New log type, "Community Maintenance"

[+MadisonJoe]

I would like to propose a new log type.

 

A "Community Maintenance" log. This would be a log for a cacher repairing or replacing a cache.

Logging this type would remove the maintenance required flag (temporarily) on the cache. This would encourage the caching community as a whole to keep all caches active and in good shape. Also if the number of "community Maintenance" log types were saved to a persons stats it would further encourage cache repair. Perhaps some cachers going out of there way to replace wet logs and such just for the stats.

 

This would have to be a temporary removal of "maintenance required" (say a month) to give the cache owners a chance to verify and make permanent the "preformed maintenance" to the cache. This flag could only be used once on a cache before owner intervention and if the owner does not respond to the "community maintenance" the cache status could automatically change to "disabled".

This would help weed out abandoned caches from owners that have dropped out of caching or don't care anymore about their caches.

 

Just an idea..

MadisonJoe

[+Kryten]

It's not the responsibility of the community to repair other peoples caches. If a cache has deteriorated because it is no longer being maintained, for whatever reason, it needs to go.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I would suggest simply, "Needs Archived".

 

Rather than creating a new log type, how about using the available logs.

Once it is archived, then somebody that is responsible about cache maintenance can place one.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+FrogMastr]

Yes but what about Historical caches that the owner is not in the game anymore and those caches where placed 8-10 years ago!!

Those are parts of GC History... try any GCxxx numbers and you will see lots of historical caches "maintained" by community and stil alive and accepted by Revisors even if owner do not maintain them. It is only by revisor`s judgement that they decided to keep them alive even with need maintenance atributes... unlike other caches that gets disabled even with community maintenance done. and after that gets archived even when regularely found and in good condition but with an old need maintenance log placed bay a cacher that was not aware of comunity maintenance and historical value of a cache!

 

Having a "comunity maintenance performed" log would "clear" the need maintenance that is it!

and sold many problem... if a cache is not maintened even by teh community then fine archive it, but if a local comunity decided to preserve an old cache for regional historical purpose thenthis should be the Easy solution not even revisor intervention needed .. less troubles for Geocaching less troubles for revisors and Many Local cacher happy!!!

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I agree, geocaches may well be about history..... but geocaches themselves are not history.

Many should be... (in a different context). My agreement ends there.

 

Sure, each area has its' "oldest" cache. But, even when that one is archived, it will still has its' "oldest" cache -- unless that area has no more caches.

 

To allow 'community maintenance' in truth only allows for the "enabling" of lazy or lackadaisical cache owners. We have plenty of them now, without the support of the website.

 

Not everyone feels that because it is old, it should continue to exist w/o a (recorded) and active responsible party.

Please don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with old caches... it is simply that I do not agree with community maintenance. It comes down to responsibility of the CO -- no responsibility = no cache.

 

Should TPTB come up with some method or mechanism of adoption, that would be great. But to create a log type as suggested -- no.

[+FrogMastr]

In fact the comunity Maintenance was a way to keep those alive since for Legal reason they cannot be adpoted...

 

Groundspeak rules are.... Owner owns the "box" and the "text" of the listing.. so owner not reachable = no adoption : Legal issue...

HAving the Listing "archived" mean no more responsabilitty for Groundspeak so they dont care anymore of what happend of the physical and textual listing...

so you can "recover" teh box, create another listing with same text and all... but will not be the same since no historical logs, and the published date will not be historical

 

that is why Comunity maintenance was an alternative.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If it wasn't recognized as such.... this sentence is recommending an alternative "suggestion"....

 

Should TPTB come up with some method or mechanism of adoption, that would be great.

 

There are no "legal" issues, only guidelines which exist at the whim of TPTB. As such, they can be changed or altered easily enough.

Regarding the guidelines, a log-type as suggested by this thread flies in the face of a number of guidelines (mostly regarding cache ownership) -- changes would be required for that purpose alone.

 

Another objection is that a "Community Maintenance" log-type would most likely (...I really would like to say, certainly) be abused. It just falls back to the problem of not having anybody "in charge" of the cache placement.

[+KRON family]

Great idea!

[+The A-Team]

Groundspeak rules are.... Owner owns the "box" and the "text" of the listing..

Groundspeak rules/guidelines also state that the owner is responsible for maintaining the cache. If they can no longer do so or are unwilling to do so, they should either adopt it out or archive it.

