DECLINED - [FEATURE] Disable caches when maintance has not been performed

[ColleIsarco]

Hi there,

 

there are many caches out there with the needs `Needs-Maintance` attribut set. While most of them are in good condition and regularly maintained by the owner others are really needs maintance. But in some cases the owner seems to have left geocaching as their hobby.

For someone who is looking around for a cache to find it hard to filter out if the cache in a reasonable good condition to search for it. I think it might be better to automatically disable a cache if the `Maintaince Performed` type has not been logged for more than e.g. 2 weeks after the `Needs Maintaince` log. So caches of owner who don't go gecaching anymore will automatically be requeued to the reviewers who can archive these caches.

 

Regards

ColleIsarco

[+MAntunes]

I support this idea. Just think that 2 weeks is too short. Don't forget that this is a hobby so it has its place after work, family, studies...

 

The suggestion is good, the implementation could be adapted to the same extent of time GS allows a owner to maintain and reactivate a disabled cache.

[+WeightMan]

There are many caches out there with that attribute set where the owner has, in fact, performed the maintenance, but doesn't know how to remove the attribute. Quite often they perform the maintenance and then log a note instead of Owner Maintenance and leave the attribute. Automatically disabling the cache is not a good idea.

[+L0ne.R]

There are many caches out there with that attribute set where the owner has, in fact, performed the maintenance, but doesn't know how to remove the attribute. Quite often they perform the maintenance and then log a note instead of Owner Maintenance and leave the attribute. Automatically disabling the cache is not a good idea.

 

When the cache is disabled by the automated system it could include a note about how to to remove the NM and how to enable the cache. If the cache has an active owner it could be fixed and available in short order.

 

I think it's a valid suggestion and agree that 2 weeks is too short. 1 month should be more then adequate for a CO to read their email and respond to at least their listing by posting a note or OM or enable.

[+BBosman]

There are thousands of caches out there that have the attribute, but where the owner has long since disappeared and the caches are now actively community maintained.

 

Introducing this system, even with a lot higher window then the mentioned 2 weeks, would kill all of these caches.

[jholly]

There are thousands of caches out there that have the attribute, but where the owner has long since disappeared and the caches are now actively community maintained.

 

Introducing this system, even with a lot higher window then the mentioned 2 weeks, would kill all of these caches.

Which might not be a bad thing.

[+Lil Devil]

A good portion of the NM logs I see are because the logsheet is full. It would be inappropriate to automatically disable the cache just because of that.

[+L0ne.R]

A good portion of the NM logs I see are because the logsheet is full. It would be inappropriate to automatically disable the cache just because of that.

 

The logbook is probably the most important part of the geocache. You cannot publish a cache without a logbook. Rule #7 in the guidebook : Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.Also from the guidebook:

What are the rules of geocaching?

 

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.
2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.
3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

[+baloo&bd]

If a cache has an ongoing issue, there is already a method for dealing with these - Needs Archived logs. Anything automated would just cause to many issues to be of any use.

[cezanne]

There are thousands of caches out there that have the attribute, but where the owner has long since disappeared and the caches are now actively community maintained.

 

Introducing this system, even with a lot higher window then the mentioned 2 weeks, would kill all of these caches.

Which might not be a bad thing.

 

I do not agree. It is by far better to have a nice, reasonably maintained (by whomever) cache

than geolitter lying around in the landscape. It's not the database aspect that plays the most important role.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

A good portion of the NM logs I see are because the logsheet is full. It would be inappropriate to automatically disable the cache just because of that.

 

The logbook is probably the most important part of the geocache. You cannot publish a cache without a logbook.

 

I hardly ever met a situation where it was not possible to find a place to log when others have logged before that the log book is full.

Quite often all the back pages are still available or at least much space between other log entries. In the worst case one can add a sheet (except for nano size containers).

 

As the time period is regarded: Also one month is much too short for many caches. Of course, one month is not to short to expect a reaction by the hider, but a note will not impress an automatic system and it does not make sense to post maintenance performed before this issue is taken care of.

