Silly reasons for archiving caches.

[+Om_and_Nom]

21 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.

 

Thank you for that - would rather have a CO with 10 hidden caches in good shape that they can maintain when needed vs. the one with 271 hides but doesn't maintain and just archives (or the reviewer archives) when there is any hint of an issue.  Makes the game better for everyone, especially those just getting into the game.

[+barefootjeff]

22 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's not always the case. There's a father and son caching team just north of here who have 268 active caches between them, but they're meticulous when it comes to both cache design and ongoing maintenance. In recent years they've been using layered containers, with an outer rugged container (usually 3D-printed) and another, often a bison tube, inside that. For more problematic locations, they've used three layers and/or waterproof log paper as well. Even when they've used an ammo can, they'll put a large Sistema inside that, something I copied on my own ammo can hide.

 

In the 2022 floods, one of their caches, using a latched polycarbonate container, was completely submerged for several days and, although caked in thick mud on the outside, was bone dry and clean inside. That prompted me to start using the similar Duratech ABS instrument cases as my general go-to container, with excellent results. I've used one of these on a cache at the base of a waterfall, where the air is constantly damp with spray and it sometimes gets fully submerged, but it's doing a great job of keeping all that moisture on the outside. As an extra precaution, its logbook is a waterproof stone paper notepad and is still the original.

 

I currently have 56 active caches out there, a number that's been fairly constant over the last few years as my archivals have roughly balanced my new placements. I'm retired now so time isn't a problem, but maintenance takes up very little of it anyway. I try to visit the caches closer to civilisation fairly frequently, usually after the school holidays to make sure bored little fingers haven't gone poking where they shouldn't, and while the ones further afield might only get a visit from me every two or three years, for those I've used rugged containers and protected hiding places so there's little likelihood of a problem occurring in my absence. I'm still yet to receive an OAR log on any of my hides, let alone an RAR or a reviewer disable. I did once get a CHS ping, much to my horror, on a cache that was only 6 weeks old and got a single DNF a month after its first and only find. The DNF was because of muggles having a picnic close to GZ and the cache was fine, with the DNFer going back a few days later and finding it.

 

My goal when designing a cache is that it shouldn't require regular attention to keep it in pristine condition. This is a holistic approach, including the hiding place, container type and choice of logbook, and while this sometimes goes wrong and requires a rethink, most of the time it works out fine, with those caches still the original container with their original logbook after many years, even more than a decade on three of them.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

268 active caches

I was thinking more like a 1,000 caches. Tell me how they will maintain that many, unless making it a full time job. 

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

271 hides

People who place and forget caches can have hide numbers with four figures. (1,000 of more)

[+barefootjeff]

30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I was thinking more like a 1,000 caches. Tell me how they will maintain that many, unless making it a full time job. 

 

If the majority of those caches were arranged as trails along roads that could be visited linearly, that mightn't be so hard. A trail of 50 roadside caches could be checked and maintained in less time than it takes me to visit one of my higher terrain hiking ones. With mine, there are some that I can pair up for checking, where I go past one to get to the other, but I don't think I now have three anywhere that can be done that way, except perhaps my Entrancing Isles series at The Entrance. Not very efficient, but they weren't designed for efficient checking.

[+Goldenwattle]

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If the majority of those caches were arranged as trails along roads that could be visited linearly, that mightn't be so hard

How many do though? Not my experience that they bother. Place and forget, because more trails still to make.

[+MNTA]

7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

How many do though? Not my experience that they bother. Place and forget, because more trails still to make.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree. Wish reviewers would not allow new caches to be published while outstanding maintenance is required. 

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Wish reviewers would not allow new caches to be published while outstanding maintenance is required. 

I agree. ALL the outstanding maintenance should be done before they are allowed to publish another cache. If a cache is temporally fenced off or similar and they can't get to it, but are writing regular updates on that, that's okay, but otherwise no new cache until the others are maintained. And no archiving all the old caches with no evidence they have removed the old caches, so as to be allowed to publish more either. Geocaching needs COs who maintain caches and make it more attractive to the beginners so as to keep them. This won't happen though, as more workload for the reviewers, and not sure that HQ cares enough.

[+kunarion]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In recent years they've been using layered containers, with an outer rugged container (usually 3D-printed) and another, often a bison tube, inside that.

 

Are you saying there's a cache of two layers of boxes, which does well?  How does that Cache Owner get Geocachers with the mental capacity to put it all back together properly?  In my area, we're I'm lucky if Geocachers have somewhat placed the lid against the box, and the box within 100 feet of where it belongs.  There's no way they could manage two nested containers.  I have a lot of questions about the logistics of that.  I'll start a new thread and ask, once I compose my questions.

