Over use of the Needs Maintenance Log?

[+JohnE5]

I was reading another thread about people not finding cache and logging that the cache was gone, when in fact it wasn't.

 

Is it common when these super powered caches that couldn't find it log their DNF they use Need Maintenance?

 

What is the appropriate use of the NM log? Can you use it only if you found it but its damaged, or can you also use it if you never found it?

[+The Blorenges]

I have occasionally used a NM log without visiting the cache in question, in the following type of scenario...

 

If we're planning to visit a specific area and I'm looking for interesting caches that we might like to visit. I see one that has been found regularly up to 5 or 6 months ago. After that there follows a string of 5 or 6 DNFs with no response note from the CO. Hmmm. I may well put a very polite NM note explaining my interest in the cache and asking whether the CO could possibly check whether the cache is still in place.

 

In one case this resulted in a helpful exchange of emails with the CO (who had been unable to physically check the cache for health reasons) and, following their detailed description of where the cache had been hidden, we were able to confirm it had definitely gone and we put in a small replacement cache on their behalf.

 

MrsB

[+briansnat]

Personally I wish people would use the Needs Maintenance log more often. I may get dozens of logs on a nice weekend and may overlook when someone tells me the cache needs maintenance in his regular log. A NM gets my attention. I can also run PQs to get a list of my caches with the NM attribute, which makes maintenance easier.

 

As far as when it is appropriate to use, I would use it in the following circumstances:

 

-I know for a fact the cache is missing. (e.g. someone I'm with found it before and verifies that it is gone)

-Full log book

-Wet contents

-Damaged container

-Cache was obviously out of its hiding place and I don't know where to put it back

-Cache has been vandalized

-The original hiding place is gone or no longer sufficient (e.g. the tree stump it was in rotted away)

-The cache can't be accessed. (e.g. It was in a hollow post but fell to the bottom. I can see it but there is no way to get to it.)

 

When not to use it:

 

-I can't find it

 

 

Is it common when these super powered caches that couldn't find it log their DNF they use Need Maintenance?

 

Actually it's more common for them to stick a film canister where they think the cache should have been and log a find.

[+power69]

Personally I wish people would use the Needs Maintenance log more often. I may get dozens of logs on a nice weekend and may overlook when someone tells me the cache needs maintenance in his regular log. A NM gets my attention. I can also run PQs to get a list of my caches with the NM attribute, which makes maintenance easier.

 

As far as when it is appropriate to use, I would use it in the following circumstances:

 

-I know for a fact the cache is missing. (e.g. someone I'm with found it before and verifies that it is gone)

-Full log book

-Wet contents

-Damaged container

-Cache was obviously out of its hiding place and I don't know where to put it back

-Cache has been vandalized

-The original hiding place is gone or no longer sufficient (e.g. the tree stump it was in rotted away)

-The cache can't be accessed. (e.g. It was in a hollow post but fell to the bottom. I can see it but there is no way to get to it.)

 

When not to use it:

 

-I can't find it

 

 

Is it common when these super powered caches that couldn't find it log their DNF they use Need Maintenance?

 

Actually it's more common for them to stick a film canister where they think the cache should have been and log a find.

Also known as a "throw down"

two of my hard caches have had throw downs placed when cache wasn't missing. I just got two free containers for future hides complete with logsheets

[+webscouter.]

Personally I wish people would use the Needs Maintenance log more often. I may get dozens of logs on a nice weekend and may overlook when someone tells me the cache needs maintenance in his regular log. A NM gets my attention. I can also run PQs to get a list of my caches with the NM attribute, which makes maintenance easier.

 

As far as when it is appropriate to use, I would use it in the following circumstances:

 

-I know for a fact the cache is missing. (e.g. someone I'm with found it before and verifies that it is gone)

-Full log book

-Wet contents

-Damaged container

-Cache was obviously out of its hiding place and I don't know where to put it back

-Cache has been vandalized

-The original hiding place is gone or no longer sufficient (e.g. the tree stump it was in rotted away)

-The cache can't be accessed. (e.g. It was in a hollow post but fell to the bottom. I can see it but there is no way to get to it.)

 

When not to use it:

 

-I can't find it

 

 

Is it common when these super powered caches that couldn't find it log their DNF they use Need Maintenance?

 

Actually it's more common for them to stick a film canister where they think the cache should have been and log a find.

