Cache Maintainance

[+Smurf]

A quick search on GC.com came up with 455 caches within a 25 mile radius of my home co-ords here in West Yorkshire that have the "Needs Maintainance" attribute on them...... I cant imagine how many there would be in the whole country (or the world).

 

Come on people, sort 'em out.....

 

And if you have already sorted out any issues with your caches, removing the attribute can only be done by posting an "owner maintainance" log on the cache page

[+Terentius]

Well said Smurf, far too many in poor condition, wet etc.

[+Pharisee]

A quick search on GC.com came up with 455 caches within a 25 mile radius of my home co-ords here in West Yorkshire that have the "Needs Maintainance" attribute on them...... I cant imagine how many there would be in the whole country (or the world).

 

Come on people, sort 'em out.....

 

And if you have already sorted out any issues with your caches, removing the attribute can only be done by posting an "owner maintainance" log on the cache page

Don't know about the whole world, but a quick search through my GSAK database lists 3072 in the UK. That about 4% of the total currently active caches.

[+currykev]

And if you have already sorted out any issues with your caches, removing the attribute can only be done by posting an "owner maintainance" log on the cache page

 

That is a very recent change.

I would reckon on a high percentage of those caches having been maintained already, BUT, still have the "needs maintenance" attribute.

I've probably got one or two myself.

If you fancy checking for me I'd be most appreciative.

[+Original A1]

I don't know how you go about getting those stats, but surely it's more appropriate to put out such a call in the Spring when the worst of the winter weather is behind us. There's certainly some of mine which I won't be rushing out to check on at the moment, although those which people have alerted me to lately which needed attention have been dealt with.

 

That's not to say there aren't lots of folk who've ignored requests for months on end and they do need to sharpen up. However certainly in Scotland, I think we have to go a little easy on poor Deci who's stand-in reviewing for Alba for the time being and therefore has a lot on his plate; and because a lot of the country has had not just heaps of snow, but now heaps of flooding too.

 

All in good time.

 

[+Haggis Hunter]

And if you have already sorted out any issues with your caches, removing the attribute can only be done by posting an "owner maintainance" log on the cache page

 

That is a very recent change.

I would reckon on a high percentage of those caches having been maintained already, BUT, still have the "needs maintenance" attribute.

I've probably got one or two myself.

If you fancy checking for me I'd be most appreciative.

My bold, No it's not!! It has 'always' been the case that to remove the needs maintenance attribute that you need to post a owner maintenance log.

[+Smurf]

I don't know how you go about getting those stats,

 

A simple PQ to only include only caches with the "needs maintainance"

 

However certainly in Scotland, I think we have to go a little easy on poor Deci who's stand-in reviewing for Alba for the time being and therefore has a lot on his plate;

 

This does not involve or notify a reviewer in any way. (so says the reviewer who is sitting about 10 feet from me publishing caches as I type)

[+currykev]

And if you have already sorted out any issues with your caches, removing the attribute can only be done by posting an "owner maintainance" log on the cache page

 

That is a very recent change.

I would reckon on a high percentage of those caches having been maintained already, BUT, still have the "needs maintenance" attribute.

I've probably got one or two myself.

If you fancy checking for me I'd be most appreciative.

My bold, No it's not!! It has 'always' been the case that to remove the needs maintenance attribute that you need to post a owner maintenance log.

 

Yes and No.

Having given some thought on this I think this is where I have been mistaken.

As I have in the past, deleted the "needs maintenance" icon BEFORE writing the "owner maintenance" log.

Last time I tried this, the other day I was unable to remove the icon. I had to post a owner M log to remove it.

 

BUT....I have just looked at my cache GC1K8HZ.

A needs M log was placed on 09 Jan.

I disable it. Then I enable it on the 12th without posting an owner M log.

So the icon remains.

I have just gone into the attributes and I am able to remove the icon manually.

 

Anyone else fancy clarifying the situation.

Edited January 16, 2011 by currykev

[+Original A1]

I don't know how you go about getting those stats,

 

A simple PQ to only include only caches with the "needs maintainance"

 

However certainly in Scotland, I think we have to go a little easy on poor Deci who's stand-in reviewing for Alba for the time being and therefore has a lot on his plate;

 

This does not involve or notify a reviewer in any way. (so says the reviewer who is sitting about 10 feet from me publishing caches as I type)

Hmmm - I thought the "needs maintenance" log flagged up to a reviewer that attention was required; if nothing happened, they put out a warning to the owner and if something still doesn't happen, they archive it. I've never put up a "needs archived" log that I'm aware of, so how else do they know to put out the warnings? Surely not by just trawling through the caches of an evening...?

 

Mystified.

 

Off to do a PQ about "needs maintenances" - presumably doable on GC.com not just GSAK, me being a Luddite ana?

 

[+Smurf]

Hmmm - I thought the "needs maintenance" log flagged up to a reviewer that attention was required;

 

A "needs maintainance" log goes to the cache owner only

 

A "Needs archive" log goes to the cache owner and a reviewer

[+Haggis Hunter]

And if you have already sorted out any issues with your caches, removing the attribute can only be done by posting an "owner maintainance" log on the cache page

 

That is a very recent change.

I would reckon on a high percentage of those caches having been maintained already, BUT, still have the "needs maintenance" attribute.

I've probably got one or two myself.

If you fancy checking for me I'd be most appreciative.

My bold, No it's not!! It has 'always' been the case that to remove the needs maintenance attribute that you need to post a owner maintenance log.

 

Yes and No.

Having given some thought on this I think this is where I have been mistaken.

As I have in the past, deleted the "needs maintenance" icon BEFORE writing the "owner maintenance" log.

Last time I tried this, the other day I was unable to remove the icon. I had to post a owner M log to remove it.

 

BUT....I have just looked at my cache GC1K8HZ.

A needs M log was placed on 09 Jan.

I disable it. Then I enable it on the 12th without posting an owner M log.

So the icon remains.

I have just gone into the attributes and I am able to remove the icon manually.

 

Anyone else fancy clarifying the situation.

I never realised that you could remove the icon manually as described. But you have always been able to remove it with an owners 'M' Log.

[+Andalusite]

Removing the icon does NOT remove the attribute.

 

Strange, but true...

 

The only way to clear the attribute is to log "owner maintenance".

[+Mallah]

I guess this is a common question, but how long do you leave between raising a maintenance request and a needs archiving - given that the particular owner of the one i've highlighted only has two finds to his/her name - both back in Jan 09, and no sign of any action on his/her cache since it was placed in April 09?

Edited January 18, 2011 by TheHalliwells

[+Amberel]

I guess this is a common question, but how long do you leave between raising a maintenance request and a needs archiving - given that the particular owner of the one i've highlighted only has two finds to his/her name - both back in Jan 09, and no sign of any action on his/her cache since it was placed in April 09?

I think you may already have worked out the answer for yourself . I'd say anywhere between 2 weeks and 3 months. You look at the circumstances and use your common sense. In this case it looks like there is little point in "prolonging the agony".

 

Rgds, Andy