Too MANY caches

[+Jagski]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

[+gof1]

May I recommend a "needs archive" log?

[+bittsen]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

 

Some people get hardcore into a hobby and then later get tired with it. Perhaps the CO has pretty much given up on geocaching and doesn't plan to keep the caches up to par anymore. It's sad but it happens.

Check the COs page and see if they have any recent finds. This will give an indication of whether or not they are still active. If they are no longer active, contact a GC reviewer and let them know that you think the CO has abandoned their caches.

[jholly]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

 

Some people get hardcore into a hobby and then later get tired with it. Perhaps the CO has pretty much given up on geocaching and doesn't plan to keep the caches up to par anymore. It's sad but it happens.

Check the COs page and see if they have any recent finds. This will give an indication of whether or not they are still active. If they are no longer active, contact a GC reviewer and let them know that you think the CO has abandoned their caches.

 

Unless people are logging "Needs Maintenace" the CO won't know. But it appears that people were doing that. As gof1 pointed out above, you contact the reviewer via a "Needs Archive" log. Many times an indifferent CO will suddenly become very concerned and take care of the problem. Then again maybe the reviewer will take care of the problem.

 

Jim

[+popokiiti]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

[+bittsen]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

 

It sort of amazes me that a GC reviewer would allow someone to place a cache without a validated Email.

 

Learn something new everyday.

[+sbell111]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

 

It sort of amazes me that a GC reviewer would allow someone to place a cache without a validated Email.

 

Learn something new everyday.

I think that if emails to you start to bounce, they will revert your status to 'unvalidated'.

[+sTeamTraen]

It sort of amazes me that a GC reviewer would allow someone to place a cache without a validated Email.

I think that if emails to you start to bounce, they will revert your status to 'unvalidated'.

Yes, "Not validated" doesn't mean "never validated". It is indeed unlikely that the mail was not valid at the time the cache was published.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Today I posted a "Needs Archived" on a cache "Temporally Disabled" since December 2008.

Had an email from the owner within 2 hours, and a note posted on the cache page explaining about the building work taking place at the cache site, and when the cache owner hopes to get the cache back in place!

 

Excellent service!

 

Other times the cache has been archived just as quick!

 

Or the local reviewer has placed a note "Action or Else*", cache owner has not replied, and the cache has been archived by the reviewer after a month.

 

* The reviewers word it in a nicer way, but you know that what they say really mens "Action or Else"

[+Harry Dolphin]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

 

This brings up the question: Why would you post a Needs Maintenance on a cache that has not been found? How do you know it needs maintenance? Was the log wet? Was the container broken? If you didn't find it, how woudl you know that it needs maintenance?!? Then you had the chutzpah to log a Needs Archived? What brought you to this conclusion? Was the tree cut down? The bridge blown up? The building razed? A Walmart where there used to be a field?

Please explain why you felt the need to log two Needs Maintenances and one Needs Archived an a cache that you were unable to find??? I am flabbergasted!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

It sort of amazes me that a GC reviewer would allow someone to place a cache without a validated Email.

I think that if emails to you start to bounce, they will revert your status to 'unvalidated'.

Yes, "Not validated" doesn't mean "never validated". It is indeed unlikely that the mail was not valid at the time the cache was published.

 

Also, if you change email providers, you are sent a validation email with a link. Click on the link and it validates the email address. The CO probably placed the cache using one email address, changed it down the road and never bothered to validate the new email.

 

Bruce

[NH Zamboni]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

 

Hi Jagski,

 

I'm glad to see you are enjoying our hobby and I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience. As the volunteer reviewer for the great states of NH and VT I'll be glad to address any concerns the cache owner isn't responding to.

 

I (and future finders of the caches in question) appreciate you taking the time to perform any maintenance you could. As the folks above me recommended your should first attempt to contact the cache owner with either a needs maintenance note or private e-mail. (reviewers do not get notified when a NM note is posted).

 

If you find the cache owner is unresponsive or ignoring your messages, it's time for me to step in. I'd recommend posting a Needs Archived note on the cache page. This will notify me the cache needs my attention and inform fellow cachers the cache or location may be problematic. I'll review the details and take some sort of action..

 

If you are uncomfortable (for whatever reason) posting a Needs Archived note please contact me directly either through my profile or e-mail NH.Zamboni.reviewer(at)Gmail(dot)com. Please include as many details as possible and the GC waypoint number of the caches in question.

