Why don't people log "Needs Maintenance"

[cezanne]

 

Any cache owner complaining that the community didn't 'pitch in'and help with minor maintenance issues is just as spoiled and as entitled as the finder who expects a perfect caching experience every time out.

 

I agree. My disappoinment comes, however, from noting that an increasing number of cachers are not willing to try to fix minor issues with caches hidden by other cachers who are not neglicent.

 

 

Cezanne

[AZcachemeister]

The container for one of my caches went missing in May and a finder kindly placed the remaining contents in a zip lock bag to keep them dry, but I didn't even notice until another finder posted a NM a few days ago. And that's after two other people found it without giving any indication even in their Found log that the container was now a zip lock bag when the description said it was an ammo box.

 

I know no one wants to upset the cache owner, but don't you think this is something that I should know about?

 

Too many people out there just going to co-ordinates and looking for a piece of paper to put their name on.

They wouldn't know an ammo box from a lock 'n' lock from a bison tube.

 

Absolutely someone should have said something in their log, and this is a good prime example of when I would probably post a 'Needs Maintenance' right away.

[+cmhall9]

Today my son and I came across a geocache that according to the cache page was once a Member Only Cache. Then the owner changed it to a basic member cache.

So we go to the location and my son and I find the Member Only Cache, open with a wet damaged log lying near it. After signing the log and putting it back I saw a second cache. This one was empty and damaged.

Using my phones app I logged the find then logged Needs Maintenance.

 

Photos and a more detailed description:

Jaydon finds a damaged Geocache

[+The_Incredibles_]

Today my son and I came across a geocache that according to the cache page was once a Member Only Cache. Then the owner changed it to a basic member cache.

So we go to the location and my son and I find the Member Only Cache, open with a wet damaged log lying near it. After signing the log and putting it back I saw a second cache. This one was empty and damaged.

Using my phones app I logged the find then logged Needs Maintenance.

 

Photos and a more detailed description:

Jaydon finds a damaged Geocache

 

Does this mean you get 2 smilies?

[+The_Incredibles_]

The container for one of my caches went missing in May and a finder kindly placed the remaining contents in a zip lock bag to keep them dry, but I didn't even notice until another finder posted a NM a few days ago. And that's after two other people found it without giving any indication even in their Found log that the container was now a zip lock bag when the description said it was an ammo box.

 

I know no one wants to upset the cache owner, but don't you think this is something that I should know about?

 

How bizarre. You'd think someone would say something??

[+BAMBOOZLE]

If the entire caching community pitched in on cache maint. instead of whining and posting NM's almost all cachers could have dozens of hides, there would be more caches to find, and the ones that are out there would be in better shape.

 

And cache owners could get even lazier about their ownership responsibilities...

 

Any cache owner complaining that the community didn't 'pitch in' and help with minor maintenance issues is just as spoiled and as entitled as the finder who expects a perfect caching experience every time out. Of course, I only have a handful of caches hidden. Since I don't have dozens or hundreds of hides, I shouldn't be complaining and my opinion on cache maintenance is null and void. So, what is the lowest number of hides I can have before I'm entitled to complain about cachers not maintaining MY caches?

 

Don't get me wrong. There is NOTHING wrong with pitching in and helping out and I do it if I can. As a CO, I know I'd appreciate that if/when someone does it for me but I'd never expect them to.

 

A CO spoiled and entitled ?????

A CO hides a cache for the BENEFIT OF OTHERS and the Geocaching community.

A cache finder finds a cache for HIS OWN ENJOYMENT and BENEFIT.

There is really no comparison here.

[+6NoisyHikers]

COs can definitely be spoiled and entitled. They place a cache an expect everyone who finds it to know his/her intrepretations of the rules of the game. This could mean posting or not posting pictures, logging or not logging NMs, mentioning or not mentioning adverse conditions in the area, asking or not asking for hints, etc... AND undertaking varying levels of cache maintenance on their behalf.

 

I was researching some caches for our trip this past weekend and came across one with a note from the owner that said "stop leaving your lousy carp swag in this cache" and a few other choice words for past and future finders. Appropriate tone? No. Spoiled and obnoxious? Absolutely.

[+mymren]

I'm not nearly so experienced as probably a good many of you, but I do have some caches (still new) and I read all the logs, but I would expect if there was a real problem, that someone would post a NM log. I myself have only done on NM on one cache and a NA on another fairly new one. The NM had multiple found it logs with notes of how bad the container was. When I found it, it was a sandwich baggie holding a smashed film canister and had spiders living in it.

