Appropriate use or abuse of NM/NA logs?

[+issueperson]

I know this has been discussed before, and I've read the archives, but this doesn't make me feel better as a human being.

 

It feels like I post more "Needs Maintenance" logs than other cachers. I have posted NM logs when the cache:

-log is too full to sign

-log is too wet to sign

-container is broken

-coords are obviously wrong (e.g. in the middle of a lake on a terrain 2)

-is hidden in a recess with stinging insects

-inhabited itself by insects

-(but never because I didn't like a cache)

 

I've also posted "needs archived" logs for 3 out of about 200 caches. But on 2 of those 3, I've been shot down. The other one is going ignored (GCHTB5, GC1ET79, and GC138GJ)

 

I post DNFs on any cache that hasn't been found in at least 2 weeks that I also do not find (if it was logged as found the same day, I don't bother, as I know it was just me).

 

Is life too short to worry about posting these NM/NA/DNF logs? Am I doing it wrong? I feel more like a jerk than a helpful person. I appreciate advice from others who have more experience with this than me.

[+GeoBain]

DNF is just noting that you didn't find it. It doesn't really matter who else found it or did not find it. There is no shame in postinf a DNF, even if you are the only one. I posted 3 DNFs on a cache that others were actively finding. We had a lot of laughs when I finally found the cache and had that AH-HAH! moment.

[+Ike 13]

NA = Cache is obviously missing and the CO has not checked in in over 3+ months

Cache obviously violates serious guidelines

Property owner asks me to get rid of the cache

 

I agree with most of your definitions of NM. I disagree with the 2 about insects. You can easily list that in a note. Sometimes I do not take the time to log a NM. If the owner is seriously active then I depend on them to read my Found It log. I usually post NM on ones that appear missing and have an active owner that will then check on the cache.

 

The 3 you point out.

1) Has a wet log and an absent owner. Again not a huge issue and not means for archival.

2) The owner claims it is there so what unless you can prove them wrong the reviewer has to allow it.

3) I agree with the reviewer a few bugs are not means for archival.

 

It is good to point out issues to COs so they can hopefully fix them. However try to avoid worrying what happens after your report those issues (unless they are very serious). My one rule is have fun and worrying about how other owners play is not fun.

[+GeoBain]

I'm iffy on your NA for GCHTB5. Yes, the owner seems to be inactive. But others have been actively finding that cache despite damp logs. Looks to me from your found log that others have been putting logs in and keeping it going. I'm not a fan of community maintenance once someone leaves the hobby, but as long as that is happening, I don't think the NA is justified.

 

Your NA on GC1ET7N is completely unjustified. The cache has not been MIA for over a year. There is an enabled listing log in August of this year. Just because there have been a few DNFs since then does not mean it's MIA. A note asking the owner to double check it might be appropriate. Even a NM could be argued. But NA does not make sense for that cache.

 

The NA on GC138GJ is just ridiculous. That cache is being actively found, including found by you. If spiders and mice are reasons to archive caches, then you will be busy posting a lot more NA logs.

[+dfx]

Maintenance issues going unaddressed are unfortunate, but don't warrant archival. As long as the cache is still there, can be found and logged, there's no need to have it archived.

 

And as already pointed out, logging DNF has nothing to do with the cache being there or not, and has nothing to do with "it just being you" or not. It simply means that you've looked and didn't find it.

 

Sounds like you're overthinking things a bit.

[+issueperson]

I agree with most of your definitions of NM. I disagree with the 2 about insects.

 

Thanks Ike--

 

Just a clarification, the 2 NMs I did for insects were

1). Stinging insects where I was unable to replace the cache as found and wanted the CO to know

2). Great night cache where I enjoyed the hike/layout, but the cache itself was laying open and had become infested (hundreds of baby spiders inside, among other things)

 

Sounds like a note to the owner as opposed to NM could have been a better way to go.

 

Your NA on GC1ET7N is completely unjustified. The cache has not been MIA for over a year. There is an enabled listing log in August of this year. Just because there have been a few DNFs since then does not mean it's MIA. A note asking the owner to double check it might be appropriate. Even a NM could be argued. But NA does not make sense for that cache.

 

The NA on GC138GJ is just ridiculous. That cache is being actively found, including found by you. If spiders and mice are reasons to archive caches, then you will be busy posting a lot more NA logs.