 

Anyway, what's next? A "Community Update Coordinates" log? "Community Temporary Disable" and "Community Enable"? Because you'll also need those if you're going to maintain someone else's cache long-term.

Even then, you still can't edit the description, hint, ratings, attributes, delete logs, etc...

[AZcachemeister]

Active caches need active owners.

 

There really is no two ways about it.

 

Doing maintenance for a cacher who is under the weather, has family issues, has major medical problems, etc. is all good.

Long-term community maintenance for caches owned by someone who has dropped out of the game (for whatever reason) is merely prolonging the agony of the inevitable archival.

 

At this point in time, there is only one cache site that needs to be considered as an historical location, and it has already been suitably memorialized.

[+UMainah]

I'm not a fan of this idea. There are already way too many throw-downs out there and if this was implemented I think the number of throw-downs would explode.

[+Don_J]

I agree, geocaches may well be about history..... but geocaches themselves are not history.

Many should be... (in a different context). My agreement ends there.

 

Sure, each area has its' "oldest" cache. But, even when that one is archived, it will still has its' "oldest" cache -- unless that area has no more caches.

 

To allow 'community maintenance' in truth only allows for the "enabling" of lazy or lackadaisical cache owners. We have plenty of them now, without the support of the website.

 

Not everyone feels that because it is old, it should continue to exist w/o a (recorded) and active responsible party.

Please don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with old caches... it is simply that I do not agree with community maintenance. It comes down to responsibility of the CO -- no responsibility = no cache.

 

Should TPTB come up with some method or mechanism of adoption, that would be great. But to create a log type as suggested -- no.

 

Almost all of the truly "old historic" caches that have been abandoned by their owners, are being kept alive by the community with the support of their local reviewer. These caches are not at issue here. Creating an automatic system that would extend this to all caches would be a real bad idea, IMO. The whole, no one is responsible and it takes a village thing, just strikes me wrong.

 

Besides, if a cache were truly being maintained by the community, it shouldn't get a NM log, right?

[+Don_J]

I'm not a fan of this idea. There are already way too many throw-downs out there and if this was implemented I think the number of throw-downs would explode.

 

Great point. Not only would the throwdown cacher be getting his phony find, he'd be building a new CM stat which would further encourage his bad behavior.

[+Don_J]

If it wasn't recognized as such.... this sentence is recommending an alternative "suggestion"....

 

Should TPTB come up with some method or mechanism of adoption, that would be great.

 

There are no "legal" issues, only guidelines which exist at the whim of TPTB. As such, they can be changed or altered easily enough.

Regarding the guidelines, a log-type as suggested by this thread flies in the face of a number of guidelines (mostly regarding cache ownership) -- changes would be required for that purpose alone.

 

Another objection is that a "Community Maintenance" log-type would most likely (...I really would like to say, certainly) be abused. It just falls back to the problem of not having anybody "in charge" of the cache placement.

 

I can see the future forum thread.

 

Check out this guy, he did community maintenance of 468 caches in all 50 states in one day. How is this possible?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I agree, geocaches may well be about history..... but geocaches themselves are not history.

Many should be... (in a different context). My agreement ends there.

 

Sure, each area has its' "oldest" cache. But, even when that one is archived, it will still has its' "oldest" cache -- unless that area has no more caches.

 

To allow 'community maintenance' in truth only allows for the "enabling" of lazy or lackadaisical cache owners. We have plenty of them now, without the support of the website.

 

Not everyone feels that because it is old, it should continue to exist w/o a (recorded) and active responsible party.

Please don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with old caches... it is simply that I do not agree with community maintenance. It comes down to responsibility of the CO -- no responsibility = no cache.

 

Should TPTB come up with some method or mechanism of adoption, that would be great. But to create a log type as suggested -- no.

 

Almost all of the truly "old historic" caches that have been abandoned by their owners, are being kept alive by the community with the support of their local reviewer. These caches are not at issue here. Creating an automatic system that would extend this to all caches would be a real bad idea, IMO. The whole, no one is responsible and it takes a village thing, just strikes me wrong.

 

Besides, if a cache were truly being maintained by the community, it shouldn't get a NM log, right?

