Jump to content

Get rid of needs Maintence Indicator


GPS-Hermit

Recommended Posts

I like as well as others, a particular cache, that was not being maintained. Someone logged a Needs Maintenance on it, and it still shows up after I re-established the container,contents, and log book myself. I would like to remove the needs Maintenance indicator from the cache which is not mine.

 

How does this work!

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

You cannot get rid of the NM icon. Only the cache owner can do that -- it's by default in the system.

 

A good part of that reasoning behind such action is that if you have an unresponsive or inactive Cache Owner, his/her caches should go the route of 'dying' out. Maintenance is an important part of placing caches, it is part of a CO's responsibility. If a CO doesn't maintain, they shouldn't have caches.

 

By the "community" maintaining somebody else' caches, the "community" is only enabling a lazy CO. It's far better to let the cache die and become archived by the system. A more responsible CO can then properly place and maintain a cache of their own in that particular area.

 

That's one reason why "vacation caches" are disallowed. To place a cache a long distance away from your residence with no means of maintaining it is simply irresponsible.

Link to comment

You cannot get rid of the NM icon. Only the cache owner can do that -- it's by default in the system.

 

A good part of that reasoning behind such action is that if you have an unresponsive or inactive Cache Owner, his/her caches should go the route of 'dying' out. Maintenance is an important part of placing caches, it is part of a CO's responsibility. If a CO doesn't maintain, they shouldn't have caches.

 

By the "community" maintaining somebody else' caches, the "community" is only enabling a lazy CO. It's far better to let the cache die and become archived by the system. A more responsible CO can then properly place and maintain a cache of their own in that particular area.

 

That's one reason why "vacation caches" are disallowed. To place a cache a long distance away from your residence with no means of maintaining it is simply irresponsible.

 

I never assume the CO is irresponsible but might be some other reason like health issues or something bad is preventing their involvement. If I like the cache but don't want to own it I just help out by replacing it and keep it going usually on a one time basis. I didn't involve the Approver for fear the cache may get shut down and never replaced by someone else. I might try that and see what happens. My goal is to continue the fun rather than evaluate the CO. So far it has been a good thing! Folks are having fun! But as you can see I lack control.

 

BTW - love your Yogi quotes!

Link to comment

 

I never assume the CO is irresponsible but might be some other reason like health issues or something bad is preventing their involvement. If I like the cache but don't want to own it I just help out by replacing it and keep it going usually on a one time basis. I didn't involve the Approver for fear the cache may get shut down and never replaced by someone else. I might try that and see what happens. My goal is to continue the fun rather than evaluate the CO. So far it has been a good thing! Folks are having fun! But as you can see I lack control.

 

BTW - love your Yogi quotes!

 

The problem with maintaining a cache for an absent owner and not involving the reviewer is that the needs maintenance flag will remain on the cache page. Over time you'll have a bunch of caches in your area flagged as needing maintenance that don't really need maintenance. Someone new to your area would see the caches with needs maintenance and might decided to cache somewhere else. Somewhere that the caches are better maintained. Also the locals will learn to ignore to needs maintenance flag because they won't know if the cache actually needs maintenance or not.

 

If the CO can't logon to clear to NM flag then someone else should it for him or contact a reviewer for help or adopt the cache (even if it is temporary) or log a NA. There are a lot of better options than just fixing the cache and leaving the NM flag in place.

Link to comment

 

 

If the CO can't logon to clear to NM flag then someone else should it for him -- Can't be done; see previous posts

 

or contact a reviewer for help This is the only other option

 

or adopt the cache (even if it is temporary) Can't be done without CO's involvement

 

or log a NA.

 

There are not a lot of better options than just fixing the cache and leaving the NM flag in place.

Link to comment

I see your point and agree with it!

 

I will try and see what the approver does!

 

I also will try, one more time, to get the CO to do it.

 

Thanks for your comments!

Perhaps the CO does not know how (guess since we don't know the cache in question). Of course most of us know it would be by posting a Owner Maintenance log or by deleting the attribute if that doesn't work. If it is an older cache, the methods have changed a bit I think, some of these are newer features for the CO.

 

As for the Reviewer... I'd let them know that you are willing to 'maintain' the cache by relisting one there IF it gets archived.

That would allow you to take it over in a sense. Shame to let someone else grab the spot and your work.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

I never assume the CO is irresponsible but might be some other reason like health issues or something bad...

True, don't assume ANYTHING. I did not say the CO is/maybe irresponsible -- that word was used in conjunction with deliberately placing caches where one cannot take care of them.

 

Health issues: Stroke, heart attack, death, long-term post-surgical incapacitation -- these are only some of the reasons why a CO would be unresponsive, and you would most likely not be aware of any of those things.

Outside of health issues, many folks simply tire of it all and move on to other things. Some literally move away, never to be seen again (locally).

