Cache owners not playing by the rules

[+Mudfrog]

And for the record, we had a NM log come in on one of our caches after hurricane Rita went through last year. It worked the way it was supposed to do and got my attention quickly. Oh, and it certainly didn't offend me in any way.

 

That was a year ago! I thought NM logs were new. And this is the first time I ever heard of the Maintenance Performed log. Maybe others have a long learning curve too?

 

Hmmm, i was thinking Rita was the cause of the troubles but i went back, read the logs, and found that i laid blame where i shouldn't have. Rita did cause problems and i did maintenance to fix those, but the cache developed another problem later on this year and that's when the May 2nd NM log came in.

[+sbell111]

The way the system is designed to work is that JoeCacher posts a Needs Maintenance note for JanOwner's cache. That sets a Needs Maintenace attribute on JanOwner's cache page and she receives an e-mail copy of the Needs Maintenance note.

 

After JanOwner performs the needed maintenance she posts an Owner Maintenance log. This automatically resets the Needs Maintenance attribute.

 

There is no need to delete anything. These logs are all a part of the cache history and belong there as much as any DNF, Note or "Found It'.

Nice response and I mostly agree with it. However, you are missing the impact on PQs.

 

Let's look at the perfect scenario according to some responders:

• Finder A finds a cache. According to his GPSr, the coords were off by 20 feet. He posts his 'found' log with coords.
  
• Finder B finds the cache and posts his 'found' log (he makes no mention of whether the coords were good or not).
  
• Finder C finds the cache and now the log is full. He logs his 'found it' and a 'NM'. He makes no mention of the coords.
  
• Owner D posts a note, 'Thanks for the heads up. I'll take another out tomorrow'.
  
• Owner D then replaces the logbook, and posts a 'maintenance performed' log.
  

I run my PQ and head out. I search, but come up empty because I don't have Finder A's info. All I have is a bunch of useless logs discussing a very minor problem that has already been resolved.

Edited August 22, 2006 by sbell111

[+The Jester]

The way the system is designed to work is that JoeCacher posts a Needs Maintenance note for JanOwner's cache. That sets a Needs Maintenace attribute on JanOwner's cache page and she receives an e-mail copy of the Needs Maintenance note.

 

After JanOwner performs the needed maintenance she posts an Owner Maintenance log. This automatically resets the Needs Maintenance attribute.

 

There is no need to delete anything. These logs are all a part of the cache history and belong there as much as any DNF, Note or "Found It'.

Nice response and I mostly agree with it. However, you are missing the impact on PQs.

 

Let's look at the perfect scenario according to some responders:

• Finder A finds a cache. According to his GPSr, the coords were off by 20 feet. He posts his 'found' log with coords.
  
• Finder B finds the cache and posts his 'found' log (he makes no mention of whether the coords were good or not).
  
• Finder C finds the cache and now the log is full. He logs his 'found it' and a 'NM'. He makes no mention of the coords.
  
• Owner D posts a note, 'Thanks for the heads up. I'll take another out tomorrow'.
  
• Owner D then replaces the logbook, and posts a 'maintenance performed' log.
  

I run my PQ and head out. I search, but come up empty because I don't have Finder A's info. All I have is a bunch of useless logs discussing a very minor problem that has already been resolved.

In the "perfect" scenario, the owner would have checked the coords and updated those if needed, so you wouldn't need Finder A's log. If, as sometimes happens, the sat's were 'wierd' that day, Finder A's coords might not help you anyhow.

[+sbell111]

In the "perfect" scenario, the owner would have checked the coords and updated those if needed, so you wouldn't need Finder A's log. If, as sometimes happens, the sat's were 'wierd' that day, Finder A's coords might not help you anyhow.

I don't think so. As a cache owner, I might not head out if I only had one mention of coords 20 feet off on a cache that has been found several times.