 

Moreover, it does not play much role whether a cache is disabled or not. If it is there and findable, the cachers will go there anyway.

That can even happen for archived caches that are still there and are not locked.

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

If a cache has an ongoing issue, there is already a method for dealing with these - Needs Archived logs. Anything automated would just cause to many issues to be of any use.

 

Let's say you have 3 NMs on one of your caches due to a soaked logbook. The logbook is too wet to sign. The NMs go back to August (3 months) and there have also been two Found logs that mention that the book is soaked and they were unable to sign it. If, as a CO, you knew that your cache would be disabled within a month of the first NM, would you have replaced the log by now? Do you feel that someone should put an NA on a cache with an unsignable logbook?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Lone R

[+L0ne.R]

A good portion of the NM logs I see are because the logsheet is full. It would be inappropriate to automatically disable the cache just because of that.

 

The logbook is probably the most important part of the geocache. You cannot publish a cache without a logbook.

 

I hardly ever met a situation where it was not possible to find a place to log when others have logged before that the log book is full.

 

If you feel that the logbook in the cache is simply a place to scratch your initials then yes there is usually a spot in a full logsheet to squeeze in initials. But note that the guidelines say "Write about your find in the cache logbook." It's part of what makes cache ownership rewarding and was a large part of the game when it first started. It adds an extra notch to the geocaching experience when finders take the time to write more then their trailname and date into the log. But this practice has slowly eroded and I think in part because the lack of respect given to the logbook.

[+MAntunes]

This request for a feature, as I understood it, doesn't request for turning caches into geolitter but, solely, to disabled them automatically if CO doesn't take action to a NM log in a suitable period of time (*).

 

It is true that a disabled cache can still be visited, as also archived caches can, if they are still in the spot, but this feature will allow visitors to prepare trips and pick caches that are in good conditions to be visited and, thus, avoiding caches with known problems if they decide to do so. Because they can filter out disabled caches but can't filter out caches with NM logs (Am I right?).

 

Also, it has not do do with having the DB in good condition but it has to do with having caches in good condition as this features, if implemented, will help this goal by putting some pressure on the CO that seems to forget about their caches by ignoring NM logs.

 

Despite some valuable arguments I have read in this topic, I still believe this feature is a good suggestion.

 

(*) - this 'suitable' period of time may be the time that normally Reviewers allows for a CO to perform maintenance to a disabled cache before archiving them.

[+Chokecherry]

If a cache has an ongoing issue, there is already a method for dealing with these - Needs Archived logs. Anything automated would just cause to many issues to be of any use.

 

Let's say you have 3 NMs on one of your caches due to a soaked logbook. The logbook is too wet to sign. The NMs go back to August (3 months) and there have also been two Found logs that mention that the book is soaked and they were unable to sign it. If, as a CO, you knew that your cache would be disabled within a month of the first NM, would you have replaced the log by now? Do you feel that someone should put an NA on a cache with an unsignable logbook?

 

In my experience caches with soaked log books have bigger issues than just replacing the log book. Usually the inside of the cache becomes a hot mess in a short time because of moisture issues. Sometimes this is due to the container being broken or substandard for the environment. If a cache owner isn't around to address those larger issues or unwilling to me tossing paper into a cache or an entire new log book is just going to add to the mess of the cache. Chances are I would log a NM and contact the owner directly. If it persists to be a problem then depending on what's going on I may log an NA.

[+baloo&bd]

If a cache has an ongoing issue, there is already a method for dealing with these - Needs Archived logs. Anything automated would just cause to many issues to be of any use.

 

Let's say you have 3 NMs on one of your caches due to a soaked logbook. The logbook is too wet to sign. The NMs go back to August (3 months) and there have also been two Found logs that mention that the book is soaked and they were unable to sign it. If, as a CO, you knew that your cache would be disabled within a month of the first NM, would you have replaced the log by now? Do you feel that someone should put an NA on a cache with an unsignable logbook?

