Needs Maintenance flags and possible Cacher Maintenance log?

[+jjt002]

Are there any plans to have a "Cacher Maintenance" log type in addition to the "Owner Maintenance"? I am finding that a lot of the caches that are flagged as needs maintenance have already been fixed by other cachers (new log, dried out, etc). I know of several caches being maintained for cachers that have passed away, but there is no way for them to remove the "Needs Maintenance" flag. Or, are there ways to remove that flag by anyone other than the CO that I just haven't found?

[+JeepFreak81]

I would think it would be up to the owner of the cache to decipher if the cache is back up to par and log an owner maintenance to clear the needs maintenance flag. I don't think there's anyway to remove the flag unless you can delete the log.

[+annejilli]

I would think it would be up to the owner of the cache to decipher if the cache is back up to par and log an owner maintenance to clear the needs maintenance flag. I don't think there's anyway to remove the flag unless you can delete the log.

 

It doesn't work to just delete the log. I made a NM log on a cache. The owner messaged me how they fixed up the cache and what happened at another cache of theirs. The caches are favorites of mine and I always check on them when I am in the area. I live close by them. I removed my log but the flag remained. I thought it would disappear, but the CO has to clear it off.

[+jellis]

If someone puts a needs maintenance or needs archive, you get the cross in your attributes. But if you respond on the cache log with Owner Maintenance then you can remove the attribute. It's a good way to remind you to check on your cache. I had to check on 6 of mine today. One had construction blocking my cache, three were still there, another one I archived and one I repaired. As for a Cacher Maintenance, I think just a note on the cache page or a message to the owner is enough. I get enough slack when I put NM or NA on someone else's caches. I just don't think it is right that we get jumped on when you use them. They are there for a reason. To let the CO know they may need to check them. It's when they are abuse is when I would get upset.

Almost like NOT logging a DNF when you wish they did

Edited October 13, 2011 by jellis

[+6NoisyHikers]

A "Needs Maintenance" flag is easy enough for a cache owner to fix. Just log on and post that maintenance was done. I agree that cachers who have done helper maintenance should not be able to clear a NM flag. Attentive COs will take care of it.

[+sbell111]

I believe that a person who provides needed maintenance to a cache should be able to toggle the 'needs maintenance' flag off since teh cache no longer needs maintenance. This would be better and quicker communication to future potential seekers.

[+NanCycle]

Are there any plans to have a "Cacher Maintenance" log type in addition to the "Owner Maintenance"? I am finding that a lot of the caches that are flagged as needs maintenance have already been fixed by other cachers (new log, dried out, etc). I know of several caches being maintained for cachers that have passed away, but there is no way for them to remove the "Needs Maintenance" flag. Or, are there ways to remove that flag by anyone other than the CO that I just haven't found?

 

A reviewer can change it. Explain the situation to them and they might do it. Or they might archive it.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Shouldn't be doing anything that encourages a cache owner to hide it and forget it...

(Minor maintenance for a damp log, fine.)

Edited October 13, 2011 by Bear and Ragged

[+BMndFul]

It's everyones responsibility to help each other out when they can. I carry spare baggies and logs. If a log is full I pop one in with a new bag if needed, send a note to the CO. Bag/logs are cheap. It keeps the game moving along, and more enjoyable for the next finder. It's disappointing when you find a wet or full log, cache in pieces etc. To file a NM for a baggy or log is kind of silly in a sense. A lot of wasted time for a very easy fix. If the cache is in pieces or some other issue that would effect the enjoyment of the next cacher, then I file NM. One of my disappointments in the game is when you file a legitimate NM..and it sits there for weeks with no comment or action. GS has made it very clear that caches are the property of the CO. I accept that, then GS needs to i enforce responsibility on the CO part. There is no reason at least a comment cannot be made on a cache with a week of a NM log, in most cases. IMO, if you cannot at least do that, then you probably should not be hiding caches, or maintaining active ones.

[+t4e]

Shouldn't be doing anything that encourages a cache owner to hide it and forget it...

(Minor maintenance for a damp log, fine.)

 

there are situations where NM logs are posted for stupid reasons like "there's no more swag"

in such cases i wish there was a way to remove that attribute

[+baloo&bd]

there are situations where NM logs are posted for stupid reasons like "there's no more swag"

in such cases i wish there was a way to remove that attribute

 

Owner Maintenance Log

[Pup Patrol]

there are situations where NM logs are posted for stupid reasons like "there's no more swag"

in such cases i wish there was a way to remove that attribute

 

Owner Maintenance Log

 

Yes, for the owner of the cache, they can do that.

 

I do believe that t4e was talking about doing it as non-owner.

[+baloo&bd]

there are situations where NM logs are posted for stupid reasons like "there's no more swag"

in such cases i wish there was a way to remove that attribute

 

Owner Maintenance Log

 

Yes, for the owner of the cache, they can do that.