 

But this thread is about caches that became compromised.  I'm picturing known terrible containers that are pill bottles which seal out air and not water, but the Topic applies just fine to however many nested boxes you like.  Where the CO sits on his hands until everything inside is ruined, there are NM logs, Reviewers are involved, yet that the problem is that Geocachers weren't cramming ever more scraps of paper into a soaked mass of moldy gunk, and how dare you people get my cache archived because of that.

[+arisoft]

49 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Are you saying there's a cache of two layers of boxes, which does well?  How does that Cache Owner get Geocachers with the mental capacity to put it all back together properly?

 

Basically the idea of multiple containers is just for this situation. If there is only one lid, the propability that it is closed properly is pretty low. By increasing the number of lids, the propability that, at least, one lid is properly closed is noticeable higher. This is very important in wet conditions. A PET preform inside a "tupperware" or even better, inside a birdhouse with "tuppwerware" cover, is pretty good solution. Neither of them are safe on its own, but the combination withstands malpractice very well.

Edited March 27 by arisoft

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

 

Are you saying there's a cache of two layers of boxes, which does well?  How does that Cache Owner get Geocachers with the mental capacity to put it all back together properly?  In my area, we're I'm lucky if Geocachers have somewhat placed the lid against the box, and the box within 100 feet of where it belongs.  There's no way they could manage two nested containers.  I have a lot of questions about the logistics of that.  I'll start a new thread and ask, once I compose my questions.

 

But this thread is about caches that became compromised.  I'm picturing known terrible containers that are pill bottles which seal out air and not water, but the Topic applies just fine to however many nested boxes you like.  Where the CO sits on his hands until everything inside is ruined, there are NM logs, Reviewers are involved, yet that the problem is that Geocachers weren't cramming ever more scraps of paper into a soaked mass of moldy gunk, and how dare you people get my cache archived because of that.

I have had no problems with two caches. Do you have power trails where people are rushing?

[+Goldenwattle]

 

40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

PET preform

Horrible tiny things. Can be not much better than a nano. Many have wet logs also. Or do you have some large version?

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Horrible tiny things. Can be not much better than a nano. Many have wet logs also. Or do you have some large version?

 

You must think something else.

It is the stardard power trail cache. Unbreakable but squirrels may eat the cap and geocachers forget to close the cap properly.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have had no problems with two caches. Do you have power trails where people are rushing?

 

There aren't power trails in that area, and there's no need to hurry.  I'm pretty sure that these finders are just plain not very bright.  This effect is not limited to a small area, either.

 

I found a nested cache yesterday.  The outer box (typical leaky boat box) had standing water, but the contents of the inner box were dry.  It's not much different than a single box cache in that case, once the outer box is compromised.  All it does is retain water that might otherwise evaporate.  This OP is about why Finders don't do cache maintenance for the Cache Owners due to the cache desperately needing maintenance (and then becoming archived), not really about the magical caches that can be ignored by COs, due to never needing maintenance.  So the nested box caches should be in a separate thread.  But I haven't figured out what to ask yet.

 

Edited March 27 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

 

Horrible tiny things. Can be not much better than a nano. Many have wet logs also. Or do you have some large version?

 

I can't stand PET performs, mostly due to the cost vs. value.  But I have a huge case of 50ml centrifuge vials, slightly roomier than a match tube.  Swap out container and all every couple of months, and you get no NM logs.  I designed the mount so the tube is swappable.  But it does migrate all over the place (yet the mount is designed so it's super easy to put the cache back perfectly), and again there's the inability of Finders to close a cache container.  I think these people may have gotten into chemical dumps when they were younger.  Just one theory.

[+arisoft]

6 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I can't stand PET performs, mostly due to the cost vs. value.

 

Interesting... which one is the main factor? Cost or value?

 

At least the user interface should be well known by the users but sometimes they forget to turn the cap tight enough.

[+kunarion]

51 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Interesting... which one is the main factor? Cost or value?

 

At least the user interface should be well known by the users but sometimes they forget to turn the cap tight enough.

 

Value too low, cost too high.  They're designed to be open/closed only a couple of times, have a weird internal shape and no room, and every preform cache I've ever found in the wild has a soaking wet, compacted log sheet.   I have a huge box of a comparable tube (the 50ml vials, I have plenty) so there's no reason for me to bother with preforms, yet.  I acquired a couple of them over the years, maybe I'll find some use where other containers would not work (post hole diameter or something).  I'd need a special reason to place a Micro where a decent sized box could go.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

They're designed to be open/closed only a couple of times

 

Not actually. In some countries they circulate the same bottle again and again. It works until someone leaves the cap open. Here in Finland this is the mostly used cache container. More than 50% for sure, I have not calculated exact numbers. It is more expensive than an used vitamin tube but COs are using these because it is so robust and spare caps are easy to find.

