Needs Maintenance

[+Don_J]

I have a notification of logs on caches within 5 miles of my home. Last night, a local cacher posted 13 Needs Maintenance logs on perfectly good caches that have trackables listed that are not in the cache. Who knows how many he hit outside of my radius. Two of the caches were placed in 2001 and are in perfect condition with the local caching community replacing logs as needed. They now have that cursed green cross icon attached, that only the CO or the reviewer can remove.

 

I've been thinking about this for a couple of hours and have come to the conclusion that I really don't like it.

 

I would be interested to see what others think.

 

Is it my responsibility to mark a TB/Coin missing?

If I have a few logs indicating such, and a significant time has lapsed, I will use the option.

 

If no one has reported it to me through their "Found It" logs, do I deserve a NM?

 

I think that if this person is so concerned, they should be contacting the TB owner, not the cache owner.

 

What say you?

[+Harry Dolphin]

TB maintenance is not the responsibility of the cache owner. This cacher is acting irresponsibly by logging NM on such caches.

Either the CO or the TB owner can move the TB to 'missing'. (Or, in a pinch, Eartha can do it.)

When a TB is missing, I log that on the TB page and on the cache log. Some COs do not realize that they can move it to 'missing'. Of course, many TB owners have long ceased playing the game, and do not mark their bug as missing. As a TB owner, I do not know that my bug may have gone missing, unless someone notes it on the TB page.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's been a long thread on this topic in the last couple of years. I just made a couple of attempts to find it, but I must be misremembering the original post and poster.

 

I believe that consensus was that it's a courtesy for the cache owner to try and keep the TB inventory on the cache page accurate, but not a requirement.

 

To me, this is an abuse of the NM log.

 

That cacher should be posting notes to the TB pages noting that the TB is not in the cache.

 

I can see making the argument that an owner of any self proclaimed "Hotel" should visit and clean up inventory from time to time, but for other caches - meh. The trackable game is its own thing, let the trackable owners and the folks who care to move them play it.

[+t4e]

They now have that cursed green cross icon attached, that only the CO or the reviewer can remove.

 

 

What say you?

 

green would be no problem, its red or blue, depending what screen you're on that is the bugger

 

is it a noobie cacher by any chance?

[+StarBrand]

Further abuse of the NM flag...... I am just not going to run out and do a regular bi-weekly inventory of travelers in all 140+ active caches I own.

 

However, if I see 2 or 3 logs indicating a traveler is not in the cache - I will try to take action and mark it as missing.

[+Don_J]

They now have that cursed green cross icon attached, that only the CO or the reviewer can remove.

 

 

What say you?

 

green would be no problem, its red or blue, depending what screen you're on that is the bugger

 

is it a noobie cacher by any chance?

 

No, he's been around for over a year and has over 500 finds.

[+ShowStop]

I got one of the NM logs by the Geocacher that Don_J mentioned. This is not the first time said cacher has done this and I also agree it is abuse of the NM feature. A simple note on the cache page is all that is required. I fixed the TB issue with my cache, but now in addition I had to log an owner maintenance to remove the red cross attribute.

[+roziecakes]

Even though the person has been around for a while, they may not know any better... you'd be surprised what some people who have been caching for a while don't know/

[+A & J Tooling]

Experience dose not always equal smarter or wiser. It boils down to what you learn from the experience.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It actually appears to be better report it as a maintenance issue for the cache page than just leaving a note. Some people hunt for caches that have travelbugs in them. Leaving the TBs listed on the cache page after several logs indicate they aren't there shows a lack of maintenance by the CO.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

This is an interesting topic. I hope there is alot of input from the GC community. Our son has a cache which had a trackable logged-in but not logged-out. After a month I e-mailed the cacher (don't let him communicate w/ unknowns in the cyber world yet) who had taken the bug and asked if they would log it as found to keep the cache inventory current. After 2 weeks w/ no reply, we logged the bug as missing.

 

Two points here:

1) There is a time requirement necessary here beyond just a few logs mentioning it is missing.

2) I wouldn't expect those who have 100+ caches out there to do the same dilligence for each cache on a timely basis.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

1) There is a time requirement necessary here beyond just a few logs mentioning it is missing.