 

Actually, that is an excellent example of why the automation would not work. I have a cache that is similar, yet in all the times I have gone out there, it has only been soaked and/or incapable of being signed once. I used to rush right out to it to fix it, but now only do it when I get a chance as there is someone that lives near by who walks his dog near it and lets me know the status. Since I never remove a NM without physically checking it, sometimes the NM may sit there for a while. An automatic NA or disable would simply have me change to removing the NM and posting a OM based on the word of another.

 

The logs can get "damp" for a number of reasons (someone signs in rain, etc). Some will post a NM without taking this into account. CO's know their area and their caches. Chokecherry has the proper method. This simply is not a big enough issue to warrant devoting any resources to it.

Edited November 27, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+Frank Broughton]

There are many caches out there with that attribute set where the owner has, in fact, performed the maintenance, but doesn't know how to remove the attribute. Quite often they perform the maintenance and then log a note instead of Owner Maintenance and leave the attribute. Automatically disabling the cache is not a good idea.

 

Really? This does not sound correct. More like some people just do not care...

[+Frank Broughton]

If a cache has an ongoing issue, there is already a method for dealing with these - Needs Archived logs. Anything automated would just cause to many issues to be of any use.

 

Let's say you have 3 NMs on one of your caches due to a soaked logbook. The logbook is too wet to sign. The NMs go back to August (3 months) and there have also been two Found logs that mention that the book is soaked and they were unable to sign it. If, as a CO, you knew that your cache would be disabled within a month of the first NM, would you have replaced the log by now? Do you feel that someone should put an NA on a cache with an unsignable logbook?

 

Actually, that is an excellent example of why the automation would not work. I have a cache that is similar, yet in all the times I have gone out there, it has only been soaked and/or incapable of being signed once. I used to rush right out to it to fix it, but now only do it when I get a chance as there is someone that lives near by who walks his dog near it and lets me know the status. Since I never remove a NM without physically checking it, sometimes the NM may sit there for a while. An automatic NA or disable would simply have me change to removing the NM and posting a OM based on the word of another.

 

The logs can get "damp" for a number of reasons (someone signs in rain, etc). Some will post a NM without taking this into account. CO's know their area and their caches. Chokecherry has the proper method. This simply is not a big enough issue to warrant devoting any resources to it.

 

I could not disagree more. Poorly created caches do not deserve to live PERIOD! Some people simply do not care. I DO and I am sure many others do too!

[cezanne]

 

It is true that a disabled cache can still be visited, as also archived caches can, if they are still in the spot, but this feature will allow visitors to prepare trips and pick caches that are in good conditions to be visited and, thus, avoiding caches with known problems if they decide to do so. Because they can filter out disabled caches but can't filter out caches with NM logs (Am I right?).

 

No, you are wrong. NM logs set the NM attribute which can be used to filter. Many cachers are just too lazy to read the NM logs to distinguish between those caches that have a real issue and those which can be found nevertheless.

 

Also, it has not do do with having the DB in good condition but it has to do with having caches in good condition as this features, if implemented, will help this goal by putting some pressure on the CO that seems to forget about their caches by ignoring NM logs.

 

Again I do not agree. I know NM logs that are saying e.g. there are only three info packages in the cache left. For a cache that is visited about once in two months no immediate reaction other than perhaps writing a note saying "Thank you for the message. I will provide further packages when I am going to visit the area next time" is necessary. I would reply with a performed mainentance log before it actually has been done.

 

Moreover, if someone wants to put pressure on me when it regards something like geocaching, I'd certainly not react amused and rather would be inclined to archive a cache than to take care of it. I feel responsible for my caches, but I do not feel that anyone is entitled to put pressure on me with respect to my caches.

 

Despite some valuable arguments I have read in this topic, I still believe this feature is a good suggestion.

 

I think any automatic approach is bad.

[cezanne]

It's part of what makes cache ownership rewarding and was a large part of the game when it first started. It adds an extra notch to the geocaching experience when finders take the time to write more then their trailname and date into the log. But this practice has slowly eroded and I think in part because the lack of respect given to the logbook.

