"finder maintenance " option

[+bafl01]

I do maintenance on caches i find constantly. I personally hate getting needs maintenance logs on caches I own for little things. I am more than willing to maintain my caches but I THINK everyone who owns more than one cache has gotten one of those needs maintenance logs for something that .... really did not detriment the cache. There are a lot of caches that I have loved finding and because of the status would have probably been archived if left in the condition i have found them, so I do the maintenance; a new mint tin, some new cammo tape, a new log for a full one, a baggy on the old log and a dry one, a new magnet, a gallon back for the swag if the rubber seal on the ammo can is no good, lots of little things. So i feel like a "finders maintenance" option to keep track of this and even be there if the reviewers attention is brought to a cache (wether they think of it is a good or bad thing) would be a great feature. i know in some states like hawaii were they have high tourist placed caches where the reviewer has asked a local to adopt a cache ( i heard this from a couple of locals while i was there) would help COs and reviewers locate a willing or possible candidate for adoption if for some reason teh cache has to be handed over such as a cacher leaving an area.

[+Chrysalides]

Part of the reason for an owner's maintenance is to clear the "maintenance required" flag. Anyone else shouldn't be able to clear that flag.

 

I've occasionally gone back to a cache for some assistance. In those situations I post a note. If the owner agrees with it, he can post an owner maintenance log to clear it saying "thanks for the help" or something to clear the flag.

 

I suppose there are situations where it could be helpful, but personally I prefer not to have a proliferation of different log types. It makes the whole design inelegant.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Chrysalides

[AZcachemeister]

The folks at Geocaching.com aren't actually interested in finder maintenance of caches.

They want to list caches with active, attentive, and responsive owners...only.

 

The current pogrom against disabled caches (and caches with 'unanswered' 'Needs Maintenance' logs) makes it futile to attempt to help out many of the caches in need of attention. If the owner doesn't respond, the cache will be archived...regardless.

 

I do understand that as a mere listing service, Geocaching.com cannot (does not want to) be liable for the maintenance of any particular cache, and if the owner fails to maintain it, it is they who are littering.

[+tozainamboku]

The folks at Geocaching.com aren't actually interested in finder maintenance of caches.

They want to list caches with active, attentive, and responsive owners...only.

 

The current pogrom against disabled caches (and caches with 'unanswered' 'Needs Maintenance' logs) makes it futile to attempt to help out many of the caches in need of attention. If the owner doesn't respond, the cache will be archived...regardless.

 

I do understand that as a mere listing service, Geocaching.com cannot (does not want to) be liable for the maintenance of any particular cache, and if the owner fails to maintain it, it is they who are littering.

When the no forced adoption policy was brought up I specifically asked about this. The response from Bryan indicated that if the community is maintaining a cache the reviewers could remove the needs maintenance attribute. Caches would not necessarily be archived because they had no owner. Reviewers would have descretion and if a cache seem to be important to a significant part of the community that it was being maintained and assuming the other guidelines were being met they could clear the needs maintenance. If they thought the cache was just being ignored or if there were problems that required a cache owner to deal with (for example renewing a permit with the land manager) the cache would be archived.

 

Did you mean pogrom, or was that a typo?

[AZcachemeister]

 

Did you mean pogrom, or was that a typo?

 

In Arizona (at least) most caches with a 'Needs Maintenance' attribute that has been in place for more than a few weeks (sometimes less, I had one that was disabled after only a few DAYS) will soon be disabled by the reviewers. (We now have a reviewer specifically for this purpose.) If the cache is not maintained and re-enabled by the owner within 30 days, the cache gets archived. Travelbugs in the cache, or the reason for the NM attribute not withstanding.

 

Yes, it's a pogrom. No mistake about it.

[+Do-doille]

I also think that "finder maintenance" would be a good idea. I got interested in old caches and it is sad to say but most of them have been abandoned. I recently found two old caches that have been disabled by the reviewer because the owner was not responding. In both case the cache had received a Need Maintenance log by inexperienced cachers. In both case they was no serious issues with the cache. I do not blame the reviewer for making their jobs.

 

A good alternative might be to allow the NM log only to “qualified” cachers. For example at least 100 finds, 10 caches placed and one year of experience would be required to be qualified.

[+Noisy Neighbors]

We keep maintenance items in our cache bag for any needed repairs to caches we find. Problem we have is owners who are non-responsive. Those caches that have been logged as needing maintenance for a year and have no response. Or they respond and then sit on it without doing anything for 6 months only to have the cache archived. I think there should be some kind of adoption policy put into place for non-responsive owners. I like the option for owners to put them up for adoption on a list. Or a claus that they can be adopted if there is no response from the owner for 6 months.