Needs Maintenance

[pezdisc]

I'm kind of new to Geocaching and was wondering about posting a needs maintenance log. I recently posted a needs maintenance on a cache and I noticed that it did not count towards the grand total of caches that I have found. Why is this? I found the cache, it was physically still at the coordinates. It just needed fixed. Am I not counting things correctly, or what? If that is the way things are, then can a make a second log and post it as found? (that way I can get it on my total)

[+briansnat]

You have to log a find, then a needs maintenance log.

 

If you log a needs maintenance it doesn't necessarily mean you found the cache. For instance if the cache appears to be missing you might log a needs maintenance , but you wouldn't want your find count to increase because you didn't find anything.

Edited February 28, 2007 by briansnat

[pezdisc]

You have to log a find, then a needs maintenance log.

 

If you log a needs maintenance it doesn't necessarily mean you found the cache. For instance if the cache appears to be missing you might log a needs maintenance , but you wouldn't want your find count to increase because you didn't find anything.

 

Thanks, does it have to be in that order or can I go back and make another log and post it as Found? Also thanks for the quick response.

[Trinity's Crew]

You have to log a find, then a needs maintenance log.

 

If you log a needs maintenance it doesn't necessarily mean you found the cache. For instance if the cache appears to be missing you might log a needs maintenance , but you wouldn't want your find count to increase because you didn't find anything.

 

Thanks, does it have to be in that order or can I go back and make another log and post it as Found? Also thanks for the quick response.

 

The order of the logs doesn't really matter.

[+Dear Dora]

If you didn't actually find the cache, why would you assume that the cache should have a "Needs Maintenance" log posted to it? Why would you not instead, simply post a DNF? That shoud be sufficient notice to get the cache owner's attention that something may be amiss with his/her cache.

 

The only reason I can see for posting a "Needs Maintenance" log to a cache is if the cacher finds the physical cache in poor condition such as wet, missing log, chewed by some creature, contents scattered about, etc.

 

I have had both "newbie" as well as experienced cachers post a "Needs Maintenance" log to my caches from time to time, gone out and checked on them, and have found them to be precisely where they are supposed to be in perfect condition. I take great pride in my cache maintenance. To date, I have only one archived cache and that one was an Event Cache.

 

Dear Dora

Edited March 26, 2007 by Dear Dora

[+Lil Devil]

The only reason I can see for posting a "Needs Maintenance" log to a cache is if the cacher finds the physical cache in poor condition such as wet, missing log, chewed by some creature, contents scattered about, etc.

What if I go look for your cache and I find the tupperware lid, a torn ziplock and a part of a stuffed animal? There's no logsheet to sign, no container to put a new logsheet in. If I happen to have a new container, I'll probably replace your cache, but if I don't I'm going to post a "Needs Maintenance" - but I can't - and shouldn't - log a "find" because I didn't sign the logsheet.

[+Dear Dora]

 

What if I go look for your cache and I find the tupperware lid, a torn ziplock and a part of a stuffed animal? There's no logsheet to sign, no container to put a new logsheet in. If I happen to have a new container, I'll probably replace your cache, but if I don't I'm going to post a "Needs Maintenance" - but I can't - and shouldn't - log a "find" because I didn't sign the logsheet.

 

Using the example stated in your post, you should most definitely post a "Needs Maintenance" log to the cache since having found it in such a condition. That IS the purpose of that log type. Then I would most definitely and promply deal with the cache personally. Since you had, indeed, located the "remains" of the cache, I would offer you the option of logging it as a find even though there was no logsheet to be found for you to sign. In this instance, you DESERVE the smiley!

 

Dear Dora

[+Lil Devil]

Since you had, indeed, located the "remains" of the cache, I would offer you the option of logging it as a find even though there was no logsheet to be found for you to sign. In this instance, you DESERVE the smiley!

I respectfully disagree on this point. I would absolutely NOT log a find in the case outlined. I would wait for you to replace the cache, then I would go back and find it and sign the log. Only THEN would I log a find.

 

I think offering the option to log a find just because someone was there and found remains of the cache, is lame. JMNSHO.

 

But I know everyone plays the game in their own way. You play your way. I'll play mine.

[+Glenn]

If you didn't actually find the cache, why would you assume that the cache should have a "Needs Maintenance" log posted to it? Why would you not instead, simply post a DNF? That shoud be sufficient notice to get the cache owner's attention that something may be amiss with his/her cache.

 

The only reason I can see for posting a "Needs Maintenance" log to a cache is if the cacher finds the physical cache in poor condition such as wet, missing log, chewed by some creature, contents scattered about, etc.

 

The Needs Maintenance log type was created because it was found that DNF log entries were not enough and Needs Archived were too much. Also the Needs Maintenance log type triggers the Needs Maintenance attribute to be set.