A TB might get picked up by someone on vacation and not logged until the end of their trip. In most cases that won't be longer than a couple of weeks. If there's a month's worth of logs on a cache saying the bug is not in the cache, it can probably be safely marked as missing.

[+Ambient_Skater]

I fixed the TB issue with my cache, but now in addition I had to log an owner maintenance to remove the red cross attribute.

That warrants a face?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I fixed the TB issue with my cache, but now in addition I had to log an owner maintenance to remove the red cross attribute.

That warrants a face?

It's pretty silly to have to make 2-3 separate logs to enable a cache: Enabled, Owner maintenance, and corrected coordinates. You might not need to edit the coords when you replace a logbook or broken container, but if you're fixing your disabled cache it's not a bad idea to recheck them anyway. It is frustrating to log one thing and still have your cache marked as either disabled or still needing maintenance. How about we use this smiley instead:

[+Bobfireman]

"Needs Maintenance" should indicate only that the cache is missing, insecure, needs a new log, needs a coordinate correction, etc (in other words, things under the CO's control). I would not tolerate an NM for missing TB's, and would immediately mark it as resolved (and might also delete the log entry).

The person logging the NM for missing TB's should instead be noting it on the TB page.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

[+edscott]

Wonder if it is the same guy that threatened to steal my cache unless I went out that weekend (while he was in the area) to verify what TBs were inside.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

"Needs Maintenance" should indicate only that the cache is missing, insecure, needs a new log, needs a coordinate correction, etc (in other words, things under the CO's control). I would not tolerate an NM for missing TB's, and would immediately mark it as resolved (and might also delete the log entry).

The person logging the NM for missing TB's should instead be noting it on the TB page.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

NM doesn't only refer to the physical cache needing maintenance. I might log a NM if the description on the cache page is outdated, the hint no longer applies, or that a TB isn't in the cache after multiple logs. All of these are within the CO's control to fix on the cache page and are all an example of maintenance that the cache owner can do.

[+ShowStop]

I fixed the TB issue with my cache, but now in addition I had to log an owner maintenance to remove the red cross attribute.

That warrants a face?

Yes it does.

[+fizzymagic]

There is an easy solution to this problem, but one I doubt many people will take. That solution is to post on the cache page that you do not want trackables left in your cache, and that if any are you will mark them missing. That way people like the person leaving the NM logs will not be attracted to your cache and you can live in peace.

 

Maintenance of a trackable is the responsibility of the trackable owner, not the cache owner.

 

But here is the real cost of all this:

 

Think about the entire trackable game. A person buys a tag or coin, and then expects other people to move it around for him and take care of it. If people don't move it quickly enough, they can expect a nasty email from the owner. If the cache owner doesn't verify that the trackable is in his cache, he gets a nasty email from the owner or a seeker who didn't find it.

 

Another perverse incentive against hiding full-sized caches. It's no wonder that there is a glut of urban micros -- we make owning a regular-sized cache out in the woods a real pain.

Edited April 26, 2011 by fizzymagic

[+BlueDeuce]

They now have that cursed green cross icon attached, that only the CO or the reviewer can remove.

 

 

What say you?

 

green would be no problem, its red or blue, depending what screen you're on that is the bugger

 

is it a noobie cacher by any chance?

 

No, he's been around for over a year and has over 500 finds.

 

I spend my spare time identifying bugs that need to be removed. I contact the bug owner to mark it as missing, then if necessary I ask the cache owner to remove it, if still nothing I contact a gc.com volunteer.

 

Send me that person's name and I'll talk to them about the appropriate methods.

[+fizzymagic]

I spend my spare time identifying bugs that need to be removed. I contact the bug owner to mark it as missing, then if necessary I ask the cache owner to remove it, if still nothing I contact a gc.com volunteer.

 

Wow, that's really sad.

 

If I were a cache owner and you contacted me, I would be very, very annoyed.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Maintenance of a trackable is the responsibility of the trackable owner, not the cache owner.

Ultimately it falls to the bug owner, but a cache owner is responsible for quality control of his cache page. That includes things like policing bogus logs and marking bugs as missing. If it wasn't up to the cache owner to ever do this, it wouldn't be an option on his cache page.