 

I do not think that this true in general. While I am known for writing quite detailed online logs, I have always seen the log on site just as a legitimation for my online log. If someone wrote two sentences in a log this was already a very long and untypical log also in the very early times in my area. I find it very unconvenient to write at the typical cache locations which are often in hard terrain or muggled. Also as a cache owner, my focus lies on the online logs and probably some additional e-mail or personal communication with the finders.

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

It's part of what makes cache ownership rewarding and was a large part of the game when it first started. It adds an extra notch to the geocaching experience when finders take the time to write more then their trailname and date into the log. But this practice has slowly eroded and I think in part because the lack of respect given to the logbook.

 

I do not think that this true in general. While I am known for writing quite detailed online logs, I have always seen the log on site just as a legitimation for my online log. If someone wrote two sentences in a log this was already a very long and untypical log also in the very early times in my area. I find it very unconvenient to write at the typical cache locations which are often in hard terrain or muggled. Also as a cache owner, my focus lies on the online logs and probably some additional e-mail or personal communication with the finders.

 

Cezanne

 

For me a full geocaching experience includes a well maintained cache with a dry, not-full, decent size logbook where the CO leaves amble opportunity to expound on the adventure and thank the CO.

 

Nowadays you get a trailname and a date and then the finder adds a TFTC or a 'cache 5 of 20' in the online log.

 

Seems that the game has evolved from writing about the experience in the logbook and online, to neither writing in the logbook or online. And I partially think this is because of the message sent by COs.

 

Many come into the forums angry that people are taking up more then an inch of space on their logsheet. Or angry that folks won't replace their logsheets when full (i.e. chuck the full one away, the CO doesn't want it and doesn't want to make a special trip out to throw it away). Or arguing that finders are wrong when several of them leave online messages that a logbook can't be signed.

 

A cache where the CO doesn't provide space to leave a comment dimishes the fun for some finders who prefer a fuller experience. A cache with a logbook that is unsignable because it is too wet or so full all one can only leave initials somewhere in the middle of the logsheet diminishes the geocaching experience. Of course, a CO can argue that what matters more is fewer maintenance visits but that attitude does not enhance the game.

[+cerberus1]

It's part of what makes cache ownership rewarding and was a large part of the game when it first started. It adds an extra notch to the geocaching experience when finders take the time to write more then their trailname and date into the log. But this practice has slowly eroded and I think in part because the lack of respect given to the logbook.

 

I do not think that this true in general. While I am known for writing quite detailed online logs, I have always seen the log on site just as a legitimation for my online log. If someone wrote two sentences in a log this was already a very long and untypical log also in the very early times in my area. I find it very unconvenient to write at the typical cache locations which are often in hard terrain or muggled. Also as a cache owner, my focus lies on the online logs and probably some additional e-mail or personal communication with the finders.

 

Cezanne

 

For me a full geocaching experience includes a well maintained cache with a dry, not-full, decent size logbook where the CO leaves amble opportunity to expound on the adventure and thank the CO.

 

Nowadays you get a trailname and a date and then the finder adds a TFTC or a 'cache 5 of 20' in the online log.

 

Seems that the game has evolved from writing about the experience in the logbook and online, to neither writing in the logbook or online. And I partially think this is because of the message sent by COs.

 

Many come into the forums angry that people are taking up more then an inch of space on their logsheet. Or angry that folks won't replace their logsheets when full (i.e. chuck the full one away, the CO doesn't want it and doesn't want to make a special trip out to throw it away). Or arguing that finders are wrong when several of them leave online messages that a logbook can't be signed.

 

A cache where the CO doesn't provide space to leave a comment dimishes the fun for some finders who prefer a fuller experience. A cache with a logbook that is unsignable because it is too wet or so full all one can only leave initials somewhere in the middle of the logsheet diminishes the geocaching experience. Of course, a CO can argue that what matters more is fewer maintenance visits but that attitude does not enhance the game.

