SUBMITTED (21313) - [FEATURE] System to remove "ghost" trackables from cache inventories.

8.6k · March 18, 2016

Just dropping by to see how my suggestion (the original post) is doing and I'm surprised and gratified to see that a faithful few are still keeping it active. It's four and a half years since I started this topic and the problem of ghost trackables is on-going and gets worse year by year with no reliable system in place to clear up the accumulating mess.

It's sad.

MrsB (Disappointed)

March 18, 2016

time to bring this thread back to the surface ....

TRACKABLE need more respect

7.8k · March 18, 2016

Just dropping by to see how my suggestion (the original post) is doing and I'm surprised and gratified to see that a faithful few are still keeping it active. It's four and a half years since I started this topic and the problem of ghost trackables is on-going and gets worse year by year with no reliable system in place to clear up the accumulating mess.

It's sad.

MrsB (Disappointed)

Yep, it's still alive and gets referenced fairly frequently in discussions about trackables in caches. It's clearly something that badly needs to be dealt with, but there are so many such issues with the site that I fear it will never happen.

13.8k · March 19, 2016

Seems here, most issues with incorrect inventories (and other cache-related issues) are caches with long-gone COs.

Trackables we've had issues with had long-gone TOs.

We're not seeing others logging anything other than smileys.

Two weeks ago I found a moldy cache (and NM it), where folks were happy to sign the log strip-in-a-baggy sitting on top, without saying anything.

Last cache I did at least had a couple logs stating the container contents were damp-to-soaked for eight months, before I finally placed a NM.

Just a few of the local old-timers are even mentioning "trackable not in cache" anymore.

We're seeing the, "It's all about me!" crowd gaining ground, with selfies outnumbering cache area views, and too little time to add anything other than where they'll be next...

Sad to say, and as much as I like the idea, I don't believe the majority would "bother" to use the feature.

2.3k · March 21, 2016

time to bring this thread back to the surface ....

TRACKABLE need more respect

+1

May 9, 2016

As someone who tries to help trackables along on their goals, this would be nice. There are about 30 caches in my area that are logged as having trackables in them that were taken up to 5 years ago. This feature could help clean up the inventories of caches in my area, as many finders of these caches note that no trackables were in the cache, but neither the CO or trackable owner mark it as missing due to inactivity or whatnot.

May 9, 2016

Maybe all trackable owners should just mark their travellers as missing from the get go. That would make the trackable inventory more accurate than it currently appears to be. And, if someone really does find a trackable, they would be really ecstatic to have found a missing trackable!

</sarcasm>

I really would like to see something done about this. Like lots of people, I do like to help move trackables around. I used to seek out trackables, but I don't do that anymore. I'm just happy if I stumble across one every once in a while.

May 25, 2016

Absolutely agree! Nothing more frustrating than seeing trackables on a cache page with several comments of 'not in the cache today'. Ive marked several of mine missing only for them to be found months later and bought back in the game - it doesn't disrupt the TB at all!

7.3k · June 7, 2016

<sarcasm>

Maybe all trackable owners should just mark their travellers as missing from the get go. That would make the trackable inventory more accurate than it currently appears to be. And, if someone really does find a trackable, they would be really ecstatic to have found a missing trackable!

</sarcasm>

....

I concur, a 100% Mark Missing bulk action by HQ would improve the accuracy of Trackable Inventories. I'm quite certain it would, if it only applied to trackable with drop dates from 2015 or earlier.

I like this idea, I like it a lot. ;-)

Edited June 7, 2016 by Isonzo Karst

June 20, 2016

Yes Please! I love this! *Bump This*!

June 21, 2016

I made this a new discussion thread, but Isonzo Karst notified me of this one (thanks). Geesh, I had no idea this has been an identified challenge since 2011. And little to no action has ever been taken. As predicted by many back then the situation has only gotten worse in terms of the number of missing trackables still on cache pages. Advising COs and trackable owners has had little to no effect. Unfortunately, the situation is just a joke but the only thing laughable is the recent newsletter email from Groundspeak that touted more than 2 million trackables in circulation. Most of these are gone!