 

The most obvious exception is when that cache location is temporarily inaccessible due to construction or some other valid reason. The community can only maintain the physical container and it's contents.

[+Lieblweb]

It's not the responsibility of the community to repair other peoples caches. If a cache has deteriorated because it is no longer being maintained, for whatever reason, it needs to go.

I agree totally!!

 

When those caches get archived, it opens up an area for a new cache to be placed.... Something new, something clean, and a new owner. Opening up new areas gives the opportunity for new cachers (and deducated ones) to get a chance to hide some.

[+MadisonJoe]

Well this topic has gone sideways from my original post.

 

I don't know if people are reacting to other posts without reading the proposal, but let me respond to a few things. (please forgive the fact that I don't know how to make multiple imbedded quotes)

 

1) Kryten said... "It's not the responsibility of the community to repair other peoples caches. If a cache has deteriorated because it is no longer being maintained, for whatever reason, it needs to go."

 

I agree. My proposal was for a TEMPORARY removal of the maintenance needed flag and if the cache owner did nothing to remove the TEMPORARY "Community Maintenance" flag the cache would automatically start on a countdown to death NOT keep it alive forever. The cache will automatically be disabled and the cache will eventually get archived by the reviewers. No problem here.

 

2)Gitchee-Gummee said...

"To allow 'community maintenance' in truth only allows for the "enabling" of lazy or lackadaisical cache owners." -Edit- "Not everyone feels that because it is old, it should continue to exist w/o a (recorded) and active responsible party." -edit- "I do not agree with community maintenance. It comes down to responsibility of the CO -- no responsibility = no cache."

 

See my answer to #1 Cache owners WOULD be involved or automatic DISABLING will happen if they lazy / lackadaisical or not responsible.

 

3)Gitchee-Gummee also said....

"Another objection is that a "Community Maintenance" log-type would most likely (...I really would like to say, certainly) be abused."

 

True, there's a chance for abuse just like someone saying they "found it" when they did not, etc. etc..

But in my original post I said "IF" the number of "Community Maintenance" log types were saved to a persons stats it would "FURTHER ENCOURAGE" cache repair. I never said there "HAD" to be stats recorded. It's just a proposal. I can see you have a good argument against stats, and it's not strictly needed. ALSO to be clear someone could only do a "Community Maintenance" if the cache was flagged as "maintenance needed" in the first place. And only be flagged ONCE by one cacher and no others. That would make it harder to abuse.

 

4)The A-Team said...

"what's next? A "Community Update Coordinates" log? "Community Temporary Disable" and "Community Enable"? Because you'll also need those if you're going to maintain someone else's cache long-term."

 

Once again this is a TEMPORARY maintenance thing that would FORCE owner intervention or the cache would be DISABLED under my proposal. No long term cache maintaining / enabling / disabling / updating, involved. All rights and powers ownership etc remain with cache owner.

 

To sum-up, I did try to think this one out.

The community maintenance log would be a one time TEMPORARY log for any cache. Which would start a "countdown to disabling" that could only be stopped by the cache owner. (or perhaps a reviewer in the case of a historic cache). All rights / legal / whatever, should and would always, remain with the cache owner (GC.com should not have any problems with this idea).

 

The general idea of this proposal was just to let cachers make repairs for things like a wet log. And TEMPORARILY remove any "maintenance needed" flag on a cache. Never to take over a cache. On the contrary, it would start the cache on a countdown to death not "Keep it alive". The idea was to create a community with well maintained ACTIVE caches while weeding out the dead weight at the same time.

 

Thank for hanging in there while I got long winded,

MadisonJoe

[AZcachemeister]

I don't see how a special log type is needed for this?

 

I help out the owner by replacing the wet log...or whatever.

I say I did this in a log of some type.

 

The owner STILL needs to be active in order to remove the NM attribute, or the cache STILL (eventually) gets archived for lack of maintenance. Postponing this by temporarily removing the attribute really only helps cachers who are filtering out caches that have that attribute...temporarily.

[AZcachemeister]

...create a community with well maintained ACTIVE caches while weeding out the dead weight at the same time.

 

 

Post a 'Needs Archived' on caches that aren't getting maintenance from the owners.

When the cache gets archived, place one of your own, and then maintain it.

 

Problem solved.

[Team Dragon Racing]

...create a community with well maintained ACTIVE caches while weeding out the dead weight at the same time.