 

The NA went to a cache that I pulled up to, and the land owner approached me, we had a discussion and he was very unhappy that someone had placed a cache on privaty property. He mentioned that was a good way to get shot. Luckily, the CO archived the cache within 2 hours of my log.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Yesterday a basic member newbie with about 50 finds and 0 hides logged a NA on a eight year old, full size cache full of goodies in a great park because he ( and two newbies before him ) couldn't find it....not a NM but a NA. Its not an easy find ( about 10% NF ) but I was going to check on it Sat however a local just logged it ( he was dropping TB's )......its where its always been as I suspected....just more NM,NA, BS.

It took awhile but I changed a couple hundred or so to Premium only....I had been doing it only as caches were muggled but I've had enough....believe me it helps.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Yesterday a basic member newbie with about 50 finds and 0 hides logged a NA on a eight year old, full size cache full of goodies in a great park because he ( and two newbies before him ) couldn't find it....not a NM but a NA. Its not an easy find ( about 10% NF ) but I was going to check on it Sat however a local just logged it ( he was dropping TB's )......its where its always been as I suspected....just more NM,NA, BS.

 

Did you contact the newbie then and explain the proper use of NMs and NAs? If no one does, he'll just keep bothering reviewers with logs like that.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Yesterday a basic member newbie with about 50 finds and 0 hides logged a NA on a eight year old, full size cache full of goodies in a great park because he ( and two newbies before him ) couldn't find it....not a NM but a NA. Its not an easy find ( about 10% NF ) but I was going to check on it Sat however a local just logged it ( he was dropping TB's )......its where its always been as I suspected....just more NM,NA, BS.

 

Did you contact the newbie then and explain the proper use of NMs and NAs? If no one does, he'll just keep bothering reviewers with logs like that.

 

You make a good point....I need to do that.

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

Did you contact the newbie then and explain the proper use of NMs and NAs? If no one does, he'll just keep bothering reviewers with logs like that.

 

You make a good point....I need to do that.

 

I send gentle but informative messages when I see a new cacher make a mistake. I rarely get replies back but at least I feel like I'm trying to help the situation. Of course, I also revisit many of the caches I find when I am out hiking. If they aren't being found by others on a regular basis I will post a note on the cache page letting cachers know it is there (or not there!) to be found.

 

Proactive caching!

[+Rush37]

Even being new to this, I already get annoyed when either a cache has a ton of DNFs with nobody actually asking for maintenance, and just as annoyed when a cache is marked as NM because the owner never bothers to do a maintenance performed log. One time I reported a cache as NM without ever visiting it because about 7 people had DNFs on a 1 star cache. The owner was able to quickly replace the container and I went and got it in under a week.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Even being new to this, I already get annoyed when either a cache has a ton of DNFs with nobody actually asking for maintenance, and just as annoyed when a cache is marked as NM because the owner never bothers to do a maintenance performed log. One time I reported a cache as NM without ever visiting it because about 7 people had DNFs on a 1 star cache. The owner was able to quickly replace the container and I went and got it in under a week.

 

In this instance your NM log worked out, but you really shouldn't ever post a NM (or an NA) without visiting the site first. At the very least you might be able to give the CO some useful information about the problem.

 

And several DNFs doesn't always mean there are maintenance issues. But, again, in the quoted instance, it worked out. It's a shame the cache owner wasn't paying closer attention to the DNF logs in the first place.

[cezanne]

And several DNFs doesn't always mean there are maintenance issues. But, again, in the quoted instance, it worked out. It's a shame the cache owner wasn't paying closer attention to the DNF logs in the first place.

 

Exactly. It becomes too common that cache owners do not read normal logs and I'm not willing to support this unfortunate habit.

 

Cezanne

[+Rush37]

I would not have done what I did if I didn't feel confident the cache was gone, but I've noticed a difference between one or two people not being able to find a tough cache and a bunch of people saying that they couldn't find an easy one, that it looked muggled, etc, and several asking for maintenance just without using the tag. With that last little bit I'm not looking to take any liberties or assumptions, just fixing a mistake.

[AZcachemeister]

I would not have done what I did if I didn't feel confident the cache was gone, but I've noticed a difference between one or two people not being able to find a tough cache and a bunch of people saying that they couldn't find an easy one, that it looked muggled, etc, and several asking for maintenance just without using the tag. With that last little bit I'm not looking to take any liberties or assumptions, just fixing a mistake.

 

I've logged many a DNF on caches I was certain were missing...only to see the next log:

NEWBIE CACHER, 'Thanks for the easy find, my first!'

 

Assume nothing, 'confidence' is a trap.

[+Rush37]

While I understand your point, if you follow it to it's end it would mean never using NM.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

IMO NM should only be used if you've " FOUND " the cache and something is wrong with the container ( broken/missing lid, log on ground-missing container.)

As I've said, if the log is unsignable I add a new one....while technically you don't have to do this and could log a NM please don't log a " FIND " as you didn't sign the log.

 

If you " CAN'T FIND " a cache it simple....log a DNF and move on.