Also known as a "throw down"

two of my hard caches have had throw downs placed when cache wasn't missing. I just got two free containers for future hides complete with logsheets

 

I'm not sure but I think that I might be considered a super powered cacher so I am going to chime in here.

 

Please don't lump all of us together, I have only done one throw down cache, early in my caching life, somewhere south of 200 finds. The clue was "A bison tube on a nail". I found the nail on the back of a welcome to .... sign but the bison was gone. I had an extra in my bag so I replaced it and then waited for confirmation of the photo I took before logging a find. Now that I am a jaded super powered cacher I would just post the needs maintenance, if the hider in question can't replace a $1 bison tube then the cache should be archived.

 

It is also important to note that if I replace a container that is damaged I never use an inferior container such as a film canister. I only use a container that I would be happy with if it were my own cache.

[+StarBrand]

For the most part, I think the NM log type is overused for too many odd circumstances.

 

I agree with Briansnat that it should be used in all the circumstances he describes but I have seen it misused/abused all too often as well. I have seen NM logs stating: the cache camera was full, the rest area was closed for maintenance, cache was found 15 feet from ground zero, no parking coordinates provided, winter attribute set wrong, terrain marked wrong [opinion], could not find cache, poison ivy nearby, too much water to cross stream etc.

 

None of those items really requires the cache owner to run out and do anything.

[+The VanDucks]

If we find a cache with some sort of problem - i.e. wet or missing log, broken container, left exposed on the ground, etc., we post a regular log on the cache page and then send a separate e-mail to the cache owner stating what the problem was. I prefer to do it this way because if you post a "needs maintenance" log you may keep other cachers from seeking that cache; and it seems unfair to take someone's cache out of play for a fairly minor reason.

 

I do think cache owners have a responsibility to read logs and to maintain their caches; if a cache owner has so many caches placed that they can't keep up with them, maybe they need to archive a few or let someone else adopt them. If we can't get by to take care of a problem with one of our caches within a week or two, it's easy to just sit at the computer and temporarily disable the cache, then post a note saying we'll fix it soon.

[calgriz]

If we find a cache with some sort of problem - i.e. wet or missing log, broken container, left exposed on the ground, etc., we post a regular log on the cache page and then send a separate e-mail to the cache owner stating what the problem was. I prefer to do it this way because if you post a "needs maintenance" log you may keep other cachers from seeking that cache; and it seems unfair to take someone's cache out of play for a fairly minor reason.

 

I do think cache owners have a responsibility to read logs and to maintain their caches; if a cache owner has so many caches placed that they can't keep up with them, maybe they need to archive a few or let someone else adopt them. If we can't get by to take care of a problem with one of our caches within a week or two, it's easy to just sit at the computer and temporarily disable the cache, then post a note saying we'll fix it soon.

 

This is informative. This says it all for me.

I think too many times other GCers or COs believe that the GCer visiting the GZ first hand is mistaken or insincere with their first hand observations about a particular GC GZ context.

I am not. I hardly ever use the NM log method first (even when the CG has been listing DNFs for many months back to back and it's an older GC), I'll take the time to personally contact the CO by email to alert them of the possible problem with their GC.

The problem is when you don't hear back from them in a timely way or I never hear back from them. Right now, I am still waiting to see how some of these turn out because I won't waste my gas, time, and effort on deadwood old GCs. I check their logs every so often to see how they turned out. I have heard from tardy COs who are parents putting out GCs for their minor children resposibilty, people on vacation from out-of-state putting out GCs in another state, and other examples. Recently I have been interested to see that some of these troublesome GCs have been temporary disabled or archived all together. Hooray! I guess that result helps all GCers and myself in the short run.

 

Can you say that primarily cache maitenance must be a COs responsibility at all times, but practically cache maitenance is also everyone's shared responsibility, too ?

 

(thanks for this thread and it's topic, I opened another thread of this nature and it got way to combative.)

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If a cache truly needs maintenance, we post our "found it" log, then post a "NM" log. So far, this has been limited to caches that have been compromised by water and contents were moldy and rusty, lids missing, holes chewed through by vermin (big and small), containers split open (they don't last forever, folks -- most any type of plastic one, anyway).

 

The fact that we could not find it deserves a "DNF", nothing more. A long string of DNFs should suffice for a CO to determine that (s)he needs to perform maintenance.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I posted an NM on a cache that I never found.