 

Your issue (with references) appear to be the size of the container more than the "lack of respect" given to a logbook.

Micros (and some small) can't fit anything other than name/date logs and they fill quickly.

Some realize that and due to the log size, they'll tell of their experience on the online log. Some don't.

But "TFTC" or "5 of 20" has very little to do with cache log size or it's condition. We see it written in our full-sized logbooks inside dry ammo cans too.

[+L0ne.R]

Micros (and some small) can't fit anything other than name/date logs and they fill quickly.

Correct. COs that hide micros ought to take that into consideration. Micro logbooks fill up faster and require more maintenance visits.

[+L0ne.R]

But "TFTC" or "5 of 20" has very little to do with cache log size or it's condition. We see it written in our full-sized logbooks inside dry ammo cans too.

 

I think it does have to do with cache size. The proliferation of micros brought with it logsheets which discourage people from writing anything but a trailname and date. And now we often see logsheets in ammo cans instead of notebooks. People start thinking that this is the new norm - trailnames and dates only. And why not, it's much quicker to say nothing (both in the cache log and the online log). Do the minimal required to get a smiley and rush off to the next one. To me, COs that ignore NMs about full logbooks or wet logbooks, because people are still getting their smiley, reinforce the numbers game that geocaching has become.

[+cerberus1]

Hi there,

 

there are many caches out there with the needs `Needs-Maintance` attribut set. While most of them are in good condition and regularly maintained by the owner others are really needs maintance. But in some cases the owner seems to have left geocaching as their hobby.

For someone who is looking around for a cache to find it hard to filter out if the cache in a reasonable good condition to search for it. I think it might be better to automatically disable a cache if the `Maintaince Performed` type has not been logged for more than e.g. 2 weeks after the `Needs Maintaince` log. So caches of owner who don't go gecaching anymore will automatically be requeued to the reviewers who can archive these caches.

 

Regards

ColleIsarco

 

I understand your concern, but don't see it as practical.

I don't think it thoughtful to place extra burden on the CO simply to make "filtering" easier for others either.

If a hide's in such poor condition and the owner appears to be done with caching, a NA should be logged and it's left to a reviewer.

Two weeks is not enough time in many cases.

As a cache owner, work, vacation, illness, etc. come first. I have a life other than geocaching.

Who's to say the caches really needed maintenance?

Most of our NM logs come from newer folks who either couldn't find it or found a Rite In Rain log damp. We try to head out as soon as possible and wipe the RIR log, drying it again and usually the "missing" hide's right where we left it.

As a premium member and cache owner, I'd be real ticked to find a hide got archived by a reviewer while I was away, due to an error from a cacher and no fault of my own.

Some may note their displeasure on the renewal date.

[+MAntunes]

 

No, you are wrong. NM logs set the NM attribute which can be used to filter. Many cachers are just too lazy to read the NM logs to distinguish between those caches that have a real issue and those which can be found nevertheless.

 

 

Ok, this does the job of filtering caches that are not in good conditions.

I overlooked that section of the PQs "Attributes to Exclude (Click to include/exclude certain attributes.)".

Thanks.

 

Moreover, if someone wants to put pressure on me when it regards something like geocaching, I'd certainly not react amused and rather would be inclined to archive a cache than to take care of it. I feel responsible for my caches, but I do not feel that anyone is entitled to put pressure on me with respect to my caches.

 

About automatisms, I don't think that any automatism is a bad approach. It depends on the automatism and the situation.

I think that, if a suitable period of time is found to apply it in this situation, an automatic disabling would be more effective and better accepted than a NA log made by someone, if the cache has issues. Automatisms are 'blind' and treats everyone the same way, and this was the type of 'pressure' I meant. While some people seems not accepting very the well pressure coming from others (and here I mean in regular situations of life, not only in geocaching), if that pressure comes from automatisms I think that won't be taken personally and will be better accepted. Automatisms helps us in many aspects of our lives and the trick is to take them in the proper measure. But this seems to be a discussion for another topic and maybe another Forum.