[+Glenn]

 

What if I go look for your cache and I find the tupperware lid, a torn ziplock and a part of a stuffed animal? There's no logsheet to sign, no container to put a new logsheet in. If I happen to have a new container, I'll probably replace your cache, but if I don't I'm going to post a "Needs Maintenance" - but I can't - and shouldn't - log a "find" because I didn't sign the logsheet.

 

Using the example stated in your post, you should most definitely post a "Needs Maintenance" log to the cache since having found it in such a condition. That IS the purpose of that log type. Then I would most definitely and promply deal with the cache personally. Since you had, indeed, located the "remains" of the cache, I would offer you the option of logging it as a find even though there was no logsheet to be found for you to sign. In this instance, you DESERVE the smiley!

 

Dear Dora

 

Interesting. If I logged a find every time I thought I deserved it instead of every time I actually found a cache and signed then I'd easily be one of the top ten geocache finders in the world.

[+Retcon]

A local multicache here sat for months with several DNF's (including mine) stating that the 2nd stage (of 3) was missing. Nothing was done about it.

 

I logged a Needs Maintainence and within a DAY the owner acknowledged it and is now working on fixing it.

 

I need no futher proof that you should NM a log with DNFs. I mean, if enough people can't find it, there's at least the *chance* that the owner should at least *look* at it, no?

[+The Jester]

If you didn't actually find the cache, why would you assume that the cache should have a "Needs Maintenance" log posted to it? Why would you not instead, simply post a DNF? That shoud be sufficient notice to get the cache owner's attention that something may be amiss with his/her cache.

 

The only reason I can see for posting a "Needs Maintenance" log to a cache is if the cacher finds the physical cache in poor condition such as wet, missing log, chewed by some creature, contents scattered about, etc.

 

I have had both "newbie" as well as experienced cachers post a "Needs Maintenance" log to my caches from time to time, gone out and checked on them, and have found them to be precisely where they are supposed to be in perfect condition. I take great pride in my cache maintenance. To date, I have only one archived cache and that one was an Event Cache.

 

Dear Dora

Another possible situation where a Needs Maintenance could be posted without a find is if the area is torn up/disturbed. I've seen trees that came down in a storm land right on the cache - can't find it or see it but it's under there.

[+tozainamboku]

Interesting. If I logged a find every time I thought I deserved it instead of every time I actually found a cache and signed then I'd easily be one of the top ten geocache finders in the world.

I doubt this. Do you think you deserve a find for every cache that showed up in an online search for caches? Just how many online searches have you done? The use of hyperbole does not prove the point that the puritans try to make.

 

Dear Dora was suggesting that if you find the remnants of a cache that are identifiable as the cache you have found the cache and that the cache owner could allow this to be logged as a find even though there was no log to sign. There really isn't anyone who seriously claims you should log finds online because you found your car keys or the TV remote or saw the cache listing in your online search results or downloaded it in a Pocket Query. The debate is generally over whether you were able to sign the log. Most people would allow a find if there is a reasonable excuse for not signing the log.

 

Back on topic, Needs Maintenance does not imply a find. You may have a person find a cache but couldn't sign the log who's personal rules are to not log a find in this case, but since they found enough of the cache to confirm the cache needs maintenance they can log Needs Maintenance. Again, as a matter of individual choice, someone could log a Needs Maintenance if they're pretty sure the cache is missing. For example, if the tree mentioned in the hint has been trimmed or cut down.

[Trinity's Crew]

Since you had, indeed, located the "remains" of the cache, I would offer you the option of logging it as a find even though there was no logsheet to be found for you to sign. In this instance, you DESERVE the smiley!

I respectfully disagree on this point. I would absolutely NOT log a find in the case outlined. I would wait for you to replace the cache, then I would go back and find it and sign the log. Only THEN would I log a find.

 

I think offering the option to log a find just because someone was there and found remains of the cache, is lame. JMNSHO.

 

But I know everyone plays the game in their own way. You play your way. I'll play mine.

 

I think offering the option to log a find because someone was there and found remains of the cache, is neighborly and decent. I would respectfully decline the invitation, but I would understand the spirit in which it was offered. JMNSHO. (Just My Not So Humble Opinion)

 

But I know everyone posts their opinions in their own way. You post your way. I'll post mine.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+SGM & MRS D]

We are not the average cachers, but the hunt and the find are much more important than the number attached to our profile.

[+Glenn]

Interesting. If I logged a find every time I thought I deserved it instead of every time I actually found a cache and signed then I'd easily be one of the top ten geocache finders in the world.

I doubt this. Do you think you deserve a find for every cache that showed up in an online search for caches? Just how many online searches have you done? The use of hyperbole does not prove the point that the puritans try to make.

 

Dear Dora was suggesting that if you find the remnants of a cache that are identifiable as the cache you have found the cache and that the cache owner could allow this to be logged as a find even though there was no log to sign. There really isn't anyone who seriously claims you should log finds online because you found your car keys or the TV remote or saw the cache listing in your online search results or downloaded it in a Pocket Query. The debate is generally over whether you were able to sign the log. Most people would allow a find if there is a reasonable excuse for not signing the log.