CO had one hide, and no finds, and had not logged on since his hide, and lives seventy miles away. The coords are just off a trail in a state forest. Two cachers searched there, and did not find the cache. Not necessarily a cause for alarm. But the page description did not describe anything anywhere near the coords. The page description was for a camp of some sort: "Go out of the dining hall, make a left across the dam, to the boat house. &c." So I, being a silly dolphin, visited the nearest camp, with permission, and followed the cache page description. There was no cache to be found there. My NM may not have been the most polite (this was obviously a very screwed up cache page!). A month later, I received an equally impolite e-mail from the CO. Noting that the cache was not at that camp. That he had checked the coords carefully, several times. And that I should consider taking a course in How To Use a GPS. That, of course, rankled the Grumpy Dolphin to no end! On his guarantee that the coords were, indeed, very accurate, I searched the location that the two previous cachers had searched. There was no cache to be found within a hundred feet. We are talking about an ammo can painted purple! After my second DNF, I noticed that the cache page had been changed to note that it was at a different camp, about 1.5 miles from the coordinates. I e-mailed that camp to enquire whether casual hikers were welcomed, and received a response: "Not while the camp is being rented to campers." So, I mentioned the problems to the reviewer. Cache is currently unavailable until maintenance is performed either to replace the missing cache, or correct the coordinates.

So, yes, you can put an NM on a cache that you have never found.

[+Prime Suspect]

Personally I wish people would use the Needs Maintenance log more often. I may get dozens of logs on a nice weekend and may overlook when someone tells me the cache needs maintenance in his regular log. A NM gets my attention. I can also run PQs to get a list of my caches with the NM attribute, which makes maintenance easier.

 

As far as when it is appropriate to use, I would use it in the following circumstances:

 

-I know for a fact the cache is missing. (e.g. someone I'm with found it before and verifies that it is gone)

-Full log book

-Wet contents

-Damaged container

-Cache was obviously out of its hiding place and I don't know where to put it back

-Cache has been vandalized

-The original hiding place is gone or no longer sufficient (e.g. the tree stump it was in rotted away)

-The cache can't be accessed. (e.g. It was in a hollow post but fell to the bottom. I can see it but there is no way to get to it.)

 

When not to use it:

 

-I can't find it

 

And the corollary to this is when the cache OWNER should and should not use the Maintenance Performed log.

 

When to use it -

 

- When you've ACTUALLY DONE MAINTENANCE.

 

When not to use it -

 

- ANY OTHER TIME.

 

"I'll look at it next week" is NOT maintenance. "I'm waiting for a replacement container" is NOT maintenance.

[knowschad]

Can you say that primarily cache maitenance must be a COs responsibility at all times, but practically cache maitenance is also everyone's shared responsibility, too ?(thanks for this thread and it's topic, I opened another thread of this nature and it got way to combative.)

I hope that I don't come across like Cliff Claven here, but according to the guidelines, cache maintenance is 100% the resposibility of the cache owner. That said, many cache finders will do some cache maintenance when they can, such as drying a wet container and log, adding new log sheet when they come across one that is full (frequently just a small temporary log)... stuff like that. What they should not do is replace what they believe is a missing cache without having conclusive evidence that the cache has been muggled, and even that is subject to varying opinions.

[Skippermark]

I use the NM log when a cache...needs maintenance. Basically for the things Brian said, damaged container, things like that.

 

I've received NM logs on some of my caches when there was nothing wrong and were in fact just DNFs. "Could not find the cache, owner needs to check on it right away..."

[+brslk]

Can you say that primarily cache maitenance must be a COs responsibility at all times, but practically cache maitenance is also everyone's shared responsibility, too ?(thanks for this thread and it's topic, I opened another thread of this nature and it got way to combative.)

I hope that I don't come across like Cliff Claven here, but according to the guidelines, cache maintenance is 100% the resposibility of the cache owner. That said, many cache finders will do some cache maintenance when they can, such as drying a wet container and log, adding new log sheet when they come across one that is full (frequently just a small temporary log)... stuff like that. What they should not do is replace what they believe is a missing cache without having conclusive evidence that the cache has been muggled, and even that is subject to varying opinions.

 

people actually replace a cache that they believe has been muggled? I have seen some containers that could use replacing but I wouldn't do it unless asked to by the cache owner. The most I would do is send the CO a pm to let him/her know.

I will replace ziplock bags and such but never an entire cache.

 

Bruce.