 

The system in place is proven, let it work.....

Link to comment

Everytime a subject like this comes up, it reminds me I need to plan ahead.

 

I am getting to the age when I am more likely to have some type of medical problem that would keep me from maintaining my caches. Anything from a stroke, or long term illness, to even death. (not that I really expect any of the above anytime soon. You just never know. B) )

 

I plan to talk with my brother, and arrange for him to have my log-on info. That way if anything happens to me, my caches can be taken care of, or archived as the case may be.

Link to comment

If the CO can't logon to clear to NM flag then someone else should it for him -- Can't be done; see previous posts

I think Glenn was referring to the scenario when a CO might be sick or otherwise unable to do it themselves. They could give a family member or a trusted local cacher their login so they can do it.

 

Maybe, but I can't think of many situations (broke both hands, maybe) where a person couldn't perform a few keystrokes, but would still have the mental capacity to tell someone else the necessary information. But I do get the point, and concede the possibility.

Link to comment

I would like to remove the needs Maintenance indicator from the cache which is not mine.

 

How does this work!

It's really fairly simple:

 

Step one: Let the cache become unviable.

Step two: File a Needs Archive log.

Step three: Wait for the cache to be archived.

Step four: Create your own cache at the location.

Step five: Maintain it.

 

If you have your heart set on keeping the existing cache running, then just don't worry about it. You've done what you can, and no one pays attention to the Needs Maintenance flag, anyway.

Link to comment

Well I did both - contacted the CO and approver and it's only been a few days so we will see what happens.The faith seems to be in the approver to help out and this one may be backed up approving caches which is the highest priority. No response so far from either. I will keep looking.

 

Thanks for your comments.

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment

Who here actually screens caches on a NM?

 

Do you mean set PQs to filter out caches with an NM? I do.

 

So your complaint would be that you passed over certain caches that could have been found.

 

No complaints from me. I'd rather miss a few that could have been found then waste time and gas money on the caches with NMs that are really in need of maintenance. But sometimes I'll check my app for all nearby caches and if, on the rare occurrence, there's a NM cache that looks lilke it's in dire need of an NA I'll go out and hunt for it. Many people don't feel comfy with the NA but I feel the NA can be a community service. But I preface my NA log with 'Needs Attention' (seems to be less hostile for sensitive COs).

 

Also, whenever I place an NM I'll keep an eye on the cache page. If the CO performs maintenance but leaves a note instead of an OM, I'll email them and explain the OM feature. It happened to me early on. A reviewer emailed me to explain OM.

Link to comment

...no one pays attention to the Needs Maintenance flag, anyway.

 

They do around here. :o

The reviewer will disable the cache, and then archive it within (about) thirty days if nothing is done by the cache owner.

So in your area, the OP wouldn't have the problem he's having because he'd long ago have been able to replace the archived cache with one he owns and can maintain himself. So we can rule out the possibility of anyone paying this much attention to NMs in his area.

 

By the way, this is the first time I've ever heard of reviewers being so enthusiastic. All the forced archivals I've seen just because of NM logs -- i.e., without a Needs Archived being posted -- were pretty clear cases with long standing issues, not immediately disabled because of a NM then archived 30 days later. And even in clear cases, I (and apparently most others around here) assume that a reviewer will resist getting involved -- or not even notice -- until a NA is posted.

Link to comment

...no one pays attention to the Needs Maintenance flag, anyway.

 

They do around here. :o

The reviewer will disable the cache, and then archive it within (about) thirty days if nothing is done by the cache owner.

So in your area, the OP wouldn't have the problem he's having because he'd long ago have been able to replace the archived cache with one he owns and can maintain himself. So we can rule out the possibility of anyone paying this much attention to NMs in his area.

 

By the way, this is the first time I've ever heard of reviewers being so enthusiastic. All the forced archivals I've seen just because of NM logs -- i.e., without a Needs Archived being posted -- were pretty clear cases with long standing issues, not immediately disabled because of a NM then archived 30 days later. And even in clear cases, I (and apparently most others around here) assume that a reviewer will resist getting involved -- or not even notice -- until a NA is posted.

 

The reviewers in Ontario, Canada regularly do "sweeps" and will post notes on caches with long-standing NM's and caches that have been disabled for a while.

 

After a certain time with no response from the cache owner, the caches get archived.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

The reviewers in Ontario, Canada regularly do "sweeps" and will post notes on caches with long-standing NM's and caches that have been disabled for a while.

 

After a certain time with no response from the cache owner, the caches get archived.

Yes, this is the reviewer behavior I've seen in the SF Bay area, as well. (Although I often wonder if they actually do explicit sweeps, or just notice such caches in their day-to-day caching activities and because people point those caches out privately via e-mail.)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...