My original post is as follows, but there are many great (and somewhat softer) approaches that have been noted which I would be fine to see. Just do something! Given the authority, I would be happy to volunteer hours to mark TBs and GCs as missing after first giving the owners a chance to do it themselves (just like a cache).

[original post]

Moving trackables has been one of the most enjoyable aspects of geocaching since I joined in 2007. However, as has been mentioned over and over in these forums, the careless handling of trackables has become an epidemic which is truly unfortunate. There are still a good number in circulation, but I would say that at least 2/3 of caches that I visit does not have the trackable that is listed as being there. With a map full of icons that say there is a trackable it is an unpleasant task to try and weed them out. I've been proactive to let both TB and GC owners as well as cache owners know they should mark their items as missing if it's been more than a year, but rarely get action.

Without taking action, the 'litter' of missing trackables will only get worse. My question is, with the obvious exception of those that may be in a very lonely cache, can/should Groundspeak make a clean sweep and eliminate or mark missing any trackable that hasn't been moved in a given amount of time (say one or two years)?

June 26, 2016

I've been thinking a bit more about this and I am certain that I saw something about a reviewer removing "ghost" trackables from a cache ... so, maybe if we start bringing it to the attention of the reviewer that published the caches, or our "local" reviewer then maybe we'll get lucky and have some of them cleared up.

The only other option I can see, since Groundspeak seem to be ignoring us on this issue (this topic has been running for 5 years) is to boycott buying trackables ... if they want the financial gain then they really should be doing something about it IMHO ... I know my opinion won't be appreciated by many, but there comes a time when we (Groundspeak's customers) should stand up for ourselves and not be poo'ed upon by them.

I did see some independent review sites where people had mentioned the problem also ... it might not hurt to add our own reviews!

Edited June 26, 2016 by Auld Pharrrt

13.8k · June 26, 2016

I've been thinking a bit more about this and I am certain that I saw something about a reviewer removing "ghost" trackables from a cache ... so, maybe if we start bringing it to the attention of the reviewer that published the caches, or our "local" reviewer then maybe we'll get lucky and have some of them cleared up.

The only other option I can see, since Groundspeak seem to be ignoring us on this issue (this topic has been running for 5 years) is to boycott buying trackables ... if they want the financial gain then they really should be doing something about it IMHO ... I know my opinion won't be appreciated by many, but there comes a time when we (Groundspeak's customers) should stand up for ourselves and not be poo'ed upon by them.

I did see some independent review sites where people had mentioned the problem also ... it might not hurt to add our own reviews!

Though a Reviewer in our State (also a mod here) has removed trackables (many), I don't feel we should be burdening these volunteers with more than they decide to take on, on their own.

5.7k · June 30, 2016

Dunno... perhaps a constant harangue from the reviewers who are tired of dealing with a problem that we cannot might finally get some action that hasn't been successfully initiated here?

July 19, 2016

I am too lame to read thru 9 pages of posts, but "in the old days" when Groundspeak tried to listen to the community they had some sort of forum where users could hand out points to the best idea. The number 1 idea was the A.P.I.. The number 2 (or 3) thing "everybody" wanted to have implemented was a way for _users_ to delete trackables from a cache inventory. And never did we hear anything again.

I have made thousands (!) of logs asking CO's to clean out their inventory, and tb-owners to remove their tb from a cache. Nobody cares. Really nobody. I have resorted to making needs archived logs for non-maintenance. Nobody cares. Nothing happens. And it s*cks badly. I like the tb part of the game, but its impossible to play that part of the game.

Example: https://coord.info/GCK25B (gc hq). 145 trackables... Seriously? I have requested an archival of that specific cache. Nothing happened. Not even a (non-) polite reply. Nothing. Groundspeak does not care about the users; they are in the game for the money. Period.

