Maintaining Caches

[+Royalott]

I posted this in a reply to another post down below and thought it might be an interesting topic.

 

Maybe it has been gone over before but I thought I would post it here.

 

I realize I am a newbie complaired to most enjoying this hobby but just why the heck don't some people maintain their cashes?? I hunted a cashe recently that I had already located. I was trying out my new Garmin Map60 and wanted to see how close I could get to it. It took me right to it so the numbers were great. I looked and it was not there. I spent 20 minutes hunting to make sure. I thought it had been moved a little bit but no luck. This was in the middle of November. I just checked and there has been no comment that our observations have even been seen by the owner.

 

I went to the web page and saw that the previous poster had found it scattered all over the place. It was reported and nobody tended it. Does this show respect for the hunter? Does the person that hides them and posts the locations responsibility end at that moment?

 

By far, most take care of their cashes but this is just one of my pet peeves.

 

I don't mind not finding them, I just go back but when I find that I have wasted a lot of time looking for a cashe in an uninteresting place that is not there, I get tight jawed

 

I am learning though to read the comments of the previous hunters. I didn't do it at first but I am finding it rather important.

 

Am I the only one that feels this is rude?

Edited December 11, 2007 by Royalott

[+sbell111]

Sometimes, life gets in the way and it can take a little while to make a maintenance run.

 

I used to just go out and see if I could find the DNFd caches, but gas (and time) is just too expensive. To avoid these caches, I use GSAK to identify the caches in my PQ that have multiple recent DNFs. I don't send these caches to my GPSr or pda. If a future PQ finds that they have been found again or visited by the owner, I'll go look for them.

Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+robert]

There are lots of reasons people don't maintain their caches, including laziness, the holidays, being deployed, work, family issues, no longer caching, putting too many caches out there to look after them all, etc. It's disappointing, but by reading some of the logs ahead of time or some creative filtering of pocket queries you can avoid it. Otherwise just chalk it up to experience and move on, don't let it ruin your fun.

 

Edited December 11, 2007 by robert

[+Renegade Knight]

...Am I the only one that feels this is rude?

 

You are not the only one who has this as a pet peeve.

 

It's only rude if they did it to snub you. Since I doubt they did and it's not personal no It's not rude. Just less than ideal. Much like life. Which brings us to attitude. You get out of life and caching what you bring to it.

[+admo1972]

Well, caches are placed by people, and people can vary. Now that I have been caching 8 months, I often can recognize the name of someone who has placed the cache. When the name is someone new, or one I don't recognize, that puts up a yellow flag of caution for me. 9 times out of 10 the cache is fine and maintained.

 

I think that some people have too many caches out there to maintain, or they may have given up the game and their caches are left there to their own devices. You can always post a needs maintenance log, and that cache will be noted to a reviewer. If, after a while there is still no maintenance or at least contact by the cache owner, the local reviewer can archive it.

 

So yes, I often look at these things when looking for a cache:

name of the cache owner: Often it will be someone I know or at least know of. And, this even serves as a hint in some cases, ad you tend to learn the kinds of hides different people prefer. Although some of the toughest finds are often those by a cache owner who changes his MO, so sometimes this can be a handicap!

 

recent logs: If there are a string of DNF's, need maintenence notes, etc, I may not even go. Some obvious exceptions are those caches that are devious hides where strings of DNF's are the norm.

 

And on rare occasions, I will look at the profile of the cache owner and see how many caches they have found. If they only have a few finds, and have already placed one or more caches, I'd be wary that they will maintain, as they may give up the game and just not maintain. So many people (myself included) want to place a cache after they found their first! But I restrained my self, and still have no hides after 200 finds! I did ask for permission for one hide, and was denied by the land owner. But this is another story...

[+Tresco]

I'm thinking of stepping up and adopting a cache in my area that has been muggled. I'm a newbie and don't want to screw it up. Any sugestions?

[+admo1972]

If the cache is archived, no need to adopt. Just place the cache and submit it for review. If the cache is not archived, ask the cache owner to send you an adoption request if the owner is done with the cache.

[+briansnat]

I'm thinking of stepping up and adopting a cache in my area that has been muggled. I'm a newbie and don't want to screw it up. Any sugestions?

 

If it's gone and the owner is AWOL, then it should just be archived. There is nothing to adopt.

[+elmuyloco5]

You can always post a needs maintenance log, and that cache will be noted to a reviewer. If, after a while there is still no maintenance or at least contact by the cache owner, the local reviewer can archive it.