[cezanne]

It's part of what makes cache ownership rewarding and was a large part of the game when it first started. It adds an extra notch to the geocaching experience when finders take the time to write more then their trailname and date into the log. But this practice has slowly eroded and I think in part because the lack of respect given to the logbook.

 

I do not think that this true in general. While I am known for writing quite detailed online logs, I have always seen the log on site just as a legitimation for my online log. If someone wrote two sentences in a log this was already a very long and untypical log also in the very early times in my area. I find it very unconvenient to write at the typical cache locations which are often in hard terrain or muggled. Also as a cache owner, my focus lies on the online logs and probably some additional e-mail or personal communication with the finders.

 

Cezanne

 

For me a full geocaching experience includes a well maintained cache with a dry, not-full, decent size logbook where the CO leaves amble opportunity to expound on the adventure and thank the CO.

 

Nowadays you get a trailname and a date and then the finder adds a TFTC or a 'cache 5 of 20' in the online log.

 

I have already mentioned that I tend to write very long online logs. I am doing this since the very start in 2002. I have not changed my attitude towards logging on site.

I find it very umcomfortable to write with typically dirty fingers in an uncomfortable position or needing to take care that I am not watched. My handwriting is very badly readable if I have no table available.

 

I do not like nano sheets as it is very hard for me to sign there, but I am not writing more than my alias and the date even in log books that are extremely huge.

Maybe I might add Thank you, but I often omit it as I do not expect the hider to go read the log book anyway. I use the online log for communication.

 

 

A cache where the CO doesn't provide space to leave a comment dimishes the fun for some finders who prefer a fuller experience. A cache with a logbook that is unsignable because it is too wet or so full all one can only leave initials somewhere in the middle of the logsheet diminishes the geocaching experience. Of course, a CO can argue that what matters more is fewer maintenance visits but that attitude does not enhance the game.

 

I'd say that many geocaches on mountains and in other remote coins would not exist if one expects the hider to visit the cache quickly just for a minor issue.

There are lots of caches where even the shortest approach for the hider involves several hours.

 

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

As a premium member and cache owner, I'd be real ticked to find a hide got archived by a reviewer while I was away, due to an error from a cacher and no fault of my own.

 

I don't understand how a cache could be archived without the CO being aware. Unless the CO ignores emails or filters out gc emails and then never looks at the message in the gc folder. Or creates an email account just for GC email and then never looks at it. Even if an automated system were applied, it would only be an automated disable. It would take a few more months before a reviewer steps in with a reviewer note and then probably another month for the reviewer to archive the cache.

 

Looking at my own cache hides, since March 2002 we have planted 41 caches. We currently have 15 active caches. The others have been archived mostly because after 3-6 years of maintaining a cache it gets a little tedious. I think when that feeling hits, it's time to archive the cache and open up an area for a new cache hide.

 

Looking through our current 15 active caches. There's 1 NM on Feb 18 2007 because it was frozen, cache was thawed and available on March 11 2007. I think a frozen cache is a legit reason to post an NM. As a CO I can disable the cache until it is available again. Of the 26 archived caches, 1 NM on 05/05/2007 (cache ransacked), OM on 05/15/2007 (replaced with a new cache).

 

I'm not saying that there weren't problems with the other caches, most people left a DNF, or a note, or mentioned an issue in their Found log, and we fixed the cache within days. If it was going to be a couple of weeks, and the issue was a minor one we posted a note. If it was a more serious problem (wet cache, possibly missing cache, broken container, frozen container) and we couldn't fix the problem quickly, we disabled the cache so people wouldn't waste time and gas money.

[+L0ne.R]

About automatisms, I don't think that any automatism is a bad approach. It depends on the automatism and the situation.

I think that, if a suitable period of time is found to apply it in this situation, an automatic disabling would be more effective and better accepted than a NA log made by someone, if the cache has issues. Automatisms are 'blind' and treats everyone the same way, and this was the type of 'pressure' I meant. While some people seems not accepting very the well pressure coming from others (and here I mean in regular situations of life, not only in geocaching), if that pressure comes from automatisms I think that won't be taken personally and will be better accepted.