7.8k · July 19, 2016

I have resorted to making needs archived logs for non-maintenance.

...

Example: https://coord.info/GCK25B (gc hq). 145 trackables... Seriously? I have requested an archival of that specific cache.

If you're submitting unwarranted Needs Archive logs simply because the trackable inventory isn't accurate, then it's pretty clear why your actions aren't getting the desired results. I'm actually surprised your account hasn't been locked for repeatedly doing this, especially after your actions were brought to light on such a high-profile cache.

To be clear, cache owners have been given the ability to mark trackables as missing, but they are under no obligation to use that ability. If a cache owner isn't interested in the trackable side-game, that's their choice. Submitting a Needs Archive log for not using this ability is unwarranted and an abuse of the Needs Archive log type.

9.2k · July 19, 2016

I am too lame to read thru 9 pages of posts, but "in the old days" when Groundspeak tried to listen to the community they had some sort of forum where users could hand out points to the best idea. The number 1 idea was the A.P.I.. The number 2 (or 3) thing "everybody" wanted to have implemented was a way for _users_ to delete trackables from a cache inventory. And never did we hear anything again.

I have made thousands (!) of logs asking CO's to clean out their inventory, and tb-owners to remove their tb from a cache. Nobody cares. Really nobody. I have resorted to making needs archived logs for non-maintenance. Nobody cares. Nothing happens. And it s*cks badly. I like the tb part of the game, but its impossible to play that part of the game.

Example: https://coord.info/GCK25B (gc hq). 145 trackables... Seriously? I have requested an archival of that specific cache. Nothing happened. Not even a (non-) polite reply. Nothing. Groundspeak does not care about the users; they are in the game for the money. Period.

Feel lucky that you were ignored instead of suspended. I think you owe an apology for your misguided action. At a minimum, I hope that you're refused an appointment if you ever wished to visit HQ. But you know what? I bet they'd still let you visit, because Lackyes are nice people.

If you had ever visited Geocaching HQ, you'd understand that many of the trackables in that cache's inventory are owned by the Lackeys who work there, are part of the "office decor" (like the GeoWoodstock sign) or are part of the surrounding environs (like the JP Patches brick in the sidewalk outside the building). Discovering all these trackables during a tour of HQ is a LOT of fun. They are made available for discovery BECAUSE the company cares about the user community.

The remaining trackables, dropped off by visitors to HQ, are in one of the safest, largest cache containers I've ever seen. How many caches have a constant paid guard watching over the container, like the receptionist at HQ does? The container is a giant treasure chest. Check out the cache's gallery for pictures of it. Trackables move through regularly, and you will see that the vast majority of them were dropped at HQ earlier this month. There are a few stretching back to early June, and one from April.

In contrast to your action, Geocaching HQ actually did something constructive and positive recently to clear out stale trackable inventories, in response to community feedback. See this Help Center article.

13.8k · July 20, 2016

I have resorted to making needs archived logs for non-maintenance.

...

Example: https://coord.info/GCK25B (gc hq). 145 trackables... Seriously? I have requested an archival of that specific cache.

If you're submitting unwarranted Needs Archive logs simply because the trackable inventory isn't accurate, then it's pretty clear why your actions aren't getting the desired results. I'm actually surprised your account hasn't been locked for repeatedly doing this, especially after your actions were brought to light on such a high-profile cache.

To be clear, cache owners have been given the ability to mark trackables as missing, but they are under no obligation to use that ability. If a cache owner isn't interested in the trackable side-game, that's their choice. Submitting a Needs Archive log for not using this ability is unwarranted and an abuse of the Needs Archive log type.

I agree.

Enough COs upset I bet, and you'd think at least some woulda complained to HQ.

But also surprised that Reviewers didn't put a stop to that problem.

Patience of saints...