 

Reviewers correct me if I'm wrong, but according to mine anyway.....they don't receive any notification of the "needs maintenance" logs (unless they have the cache on a watchlist and would therefore see it like any other cacher that has the cache on their watchlist). Those are supposed to be specifically for the owners to see that their cache needs some TLC. In order for a reviewer to see the cache needs help, it has to be a "should be archived" log.

[+robert]

You can always post a needs maintenance log, and that cache will be noted to a reviewer. If, after a while there is still no maintenance or at least contact by the cache owner, the local reviewer can archive it.

Reviewers correct me if I'm wrong, but according to mine anyway.....they don't receive any notification of the "needs maintenance" logs (unless they have the cache on a watchlist and would therefore see it like any other cacher that has the cache on their watchlist). Those are supposed to be specifically for the owners to see that their cache needs some TLC. In order for a reviewer to see the cache needs help, it has to be a "should be archived" log.

Right, reviewers do NOT see the needs maintenance log, that's for the owner. If the NM log doesn't get any action and the cache continues in disrepair, a Needs Archived log can be submitted, which does go to the local reviewer who can decide what to do from that point.

 

edit: here's a recent thread about that http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=179211

Edited December 11, 2007 by robert

[Ferreter5]

Sometimes, life gets in the way and it can take a little while to make a maintenance run.

Yep, that's true. It usually take me a week to several weeks to get out to do maintenance when a probblem is reported. I'll usually disable the listing until then.

 

One cache finder reported this on one of my caches that needed maintenance and where I'd already diabled the listing. It sort of torqued me off:

 

Its been over two weeks since this has been reported why haven't you been there!

It had only been exactly two weeks since the problem in question was reported and I had disabled the listing.

 

I don't know, maybe I am a bad cache owner and shouldn't be hiding any caches if I can't get out to do maintenance within a couple of days. But, given the sorry state in which I've see a few caches I don't think I'm the worst cache owner by a long shot.

[+private bones]

Sometimes, life gets in the way and it can take a little while to make a maintenance run.

Yep, that's true. It usually take me a week to several weeks to get out to do maintenance when a probblem is reported. I'll usually disable the listing until then.

 

One cache finder reported this on one of my caches that needed maintenance and where I'd already diabled the listing. It sort of torqued me off:

 

Its been over two weeks since this has been reported why haven't you been there!

It had only been exactly two weeks since the problem in question was reported and I had disabled the listing.

 

I don't know, maybe I am a bad cache owner and shouldn't be hiding any caches if I can't get out to do maintenance within a couple of days. But, given the sorry state in which I've see a few caches I don't think I'm the worst cache owner by a long shot.

 

Hey, at least you are checking your emails and taking the steps to temporarily disable the cache. As a cache owner, you have taken immediate action until you can physically get to the cache ASAP. And, IMO, two weeks isn't a crime.

 

If a cacher has a problem with that, sounds like they have a wee touch of that "entitlement" virus that goes around from time to time

[+Renegade Knight]

You can always post a needs maintenance log, and that cache will be noted to a reviewer. If, after a while there is still no maintenance or at least contact by the cache owner, the local reviewer can archive it.

 

Reviewers correct me if I'm wrong, but according to mine anyway.....they don't receive any notification of the "needs maintenance" logs (unless they have the cache on a watchlist and would therefore see it like any other cacher that has the cache on their watchlist). Those are supposed to be specifically for the owners to see that their cache needs some TLC. In order for a reviewer to see the cache needs help, it has to be a "should be archived" log.

 

You understand correctly.

A regular log that says "Needs maintaince" and a NM log that says "Needs Maintance" are pretty much the same thing to an active cache owner. I'm not sure the NM log actually serves any higher purpose other than to let folks filter out caches that need some kind of maintence.

 

Reivewers to sort through caches and disable the ones that need maintance. Then archive those if there is no action.

 

I think it's important to distinguish that some caches need maintance but they are there, they are something you can find and that makes them viable and they should not be archived. Others are MIA and that's different.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Hey, at least you are checking your emails and taking the steps to temporarily disable the cache. As a cache owner, you have taken immediate action until you can physically get to the cache ASAP. And, IMO, two weeks isn't a crime.

 

If a cacher has a problem with that, sounds like they have a wee touch of that "entitlement" virus that goes around from time to time

 

ASAP is for real life. Hobbies are at someones earliest convenience.

[+private bones]

ASAP is for real life. Hobbies are at someones earliest convenience.