Edited March 27 by arisoft

[+edexter]

I live in New England, a climate where you get lots of rain. some snow and lots of sun and clouds.  Under these conditions the average nano and micro have a "dry log life expectancy" of three to six months.  Once the o-ring has died, the next rainstorm soaks the caches, the log gets wet, swells up and game over.  For larger  caches, the wet log typically results from someone's inability to actually close the container correctly.  Once moisture gets in, it tends to stay in, and the log gets moldy.  The more often the container is found, the more likely it is to be improperly closed.  I was seriously considering adding a YouTube link on how to close a ziplock bag to my caches descriptions, but alas, ignorance is a renewal resource.  I once had a cache I placed on the back of a sign in a swamp , a small lock and lock, and after a year of no finds and a couple of dnfs, I found the sign had fallen over into the swamp, the lock and lock was still attached though under water,  and when I opened it , still dry.  In between the o-ring dependent tiny caches and the waterproof lock& locks, ammo boxes, and dry boxes are your typical caches that are often just not up to the task.  There are a lot of crappy containers out there with multiple scraps of wet paper inside that the CO has no intention of maintaining knowing that any log is going to get wet again.  I generally log that the cache container needs to be replaced if it's not going to be maintained. 

edexter 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

Under these conditions the average nano and micro have a "dry log life expectancy" of three to six months. 

 

Have you tried to make a hole in the container. I have tried some with good results. One cache is practically a piece of electrict conduct tube. Open in both ends. Log scroll is inside. Once it get wet, I  was curious how it is possible. Some idiot has replaced the cache vertically so that the rain pours directly inside from the one end. When it is replaced horisontally, as I put it originally, no problems.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Have you tried to make a hole in the container. I have tried some with good results. One cache is practically a piece of electrict conduct tube. Open in both ends. Log scroll is inside. Once it get wet, I  was curious how it is possible. Some idiot has replaced the cache vertically so that the rain pours directly inside from the one end. When it is replaced horisontally, as I put it originally, no problems.

 

In a container with a tiny drilled hole, I've seen ants, earwigs, slugs, worms, spiders, all of the most gross bugs get inside through the hole.  And then they die inside.  So I've also thought of the addition of a metal screen over that hole.  If it's found during the times when the interior has dried, and as you say, pointing away from rain and at the lowest point in the container, that might work well.  So maybe it's best if it is the kind of cache designed to be found less often.

 

Edited March 28 by kunarion

[+arisoft]

2 minutes ago, kunarion said:

So maybe it is best if it is the kind of cache designed to be found less often.

 

I have experience that many logs get wet because they are signed when it rains. Holes will give it opportunity to dry.

 

Have any noticed that a basic tin jar could be drier than a sealed plastic one?

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, edexter said:

I live in New England, a climate where you get lots of rain. some snow and lots of sun and clouds.  Under these conditions the average nano and micro have a "dry log life expectancy" of three to six months.  Once the o-ring has died, the next rainstorm soaks the caches, the log gets wet, swells up and game over.  For larger  caches, the wet log typically results from someone's inability to actually close the container correctly.  Once moisture gets in, it tends to stay in, and the log gets moldy.  The more often the container is found, the more likely it is to be improperly closed.  I was seriously considering adding a YouTube link on how to close a ziplock bag to my caches descriptions, but alas, ignorance is a renewal resource.  I once had a cache I placed on the back of a sign in a swamp , a small lock and lock, and after a year of no finds and a couple of dnfs, I found the sign had fallen over into the swamp, the lock and lock was still attached though under water,  and when I opened it , still dry.  In between the o-ring dependent tiny caches and the waterproof lock& locks, ammo boxes, and dry boxes are your typical caches that are often just not up to the task.  There are a lot of crappy containers out there with multiple scraps of wet paper inside that the CO has no intention of maintaining knowing that any log is going to get wet again.  I generally log that the cache container needs to be replaced if it's not going to be maintained. 

edexter 

 

For my frequently found match tube Micro, I drop by often to replace or dry the log (it's almost never perfectly dry unless i do that), and I replace the o-ring which is somehow constantly in bad condition or missing.  It's part experiment to test what the deal is with all these soaking wet Micros, part Labor Of Love.  It's my favorite little creative cache, gotta keep him alive.  For now.

 

Edited March 28 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

37 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Have any noticed that a basic tin jar could be drier than a sealed plastic one?

 

Me!  I've found a large Christmas Cookie tin cache from the early 2000s, tin can, tin lid.  Inside a bird house with no roof, on a post.  No plastic bags at all. And there is nothing wrong with that original log nor the contents.  Not even rust.  I believe it is going strong to this day.