 

Thanks

 

NH Zamboni

Volunteer reviewer for NH / VT

 

EDIT: to alleviate sbell111's concerns that I'm impartial to Vermont.

Edited July 10, 2009 by NH Zamboni

[GOF and Bacall]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

 

This brings up the question: Why would you post a Needs Maintenance on a cache that has not been found? How do you know it needs maintenance? Was the log wet? Was the container broken? If you didn't find it, how woudl you know that it needs maintenance?!? Then you had the chutzpah to log a Needs Archived? What brought you to this conclusion? Was the tree cut down? The bridge blown up? The building razed? A Walmart where there used to be a field?

Please explain why you felt the need to log two Needs Maintenances and one Needs Archived an a cache that you were unable to find??? I am flabbergasted!

 

And just how long do you leave an unfound cache gather DNFs before some action is taken when the owner appears to be out of the game? With no other way to contact the CO I see no problem with the course of action taken. Had the email addy been validated it may have worked different.

[+sbell111]

... As the volunteer reviewer for the great state of NH (and VT)...

That's pretty harsh. What do you have against Vermont?

[+Renegade Knight]

May I recommend a "needs archive" log?

Why? The caches are being found and are viable.

[+Renegade Knight]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

 

This brings up the question: Why would you post a Needs Maintenance on a cache that has not been found? How do you know it needs maintenance? Was the log wet? Was the container broken? If you didn't find it, how woudl you know that it needs maintenance?!? Then you had the chutzpah to log a Needs Archived? What brought you to this conclusion? Was the tree cut down? The bridge blown up? The building razed? A Walmart where there used to be a field?

Please explain why you felt the need to log two Needs Maintenances and one Needs Archived an a cache that you were unable to find??? I am flabbergasted!

 

Likewise. Much as I dislike the NM log and SBA logs I'll often ask the person a question to better able me to gage the need to do something. I had one that based on their log they wern't even in the right area. They didn't respond to my email. Meanwhil the reviewer is asking me "whats up with the cache".

[+Renegade Knight]

Today I posted a "Needs Archived" on a cache "Temporally Disabled" since December 2008.

Had an email from the owner within 2 hours, and a note posted on the cache page explaining about the building work taking place at the cache site, and when the cache owner hopes to get the cache back in place!

 

Excellent service! ...

 

I'd call that abuse of the SBA log. The cache issue is ongoing, and you filed an SBA for what higher purpose? Just because you didn't like the diabled nature which actually did require more time?

 

For every owner who knows what's going on there are dozens upon dozens of finders who have the ability to log, NM's, SBA's and such. It can be like SPAM.

 

I had one person file a NM log, then a second a week later just in case the first didn't "stick". Saw them both, and the cache was there. Their crappy tone annoyed my help, and so they didn't feel the need to rush out just to respond to a crappy attitude.

 

I'm not saying you have a crappy attitude. I am saying, it pays to know what's going on, or at least recognized when you as a finder (or non fider) are actually guessing.

[GOF and Bacall]

May I recommend a "needs archive" log?

Why? The caches are being found and are viable.

 

I suspect we have a differing opinion of what constitutes viable. A broken, soggy, mold farm is not my idea of a viable cache.

[+Hemlock]

Today I posted a "Needs Archived" on a cache "Temporally Disabled" since December 2008.

Had an email from the owner within 2 hours, and a note posted on the cache page explaining about the building work taking place at the cache site, and when the cache owner hopes to get the cache back in place!

 

Excellent service! ...

 

I'd call that abuse of the SBA log. The cache issue is ongoing, and you filed an SBA for what higher purpose? Just because you didn't like the disabled nature which actually did require more time?

RK, you're making an assumption that the original disable note gave a good reason for the disable. I haven't seen this one, but I've seen many cases where the cache is disabled with a short note like "disable" or "be back soon" and then later when I respond to a NA note, I find the area is fenced off for construction or something like that. So no, it's not abuse.

[+Renegade Knight]

May I recommend a "needs archive" log?

Why? The caches are being found and are viable.

 

I suspect we have a differing opinion of what constitutes viable. A broken, soggy, mold farm is not my idea of a viable cache.

