posterity, for the rest I think it's better to let the game board naturally refresh, with end-of-life caches archived and new ones offering a different take on the location and experience coming in.

 

For my own hides, I really don't want finders making improvements to them; if there's a problem I want to know about it so I can not just patch it up but make whatever changes are needed to the cache design to prevent the problem from happening again. The same goes for my logbooks; I put a fair bit of effort into their presentation with laminated labels, title pages and, for those that are telling a story, perhaps a denouement. This is the sort of thing to expect to find at the end of one of my hides, and if it's not in this state when you get there, I'd rather you logged an OAR rather than "improving" it with any spare container and logsheet you happen to have.

 

[+barefootjeff]

As if to prove my point, a month ago I attempted what was supposed to be an easy 1/1.5 traditional with a micro container described as magnetic, but after a fairly thorough search I ended up logging a DNF. I put the cache on my Watchlist and, sure enough, over the next few weeks a few Found It logs appeared. Yesterday I happened to be in the area again so went back for another look, immediately spotting a folded-up plastic bag wedged under the seat with a rather damp bundle of stapled logsheets in it. The first entry was the finder after my DNF.

 

Now maybe the CO replaced their magnetic container with just some stapled logsheets in a plastic bag and didn't bother to log an OM or update the description, but it seems more likely that what's there now is a throwdown by someone thinking they were doing the CO and the caching community a favour. I just hope that bag of soggy logsheets isn't someone's first find as it might well be their last.

[+niraD]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Now maybe the CO replaced their magnetic container with just some stapled logsheets in a plastic bag and didn't bother to log an OM or update the description, but it seems more likely that what's there now is a throwdown by someone thinking they were doing the CO and the caching community a favour. I just hope that bag of soggy logsheets isn't someone's first find as it might well be their last.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

Here is a cache that the reviewer changed the mind on as it was clearly there, but hard to find 

 

https://coord.info/GCH1YT

 

i have seen many times that caches get closed, but still found many years later 

[+Goldenwattle]

On 2/28/2025 at 6:55 AM, gimligliders said:

The last 10 logs are DNFs? (Especially for say, a difficulty level of 2.5 or less.)

🤣That means that might be months or even years for many caches. I did a random click on one of my caches (not remote) and to get the last 10 logs has taken two years. To get ten DNFs when many people don't log DNFs, how many more years are acceptable for you before it will be considered abandoned?

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

On 2/28/2025 at 6:55 AM, gimligliders said:

The last 10 logs are DNFs? (Especially for say, a difficulty level of 2.5 or less.)

🤣That means that might be months or even years for many caches. I did a random click on one of my caches (not remote) and to get the last 10 logs has taken two years. To get ten DNFs when many people don't log DNFs, how many more years are acceptable for you before it will be considered abandoned?

 

Yes, anything around here that's not an urban P&G can go for a long time between visits and can take quite some years to accrue enough DNFs to bring it to the reviewer's attention. There was a reasonably remote but scenic 3.5/4.5 traditional near here that was last found in 2018, then got DNFs in 2020, 2021, two in 2023 and finally an RAR log as well. A couple of months after that the reviewer archived it. Thinking it was a spot that really deserved a findable cache, the next month I placed a new one nearby (GCAEX05) with an elevated hiding place where it would be unlikely to get washed away or muggled. It was published in October 2023 and has had just 6 finds to date.

[+Former Hawkeye]

This week I was doing a spring maintenance run.  I found a logsheet still dry outside the diabetic strip container but inside my PB jar.  Maybe a new cacher was in a hurry?  Glad I could place the logsheet where it belonged.

[+Om_and_Nom]

I understand why that would be frustrating, and on the surface it may look like that a cache is being archived for a silly reason - like a damp log.  I think it goes back to a larger issue that I'm seeing in general, and that are CO's that are not active anymore OR CO's that are active but do not respond to DNF's/OAR/RAR.  

 

When players are logging finds and mentioning that they found a damp log, that should be a trigger for the CO to take a look.  If that doesn't do it, an OAR should get their attention.  If *that* doesn't do it, certainly a reviewer log should get their attention.  If after those tools are used and the CO still doesn't answer, I (personally) have no issues with the cache being archived.

 

I minor GC'ing pet peeve - active CO's with hundreds of hides that have no intention of maintaining any of their cache's.  You try to do the right thing by messaging them, using an OAR log, and it just is ignored and goes unanswered.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Om_and_Nom said:

active CO's with hundreds of hides that have no intention of maintaining any of their cache's. 

This is why I don't have hundreds of hides. So I can maintain them. People with hundreds of hides also often tend to have the worst, most leaky caches. Cheap, bought for place and forget.

[+CCFsmile]

On 1/12/2025 at 5:03 PM, Nite*Owls said:

... 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.  ... 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...

 

Fair Warning: I am VERY riled up about this issue due to something I saw today. So, I'm going to respond to A LOT of comments... If this is TL;DR then go straight to my last paragraph at the bottom.