 

I cannot recommend that all caches be a tin can, but I noted this dry one in rainy, humid North Georgia.

 

Edited March 28 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I have experience that many logs get wet because they are signed when it rains. Holes will give it opportunity to dry.

 

Yes, possibly.  The trick is getting the finders to arrive while the cache is dry inside. 

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, edexter said:

I live in New England, a climate where you get lots of rain. some snow and lots of sun and clouds.  Under these conditions the average nano and micro have a "dry log life expectancy" of three to six months.  Once the o-ring has died, the next rainstorm soaks the caches, the log gets wet, swells up and game over.  For larger  caches, the wet log typically results from someone's inability to actually close the container correctly.  Once moisture gets in, it tends to stay in, and the log gets moldy.  The more often the container is found, the more likely it is to be improperly closed.  I was seriously considering adding a YouTube link on how to close a ziplock bag to my caches descriptions, but alas, ignorance is a renewal resource.  I once had a cache I placed on the back of a sign in a swamp , a small lock and lock, and after a year of no finds and a couple of dnfs, I found the sign had fallen over into the swamp, the lock and lock was still attached though under water,  and when I opened it , still dry.  In between the o-ring dependent tiny caches and the waterproof lock& locks, ammo boxes, and dry boxes are your typical caches that are often just not up to the task.  There are a lot of crappy containers out there with multiple scraps of wet paper inside that the CO has no intention of maintaining knowing that any log is going to get wet again.  I generally log that the cache container needs to be replaced if it's not going to be maintained. 

edexter 

 

Some containers seal well, and water enters because finders opened it, water in sitting at the lid seams, dripping from above, or water on the cachers' hands.  One drop can destroy a Nano log.  Other containers are leaky, but the water inside doesn't evaporate, it just keeps getting added.  In either case, a wet log in a plastic bag can make matters worse for that log.  I don't know if COs do much analysis of the moisture cause nor cure.  The specific location, frequency of finds, variance in quality of similar containers, and many more factors change things drastically.  Of course it may be perfectly dry, but there's no room to sign the log, so an attentive Cache Owner is a good ingredient.

 

I check, dry, fix, replace logs, all kinds of stuff on my little match tube Micro all the time, and if I didn't, it would be as nasty a mess as all the others.  By doing so, I may be creating the false impression that match tube Micros are clean and dry all the time.  Some caches are the exception to the rule, for reasons.

 

Edited March 28 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

If it's found during the times when the interior has dried, and as you say, pointing away from rain and at the lowest point in the container, that might work well.  So maybe it's best if it is the kind of cache designed to be found less often.

 

A bit over a year ago, lee737 and his son Samuel737 placed a series of water-access caches along a tidal creek off Lake Macquarie, using this style of 3D-printed container. It's the opposite way up to a standard bison tube, with the screw-in cap at the bottom rather than the top, so any water that does wick its way in along the threads would then have to rise high enough to get over the lip of the cap's log-holder. The small hole in the bottom of the cap should then drain any such water away. The log itself is laser-printed on Rite in the Rain paper so should be tolerant of occasional dampness.

 

 

I was sufficiently impressed with the design when I did the caches that I asked Lee to print some up for my Entrancing Isles series that's similarly hung around the islands of Tuggerah Lake at The Entrance. To date, Lee's ones are working well and although it's still early days on mine (6 months since placed), they're all doing fine.

 

But as you say, these aren't caches that get found very often. Lee's and Samuel's ones have had about 25 finds, while mine have had about 10, half of which were by a group that came along after a kayaking event.

Edited March 29 by barefootjeff

[+MNTA]

What is it with failure to seal the ziplock bag properly?

 

Also get the darn thing inside the container seal completely. If a piece of plastic is hanging outside the seal. The seal simply does no good. 

 

Like the drill a hole idea. Don't see that much here. Couple that with rite-in-rain paper and you are good to go.

 

When I found GC12 I was super excited. Till I opened up the 5 gallon bucket. It was filled with 5 gallons of smelly water. Dumped it out and filed a NM and the CO replaced the lid. Fortunately the ziplock bags was sealed properly.

[+barefootjeff]

44 minutes ago, MNTA said:

What is it with failure to seal the ziplock bag properly?

 

Yes, so many times I've seen the logbook put back in the bag but the bag left completely unsealed. Either that or they'll put the pencil inside the bag too, which is almost guaranteed to poke a hole in it.