[+MountainMudbug]

Most typically the last 7 logs will be something like "Out on a caching run in Town X today with Cachers Y & Z. SL TNLN TFTC!" so that's a big help

[+sbell111]

Still, I'm probably not the only one who takes a look at the logs if all else fails.

[+MountainMudbug]

Hey, I don't disagree with you, we generally read most of the recent logs before we head out and take that info (if ANY) into consideration before we go. We don't download anything into our GPS, we still hand enter everything. But in many instances the logs really are of the non-helpful variety and don't give much info relating to the cache, aside from the fact that somebody was able to find it. Which at least tells you it should still be there..... hopefully.....

 

(Sorry for the thread derailment)

[+thedeadpirate]

In the "perfect" scenario, the owner would have checked the coords and updated those if needed, so you wouldn't need Finder A's log. If, as sometimes happens, the sat's were 'wierd' that day, Finder A's coords might not help you anyhow.

I don't think so. As a cache owner, I might not head out if I only had one mention of coords 20 feet off on a cache that has been found several times.

 

But in the perfect scenario the owner would take new readings while changing out the logbook to see if the coords were off or not. I mean, if you are making a maintenance run, why not verify the coords as well?

[+sbell111]

In the "perfect" scenario, the owner would have checked the coords and updated those if needed, so you wouldn't need Finder A's log. If, as sometimes happens, the sat's were 'wierd' that day, Finder A's coords might not help you anyhow.

I don't think so. As a cache owner, I might not head out if I only had one mention of coords 20 feet off on a cache that has been found several times.

 

But in the perfect scenario the owner would take new readings while changing out the logbook to see if the coords were off or not. I mean, if you are making a maintenance run, why not verify the coords as well?

One person suggested they were twenty feet off. Let's say the cache owner found them to be accurate within ten feet. He likely wouldn't update them.

[+thedeadpirate]

In the "perfect" scenario, the owner would have checked the coords and updated those if needed, so you wouldn't need Finder A's log. If, as sometimes happens, the sat's were 'wierd' that day, Finder A's coords might not help you anyhow.

I don't think so. As a cache owner, I might not head out if I only had one mention of coords 20 feet off on a cache that has been found several times.

 

But in the perfect scenario the owner would take new readings while changing out the logbook to see if the coords were off or not. I mean, if you are making a maintenance run, why not verify the coords as well?

One person suggested they were twenty feet off. Let's say the cache owner found them to be accurate within ten feet. He likely wouldn't update them.

 

I didn't say update the coords. I said take new readings and verify. Jester said "updated if needed". The point being that if the owner is doing a maintenance run to change out the logbook, and there have been some complaints in the past about the coords, then take that opportunity to check the coords as well. If the coords are badly off and the owner feels they warrant updating, then update the coords. If they are fine, then in the maintenance log also include something about checking the coords and the current ones being fine. In either case, it's not going to matter that cacher A's note doesn't show up in the PQ because the owner dealth with both issues in his/her maintenance log.

 

Of course this was OT meandering was about PQ's and the perfect scenario.

 

Either way there is no real good reason to delete the needs maintenance log. Just do the maintenance and clear the attribute. Done deal.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

GOOD GRIEF !

[+PAWSitraction]

The way the system is designed to work is that JoeCacher posts a Needs Maintenance note for JanOwner's cache. That sets a Needs Maintenace attribute on JanOwner's cache page and she receives an e-mail copy of the Needs Maintenance note.

 

After JanOwner performs the needed maintenance she posts an Owner Maintenance log. This automatically resets the Needs Maintenance attribute.

 

There is no need to delete anything. These logs are all a part of the cache history and belong there as much as any DNF, Note or "Found It'.

Nice response and I mostly agree with it. However, you are missing the impact on PQs.

 

Let's look at the perfect scenario according to some responders:

• Finder A finds a cache. According to his GPSr, the coords were off by 20 feet. He posts his 'found' log with coords.
  
• Finder B finds the cache and posts his 'found' log (he makes no mention of whether the coords were good or not).
  