 

This one above first: if you disagree with Nite*Owls then stop reading now and skip my comments, because I agree and have a lot of good evidence to back up why I agree. (See my final comment at bottom!) I especially agree with the "may as well archive half the caches in the world" or more! And many will argue but IMHO a cache that has an inactive owner is one thing, but a reviewer disabling a cache for one NM that says "wet log" is absolutely bleeping ridiculous. ESPECIALLY in the two parts of the world where I have done most of my caching. I will explain WHY this is ridiculous, if you stick around and read on...

 

On 1/12/2025 at 6:32 PM, Keystone said:

My volunteer job is to ask cache owners to address maintenance issues. If they don’t, any remaining consequences are on the cache owner, not me. 

 

That's fair, but in the case that got me all angry I think the disabling is way over the top. Today I happened to look at a cache I found last fall. It was all fine then and while I noted the log was a "little worse for wear", and I took a photo, it was dry with plenty of room. The log was just old enough to have crumpled edges from mistreatment by cachers, not a problem with the cache or container. Well a newbie cacher (sorry barefootjeff & goldenwattle but an Aussie who was caching in New England, with 9 total finds) put a NM log on the cache for "wet log". Almost immediately it got a reviewer note. You might think that's not a problem, but I will tell you why it is:

 

1. I started caching in the UK. Is it wet there?! Ha! Do even good closed caches with decent seals get wet? Yes! Lots! And then I moved to the NE US... even if you buy the best container (ammo boxes excluded, they can be magically dry!), your cache will live through SNOW and ICE and then THAW. And what happens? Condensation!!!!! NO CACHE is immune unless it is indoors. So how many caches do I find in the winter and spring with wet logs? Many!

2. Almost every bison out there gets wet logs from condensation - even if they put in a little plastic baggie... it just DOES! In fact the baggie makes it worse because a damp log won't naturally dry. A bison that has a wet or damp paper log will very often dry out - especially if placed in a spot that gets warm at all. I have seen it over and over (8k+ finds). The only container I have seen do better (other than ammo cans) is a 3D printed, which sometimes is porous enough to dry out after winter (note my logs on the waterfall trail in Cherry Plain S.P. in upstate NY! perfect examples).

 

Summary: IMHO a reviewer in the NE US putting a reviewer note on a cache with one wet log is ridiculous. EVEN WORSE: this had a photo of the log in question and it didn't look any more than slightly damp. Definitely was not wet. If anyone is that curious I can put photos of WET logs (that I replaced). I do not ever expect a CO with lots of caches to go replacing all their logs in spring. If we expected that then we would never do anything but cache maintenance up here in New England. In fact if we did what some folks want, we'd be disabling almost all caches in winter and not making them available til April or later. (Adding a note that the same cacher put NM and "wet log" for another local cache... then three more people found it with no mention of wet or NM, then it got archived by the same [notorious] reviewer. Now it's geo-trash.)

 

On 1/12/2025 at 6:46 PM, Nite*Owls said:

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.

 

While it's hard to disagree that if a CO doesn't answer a reviewer a cache could be archived, again a wet log is not a decent reason. YES I get that inactive COs are a reason, but even disabling for a wet log is silly. So as Nite*Owls says in the 2nd paragraph... I agree. Around here it is rare to have a DRY log in the early spring. Also, I have known COs who had things like back surgery and were inactive for a bit... when that happens and they miss a reviewer note, a good cache can get archived for one log that said it's wet, which is silly. And I agree we create a lot of geo-trash when a container is left and archived for just a wet log note. Inactive COs will not collect them anyway! So, isn't the better solution to leave the cache at least til it gets real damage or goes missing? The other day we collected a container for an archived cache that we knew would still be there... 8 months after it was archived! 

 

On 1/12/2025 at 7:13 PM, 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'll give you a pass here for being from a warm country but please do read my note #2 above. Caches here get wet logs even if they are PERFECTLY GOOD AND SEALED. Again: snow, ice, thaw, then condensation. Even a MKH here that lives inside a GR - so in theory it stays dry - gets damp from the moisture in the air. I just did one a few days ago where I dried out the inside, yet the container itself was fine and hidden in a covered spot.

 

People really need to make allowances for location and weather - especially the reviewer who disabled that cache with "wet log" (that really wasn't wet, just damp... all signatures in the photo were totally intact too).

 

On 1/12/2025 at 7:22 PM, Nite*Owls said:

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!

 

I concur... (even if a lot of folks apparently disagree).

 

On 1/13/2025 at 12:37 AM, 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. 

...

Maybe the climate here is friendlier to caches, as it's pretty rare for me to encounter a wet log amongst my finds.

...

Their owners shouldn't expect me or any other finder to do their maintenance for them. Encouraging maintenance-shirkers just breeds more maintenance-shirkers.

