Jump to content

Are Maintenance Finds Not Counted As a Legit Find?


bsandrew
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

What he said.

And to clarify...you might visit a cache a second time in order to drop off a Travel Bug, in which case you would post a note (hopefully you would then delete that note, but that's another issue). If on that second visit you should happen to notice something requiring the owner's attention (full logbook, damaged container, etc) you might then decide to post a 'Needs Maintenance' log. Since it was your second visit to the cache, you certainly wouldn't want to 'double-dip' and claim a second find on the same cache, would you?

 

So, you see, the 'Found It' log and the 'Needs Maintenance' log have completely separate functions.

 

Personally I prefer to simply state the cache needs some sort of attention in my 'Found It' log...unless others have already reported the issue and the owner seems to be ignoring (or not noticing) there is a problem.

Link to comment

The find count is not a score. If that is your incentive you are missing out on so much more.

 

However, a needs maintenance log is just that. It lets the CO know you found a problem. Log it separately from your found it log. This way you can let the CO know of issues even if you were revisiting a cache.

 

I appreciate response to my post. However, everyone has their own reason for Geocaching. I'm not missing out but I appreciate your advice.

Link to comment

What he said.

And to clarify...you might visit a cache a second time in order to drop off a Travel Bug, in which case you would post a note (hopefully you would then delete that note, but that's another issue).

 

I dipped a bug in my own cache the other day so I don't mind the log being there, but is there a problem with writing and not deleting a note about dropping off a TB?

Link to comment

 

I dipped a bug in my own cache the other day so I don't mind the log being there, but is there a problem with writing and not deleting a note about dropping off a TB?

 

Only that the 'TB drop/dip' note is not very informative, and takes up space that might be used by logs that ARE informative.

Given the current tendency for 'TFTC' logs, the likelihood is slim.

It's like leaving an empty candy-wrapper lying about.

Link to comment

The find count is not a score. If that is your incentive you are missing out on so much more.

 

However, a needs maintenance log is just that. It lets the CO know you found a problem. Log it separately from your found it log. This way you can let the CO know of issues even if you were revisiting a cache.

 

I appreciate response to my post. However, everyone has their own reason for Geocaching. I'm not missing out but I appreciate your advice.

 

I agree with the sock puppet master. If your only incentive is an extra point then you are missing out on a lot more.

Link to comment

The find count is not a score. If that is your incentive you are missing out on so much more.

 

However, a needs maintenance log is just that. It lets the CO know you found a problem. Log it separately from your found it log. This way you can let the CO know of issues even if you were revisiting a cache.

 

I appreciate response to my post. However, everyone has their own reason for Geocaching. I'm not missing out but I appreciate your advice.

I believe this was more of response to your remark that there should be an incentive for reporting needs maintenance.

 

The incentive for reporting needs maintenance is that you are letting a cache owner know there is a issue so they can fix it for future cachers. It should not be because your find count goes up by one. There is already a problem (at least according to some) with people logging bogus finds because it increments their find count. Imagine an incentive to report bogus needs maintenance. Would anyone bother to do maintenance based on logs that someone wrote just to get a +1 on their "score".

Link to comment

What he said.

And to clarify...you might visit a cache a second time in order to drop off a Travel Bug, in which case you would post a note (hopefully you would then delete that note, but that's another issue).

 

I dipped a bug in my own cache the other day so I don't mind the log being there, but is there a problem with writing and not deleting a note about dropping off a TB?

 

I dipped a bug in my own cache the other day so I don't mind the log being there, but is there a problem with writing and not deleting a note about dropping off a TB?

 

Only that the 'TB drop/dip' note is not very informative, and takes up space that might be used by logs that ARE informative.

Given the current tendency for 'TFTC' logs, the likelihood is slim.

It's like leaving an empty candy-wrapper lying about.

 

If you are only dipping, then I agree, delete the note. (You can do TB bits with an edit to your log, since a recent update...)

 

But. I think if you are revisiting to Drop/Retrieve a TB is good to leave the Note so others can see on the cache page Who Dropped/Retrieved it and When it happened.

 

AND. It's a big help if the TB is named or has a description, rather than Left TB/Took TB.

Link to comment

What he said.

And to clarify...you might visit a cache a second time in order to drop off a Travel Bug, in which case you would post a note (hopefully you would then delete that note, but that's another issue).