 

Appreciate the advice GeoBain--

 

To clarify, it wasn't the mice/spiders that bothered me, but that the cache had obviously fallen into disrepair and was no longer being actively maintained (last CO login in 2007). I thought caches not being properly maintained was a good reason to archive it (but that's why I wrote this post, 'cause I wasn't sure).

 

That GC1ET7N having 15 DNFs in a row on a 1.5/1 made me think that maybe it should no longer be listed, but I guess that is more of a reason to ignore the cache than NA it.

 

Again, thanks for the guidance.

[+bflentje]

I use NM very liberally.

 

Use NA only as a last resort.. when ALL other measures fail. Or, just worry about yourself.

[+bflentje]

The NA on GC138GJ is just ridiculous. That cache is being actively found, including found by you. If spiders and mice are reasons to archive caches, then you will be busy posting a lot more NA logs.

 

I didn't do research like Geobain did but if this is true dude (the OP), you need to rethink geocaching and perhaps take up quilling or some other less dangerous hobby.

[+ThePetersTrio]

1). Stinging insects where I was unable to replace the cache as found and wanted the CO to know.

 

Just my 2 cents. I wouldn't post a NM log on a cache with stinging insects. However, I would certainly appreciate having that information noted in your log. I'm allergic to yellow jackets and while I carry an ana-kit with me at all times, if I have knowledge a cache is near a bees nest, I will always be sure to cache that one with others vs. alone.

 

So please continue to be sure to note this information for the safety of others. Thanks.

[jholly]

So what do you post if you see a rattle snake, or cotton mouth, or copper head near the cache? What about if you see bear scat on the trail? Or signs of cougar? Yellow jackets, bees, and other insects are just as much as part of nature as the other things I mentioned. Don't expect the CO to hold your hand the whole way.

[+The Blorenges]

I'll happily log a NM on a cache.

 

Sometimes I'll use a NM log just to ask the CO (very politely) if they could check that the cache is still in place e.g. if it's one we'd be interested in doing but it's showing a string of DNF logs after plenty of regular Found logs.

 

I'll add a NM log if we've been to a cache and have added a temporary log strip which has only enough space for a few logs. (I'd expect the owner to replace our temporary strip with a 'proper' log as soon as they are able.)

 

I'll add a NA log if the issues mentioned in our NM log have not been addressed and are still on-going 3 or 4 months later.

 

As I mentioned in another topic, the UK reviewers will take action if a cache has an NA on it for persistent lack of maintenance e.g. sodden log and no response from CO. Typically they will give the owner a "warning" log to get the maintenance done within 2 or 3 weeks (depending on how long the issues have been apparent) and if there's still no response the cache gets archived.

 

After all, it's not as though there's any shortage of caches over here - In many areas of UK cachers are complaining they can't find space to place a new cache - Why allow unmaintained caches to clutter up the country indefinitely?

 

MrsB

[+The_Incredibles_]

GCHTB5

 

Damp logs are common. We have a cache here that has had a damp log for years nad people were still finding and signing. I would post a NM, but never a NA in this situation. People are still finding it and seem to be enjoying themselves. Better to have a cache with a damp log, than no cache at all. I only post NA for caches that have been missing for months and months. Like other people have said, NA should be a last resort.

 

GC138GJ

 

I would taken a photo of the cache so the reviewer could see. Nobody else seems concerned about the spiders/mice at GZ. If the mice in your area carry viruses dangerous to humans, I would be more concerned. Or if it was brown recluses, I would definately try to get something done.

 

On occasion, if I find a neglected cache in a good spot, I will replace it or fix it up.

 

GC1ET7N

 

I agree with you that this one should be archived. Looks like the coordinates are not accurate (and the CO doesn't seem interested in fixing the coords) and the fact that several people have complained about it being on private property, the reviewer here would probably archive.

Edited November 7, 2011 by The_Incredibles_

[+GeoBain]

GC1ET7N

 

I agree with you that this one should be archived. Looks like the coordinates are not accurate (and the CO doesn't seem interested in fixing the coords) and the fact that several people have complained about it being on private property, the reviewer here would probably archive.

 

Update Coordinates Update Coordinates

08/03/2010

N 42° 12.206 W 079° 27.774

 

** Coordinates Changed From **

N 42° 12.196 W 079° 27.769

Distance From Old: 64.6 feet or 19.7 meters.

