Needs Maintenance/Needs Archive Without Visiting The Cache

[+Mule Ears]

i see no problem with logging a needs maintenance log if you see that several experienced cachers have logged DNF's. i own 49 caches and its hard to check on them in a timely manner. i rely on fellow cachers to let me know one of them needs help. i would be upset if someone didn't alert me to a cache that needs help. its all about helping out our fellow cachers,,, whats wrong with that?

 

Those 'experienced cachers' chose the type of log to enter based on their firsthand observations of the cache site. They decided that a DNF was appropriate rather than an NA or NM . If we have confidence in their experience and the judgments derived from it, then we also have to assume that they picked the right kind of log.

 

Again, the case of "A Superior Cache" is a perfect and timely illustration. From reading the cache page, that cache met all of the objective criteria for archival. Yet, there it was! A neat cache, a rare adventure saved from deletion by somebody getting off their duff to go investigate.

[Clan Riffster]

I would prefer that NM's and SBA's be based upon facts, not assumptions. When I read a long string of DNF's and/or maintenance issues, I can assume that all is not well with the cache, but before I am willing to post a NM or SBA, I'll go take a look for myself. If the cache is so far away as to make a trip less than practical, I'll let that local community worry about it rather than appointing myself as a busybody cache cop in need of more hobbies. If it is close, I'll go look for myself. If, upon actual inspection, something needs to be done, I'll take whatever action I deem as appropriate.

 

Armchair logging is presumptuous, in any circumstance.

[+slackpacker]

This is the type of "NM" posting that drives me crazy -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...64-85d120e2236a

[+LSUMonica]

I think there are subtle differences in posting an "armchair" needs maintenance and a should be archived in a lot of cases.

 

Do I think an armchair NM should be posted on an active cache? Hmmm, there may be reasons... lots of DNFs over a period of time, absolutely NO communication by the cache placer on the status -- sure I might post one.

 

Do I think an armchair SBA should be posted on an active cache? Hmmm, there may be reasons... lots of DNFs over a period of time, absolutely NO communication by the cache placer on the status, placer has not logged on in a while -- even more sure I might post one.

 

Do I think an armchair SBA should be posted on an temporarily disabled cache? ABSOLUTELY if months, even years, have gone by with the cache disabled and no finds. Don't think this doesn't happen!! So who is responsible for helping the geocaching community in this case? The reviewers? They have a lot on their plates and some of them don't have time to go looking for these cache listings (although many of them do a fantastic job of monitoring these!). How does it look to new geocachers to see guidelines posted, understand they are supposed to adhere to them but then run across all of these caches that are posted that have been temp disabled for months and have no communication from their owners? Makes the geocaching community look even worse than someone making an "armchair" post.

 

Proper communication and maintenance of your caches by following the guidelines make this whole topic a moot point! Communicate and there is no issue!

 

Just my two cents!

[+Harry Dolphin]

This is the type of "NM" posting that drives me crazy -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...64-85d120e2236a

 

WOW! That is certainly presumptuous! NM poster has never visited the cache, and has no idea how "devious and creative" it is. Armchair NM at its worst.

[+Mule Ears]

This is the type of "NM" posting that drives me crazy -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...64-85d120e2236a

 

Yeah, I'm afraid that note reinforces my opinion. No new information, just scolding the CO. Anyone interested enough to express an opinion should be interested enough to visit the coords. They might just find the cache...

[+RanHefner]

No offense taken! I applaud differing opinions.

 

Keep in mind...In almost all cases the reviewer will post a reviewer note. If the owner responds explaining the situation with the cache, the reviewer will not archive the cache.

 

Your proposed axim, "First, do no harm." That is good! My opinion is that the FIRST to do the HARM is the owner who does not live up to his/her commitment when he/she placed the cache. There are two boxes you MUST check to post a cache. This basically has you CONFIRM you will abide by the rules and guidelines. One of which it to maintain your cache in a timely manner. "Several weeks" is the guideline...Not "several months".

 

Also keep in mind...There is no posted guideline requiring you to visit the cache to post a note, NM, or SBA log. Since this is undisputed, then a person may apply his/her own guidelines for posting caches, but they can NOT force it upon others.

 

We're mostly in agreement. The owner is primarily responsible for upkeep of his caches, and there's no guideline requiring a visit before posting an NM/NA. Agreed. A Superior Cache is a perfect illustration of where it gets sticky: The cache went unfound for six years. When it was finally found, the owner hadn't logged into geocaching.com in more than six months. If an NM/NA had been posted a month ago, this cache would have disappeared from the database right about the time that somebody worked up the gumption to go look for it. They had a terrific adventure and now have a great story to tell. And the cache is confirmed to be there so that others who might have hunted it but for the uncertainty about its status now have a green light.

 

Absent owner, unfound for six years, and an NA note--it would have been an open-and-shut case for archival. Instead, it's a perfect illustration why most of the time NM/NA should be based on firsthand information.

