3rd Party Maintenance

[+morepunk]

Hello!

 

I have a question regarding the maintenance of Geocaches.

 

Is it possible for there to be joint ownership of a Geocache? Or at least for there to be a user other than the cache owner who can be notified if a 'Needs Maintenance' is logged?

 

Many thanks,

 

morepunk

[+redsox_mark]

There is only one Geocaching account which can be the owner. Though you can:

- Put anything you like on the cache page where it says "A cache by".

- Anyone can watch a cache and see all the logs (including Needs Maintenance).

 

The only issue is that it is only the owner account who can clear the Needs Maintenance attribute.

[+morepunk]

There is only one Geocaching account which can be the owner. Though you can:

- Put anything you like on the cache page where it says "A cache by".

- Anyone can watch a cache and see all the logs (including Needs Maintenance).

 

The only issue is that it is only the owner account who can clear the Needs Maintenance attribute.

 

That's good information - thanks for your help!

[Pup Patrol]

The cache owner is the only one who can deal with a Reviewer disabling the cache, should the Reviewer take note of long-standing maintenance issues or a long list of DNF's. The Reviewer can disable the cache, pending the owner's response or action.

 

 

B.

[+ChileHead]

The cache owner is also the only ones that gets emails sent when the cache owner's name is clicked. If a pressing issue is raised directly to the cache owner, others on the watch list don't get notified.

[+Manville Possum]

I see alot of what I would term vacation caches listed in resort areas that are maintained by another user or the geocaching community. This seems to me more common in other Countrys. I remember a geocacher in New Zealand with listings in Africa. I'm quite confused on the subject myself. Thanks to the OP for starting this thread.

[+morepunk]

I see alot of what I would term vacation caches listed in resort areas that are maintained by another user or the geocaching community. This seems to me more common in other Countrys. I remember a geocacher in New Zealand with listings in Africa. I'm quite confused on the subject myself. Thanks to the OP for starting this thread.

 

I'm glad my question could provoke some consideration on how these instances can be managed!

 

My question was actually relating to a series of local caches that are owned by a conservation organisation here in the UK. I notice that they're not really on the ball with cache maintenance. This is a shame as their caches are of good quality, but they don't have the time/resource to commit to their ongoing maintenance. I'm hoping to take on some of the maintenance on their behalf, and so wondered the best way to go about this.

 

I think in my example, by watching the caches I should be able to complete the majority of routine maintenance such as replacing logbooks and monitoring cache damage, and also alert a representative of the organisation when containers need replacing etc. I'm certain that any pressing issues reported to the CO would also be noted within the 'Found It' or 'DNF' logs at least.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I'm glad my question could provoke some consideration on how these instances can be managed!

 

My question was actually relating to a series of local caches that are owned by a conservation organisation here in the UK. I notice that they're not really on the ball with cache maintenance. This is a shame as their caches are of good quality, but they don't have the time/resource to commit to their ongoing maintenance. I'm hoping to take on some of the maintenance on their behalf, and so wondered the best way to go about this.

 

I think in my example, by watching the caches I should be able to complete the majority of routine maintenance such as replacing logbooks and monitoring cache damage, and also alert a representative of the organisation when containers need replacing etc. I'm certain that any pressing issues reported to the CO would also be noted within the 'Found It' or 'DNF' logs at least.

This type of question comes up often enough.

 

Our response is pretty straightforward and rather hard-line.

 

Caches that are continually in need of maintenance, or owned by unresponsive CO's, show be flagged with an appropriate "Needs Maintenance" log(s). Failing reasonable response by the CO, eventually a "Should Be Archived" log would follow.

 

Owning and placing caches comes with an amount of responsibility. If one cannot meet those responsibilities, those caches should be archived. To place caches and simply leave for others to maintain is utterly ridiculous. What better method than to use geocaching.com to create "geo-trash"? In most locales that would be called littering.

 

There is a system in place to weed out such items. It works and it should be utilized.

 

I dare say that if they are calling themselves a "a conservation organisation", they are failing, miserably.

[+morepunk]

I'm glad my question could provoke some consideration on how these instances can be managed!

 

My question was actually relating to a series of local caches that are owned by a conservation organisation here in the UK. I notice that they're not really on the ball with cache maintenance. This is a shame as their caches are of good quality, but they don't have the time/resource to commit to their ongoing maintenance. I'm hoping to take on some of the maintenance on their behalf, and so wondered the best way to go about this.

 

I think in my example, by watching the caches I should be able to complete the majority of routine maintenance such as replacing logbooks and monitoring cache damage, and also alert a representative of the organisation when containers need replacing etc. I'm certain that any pressing issues reported to the CO would also be noted within the 'Found It' or 'DNF' logs at least.

This type of question comes up often enough.

 

Our response is pretty straightforward and rather hard-line.

 

Caches that are continually in need of maintenance, or owned by unresponsive CO's, show be flagged with an appropriate "Needs Maintenance" log(s). Failing reasonable response by the CO, eventually a "Should Be Archived" log would follow.