N 42 12. 206

W 079 27.774

 

Enable Listing Enable Listing

08/15/2011

 

Back in business!

[Pup Patrol]

The NA on GC138GJ is just ridiculous. That cache is being actively found, including found by you. If spiders and mice are reasons to archive caches, then you will be busy posting a lot more NA logs.

 

Um, a little digging brings up:

 

The original NM was posted 01/27/2010, including a photo of the rotted cache:

 

Log is completely soaked, dry rotted & so forth. The CO needs to please take care of this cache as soon as possible. Photo inclosed of what cache & contents look like.

 

No "owner maintenance" log has been posted.

 

People have mentioned the condition of the cache in their "found it" logs.

 

Cache owner last logged on way back in 2007.

 

So, either someone replaced the container or people aren't signing the log, if there is one in there.

 

A string of "found it" logs doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

EDIT: aha, a lot of the "found" logs were from people attending Geowoodstock.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+GeoBain]

Maybe we need a Needs Reviewer Attention log instead of Needs Archival.

[+DanOCan]

It feels like I post more "Needs Maintenance" logs than other cachers. I have posted NM logs when the cache:

-log is too full to sign

-log is too wet to sign

-container is broken

-coords are obviously wrong (e.g. in the middle of a lake on a terrain 2)

-is hidden in a recess with stinging insects

-inhabited itself by insects

-(but never because I didn't like a cache)

 

I'm pretty OK with that list. The "hidden in a recess with stinging insects" I would likely just mention in my log, but the "inhabited by insects" I think is worthy of a NM log.

 

I post DNFs on any cache that hasn't been found in at least 2 weeks that I also do not find (if it was logged as found the same day, I don't bother, as I know it was just me).

 

I log a DNF whenever I search for a cache and do not find it. The last time someone else found it doesn't play into my process, after all, I'm just saying I couldn't find it, I am not passing any sort of judgement as to whether or not the cache is actually there. I've missed way too many easy caches to assume anything more!

 

Is life too short to worry about posting these NM/NA/DNF logs? Am I doing it wrong? I feel more like a jerk than a helpful person. I appreciate advice from others who have more experience with this than me.

 

I think you're doing just fine. More people need to use NM and NA logs when appropriate and I think you've got the idea.

[Clan Riffster]

It feels like I post more "Needs Maintenance" logs than other cachers.

It's possible that you do. Many folks are reluctant to post anything other than a "Found It", regardless of what they actually locate. Not sure why that is. Personally, I embrace the mighty DNF, and log them all with pride. If you feel OK with the course you set, stay on it. I'm not seeing you doing anything wrong. If you don't feel OK with the course you are on, pull the rudder and chart another course, coming up with a means to play this silly little hobby that gives you satisfaction.

 

I have posted NM logs when the cache:

-log is too full to sign Yup. It needs maintenance.

-log is too wet to sign Yup. It needs maintenance.

-container is broken Yup. It needs maintenance.

-coords are obviously wrong (in a lake on a terrain 2) Yup. It needs maintenance.

-is hidden in a recess with stinging insects Maybe.

-inhabited itself by insects Yup. It needs maintenance.

-(but never because I didn't like a cache) Kewl!

 

Brother, I'm not seeing a problem here...

 

I've also posted "needs archived" logs for 3 out of about 200 caches.

That's a pretty high ratio. Out of almost 1600 logged finds, I've only posted 3 NAs. But without looking at the caches in question, in person, I can't say for sure if your NAs were justified or not. The most I can do is make educated guesses, based on available data.

 

(GCHTB5

 

I almost agree with your NA for Leapin' Lizards Year. For me to post a NA, on a cache that doesn't blatantly violate the guidelines, requires that three elements be met. In this cache, at least one of those three elements are present.

 

First, the cache must be in significant disrepair. This one might be bad enough, though it's hard to tell from the logs. I can't tell if it is still soggy inside and the only folks who found it since you are shy about posting the actual condition of a cache, or if the community is maintaining it. One thing I will not do is armchair a NA log. If I post one as needing maintenance, and for some reason it bothers me enough to stay on my mind, I will go back and get a current view of the cache before pulling the trigger. I can't tell from your log if you returned to the cache to check its current condition, or just fired of a NA when the maintenance request was ignored.