[+kunarion]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

A bit over a year ago, lee737 and his son Samuel737 placed a series of water-access caches along a tidal creek off Lake Macquarie, using this style of 3D-printed container. It's the opposite way up to a standard bison tube, with the screw-in cap at the bottom rather than the top, so any water that does wick its way in along the threads would then have to rise high enough to get over the lip of the cap's log-holder. The small hole in the bottom of the cap should then drain any such water away. The log itself is laser-printed on Rite in the Rain paper so should be tolerant of occasional dampness.

 

 

I was sufficiently impressed with the design when I did the caches that I asked Lee to print some up for my Entrancing Isles series that's similarly hung around the islands of Tuggerah Lake at The Entrance. To date, Lee's ones are working well and although it's still early days on mine (6 months since placed), they're all doing fine.

 

But as you say, these aren't caches that get found very often. Lee's and Samuel's ones have had about 25 finds, while mine have had about 10, half of which were by a group that came along after a kayaking event.

 

That's pretty cool!  For some hides, I've wanted to hang a 50ml vial upside-down, but then rain may be trapped in the rim of its inverted lid, and then fluid gets inside each time it's opened.  It would require some unspecified modification(s) at additional time and expense, for a tube that will likely need to be replaced anyway in a few months.  Yet most Cache Owners "set it and forget it".  They don't get into the intricacies of how to improve caches for finders... they instead get mad when Finders aren't doing the maintenance.

 

So it's nice to see some ingenuity in designs.  But I have seen cool 3D printed caches shatter or collapse into powder.  It does seem to be a complex situation.

 

Edited March 29 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

22 hours ago, kunarion said:

 I've found a large Christmas Cookie tin cache from the early 2000s, tin can, tin lid.  Inside a bird house with no roof, on a post.  No plastic bags at all. And there is nothing wrong with that original log nor the contents.  Not even rust.  I believe it is going strong to this day.

I cannot recommend that all caches be a tin can, but I noted this dry one in rainy, humid North Georgia.

That's an odd one...

Our first coupla years we found numerous cookie tins, most wrapped in black garbage bags, from folks on lengthy, mountain walks.

Belonging to '00/'01 cachers (one was even teaching the hobby...), we started bringing a tiny brass crowbar (after nicking a knife blade) to open the things.   Every one was rusted shut, their contents a gross science project. TN, left a baggie with my sig on RiR paper, NM.

[+cerberus1]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

A bit over a year ago, lee737 and his son Samuel737 placed a series of water-access caches along a tidal creek off Lake Macquarie, using this style of 3D-printed container. It's the opposite way up to a standard bison tube, with the screw-in cap at the bottom rather than the top, so any water that does wick its way in along the threads would then have to rise high enough to get over the lip of the cap's log-holder. The small hole in the bottom of the cap should then drain any such water away. The log itself is laser-printed on Rite in the Rain paper so should be tolerant of occasional dampness.

 

 

I was sufficiently impressed with the design when I did the caches that I asked Lee to print some up for my Entrancing Isles series that's similarly hung around the islands of Tuggerah Lake at The Entrance. To date, Lee's ones are working well and although it's still early days on mine (6 months since placed), they're all doing fine.

Cool idea!  Seems that extended collar might keep Capillary Action at bay (like water that travels up a plastic pipe cache's threading).

And if it didn't, that little hole might either add breeze air to dry or allow it to leach out.   Please give a product test after a year or so. 

Thanks!  

[+CCFsmile]

On 3/27/2025 at 9:43 AM, kunarion said:

 

Value too low, cost too high.  They're designed to be open/closed only a couple of times, have a weird internal shape and no room, and every preform cache I've ever found in the wild has a soaking wet, compacted log sheet.   I have a huge box of a comparable tube (the 50ml vials, I have plenty) so there's no reason for me to bother with preforms, yet.  I acquired a couple of them over the years, maybe I'll find some use where other containers would not work (post hole diameter or something).  I'd need a special reason to place a Micro where a decent sized box could go.

 

I don't mean to be rude here, so please don't take it that way... my partner and I both laughed out loud at thin statement. We were out in the fog and drizzle just yesterday (Massachusetts) and we found some preforms - some resurrections, some fresh-ish - all having lived through a winter, most with probably 10-50 finds minimum. NONE were wet. In fact, I don't remember ever finding more than a couple of wet preforms, and I am over 8k. My other half (near 10k) says he reckons he's found thousands (they are popular in certain areas of New England) and almost none were wet. I am sure things vary by location but wow, do we have different experiences! 

 

In my long post I should've mentioned preforms, for us they suffer from condensation less, whereas a bison is the worst for wet logs by far... other than cracked tupperware/plastic/cliplock etc.  As ALWAYS ... YMMV! 