I'd a been canned from that high-paying spot in a week. :lol:

13.8k · July 20, 2016

BTW, in case folks aren't keeping track of the trackable forums, or noticed the new section (2.7) on trackables, Keystone gave us the heads-up this morning in this post.

Sorry, just noticed the Leprechauns beat me to it.

Edited July 20, 2016 by cerberus1

July 21, 2016

Fully supported.

This idea would work particularly well when a CO has been inactive for years but his/her cache is still going strong and its inventory is often very inaccurate in case the container is big enough to hold trackables.

Good luck getting this idea through!

July 24, 2016

Geocaching HQ actually did something constructive and positive recently to clear out stale trackable inventories, in response to community feedback. See this Help Center article.

This (new ?) section titled "2.7. Why was my trackable marked as missing?" is just perfect!

Thanks for the info and to GS for this new "automatic rule" in the game :anitongue: .

July 24, 2016

One thing remains unclear:

"The trackable has not been logged (for example, 'Discovered') in more than one year"

Does that also mean that if a "write note" is made, the TB will remain in the inventory? In other words, is a write note a log? If so, I can not even notify the TB-owner of the disappearance of his trackable. It would mean, as soon as I write a note to the owner, the year starts "again".

7.5k · July 24, 2016

One thing remains unclear:

"The trackable has not been logged (for example, 'Discovered') in more than one year"

Does that also mean that if a "write note" is made, the TB will remain in the inventory? In other words, is a write note a log? If so, I can not even notify the TB-owner of the disappearance of his trackable. It would mean, as soon as I write a note to the owner, the year starts "again".

Good point. Once hopes they just mean "Discovered" and simply made a mistake phrasing it as a general case by saying "logged" as if there were any other possibilities than Discovered that were relevant. It would make no sense to cancel the wait time for any other log. For example, a Retrieve and a Mark Missing would stop the timer for other reasons, and a Drop wouldn't be possible, so the Note is the only other way such a TB can be logged and, as you say, a Note would almost always be confirming that the TB is, in fact, missing.

August 4, 2016

Hello,

I'm new in geocaching world and I must said that "ghost" TB sounds a problem to me : it's a family activity, and I have 2 boys disappointed on each missing TB in a cache :unsure: .

Simple solution always sounds good to me, example : a simple click-able icon "missing" on each TB in the inventory of the cache can appears 3 months after deposit or 15 "found it" without "seen" status. Then when the number of clicks from different accounts reach 5 or 10, the owner of the cache is warned and gain the ability to remove the TB from the inventory. The "missing" icon could be reserved to premium account to avoid abuse.

Simple, collective and fair way to solve this issue.

Thanks for reading me (and sorry, English isn't my native spoken language)

Phil

August 5, 2016

There has been a debate going on for a few years (!) already. People tend to think that when a TB can be marked missing by a geocacher other than tb-owner of cache-owner, the amount of stolen TB's will rise enormously.

I don;t agree with above statement.

August 5, 2016

Hi Niels,

Thanks for your reply, a summary of years of debates . I must said I don't have read accurately the full subject.

As a "noob" in geocaching but little skilled in computer applications management I believe this problem can be solved (or we can try to) involving people. The global Geocaching activities relying on people and ONLY people, giving their best for fun. Involving all geocachers in TB database purge sounds a good solution, regarding the technical means.

And we can easily said that it can't be worst than today situation to try something ...

Hope something will move on this subject.

Cheers,

Phil

PS: Funny to see you're from Almere, I went there for a "special" event in 1997, a nice place ( https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_in_Progress ). Some wonderful souvenirs !

5.8k · August 17, 2016

Geocaching HQ actually did something constructive and positive recently to clear out stale trackable inventories, in response to community feedback. See this Help Center article.

This (new ?) section titled "2.7. Why was my trackable marked as missing?" is just perfect!

Thanks for the info and to GS for this new "automatic rule" in the game .

