Proper way to log a "Needs Maintenance"...

[+kahanamoku]

I found a GC yesterday that needed some maintenance. I went to log it this morning but I didn't get credit for the find, so then I went and logged it in again as a find. I'm assuming this was the wrong way to do it. What should I have done?

[+The Blorenges]

The "found it" and the "needs maintenance" are two separate types of log. As you've discovered, using the "needs maintenance" does not automatically log you a find at the same time. Generally speaking, if you find a cache and it needs maintenance then just do the two logs, one after the other. Specify exactly what maintenance you feel is required in the NM log.

 

Remember that many cachers will revisit a cache for various reasons: They won't want to record a "found it" each time but they may discover that the cache needs attention, so in such a case they can use a NM log to alert the owner.

 

Hope this helps.

 

MrsB

[+Renegade Knight]

I found a GC yesterday that needed some maintenance. I went to log it this morning but I didn't get credit for the find, so then I went and logged it in again as a find. I'm assuming this was the wrong way to do it. What should I have done?

 

There is no clear answer. Some owners love the NM logs. I detest them as I can read the "Found your cache the log is damp" in your standard find log.

 

Here is my advice a an owner who hates the dang thing.

 

For any normal issue that still has the cache as a viable find, just log your find and note the issue in the log. Active owners will read the log and know, and inactive owners won't just like they wouldn't read the NM log either.

 

Where there is a cache problem that leaves the cache as non viable and where it's worth warning other cachers about the problem then use the NM log. That sets a NM flag that can let finders know they won't be able to enjoy the cache as a find. Examples here are a bulldozed cache so flat you can't open the container. Someone sprayed the inside of the cache with skunk juice, or defacated into it etc. Those caches need the "avoid" flag since signing the log is a problem. (Damp or wet actually isnt' a special problem, thats life in the great outdoors).

 

Other opinions will vary.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Pork King]

...That sets a NM flag that can let finders know they won't be able to enjoy the cache as a find. Examples here are a bulldozed cache so flat you can't open the container. Someone sprayed the inside of the cache with skunk juice, or defacated into it etc. Those caches need the "avoid" flag since signing the log is a problem. (Damp or wet actually isnt' a special problem, thats life in the great outdoors).

 

Other opinions will vary.

 

I cordially disagree . A Needs Maintenance log doesn't mean the cache is no longer loggable, and I think it is a useful tool.

 

EXAMPLE:

I find a cache and notice the lid is split bad enough so the next time it rains, the cache will become a soup bowl. Having just returned from a business meeting, I only brought a pen to sign the log; no cache repair supplies. I log a NM with my find. I notice the owner lives out of state and won't be in the area for 3 months.

JoeTheCacher pulls up the cache page, eager to find the cache. JTC doesn't usually read the previous logs, but notices the NM attribute has been activated. He reads the log to discover the problem, and packs a spare lock n' lock or some camo duct tape and finds the cache, repairing it quickly before the rain and leaving it dry for many more cachers to enjoy.

/EXAMPLE

 

It lets cachers be prepared. Of course, they can avoid the examples you mentioned above, although on the 1st example, evidence of a bulldozer plowing through the area usually indicates a need to archive the cache.

[+Jeep4two]

...That sets a NM flag that can let finders know they won't be able to enjoy the cache as a find. Examples here are a bulldozed cache so flat you can't open the container. Someone sprayed the inside of the cache with skunk juice, or defacated into it etc. Those caches need the "avoid" flag since signing the log is a problem. (Damp or wet actually isnt' a special problem, thats life in the great outdoors).

 

Other opinions will vary.

 

I cordially disagree . A Needs Maintenance log doesn't mean the cache is no longer loggable, and I think it is a useful tool.

 

EXAMPLE:

I find a cache and notice the lid is split bad enough so the next time it rains, the cache will become a soup bowl. Having just returned from a business meeting, I only brought a pen to sign the log; no cache repair supplies. I log a NM with my find. I notice the owner lives out of state and won't be in the area for 3 months.

JoeTheCacher pulls up the cache page, eager to find the cache. JTC doesn't usually read the previous logs, but notices the NM attribute has been activated. He reads the log to discover the problem, and packs a spare lock n' lock or some camo duct tape and finds the cache, repairing it quickly before the rain and leaving it dry for many more cachers to enjoy.

/EXAMPLE

 

It lets cachers be prepared. Of course, they can avoid the examples you mentioned above, although on the 1st example, evidence of a bulldozer plowing through the area usually indicates a need to archive the cache.

 

I agree with some of the others. Log the cache as found, then also enter a NM entry. While some cache owners may watch their logs and read them regularly there are some that rarely log on to the GC website.

 

Of course I guess you could check the owners profile to see their last visit to the GS site and decide whether to just log the fine with appropriate condition notes (if they logged on same day or a day or two ago) or log a NM in addition if they haven't logged on in a few weeks (months) to ensure they receive an e-mail notifying them.

 

I recently felt the need to log a NM after encountering a 'no trespassing' sign that I felt was placed due to the proximity of a cache to the themed location. I wanted the owner to be aware and make sure future cachers were aware as well.

 

I approach this game as a community (online community) of enthusiasts. I would rather slightly offend someone with a NM than expose other cachers to potential problems or a 'soup bowl' find.

[janx]

I'm a database guy. I see the NM log as something searchable, that can trigger code to do things later.

 

I fyou log a NM, that can show up in a query for "all caches that need Maintenance". It can also flip a bit on the cache, so the owner has to "fix it" to clear the bit. That means that if a cache is set to Needs Maintenance, I can later run a report on NM caches that have been ignored by their owner. From there, other steps can be taken.

 

Putting that info in a FoundIt log, doesn't ensure that can't of thing can happen. That's why there is a NM log type.

 

Ultimately, the protocol seems to be:

 

If you FOund the cache

{

if your signed the log then log a FoundIt

if the cache needs work, log a Needs Maintenance

}

else log a DNF