 

Second, the owner must be inactive. With this cache, I would agree, the owner has pretty much quit playing, leaving their detritus behind rather than cleaning up after themselves. I don't know that there is any consensus regarding how long someone must stay away before they are considered inactive, but this dude has been out of the loop for 13 months, so I'd say he's gone. If he had posted something on his profile to the effect of, "I'll be doing Missionary work in the Amazon River Delta for the next two years, with no access to the Internet", I might be more forgiving.

 

Third, the community must be unwilling to maintain the cache for the owner. As mentioned above, it would take a return trip to the cache to determine that. Now I should point out that these 'rules' are not official. They are just the standards I set for myself.

 

GC1ET79

 

I think you were a bit to kwick on the trigger with Jones Arboretum, but that's just my view. The owner is most certainly active, and the cache is reportedly in place. I would say it is probably inaccurately represented as a 1.5/1, since it has about a 30% DNF ratio, but an improper D/T rating won't get a cache archived. Consider it a lesson learned and move on. No harm done. Life is, after all, a learning process.

 

GC138GJ)

 

I have no problem with your NA on Lover's Lane. The owner hasn't been on the site for 4 years, and the cache is in deplorable condition, rusty and full of bugs. That's pretty darn icky. In April 2010, a member of the community took pity on the cache, replacing the log. Judging from the lack of maintenance in the past three months after issues were again reported, it seems that kind hearted cacher from last year is no longer willing to do the owner's job. This is one of the rare instances where I disagree with a Reviewer. They claim your NA is unwarranted because there is still something there for folks to find. I gotta call 'foul' on that mentality. This stinker should go away. But since the Reviewer doesn't care that the owner refuses to do the maintenance they agreed to, you have very little recourse.

 

If it was logged as found the same day, I don't bother, as I know it was just me

Be proud of your DNFs!

 

Is life too short to worry about posting these NM/NA/DNF logs?

Yes. There are very few things worth worrying about in this game. I would recommend posting the log type that you feel appropriate at the time, and move on with your life. If it gets fixed as a result of your log, that's a good thing. If it doesn't, it's not the end of the world as we know it. In the end, it's just another goobered up cache.

[AZcachemeister]

Once again, I find myself in full agreement with Clan Riffster's analysis.

 

It does seem possible that the owner could move their cache away from the stinging insects, so I think a NM is appropriate there. Certainly it's a good thing to alert others to the problem.

[+The_Incredibles_]

GC1ET7N

 

I agree with you that this one should be archived. Looks like the coordinates are not accurate (and the CO doesn't seem interested in fixing the coords) and the fact that several people have complained about it being on private property, the reviewer here would probably archive.

 

Update Coordinates Update Coordinates

08/03/2010

N 42° 12.206 W 079° 27.774

 

** Coordinates Changed From **

N 42° 12.196 W 079° 27.769

Distance From Old: 64.6 feet or 19.7 meters.

N 42 12. 206

W 079 27.774

 

Enable Listing Enable Listing

08/15/2011

 

Back in business!

 

Go back and see all the DNFs and read the complaints. Many many people are complaining it's on private property. Either the coords are waaay off or it realy is on private property, both cases for me the CO has had enough time to fix.

[+L0ne.R]

It feels like I post more "Needs Maintenance" logs than other cachers.

 

My stats: 35 NMs / 6 NAs

 

Reasons for the NAs :

1. Cache was in really bad shape - snapped tabs, water damage, very moldy, coordinates were off, CO not responding to NM posts

2. Cache deteriorated to only (no container, no baggie) a logbook in a block of ice, in a tree nook. Multiple NMs. CO did not respond.

3. Cache missing. In a pretty obvious location. Also a very visible location. Multiple DNFs where before there were no DNFs. A couple of NMs. No response from CO.

4. Cache missing. Multiple DNFs. Multiple NMs. No response from CO for months, not until I posted the NA. Then after no response for months he posted an angry note within an hour of my NA and archived the cache in a huff.

5. Plastic shoebox cache in stream amongst rocks was in bad shape - badly cracked and water damaged. CO did nothing for 6 months with multiple reports of the container problem and a couple of NMs. My NA and a Cache Reviewer note got the attention of the CO and he replaced the cache container.

6. Tin mini lunchbox cache in bad shape - rusty, moldy, full of water, no logbook. Reports of bad condition go back a year. CO appears to have abandoned the cache.

