AustinMN

Yes - cache owners who knowingly leave stinking boxes of rubbish out there for people to find definitely should STOP saying "It's not my job" and start saying "How can I help?" and then I agree - the world, the caching world at least would be a better place +1.

To me: not functioning as originally intended == not functioning

I would like an automatic puzzle solver. In the meantime I'll continue to skip over most puzzle caches.

While what you describe sounds like a very worthy trip with or without a cache, I would rather have the opportunity to place a new cache because the old one had been archived than to be dragged out there for a cache that no longer exists, or that is in really poor condition. You wouldn't have the opportunity to place a new cache there as it would be over 6300 miles from your home location. As I said, if the CO no longer is interested in maintaining the cache it's in a location where there isn't likely going to be someone else placing a new cache there anytime soon. Then archive the thing already. You act like the existience of this cache is some kind of right. It is not.

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction. Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too? If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable? I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot. Would the location make any difference? That is, would you be less inclined to replace a log sheet on a cache with a sopping wet log sheet if it was in a strip mall parking log or part of a series than on a cache in a location where there might not be anyone else that might hide one there? I ask because I DNFd a cache a week and a half ago that was on a not often visited section of the Great Wall in China. I suspect that if that cache were archived it would be a long time before someone else makes the difficult climb up the wall to place another one, and that the few cachers that do make the hike would prefer to have a cache with a log to sign rather than spend an hour so climbing the wall only to discover that it's missing or the log is too wet to sign. While what you describe sounds like a very worthy trip with or without a cache, I would rather have the opportunity to place a new cache because the old one had been archived than to be dragged out there for a cache that no longer exists, or that is in really poor condition.

Adding a new logsheet does not make someone responsible for additional maintenance. I don't think you meant that but it kind of points in that direction. Is that really what you think about someone who adds a dry, clean logsheet for you to sign? Is it less insulting to find a soggy moldy log? Or are you insulted that they did not clean up the cache too? If you find a pristine log in a moldy messy cache then you have something clean to sign and you still get to post an NM. How is that worse than signing the moldy log, adding a single slip of paper with your signature or not signing at all because you didn't have a slip of paper and the log is not signable? I would rather find the cache has been archived (or properly fixed by the CO) than to find a smelly, mouldy mess or a smelly moudly mess with a clean log sheet. Believe it or not, it really is OK to let someone else hide a cache near this spot.

Either way. I have only done this once, and I created a new log, but in it I said that I signed the log book on <the date I signed the paper log>.

Astounding experience. Just curious if the required donation is a rule violation.... I would not think so. It's more like an admission fee, unless of course the CO is the one collecting the donations!

LOOKS LIKE???? I see things cahcing all the time that look like something else. That does not mean they are a guideline violation.

Some CO's take the log sheet on D4-5/T4-5 seriously. If you replace it, you put at risk the logs of all who signed it before you. But I think in most cases, you are not going to find those logs in serious need of replacement in the first place. For a 2/2 I have no problem either adding paper (full log) or replacing (mouldy, pages stuck together, etc.).

I would expect an earthcache CO to allow a log if all the logging criteria were met, and there is not clear evidence of a bogus log. Having a bad attitude is not a reason to delete a log, however if they were there when the area was closed, that might be reason to delete a log.

When I saw a POS...

I don't know. It might also result in more CO's getting irate about NM..."why didn't yopu email?" And it could result in cachers refusing to log NM/NA because they don't want to mess up another cacher's stats.

These two sentences right here perfectly illustrate how ridiculous folks who leave throwdowns can be. It also is clear to me that the most important thing to that particular cacher is that number. Not the cache. Not the quality of the hide. Not the location. Not the act of searching and finding. This person finds nothing at all ridiculous about claiming he or she "found" something THEY brought and put down at GZ! This sort of thing is increasingly common and even welcomed by CO's who would rather save themselves a maintenance trip. It's not how I envisaged the activity when I started caching and to me it all seems completely pointless - but I'm almost starting to accept that I might just be in the minority Is there anything that can be done about this trend? Should belligerent cache owners who armchair maintain their caches, intimidate finders, or encourage throwdowns be warned by GS? Maybe have their cache ownership locked for a couple of months so they can't hide more? Don't expect it. My assesment of Groundspeak lately (and maybe it's been like this for a while) is that they also seem to think it is about the numbers...2.7 million hides and counting right on the front page.

How about encouraging others to pay the premium? While I don't have a lot of hides, if I did, some of them (quite possibly my best) would be PMO simply to add value to other cacher's premiums.