 

My view of this situation is that for ANY owner to PROPERLY maintain his/her cache, he/she MUST log in from time-to-time to monitor the HEALTH of the cache.

 

Yes, it would be a shame if such a cache was archived, but the owner would be responsible, not the poster of the SBA or NM log.

[+RanHefner]

My rule is that I maintain my caches as time, life, and ability allow.

 

Then why did you check the two boxes agreeing with the guidelines that Groundspeak spells out?

 

You also forget, or never knew that a few weeks flat out is not reasonable for some caches. Caches can be inassessable for much of the year.

 

The cache owner MUST take into consideration the ability to maintain the cache BEFORE he/she places it. The several weeks is a guideline. I know from my local reviewer that these factors are taken into consideration.

 

If an NM or SBA is posted AND the owner posts a note explaining that it is difficult to get to the cache AND he/she WILL make efforts to check it, my local reviewer will NOT archive the cache. But, if, after the NM or SBA log the cache owner posts NOTHING, the reviewer is likely to post a reviewer note explaining the requirements for the owner to respond to maintenance requests. If, after about 30 days, there is no answer, the cache will most likely be archived.

 

I don't think ANY reviewer will archive a cache that is difficult to get to as long as the owner communicates with the geocaching community about the intention to maintain.

 

That also means you have time to get out of your armchar and check other peoples caches before you log it. That's another of those guideliens. Visit the cache then log it. Of course you are defending your position that nobody can force you to do this even as you use the SBA log as a method of trying to force cache owners to follow your intrepretation of the guidelines.

 

I'm sorry, but I have not seen ANY guidelines on Groundspeak that says you must visit a cache to post a note, NM, or SBA log. If you see one, please post it!

 

As for "my interpretation of the guidelines"...It is not MY interpetation...It is plainly spelled out on Groundspeak. I suggest re-reading it!

 

As time, life, and ability allow. That's all anyone can give regardless of guidelines.

 

If you can't maintain the cache in a timely manner, you have no reason placing the cache.

[+RanHefner]

This is the type of "NM" posting that drives me crazy -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...64-85d120e2236a

 

Yeah, I'm afraid that note reinforces my opinion. No new information, just scolding the CO. Anyone interested enough to express an opinion should be interested enough to visit the coords. They might just find the cache...

 

Yea, you have a point! This one made me pause. It is an unusual case. I normally don't post an NM log after two DNF's, but it is a relatively easy cache that hasn't been found in almost two years after a couple of DNF's. If you notice the log it says "owner visit MAY be needed". Also, the reviewer will not archive the cache simply because of an NM log.

 

Here is the interesting thing. Keep an eye on the cache. The log was posted on May 2nd. The owner has logged in as recently as May 20th. He/she has NOT responded to the log! It is THIS lack of communication that may lead to action by the reviewer...Not the NM log!

 

Why wouldn't the owner post some simple note saying something?...ANYTHING! You would think if the cache has been DNFed and no finds in about 2 years, he/she would check on it! This is passive NEGLECT.

 

Don't you think most if not all caches should get an owner visit at least once a year?

Edited May 21, 2008 by RanHefner

[+the pooks]

Ranhefner - you are TECHNICALLY correct, but the trouble is that the combination of the guidelines and cachers who fuss about the quality/maintenance issues results in fewer backcountry caches and a proliferation of lame urban micros, just because they are close to home and easy to maintain. That is a real pity - I much prefer an interesting expedition to a remote cache away from millions of other people than looking for a cache in a busy urban park - trying not to look like somebody that is up to mischief. I really don't enjoy looking for a cache and then having to explain myself to some suspicious person. Give me a backcountry cache any day - I will help to maintain it even if the owner is long gone.

 

If I see a remote cache that might need maintenance I would contact the owner and volunteer to go to the cache and maintain it. That is way better than posting an armchair NM/NA log.

Edited May 21, 2008 by the pooks

[Clan Riffster]

That is way better than posting an armchair NM/NA log.

Anything is better than armchair logging busybodies playing cache police.

[+RanHefner]

That is way better than posting an armchair NM/NA log.

Anything is better than armchair logging busybodies playing cache police.

 

Anything? Owner neglect is better? Owner not responding to cachers BEGGING him/her to fix the cache is better? Owner posting a message saying the cache is missing and it will not be replaced AND is unwilling to archive the cache is better? Anything??? WOW!

[Clan Riffster]

Yeah. WOW. If YOU are REALLY that CONCERNED, why NOT pay THE cache A visit AND see FOR yourself?

AT least THAT way YOUR presumptuous PESTERING would HAVE some RELEVANCE.

[+OzGuff]

I have found a perfect cache for an armchair Needs Archived -- Once more unto the breach, my friends, once more by RanHefner. After a series of DNFs the cache owner said that he would have it back up in a week or two. That two week "deadline" has now been reached. The guidelines on Cache Maintenance say

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

It appears that the cache owner has abandoned the cache and it needs to be archived.