[OliverrWilliams]

There's a cache near to me that is in desperate need of attention The Water Tower, i have tried contacting the owner by they haven't been active since December..

The cache itself is soggy and the old log book is mush. I have put a temporary log sheet inside in a airtight bag, but something really needs to be done about this one as it's such a good location for a decent cache..

What is there that one can do??

[+StarBrand]

There's a cache near to me that is in desperate need of attention The Water Tower, i have tried contacting the owner by they haven't been active since December..

The cache itself is soggy and the old log book is mush. I have put a temporary log sheet inside in a airtight bag, but something really needs to be done about this one as it's such a good location for a decent cache..

What is there that one can do??

Place an NM log on the cache. If nothing happens after a month or so (no action - no notes - no updates of any kind) - log the "NA" log type. Let a reviewer deal with it.

[+The Blorenges]

There's a cache near to me that is in desperate need of attention The Water Tower, i have tried contacting the owner by they haven't been active since December..

The cache itself is soggy and the old log book is mush. I have put a temporary log sheet inside in a airtight bag, but something really needs to be done about this one as it's such a good location for a decent cache..

What is there that one can do??

 

You've put a Needs Maintenance log on the cache, which is fine... except for the fact that it seems there have been several NM logs over the last year and several more logs mentioning that the contents are wet/rusty/soggy etc and no sign at all that the CO is taking any notice.

 

I'd suggest it's a good candidate for a Needs Archive log.

 

MrsB

[+Harry Dolphin]

Maintenance of a trackable is the responsibility of the trackable owner, not the cache owner.

Ultimately it falls to the bug owner, but a cache owner is responsible for quality control of his cache page. That includes things like policing bogus logs and marking bugs as missing. If it wasn't up to the cache owner to ever do this, it wouldn't be an option on his cache page.

 

The cache owner has the opportunity to do so. But it is not a requirement. It is not the CO's responsibility. Branding the cache with NM for a missing bug is an abuse of the system.

[+edscott]

I spend my spare time identifying bugs that need to be removed. I contact the bug owner to mark it as missing, then if necessary I ask the cache owner to remove it, if still nothing I contact a gc.com volunteer.

 

Wow, that's really sad.

 

If I were a cache owner and you contacted me, I would be very, very annoyed.

 

+1+1+1+1+1..

[+Cardinal Red]

There's been a long thread on this topic in the last couple of years. I just made a couple of attempts to find it, but I must be misremembering the original post and poster.

 

This one perhaps? Certainly related. Please Mark Trackable Missing

[+fizzymagic]

There's been a long thread on this topic in the last couple of years. I just made a couple of attempts to find it, but I must be misremembering the original post and poster.

This one perhaps? Certainly related. Please Mark Trackable Missing

This one.

Edited April 26, 2011 by fizzymagic

[AZcachemeister]

"Needs Maintenance" should indicate only that the cache is missing, insecure, needs a new log, needs a coordinate correction, etc (in other words, things under the CO's control). I would not tolerate an NM for missing TB's, and would immediately mark it as resolved (and might also delete the log entry).

The person logging the NM for missing TB's should instead be noting it on the TB page.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

NM doesn't only refer to the physical cache needing maintenance. I might log a NM if the description on the cache page is outdated, the hint no longer applies, or that a TB isn't in the cache after multiple logs. All of these are within the CO's control to fix on the cache page and are all an example of maintenance that the cache owner can do.

 

Maintenance of a trackable is the responsibility of the trackable owner, not the cache owner.

Ultimately it falls to the bug owner, but a cache owner is responsible for quality control of his cache page. That includes things like policing bogus logs and marking bugs as missing. If it wasn't up to the cache owner to ever do this, it wouldn't be an option on his cache page.

 

Maintenance of a trackable is the responsibility of the trackable owner, not the cache owner.

Ultimately it falls to the bug owner, but a cache owner is responsible for quality control of his cache page. That includes things like policing bogus logs and marking bugs as missing. If it wasn't up to the cache owner to ever do this, it wouldn't be an option on his cache page.

 

The cache owner has the opportunity to do so. But it is not a requirement. It is not the CO's responsibility. Branding the cache with NM for a missing bug is an abuse of the system.