We likely do have differing opinions on viable. Mine starts and ends with "you can find it". Everthing after that is the preference of the individual. Needs maintence is differen than "I don't like what I did find so you should archive it."

[+Renegade Knight]

Today I posted a "Needs Archived" on a cache "Temporally Disabled" since December 2008.

Had an email from the owner within 2 hours, and a note posted on the cache page explaining about the building work taking place at the cache site, and when the cache owner hopes to get the cache back in place!

 

Excellent service! ...

 

I'd call that abuse of the SBA log. The cache issue is ongoing, and you filed an SBA for what higher purpose? Just because you didn't like the disabled nature which actually did require more time?

RK, you're making an assumption that the original disable note gave a good reason for the disable. I haven't seen this one, but I've seen many cases where the cache is disabled with a short note like "disable" or "be back soon" and then later when I respond to a NA note, I find the area is fenced off for construction or something like that. So no, it's not abuse.

 

Actually I didn't make that assumption. I was thinking back to construction on one of my own caches that took two seasons and I didn't post any notes at all because it's not my style (my reviewer later made me post something). My entire point is that the SBA should be used when in fact the cache needs to be archived. Not when someone is tired of looking at a disabled cache and "thinks it's been too long" or doesn't like the acculation of broken McToys. Abuse is anytime they reccomend pulling the plug not knowing anything about the cache or just as bad when "it's not up to their standards" because even though they found it, the log is damp.

 

My local reviewer (and I assume others do as well) does enough sweeps of potentially problimatic caches to where finders need not get in the busienss of second guessing caches.

 

The way most folks think about the SBA though it should be RTA. For Reviewer Take a Look.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+texasgrillchef]

As I am new to the "Game" I have a few comments to make regarding the subject matter at hand here.

 

Yes, I know I am a newbie. Yet my comments are based on my understanding of the English language and how I interpret and perceive the ideal "Game play" of geocaching should be.

 

First, I want to say that No one is ever perfect. Neither a cache finder nor a cache owner, not even a reveiwer.

 

My definition of a "VIABLE" cache is one that follows all the accepted rules of placement, isn't broken in a way that would keep it from performing it's duties.

 

Since I am in the process of not only finding caches, but placing a few myself I view the SBA and NM logs as follows.

 

NM logs are just that. Anytime a cacher beleives some form of "M" needs to be done then it should be brought to the CO's attention. If this maintnance is an ongoing issue, &/or problem. Then a SBA log should be created, because CURRENTLY there is no other way to get action taken on a cache when a CO refuses to do so.

 

Ideally there should be another LOG type created. Maybe in addition to a SBA maybe a RTN (Reviewer Take Notice) log. Where a reviewer will look into what the problem is and then take the appropriate action.

 

I do understand that on occasion Caches need to be "Disabled" for a short time because of contruction or some other mishap that will temporarily make a cache unaccesable. However, how LONG should a cache be "Disabled" for before it should really be archived? 3 months? 6 months? a year? 2 years? 5 years? Some construction projects can EASILY last for more then 2 or 3 years & even as long as 10! If the reason your disabling your cache temporarily is because of contruction, then you should find out how long the construction will last. DON'T GUESS! A disabled cache in a construction zone that will last for more than a year SHOULD be Archived!

 

IMHO a cache that has been disabled for MORE than a year SHOULD be ARCHIVED.

 

There is one location very near me that I would love to place a cache. I haven't placed one there because I know that our city will soon start a TWO YEAR contruction project at that location. I don't beleive a cache should be disabled that long before it returns. When construction is finished... then maybe I will place one there. The OTHER problem when dealing with "Disabling" caches temporarily BECAUSE of CONSTRUCTION... is that you NEVER know what the LOCATION will be like AFTER the contruction is complete. Questions to be raised are... what will the muggle activity be like? Safety? Legality? will the area be off limits, landscaping issues... etc.. etc... etc...

 

So... IMHO.... if a cache is disabled because of CONSTRUCTION for longer thatn 6 months... it SHOULD be archived UNTIL construction is COMPLETE. Especially if the construction project is initiated by ANY government entity (Local, State, or Federal). In Texas I have seen contruction projects change MIDSTREAM 4 or 5 times BEFORE it was even completed.

 

Last but not least... anytime a cache is temporarily disabled there should ALWAYS be a log explaining why it was disabled and a for how long the CO beleives this cache will be disabled.