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, CCFsmile said:

 

I don't mean to be rude here, so please don't take it that way... my partner and I both laughed out loud at thin statement. We were out in the fog and drizzle just yesterday (Massachusetts) and we found some preforms - some resurrections, some fresh-ish - all having lived through a winter, most with probably 10-50 finds minimum. NONE were wet. In fact, I don't remember ever finding more than a couple of wet preforms, and I am over 8k. My other half (near 10k) says he reckons he's found thousands (they are popular in certain areas of New England) and almost none were wet. I am sure things vary by location but wow, do we have different experiences! 

 

In my long post I should've mentioned preforms, for us they suffer from condensation less, whereas a bison is the worst for wet logs by far... other than cracked tupperware/plastic/cliplock etc.  As ALWAYS ... YMMV! 

 

Maybe you found all of the dry ones.  

That's neat info about preforms.  Aren't you surprised then that respondents to this thread own caches that are all so trashed?  Maybe you can help them with that.  I keep my caches in good shape by pro-actively going to my cache and fixing it myself, and there's always some way to spruce it up.

 

I don't remember the last time I found a preform.  I think they've died of attrition around here.  That plastic cap is so often cross-threaded, I still wonder how finders acquire such a state of uncoordination.  Don't people know how to work a coke bottle?  The problem goes way beyond just one kind of container, it's just that some are more resistant to damage than others.  But I didn't mean that when you find one, that it's impossible to be in OK shape.  Most of my caches are not Micros, and I'll do a routine maintenance check and they're nice and dry, and I wonder why bother even checking, they are always great.  Until one day I go there and it's a catastrophic mess, due to any of number of factors.  Or they are in a condition that nobody would complain about... yet... and if I dry it out, remove the candy and bubble soap, and wipe the lid seal clean, it will be almost as good as new for a while.  So that's why I never insist that I don't need to check on my caches.

 

Edited March 31 by kunarion

[+Wadcutter]

2 local cache hiders have hidden 1003 and 282 hides.  They don't check them.  They ignore Needs Maintenance logs.  Nor do they do maintenance when the reviewer flags them as a problem with several DNFs.  They just let them be archived.  And they continue hiding caches.

One of these hiders placed a cache with the coordinates in the middle of a cemetery and then in the description said the cache was not at the coordinates but somewhere within 150 feet.  These are trash hiders.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, Wadcutter said:

They just let them be archived.

 

Do they archive them or let the reviewer do the dirty job?

 

2 hours ago, Wadcutter said:

One of these hiders placed a cache with the coordinates in the middle of a cemetery and then in the description said the cache was not at the coordinates but somewhere within 150 feet. 

 

Was it a traditional cache or a mystery?

[+Wadcutter]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Do they archive them or let the reviewer do the dirty job?

 

 

Was it a traditional cache or a mystery?

The reviewer has to archive them.  Both COs ignore them once they place them.  Trash hiders.

The one in the cemetery with the description 150 ft from the coordinates was a regular micro cache.  In the description she just wrote that it's within 150 ft of the coordinates.  No other hint or description.  Think about how large of an area that is.  A 150 ft radius would be a 300 ft diameter.  Length of a football field and double the width of a football field. 90,000 sq ft.  2 acres.  Now think of all the possible hiding places in 2 football field area with grave stones, trees, etc.  When the reviewer was notified he disabled it with the note for the CO to correct the coordinates or be archived.  She ignored the note, he archived it.

Two of the worst hiders I've seen since we started in 2002.

Edited March 31 by Wadcutter

[+Goldenwattle]

12 hours ago, kunarion said:

Don't people know how to work a coke bottle? 

No idea 🤣. Never had a coke bottle to try. (Okay, irrelevant comment, but as someone who had only had two drinks of coke in my whole life - nothing else to drink, and not from a bottle -  that made me giggle.)

10 hours ago, Wadcutter said:

2 local cache hiders have hidden 1003 and 282 hides.  They don't check them.  They ignore Needs Maintenance logs.  Nor do they do maintenance when the reviewer flags them as a problem with several DNFs.  They just let them be archived.  And they continue hiding caches.

One of these hiders placed a cache with the coordinates in the middle of a cemetery and then in the description said the cache was not at the coordinates but somewhere within 150 feet.  These are trash hiders.

Seems familiar to me. This is what many power trail hiders are about.

There was a CO a few years back (not where I live, but somewhere I occasionally visit) who had a cache hidden some distance (150m comes to mind, but could be wrong) off the coordinates. Apparently it seemed that when people contacted him he would give them the correct coordinates. But you had to know this. I made comments in my log, but also messaged him and tried to tell him his coordinates were out and assist him. Messages going backwards and forwards with me trying to help and him seeming 'thick'. Suddenly it dawned on me what this was about. He wanted to put his cache in a particular spot, but couldn't as there was another nearby cache belonging to someone else. Another geocacher contacted me to tell me they considered the geocacher with the wrong coordinates, insane. (A reasonable description; I couldn't argue with.) They must have been dealing with him too. The reviewer got involved. The CO tried to play him too. The reviewer disabled the cache. The CO reactivated the cache. I let the reviewer know what was happening. The reviewer disabled the cache again, and wrote, "I am not playing games." The cache was eventually archived. Can't remember by whom though.