 

Good point.

[+L0ne.R]

I'd say that many geocaches on mountains and in other remote coins would not exist if one expects the hider to visit the cache quickly just for a minor issue.

There are lots of caches where even the shortest approach for the hider involves several hours.

Cezanne

 

True. In those few cases, the CO could post an enable and then explain that the cache is still available but would someone please add a sheet of paper to the cache to tide it over until the CO can get there [insert estimated date here].

[cezanne]

I'd say that many geocaches on mountains and in other remote coins would not exist if one expects the hider to visit the cache quickly just for a minor issue.

There are lots of caches where even the shortest approach for the hider involves several hours.

Cezanne

 

True. In those few cases, the CO could post an enable and then explain that the cache is still available but would someone please add a sheet of paper to the cache to tide it over until the CO can get there [insert estimated date here].

 

But that way it runs into an absurd circle. Someone post a NM log and maybe writes A new log book would be fine after the Winter as only three pages are left. Then the owner writes a note he will bring a new log book after the Winter, but will not write a performed maintenance log until the work gets done. Then the cache gets automatically disabled without any reason for doing so. Then the cache owner will enable the cache again to reach the same status as before the automatic disable-process which serves no purpose at all.

To make things worse, it can even happen that next finder might again write a NM log as many cachers do not read the previous logs and wants to notify the owner of the same issue already reported.

 

BTW: These cases are not so small in number in a country like Austria.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

About automatisms, I don't think that any automatism is a bad approach. It depends on the automatism and the situation.

 

When we restrict ourselves to geocaching, I always think that an intelligent human-based approach will win over the automatic one.

 

I think that, if a suitable period of time is found to apply it in this situation, an automatic disabling would be more effective and better accepted than a NA log made by someone, if the cache has issues.

 

There is absolutely no reason to post a NA log in many cases where a cache has a NM flag. I have provided a few examples, e.g. the one where there is a NM log mentioning that only a small number of information packages are left in the starting container of a multi cache. There is not even a reason to disable the cache as long there are still packages available. Still it does not make sense to log a performed maintenance log before having filled up the cache.

 

Automatisms are 'blind' and treats everyone the same way, and this was the type of 'pressure' I meant. While some people seems not accepting very the well pressure coming from others (and here I mean in regular situations of life, not only in geocaching), if that pressure comes from automatisms I think that won't be taken personally and will be better accepted.

 

That definitely does not work for me. If a dull automatic approach leads to a result that could be easily have been avoided by a human approach, I would get very angry. I know of many caches in Germany that got archived by their owners because they were annoyed by an automatic procedure applied by some German reviewers where it could happen that a cache got archived although it got disabled only the day before the archival just because the last found it date was a while away. Of course it would have been possible to get such caches dis-archived, but most owners were too angry to get involved into this process and I would feel similarly. I cannot see any advantage of an automatic approach like suggested here.

It is possible to filter for the NM attribute. So where is the real issue?

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

There is absolutely no reason to post a NA log in many cases where a cache has a NM flag. I have provided a few examples, e.g. the one where there is a NM log mentioning that only a small number of information packages are left in the starting container of a multi cache. There is not even a reason to disable the cache as long there are still packages available. Still it does not make sense to log a performed maintenance log before having filled up the cache.

 

The CO performed maintenance by watching and responding to NM logs.

 

If the log said that there was only one instruction sheet left in the multi container and it was vital to the getting the final then a visit to the cache to replenish the stock seems in order. If the finder said there were 3 left the CO might post an OM but explain in the log that he'll restock when there's a report of 1 sheet left. To me that's Owner Maintenance - he's maintaining the list and watching the emails and posting notes to keep everyone informed and is willing to make the trip to do the maintenance in a timely fashion when necessary (before it wastes anyone's time and gas money).