• Finder C finds the cache and now the log is full. He logs his 'found it' and a 'NM'. He makes no mention of the coords.
  
• Owner D posts a note, 'Thanks for the heads up. I'll take another out tomorrow'.
  
• Owner D then replaces the logbook, and posts a 'maintenance performed' log.
  

I run my PQ and head out. I search, but come up empty because I don't have Finder A's info. All I have is a bunch of useless logs discussing a very minor problem that has already been resolved.

 

I've seen this several times as an argument against NM logs and whatnot. I've checked into the settings on GSAK and CacheMate - if you use both those programs, you can have them set to give up to nine past logs. Four or five is the default, but you can change it.

If the cache has nine logs all in a row dealing with maintenance issues, then I usually put it on my "eh...maybe later...this cache has so many issues, it should get a subscription," list.

Edited August 22, 2006 by PAWSitraction

[+baloo&bd]

I've checked into the settings on GSAK and CacheMate - if you use both those programs, you can have them set to give up to nine past logs. Four or five is the default, but you can change it.

 

OT: Cachemate and GSAK have no limitation (other than maybe memory) about how many past logs you can see. The 5 log limit is the PQ.

[+sbell111]

I've seen this several times as an argument against NM logs and whatnot. I've checked into the settings on GSAK and CacheMate - if you use both those programs, you can have them set to give up to nine past logs. Four or five is the default, but you can change it.

If the cache has nine logs all in a row dealing with maintenance issues, then I usually put it on my "eh...maybe later...this cache has so many issues, it should get a subscription," list.

Set GSAK however you want. The PQ is still only going to provide five logs.

[Clan Riffster]

this cache has so many issues, it should get a subscription,"

I like that! Reminds me of some cachers I've met in here.

(sorry for the "snarky" OT comment. The Devil made me do it)

[Earleheart°]

GOOD GRIEF !

I second that. And I'm having a nice day. LOl

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I'll read the logs before I leave home, I take only my GPSr caching and rely on my memory from there. Been a few times having notes would have made it easier but the search is the whole fun of the game.

[+Confucius' Cat]

In the "perfect" scenario, the owner would have checked the coords and updated those if needed, so you wouldn't need Finder A's log. If, as sometimes happens, the sat's were 'wierd' that day, Finder A's coords might not help you anyhow.

I don't think so. As a cache owner, I might not head out if I only had one mention of coords 20 feet off on a cache that has been found several times.

 

But in the perfect scenario the owner would take new readings while changing out the logbook to see if the coords were off or not. I mean, if you are making a maintenance run, why not verify the coords as well?

One person suggested they were twenty feet off. Let's say the cache owner found them to be accurate within ten feet. He likely wouldn't update them.

 

Ten feet, twenty feet, neither one worth updating the coords. If you can't find a cache with coords off 20' you are probably not going to have much success anyway. The GPS doesn't FIND the cache *LOOK RIGHT HERE* you are the search engine.

 

I would submit that all the online logs are unnecessary (though perhaps helpful). As for my techinque, (who cares?) I print the pages without logs and if they go over 1 page printed, i often don't have the clue either. Sometimes this causes a DNF- they are part of the game and fun too.

[+PAWSitraction]

I've checked into the settings on GSAK and CacheMate - if you use both those programs, you can have them set to give up to nine past logs. Four or five is the default, but you can change it.

 

OT: Cachemate and GSAK have no limitation (other than maybe memory) about how many past logs you can see. The 5 log limit is the PQ.

Oh, OK. THanks.

[+Ed & Julie]

Honestly, I have found that the caches of high-numbers cachers are the ones in most need of maintenance, and the slowest ones to get maintenance.

 

Ed

[+The Leprechauns]

As luck would have it, this week I visited both the caches that have generated this whinging-fest. One was a very enjoyable nanocache find and we had no trouble squeezing our name onto the tiny and full log. The other one we DNF'd, as have a number of experienced recent visitors. But that cache area was pretty interesting also.