Edited April 1 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

On 3/27/2025 at 5:07 AM, CCFsmile said:

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.

 

My most recent cache, located in the Watagan mountains about 50km north-west of here, was published in mid Febrary and had its only find five days later when a father and daughter team claimed joint FTF. Since then, it's been through the remnants of tropical cyclone Alfred that passed through in early March, dropping about 30mm of rain over a couple of days, then the more recent monsoonal low responsible for widespread flooding in central Queensland headed south-east last weekend, dropping about 60mm on Saturday night. When it hasn't been raining, the humidity has been very high, with constant onshore winds from a warmer than normal sea. At 400 metres above sea level, it's likely GZ would have been enshrouded in cloud a fair bit of the time.

 

The cache is placed in this cavity under some large boulders where it's well protected from direct rainfall, but it's possible water could flow through there from above. On a few occasions I've been caught out when what I thought was a dry hiding place under a rock ledge turned into a subterranean watercourse in heavy rain, so I went out there today just to make sure everything was still okay.

 

 

The cache itself is a jack-in-the-box toy housed inside a rectangular hard plastic outer container with a soft plastic press-fit lid. I normally wouldn't use such a thing as a cache as they don't seal particularly well and I've come across some full of water, but I couldn't find anything else with a better seal that was big enough to hold the jack-in-the-box without being totally unwieldly. Anyway, this is what I found when I got there this afternoon:

 

 

The outer container was bone dry inside and out, and the kangaroo jack-in-the-box with the logbook in its pouch was likewise clean and dry with everything working properly.

 

For this cache, if the logbook was damp it would likely mean much more serious problems in the container, necessitating a substantial rethink or even archival, so I'd really want an OAR log if any future finder opens it to discover the log is even slightly wet. Barring anything else untoward happening, my plan is to revisit it in late August or September, just to make sure it got through the winter okay, although the winters here are usually pretty kind to caches with predominantly dry off-shore winds.

 

Getting to this cache is a ridiculously long and/or steep hike (Quite Ridiculous, in fact), although GZ offers a nice view over the valley, so I'll be surprised if it gets any more finds, but it'll be an interesting experiment on how this combination of hiding place and container stands up over time. I have a couple of other plush toy themed containers hidden in sandstone caves, one now over ten years old, and they're pretty much as good as the day I placed them, so I'm encouraged by how it's going so far.

[+kunarion]

20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

No idea 🤣. Never had a coke bottle to try. (Okay, irrelevant comment, but as someone who had only had two drinks of coke in my whole life - nothing else to drink, and not from a bottle -  that made me giggle.)

 

Do you DNF those caches?

 

It does seem like there are a lot of cachers who cannot open a bottle.  I should start a thread on screw-top bottles at least.  Maybe later I'll include closing the lid, too.  This thread sure is bring up a lot of bewildering new Topics unrelated to the OP.

 

But do you think most persons are incapable of opening and closing a bottle?  I'd be shocked if I place my preform and a reviewer insists it's a Puzzle Cache... "Sorry, but if you need to unscrew it in one direction and tighten it in another, it also must be set at a higher Difficulty.  I've never tried to work a bottle, have never heard of a cacher who did."

 

Should I start a thread about opening and closing a coke bottle?  Would it spoil Coke Bottle caches?  This thread is less about persons with zero mechanical aptitude, and more about persons who deliberately allow their caches to fail and then complain that nobody fixed those caches.

 

 

Edited April 1 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The cache is placed in this cavity under some large boulders where it's well protected from direct rainfall, but it's possible water could flow through there from above. On a few occasions I've been caught out when what I thought was a dry hiding place under a rock ledge turned into a subterranean watercourse in heavy rain, so I went out there today just to make sure everything was still okay.

 

The surprise waterfall is a concern, but I need to check my cubby-hole caches frequently for many reasons unrelated to water.  There are animals here, and they live on or under a cache in a small cave, or they drag it out of that cave.  It's desirable as an animal den.

[+kunarion]

On 3/26/2025 at 2:07 PM, CCFsmile said:

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. 

 

It's just as cheap and easy and helpful for the Cache Owner to get off his lazy backside and fix it.  It's not the fault everyone else and The Climate when it gets Reviewer Notes.  The anger in this thread is misplaced.