 

I beleive that RESPONSIBLE CO's will take PRIDE in the caches they own and will do their best to keep them "VIABLE". I know I will take pride in the caches I hide to keep them clean, dry & viable.

 

Anyways... thats my opinions and thoughts. This is a free country and you are free to agree or disagree with me. If you do disagree that is your right. Just understand you won't be able to change my opinion.

 

Thanks

 

TGC

[+The Ravens]

As I am new to the "Game" I have a few comments to make regarding the subject matter at hand here.

 

Yes, I know I am a newbie. Yet my comments are based on my understanding of the English language and how I interpret and perceive the ideal "Game play" of geocaching should be.

 

First, I want to say that No one is ever perfect. Neither a cache finder nor a cache owner, not even a reveiwer.

 

My definition of a "VIABLE" cache is one that follows all the accepted rules of placement, isn't broken in a way that would keep it from performing it's duties.

 

Since I am in the process of not only finding caches, but placing a few myself I view the SBA and NM logs as follows.

 

NM logs are just that. Anytime a cacher beleives some form of "M" needs to be done then it should be brought to the CO's attention. If this maintnance is an ongoing issue, &/or problem. Then a SBA log should be created, because CURRENTLY there is no other way to get action taken on a cache when a CO refuses to do so.

 

Ideally there should be another LOG type created. Maybe in addition to a SBA maybe a RTN (Reviewer Take Notice) log. Where a reviewer will look into what the problem is and then take the appropriate action.

 

I do understand that on occasion Caches need to be "Disabled" for a short time because of contruction or some other mishap that will temporarily make a cache unaccesable. However, how LONG should a cache be "Disabled" for before it should really be archived? 3 months? 6 months? a year? 2 years? 5 years? Some construction projects can EASILY last for more then 2 or 3 years & even as long as 10! If the reason your disabling your cache temporarily is because of contruction, then you should find out how long the construction will last. DON'T GUESS! A disabled cache in a construction zone that will last for more than a year SHOULD be Archived!

 

IMHO a cache that has been disabled for MORE than a year SHOULD be ARCHIVED.

 

There is one location very near me that I would love to place a cache. I haven't placed one there because I know that our city will soon start a TWO YEAR contruction project at that location. I don't beleive a cache should be disabled that long before it returns. When construction is finished... then maybe I will place one there. The OTHER problem when dealing with "Disabling" caches temporarily BECAUSE of CONSTRUCTION... is that you NEVER know what the LOCATION will be like AFTER the contruction is complete. Questions to be raised are... what will the muggle activity be like? Safety? Legality? will the area be off limits, landscaping issues... etc.. etc... etc...

 

So... IMHO.... if a cache is disabled because of CONSTRUCTION for longer thatn 6 months... it SHOULD be archived UNTIL construction is COMPLETE. Especially if the construction project is initiated by ANY government entity (Local, State, or Federal). In Texas I have seen contruction projects change MIDSTREAM 4 or 5 times BEFORE it was even completed.

 

Last but not least... anytime a cache is temporarily disabled there should ALWAYS be a log explaining why it was disabled and a for how long the CO beleives this cache will be disabled.

 

I beleive that RESPONSIBLE CO's will take PRIDE in the caches they own and will do their best to keep them "VIABLE". I know I will take pride in the caches I hide to keep them clean, dry & viable.

 

Anyways... thats my opinions and thoughts. This is a free country and you are free to agree or disagree with me. If you do disagree that is your right. Just understand you won't be able to change my opinion.

 

Thanks

 

TGC

 

And how long have you been caching? IMHO you hit the nail on the head. You are listed as a member for just over one month and have a better understanding of CO then, I'm sure, a lot of COs out there.

 

Only one incorrect statement of sorts. "Ideally there should be another LOG type created. Maybe in addition to a SBA maybe a RTN (Reviewer Take Notice) log. Where a reviewer will look into what the problem is and then take the appropriate action."

 

In my understanding a "SBA" IS a RTN log in a sense.

 

Welcome to geocaching and have fun!!!

[+texasgrillchef]

In my understanding a "SBA" IS a RTN log in a sense.

 

Welcome to geocaching and have fun!!!

 

It is mine as well, but as I have read some of the posts in this thread, there are some that don't want to view a SBA log as being a RTN log. Go figure!