 

So, we had fun at both caches on our random visit, unrelated to this forum thread. They just happened to be on the route we were traveling, 225 miles from home. I told my daughter that the caches were being discussed in a forum thread. She shook her head and said "they should go find some caches. We are having more fun today than they are."

 

I encountered a number of full logs on the caches in this area. I noted these in my online logs, and I am sure they'll be addressed in due course. The full logs and DNF's did not detract from my enjoyment of a cache-guided tour of Pennsylvania Dutch Country.

[+cimawr]

 

No. But with plenty of caches in the area, why would I not wait for this one to be ready when I get there? Yes I enjoy the hike, but if I can't sign the log, then it is not a real find. Why spend time doing that when I can hike to a cache that has room on the log?

 

As a newbie to both the sport and the forums, I'm finding this thread both entertaining (in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way) and informative.

 

And my first thought on seeing the above statement is... "Gee, maybe I should carry some log forms in my caching backpack in case I find a full log.". I carry a pen and a mini-sharpie in case the provided signing implement is missing or not working, I could carry some logs too.... and it's not like a few sheets of folded paper is exactly going to weigh things down! Seems like common sense to me...

 

O'course, as my Mamgi was fond of saying, "Common sense ain't".

 

It also seems like common sense to realize that somone with 300+ caches isn't necessarily going to be able to do maintenence quickly... being a newb, can someone fill me in on history? Is this a case of someone starting out as a collective, and others dropping out and leaving her holding the fort? (I'm also in the Mid-Atlantic, and have some of CCC's caches in my "to look for" list, so I've got more than casual interest.)

[+LadeBear68]

I don't believe that she started out as a team of cachers going in several different directions if that is what you mean. Her family does cache with her but I believe her youngest daughter has her own geocaching name.

[+eagletrek]

It is cachers like this who are turning this sport bad. I hope there is someway to nip this in the bud.

 

Um, SHE is one of our most respected geocachers, and her hides, along with her 15,000+ finds logged, may qualify her as the most experienced and highest finder in the world.

 

 

That may be your opinion but not mine! Folks like her give caching a bad name, in my opinion.

[+sbell111]

That may be your opinion but not mine! Folks like her give caching a bad name, in my opinion.

[+briansnat]

That may be your opinion but not mine! Folks like her give caching a bad name, in my opinion.

 

Folk like that don't give geocaching a bad name. The ones who give geocaching a bad name are the ones who ignore posted park hours, tear up the ground around a cache, trespass and drive vehicles where they aren't allowed in search of caches and drill holes in trees and vandalize property when hiding caches.

 

Those kinds of practices reflect on the sport as a whole. Logging practices only reflect on the individual. Say what you want, but the person in question isn't guilty of the kind of stuff that gives this sport a black eye.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The way the system is designed to work is that JoeCacher posts a Needs Maintenance note for JanOwner's cache. That sets a Needs Maintenace attribute on JanOwner's cache page and she receives an e-mail copy of the Needs Maintenance note.

 

After JanOwner performs the needed maintenance she posts an Owner Maintenance log. This automatically resets the Needs Maintenance attribute.

 

There is no need to delete anything. These logs are all a part of the cache history and belong there as much as any DNF, Note or "Found It'.

Nice response and I mostly agree with it. However, you are missing the impact on PQs.

 

Let's look at the perfect scenario according to some responders:

• Finder A finds a cache. According to his GPSr, the coords were off by 20 feet. He posts his 'found' log with coords.
  
• Finder B finds the cache and posts his 'found' log (he makes no mention of whether the coords were good or not).
  
• Finder C finds the cache and now the log is full. He logs his 'found it' and a 'NM'. He makes no mention of the coords.
  
• Owner D posts a note, 'Thanks for the heads up. I'll take another out tomorrow'.
  
• Owner D then replaces the logbook, and posts a 'maintenance performed' log.
  