[+Itsjoma]

I just feel treated like an idiot or a log-ignorer if the same message is sent twice.

Personally, I see a 'NM' log as saying, 'Hey stupid! Didn't you notice your cache has a problem?'

I'm sorry that you guys take a NM log so personally. But you've read the guidelines and can see that's not the intent of the NM log. I don't think the GC needs to cater to CO's who have added their own meaning to a valid function of the website. To be clear, the NM log is NOT just to let the CO know, but to let the cache finding community also know there is a problem. If I'm looking for a cache to find - say within those "few" hours between the report and the fixing - I can see the icon and easily scroll down to that log to see how serious it is (do I try for it or not?). Without that functionality I may go for a cache that's unfindable/unsignable/etc. - that's a risk with any cache, but one with a problem report should be visible to everyone.

 

I'm new to the game, but have posted NM on caches that I felt "needed maintenance". My understanding is that is what it is for. I will also post another NM if I run across a cache that still needs maintenance if a reasonable time has gone by and there isn't a note from the CO acknowledging that they have received the message and intend to act on it or have temporarily disabled it. I have also posted a couple of requests for caches to be archived when "tree cache is in has been cut down" or NMs were posted repeatedly by various other people over an extended period of time.

 

Just recently I received a message from a CO --why would you report my cache "needs to be archived" without sending me a private message first?--basically calling me a jerk. WOW... didn't you see the repeated NMs that other people posted for the last two or three months? Why am I being attacked for trying to be helpful in getting garbage cleaned up?

 

I'm new at this, but I didn't start out reading all the logs to determine if a cache was viable. I would read the details and then start out--many times disappointed after not finding a cache and then reading the logs to learn that it had been reported as NM earlier. I would have liked to have been forewarned by seeing a line through the cache name telling me that it is currently unavailable. Simple enough, right?

 

I haven't put out any caches yet myself, but I'd like to believe that 1) I would only put them in areas where I can feasibly monitor and maintain them and 2) will be willing to either go right out and rectify the problem when I get a NM OR temporarily disable it until I can, 3) be cordial to other players--particularly those who are new and learning the ropes.

[+Walts Hunting]

The great majority of cachers feel and act like you say. Don't let the occasional bad apple ruin your day.

[CallMeCrazyKB]

I'm fairly new to the game too but this is the way I see it.

 

If the cache is perfect, and you find it and sign the log, obviously you log a find.

 

If the cache is there, but somehow imperfect - damp log, coordinates off, some sort of icky but not dangerous swag that you removed, nest of angry bumblebees nearby... log a find and note the issue you ran into in your log. I personally keep an eye on my most recent finds - if I noticed that the CO didn't respond or that other people experienced issues as well, I might go check on it again and log a NM. I just kind of think it doesn't hurt to mention it in your find log since technically it was there and you did find it, gives the CO an opportunity to fix it just from reading the logs.

 

If you get to GZ and find a ruined or missing cache, or something dangerous like neighbors with shotguns, log a NM. To me that's a no-brainer. If it's smashed (or going to get you shot), it clearly needs maintenance. I will help a CO out with a new baggie, tape, pen, paper or replenish swag from time to time, but it's not my place to hide a replacement cache or check permissions.

 

If you get to GZ and you can't find the cache... because you have to go somewhere else, because you're not a good climber, because you don't want to walk across the creek, because you just can't seem to find an area that fits the description of GZ, log a DNF and note why you think you did not find the cache in your log. I don't see a DNF as a reflection on the CO, but rather on me as a cacher - just my personal caching history, what I've looked for, etc. And if an attentive CO wants to double check that the container is there to avoid a possible NM, a DNF with a good description gives them that opportunity.

 

If you get to GZ and the cache is obviously gone... as in, you looked everywhere for it, for a good amount of time, found what you were sure was GZ and there was nothing there, the cache very well could have gone missing. This is when I look at the logs before mine - did other cachers say it was a tricky hide, or lend any hint? Do the photos resemble anything I saw? Have there been previous DNFs? When was the last find? Depending on these things, I might log a NM. I have logged exactly one NM, and it was a cache that I searched for with my family last weekend, for a good long time and on parts of the terrain that I'm not sure everyone would've checked, knew I was at GZ by hints and pictures, and it simply wasn't there. When I went to log my DNF I noticed two prior DNFs (one newbie and one premium member with something like 10k finds if it matters) and that the last 'find' log was in November... on a suburban, not-too-difficult cache, I felt it was reasonable to assume that the cache was MIA - especially since even one of the previous finds noted that 'high water may be a problem' - so I logged a NM. I actually intend to go back with creekin' gear and literally search every nook and cranny that could even contain a nano (supposed to be a lock n lock) just because it's driving me crazy, if it's there I want it, but if I'm reasonably sure it's not there, I want to let someone know.