 

Owning and placing caches comes with an amount of responsibility. If one cannot meet those responsibilities, those caches should be archived. To place caches and simply leave for others to maintain is utterly ridiculous. What better method than to use geocaching.com to create "geo-trash"? In most locales that would be called littering.

 

There is a system in place to weed out such items. It works and it should be utilized.

 

I dare say that if they are calling themselves a "a conservation organisation", they are failing, miserably.

 

Thanks for your input - for the most part I would agree with your take on this. I believe all COs do ultimately have responsibility over their Geocaches.

 

However, in the UK, this organisation has been at the forefront of promoting Geocaching. They will happily loan out Garmins to visitors to their sites, and will put up posters/banners advertising the hobby. I know not all will agree with me when I say this is a positive thing - I think it's a fantastic hobby that should be open to all who wish to partake, and so this advertisement is quite important. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, this organisation has given generic permission for Geocaches to be placed on their land (of which there is a LOT in the UK) as long as certain rules are adhered to.

 

Due to this organisation's open support of Geocaching as a hobby, I think it could be potentially damaging to start archiving a bunch of their Geocaches just because they can't check on them on a weekly basis. Especially when there are people who will happily carry out the maintenance on their behalf. Though this is just my humble opinion - I know that everyone has their own take on these kinds of topics.

 

The comment you make about the organisation's failings are possibly a little unfair. The kind of maintenance I'm referring to is replacing logbooks and checking on cache damage etc. Their conservation work is fantastic, and if the British countryside is kept tidy and green at the expense of some admin then so be it. I should reinforce the fact that it is the routine maintenance that they're not so good at, and that their Geocaches are well thought out and of a good quality. If there are any serious issues, and if indeed something like trash became an issue, I've no doubt that they'd be much swifter to react.

[+redsox_mark]

As I'm also in the UK I know the organisation being discussed...

 

The problem is that while the larger organisation (trust) is supportive of Geocaching (I've found many a cache placed on their land with permission) - it then becomes a local issue specific to a property and the local staff. So you can get a case where the manager of estate X thinks it's a good idea to hide caches themselves... but they are not a geocacher. So the maintenance for them has to fit in with their job priorities - rather than a good cache owner who does it in their free time for the love of it.

 

While it is not always true, and there are inactive cache owners everywhere - I think generally caches owned by an active Geocacher are maintained better than those owned by an organisation. (There have been similar issues with caches owned by scouting organisations for example).

 

One possibility here would be to ask the local organisation (the current owner) if you can adopt the caches. They could still have the trust's name showing on the cache page, but the emails etc. get sent to you. Really all they want is to be able to say they have caches on the property, and that the caches show as placed by the trust. They will likely be more than happy to have someone else own them in terms of the maintenance.

[+morepunk]

As I'm also in the UK I know the organisation being discussed...

 

The problem is that while the larger organisation (trust) is supportive of Geocaching (I've found many a cache placed on their land with permission) - it then becomes a local issue specific to a property and the local staff. So you can get a case where the manager of estate X thinks it's a good idea to hide caches themselves... but they are not a geocacher. So the maintenance for them has to fit in with their job priorities - rather than a good cache owner who does it in their free time for the love of it.

 

While it is not always true, and there are inactive cache owners everywhere - I think generally caches owned by an active Geocacher are maintained better than those owned by an organisation. (There have been similar issues with caches owned by scouting organisations for example).

 

One possibility here would be to ask the local organisation (the current owner) if you can adopt the caches. They could still have the trust's name showing on the cache page, but the emails etc. get sent to you. Really all they want is to be able to say they have caches on the property, and that the caches show as placed by the trust. They will likely be more than happy to have someone else own them in terms of the maintenance.

 

Requesting adoption of the caches was an option I was considering initially, but then I figured there'd be a trust element involved in that. For example - the organisation in question have set a bunch of Geocaches which are well placed and of a good quality. They then defer ownership to someone who isn't affiliated with the organisation, and that person then completely changes the nature of the Geocaches and removes any reference to the organisation. I'm personally very fond of the work they do, and would want to maintain the affiliation and promotion of them via their Geocaches, but whether they'd trust me (or anyone else) to do so is a different matter.

 

Still, it's pointless hypothesising about all that on here - you never know until you ask!

 

At the moment I'm waiting to see whether they wish for me to carry out routine maintenance on the caches in question. If they agree, I might go back to them with the alternative option. Thanks for the suggestion!

[+redsox_mark]

You could try a 2 step approach. Offer to do 3rd party maintenance as you are planning.

After some time and if it seems appropriate discuss adoption with them.

[hoosier guy]

You can put the cache on your watch list then you would see if any NM LOGS are posted. That would be the quickest way to take care of it. Good for you for being willing to help out.

[+morepunk]

You can put the cache on your watch list then you would see if any NM LOGS are posted. That would be the quickest way to take care of it. Good for you for being willing to help out.

