[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

So it sounds like there is a standard, as people have described, that after 1 month with NM then it is appropriate to post a NA log.

 

Can we make it easier to sort the logs so you can find the NM log posting and see how long it has been?

 

Or perhaps the icon change over time from a white plus on red background to more and more red as months go by, until there is just a little red pile of mud.

 

If I saw that, and had been to the cache and found it wanting, I would feel justified in posting a NA on contacting the CO.

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

All that's needed is a new reviewer. And since you volunteered....

 

 

If you mean going and visiting every cache I've already found to check on them and post NM and NA logs, then no, I'm not volunteering for cache-cop.

 

If you mean volunteering as a reviewer for Groundspeak, then I think the situation is way more complicated. It has to do with what people expect from caches, what CO's expect of themselves, whether they do or do not post NM and NA logs, why they do not do so, reviewer guidelines, reviewer interpretations of guidelines, extra things people (cachers or reviewers or a community as a whole) do to help raise the quality of caches.

 

The main reviewer in our area is, I've been informed, great at responding to NA logs. Other people describe different experiences in other areas.

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

What do people think of this idea?

 

Yeah, but it's evident that not everyone is going to take care of what was once a decent cache. Just like you can't stop people from putting out those "piece of junk" caches you mentioned. This is not for every cache. This is for those caches that are in great locations and have given a good expierence, but may need a little TLC. I hate finding crappy unattended caches myself.

 

One issue I have is that if you place a NM on a cache, that they are given a month to correct it. The cache owner is expected to disable it until they can fix it, but they don't. It could be something so simple as the log was completed or wet. If a cacher had a piece of paper to put in it to continue the log and a baggy to protect it, then it would make it to where that cache is in poor health for what could be a month. Personally. I think the time needs to be knocked down to at least half that time. If you place a cache that you can not get to in a week or so, then it's too far out for you and you shouldn't of placed it in the first place.

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

Some may be expecting everyone to be the type of cache owner that checks on caches periodically

Yep, that would be me. That and decent cords are my only expectations.

 

I agree.

 

I expect that people who take on the responsibility of cache ownership agree to the guidelines

....http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache.

 

...http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=57...

 

• Replace the container if the current one is not holding up in its environment.
• Make sure that that your container is watertight and that the contents are free from debris.
• If any of the geocache contents are wet, dry them off or replace them.
• Check that there is enough space left in your logbook for many more entries.
• If winter is approaching, make sure you include a pencil in your geocache since the ink in pens can freeze.
• If your geocache will not be accessible due to seasonal weather conditions, note this on the geocache page.
• Verify the Trackables that are listed in your geocache. Those that are listed in the online inventory but are no longer physically in the cache can be marked as "missing" by using the appropriate link on the Trackable's page.

 

Would CO's appreciate an email on the anniversary of each published cache saying how many years it has been out, if it has a NM or NA log, and gently reminding them of the above guidelines?

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

I remove rusty or moldy stuff, throw in some dessicant and sometimes add new swag or logbooks. I bring a roll of flagging tape too. Sometimes a piece of flagging tape is missing or needed and it's a helluva lot easier for me to take a few minutes if I'm already there than have the cache owner drive across town. I don't always do this, but I try to do it as much as I can. All this sounds like alot of work, but it isn't, really. It takes only a few minutes at each cache and quite often the cache is fine and doesn't need anything.

 

 

As I already said, drying and restocking is my approach as well. That's part of what I consider my contribution to the community.

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

OK, so clearly the time-out idea is a poor one! Heard

 

I wonder if having a tool-tip that explained when a NM and NA log are appropriate would be helpful for users? Clearly different people, even within this forum have different ideas as to appropriate cache standards. (To the person who said they put no swag in your cache, that isn't common here, but if you included that in the description I would certainly respect it. Otherwise I would likely add stuff.)

 

Also, it sounds like reviewers are given some guidelines as to the number of NMs or timelines or similar. Although not all reviewers may interpret them similarly. I think it would be helpful for those guidelines to be public, e.g. part of the FAQ or tool tip.

 

For example, perhaps a reviewer is only keying in on caches with 3 NM logs. But if a cache has a NM log, I wouldn't think to add another one because I would feel like that was being a nag.

 

thanks

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

I really appreciate all the replies telling me what to do. As if I don't post NM logs. I do. Although usually I remove all the garbage and restock the containers with whatever they need. I post NM logs when I don't have extra stuff with me or the container itself is compromised.

 

I restock my own caches with new swag and whatever else they need every 6 mo to a year.

 

But I'm not interested in checking on every cache to make sure it's OK. I don't want to be a cache-cop.

 

If people don't post NM or NA logs, we should change the system so that it works as intended. Saying people should just post those logs, if they don't already, is a was of forum space. Don't try to change people's behaviour, it doesn't work. We have to accept them for who they are.

 

If you don't like the time-out idea, then what I'd like to here from you are other ideas that take into account how people actually use or don't use the system as it exists now. And the bulk of the players, not just the keeners.

 

Interestingly, no one disagreed with the phenomenon of degraded caches and lost owners.

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

All this is unnecessary. We already have a system in place that allows us to alert the owner that their cache requires maintenance (while also alerting the community that there's an issue), and allows us to alert the reviewer that a cache requires a higher level of intervention.

 

I agree that is the current system. It just isn't working as you describe in this area. I frequently come upon crappy, degraded caches. Some CO's have 1/3d of their caches listed as needs maintenance. The caches persist.

 

Oh, and I see the time-out thing as in addition to the current system. A fall-back.

[Does the caching rules/system need updating?]

Hi

There are a number of parts of the geocaching rules and website design that make sense for a new activity, but perhaps could use a review since this has become a mature hobby, at least in my part of the world.

 

In Victoria, BC, Canada, we are saturated with caches. There's at least 1000 within a 30min drive. There are ones that have been around for 10+ years. There is a thriving and vibrant community the puts out and finds caches and holds events. This is wonderful! I would call this a mature, rather than new or uncertain hobby.

 

Probably because of human nature, many people would rather put out a new cache than restock or even just maintain an old one. Swag & log books are often degraded, rusty, moldy or missing entirely.

 

Also, people have placed caches and then moved onto other activities, abandoning their caches.

 

Here are some examples of the current geocaching design that may be worth changing.

 

I hope other people will discuss these and their own suggestions for improving our game.

 

1. How to log that a cache needs maintenance

First you log your find, then you have to go and make an additional log for needs maintenance, and then the system asks you if you're sure.

 

People seem reluctant to post these logs. Perhaps an easier system, like the one used for favor points, would help. People will still be reluctant, but lowering the barrier to posting the log couldn't hurt.

 

2. Needs archive

The website system again asks for confirmation that you want to archive a cache. To me this was probably part of trying to ensure caches were available, but now, it could be streamlined.

 

It's very difficult to have a cache archived if the cache owner has left the community. Again, probably useful when geocaching was new but 15 years on and 2 millions caches later, perhaps we can rethink this.

 

3. General quality of caches

As I mentioned above, cache containers and contents degrade over the years, people are reluctant to post maintenance logs, people leave the game, and there's no where to put out new caches.

 

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?

I would say 5 years and then it has to be removed. Since the CO would be asked to remove it, they would have the first crack at replacing it. If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

 

By the way, I love geocaching. But sometimes the quality of caches bugs me.

 

CC