It's not perfect. But it does help address the issue raised here, so better than before.

I have resorted to making needs archived logs for non-maintenance.

...

Example: https://coord.info/GCK25B (gc hq). 145 trackables... Seriously? I have requested an archival of that specific cache.

That was foolish. Surprised you were not invited to take your ball and go find another location-based game.

August 22, 2016

Is it? In my book "maintaining a cache" means the CO is responsible (!) to upkeep his/her cache physically (logbook / waterproofing / ...) as well as online (remove bogus logs / keep the trackable inventory accurate / ...) . If a CO fails to upkeep any of those two requirements, the cache should be removed from the map.

7.3k · August 22, 2016

"maintaining a cache" means the CO is responsible (!) to....keep the trackable inventory accurate

No.

The responsibility for following and correcting trackable locations belongs to trackable owners.

If someone calls their cache a TB Hotel, or solicits trackables to be placed in their cache, then maybe they've put themselves on the hook for watching trackable inventory.

But the trackable game is a side game. Optional to move or not move trackables, for cache owners, to pay attention to trackable inventory or not pay attention.

15.4k · August 22, 2016

Is it? In my book "maintaining a cache" means the CO is responsible (!) to upkeep his/her cache physically (logbook / waterproofing / ...) as well as online (remove bogus logs / keep the trackable inventory accurate / ...) . If a CO fails to upkeep any of those two requirements, the cache should be removed from the map.

Removing bogus logs, sure. But where do the guidelines require the CO to keep the trackable inventory accurate?

Be careful what you wish for. I know cache owners who stopped hiding swag-size caches because they don't want to be bothered by emails nagging them about the trackable inventory.

13.8k · August 22, 2016

Is it? In my book "maintaining a cache" means the CO is responsible (!) to upkeep his/her cache physically (logbook / waterproofing / ...) as well as online (remove bogus logs / keep the trackable inventory accurate / ...) . If a CO fails to upkeep any of those two requirements, the cache should be removed from the map.

In your book maybe, but I can't find anything in Groundspeak's about trackable inventory of a CO's cache, other than they can (have the ability to...) mark 'em missing.

Please provide a link.

Thanks.

5.8k · August 24, 2016

Is it? In my book "maintaining a cache" means the CO is responsible (!) to upkeep his/her cache physically (logbook / waterproofing / ...) as well as online (remove bogus logs / keep the trackable inventory accurate / ...) . If a CO fails to upkeep any of those two requirements, the cache should be removed from the map.

What indication do you have that there are not 145 trackables located at Geocaching HQ? Did you go there and count them?

If not, then yes, it was foolish to presume that they are not there and post a "needs archived" log on the Geocaching HQ cache.

August 24, 2016

Read the logs on the TB's. There are TB's without logs since 2012. IN the cache. Now, call me crazy, but I have a hunch those TB's are "poof".

9.2k · August 24, 2016

Read the logs on the TB's. There are TB's without logs since 2012. IN the cache. Now, call me crazy, but I have a hunch those TB's are "poof".

Please list the TB's in the inventory of the Geocaching HQ cache which (1) don't have logs since 2012, and (2) are owned by regular geocachers -- not by HQ or a Lackey who works at HQ.

Edited August 24, 2016 by The Leprechauns

6.8k · August 25, 2016

Please list the TB's in the inventory of the Geocaching HQ cache which (1) don't have logs since 2012, and (2) are owned by regular geocachers -- not by HQ or a Lackey who works at HQ.

What you wrote reminded me of something I regard as very unfortunate. There should be a separate status for trackables that are logged into a cache but are in the hands of the trackable owner and not in the cache container. That's something that concerns many caches and trackables and is not specific to the HQ cache (where it might even be less problematic as the trackables owners are not far away).

Edited August 25, 2016 by cezanne

2.6k · December 6, 2016

I like and support this feature request.