 

Should I pull the trigger?

[+RanHefner]

That is way better than posting an armchair NM/NA log.

Anything is better than armchair logging busybodies playing cache police.

 

Anything? Owner neglect is better? Owner not responding to cachers BEGGING him/her to fix the cache is better? Owner posting a message saying the cache is missing and it will not be replaced AND is unwilling to archive the cache is better? Anything??? WOW!

 

I just want to understand your position. Are you saying that ANM and ASBA logs are worse than an owner that totally neglects the cache maintenance?

[+RanHefner]

I have found a perfect cache for an armchair Needs Archived -- Once more unto the breach, my friends, once more by RanHefner. After a series of DNFs the cache owner said that he would have it back up in a week or two. That two week "deadline" has now been reached. The guidelines on Cache Maintenance say

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

It appears that the cache owner has abandoned the cache and it needs to be archived.

 

Should I pull the trigger?

 

Sure pull the trigger..."Do you feel lucky, punk?"

 

But really, as you can see, this is an example of a responsible cache owner, if I do say so myself. The day after a couple DNF's that seemed to be accurate, I disabled the cache to COMMUNICATE to the geocaching public that searching for this cache may be fruitless. I COMMUNICATED a time frame of replacement. Yes I will be about 3 or 4 DAYS beyond my projected repair date...SHAME ON ME. I have a container ready and it will be replaced this weekend.

 

The point being that I have COMMUNICATED with the geocaching community. I have taken steps to assure the COMMUNITY that it will be replaced, but don't search for it now.

 

Thanks for highlighting a TEXTBOOK example on how a problem with a cache SHOULD be handled.

 

"Go ahead, punk...MAKE MY DAY!" pull the trigger!!!

[+Mule Ears]

OzGuff: Heh.

 

I'm fixing to exit this discussion, because I can feel the circular current beginning to stir, so it's just a matter of time before it spirals down the drain. But since I have the cache-maintenance-busybody bug too, I'd like to discuss tactics.

 

Scolding or pestering cache owners via armchair NMs or NAs is just going to harden their position that it's none of your #$%! business. You get better results by volunteering your help, or at least making the effort to visit the cache. I've done this countless times: identified an *interesting cache that was in trouble and emailed the owner to find out whether he'd mind if I did some maintenance. About half the time, this stirs up a possessive instinct in the owner, and he tackles the maintenance himself. The other half, I visit the cache, fix it up, and bask in universal acclaim and adoration. (Made that last part up, but there's often a thank-you or two from subsequent finders.)

 

It's easy to get exasperated with cache owners who you see as not living up to their part of the bargain. But armchair NMs and NAs are counterproductive and damaging to a cacher's own credibility and reputation. Not to mention causing folks to start combing through your cache listings for signs of neglect...

 

*(If the cache is not worth a visit, let it sink. Nature's way.)

[+the pooks]

 

Those 'experienced cachers' chose the type of log to enter based on their firsthand observations of the cache site. They decided that a DNF was appropriate rather than an NA or NM . If we have confidence in their experience and the judgments derived from it, then we also have to assume that they picked the right kind of log.

 

 

 

I just want to understand your position. Are you saying that ANM and ASBA logs are worse than an owner that totally neglects the cache maintenance?

 

I think we are debating in circles. As Mule Ears has said more eloquently than myself: You are adding nothing by posting an ANM or ASBA except running a good chance of agitating a lot of people - cachers can decide for themselves what the status of the cache is by reading the logs. The reviewer has been officially appointed to make "armchair" decisions (ie without visiting the cache).

 

Bad cache maintenance is not good, but by all accounts ANM and ASBA is worse.

[+hukilaulau]

Bad cache maintenance is not good, but by all accounts ANM and ASBA is worse.

not "by all accounts" by a longshot! But here's what IS worse. A rigid stance where people use examples of clearly bad "armchair" NM or SBA logs to argue that they are NEVER appropriate, while ignoring the examples of ones that do seem appropriate, mostly where the owner is clearly long gone from the game.

I, too, see that this thread is becomming repetitive, so I guess I'm done with it. Rest assured that I will never have the time to scour the online logs for caches to gleefully write ANM or ASBA logs on, but I will continue to write them on caches that I deem appropriate for them, and I will sleep soundly knowing that I have done my part to enhance "the spirit and enjoyment" of the game!

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not comfortable with the "Never" word, so I won't go so far as to claim the lazy, armchair method is "never" appropriate. I'm sure with sufficient intake of adult beverages I could, conceivably, dream up a scenario where sitting on my duff, harping about caches I have absolutely no personal knowledge of might be acceptable, if boorish, behavior.