[+Lil Devil]

Ideally there should be another LOG type created. Maybe in addition to a SBA maybe a RTN (Reviewer Take Notice) log. Where a reviewer will look into what the problem is and then take the appropriate action.

As The Ravens said, you can always use the NA log for that. Many times I see caches where the cache owner has moved the cache (or typo'd the coords from the start) and the system won't allow them to move the coords so far. They then don't know to email their reviewer. So I'll log a "Needs Archived" log, and say something like "This cache doesn't need archived, but the coords need fixed." which will get emailed to the reviewer and he'll take appropriate action.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I posted two "needs maintenance" logs on a cache that had never been found since it was placed. Those NM logs were a month apart. Couldn't contact the cache owner as his email had not been validated. Finally posted the "needs archiving" log and a note that it was I who had done so. Within 24 hours, cache was temporarily disabled, and the CO's email validated. That's service !

 

This brings up the question: Why would you post a Needs Maintenance on a cache that has not been found? How do you know it needs maintenance? Was the log wet? Was the container broken? If you didn't find it, how woudl you know that it needs maintenance?!? Then you had the chutzpah to log a Needs Archived? What brought you to this conclusion? Was the tree cut down? The bridge blown up? The building razed? A Walmart where there used to be a field?

Please explain why you felt the need to log two Needs Maintenances and one Needs Archived an a cache that you were unable to find??? I am flabbergasted!

 

And just how long do you leave an unfound cache gather DNFs before some action is taken when the owner appears to be out of the game? With no other way to contact the CO I see no problem with the course of action taken. Had the email addy been validated it may have worked different.

 

The cache in question seems to have two NM and one SBA from the same person. No evidence of any other logs. On a relatively evil hide (not sure if this one is thusly listed) it can go months or years without a find. I've got one that's almost a year and a half without a find. And it's not even that evil. (Well, maybe a bit...) I'd be royally *** (annoyed) if someone decided to post two NM and an SBA on it because it hadn't been found in seventeen months! Of course, the difference is that I'm active, and I'd tell that person to pound salt, if s/he had the effrontery to do such a thing. (And two others that haven't been found this year, yet. But they're just evil! Hee hee hee.)

What do we know about this cache in question? Two NM and one SBA by someone who hasn't been able to find it? Doesn't even say that s/he searched for it. "Has not been found since placed" is all the info that we were given. That prompted two NM and one SBA??? The thought that comes to my mind is "Cache Police".

[+The Ravens]

"The thought that comes to my mind is "Cache Police".

 

Yes! Cache police!!! That's what we need!! And I'm serious!!!

[+texasgrillchef]

"The thought that comes to my mind is "Cache Police".

 

Yes! Cache police!!! That's what we need!! And I'm serious!!!

 

There are some cities/parks that have just that. To make sure that the caches are following all the appropriate laws & regulations of the local, state & federal goverments.

 

TGC

[Mr.Yuck]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

 

Hi Jagski,

 

I'm glad to see you are enjoying our hobby and I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience. As the volunteer reviewer for the great states of NH and VT I'll be glad to address any concerns the cache owner isn't responding to.

 

I (and future finders of the caches in question) appreciate you taking the time to perform any maintenance you could. As the folks above me recommended your should first attempt to contact the cache owner with either a needs maintenance note or private e-mail. (reviewers do not get notified when a NM note is posted).

 

If you find the cache owner is unresponsive or ignoring your messages, it's time for me to step in. I'd recommend posting a Needs Archived note on the cache page. This will notify me the cache needs my attention and inform fellow cachers the cache or location may be problematic. I'll review the details and take some sort of action..

 

If you are uncomfortable (for whatever reason) posting a Needs Archived note please contact me directly either through my profile or e-mail NH.Zamboni.reviewer(at)Gmail(dot)com. Please include as many details as possible and the GC waypoint number of the caches in question.

 

Thanks

 

NH Zamboni

Volunteer reviewer for NH / VT

 

EDIT: to alleviate sbell111's concerns that I'm impartial to Vermont.

 

Well, the OP doesn't have too many finds. If I'm correct in guessing the "series" he's referring to, the owners have about 250 hides, log in regulary, and have found about 50 caches since May 1st of this year. But yet this series sits out there with dozens of reports of water dumped out of containers, and unsignable logs. This isn't a local problem, I've seen this too many times to count in too many places. People love to place caches, and love to find caches. Maintaining them is obviously a whole 'nother ballgame though.