[+issueperson]

Yes. There are very few things worth worrying about in this game. I would recommend posting the log type that you feel appropriate at the time, and move on with your life. If it gets fixed as a result of your log, that's a good thing. If it doesn't, it's not the end of the world as we know it. In the end, it's just another goobered up cache.

Thanks all for the feedback. Seems like there is not universal agreement on this, so I'm going to take Clan Riffster's advice and log 'em as I see 'em, then move along.

[+GeoBain]

GC1ET7N

 

I agree with you that this one should be archived. Looks like the coordinates are not accurate (and the CO doesn't seem interested in fixing the coords) and the fact that several people have complained about it being on private property, the reviewer here would probably archive.

 

Update Coordinates Update Coordinates

08/03/2010

N 42° 12.206 W 079° 27.774

 

** Coordinates Changed From **

N 42° 12.196 W 079° 27.769

Distance From Old: 64.6 feet or 19.7 meters.

N 42 12. 206

W 079 27.774

 

Enable Listing Enable Listing

08/15/2011

 

Back in business!

 

Go back and see all the DNFs and read the complaints. Many many people are complaining it's on private property. Either the coords are waaay off or it realy is on private property, both cases for me the CO has had enough time to fix.

 

I'll grant you that private property could be an issue. However, that is not the reason given for the NA.

 

I'll also grant that it appears that the CO seems to have problems hiding caches. Reading the logs it appears the locals have had problems with his caches before.

 

However, the CO is active and has replaced the container recently. For this reason, an NA is not warranted. Perhaps a NM or an email to the CO, but not NA.

[+Chokecherry]

Once again, I find myself in full agreement with Clan Riffster's analysis.

 

It does seem possible that the owner could move their cache away from the stinging insects, so I think a NM is appropriate there. Certainly it's a good thing to alert others to the problem.

 

I agree as well with Clan Riffster. I've found an ammo can infested with stinging insects and logged a NM on that (it was also in a nest of the little guys).

 

We have an issue here with vacation caches which seem to need perpetual maintenance by the community. I don't mind tossing a sheet of paper in to tide a cache over or helping out one of the local cachers who otherwise maintain their caches but I'm not going to give life support to a dying a vacation cache. I did it once and offered to adopt the cache so that it could be maintained with regularity and instead the choice was made for it to be a vacation cache. I've also done it for one inactive owner cache but won't do that with any regularity either.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

I'll grant you that private property could be an issue. However, that is not the reason given for the NA.

 

I'll also grant that it appears that the CO seems to have problems hiding caches. Reading the logs it appears the locals have had problems with his caches before.

 

However, the CO is active and has replaced the container recently. For this reason, an NA is not warranted. Perhaps a NM or an email to the CO, but not NA.

 

In our area, a cache like this with lots of complaints about being on private property would be archived by the reviewer, no questions asked.

[+GeoBain]

The NA on GC138GJ is just ridiculous. That cache is being actively found, including found by you. If spiders and mice are reasons to archive caches, then you will be busy posting a lot more NA logs.

 

Um, a little digging brings up:

 

The original NM was posted 01/27/2010, including a photo of the rotted cache:

 

Log is completely soaked, dry rotted & so forth. The CO needs to please take care of this cache as soon as possible. Photo inclosed of what cache & contents look like.

 

No "owner maintenance" log has been posted.

 

People have mentioned the condition of the cache in their "found it" logs.

 

Cache owner last logged on way back in 2007.

 

So, either someone replaced the container or people aren't signing the log, if there is one in there.

 

A string of "found it" logs doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

EDIT: aha, a lot of the "found" logs were from people attending Geowoodstock.

 

I'm downgrading my "ridiculous" assessment to "iffy".

 

After reading through all the logs, this one might be valid. It's also a classic example of when people should be posting NM along with their Found logs. There is 1 NM back in January and about 40 found logs since then. If you post an NA in a situation like that, it should probably come after your own NM log, especially if you posted a found log as well.

 

This looks like a case of a cacher getting the fever, hiding a cache, and then quitting 5 months later. And the one picture I saw looks like a really bad cache container.

 

But still, as long as people are still logging finds on the cache, it's not really, imho, a situation that calls for NA unless there are permission issues or some other overriding reason to archive it.