 

I thought this was my real life? Otherwise why I am I sitting here typing this at 10:44 on a Tuesday morning? Hmm, no wonder sales are down, my husband thinks I'm having an internet affair, my dog needs a bath and my child's first words were MAMA CMPUTR

[+elmuyloco5]

 

I think it's important to distinguish that some caches need maintance but they are there, they are something you can find and that makes them viable and they should not be archived. Others are MIA and that's different.

 

I agree completely. I would also add that not enough people use the NM logs, for whatever reason, but then seem to be upset when they find caches in need of repair. There are certainly those owners who don't take proper care of their caches and don't seem to keep good communication with their finders. But, if people don't tell someone the cache needs TLC, then how will the owner know?

 

We've been to several that we had made a note that the contents were wet, container cracked, etc. Then after our log are others saying "great cache", "if you want to see wet, come to TX", etc. It makes us look like we're just being picky in our assessment, but the caches really did need repair. It's beyond me why some cachers are afraid to tell the owner the truth. It's like they think a NM log means the cache stunk, or it's somehow putting the owner down. Sometimes it's not the owner's fault the cache needs help cause no one bothers to let them know.

[+paleolith]

If it's gone and the owner is AWOL, then it should just be archived. There is nothing to adopt.

There is the web page and the history to adopt. Sometimes this is worth it. Not always by any means. If it's a long-running cache which was a Good Cache at one time but whose owner is MIA, then I'd try to adopt it. If it was lame from the beginning and never maintained and only found a few times, I'd ask for it to be archived.

 

To adopt a cache whose owner is MIA, see these instructions.

 

Edward

[+Renegade Knight]

ASAP is for real life. Hobbies are at someones earliest convenience.

 

I thought this was my real life?...

 

That changes everthing.

[+trainlove]

You can always post a needs maintenance log, and that cache will be noted to a reviewer. If, after a while there is still no maintenance or at least contact by the cache owner, the local reviewer can archive it.

 

Reviewers correct me if I'm wrong, but according to mine anyway.....they don't receive any notification of the "needs maintenance" logs (unless they have the cache on a watchlist and would therefore see it like any other cacher that has the cache on their watchlist). Those are supposed to be specifically for the owners to see that their cache needs some TLC. In order for a reviewer to see the cache needs help, it has to be a "should be archived" log.

 

You understand correctly.

A regular log that says "Needs maintaince" and a NM log that says "Needs Maintance" are pretty much the same thing to an active cache owner. I'm not sure the NM log actually serves any higher purpose other than to let folks filter out caches that need some kind of maintence.

 

Reivewers to sort through caches and disable the ones that need maintance. Then archive those if there is no action.

 

I think it's important to distinguish that some caches need maintance but they are there, they are something you can find and that makes them viable and they should not be archived. Others are MIA and that's different.

 

THe NM does somehow affect how a cache is seen by GSAK. It 'FLAGS' the cache and that can't go away until the owner (definately) or reviewer (possibly) do soomething to fix it. So use NM's sparingly.

 

Now in Mass, our reviewer must have a watchlist set up to send her all NM's. She's quite fast, ~2 weeks, to send out a warning message to a cache owner and then ~2 more weeks if nothing is done to temporarily archive the cache.

There's one that's been archived now for almost a year. I guess those 2 cute young girls don't cache anymore.

Pottersville. It was quite necessary for a particular Massachusetts Delorme grid square until another cache was planted in the small bit on Mass in that square.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Now in Mass, our reviewer must have a watchlist set up to send her all NM's. She's quite fast, ~2 weeks, to send out a warning message to a cache owner and then ~2 more weeks if nothing is done to temporarily archive the cache. ...

 

That's fast. I've got one I told the reviewer it would take until spring for me to get to it. That's when I anticipate having time. Potentially before, but I can't count on it since a lot of other things can come into play on whether I'd have the time.

 

One cache in the past was MIA because a doofie didn't put it back right. The cache was at the top of a ravine. Subsiquent finders didn't add 2+2. When I did get back to put the cache right, I figured "well if they didn't put it back right, it's got to be at the bottom". It was. I found a new spot at the top and haven't had a problem since. Can't say the same for the sister cache to this one. Another ravine with snow. I may be able to replace it sooner, but I sure can't check the bottom of the ravine for the old cache until spring and do the job right.

[+Harry Dolphin]

THe NM does somehow affect how a cache is seen by GSAK. It 'FLAGS' the cache and that can't go away until the owner (definately) or reviewer (possibly) do soomething to fix it. So use NM's sparingly.