 

A log that must be replaced is in no condition to be signed.  If I find a cache and I can't or won't dry the log enough to sign it, that's at least a DNF, and if it's gross and especially a cache by an absent CO, it gets Owner Action Required log by me as well.  Logs get wet in this local area, cachers make an OAR, and the CO replaces the log.  That's what COs do.

 

Edited April 1 by kunarion

[+arisoft]

51 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Logs get wet in this local area, cachers make an OAR, and the CO replaces the log.  That's what COs do.

 

Here most cachers add a slip of dry paper into the container and log without problems. The CO may collect the slips and replace the log.

I, on the player mode, may use a portable heat gun to dry the log if the container is waterproof.

[+barefootjeff]

40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Here most cachers add a slip of dry paper into the container and log without problems. The CO may collect the slips and replace the log.

I, on the player mode, may use a portable heat gun to dry the log if the container is waterproof.

 

I wouldn't want players replacing any of my logbooks with whatever slip of paper they happened to have on them, but I'd be particularly peeved if they did that on the Watagan Mountains one I just mentioned. If water got far enough inside to dampen the logbook, it's likely to be creating problems with the jack-in-the-box mechanism and causing the plush kangaroo "jack" to start growing mould. If that happens, I want to know about it as soon as possible, preferably with an OAR log.

 

I've seen leaky caches where each finder stuffs another dry sheet into it, which then adds to the lump of soggy paper mache the next time it rains. Maybe it gets them their smiley, but in the long run it's just making it worse for subsequent finders.

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Here most cachers add a slip of dry paper into the container and log without problems. The CO may collect the slips and replace the log.

I, on the player mode, may use a portable heat gun to dry the log if the container is waterproof.

 

Do you mean a propane heat gun?  I've sometimes hung a log sheet over a branch and waited a half-hour (if it's sunny and breezy), or on my car windshield which can dry the log fast on a hot, sunny day.

 

The problem I encounter is not that I don't have a heat gun, but that the log is currently a spit wad of gross, moldy compacted paper fibers, a plug of un-signable papier mache even when bone dry.  This is the end result of the OP.  Cachers who can't even close a cache properly are doing random "maintenance" poorly, because they're not prepared to clean and dry a container, install a new O-ring or whatever is compromising the seal, and place a new log (plus, as noted, they don't have the capacity to "close" the lid).  When it is possibly the 20th soaking wet spit wad container on this cache run.  Maintenance which is the sole responsibility of the Cache Owners, which the Cache Owners insist the Finders must do.

 

Edited April 1 by kunarion

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

Do you DNF those caches?

 

It does seem like there are a lot of cachers who cannot open a bottle.  I should start a thread on screw-top bottles at least.  Maybe later I'll include closing the lid, too.  This thread sure is bring up a lot of bewildering new Topics unrelated to the OP.

 

But do you think most persons are incapable of opening and closing a bottle?  I'd be shocked if I place my preform and a reviewer insists it's a Puzzle Cache... "Sorry, but if you need to unscrew it in one direction and tighten it in another, it also must be set at a higher Difficulty.  I've never tried to work a bottle, have never heard of a cacher who did."

 

Should I start a thread about opening and closing a coke bottle?  Would it spoil Coke Bottle caches?  This thread is less about persons with zero mechanical aptitude, and more about persons who deliberately allow their caches to fail and then complain that nobody fixed those caches.

 

 

My comment was just a flippant comment and not meant to be serious.

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

My comment was just a flippant comment and not meant to be serious.

 

Really?  That's a relief.  When you mentioned the part about not drinking from the bottle, I was gonna say that for most of my caches, that part is the best case scenario. 

 

I'm still pretty sure there needs to be a thread about how to open and close a bottle.  Maybe someone could slowly read it to the persons who need the information.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 minute ago, kunarion said:

 

Really?  That's a relief.  When you mentioned the part about not drinking from the bottle, I was gonna say that for most of my caches, that part is the best case scenario. 

 

I'm still pretty sure there needs to be a thread about how to open and close a bottle.  Maybe someone could slowly read it to the persons who need the information.

I've never touched a coke bottle in my life, as I indicated. My comment had ZERO to do with caches.

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

I've never touched a coke bottle in my life, as I indicated. My comment had ZERO to do with caches.

 

But you understand the concept.  A preform cache's cap's removal and installation is no different than how a coke bottle cap works.  It may even have the cap from an actual used coke bottle when the original cap wears out.

[+Goldenwattle]

15 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

But you understand the concept.  A preform cache's cap's removal and installation is no different than how a coke bottle cap works.  It may even have the cap from an actual used coke bottle when the original cap wears out.

I've never seen one of your preform caches either. I imagine though the cap should be easy enough to return though.