[knowschad]

 

Only one incorrect statement of sorts. "Ideally there should be another LOG type created. Maybe in addition to a SBA maybe a RTN (Reviewer Take Notice) log. Where a reviewer will look into what the problem is and then take the appropriate action."

 

In my understanding a "SBA" IS a RTN log in a sense.

 

Welcome to geocaching and have fun!!!

 

Yup. Based on my limited experience, there really is no stigma attached to a SBA, despite all the differing opinions you wll find here. The way it works today, at least, is that an SBA is the only cache note that alerts the reviewer. The reviewer will BY NO MEANS automatically archive the cache. He or she will take a look at the cache, though, and based on his/her experience, possibly take action against it. He/she might also possibly (and this is ONLY my personal guess) take a look at the cache in question, decide that there is no problem here except for a trigger-happy NA logger. So, use your power wisely.

[+paleolith]

RK: yes, SBA basically is "reviewer take a look", because it's the only log type that alerts the reviewer. Reviewers absolutely do read the text of the SBA log and adapt their response to the situation, rather than taking it as an unconditional and unqualified recommendation: this is clear from the responses I've received. I always explain my reasons in the text of the log, and I recommend that others do the same. In some cases it's been clear that a cache should be archived -- most particularly when it's on NPS land -- and my SBA text is unqualified. (I still explain the reason, on the assumption that the CO will see it, though in these NPS cases the CO has never seen fit to respond in any way.) In other cases I've said "I'd be delighted if this cache were replaced, but it looks like the owner has left the game". At least once I was wrong and the cache got replaced, and I think that by the wording, I avoided any possible offense to the CO.

 

I could just email the reviewer, but I see that as going behind the CO's back. I've done it when I didn't want to make a public statement, but generally I'd rather keep it public.

 

Also, you seem to be seeing the log exchange mostly from the CO's POV. From the finder's POV, I say that the CO should usually log a note in response to a NM, or at least email the finder depending on the situation. Doesn't need to be anything more than "thanks, I'll take a look". (Of course, some NM logs will indicate a misunderstanding. I'd explain if possible, though I realize that in some cases an explanation would be a spoiler, so the only public response would be "thanks, dealt with it".) In short, the communication needs to go both ways. When I see no owner response to logs (of any kind) indicating possible problems with the cache, I tend to think "this CO is inactive or doesn't care".

 

Edward

[+Jagski]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

 

Hi Jagski,

 

I'm glad to see you are enjoying our hobby and I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience. As the volunteer reviewer for the great states of NH and VT I'll be glad to address any concerns the cache owner isn't responding to.

 

I (and future finders of the caches in question) appreciate you taking the time to perform any maintenance you could. As the folks above me recommended your should first attempt to contact the cache owner with either a needs maintenance note or private e-mail. (reviewers do not get notified when a NM note is posted).

 

If you find the cache owner is unresponsive or ignoring your messages, it's time for me to step in. I'd recommend posting a Needs Archived note on the cache page. This will notify me the cache needs my attention and inform fellow cachers the cache or location may be problematic. I'll review the details and take some sort of action..

 

If you are uncomfortable (for whatever reason) posting a Needs Archived note please contact me directly either through my profile or e-mail NH.Zamboni.reviewer(at)Gmail(dot)com. Please include as many details as possible and the GC waypoint number of the caches in question.

 

Thanks

 

NH Zamboni

Volunteer reviewer for NH / VT

 

EDIT: to alleviate sbell111's concerns that I'm impartial to Vermont.

 

Thank you! Again, I am not complaining just for myself. I have spoken with some fellow cachers who have found the same ones I was talking about and it was exciting to find these caches, but disappointing when we found them full of water, missing, or broken. I did post a NM and have emailed the CO about it (this was quite a while ago). No response. This same CO is very active in finding caches and putting more and more out all the time. I think quality is much better than quantity. But I understand some are in it for the numbers and that is fine. All I'm saying is, if you have tons of caches out, please read your logs or emails and tend to the caches. I only have 5 out, but if someone reported NM to me, I would disable it immediately and get out there as soon as I could to fix it.

 

NH Zamboni: I will probably be emailing you soon about the caches. I'm going to check out the logs to see if there are new posts. Thank you so much.