 

Now in Mass, our reviewer must have a watchlist set up to send her all NM's. She's quite fast, ~2 weeks, to send out a warning message to a cache owner and then ~2 more weeks if nothing is done to temporarily archive the cache.

There's one that's been archived now for almost a year. I guess those 2 cute young girls don't cache anymore.

Pottersville. It was quite necessary for a particular Massachusetts Delorme grid square until another cache was planted in the small bit on Mass in that square.

 

I'd agree that NM should be used sparingly. Not for 'log book almost full'. Or 'someone stole the pencil'. Yes to 'container is cracked and full of water'. I've seen NM abused. And I've seen it escalate to where an NM for 'log book almost full' lead to a good cache being archived. True, the cache owner no longer plays the game, so possibly it should be archived, but there are thousands of those out there, some in much worse condition.

As to time for maintenance? Might take me a week. Might take me a month or more! "Container cracked' probably wouldn't take me more than two weeks, depending on the cache. I'd probably laugh at 'log book almost full', and schedule that for 'sometime in the future'.

[Keystone]

You can always post a needs maintenance log, and that cache will be noted to a reviewer. If, after a while there is still no maintenance or at least contact by the cache owner, the local reviewer can archive it.

 

Reviewers correct me if I'm wrong, but according to mine anyway.....they don't receive any notification of the "needs maintenance" logs (unless they have the cache on a watchlist and would therefore see it like any other cacher that has the cache on their watchlist). Those are supposed to be specifically for the owners to see that their cache needs some TLC. In order for a reviewer to see the cache needs help, it has to be a "should be archived" log.

 

You understand correctly.

A regular log that says "Needs maintaince" and a NM log that says "Needs Maintance" are pretty much the same thing to an active cache owner. I'm not sure the NM log actually serves any higher purpose other than to let folks filter out caches that need some kind of maintence.

 

Reivewers to sort through caches and disable the ones that need maintance. Then archive those if there is no action.

 

I think it's important to distinguish that some caches need maintance but they are there, they are something you can find and that makes them viable and they should not be archived. Others are MIA and that's different.

I'm posting simply to confirm that (1) reviewers are NOT notified automatically of any logs except for "Needs Archived" logs, and (2) responding to any maintenance issue other than a "Needs Archived" log is entirely voluntary on the part of the individual reviewer. There are many reviewers who do not actively prod cache owners to get their temporarily disabled caches back up and running. There are even more reviewers who do not check on caches that have the "needs maintenance" flag.

 

Me, I respond to "Needs Archived" within a day to a week, depending on the severity of the situation. Once a month or so, I sweep through all the disabled caches in my review territory, and I leave reminder notes on the ones which have been disabled for two months or more without a good explanation like a construction project or winter weather closure. And, maybe once or twice a year, I will browse through caches with the Needs Maintenance flag or with lots of DNF's, to see if they really ought to be disabled or archived.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I'm posting simply to confirm that (1) reviewers are NOT notified automatically of any logs except for "Needs Archived" logs, and (2) responding to any maintenance issue other than a "Needs Archived" log is entirely voluntary on the part of the individual reviewer. There are many reviewers who do not actively prod cache owners to get their temporarily disabled caches back up and running. There are even more reviewers who do not check on caches that have the "needs maintenance" flag.

 

Me, I respond to "Needs Archived" within a day to a week, depending on the severity of the situation. Once a month or so, I sweep through all the disabled caches in my review territory, and I leave reminder notes on the ones which have been disabled for two months or more without a good explanation like a construction project or winter weather closure. And, maybe once or twice a year, I will browse through caches with the Needs Maintenance flag or with lots of DNF's, to see if they really ought to be disabled or archived.

 

Just wanted to say "Thank You" to the reviewers that do go out of their way to help us out with a prod (or cattle-prod depending on the situation) to get things moving when a needs maintenance shows up. It recently saved us from losing a cache that took months to put together. A stage was damaged and needed fixing, but then hunting seasons began, construction at the site dramatically changed everything, baby arrived, etc., etc. Thanks to a good prodding, we're back on track. So thanks to the reviewers to give a nudge before shutting us down. It really is appreciated

[Luckless]

I'm thinking of stepping up and adopting a cache in my area that has been muggled. I'm a newbie and don't want to screw it up. Any sugestions?

 

Tresco

I adopted a cache that wasn't there because I loved the location. It was disabled and I offered to take it over because the owner lived quite a distance away and was having trouble maintaining it. I had to replace the missing micro container, but the cache page info and all was transferred to me. If a cache has been missing for a while you can always check with the owner and see if they're having a problem maintaining it then mention that you might be interested in taking it over.