 

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

I certainly agree that it is primarily the trackable owner's responsibility to move their items to 'UNKNOWN', but it is CERTAINLY the cache owner's responsibility to have their cache listing be as accurate as possible. Giving the cache owner the power to remove missing trackables implies that they should be doing exactly that.

 

I have yet to post a NM for a cache with missing trackables, but if an owner is ignoring missing trackables, how soon will it be before they ignore a full/soggy log, a compromised container...or even that the cache is missing entirely?

[+BlueDeuce]

Placing a NM on a cache because of a missing bug is inappropriate.

 

I do not think the cache owner has a responsibility to verify the bug is not in the cache and mark it as missing. Nice, but not required.

 

I will ask a cache owner to move it out and I have yet to have one be very, very annoyed with such a simple request. I'm sure there are a few out there and if I come across one, I'll let you know.

[+BlueDeuce]

Is it my responsibility to mark a TB/Coin missing?

 

Let me clarify.

 

You placed a cache and presumably met all the requirements to have it listed, along with agreeing that you will maintain the cache container, the listing, and continue to follow the land-owner's rules.

 

Now comes along this traveler placed by someone who visited your cache. You have no apparent rights in regards to having it there, or have any say as to who can place one or who can take one, but regardless you now have to do cache maintenance whenever there's an issue with it?

 

As far as I am aware, that would not be part of the agreement when placing a cache.

 

I'm sure this person would like to see travelers accurately listed, and I agree. Again, give me their name and I will let them know how to best make that happen.

Edited April 27, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+popokiiti]

I have two bugs out in the wild blue yonder - I have heard diddly squat about them in a couple of years. Should I assume they're AWOL/MIA and mark them as missing? What do I do should they reappear? This is why I am not into travel bugs any more...suddenly, pfft! They're gone it seems.

Maybe this cacher is one who like to move bugs along and that is why he's upset when he doesn't find one? Could be that the bug was removed half an hour before his visit also...............

[+BlueDeuce]

Could be that the bug was removed half an hour before his visit also...............

 

Yep, that's all part of the how to best make that happen.

 

I'll answer the first part of your question elsewhere so not to be off topic. Link to follow.

[+fizzymagic]

You placed a cache and presumably met all the requirements to have it listed, along with agreeing that you will maintain the cache container, the listing, and continue to follow the land-owner's rules.

 

Let's clarify further: the listing of the TBs in the cache is not a part of the cache listing you agree to maintain. It is an addition to the listing placed there by Groundspeak.

 

There are other parts of the cache page over which you have no control: bookmark lists, favorites, and advertisements, for example. Clearly you are not agreeing to maintain those parts when you place a cache. Likewise, I when I place a cache I do not agree to maintain the trackables list.

 

I may choose to mark trackables as missing as a favor to the owner, but it is not part of my responsibility as cache owner.

[+fizzymagic]

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. Maintaining the list of trackables in a cache listing is not the responsibility of the cache owner in any way.

[+BlueDeuce]

You placed a cache and presumably met all the requirements to have it listed, along with agreeing that you will maintain the cache container, the listing, and continue to follow the land-owner's rules.

 

Let's clarify further: the listing of the TBs in the cache is not a part of the cache listing you agree to maintain. It is an addition to the listing placed there by Groundspeak.

 

There are other parts of the cache page over which you have no control: bookmark lists, favorites, and advertisements, for example. Clearly you are not agreeing to maintain those parts when you place a cache. Likewise, I when I place a cache I do not agree to maintain the trackables list.

 

I may choose to mark trackables as missing as a favor to the owner, but it is not part of my responsibility as cache owner.

 

Apparently you only bothered to read the first sentence of my post.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. Maintaining the list of trackables in a cache listing is not the responsibility of the cache owner in any way.

Then why does the cache owner have the power to mark bugs as missing? Your opinion is wrong, and so are your facts.

[+kpanko]

I spend my spare time identifying bugs that need to be removed. I contact the bug owner to mark it as missing, then if necessary I ask the cache owner to remove it, if still nothing I contact a gc.com volunteer.

 

I believe the community as a whole should be allowed to mark bugs missing. If we can all pitch in with this, then it won't be the cache owner's "job" to mark them missing.