December 6, 2016

I think this is a great idea!

December 6, 2016

Suggestion for stages:

A cacher visits a cache where a trackable is listed, but it's not in the cache. They log this on the trackable's page using a new logtype: Not in Cache. This notification goes to the TO and CO.

Additionally, this logging action automatically "greys out" that trackable from that cache inventory. (Not removes it completely, just greys out the text a bit - It could even be referred to as "ghosting the trackable". That would be enough to alert everyone that the trackable is not there.)

What next?

After a period of 3 months (open to debate!), if that trackable has no further 'movement' log on it (i.e. a 'retrieve' or 'grab') the system automatically marks it 'Missing'. It goes to the limbo state of "Unknown Location" and disappears from the cache inventory.

During the 3 month period any any further 'retrieve' or 'grab' log on the trackable would automatically confirm its existence and bring it back to full opaqueness.

Note: If any trackable passes into Unknown Location through an error (e.g. it was in the cache but the cacher just didn't see it there) it is very easily brought back into the game by the next person who finds it and notes the tracking number. Marking any trackable as Missing does not mean (and has never meant) that the item can not return to the game.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt there are various "But what if?" scenarios to be considered and I've no idea how easy/difficult it would be to set this up. But there are far too many trackable ghosts around in caches - I've seen some dating back to 2008. I'd happily bet that those are no longer in those caches. As years go by and more and more trackables enter the field cache inventories become increasingly inaccurate. I feel it's time to address this problem. The current system of trying to get COs or TOs to remove these ghosts is not effective enough.

MrsB

December 6, 2016

This is an excellent idea. More often that not I arrive at a cache and the TB isn't there.

Where is this in the process of consideration Groundspeak?

Many Thanks,

Lyn

1.3k · December 6, 2016

I believe it is unlikely that the feature would be implemented as described in this request.

Instead, an automatic system was implemented:

Help Center 2.7. Why is my trackable in an Unknown Location?

A trackable may be marked as missing by the owner of a geocache. If a trackable is logged into a cache's inventory, but the trackable is not in actually in the cache, the owner of the cache can mark the trackable as missing. This removes the trackable from the geocache's inventory, putting into an Unknown Location.

In order to make sure that the geocaches have accurate inventory records, a trackable may also be automatically moved to an Unknown Location if it meets the following conditions:

The trackable has been in the same geocache for more than one year, AND

The trackable has not been logged as Discovered in more than one year, AND

There have been at least four finds (on different days) on the geocache in which the trackable is located

When a trackable is in an Unknown Location, the next person who finds it will be able to log it as they would a normal trackable.

December 6, 2016

I believe it is unlikely that the feature would be implemented as described in this request.

Instead, an automatic system was implemented:

Help Center 2.7. Why is my trackable in an Unknown Location?

Does anyone know if that action/log triggers a notification to the trackable owner?

December 6, 2016

One thing remains unclear:

"The trackable has not been logged (for example, 'Discovered') in more than one year"

Does that also mean that if a "write note" is made, the TB will remain in the inventory? In other words, is a write note a log? If so, I can not even notify the TB-owner of the disappearance of his trackable. It would mean, as soon as I write a note to the owner, the year starts "again".

Anybody?

August 5, 2017

Still, being able to mark a TB as missing manually is a needed feature. There are so many TBs lost, that no one can handle it manually or automatically ... than the worldwide community

So, please, Groundspeak, implement that.

22.1k · August 5, 2017

As a reminder for this bumped thread, the ability to mark a trackable missing is available "manually" to every trackable's owner, to the owner of the cache with the trackable in its inventory, and to every Community Volunteer Reviewer.

March 12, 2018

And, as wit _all_ things Groundspeaks sais they will implememnt, it is *not* working.

https://coord.info/TB65MNW & https://coord.info/TB2K61K have not had any notes / logs / movemnets or whatever, and it is STILL in the online inventory for this cache. I am seriously considering an action group that will start posting needs archived logs on the caches that have TB's in them that are MISSING!!! Its the most frustrtaing part of the entire game!!!