 

My logs are never meant to reflect on the CO in any way, although I can understand how as a CO you might feel insulted that someone didn't like your cache. I think we all just have to remember to assume good intentions of each other - cachers assume COs don't intentionally let their caches fall into disrepair, COs assume that cachers log DNFs and NMs to help the CO and add to the experience, not as a personal affront. I mean, I opened a cache once and a dozen earwigs swarmed out... but that's not the CO's fault! The container had gotten a hole in it, and presumably we were the first to bring it to their attention (we didn't use a NM, we logged a find and noted the unintentional swag content), and they were appreciative. IMO it was a really good example of how the system should work.

 

I feel like I should encourage everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya now.

[+BCandMsKitty]

If a cache needs maintenance ... post a NM log.

If the CO doesn't like it .. tough!

 

If you find a cache that you know is gone, for any number of reasons, or any other circumstances in which it shouldn't be there, post a NA log.

 

Neither of these logs mean the cache is going to be archived .. they just mean someone is going to get notification of a problem!

 

NM - just the cache owner. NA - the cache owner and the reviewer.

 

It's not rocket science.

[team tisri]

I just feel treated like an idiot or a log-ignorer if the same message is sent twice.

Personally, I see a 'NM' log as saying, 'Hey stupid! Didn't you notice your cache has a problem?'

I'm sorry that you guys take a NM log so personally. But you've read the guidelines and can see that's not the intent of the NM log. I don't think the GC needs to cater to CO's who have added their own meaning to a valid function of the website. To be clear, the NM log is NOT just to let the CO know, but to let the cache finding community also know there is a problem. If I'm looking for a cache to find - say within those "few" hours between the report and the fixing - I can see the icon and easily scroll down to that log to see how serious it is (do I try for it or not?). Without that functionality I may go for a cache that's unfindable/unsignable/etc. - that's a risk with any cache, but one with a problem report should be visible to everyone.

 

I'm new to the game, but have posted NM on caches that I felt "needed maintenance". My understanding is that is what it is for. I will also post another NM if I run across a cache that still needs maintenance if a reasonable time has gone by and there isn't a note from the CO acknowledging that they have received the message and intend to act on it or have temporarily disabled it. I have also posted a couple of requests for caches to be archived when "tree cache is in has been cut down" or NMs were posted repeatedly by various other people over an extended period of time.

 

That's exactly how I'd use those log types too. If it needs maintenance log NM, if there's a major problem with it such that it shouldn't be there at all or if it's clear the owner isn't responding to NM logs, post NA.

 

Just recently I received a message from a CO --why would you report my cache "needs to be archived" without sending me a private message first?--basically calling me a jerk. WOW... didn't you see the repeated NMs that other people posted for the last two or three months? Why am I being attacked for trying to be helpful in getting garbage cleaned up?

 

In this case the CO is being a jerk. Frankly I've got better things to do than send private messages, wait a while to see if they respond and only later log NA. All that requires me keeping on top of what messages I've sent out. If the cache has a problem serious enough to alert the reviewer than the CO should have been on top of it.

 

If the CO hasn't been responding to NM logs they deserve to get an NA log. If there's a major problem with the cache that warrants reviewer attention even if the cache is present and in good order then future finders would appreciate knowing rather than leaving it to sit an unknown time while the CO considers what, if anything, to do with your private message. If I'd gone to a cache site and been harassed by Bubba the redneck and his buddies I'd log NA right away to spare future seekers the trouble.

 

I'm new at this, but I didn't start out reading all the logs to determine if a cache was viable. I would read the details and then start out--many times disappointed after not finding a cache and then reading the logs to learn that it had been reported as NM earlier. I would have liked to have been forewarned by seeing a line through the cache name telling me that it is currently unavailable. Simple enough, right?

 

It is frustrating when a cache isn't there but isn't disabled yet. Given how easy it is to disable a cache I really wonder why cache owners don't disable them if they get NM logs and can't get out there for a while. Of course if the owner has given up on the game they are unlikely to bother, which is why an NA log will see to it.

 

I haven't put out any caches yet myself, but I'd like to believe that 1) I would only put them in areas where I can feasibly monitor and maintain them and 2) will be willing to either go right out and rectify the problem when I get a NM OR temporarily disable it until I can, 3) be cordial to other players--particularly those who are new and learning the ropes.

 

If I were to hide caches I'd set up mail routing rules so that DNF, NM and NA logs went into one folder while Find and Note logs went into another. That way I could read find logs at leisure and focus on the logs that might indicate there's a problem. Depending on how many Find logs an owner gets it's easy to see how a Find that goes into a lot of detail about the day, the approach, the search and the find only to finish with "by the way, the log is full" could be overlooked. A followup NM log saying "needs new log" gets attention instantly.

