ArcherDragoon

hmm...well that ain't good...I may need to redo some puzzle checks...

Nope...it will be Epic!!!

+1

The most recent of those logs: I'm sure the cache owner can change the container size, just like any of us can. But the reviewer has stated that the micro replacement cache is not the cache owner's cache, and I have to agree with him. Its been almost a month since Kansas Stasher has said that he will get over there and check on it, and yet he hasn't done so yet. That is not cache maintenance... that is cache neglect. I would agree with this... [opinion] I think the reviewer was making a comment about those not finding the cache and placing a "throw-down" mirco in order to be able to log the cache...and addressing emails and comments the reviewer most likely received from various people watching that cache and asking some one to step in and do something... [/opinion]

Depends on how/where it is placed and permission...

+1

Just to add...regardless of what others may/may not have done to "get around" the policies...it is always best to follow those policies... The old saying (and I may mess it up) about asking forgiveness is easier than permission is a bunch of bull...it is the easy/lazy way out of actually doing what one knows should be done in the first place...

I know our local reviewers know of the requirements and would request prior to a cache being published that it is clear you followed all the steps required of the local laws...

Ok...that is the funniest post I have read in a long time...I don't agree...but still funny!!!

Loaded Question(s)... Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners? -Yes, the attention and/or intervention of Reviewers would be different...to use Totem's statement..."We are all big boys and girls here. At least we claim we are. It's our job to take care of the caches once published. A reviewer should never have to be concered or even look at NM's if the rest of us do our job." If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case? -No...because not evey NM log means the same things. As I mentioned earlier, I got a NM on a cache for having a dull pencil...not missing, not broken, not moldy (which I have seen)...but dull!!! I even had a pencil sharpener in the cache for the pencil and yet they posted a NM log for a dull pencil... NA and NM are a case by case basis...everyone should be encoraged to post the log they think is best in the situation and not have to be worried about being called "Cache Police". For me, personally, the NM log is used for container/cache issues for which I am unable to fix while at the cache with what I bring in my basic Geocache First-Aid kit...I have posted a couple NA logs as well...a couple for legality issues...and one because the cacher removed the cache and was not going to place anything but did not archive the listing...and some for neglect over a period of several months and some for a couple years... My First-Aid kit...just to name some of the items... -Extra Logs (varying sizes) -Extra Baggies (though, many times the baggies do more harm than good) -Extra Pencils 9varying sizes) -Extra Pencil Sharpeners -Materials to dry contents -Duct Tape -Electrical Tape (makes for a good seal material on some containers) -Extra Stash/Cache Notes -Extra Containers (typically those are in the vehicle...I will carry one if I know one is needed for a particular cache) -Extra String Many times, that list has been good enough to fix an issue...sometimes it is no more than a bandaid...but, at least it helps until the owner or someone more prepared can help (if they so make the choice). Not once did (or do I plan) to fix such things then immediately turn around to tell a reviewer of that cache and tell them to keep an eye on it...I will email the owner and let them know what I did in case they need to come prepared to do something else with the cache. Heck...vast majority of the time i don't mention such things in my logs...I don't do it to seek praise or attention, I do it because it is the right thing to do and hopefully the "pay it forward" mentality moves forward...little steps are needed for big changes some times... ok...enough of my soap box...sorry... PS...Fizzy has a strong opinion on the subject...so, why do you want that taken to email...here in this thread is just fine...I welcome his opinion and would like to see what others say as well... You wanted opinions and you are getting opinions...even if they are not matching yours, they still are important and do matter in the conversation here...

Could you elaborate? Review happens with what info is available at the time a cache is submitted (both from the cacher her/himself and local policy)...when followup is needed from a reviewer about land use, local policy updates, and general possible illegal status...this crosses more to being the enforcer of the new info and less about review...

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages... You are, in essence, saying what I am saying. Review still occurs after publishing in many forms. Some Reviewers continue their service to the game by looking into NM issues, and others by reviewing once a NA is logged. Both are examples of "geocache review" that doesn't end after publishing. Careful what you say about upholding the standards of the community in general. It would appear fizzymagic will pounce on such statements. I am saying they (reviewers) get involved when they are told of a problem...I do not expect them to hover over caches by setting up PQ's to find caches with the NM flags...They want to do that...fine...but I hope that never becomes a requirement of reviewers. If that happens...that starts down a road of question of responsibility...for which, I beleive the owner should be held responsible, not the reviewer... By getting involved when they are made aware of a problem by the community in general, that is what I mean by the continuation of the Review process...which is more in line with Fizzy...I don't think (and I don't feel) it is the job of reviewers to continually monitor caches... Edit to Add: Looking at it...my feelings are less about review and more about policy and guidelines when it comes to "additonal review" as talked about here...

Along those similar lines...I have had other geocachers stand on my shoulders in order to reach a cache when we didn't have a ladder...

Regarding County Parks... I maintain a personal connection with the park managers and county person in charge of the overall park system where I normally cache. Ask some local cachers about it...send them a message or two, they will usually let you know of any local guidelines that may be in place.

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages... I think the biggest challenge here is changing the community preception that those that use NM or NA (typically NA more so than NM) are acting as the "cache police"...the community in general needs to get better at monitoring caches and upholding the standards of the community in general.

+1 If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place. So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted? What if you try to contact the owner and get no response? I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then? I am not sure what you are missing...many have said in this thread, send a message to a reviewer at any time, they/he/she will look into it. Post an NA when you feel it is needed. Reviewers will see it and look into the situation. As for a the number of NM logs...that is going to vary based on the location, the cacher, and the general community of cachers, as well as what the NM is being posted for... I had a NM posted on a cache of mine once because it had a dull pencil (not broken...dull)...I doubt a NA would be needed for that... I'm not missing anything. I didn't start this thread to answer a procedural question; I know how to log maintenance or archive logs. I understand that every situation is different, and that coming up with specific examples in this thread will be a pointlessly endless endeavor. I asked those questions to encourage critical thought and give some other perspectives. Just because I've asked the question doesn't mean I don't know an answer. Each person has their own understanding, knowledge, process, effort, growth and skill. It's an educational fact, and I'm asking questions to dig deeper into what the "community" thinks and does. I find it interesting. I have also found it interesting how quick people are to assume and needle in the forums. Ok then, fari enough...but, I will pose the question back to you...when do you think NM and NA logs should be used...or how? We have seen other answers...but, would like to know your opinion as well.

+1

+1 If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place. So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted? What if you try to contact the owner and get no response? I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then? I am not sure what you are missing...many have said in this thread, send a message to a reviewer at any time, they/he/she will look into it. Post an NA when you feel it is needed. Reviewers will see it and look into the situation. As for a the number of NM logs...that is going to vary based on the location, the cacher, and the general community of cachers, as well as what the NM is being posted for... I had a NM posted on a cache of mine once because it had a dull pencil (not broken...dull)...I doubt a NA would be needed for that...

In my opinion...no, this is not an acceptable way to increase difficulty.

When I look for a cache but did not find it...I log a DNF...

+1 If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

...nevermind...

Just to further clarify, the above statement is only true for a Needs Archived log and not a Needs Maintenance correct?. Or in other words, does a Needs Maintenance log alert a reviewer, it is my understanding it does not? That would be my understanding as well...pointed out in many treads visited by Keystone...

Briansnat post brings up the point about the event coin a while back... Eat, Meet and Greet...very simple concept, but very effective!!!

I am fine with larger bison tubes!!!