 

That is why I ask you all to vote for this:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1070029-trackables-no-longer-in-caches

[+fizzymagic]

You placed a cache and presumably met all the requirements to have it listed, along with agreeing that you will maintain the cache container, the listing, and continue to follow the land-owner's rules.

 

Let's clarify further: the listing of the TBs in the cache is not a part of the cache listing you agree to maintain. It is an addition to the listing placed there by Groundspeak.

 

There are other parts of the cache page over which you have no control: bookmark lists, favorites, and advertisements, for example. Clearly you are not agreeing to maintain those parts when you place a cache. Likewise, I when I place a cache I do not agree to maintain the trackables list.

 

I may choose to mark trackables as missing as a favor to the owner, but it is not part of my responsibility as cache owner.

 

Apparently you only bothered to read the first sentence of my post.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was "clarifying further."

[+fizzymagic]

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. Maintaining the list of trackables in a cache listing is not the responsibility of the cache owner in any way.

Then why does the cache owner have the power to mark bugs as missing? Your opinion is wrong, and so are your facts.

 

So in your world the ability to do something is the same as requirement to do it?

 

In that case, please give me all your money.

 

Seriously, don't you see the absurdity of your position? Suppose Groundspeak gave cache owners the ability to edit bookmark lists visible on the cache page. Would you then consider it your responsibility to look through all the bookmark lists on your cache pages to ensure that nothing offensive was in any of the comments?

Edited April 27, 2011 by fizzymagic

[I!]

a local cacher posted 13 Needs Maintenance logs on perfectly good caches that have trackables listed that are not in the cache

Good use of NM. Lazy CO. Well done, cache police.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. Maintaining the list of trackables in a cache listing is not the responsibility of the cache owner in any way.

Then why does the cache owner have the power to mark bugs as missing? Your opinion is wrong, and so are your facts.

 

So in your world the ability to do something is the same as requirement to do it?

 

In that case, please give me all your money.

 

Seriously, don't you see the absurdity of your position? Suppose Groundspeak gave cache owners the ability to edit bookmark lists visible on the cache page. Would you then consider it your responsibility to look through all the bookmark lists on your cache pages to ensure that nothing offensive was in any of the comments?

As a cache owner, anything within my control on the cache page is my responsibility to maintain. Hints and bogus logs? I can encrypt or delete them. Travelbugs not getting logged out? I can mark them missing. Bookmark lists titled, "this cache sucks" - I can't do anything directly but I can complain to Groundspeak (or make it so my cache doesn't suck).

 

What happens if I don't maintain the logs?

Hints may make the cache easier to find than I had intended. i can either police those logs or change the rating on the cache.

Bogus logs, such as a fake "needs maintenance" log, may cause me to spend time checking on something that didn't need checking. The reverse may also happen. A fake "found it" log may tell me that I can skip the maintenance visit I was planning because the cache was reported as good.

Travelbugs marked as in the cache when they've been gone for months may get someone to make a special trip to grab the bug when there isn't one there.

 

Is anyone really harmed by the travelbug listed as in the cache when it isn't there? Not really. The most is does is inconvenience someone but it's within my power to keep that from happening, so why not?

[jholly]

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. Maintaining the list of trackables in a cache listing is not the responsibility of the cache owner in any way.

Then why does the cache owner have the power to mark bugs as missing? Your opinion is wrong, and so are your facts.

 

So in your world the ability to do something is the same as requirement to do it?

 

In that case, please give me all your money.

 

Seriously, don't you see the absurdity of your position? Suppose Groundspeak gave cache owners the ability to edit bookmark lists visible on the cache page. Would you then consider it your responsibility to look through all the bookmark lists on your cache pages to ensure that nothing offensive was in any of the comments?

As a cache owner, anything within my control on the cache page is my responsibility to maintain. Hints and bogus logs? I can encrypt or delete them. Travelbugs not getting logged out? I can mark them missing. Bookmark lists titled, "this cache sucks" - I can't do anything directly but I can complain to Groundspeak (or make it so my cache doesn't suck).

 

What happens if I don't maintain the logs?

Hints may make the cache easier to find than I had intended. i can either police those logs or change the rating on the cache.