 

As a general rule though, I prefer to let these types of decisions be made by those who have actually gotten off their collective derrières to see for themselves if a NM or SBA should be logged. However, I can see how such a cavalier attitude might rankle with someone who was such a control freak that they couldn't stand to see a cache page unmolested by their posturing.

[+Renegade Knight]

My rule is that I maintain my caches as time, life, and ability allow.

 

Then why did you check the two boxes agreeing with the guidelines that Groundspeak spells out?

 

You also forget, or never knew that a few weeks flat out is not reasonable for some caches. Caches can be inassessable for much of the year.

 

The cache owner MUST take into consideration the ability to maintain the cache BEFORE he/she places it. The several weeks is a guideline. I know from my local reviewer that these factors are taken into consideration....

 

You have two points here.

 

First it's a guidline. I agree to maintain my caches. They suggest a few weeks. I can only do it as time, life, and circumstance allow. Nobody can do better, though some have a life that is more suited for maintaining caches.

 

Also even when someone checks those boxes, and even if they only places caches in areas that never get snowed in, never get blocked off, never get cut off due to floods, never get burned out, never are on a trail with a realy restriction or a thousand other things that can cause the few weeks to be non feasable, their lives can change.

 

What happens if a cachers spouse gets sick? What happens if you break your leg and mess up your tendons and can't make the hike for a year while you heal up? Life happens.

 

When you look at a cache and see those check boxes as a clear and bright line and hold others accountable, you are in fact holding them to a higher standard than you yourself can achiieve.

 

Armchair SBA's are easy.

 

Cache owners do factor in maintaining the cache. Then life happens.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...But really, as you can see, this is an example of a responsible cache owner, if I do say so myself. The day after a couple DNF's that seemed to be accurate, I disabled the cache to COMMUNICATE to the geocaching public that searching for this cache may be fruitless. I COMMUNICATED a time frame of replacement. Yes I will be about 3 or 4 DAYS beyond my projected repair date...SHAME ON ME. I have a container ready and it will be replaced this weekend....

 

By your standard it's a slack jawed sloth of a cacher unworthy of owning a cache who is in blatant violation of the guidelines for whom the only solution is an armchair SBA to call in the higher powers who will pig wrestle this blight on the face of caching into submission.

 

Oh as as for the highlighted part. You will replace it this weekend if something doesn't come up in your real life that's more important. You know like caulking your shower because you figured out it leaked and that's why your floor is kinda spongy.

 

By my standard, you are fine,

Edited May 22, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+RanHefner]

What happens if a cachers spouse gets sick? What happens if you break your leg and mess up your tendons and can't make the hike for a year while you heal up? Life happens.

 

First, you ask for help from fellow cachers. Second, if no one will help, you try adopting the cache to someone who can maintain it. Third, if no one will help...If no one will adopt...ARCHIVE IT!

[+OzGuff]

"Never" truly IS a long time, so I will have to admit that there probably are circumstances where an armchair NA is appropriate. But those circumstances are likely the exception.

 

Since RH has become the de facto Poster Child for armchair NAs I direct the following mainly to him. One of the first lines of the Cache Listing Guidelines is "As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache." Well, how about that -- cache owners are responsible for the care of their caches. Not someone sitting halfway around the world -- or across the state -- getting eye strain from staring at a monitor all day.

 

The two boxes that every cache placer checks when they submit a new cache say,

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement..

Read the above carefully. We agree to abide by the terms of use agreement. Fair enough -- Groundspeak doesn't want us doing illegal things. And we agree that we have read and understand the guidelines. Read and understood. Not read and promise to follow the edicts blindly without consideration for any other life-impacting event.

 

However, it is entirely possible that you RH are right. But right isn't always right. Leaving a bad taste in a couple dozen cachers mouths may lead to them deciding to NOT place more caches, and then we all suffer. An NA email may lead to an active cacher getting disheartened and leaving the activity, and then we all suffer.

 

My guess is that you will continue to log armchair NMs and NAs. Hope you don't mind then if -- when I hear of another armchair NA -- that I continue to think of the south end of a north bound horse. You may be right and within your right, but there are better, less abrasive ways to deal with caches needing maintenance.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Edited May 22, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

What happens if a cachers spouse gets sick? What happens if you break your leg and mess up your tendons and can't make the hike for a year while you heal up? Life happens.

 

First, you ask for help from fellow cachers. Second, if no one will help, you try adopting the cache to someone who can maintain it. Third, if no one will help...If no one will adopt...ARCHIVE IT!

Why would you impose on others to meet your own obligation over something so trivial as a cache? Why archive a perfectly good cache and create litter?

 

People who know you can use some help are free to offer. Some choose to ask for the help and that's fine but I would not choose to do so until I knew I'd never be able to get to it. Of course you and others are free to offer to help rather than hit the SBA button from your armchair. That is your choice.

[+RanHefner]

One of the first lines of the Cache Listing Guidelines is "As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache." Well, how about that -- cache owners are responsible for the care of their caches. Not someone sitting halfway around the world -- or across the state -- getting eye strain from staring at a monitor all day.