 

Thanks for your input. As it goes, I don't currently own any caches, so I do have time available for maintenance (or adoption) of other caches. I think ideally I'd love to place my own caches, but my local area is already rather saturated and I don't want to place caches just for the sake of it!

[+L0ne.R]

Due to this organisation's open support of Geocaching as a hobby, I think it could be potentially damaging to start archiving a bunch of their Geocaches just because they can't check on them on a weekly basis

 

Some great feedback so far.

 

In my area the process takes months before a Reviewer archives a cache. First the NMs occur. It usually takes 3 months to a year before someone finally posts an NA. Then the reviewer posts a Reviewer Note. The cache owner is given another 3 months to address the problem. At which point, if there is no response from the CO, the cache may be archived.

 

Personally I maintain our cache hides about twice a year (beginning of Spring, end of Fall). Keeps things in good repair. Occassionally, but rarely, I need to go back out when an issue gets reported - full logbook, missing cache, water damage (usually a result of someone not sealing the LnL container properly).

[+bflentje]

You could always use an alias that forwards to multiple email accounts. No one would know the difference.

[+morepunk]

Due to this organisation's open support of Geocaching as a hobby, I think it could be potentially damaging to start archiving a bunch of their Geocaches just because they can't check on them on a weekly basis

 

Some great feedback so far.

 

In my area the process takes months before a Reviewer archives a cache. First the NMs occur. It usually takes 3 months to a year before someone finally posts an NA. Then the reviewer posts a Reviewer Note. The cache owner is given another 3 months to address the problem. At which point, if there is no response from the CO, the cache may be archived.

 

Personally I maintain our cache hides about twice a year (beginning of Spring, end of Fall). Keeps things in good repair. Occassionally, but rarely, I need to go back out when an issue gets reported - full logbook, missing cache, water damage (usually a result of someone not sealing the LnL container properly).

 

A fair point raised here - perhaps I was exaggerating slightly with the 'weekly' comment!

[hoosier guy]

You can put the cache on your watch list then you would see if any NM LOGS are posted. That would be the quickest way to take care of it. Good for you for being willing to help out.

 

Thanks for your input. As it goes, I don't currently own any caches, so I do have time available for maintenance (or adoption) of other caches. I think ideally I'd love to place my own caches, but my local area is already rather saturated and I don't want to place caches just for the sake of it!

 

Could not agree with that more! You do know you can put a watch on any cache, not only your own.

[+Sol seaker]

In general I agree with the idea that if a cache owner isn't taking care of a cache that it should go, but I think there are notable exceptions, and it sounds like this is one of them.

 

Yes, I do think it would be pretty rude to archive the caches of an organization that is doing so much for geocaching and geocachers. I commend your willingness to help.

 

There are some really old caches in my area that local cachers watch and take care of. There's one I know that has a whole lot of people on it's watch list. When a couple of DNF's are recorded someone checks on it and writes a "note" on the cache page that it is there, or they have replaced the container in the same spot.

 

It is a large community watching one that I'm thinking of that is very old. I think the idea is that it stays maintained. That's what's important.

If the whole community is willing to come together to maintain a cache it must be a well loved cache and is only bringing people together.

 

If you are supporting an organization that supports geocaching, then I think it's a great thing.

Just put a watch on it, and respond when you see more than a couple of DNF's. You don't have to wait until you see a "needs maintenance". Check the log sheets now and then and whether the containers are holding up.

 

Talking to the people in charge of these is a great idea. Tell them you think they are doing a great service and would like to help out. That way in time, they may let you adopt them, and also you won't be stepping on anyone's toes.

[+morepunk]

In general I agree with the idea that if a cache owner isn't taking care of a cache that it should go, but I think there are notable exceptions, and it sounds like this is one of them.

 

Yes, I do think it would be pretty rude to archive the caches of an organization that is doing so much for geocaching and geocachers. I commend your willingness to help.

 

There are some really old caches in my area that local cachers watch and take care of. There's one I know that has a whole lot of people on it's watch list. When a couple of DNF's are recorded someone checks on it and writes a "note" on the cache page that it is there, or they have replaced the container in the same spot.

 

It is a large community watching one that I'm thinking of that is very old. I think the idea is that it stays maintained. That's what's important.

If the whole community is willing to come together to maintain a cache it must be a well loved cache and is only bringing people together.

 

If you are supporting an organization that supports geocaching, then I think it's a great thing.

Just put a watch on it, and respond when you see more than a couple of DNF's. You don't have to wait until you see a "needs maintenance". Check the log sheets now and then and whether the containers are holding up.

 

Talking to the people in charge of these is a great idea. Tell them you think they are doing a great service and would like to help out. That way in time, they may let you adopt them, and also you won't be stepping on anyone's toes.

 

Thanks for your help! I'm still waiting to hear back from the organisation's representative - I've placed all of their caches on watch in the meantime though and will monitor the situation moving forward.

 

Thanks to all who offered advice!