[+GeoBain]

 

I'll grant you that private property could be an issue. However, that is not the reason given for the NA.

 

I'll also grant that it appears that the CO seems to have problems hiding caches. Reading the logs it appears the locals have had problems with his caches before.

 

However, the CO is active and has replaced the container recently. For this reason, an NA is not warranted. Perhaps a NM or an email to the CO, but not NA.

 

In our area, a cache like this with lots of complaints about being on private property would be archived by the reviewer, no questions asked.

 

Perhaps the reviewer would agree if that were the reason given for the NA. But Missing In Action was the reason and that is not the case in this situation.

[+GeoBain]

 

I'll grant you that private property could be an issue. However, that is not the reason given for the NA.

 

I'll also grant that it appears that the CO seems to have problems hiding caches. Reading the logs it appears the locals have had problems with his caches before.

 

However, the CO is active and has replaced the container recently. For this reason, an NA is not warranted. Perhaps a NM or an email to the CO, but not NA.

 

In our area, a cache like this with lots of complaints about being on private property would be archived by the reviewer, no questions asked.

 

Perhaps the reviewer would agree if that were the reason given for the NA. But Missing In Action was the reason and that is not the case in this situation.

 

I need new glasses.

 

and coords on private property

 

You are correct. The reviewer should have asked about the permission issue since google and bing maps show this to be in an area where I really doubt a property owner wants people digging around in their shrubs.

[+BlueDeuce]

I know this has been discussed before, and I've read the archives, but this doesn't make me feel better as a human being.

 

The majority of active and responsible cachers need nothing more than a report of a problem. Damp-log, missing, destroyed. taken care of with no complaints.

 

Unfortunately the majority of NM are ignored by the owners and the majority of NA are ignored by gc.com. At least in my area.

[+Ferret Patrol]

What the big deal about posting a Needs Archived? If the Cache Owner won't fix the problem then it needs to be archived. I don't want these problem caches showing up on my PQ's.

[AZcachemeister]

What the big deal about posting a Needs Archived? If the Cache Owner won't fix the problem then it needs to be archived. I don't want these problem caches showing up on my PQ's.

 

I think it has something to do with politics...as in telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

[+Doctroid]

Thanks all for the feedback. Seems like there is not universal agreement on this, so I'm going to take Clan Riffster's advice and log 'em as I see 'em, then move along.

 

Good plan.

 

People seem to read too much into "NM" and "NA" and "DNF". To me "NM" means, "Hey, I think something's wrong here, give it a look?' and not "You are a horrible CO". "NA" (which I agree would be better expressed as "Needs Reviewer Attention") means, "Hey, I think something's seriously wrong here and the CO's not fixing it" and not "I am at war here". And "DNF" means "I didn't find it" and not "I do not believe this cache exists". I log every cache I try to find, every time I try to find it; I use NM when a log is (very) wet or full; and I have used NA a few times even on caches that exist and are being found, if their condition is poor and they are not being adequately maintained by the CO or the community, and especially if the site deserves a good, well-kept cache.

[+fizzymagic]

What the big deal about posting a Needs Archived? If the Cache Owner won't fix the problem then it needs to be archived. I don't want these problem caches showing up on my PQ's.

 

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Groundspeak does not (and should not) agree with this.

 

Once again: Groundspeak is a listing service, not a cache provider. As a result, they will only archive caches that are actually missing or violate the law. They are not in the cache quality business and they don't want to be in that business. You are free to ignore or not seek any poorly maintained caches; Groundspeak provides you a tool for that purpose.

 

Yes, I know that poor cache maintenance violates the guidelines. That is too bad; archiving caches based on reports of poor maintenance is mischief waiting to happen. Think about the unintended consequences of a policy of archiving caches based on maintenance state. Imagine there is a perfectly good cache out there with an inactive owner and I decide I want to place a cache at that spot. Simple! Now I just post repeated NM logs and presto, in a few months the spot is mine!

 

It's also a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it will require a great deal more time and effort on the part of the volunteer reviewers.

 

The "big deal" in posting a NA log is that you waste the reviewer's time with your gripes. That's why it is generally a bad idea unless the cache is missing or violates the law.

[+Doctroid]

Once again: Groundspeak is a listing service, not a cache provider. As a result, they will only archive caches that are actually missing or violate the law. They are not in the cache quality business and they don't want to be in that business.