 

Are you saying that no one should post an NM or SBA log except the cache owner??? Yes, the cache owner IS responsible for the care of the cache. Those who DO care for the cache don't get SBA or NM logs!

 

The two boxes that every cache placer checks when they submit a new cache say,

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement..

Read the above carefully. We agree to abide by the terms of use agreement. Fair enough -- Groundspeak doesn't want us doing illegal things. And we agree that we have read and understand the guidelines. Read and understood. Not read and promise to follow the edicts blindly without consideration for any other life-impacting event.

 

And no one is asking them to "follow the edicts blindly without consideration for any other life-impacting events." I am simply asking that if an event does come about that keeps you from maintaining a cache that is under the weather for SEVERAL MONTHS TO A YEAR OR MORE, that you take a LITTLE step to CONSIDER the health of the geocaching community. How...Ask for help, accept help, adopt it out, or archive it.

 

On the subject of "accepting help", I have seen a cache that has been in need of maintenance for several months. There were notes posted by GREAT CACHERS offering to help with NO RESPONSES! The "owner" must have seen the notes, because he/she continued to log into the site. THIS is the type of DEADBEAT owner I am talking about.

 

However, it is entirely possible that you RH are right. But right isn't always right. Leaving a bad taste in a couple dozen cachers mouths may lead to them deciding to NOT place more caches, and then we all suffer. An NA email may lead to an active cacher getting disheartened and leaving the activity, and then we all suffer.

 

Are you serious?!? If "owners" that neglect their caches get disheartened and don't place caches anymore...GOOD! THIS IS A GOOD THING!!!!!

 

My guess is that you will continue to log armchair NMs and NAs. Hope you don't mind then if -- when I hear of another armchair NA -- that I continue to think of the south end of a north bound horse. You may be right and within your right, but there are better, less abrasive ways to deal with caches needing maintenance.

 

I can only hope that when you see a DEADBEAT cache owner, you have the same feeling! I am going to "modify" the previous paragraph a bit and see how it reads....

 

My guess is that you will continue to neglect your cache placements. Hope you don't mind then if -- when I hear of another neglected or abandoned cache -- that I continue to think of the south end of a north bound horse. You may be right and within your right to not maintain your cache, but there are other ways to deal with caches needing maintenance.

[+RanHefner]

What happens if a cachers spouse gets sick? What happens if you break your leg and mess up your tendons and can't make the hike for a year while you heal up? Life happens.

 

First, you ask for help from fellow cachers. Second, if no one will help, you try adopting the cache to someone who can maintain it. Third, if no one will help...If no one will adopt...ARCHIVE IT!

Why would you impose on others to meet your own obligation over something so trivial as a cache? Why archive a perfectly good cache and create litter?

 

No one is asking that a "perfectly good cache" be archived. If you have a "life experience" that keeps you from visiting your caches that have NO problem, WHO WILL KNOW?!

 

I am talking about caches with REPORTED problems or very good evidence that there may be a problem.

[+Totem Clan]

OK! Here's one for you all. What should be done with these caches. I can't visit them. They're not there. In fact some were gone before I moved here two years ago. NA them or not?

 

Cache 1

 

Cache 2

 

Cache 3

 

Cache 4

 

Cache 5

 

Cache 6

 

I've got my finger on a hair with these in my sights. I think they all need to be archived. However they are all over 70 miles away from me. We cache there from time to time. In fact we are planning and couple nights stay there this summer so we can find a bunch of caches there.

 

So what would you do?

[+RanHefner]

OK! Here's one for you all. What should be done with these caches. I can't visit them. They're not there. In fact some were gone before I moved here two years ago. NA them or not?

 

Cache 1

 

Cache 2

 

Cache 3

 

Cache 4

 

Cache 5

 

Cache 6

 

I've got my finger on a hair with these in my sights. I think they all need to be archived. However they are all over 70 miles away from me. We cache there from time to time. In fact we are planning and couple nights stay there this summer so we can find a bunch of caches there.

 

So what would you do?

 

I wouldn't do anything. I usually only post armchair logs to caches within my state.

 

These are, however, very good examples why an SBA log by ANYONE may be useful. Why? It illustrates what I have been saying here. Notes, disabled logs, and NM logs do not draw the attention of the local reviewer. The SBA log WILL! It is then up to the reviewer to archive or not.

[+Totem Clan]

I wouldn't do anything. I usually only post armchair logs to caches within my state.

These are, however, very good examples why an SBA log by ANYONE may be useful. Why? It illustrates what I have been saying here. Notes, disabled logs, and NM logs do not draw the attention of the local reviewer. The SBA log WILL! It is then up to the reviewer to archive or not.

These are in my state. So if you were me, you would NA them?