 

I dipped a bug in my own cache the other day so I don't mind the log being there, but is there a problem with writing and not deleting a note about dropping off a TB?

 

I dipped a bug in my own cache the other day so I don't mind the log being there, but is there a problem with writing and not deleting a note about dropping off a TB?

 

Only that the 'TB drop/dip' note is not very informative, and takes up space that might be used by logs that ARE informative.

Given the current tendency for 'TFTC' logs, the likelihood is slim.

It's like leaving an empty candy-wrapper lying about.

 

If you are only dipping, then I agree, delete the note. (You can do TB bits with an edit to your log, since a recent update...)

 

But. I think if you are revisiting to Drop/Retrieve a TB is good to leave the Note so others can see on the cache page Who Dropped/Retrieved it and When it happened.

 

AND. It's a big help if the TB is named or has a description, rather than Left TB/Took TB.

 

Some people will leave a note to "dip" a TB into a cache to maintain accurate mileage for where it's traveled. Whether or not that note contains any useful information would depend on who owns the TB. I've taken some trackables to far away places, dipped them into some caches at significant locations (such as a lion TB I took to the Colosseum in Rome) then eventually brought them back home and dropped them in a local cache. In that case, it benefits the trackable owner as it shows an accurate trail that TB has taken. However, there are some cachers that keep a personal coin or TB that they dip into every cache they find. In that case, there is no benefit to anyone else except the cacher dipping the trackable. In that case, I just as soon see the log deleted after the dipping has taken place.

Link to comment

A needs maintenance does not count as a find because in some instances you might not find a cache that deserves a needs maintenance. For instance say you can't find the cache and your caching partner has previously found it and verifies that it's not there. A missing cache certainly needs maintenance, but you shouldn't get credit for a find because you didn't find anything.

 

Another example might be a cache that became inaccessible. For example maybe a tree came down on it, or it fell from its hiding place and can no longer be reached. It obviously needs maintenance, but many geocachers will not log finds in these cases because even though they saw the cache, they didn't get to sign the logbook.

 

If you do find the cache and it needs maintenance then you log a find and a NM. Two different log types that serve two different purposes.

Link to comment

 

Some people will leave a note to "dip" a TB into a cache to maintain accurate mileage for where it's traveled. Whether or not that note contains any useful information would depend on who owns the TB. I've taken some trackables to far away places, dipped them into some caches at significant locations (such as a lion TB I took to the Colosseum in Rome) then eventually brought them back home and dropped them in a local cache. In that case, it benefits the trackable owner as it shows an accurate trail that TB has taken. However, there are some cachers that keep a personal coin or TB that they dip into every cache they find. In that case, there is no benefit to anyone else except the cacher dipping the trackable. In that case, I just as soon see the log deleted after the dipping has taken place.

 

When you dip or drop a TB in a cache, the visit (and whodunit) is recorded in the TB's history.

The fact that the TB visited that cache is recorded in the TB history of the cache.

If you have more to say about what you did with the TB, or where you took it, etc, post something on the TB's page!

I don't particularly object to notes stating someone traveled 400 miles out of their way to bring the TB to a certain cache to help it's goal etc, etc, etc.

 

What I really see no point to is multiple notes stating 'TB drop', 'TB drop', 'TB drop' because the logger forgot to drop it with their 'Found It', and doesn't know they can drop or dip multiple TBs with one log.

 

We now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion of 'Needs Maintenance' logs, which is already in progress. :)

Link to comment

A needs maintenance does not count as a find because in some instances you might not find a cache that deserves a needs maintenance. For instance say you can't find the cache and your caching partner has previously found it and verifies that it's not there. A missing cache certainly needs maintenance, but you shouldn't get credit for a find because you didn't find anything.

 

Another example might be a cache that became inaccessible. For example maybe a tree came down on it, or it fell from its hiding place and can no longer be reached. It obviously needs maintenance, but many geocachers will not log finds in these cases because even though they saw the cache, they didn't get to sign the logbook.

 

If you do find the cache and it needs maintenance then you log a find and a NM. Two different log types that serve two different purposes.

 

This is the one answer that makes sense. FYI: I'm entering this hobby/sport attempting to apply the rules 100%. So many caches apparently don't. My question was intended to understand the way the counts work.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...