Bogus logs, such as a fake "needs maintenance" log, may cause me to spend time checking on something that didn't need checking. The reverse may also happen. A fake "found it" log may tell me that I can skip the maintenance visit I was planning because the cache was reported as good.

Travelbugs marked as in the cache when they've been gone for months may get someone to make a special trip to grab the bug when there isn't one there.

 

Is anyone really harmed by the travelbug listed as in the cache when it isn't there? Not really. The most is does is inconvenience someone but it's within my power to keep that from happening, so why not?

I have to agree with Fizzy. The maintenance of the traveler list is simply not a requirement I have to meet. It appears without my intervention, and the travelers can and do disappear without my intervention. The only control I have is to mark them missing, if I so chose. And once you get right down to it, that is really the responsibility of the traveler owner.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the traveler owner but that doesn't mean no one else shares in that responsibility. Everyone who picks up the bug has the responsibility to correctly log its whereabouts. Cache owners have the responsibility to keep their listings accurate. If the lid on your cache went missing wouldn't you have the responsibility to note that on the cache page? Yes you would, by marking the cache as disabled until you could go fix it. Same thing with a bug - the cache owner (or bug owner) marks it missing. If it turns up again it will get logged.

[jholly]

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the traveler owner but that doesn't mean no one else shares in that responsibility. Everyone who picks up the bug has the responsibility to correctly log its whereabouts. Cache owners have the responsibility to keep their listings accurate. If the lid on your cache went missing wouldn't you have the responsibility to note that on the cache page? Yes you would, by marking the cache as disabled until you could go fix it. Same thing with a bug - the cache owner (or bug owner) marks it missing. If it turns up again it will get logged.

Ah, so if there is a question about the bug inventory I should mark my cache unavailable until I have time to go out and count the bugs? I don't think so. It simply is not my responsibility to maintain the bug list. And how do I handle someone dropping a bug into my cache without logging the drop? OMG! The bug list is wrong! There is a bug in the cache that is not on the inventory list! The only way to deal with that problem is go out and check my cache after each log. Ain't going to happen. And how do I handle the case where some one finds my cache, signs the log, drops a bug, but doesn't log online the find or bug drop for a year or so? Are you saying I need to make a sweep of my caches several times a week just to make sure the bug inventory is correct? News flash! Ain't going to happen. I will mark a bug missing as a convenience to my fellow cachers but it is not my responsibility to maintain the list.

[+kpanko]

I agree that "needs maintenance" is not the right log to use when a TB is missing.

 

When you do not find a TB in the cache, write your "found it" log and mention that fact. Then go to the TB's page, and log a note, mentioning that fact again.

 

Now wait and hope that either the TB owner or the cache owner will mark the TB missing.

 

A week or two later, usually nobody has done so. At that point, you can make a request that an admin do it. Eartha has been willing to do this.

 

I think this is ridiculous, and the system should just let us mark a TB as missing. What's the difference if I ask Eartha to do it, or do it myself? She's not going to come and check the cache to make sure it's really gone.

[+Destitute]

[+Harry Dolphin]

Then why does the cache owner have the power to mark bugs as missing? Your opinion is wrong, and so are your facts.

 

There are lots of things I can do. That does not mean that I should, or that I must. I can claim that I attended an event 24 times: once for every temporary cache. That doesn't mean that I must, much less that I should. But I can.

Geocaching has given CO's the opportunity to get rid of missing trackables, if they so wish. That does not mean that they must, not even that they should. It says that they can.

So, the only thing I'll agree with is that your opinion is wrong. If it were a requirement, then it would be spelt out in the guidelines. (And I would stop hiding anything but micros.)

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Sorry O Finned One, but I'm siding with Saxy on this.

 

It IS ABSOLUTELY the cache owner's responsibility to maintain their cache listing.

 

You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. Maintaining the list of trackables in a cache listing is not the responsibility of the cache owner in any way.

Then why does the cache owner have the power to mark bugs as missing? Your opinion is wrong, and so are your facts.

 

I'm also going to agree with Fizzy on this. CO's should mark trackables as missing as a courtesy to other cachers and keep their inventory as accurate as possible, but it isn't and shouldn't be a requirement.

 

If you're adamant that this is a requirement, would you then agree that caches should be archived if an owner doesn't "maintain" the listing by marking TB's missing?