 

The owner can decide whether the NM log warrants disabling until they can attend to it or letting it stay active until they get to it. If it needs a new log people can find a space and initial it; if it's broken and mouldy, or all that's there is the lid, the owner can disable it.

[+sholomar]

I have no problem logging maintenance and/or archive requests and have already has 2 defunct caches archived. When there has been no find in 2 years and caches are placed in muggle heavy locations right in town in bushes subject to landscaping with no finds and several dnfs....

 

Although I dont seek many micros I have noticed this problem with people hiding more micros than they can possibly maintain or keep track of.

 

Also life happens and many people simply abandon their accounts and hides.

Edited July 31, 2014 by sholomar

[+J Grouchy]

I'm fairly new to the game too but this is the way I see it.

 

If the cache is perfect, and you find it and sign the log, obviously you log a find.

 

If the cache is there, but somehow imperfect - damp log, coordinates off, some sort of icky but not dangerous swag that you removed, nest of angry bumblebees nearby... log a find and note the issue you ran into in your log. I personally keep an eye on my most recent finds - if I noticed that the CO didn't respond or that other people experienced issues as well, I might go check on it again and log a NM. I just kind of think it doesn't hurt to mention it in your find log since technically it was there and you did find it, gives the CO an opportunity to fix it just from reading the logs.

 

If you get to GZ and find a ruined or missing cache, or something dangerous like neighbors with shotguns, log a NM. To me that's a no-brainer. If it's smashed (or going to get you shot), it clearly needs maintenance. I will help a CO out with a new baggie, tape, pen, paper or replenish swag from time to time, but it's not my place to hide a replacement cache or check permissions.

 

If you get to GZ and you can't find the cache... because you have to go somewhere else, because you're not a good climber, because you don't want to walk across the creek, because you just can't seem to find an area that fits the description of GZ, log a DNF and note why you think you did not find the cache in your log. I don't see a DNF as a reflection on the CO, but rather on me as a cacher - just my personal caching history, what I've looked for, etc. And if an attentive CO wants to double check that the container is there to avoid a possible NM, a DNF with a good description gives them that opportunity.

 

I'm with you so far.

 

If you get to GZ and the cache is obviously gone... as in, you looked everywhere for it, for a good amount of time, found what you were sure was GZ and there was nothing there, the cache very well could have gone missing. This is when I look at the logs before mine - did other cachers say it was a tricky hide, or lend any hint? Do the photos resemble anything I saw? Have there been previous DNFs? When was the last find? Depending on these things, I might log a NM. I have logged exactly one NM, and it was a cache that I searched for with my family last weekend, for a good long time and on parts of the terrain that I'm not sure everyone would've checked, knew I was at GZ by hints and pictures, and it simply wasn't there. When I went to log my DNF I noticed two prior DNFs (one newbie and one premium member with something like 10k finds if it matters) and that the last 'find' log was in November... on a suburban, not-too-difficult cache, I felt it was reasonable to assume that the cache was MIA - especially since even one of the previous finds noted that 'high water may be a problem' - so I logged a NM. I actually intend to go back with creekin' gear and literally search every nook and cranny that could even contain a nano (supposed to be a lock n lock) just because it's driving me crazy, if it's there I want it, but if I'm reasonably sure it's not there, I want to let someone know.

 

My logs are never meant to reflect on the CO in any way, although I can understand how as a CO you might feel insulted that someone didn't like your cache. I think we all just have to remember to assume good intentions of each other - cachers assume COs don't intentionally let their caches fall into disrepair, COs assume that cachers log DNFs and NMs to help the CO and add to the experience, not as a personal affront. I mean, I opened a cache once and a dozen earwigs swarmed out... but that's not the CO's fault! The container had gotten a hole in it, and presumably we were the first to bring it to their attention (we didn't use a NM, we logged a find and noted the unintentional swag content), and they were appreciative. IMO it was a really good example of how the system should work.

 

I feel like I should encourage everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya now.

 

It doesn't matter if someone has 10000 finds or 100. I'd actually argue that many folks with 10k or more finds are more likely to buzz through the search and leave a throwdown when they can't find it than someone with only a few hundred finds. I've seen it happen several times.

 

I have no problem with logging a 'Needs Maintenance' if there is a problem...even if it's just a wet log. Honestly, it is the owner's responsibility, not the finder's. They sign onto that when they place the cache and fill out the form. I have no problem leaving a replacement log - I've done it lots of times...even did that this morning, actually. Way I see it, though, if there are a lot of logs talking about a wet log, it's the container that's most likely the problem and the CO needs to answer for it. I'm not likely to NM a cache if the log is merely damp. That's totally normal here in the south. I'm talking soaking wet, to the point of being mush. That indicates a large problem that only the CO should address. Just replacing the log every couple of months is only prolonging the life of a crappy cache container.