 

Again, this is so totally a geographical thing. NO chance that of 56 caches here someone would not have a bunch of damp or wet logs, unless every one was an ammo can.

Yes, your climate is friendlier. The air is way drier. California has drier air too and I see the difference caching there (where I grew up) all the time. Where it is humid it is never going to happen that all good closed containers don't get wet. Period. Some always will.

 

On 1/14/2025 at 12:31 AM, niraD said:

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

 

That might be fair, but why should a cache get disabled for one "wet log"? Ok, yes, if three cachers in a row say something and put NM, ok... but one NM with no other issues than wet log? Like Nite*Owls says, if reviewers disabled caches for ONE wet log note all over the place we would maybe have 10-25% of the active caches we do now. Today we'll probably do a hike and find a bunch of caches that sat all winter, and we will take logs and anything wet we'll replace and anything damp we will leave because VERY likely they will dry out on their own. Many, if not most, do.

 

On 1/14/2025 at 10:42 PM, garretslarrity said:

I absolutely think that caches with inactive owners should be archived once they need maintenance and aren't getting a response from their owner.

...

 

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.  

 

I absolutely disagree that a cache with a wet log in the NE US is a true "needs maintenance". Especially if that only happens once. Ok if it happens over a period of a month or so, then it likely does, but again a lot of our caches up here dry naturally after getting damp or wet from winter thaw condensation. 

 

So while I agree with most of what the above comment says, I disagree with the last sentence.

 

On 1/15/2025 at 7:30 AM, 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.

 

Agree here - we make a lot of effort to keep logs dry when caching in wet weather. Geocaching finders should take some responsibility - not just for keeping a log dry in inclement weather but re-hiding properly so it stays in good condition. Too many newbie cachers throw things back towards a hiding place and move on. (And don't get me started about a prolific local in NY who wads up the logs and shoves them back in, never ever folding... I always know immediately if he was the last to find a cache!)

 

On 1/16/2025 at 4:05 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

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

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.

 

 

This just proves what I said earlier: there are plenty of caches that get wet or damp and dry out on their own. Hence no reviewer should be dinging a cache for ONE wet log note... IMHO!

 

16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

This is why I don't have hundreds of hides. So I can maintain them. People with hundreds of hides also often tend to have the worst, most leaky caches. Cheap, bought for place and forget.

 

That seems a huge generalization to me... we have a few very prolific local COs with hundreds of caches all of whom have good containers and do maintenance. In fact they are so good we will do maintenance for them when needed (ie new logs) because they are such great assets to the caching community!

 

I have gone on too long but have said my piece. PLEASE FOLKS: remember to take into account that every part of the world has different weather conditions! And those will ALWAYS affect geocaching and geocaches. So make a few allowances when it makes sense. And be kind and replace wet logs when you can... it's cheap and easy and helpful to your fellow cachers. 

 

[+MNTA]

@CCFsmile Nice post and appreciate your point of view.

 

So I reside in the PNW aka Pacific North Wet. As an attentive CO if someone comments that my log is wet. Usually this is due to the baggie getting ripped opening it up. It happens and I appreciate the notification. But where I disagree with you is that this means a maintenance run is required specially if the log is unsignable. A quick swapping out of the baggie and usually the log is all that is needed.  I do this at any hint of an issue.

 

If a CO does not wish to do this then they really should not be a CO. That is what it takes to be a responsible CO. If you  don't want to do the maintenance archive your own cache. Don't leave your trash and think you playing the game the way it should be. How are these examples not worthy of cache maintenance? BTW my kids still refuse to touch caches with problems.

 

.

[+kunarion]

20 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I reside in the PNW aka Pacific North Wet. As an attentive CO if someone comments that my log is wet. Usually this is due to the baggie getting ripped opening it up. It happens and I appreciate the notification. But where I disagree with you is that this means a maintenance run is required specially if the log is unsignable. A quick swapping out of the baggie and usually the log is all that is needed.  I do this at any hint of an issue.

 

If a CO does not wish to do this then they really should not be a CO. That is what it takes to be a responsible CO. If you  don't want to do the maintenance archive your own cache.

 

+1

 

I live in a wet, humid area, and I don't even wait for the comments.  Logs get wet, I know which caches those are.  I go check them regardless.  Baggies are temporary for sure.

 

The problem around here is not that water exists, but that caches are continually soaking wet inside and packed full of soaking wet torn up pieces of paper that were added by finders due to no maintenance.  And THEN the Find logs are made due to it being "too wet to sign gimme my Smilie".  These caches deserve the Silly NM and then a Silly Archive.  If it's my cache, make decent logs if it's even moist but signable, NM of it's soaked, especially if previous logs already said it's soaked.  I will do the same on caches I hunt.  It's wet around here, but that's no excuse for zero maintenance by the Cache Owner.  As others have kindly pointed out, it's easy to change out the log.

 

Edited March 26 by kunarion