 

Back on topic, Needs Maintenance does not imply a find. You may have a person find a cache but couldn't sign the log who's personal rules are to not log a find in this case, but since they found enough of the cache to confirm the cache needs maintenance they can log Needs Maintenance. Again, as a matter of individual choice, someone could log a Needs Maintenance if they're pretty sure the cache is missing. For example, if the tree mentioned in the hint has been trimmed or cut down.

 

Wow! You pulled that one out of left field. Dear Dora and I are talking gray area logging and the not clearly wrong reason for logging that you site. I hope that everyone would agree that finding a cache by Google search isn't reason enough to make a Found It log entry.

 

Some of the reasons behind making a Found It log entry we are talking about are an owner who has his cache re-hidden so well it takes him a few hours to find his own cache or the person who goes to the cache location and can see the cache container in a tree but because of a disability can't climb the tree to sign the log or the person who finds the contents of a cache, with or with container or log, all over the ground. Those are the gray area we are talking about. I've experienced each of those situation first hand and I've participated in threads where I've heard good arguments for both logging and not logging finds in each situation.

 

P.S. who is this Puritans you are talking about? I don't see anyone with that nick in this thread. Are you referring to another thread?

[+Glenn]

We are not the average cachers, but the hunt and the find are much more important than the number attached to our profile.

 

I think you are the average cacher. You just are not the average cacher who is vocal in the forums. Those that feel that numbers are of great importance also typically look for recognition and they frequently come to the forums seeking that recognition. I am always more than a little wary of the validity of someones finds when they "toot their own horn" in the forums.

[+tozainamboku]

Wow! You pulled that one out of left field. Dear Dora and I are talking gray area logging and the not clearly wrong reason for logging that you site. I hope that everyone would agree that finding a cache by Google search isn't reason enough to make a Found It log entry.

I was responding to your claim:

If I logged a find every time I thought I deserved it instead of every time I actually found a cache and signed then I'd easily be one of the top ten geocache finders in the world.

If you are refering to just what you call the gray areas for logging a find you clearly would not be any where near being one of the top ten geocache finders in the world. (I assume this means by find count). Even if you were to count the "out of left field" examples I gave, I doubt you could inflate your numbers that much. If on the the other hand, you don't really care about numbers then there is no need to use hyperbole to make a point that you believe the find count should reflect the caches you actually found. There are many people who will claim a find when they find identifiable remains of a geocache even if there is no log to sign and there are other people who won't claim this as find.

Edited March 28, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Glenn]

The only reason I can see for posting a "Needs Maintenance" log to a cache is if the cacher finds the physical cache in poor condition such as wet, missing log, chewed by some creature, contents scattered about, etc.

What if I go look for your cache and I find the tupperware lid, a torn ziplock and a part of a stuffed animal? There's no logsheet to sign, no container to put a new logsheet in. If I happen to have a new container, I'll probably replace your cache, but if I don't I'm going to post a "Needs Maintenance" - but I can't - and shouldn't - log a "find" because I didn't sign the logsheet.

 

Did you just find a cache or just some trash on the side on of the road. I agree. I do the adopt-a-highway that my work sponsors but I wouldn't make a found log on a nearby cache after picking up trash.

[+Glenn]

Wow! You pulled that one out of left field. Dear Dora and I are talking gray area logging and the not clearly wrong reason for logging that you site. I hope that everyone would agree that finding a cache by Google search isn't reason enough to make a Found It log entry.

I was responding to your claim:

If I logged a find every time I thought I deserved it instead of every time I actually found a cache and signed then I'd easily be one of the top ten geocache finders in the world.

If you are refering to just what you call the gray areas for logging a find you clearly would not be any where near being one of the top ten geocache finders in the world. (I assume this means by find count). Even if you were to count the "out of left field" examples I gave, I doubt you could inflate your numbers that much. If on the the other hand, you don't really care about numbers then there is no need to use hyperbole to make a point that you believe the find count should reflect the caches you actually found. There are many people who will claim a find when they find identifiable remains of a geocache even if there is no log to sign and there are other people who won't claim this as find.

Yes, by find count. You are assuming that each instance would rate only one extra find. What if a different system was used. One find log for each 5 minutes looking for my own cache or one extra find log for each mosquito bite, 5 for each tick found on my body and 10 for each found attached and sucking blood. That kind of system would make my find count increase very quickly.

[+therber]

I am a newbie and I have found a cache that needs maint. and I logged it as such because the log book was so wet I could not sign it, the corners of the container were chewed and it was full of water. I will just return when it has been repaired and sign the book and log as found.

[Clan Riffster]

P.S. who is this Puritans you are talking about? I don't see anyone with that nick in this thread. Are you referring to another thread?

I think I must be one of them Puritan fellers, cuz I won't log a find unless I sign a logbook.

(uh, so.... when do I learn the secret handshake?)