I think I'm going against the current when I say, "Good for you!" I encourage newbies to keep in mind that there are lots of things they don't know, so they should err on the side of caution. Not only that you may be wrong that there's a maintenance issue to begin with, but even if you have identified a maintenance issue correctly, you might not have enough experience to describe it well, so it's OK to leave it to the next experienced cacher to report. There's no desperate need for the very first seeker discovering a problem to report it. On the other hand, the very fact that you're hesitant about your inexperience makes me think you probably have enough experience that your NMs would be fine at this point. And, again, good thinking. But, for future reference after you have more confidence, let me mention that the NA is merely one of the prerequisites, not really its own conclusion that requires the others to be completed. NA merely says there is reason to believe the cache should be archived, but the actual forced archive done by the reviewer is the only point at which all the angles have been considered, including some angles that you as the NA poster might never be privy to. Even with DNFs, I don't generally run with the pack when I like that newbies tend to be nervous about filing DNFs. A newbie DNF means so much less that most DNFs, and normally has so little information, that they sometimes do more harm than good. What?? DNF means Did Not Find. Whether it is a new cacher or someone with 1000 or 10,000 finds...I came, I looked, I did not find. Period. When I had less than 200 finds I easily found one cache that had been DNF'd by three cachers in a row that combined had over 50,000 finds. You want to make their DNF's worth more than my signed log? If there is harm being done by a newbie DNF, the harm is being done by someone else, not the newbie.

I believe you're overthinking it. A DNF means simply that you searched for and didn't find the cache, for whatever reason. I'm mostly with the others. There are only three circumstances where I do not log a DNF. One is if I find the cache, the second is if I DNF'd before and feel like this D4+ cache may take a number of visits, and the third is if I felt I didn't honestly look (out of time, got dark, etc.).

I have seen plenty of logs over the years where someone logged a "found it" because they found the "cover" of a pill bottle. Having found the cache myself, I know that the "cover" is either trash or the cover of someone's throwdown. The cache container was nothing like what they described, and so they found "something" but in many cases, it is not part of the cache.

You can't set a limit like that. For example, many parks near me have periodic controlled deer hunts. The Parks service requires that geocaches be disabled during this period. Sometimes, it runs from the start of October until the last day of December. If the CO takes a week or two to re-enable, you would archive his caches. Or how abnout the case where a cache is hidden in a tree...a tree that will be left alone while the parks department bulldozes and re-landscapes the area. Communicating with a real living human being who can make an informed decision is important.

Perhaps there is a reason for that.

How does the owner know it needs maintenance if nobody says anything? Before it gets to the point of NM, let along NA, usually the logs will start mentioning things like the log is wet, the container is cracked ... Owners: Read the logs and react to them as needed. Cachers: Write meaningful logs and let the owners know about the experience. I doubt an owner with 300 caches is going to read all the logs. I know very responsive CO's with thousands of caches. There's no way they read the logs. They will, however, take note of an NM. So much of this conversation sounds like "why would I put gas in my car when I can just push it with an empty tank." If the cache needs maintenance, log the NM and forget about it.

I would prefer to see a Needs Maintenance log than have a stranger do unauthorized maintenance on my behalf. +1. My (very few) hides are more creative than a Rubermaid Tub, and I don't want someone who has trouble finding it robbing subsequent cachers of the experience of finding something different.

No. The attributes filter items in PQs are OR related. Hans When I search for local caches that require a boat, I get over 1,000 results. When I search for caches that take less than an hour, I get over 1,000 caches. When I search for caches that require a boat and take less than an hour in the same pocket query, I get 293. When I checked the first seven on the list, they all had both attributes. The attributes in the PQ's I create are AND related. Try it.

I don't understand why you're calling those circumstances "limited". Your limit circumstances are just a list of when it's appropriate to log an NM. I'm calling them limited because they are limited. I never said they were my limits. Do you have a point, or are you just jabbering because you can? Yeah, it can be hard to stand up to a bully. You have this backwards. In your community, seekers don't bother to log NAs, so the poor reviewer has to do a lot of extra work to continually monitor the caches in the area and take unilateral action, making him the bad guy. I can't agree. Because the reviewers have chosen to do a service to the caching community does not mean that cachers are not logging NM (how else would the reviewer ever find the problem caches to begin with?) or NA. Your response really cheapens what the reviewers are doing.

I will log a NM if required, and have never received a negative reaction from doing so. There are only limited circumstances that I will do so (suddenly lots of DNFs and I DNFd as well; the container is in need of maintenance and I cannot do it; the log is unsignable; location has changed dramatically and cache cannot remain as originally hidden, etc.). There have been a couple cases where I saw an "Owner Maintenance" follow that I thought was questionable, but never anything I would have considered personal. I will log a NA if required, and have done so twice. The first NA I logged, the cache had been there for some time and had been logged many times. It required the cacher to trespass, and the CO could not possibly have obtained permission. (The hide required going through a hole in a fence that had a "No Trespassing" sign onto property belonging to an electric power company.) When the Reviewer posted a question about it, the CO responded with a name-calling attack on me ("Mr. Less Than 100 Finds"). I refrained from returning the favor, but after looking at the CO's profile, it occurred to me that "Mr. Half My Hides are Archived" would have fit this CO. So I can see why someone would hesitate to post a NA. So early in my caching, I learned that it's a touchy subject, and that cache ownership is not for everyone. Because the reactions don't bother me, I will log NM if it's needed, and I will log NA if it is needed. In my area, the reviewers are pretty good about addressing caches that have had the NM attribute for a long time or been disabled for a long time, so the NA is seldom needed.