[Clan Riffster]

I don't get disabled caches on my PQ, so for me, they wouldn't exist. As such, they would never be a problem. If they did manage to sneak into my PQ, I'd visit them first, then take whatever action I felt was appropriate. SaeSew owns most of them, and (s)he is still active. Perhaps a friendly E-mail would rectify the situation? If I was uncomfortable writing an E-mail to the owner, and all those P&G's being inactive bothered me too much to continue life as I know it, I'd shoot an E-mail to the local reviewer. I would not post an SBA on a cache with an active owner. One of those you listed had an inactive owner, (I think), so I would bypass thoughts of E-mailing them, and go straight to the local reviewer.

[+RanHefner]

I wouldn't do anything. I usually only post armchair logs to caches within my state.

These are, however, very good examples why an SBA log by ANYONE may be useful. Why? It illustrates what I have been saying here. Notes, disabled logs, and NM logs do not draw the attention of the local reviewer. The SBA log WILL! It is then up to the reviewer to archive or not.

These are in my state. So if you were me, you would NA them?

 

Here is something you might try. Post a note on the cache page saying something like this: "I see the cache has been disabled for a long period of time. Is this cache going to be replaced? If not, you should archive the cache so someone can use the area for a new geocache."

 

If the owner doesn't respond in any way in a month, they if you get the feeling that the cache is not going to be replaced, post the SBA and let the reviewer sort it out.

Edited May 22, 2008 by RanHefner

[+Mule Ears]

OK! Here's one for you all. What should be done with these caches. I can't visit them. They're not there. In fact some were gone before I moved here two years ago. NA them or not?

 

Cache 1

 

Cache 2

 

Cache 3

 

Cache 4

 

Cache 5

 

Cache 6

 

I've got my finger on a hair with these in my sights. I think they all need to be archived. However they are all over 70 miles away from me. We cache there from time to time. In fact we are planning and couple nights stay there this summer so we can find a bunch of caches there.

 

So what would you do?

 

Cache 1: Temporarily deactivated in '06; owner still logging onto to GC: Email owner a nudge to archive.

Cache 2: Temporarily deactivated in '06; owner absent since '07: armchair NA OK with me

Cache 3: Temporarily deactivated in '06; owner still logging onto to GC: Email owner a nudge to archive.

Cache 4: Temporarily deactivated in '06; owner still logging onto to GC: Email owner a nudge to archive.

Cache 5: Temporarily deactivated in '06; owner still logging onto to GC: Email owner a nudge to archive.

Cache 6: Temporarily deactivated in '07; owner still logging onto to GC: Email owner a nudge to archive.

 

Note that these are pretty specific cases. None is a significant cache; they're urban micros that can easily be replaced. The deactivation notes mostly sound like the owner intended to permanently archive 'em. But I'd still do the decent thing and email the owner in all but case #2.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Mule Ears

[TermiteHunter]

And what about this one? GCR35K

The container has been falling apart for some time.

The "owner" appears to be (or was) a minor.

Owner has been on the site recently but does not appear to respond to NM logs.

Other owned caches are in similar condition or missing, Some archived by Reviewer after no response to maintain.

 

While I would usually be opposed to the armchair call on this, It is apparent that this owner has no interest in maintaining this cache or the others. I have seen the cache and would not be proud to use this as an example of the quality of the sport. A needs to be archived would prompt review and possible archival by a reviewer as the "owner" will never do it (or repair it) on their own.

[+the pooks]

And what about this one? GCR35K

The container has been falling apart for some time.

The "owner" appears to be (or was) a minor.

Owner has been on the site recently but does not appear to respond to NM logs.

Other owned caches are in similar condition or missing, Some archived by Reviewer after no response to maintain.

 

While I would usually be opposed to the armchair call on this, It is apparent that this owner has no interest in maintaining this cache or the others. I have seen the cache and would not be proud to use this as an example of the quality of the sport. A needs to be archived would prompt review and possible archival by a reviewer as the "owner" will never do it (or repair it) on their own.

 

Fix it! What I can't figure is why the next finder can't just take a new logbook and ziploc bag and fix the cache. It would create so much goodwill in the caching community. That is what I would do. Then if the cache falls into disrepair again, and I don't want to keep maintaining it, I will feel completely comfortable posting a SBA, having earned my dues.

 

It is so that urban caches do not require the same cooperation in maintenance as backcountry caches, as accessibility is not a problem. Furthermore is a cache dense area, where there might be a lot of competition to place caches, archiving is not such a big loss, as a new one will pop up soon enough (although in that case let the prospective cacher post the SBA stating his/her reasons).

 

The last resort BEFORE an armchair NM/NA log might be to nudge the reviewer via PM. If the reviewer then does not feel action is warranted, leave it at that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The last resort BEFORE an armchair NM/NA log might be to nudge the reviewer via PM. If the reviewer then does not feel action is warranted, leave it at that.