[+Trotter17]

Hello!

 

I logged a needs maintenance on two caches recently: One where I found the broken lid of a container but not the container itself and another where a newly placed container was broken and not functioning how it was supposed to. The local co seems very good about maintaining there caches so I logged "NM" to let them know about these two problems (both were the same co).

I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.

[+dprovan]

I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.

I've heard that proposed, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't implemented. But if the CO has broken caches that he hasn't fixed, should we really be that concerned that he can't plant more?

[+cerberus1]

I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.

I've heard that proposed, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't implemented. But if the CO has broken caches that he hasn't fixed, should we really be that concerned that he can't plant more?

I don't see how NM alone could keep one from placing any.

We know of some who've placed caches while their other hides had current NM.

Did you miss, "The local co seems very good about maintaining their caches so I logged NM" in Trotter17's post?

Trotter17 got a response asking for more info. That to me seems like he plans on fixing 'em.

Not the lousey maintainer you portray...

You've never gotten NM logs?

[cezanne]

I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.

I've heard that proposed, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't implemented. But if the CO has broken caches that he hasn't fixed, should we really be that concerned that he can't plant more?

 

As far as I know there only exists a warning message telling someone who owns caches with the NM flag that he/she should take care of this before hiding new caches but nothing is enforced.

 

As your second statement is concerned, it depends a lot on the cache and the reason why it needs maintenance and when the maintenance is possible. For example, some caches are not reachable for several months of the year or

a construction site might cause necessary delays etc

 

Cezanne

[+narcissa]

Hello!

 

I logged a needs maintenance on two caches recently: One where I found the broken lid of a container but not the container itself and another where a newly placed container was broken and not functioning how it was supposed to. The local co seems very good about maintaining there caches so I logged "NM" to let them know about these two problems (both were the same co).

I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.

 

I doubt this is true unless the cache owner had a track record of poorly maintained caches. I can't see a reviewer refusing to publish a cache because someone once posted a NM for a wet log book.

[+Trotter17]

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

 

Yes, this is typically a great co who just seems to have had two caches that have hit a snag just because of normal wear and tear. I felt that putting up the NM was the proper way to address the issue versus just ignoring it as one cache seems currently unloggable and neither of these were simple ducttape/ logbook fixes, but then I felt bad hearing that logging NM's could possibly hinder someone's hiding.

[+dprovan]

As far as I know there only exists a warning message telling someone who owns caches with the NM flag that he/she should take care of this before hiding new caches but nothing is enforced.

Did they implement the warning? I'm kinda surprised they even went that far.

 

As your second statement is concerned, it depends a lot on the cache and the reason why it needs maintenance and when the maintenance is possible. For example, some caches are not reachable for several months of the year or

a construction site might cause necessary delays etc

Yeah, sorry, I see from your response and the one before that my comment was taken too seriously. I have no interest in being more rigid about maintenance, I was just pointing out that, based on the more serious cases, there's a certain logic in linking maintenance issues with the ability to plant new caches. I see the logic, but that doesn't mean I find it convincing. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that this was that kind of case.

[+The Jester]

If a cache needs maintenance ... post a NM log.

If the CO doesn't like it .. tough!

 

If you find a cache that you know is gone, for any number of reasons, or any other circumstances in which it shouldn't be there, post a NA log.

 

Neither of these logs mean the cache is going to be archived .. they just mean someone is going to get notification of a problem!

 

NM - just the cache owner. NA - the cache owner and the reviewer.

 

It's not rocket science.

Why does a missing cache get kicked up to NA? Just because a cache has gone missing doesn't mean a reviewer needs to be involved, it just a different maintenance problem. There are a number of reasons to post a NA, but a missing cache doesn't seem like one to me.

[+L0ne.R]

If a cache needs maintenance ... post a NM log.

If the CO doesn't like it .. tough!

 

If you find a cache that you know is gone, for any number of reasons, or any other circumstances in which it shouldn't be there, post a NA log.

 

Neither of these logs mean the cache is going to be archived .. they just mean someone is going to get notification of a problem!

 

NM - just the cache owner. NA - the cache owner and the reviewer.

 

It's not rocket science.

Why does a missing cache get kicked up to NA? Just because a cache has gone missing doesn't mean a reviewer needs to be involved, it just a different maintenance problem. There are a number of reasons to post a NA, but a missing cache doesn't seem like one to me.