 

This is false, or at best true only in theory. Here for instance is a cache, which is in bad condition but neither missing nor in violation of law, which our reviewer has temporarily disabled and says will be archived if the CO doesn't take care of it. Same reviewer has archived other caches for similar reasons.

 

It seems to me it's not even true in theory. In the first paragraph of the introduction to the Guidelines, it says:

 

If your geocache does not adhere to all of our guidelines, it may be placed on hold, temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

And the guidelines do include maintenance.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Doctroid

[AZcachemeister]

What the big deal about posting a Needs Archived? If the Cache Owner won't fix the problem then it needs to be archived. I don't want these problem caches showing up on my PQ's.

 

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Groundspeak does not (and should not) agree with this.

 

Once again: Groundspeak is a listing service, not a cache provider. As a result, they will only archive caches that are actually missing or violate the law. They are not in the cache quality business and they don't want to be in that business. You are free to ignore or not seek any poorly maintained caches; Groundspeak provides you a tool for that purpose.

 

Yes, I know that poor cache maintenance violates the guidelines. That is too bad; archiving caches based on reports of poor maintenance is mischief waiting to happen. Think about the unintended consequences of a policy of archiving caches based on maintenance state. Imagine there is a perfectly good cache out there with an inactive owner and I decide I want to place a cache at that spot. Simple! Now I just post repeated NM logs and presto, in a few months the spot is mine!

 

It's also a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it will require a great deal more time and effort on the part of the volunteer reviewers.

 

The "big deal" in posting a NA log is that you waste the reviewer's time with your gripes. That's why it is generally a bad idea unless the cache is missing or violates the law.

 

If someone wants to 'take over' a spot with a cache that hasn't been maintained by the owner of that cache...

then

MORE POWER TO THEM.

 

In my view the real travesty (and deplorable 'unintended consequence') is all those containers out there (many with Geocaching.com stickers on them) that have been abandoned by the owners, and then archived due to lack of maintenance. They're not Groundspeak's property, so they can't advocate cleaning up the mess.

 

Active caches need active owners.

It's a simple concept that almost anyone should be able to understand.

 

EDIT FOR SPEELING.

Edited November 29, 2011 by AZcachemeister

[+JL_HSTRE]

It feels like I post more "Needs Maintenance" logs than other cachers. I have posted NM logs when the cache:

-log is too full to sign

-log is too wet to sign

-container is broken

-coords are obviously wrong (e.g. in the middle of a lake on a terrain 2)

-is hidden in a recess with stinging insects

-inhabited itself by insects

 

I would say all of those are valid reasons for NM logs except the stinging insects. I would definitely note that in my log - possibly in a separate Note to make it more noticeably to the CO and other cachers - but it's not really a maintenance issue. It would be really nice (and IMO proper) for the CO to move/archive the cache but technically it is not required.

 

It's good that you're posting NM logs; not enough cachers do.

 

I've also posted "needs archived" logs for 3 out of about 200 caches. But on 2 of those 3, I've been shot down. The other one is going ignored (GCHTB5, GC1ET79, and GC138GJ)

 

Based on the logs I read, here are my opinions on the three caches you listed:

 

Leaping Lizards (GCHTB5) doesn't need to be archived. Ruined logs + absent owner is bad, but as long as the container is okay I would say it should continue.

 

Jones Arboretum (GC1ET79) sounds like the owner should archive it just because it's been a big headache. The CO and Reviewer don't seem to have directly addressed the alleged private property issue. When you search for a cache and find an apparent private property issue, I recommend submitting photo evidence to the Reviewer. The private property issue may not be obvious to the Reviewer from online maps, but clear in on-site photos.

 

Lover's Lane (GC138GJ) should be archived. The mouse house is like stinging insects nearby - not a good idea but technically permissible. However, my Archive Trifecta is in play: absent owner, broken container (rotted, with spider infestation inside), and ruined logsheet.

 

I post DNFs on any cache that hasn't been found in at least 2 weeks that I also do not find (if it was logged as found the same day, I don't bother, as I know it was just me).

 

If you don't find it, log a DNF anyway even if others found the cache the same day. DNFs not only alert the CO to a possible missing cache, but also alert other cachers that the cache may be difficult (or at least make them not feel as bad if they also DNF it).