I don't get the objection to an SBA log - it gives the Reviewer notice that there might be a problem... if they don't feel that action is warranted they'll take none - exactly as you suggest!

[+the pooks]

The last resort BEFORE an armchair NM/NA log might be to nudge the reviewer via PM. If the reviewer then does not feel action is warranted, leave it at that.

I don't get the objection to an SBA log - it gives the Reviewer notice that there might be a problem... if they don't feel that action is warranted they'll take none - exactly as you suggest!

You are changing my whole argument by only quoting a small portion of it. There is nothing wrong with a SBA - just go and repair the cache or find it yourself before posting a SBA is what I am trying to say. The whole discussion in this thread is about people who have never been to the cache that post SBAs and the potential it has for rubbing folks up the wrong way.

 

Very many good points have been made on both sides in this thread, but things get turned into absolutes by quoting portions of a post - turning grey issues into black and white issues.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I am talking about caches with REPORTED problems or very good evidence that there may be a problem.

 

Nothing changes from my prior post about reported problems. As time and life allow. Caches are trivial, bothering other people to maintain them for you is ok, but how can I hold it against someone who prefers to take care of it themselves? That's what you agreed to after all. Not "Take care of it with community help".

 

As for reported problems. I've had reported problems that were completely artificial. They described their search in an area that had nothing to do with the cache, use the NM log and gripped about it. When I emailed them to figure out where they were and if there was a real problem they never responded. So now you have irresponsible NM and SBA loggers causing problems for cache owners. Forum posters acting on that misinformation from their armchairs and this is a better caching world?

[+Renegade Knight]

And what about this one? GCR35K

The container has been falling apart for some time.

The "owner" appears to be (or was) a minor.

Owner has been on the site recently but does not appear to respond to NM logs.

Other owned caches are in similar condition or missing, Some archived by Reviewer after no response to maintain.

 

While I would usually be opposed to the armchair call on this, It is apparent that this owner has no interest in maintaining this cache or the others. I have seen the cache and would not be proud to use this as an example of the quality of the sport. A needs to be archived would prompt review and possible archival by a reviewer as the "owner" will never do it (or repair it) on their own.

 

Wet logs are a nuisance but they cache remains viable. No need to archive.

People forget that maintenance is at the owners discression. A lot of owners could care less about the cache log. This site doesn't detail the kinds and types of maintenance the owner is to do on their caches.

 

Given the number of owners who don't want the cache log back, a noticable percentage don't care about them enough to be bothered.

 

Right now I've got a cache with a wet log. I'll get to it but it's lower priority than picking up the cache I archived and I'm not going to make a special trip over a wet log. Business will take me up there soon enough. The hard part is to remember to take a log on the trip. An armchair SBA or NM won't help me one bit.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't get the objection to an SBA log

For me, the objection has to do with my interpretation of the acronym. SBA = Should Be Archived. If I haven't been there, I can only guess if it should be archived, and I prefer to act on facts, not assumptions. That's probably my biggest objection to armchair logging of SBA's. How can someone honestly know if a cache should be archived, if they've never been within 100 miles of it?

 

Now, if the acronym was "HCYTALATCP", (Hey, Can Y'all Take A Look At This Cache, Please), then I would interpret it to mean the person posting it simply wanted a reviewer to take a look at the cache page because there could be a problem. In my mind, SBA leaves no room for interpretation, and therefor should only be used on those caches that should be archived, not on those caches that someone assumes might have issues.

 

If there is any accuracy to my belief, than a simple E-mail to the reviewer would have the same result as a HCYTALATCP log, without causing any potential hard feelings between individual cachers.

[+purple_pineapple]

 

People forget that maintenance is at the owners discression.

 

really? i thought that agreeing to maintain your cache was a requirement before placing a cache? I should have placed a trad on my honeymoon and told the reviewers that I was using my discretion and not bothering to maintain it!

 

Here in the UK, our reviewers actually appreciate SBA logs, as it brings a problem cache to their attention - otherwise they wouldn't know about it. I've posted NM and SBA logs on caches I've never been to - most often when I'm reviewing caches for an area I'm about to go on holiday to. I obviously can't check on it first, and the NM may prompt an owner to sort it out in time for me to search for it. An SBA log will free the area up for other cachers to maybe put one out.

 

Oh, and bear in mind that local cachers may have their own caches to maintain, in a timely fashion, and shouldn't be expected to go round looking after other peoples caches. And most local caches will have found a cache before it becomes a problem, so the only people searching for a problem cache are either travellers to the area, or newbies - and do we really want crap caches sitting around making our sport look bad?

 

Concerning Clan's post above - i think it is very true that should be Archived carries certain negative connotations, but it is unfortunately the only log that is notified to a reviewer - would we be having this discussion if the log was called Reviewer Attention Required!

[+Renegade Knight]

 

People forget that maintenance is at the owners discression.