 

I do believe that t4e was talking about doing it as non-owner.

 

In that case, no there is not nor should there be.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I believe that a person who provides needed maintenance to a cache should be able to toggle the 'needs maintenance' flag off since teh cache no longer needs maintenance. This would be better and quicker communication to future potential seekers.

 

I agree.....I liked the old method of logging a " note Log " to inform the owner of problems.

NM and NA are improperly used by too many.

[+baloo&bd]

Let me give an example of how this would be misused.

 

I have a cache about 15 miles west of where I live. A DNF was posted by someone with about 30 finds, later that day another DNF was posted followed, again by someone with a low find count, followed by a NM log. It was mid-week of a very busy week and I decided to head out and check on it that Saturday or Sunday, not disabling it since the hide style had caused other new cachers problems.

 

The Friday before I headed out I received a "Found It" log form a cacher with excess of 9K finds. I saw the title to the email and figured no problem, not taking the time to read the body at work. Saturday morning , while waiting for a table for breakfast, I had time to read my emails. The found log from Friday read something to the effect of "Cache appears to be missing, so I hid a cache near where I thought this one should have been." Shame on me for not reading it sooner, however the status and familiar name caused me not to give it much thought. I deleted the found it log and disabled the cache.

 

After breakfast, I went out to check on it. My original cache was indeed still in it's original spot and I could not find the so called "replacement". To this day, no one else has either.

 

With is being suggested, the cacher who runs up their numbers by simply throwing down real or virtual containers simply to raise their count would also have the ability to clear the NM flag. New users, like the two DNF's, may see this behaviour and, due entirely to lack of experience, will assume a cache is missing if there is a needs maintenance and hide another cache when the first is just hidden in a style they are unfamiliar with.

 

On a side note, as a CO who owns a business and tends to multi task, I read NM and DNF logs as soon as possible on my phone. Found it logs are relegated to when I have a chance. Don't put "Log soaked" in your found it log and expect me to see it in a timely manner unless you post a NM or someone else already has.

[+power69]

Let me give an example of how this would be misused.

 

I have a cache about 15 miles west of where I live. A DNF was posted by someone with about 30 finds, later that day another DNF was posted followed, again by someone with a low find count, followed by a NM log. It was mid-week of a very busy week and I decided to head out and check on it that Saturday or Sunday, not disabling it since the hide style had caused other new cachers problems.

 

The Friday before I headed out I received a "Found It" log form a cacher with excess of 9K finds. I saw the title to the email and figured no problem, not taking the time to read the body at work. Saturday morning , while waiting for a table for breakfast, I had time to read my emails. The found log from Friday read something to the effect of "Cache appears to be missing, so I hid a cache near where I thought this one should have been." Shame on me for not reading it sooner, however the status and familiar name caused me not to give it much thought. I deleted the found it log and disabled the cache.

 

After breakfast, I went out to check on it. My original cache was indeed still in it's original spot and I could not find the so called "replacement". To this day, no one else has either.

 

With is being suggested, the cacher who runs up their numbers by simply throwing down real or virtual containers simply to raise their count would also have the ability to clear the NM flag. New users, like the two DNF's, may see this behaviour and, due entirely to lack of experience, will assume a cache is missing if there is a needs maintenance and hide another cache when the first is just hidden in a style they are unfamiliar with.

 

On a side note, as a CO who owns a business and tends to multi task, I read NM and DNF logs as soon as possible on my phone. Found it logs are relegated to when I have a chance. Don't put "Log soaked" in your found it log and expect me to see it in a timely manner unless you post a NM or someone else already has.

if a cache of mine needs maint and has the flag and someone replaces the missing container/full log/missing pen[cil] or other issue, i'll give them a public thank you, check it then clear the NM.

-

I appreciate any help others can give my cache.

I don't get all bent out of shape like some do if someone replaces a full log.

the more caches you have the more you appreciate what others can do for you.

-

i know the purists will say if you rely on others, you have too many caches, i don't. you can't be in many places at one time and if some nice people help you THANK YOU!

Edited October 14, 2011 by power69

[+baloo&bd]

 

if a cache of mine needs maint and has the flag and someone replaces the missing container/full log/missing pen[cil] or other issue, i'll give them a public thank you, check it then clear the NM.

-

I appreciate any help others can give my cache.

I don't get all bent out of shape like some do if someone replaces a full log.

the more caches you have the more you appreciate what others can do for you.

-

i know the purists will say if you rely on others, you have too many caches, i don't. you can't be in many places at one time and if some nice people help you THANK YOU!

 

So I should thank a cacher for not bothering to look for a cache that WAS NOT MISSING and simply saying they threw down a replacement without even bothering to actually throw down the pocket cache?