 

Depends on whether the cache owner has responded to previous logs about a missing cache. If mine is the first report about a potential missing cache, it's a DNF. If there have been other DNFs about a missing cache, it's an NM. If there's already an NM and no response from the CO, it's an NA unless it's only been a couple of weeks since the first NM report.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... Why don't people log Needs Maintenance? Because if they report the container is missing, they cannot log a Found It? I may have to check on one of my series of caches. Two megacachers. On one logged 'Found It'. The other logged "Cache missing. DNF." Makes me wonder how many caches the caches with 16000 finds has actually found? Next cacher logged DNF, container missing on two of those. They were, indeed, missing. Wonder how many of the others those two actually found??? Check one that some people cannot find. Only took a photo of part of the log. There seem to be a number of signatures missing! (That cache was in its proper location.)

So, it seems a lot of people do not log NM because they don't want to admit that they did not find it! Reminds me of two cachers who said "I could not find those two. Can I log a find if it is actually missing?" "No. I don't think so!" (Those two were still in place.)

[+-CJ-]

An example from one of my geocaches. The visitor logs NM. His major points:

 

- This was a quick visit.

- I saw some construction works in the area so could someone go and check if the cache is still there.

- If it's not I would like to log it as found since I already was there.

 

No words like "thanks" or "please".

 

The fact that there is (could be) some problem and visitors log NMs is not annoying. I consider this to be useful information. The statement that the cacher visited the area quickly and wants a smiley as soon as I confirm the problem (and probably disable the cache) doesn't sound that nice.

 

It's not about the NM log type, it's about attitude.

[+sholomar]

so far all i ve gotten from posting NM requests are owners archiving caches. Im assuming I can put my own down in the same location is this is so? I do ask permission from original owner but usually get no reply.

 

People seem to take it personally like its my job to put down a new one...do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

Edited August 19, 2014 by sholomar

[+L0ne.R]

People seem to take it personally like its my job to put down a new one...do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

 

I always post an NM if I find a container that has been destroyed. (An NA if there's already an NM and the CO hasn't responded in reasonable time). I have yet to hide a cache exactly where or near a spot that once had a cache. Not that I wouldn't, it just hasn't happened.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

...do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

 

I usually do although there are times when I am not carrying my replacement containers.

I always carry spare logs in ziplocks and o-rings for bisons and match safes.

[+niraD]

do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

For a damaged/destroyed container, I'd post NM. I carry a few "geocache first aid" supplies (like extra log sheets), but I wouldn't replace a container without prior arrangements with the CO.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

I've just read this thread from the very beginning and I don't understand why an owner would be insulted when a cacher logs a NM log on his cache.

 

I own three caches, two of them longer multi's and I read all Found it logs as I don't get them every day. And they're usually worth reading. BUT I can imagine that if I had let's say ten traditional frequently visited caches, I probably wouldn't read all the "Found it" logs that would arrive in my mailbox every day and I guess a lot of owners that have that many caches don't do it. They batch delete them or even set up a filter in their mailbox to automatically trash the FI logs. And there are owners that have wayy more than ten.

 

So that's why I use "Found it" logs strictly for describing the experience with seeking the cache and the place I've been brought to, and "Needs maintenance" logs for mentioning problems with the cache like a cracked box, full logbook or errors in the listing. They have much bigger chance to attract the attention of the CO. The red cross attribute alerts subsequent finders and even the owner if he happens to miss the e-mail.

[team tisri]

Hello!

 

I logged a needs maintenance on two caches recently: One where I found the broken lid of a container but not the container itself and another where a newly placed container was broken and not functioning how it was supposed to. The local co seems very good about maintaining there caches so I logged "NM" to let them know about these two problems (both were the same co).

I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.

 

There was a guy fairly local to me who it seemed never maintained his caches. It was quite normal for his caches to be archived by the reviewers for non-maintenance and that didn't stop him from putting out more and more caches.

 

Personally I think there should be restrictions - if you can't maintain your existing caches you shouldn't be putting out new ones. There just needs to be some provision for the times there's a good reason why a cache can't be maintained - someone already mentioned a building site and if there has been a local flood/fire/tornado/etc it's entirely possible a cache is disabled for longer than would normally be considered acceptable.

[+dprovan]

so far all i ve gotten from posting NM requests are owners archiving caches.

Since my NMs are always valid, I have no problem with a CO reacting by archiving the cache. It doesn't matter to me if he's archiving it because my NM made him angry or because he was bored with the cache.

 

Im assuming I can put my own down in the same location is this is so?

Certainly! I had a multi planned that could only have a final in one place, and I waited patiently for almost a year for the nearby cache to be archived. (Although I was careful not to do anything to help it along...)

 

I do ask permission from original owner but usually get no reply.

I think it's nice to coordinate with the previous owner, especially since you have a "working" relation with him via your NM. In particular, it gives you an opportunity to express regret at the demise of his cache and ask if there's anything you can do to help. But it's not a requirement, and if there's no immediate response, you can continue without worrying about the previous cache.