 

 

Post a 'Needs Archived' on caches that aren't getting maintenance from the owners.

When the cache gets archived, place one of your own, and then maintain it

Problem solved.

in my area there are caches that have had need maintenance from june and they just sit there because there no owner action and i wont post a na on it as i havent had the time to do the cache to confirm the condition there has to be a better way as need maintenance dosent work

[+Don_J]

...create a community with well maintained ACTIVE caches while weeding out the dead weight at the same time.

 

 

Post a 'Needs Archived' on caches that aren't getting maintenance from the owners.

When the cache gets archived, place one of your own, and then maintain it.

 

Problem solved.

 

This!

The problem is that too many are afraid to post NA logs, and when they finally do, it's with a message like, "Well, I guess someone has to be the bad guy". Groundspeak could remove that stigma if they would just change the log title to represent what the log actually does, "Needs Reviewers Attention".

 

The other problem, which we see in the thread about the active bees, is that someone who refuses to take a DNF, will replace it with an equally crummy container, under the guise of community maintenance. Not every cache has to last forever. It drives me crazy when I see that a cache that probably shouldn't have been placed in the first place, has an absentee owner who has never done maintenance, and is finally ready to be archived, and someone from out of town logs a find and says that he placed a film can to help out the CO.

[+L0ne.R]

...create a community with well maintained ACTIVE caches while weeding out the dead weight at the same time.

 

 

Post a 'Needs Archived' on caches that aren't getting maintenance from the owners.

When the cache gets archived, place one of your own, and then maintain it.

 

Problem solved.

 

This!

The problem is that too many are afraid to post NA logs, and when they finally do, it's with a message like, "Well, I guess someone has to be the bad guy". Groundspeak could remove that stigma if they would just change the log title to represent what the log actually does, "Needs Reviewers Attention".

 

The other problem, which we see in the thread about the active bees, is that someone who refuses to take a DNF, will replace it with an equally crummy container, under the guise of community maintenance. Not every cache has to last forever. It drives me crazy when I see that a cache that probably shouldn't have been placed in the first place, has an absentee owner who has never done maintenance, and is finally ready to be archived, and someone from out of town logs a find and says that he placed a film can to help out the CO.

 

This one is an example:

 

08/2010 I found the broken cache scattered over the forest floor. Looked like an animal got it. Gathered it up and tucked it back. Posted an NM and photos.

09/11/2010 A caching group comes by and leaves a new container

09/22/2010 Next person to find it reports finding a hinged cookie tin with no log 15m from the described cache location

10/2010 Next person to find it puts in a coupon and signs the back of it as a log

(Still no action from the active CO)

04/2011 Finder leaves a logsheet and pencil.

05/2011 Finder reports log is too wet to sign

05/2011 Reviewer posts a note

08/2011 Finder reports damp logbook

(Still no action from the active CO)

10/11 Log is soaked but finder reports that someone has added a couple of sheets of rite in the rain paper

05/2012 Finder reports the cache needs TLC and the log is wet

09/2012 Finder reports he dried out the container and added a logbook and pen

 

The CO last logged in late September 2012. Last logged visit to this cache by the CO was in 2009.

[+Mike & Jess]

I'm iffy on the idea.

Some of us already do community maintenance on the historical and/or worth while caches in our area. Because of the cost of maintaining my own caches and what not, I carry the supplies, but am selective on which ones I will repair.

 

Here is one I watch very closely http://coord.info/GL5XXJPX

The thanks I get are the many smilies after the fact, and the couple actual thanks posted in the logs.

I have had no issues getting the NM attributes removed from the caches I watch over. A clear cut log posting stating what was done, with a note to the reviewer with photos will generally take care of the NM log.

Unfortunately I have not been able to adopt any of the caches I watch over.

[+Don_J]

I'm iffy on the idea.

Some of us already do community maintenance on the historical and/or worth while caches in our area. Because of the cost of maintaining my own caches and what not, I carry the supplies, but am selective on which ones I will repair.

 

 

This describes my exact attitude on this topic.

 

The whole thing looks like a solution looking for a problem. Experience has told me that a CO is either going to maintain his cache, or he isn't. Going through all this just prolongs the inevitable. In the case where a remarkable or special cache can't be maintained by the owner, the community almost always takes care of things.