 

~Jagski

[+Unkle Fester]

We've got an old time prolific hider out this way that are more or less out of the game. but whenever I come across one of their hides and it needs a little tlc, I may try to help, depending on the tlc needed. If it involves a rehide, newcontainer, etc., I ask to adopt the cache and make it one of my own. A little nicer than archiving, I think I have about 40 that way. It keeps the older GC#'s active. Therefore I have hides that are older than my profile. She and I have a little agreement along with a third cacher to help too.

 

If I don't want to own or maintain, a NM log will eventually get caught by a local reviewer. (I think he runs an occasional PQ for NM logs) When they sit for an while, he swoops in and temp disables until fixed or archived.

[+Unkle Fester]

I love geocaching and finding great hides. However I have one gripe or vent: there are some cachers who have hidden over 100 or 200 caches, and that's wonderful, but I have found that in my area anyway, there are lots of caches by the same CO that needs maintenance. My husband and I were psyched to do a series of caches by the same CO a couple months ago and many of the caches we found were broken, full of water or the log was missing or soaked. We emptied out the water on many of them and even replaced logs that were missing. I've emailed the CO regarding them and no reply. Newer posts of those caches say the same thing (filled with water/needs maintenance). Why would one put out so many caches if they cannot maintain them?

 

Hi Jagski,

 

I'm glad to see you are enjoying our hobby and I'm sorry to hear about your negative experience. As the volunteer reviewer for the great states of NH and VT I'll be glad to address any concerns the cache owner isn't responding to.

 

I (and future finders of the caches in question) appreciate you taking the time to perform any maintenance you could. As the folks above me recommended your should first attempt to contact the cache owner with either a needs maintenance note or private e-mail. (reviewers do not get notified when a NM note is posted).

 

If you find the cache owner is unresponsive or ignoring your messages, it's time for me to step in. I'd recommend posting a Needs Archived note on the cache page. This will notify me the cache needs my attention and inform fellow cachers the cache or location may be problematic. I'll review the details and take some sort of action..

 

If you are uncomfortable (for whatever reason) posting a Needs Archived note please contact me directly either through my profile or e-mail NH.Zamboni.reviewer(at)Gmail(dot)com. Please include as many details as possible and the GC waypoint number of the caches in question.

 

Thanks

 

NH Zamboni

Volunteer reviewer for NH / VT

 

EDIT: to alleviate sbell111's concerns that I'm impartial to Vermont.

 

Thank you! Again, I am not complaining just for myself. I have spoken with some fellow cachers who have found the same ones I was talking about and it was exciting to find these caches, but disappointing when we found them full of water, missing, or broken. I did post a NM and have emailed the CO about it (this was quite a while ago). No response. This same CO is very active in finding caches and putting more and more out all the time. I think quality is much better than quantity. But I understand some are in it for the numbers and that is fine. All I'm saying is, if you have tons of caches out, please read your logs or emails and tend to the caches. I only have 5 out, but if someone reported NM to me, I would disable it immediately and get out there as soon as I could to fix it.

 

NH Zamboni: I will probably be emailing you soon about the caches. I'm going to check out the logs to see if there are new posts. Thank you so much.

 

~Jagski

Humpf, this last winter I had to maintain about 50 caches for wet logs, needless to say it has caused me to rethink How I put caches together so they last. But at least I'm trying to keep up with it, and yes, I have begun to rethink quality vs quantity.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Also, you seem to be seeing the log exchange mostly from the CO's POV. From the finder's POV, I say that the CO should usually log a note in response to a NM, or at least email the finder depending on the situation. Doesn't need to be anything more than "thanks, I'll take a look". (Of course, some NM logs will indicate a misunderstanding. I'd explain if possible, though I realize that in some cases an explanation would be a spoiler, so the only public response would be "thanks, dealt with it".) In short, the communication needs to go both ways. When I see no owner response to logs (of any kind) indicating possible problems with the cache, I tend to think "this CO is inactive or doesn't care"....

 

As a cache owner, that's the POV I use with my caches. From where I sit they are mostly abused. While the larger world thinks you should always post the status of your cache, my local POV has taught me different. If I fix a cache with a problem I generally email the DNF that allerted me to the problem. I don't post the fix on the cache page. You can PM me if you want some details on why I do it this way.