Edited October 14, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+mpilchfamily]

Are there any plans to have a "Cacher Maintenance" log type in addition to the "Owner Maintenance"? I am finding that a lot of the caches that are flagged as needs maintenance have already been fixed by other cachers (new log, dried out, etc). I know of several caches being maintained for cachers that have passed away, but there is no way for them to remove the "Needs Maintenance" flag. Or, are there ways to remove that flag by anyone other than the CO that I just haven't found?

 

I don't think we need to encourage cacher maintenance. We need Cos to actual do what they agreed to do when they placed the cache. Often times a CO does do there own maintenance but are unaware of how to clear the NM flag. We need Cos that are committed to there caches and site. Ones that will actually read the news letter to learn things they may not have known about.

 

Those caches that have had the CO's pass should be Archived. If a local cacher would like to keep the cache alive then they need to talk to GS about a forced adoption based on the fact that the CO died. But most likely the cache will just have to be archived and a New cache listing created for the same place.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Perhaps "Needs Maintenance" should mean "I found the cache and it is broken/wet/floating away..." instead of "not to be found". A string of three or four DNFs should be enough to alert the CO and other cachers that a cache might be missing.

[ertyu]

If the owner isn't around to even post a log on their cache, the needs maintenance flag is the least of things to be worried about for the cache.

[+HHD]

If someone puts a needs maintenance or needs archive, you get the cross in your attributes. But if you respond on the cache log with Owner Maintenance then you can remove the attribute. It's a good way to remind you to check on your cache. I had to check on 6 of mine today. One had construction blocking my cache, three were still there, another one I archived and one I repaired. As for a Cacher Maintenance, I think just a note on the cache page or a message to the owner is enough. I get enough slack when I put NM or NA on someone else's caches. I just don't think it is right that we get jumped on when you use them. They are there for a reason. To let the CO know they may need to check them. It's when they are abuse is when I would get upset.

Almost like NOT logging a DNF when you wish they did

You are 100% correct. You should never be jumped on for using the nm or na crosses correctly. It is part of being a responsible cacher. Obviously you need to use them responsibly but that should be obvious.

[+t4e]

there are situations where NM logs are posted for stupid reasons like "there's no more swag"

in such cases i wish there was a way to remove that attribute

 

Owner Maintenance Log

 

Yes, for the owner of the cache, they can do that.

 

I do believe that t4e was talking about doing it as non-owner.

 

In that case, no there is not nor should there be.

 

yes, that is what i was referring to, what Pup Patrol said

 

of course there should be, in my area the reviewers are very proactive and if a NM log has been on for too long they will post a note, disable the cache and eventually archive it...getting a perfectly good cache archived because there is no swag in it would be really silly

 

If the owner isn't around to even post a log on their cache, the needs maintenance flag is the least of things to be worried about for the cache.

 

believe it or not some CO do not know how to clear the NM log

even if the CO is missing if the cache is fine and has a NM for the silly reason i mentioned above makes no difference if they are active or not

Edited October 19, 2011 by t4e

[+EdrickV]

Are there any plans to have a "Cacher Maintenance" log type in addition to the "Owner Maintenance"? I am finding that a lot of the caches that are flagged as needs maintenance have already been fixed by other cachers (new log, dried out, etc). I know of several caches being maintained for cachers that have passed away, but there is no way for them to remove the "Needs Maintenance" flag. Or, are there ways to remove that flag by anyone other than the CO that I just haven't found?

 

There is no way for regular Geocachers to remove a needs maintenance flag from a cache, and I don't think there needs to be. The cache owner is in charge of maintaining the cache. To me that would include removing the flag if the cache no longer needs maintenance. (I do think it would be a good idea for a CO to check on the cache to see if the maintenance was actually done right.) If a CO is not active enough to remove the flag, then presumably they won't be active enough to maintain the cache and IMHO it should either be adopted out or archived. Now if an owner is active, but doesn't know how to remove the flag, then you could try telling them. (It seems to me that it shouldn't be that hard, just do an owner maintenance log or edit the attributes. As a CO they ought to have at least a little experience in finding and logging caches after all.)

 

Edit: Oh, I also think that owners should be doing regular maintenance visits on their caches, even if nothing seems to be wrong. (On one of my earliest finds, the CO found out that someone seemingly left a "replacement" container behind when they couldn't find the real cache container, which was in place. Multiple people (including me) were finding the replacement container rather then the real cache container. But there was nothing in any of the logs I saw that indicated someone leaving a replacement container.

Edited October 19, 2011 by EdrickV

[+briansnat]

Bsd idea. It will only encourage the concept that people can toss caches out and leave them for others to take care of. If someone fixes a cache the owner can easily enough reset the flag. If he isn't active anymore then the cache should have been archived rather than fixed.