 

People seem to take it personally like its my job to put down a new one...do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

Those people are wrong. It's their job and their job only to maintain their cache. Just post an NM and move on. (In special cases you might replace a cache, but only if the CO's your friend. In my area, it's not uncommon for someone to call the CO from GZ to confirm the cache is missing and ask if they should replace the cache. That's fine, of course.)

[+L0ne.R]

People seem to take it personally like its my job to put down a new one...do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

 

I always post an NM if I find a container that has been destroyed. (An NA if there's already an NM and the CO hasn't responded in reasonable time). I have yet to hide a cache exactly where or near a spot that once had a cache. Not that I wouldn't, it just hasn't happened.

 

Addendum: If you mean, do people place "throwdowns", some do. What they've done is leave geolitter because they are almost certainly not coming back to maintain what they threw down. And neither is the original CO who has abandoned the cache and the listing.

[+timbrman]

I can't even begin the count the number of times we come upon a cache that obviously needs maintenance and see when logging in others mention it, but NEVER LOG A 'NEEDS MAINTENANCE' in. Does everyone assume the owner reads the logs each day?

 

Barb

 

I usually carry a verity of common cache containers and log books and small zip lock bags with me and do ALOT of repairs and log repairs. Most repairs are for wet or unusable logs.. I always carry fresh mini ziplock bags and new clean logs. this way the CO can save the old logs at home or just throw out my new log if they are offended I left a new one. this way there is a new log for future cachers and it keeps the cache in good condition for others. I'll put in my post that I repaired the cache or added a clean dry log.. leaving the old one with the cache, allowing the CO to make the decision to change save the old log. I have had them offended before, but to me all they need to do is visit the cache and repair it themselves, discarding whatever I left. 99% of the time the CO thanks me for helping keep their cache in working order making it more fun for everyone.

Edited August 19, 2014 by timbrman

[+timbrman]

so far all i ve gotten from posting NM requests are owners archiving caches.

Since my NMs are always valid, I have no problem with a CO reacting by archiving the cache. It doesn't matter to me if he's archiving it because my NM made him angry or because he was bored with the cache.

 

Im assuming I can put my own down in the same location is this is so?

Certainly! I had a multi planned that could only have a final in one place, and I waited patiently for almost a year for the nearby cache to be archived. (Although I was careful not to do anything to help it along...)

 

I do ask permission from original owner but usually get no reply.

I think it's nice to coordinate with the previous owner, especially since you have a "working" relation with him via your NM. In particular, it gives you an opportunity to express regret at the demise of his cache and ask if there's anything you can do to help. But it's not a requirement, and if there's no immediate response, you can continue without worrying about the previous cache.

 

People seem to take it personally like its my job to put down a new one...do people typically put down new containers if they find one destroyed or post a nm?

Those people are wrong. It's their job and their job only to maintain their cache. Just post an NM and move on. (In special cases you might replace a cache, but only if the CO's your friend. In my area, it's not uncommon for someone to call the CO from GZ to confirm the cache is missing and ask if they should replace the cache. That's fine, of course.)

 

I have replaced a cache before, it's rare, but I have done it when I seen the container in shreds or it has ben logged as DNF for months and is just a great place for a cache..(I have only done this once) If the CO hates the idea of me continuing the cache, then I would just go back and pick up what I repaired. Usually they are thankful and the cache lives on.

[+dprovan]

I have replaced a cache before, it's rare, but I have done it when I seen the container in shreds or it has ben logged as DNF for months and is just a great place for a cache..(I have only done this once) If the CO hates the idea of me continuing the cache, then I would just go back and pick up what I repaired. Usually they are thankful and the cache lives on.

I'd prefer that you only fix a cache when acting officially as the CO's agent in fulfilling his maintenance responsibilities. Anything else is a throwdown, whether the CO likes it or not.

[+sholomar]

I found one today with a NM request in place by someone (not me) so it made me aware at least to not assume they are missing if a few people in a row cant find em. NM request vanished when i checked the logs this evening.

 

Being the first to find one in a couple years with a string of dnfs and a nm is... satisfying...

 

I will continue to use NM requests as needed... not for wet logs but broken or caches highly suspected of being missing from users not logged into the site in years etc. Multiple NM requests by others with no action taken - NA.

Edited August 20, 2014 by sholomar

[+joe schlubb]

I kind of felt bad that I didn't leave a "needs maintenance" on one that I found that really did need it. Being a newb with only a couple of finds, I kind of assumed that a "NM" was some kind of negative mark on the cache owner, didn't want to step on any toes, and I also wrongly assumed that people read their logs on a regular basis, so I just left details of the issue in the "found" log. It took a little over a month before the next person found the cache, by then it had been scattered by animals. Actually, it probably would have been scattered anyway had I not found it, but I still should have left a "NM".