 

If the CO communicates via his cache listing I doubt that anyone would post a NA or that a reviewer would archive his cache. The problem comes when COs don't read email, don't respond to problems and abandon their cache listing,

[+StarBrand]

A good portion of the NM logs I see are because the logsheet is full. It would be inappropriate to automatically disable the cache just because of that.

or the cache camera is full

 

or the pencil is not sharpened

 

or the nearby tree dropped a branch on it

 

or somebody didn't mark the TB out

 

etc.....

[+northernpenguin]

One more voice for disliking automated disabling of caches, when the friendly reviewer reminder is an option that can read recent log entries before dropping an anvil on some vacationing CO.

Particularly if this is connected to some later automatic-archiving system.

[+MAntunes]

There is absolutely no reason to post a NA log in many cases where a cache has a NM flag.

It was suggested in this topic by baloo&bd as an option to the automatic disabling suggestion - if I understood it right.

 

It is possible to filter for the NM attribute. So where is the real issue?

About filtering, I am satisfied already with the solution you pointed which is to filter PQs by cache attributes.

 

But, I see this feature request also as an opportunity to enforce maintenance of caches in a way that would be - in my opinion - better accepted by persons that don't like to be pressured by others about maintenance of their caches and in situations where CO seems to have abandoned cache listings or even the activity (this can be detected by the login date to the site).

[cezanne]

There is absolutely no reason to post a NA log in many cases where a cache has a NM flag. I have provided a few examples, e.g. the one where there is a NM log mentioning that only a small number of information packages are left in the starting container of a multi cache. There is not even a reason to disable the cache as long there are still packages available. Still it does not make sense to log a performed maintenance log before having filled up the cache.

 

The CO performed maintenance by watching and responding to NM logs.

 

Still, I would not want to post a NM log in such a situation, only a note. So the NM flag will remain and the issue is still there if a machine looks at the situation and not a human.

If a human looks at the cache and reads the logs, he is able to see that the cache owner is not non-reponsive. For an automatic approach, it looks like the owner is non-response. That's the key point of my argument.

 

 

If the log said that there was only one instruction sheet left in the multi container and it was vital to the getting the final then a visit to the cache to replenish the stock seems in order. If the finder said there were 3 left the CO might post an OM but explain in the log that he'll restock when there's a report of 1 sheet left. To me that's Owner Maintenance - he's maintaining the list and watching the emails and posting notes to keep everyone informed and is willing to make the trip to do the maintenance in a timely fashion when necessary (before it wastes anyone's time and gas money).

 

The feature request deals however not with the fact whether the cache owner reacted with a note and what's in this note, but is only focused on the NM attribute.

 

If the CO communicates via his cache listing I doubt that anyone would post a NA or that a reviewer would archive his cache. The problem comes when COs don't read email, don't respond to problems and abandon their cache listing,

 

The issue here was neither about NA logs nor about reviewers archiving caches, but about automatic approaches not involving human intelligence.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 29, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

There is absolutely no reason to post a NA log in many cases where a cache has a NM flag.

It was suggested in this topic by baloo&bd as an option to the automatic disabling suggestion - if I understood it right.

 

I understood that it was suggested as option for caches where no reaction of the owner is available or where other issues exist.

 

The NM attribute is set for various reasons. There are caches with NM attribute where it is not even necessary to disable the cache.

Think e.g. for a cache where each stage has a duplicate one and just one of the duplicates gots lost or broken. If the hider asked the

searchers to report missing stages and to post a NM log in such a case, he will be informed about the situation and no immediate

reaction whatsoever is necessary. A note that one will replace the duplicate upon the next visit will suffice.

 

A human is able to distinguish between situations like the above and situations where a cache hider is non-responsive.

 

 

Cezanne

[+HHD]

I think this is a great idea. My suggestion is to extend the timeframe out to three months. This is plenty of time for even a part time co to deal with any maintenance issues before an automated system steps in and disables a cache.

[Moun10Bike]

Thank you for the suggestion, but Groundpseak prefers to avoid any automated means of disabling and archiving. We are instead looking into developing tools that will make it easier for reviewers to stay on top of cache issues and reports.