I run my PQ and head out. I search, but come up empty because I don't have Finder A's info. All I have is a bunch of useless logs discussing a very minor problem that has already been resolved.

How would deleting the notes help when finder#1 posts corrected coords and the maintenance isn't done until after finder#25? I've seen several caches where one person posts corrected coords but they are never changed on the cache page. All you see are logs saying "Found it using finder#1's coords..." Even if the maintenance logs are deleted, after 5 finds are posted those coords won't be in your PQ anyway.

[+sbell111]

How would deleting the notes help when finder#1 posts corrected coords and the maintenance isn't done until after finder#25? I've seen several caches where one person posts corrected coords but they are never changed on the cache page. All you see are logs saying "Found it using finder#1's coords..." Even if the maintenance logs are deleted, after 5 finds are posted those coords won't be in your PQ anyway.

Yeah. That's why I didn't use 25 hypothetical finders in my example.

[+Alan2]

Lynn CCCooper Agency seems to always get a hit from time to time. Maybe its jealousy - she not only has the most finds but probably the most hides. While I never her met her face to face I;ve done some of her caches and sh'es done mine.

 

When I was trying to get info to set up some of my many Covered Bridge tours in PA, she was so kind to send me without asking or befoprehand knowledge a VHS video tape travelogue of the Lancaster Co bridges and throw in a tour of the Railroads and enginese of the steam age. - all at her cost.

 

She's a great gal in my book.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Alan2

[ju66l3r]

 

Finder A finds a cache. According to his GPSr, the coords were off by 20 feet. He posts his 'found' log with coords.

...

I run my PQ and head out. I search, but come up empty because I don't have Finder A's info. All I have is a bunch of useless logs discussing a very minor problem that has already been resolved.

 

Um, if you can't find a cache that's only 20 feet away with the original coords, then you have a bigger problem as a geocacher than the 3 log limit of a PQ being full of maintenance logs.

[+Team Smokey]

 

She's a great gal in my book.

I'm sure she is. But you really didn't read the posts did you? It has nothing to do with HER the person. It has to do with the maintenance of placed caches. Hello...can you hear me now?

 

When I made the OP, I didn't know anything about this gal including how many caches she found or hid. I didn't know her reputation good AND bad in the geocaching community.

 

It does seem, however, that her friends DO stick up for her. That's great. I stick up for my friends too. How about one of her friends go out and maintain or adopt her caches for her since it seems that she doesn't want to?

[+CheshireFrog]

I'm sure she is. But you really didn't read the posts did you? It has nothing to do with HER the person. It has to do with the maintenance of placed caches. Hello...can you hear me now?

 

 

Well, that's just disingenuous.

 

I've never met her. Never attended an event she was at. Never done one of her caches. Don't know what her find count is, or how she racked it up. More to the point, I don't care.

 

But when you wrote:

 

It is cachers like this who are turning this sport bad.

 

based on a full logbook and having a log deleted, it was about her the person, now wasn't it?

[+olbluesguy]

If you are the first person to notice a problem,mention it in your log, or email the owner.You have done your part go away.

 

If you are the second person to notice the problem,post the info,but Wait!..give the owner a chance to do something about it since the last guy posted.

 

If your the third finder,and If time has passed and nothing has been done. mention in your log or email That witout a valid reason this cache will be considered abandoned.and you will send out an SBA message for

the World to see.

Better check to see if he.s still around and active too. Maybe he'll have assumed room temperature and nobody knows it,and we will all be in here trashing his wet logs.

 

If not,He already knows the cache in Question needs maintainance so there is no need fo a NM log.

 

Since we have flogged this horse into submission.I believe that we should turn our whips onto the cachers that can't put things back where they found them which causes DNF & NM logs.

 

I'm done,the medicine is srarting to work,and I missed the space bare twice

O'BG

[+Quiggle]

Seems this one has run its course, other than as a mud-slinging fest. Plenty of advice for the OP on how to handle the situation has been provided and there's nothing left to see here.

 

Happy caching!