 

really? i thought that agreeing to maintain your cache was a requirement before placing a cache? I should have placed a trad on my honeymoon and told the reviewers that I was using my discretion and not bothering to maintain it!...

 

You do agree to maintain your cache.

Everything about maintaining YOUR cache is up to YOU as the OWNER. You can't expect others to do it for you. By definition that puts it at your sole discretion as the owner.

Reviewers don't maintain caches. They list them or they archive them. If they don't like your maitainence they will archive your cache for you and create litter.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...would we be having this discussion if the log was called Reviewer Attention Required!

 

Yes. We would be debating when it's required. Some would whine about wet caches. Others would whine about a spot of nettle and so on. Some would whine that the owner doesn't stop by daily and check up on their caches. Most would be whining about other peoples caches.

[TermiteHunter]

And what about this one? GCR35K

The container has been falling apart for some time.

The "owner" appears to be (or was) a minor.

Owner has been on the site recently but does not appear to respond to NM logs.

Other owned caches are in similar condition or missing, Some archived by Reviewer after no response to maintain.

 

While I would usually be opposed to the armchair call on this, It is apparent that this owner has no interest in maintaining this cache or the others. I have seen the cache and would not be proud to use this as an example of the quality of the sport. A needs to be archived would prompt review and possible archival by a reviewer as the "owner" will never do it (or repair it) on their own.

 

Fix it! What I can't figure is why the next finder can't just take a new logbook and ziploc bag and fix the cache. It would create so much goodwill in the caching community. That is what I would do. Then if the cache falls into disrepair again, and I don't want to keep maintaining it, I will feel completely comfortable posting a SBA, having earned my dues.

 

It is so that urban caches do not require the same cooperation in maintenance as backcountry caches, as accessibility is not a problem. Furthermore is a cache dense area, where there might be a lot of competition to place caches, archiving is not such a big loss, as a new one will pop up soon enough (although in that case let the prospective cacher post the SBA stating his/her reasons).

 

The last resort BEFORE an armchair NM/NA log might be to nudge the reviewer via PM. If the reviewer then does not feel action is warranted, leave it at that.

 

What? Now I have to take care of this one for them? I would have no objection to adding a replacement log and a ziplock, which I have done in the past but this thing is falling apart (rusting, seams splitting, lid falling off). So now I am also to take along a new container as well? This one would better be archived to allow someone that cares about their cache to place a new one that WOULD be maintained. The result would of course be that this one would remain as a piece of trash for someone to CITO since the owner is not going to come by and pick it up.

 

Perhaps the PM to the reviewer is a good idea but then what is the difference from a SBA other than your name is not directly linked to the cause of a reviewers archival.

[Clan Riffster]

what is the difference from a SBA other than your name is not directly linked to the cause of a reviewers archival.

That's the only real difference. Both cause a reviewer to receive timely notification that a cache might have serious issues, and is possibly in need of their attention. One has the potential to create hard feelings between cachers, while the other does not. I realize there are folks out there, even in our little game, who thrive on confrontation, and can't be truly happy unless they are aggravating someone else, and if you're that type, Gaia bless you. Go forth and agitate to your heart's content. If you're not someone who lives on conflict, you can accomplish your same busybody goal with a simple PM to the reviewer.

[+the pooks]

what is the difference from a SBA other than your name is not directly linked to the cause of a reviewers archival.

That's the only real difference. Both cause a reviewer to receive timely notification that a cache might have serious issues, and is possibly in need of their attention. One has the potential to create hard feelings between cachers, while the other does not. I realize there are folks out there, even in our little game, who thrive on confrontation, and can't be truly happy unless they are aggravating someone else, and if you're that type, Gaia bless you. Go forth and agitate to your heart's content. If you're not someone who lives on conflict, you can accomplish your same busybody goal with a simple PM to the reviewer.

 

I could not agree more!

[+RanHefner]

what is the difference from a SBA other than your name is not directly linked to the cause of a reviewers archival.

That's the only real difference. Both cause a reviewer to receive timely notification that a cache might have serious issues, and is possibly in need of their attention. One has the potential to create hard feelings between cachers, while the other does not. I realize there are folks out there, even in our little game, who thrive on confrontation, and can't be truly happy unless they are aggravating someone else, and if you're that type, Gaia bless you. Go forth and agitate to your heart's content. If you're not someone who lives on conflict, you can accomplish your same busybody goal with a simple PM to the reviewer.

 

Posting the NM or SBA is not the source of the "confrontation". If confrontation begins, it is when the cache owner takes the log as an affront to his/her "domain". It is the NEGATIVE RESPONSE of the cache owner that causes "confrontation".

 

A RESPONSIBLE owner sees it as an opportunity.

[+wimseyguy]

I just love threads where one individual has >25% of the posts defending their position.

[+RanHefner]

I just love threads where one individual has >25% of the posts defending their position.

 

Wow! That was a substantive contribution to the SUBJECT!