Edited March 12, 2018 by novw.nl

22.1k · March 12, 2018

2 hours ago, novw.nl said:

And, as wit _all_ things Groundspeaks sais they will implememnt, it is *not* working.

https://coord.info/TB65MNW & https://coord.info/TB2K61K have not had any notes / logs / movemnets or whatever, and it is STILL in the online inventory for this cache. I am seriously considering an action group that will start posting needs archived logs on the caches that have TB's in them that are MISSING!!! Its the most frustrtaing part of the entire game!!!

"Needs Archived" logs come to the attention of the local Community Volunteer Reviewer. Geocaching HQ has not told the Reviewers that we should be archiving caches where the trackables inventory is inaccurate. Unless and until they do, I would ignore any requests from such an "action group." If those Needs Archived logs interfered with my ability to process the work that I'm *supposed* to be doing, I would report the action group to Geocaching HQ with a request for a "cease and desist" order.

7.3k · March 12, 2018

2 hours ago, novw.nl said:

And, as wit _all_ things Groundspeaks sais they will implememnt, it is *not* working

A bulk mark missing action of trackables was performed by HQ in July 2016. I see the Help Center article about it has been deleted. I believe it was of all trackables logged into caches where there HAD been finds on the cache since the drop, and there were no logs to the TB since the drop, in a year (?) (or some time frame) Not sure about log types either (discover logs? any logs? I don't recall). A LOT of trackables moved to an Unknown location at that time.

It apparently this has not been repeated. Might be time for it again. Maybe this July?

I'd be good with some kind of user driven Mark Missing function as proposed in the opening post of this thread. But I think the bulk action by HQ is more likely to actually happen, as it requires a lot less development energy. These days, any new feature has to work both on the site and 47 different mobile apps as well.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Isonzo Karst

4.8k · March 12, 2018

55 minutes ago, Keystone said:

"Needs Archived" logs come to the attention of the local Community Volunteer Reviewer. Geocaching HQ has not told the Reviewers that we should be archiving caches where the trackables inventory is inaccurate. Unless and until they do, I would ignore any requests from such an "action group." If those Needs Archived logs interfered with my ability to process the work that I'm *supposed* to be doing, I would report the action group to Geocaching HQ with a request for a "cease and desist" order.

In principle I would agree, but the Help Center does imply otherwise:

Quote

7.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.

Replace broken or missing containers.

Clean out your cache if contents become wet.

Replace full or wet logbooks.

Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.

Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.

Delete inappropriate logs.

Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

I would agree that most if not all Volunteer Reviewers would probably ignore such NA requests based on an outdated or inaccurate Trackable Inventory, assuming all other aspects of the cache placement are fine. As IK suggests, maybe it's time for a bulk clean up of long stagnant Trackables on the site.

7.8k · March 12, 2018

Yes, while HQ may not have provided any guidance to reviewers yet, they did recently change the public guidance to include trackable maintenance as a part of the CO's maintenance responsibilities. One would have thought that the reviewers would have gotten notified first, but maybe someone just forgot.

15.4k · March 12, 2018

25 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Yes, while HQ may not have provided any guidance to reviewers yet, they did recently change the public guidance to include trackable maintenance as a part of the CO's maintenance responsibilities. One would have thought that the reviewers would have gotten notified first, but maybe someone just forgot.

I wonder what would happen if a cache owner simply marked all trackables as missing immediately.

Requiring maintenance of the trackable inventory is going to push some cache owners towards smaller cache containers, even "in the woods" where larger containers could easily survive. Larger containers would be vulnerable to NM/NA logs when someone drops a trackable in them.

SUBMITTED (21313) - [FEATURE] System to remove "ghost" trackables from cache inventories.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

7.4. Maintenance expectations

Link to comment