A strange cache (can maintenance be delegated to the finders)?

[cezanne]

I have a somehow strange question. The guidelines state that it belongs to the duties of cache owner to maintain it.

I'm aware of the fact that the reviewers who publish a cache just have to check that it complies with the guidelines. It is not their job to

deal with the contents of the cache description.

I wonder, however, whether a cache (or even a cache series or even a large powertrail) complies with the guidelines if the hider tells the

finders that it is their job to change full log sheets by new ones, (I'm not talking about a polite request and not about a note asking whether

one of the next finders can help out.)

 

I wonder whether all reviewers would publish a cache with a description that contains a statement as explained above or whether reviewers have a chance to

ask for a changed formulation. I'd particularly interested into the feedback of reviewers and of cachers who have come across caches with descriptions where the

finders are asked to do the maintenance right from the beginning (i.e. at publication time). Of course all others are welcome as well to contribute their opinion.

 

 

Cezanne

[+murrayegger]

Well the Cache owner is responsible to do maintenance or to delegate that out. I have one cache that I have my Father looking after as well as a local cacher if needed. As far as a reviewer would see it, if the cache is filled with Needs Maintenance logs or Did not find, then the Cache Owner needs to maintain it somehow. This is not the case with most power trails. You will never see a DNF or a NM because of the nature of these caches.

[+larryc43230]

A year or two ago, a local cacher published a large series of caches, just about all of them micros. A few days after the caches were published, the cache owner added a paragraph to every cache description stating that they weren't going to maintain the caches, and that this would be the responsibility of people who found the cache. Any caches that weren't maintained by finders would simply be archived.

 

I wasn't privy to what happened behind the scenes, but a few days after that, the added paragraphs were all deleted. I have a feeling someone reported the mischief to the reviewer who published the caches, and he read the riot act to the cache owner.

 

--Larry

[+39chevy]

I would think requiring finders to perform cache maintenance would be an additional logging requirement and against guidelines.

[BlueRajah]

Telling the finders to do it and hoping they will is not cache maintenance, but ignoring the cache maintenance hoping someone else will take care of it.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer.

 

You do not know when the next visitor will come by that has the ability, and will take care of it, or if they will take care if it in a timely manner. You can have someone else, but it needs to be a specific person, and include that person in your notes to the reviewer when listing.

Edited March 1, 2013 by BlueRajah

[AZcachemeister]

It is not their job to

deal with the contents of the cache description.

 

It seems to me the content of the write-up is very much the concern of the reviewer.

Commercial content, agendas, and blatant attacks on others come to mind, I'm sure there are other examples.

 

Beyond that, the CO can CLAIM they are not going to maintain the cache, but until they prove they really are not going to, the reviewer can't be certain they mean what they say. One could hope the reviewer would deny future placements if/when they do in fact prove they are not going to maintain their placements, but given Groundspeak's current philosophy that more caches = more smartphone app sales = more Premium memberships paid for, I doubt new placements would be denied on that basis.

 

(RANT MODE) I/we have a similar problem in our region, there is a prolific CO that will archive a cache at the first sign of an issue, no maintenance is done...even though the cache may be only six weeks old or even less. If the first finder reports the co-ordinates are off a bit, they archive it. If the third person to look for it can't find it, they archive it. Of course that doesn't stop them from listing three new caches later in the week. (/RANT MODE)

[+briansnat]

This reviewer would not publish a cache that the CO admitted he could or would not maintain. If the CO solicits random maintainers on the page then that would be a no go for me.

[Pup Patrol]

Perhaps the cache page was edited after publication?

 

I have a hard time believing a reviewer would publish it if it said the cache owner was delegating maintenance to finders.

 

Shouldn't be a cache owner if they don't want to take responsibility for the cache.

 

Yes, reviewers are responsible for cache descriptions. How else would commercial caches be stopped in their tracks?

 

 

B.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer.

 

What this boils down to me is that the cache owner is responsible for the maintenance of the cache (which includes the listing). Either the maintenance is performed by the cache owner and.or a viable maintenance plan is in place which specifically identifies who will maintain the cache in their absence. The way the guideline is written I interpret it to mean that an alternative maintenance plan is *only* for a cache placed outside a geocachers normal caching area and not for caches that are placed within a reasonable proximity to their home location.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but if I was, I would not consider delegating all maintenance to those that find the cache a viable maintenance plan.. If that's how the cache description read when the cache was submitted I wouldn't publish it, or if I discovered that the CO edited the cache listing later asking finders to maintain the cache I'd put in an archive queue and ask the CO to provide a viable maintenance plan.

 

Again, I'm not a reviewer but I would be surprised if this topic hasn't come up in the super secret reviewer forum and that how I would handle it if I were a reviewer isn't far off from how other reviewers would handle it.

[AZcachemeister]

What does this

 

 

mean to you?

 

To me, it means the owner does not plan on regular maintenance, and expects finders to do it for them.

Edited March 1, 2013 by AZcachemeister

[Tahosa and Sons]

And that is a problem in a local park that I volunteer for. There are several caches where the owners have been absent for three years, and according to the park authorities they are going to remove the caches in the near future just because of lack of owner involvement.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Can't imagine our reviewers would publish a cache like that.

 

However, they did publish a power trail where the cache owner asked for help with full logs.

[+cerberus1]

If a reviewer sends the cache back to fix due to additional logging requirements or agendas, doesn't that mean they do read the contents of the cache description?

I'd think if this was on a cache page, it was added after it was published.

 

edited/spllellinng

Edited March 1, 2013 by cerberus1

[+Walts Hunting]

And that is a problem in a local park that I volunteer for. There are several caches where the owners have been absent for three years, and according to the park authorities they are going to remove the caches in the near future just because of lack of owner involvement.

Seems to a NA log would be a great solution.

[+jellis]

We all know that rule, but we also know that if the logs don't get updated then next cachers would not be able to sign it. So for PTs many finders have taken it upon themselves to do the maintenance and they become self maintained caches.

[+The A-Team]

We all know that rule, but we also know that if the logs don't get updated then next cachers would not be able to sign it. So for PTs many finders have taken it upon themselves to do the maintenance and they become self maintained caches.

That's fine, though. There's nothing in the guidelines saying that finders aren't allowed to swap out the log or perform maintenance on behalf of the CO out of the kindness of their heart (or to benefit their numbers ). However, a CO saying up-front that they expect the finders to do the maintenance (and presumably that they won't be doing any themselves)? AFAICT, that's a no-go.

[+Castle Mischief]

What does this

 

 

mean to you?

 

To me, it means the owner does not plan on regular maintenance, and expects finders to do it for them.

 

Good grief.

[+L0ne.R]

What does this

 

 

mean to you?

 

To me, it means the owner does not plan on regular maintenance, and expects finders to do it for them.

 

Good grief.

 

The GCRM label didn't work for http://coord.info/GCTB63. The reviewer had to eventually disable then archive the chewed up folgers jug with a soaked moldy logbook. Any other caches with the GCRM/GCRL request out there?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We all know that rule, but we also know that if the logs don't get updated then next cachers would not be able to sign it. So for PTs many finders have taken it upon themselves to do the maintenance and they become self maintained caches.

That's fine, though. There's nothing in the guidelines saying that finders aren't allowed to swap out the log or perform maintenance on behalf of the CO out of the kindness of their heart (or to benefit their numbers ). However, a CO saying up-front that they expect the finders to do the maintenance (and presumably that they won't be doing any themselves)? AFAICT, that's a no-go.

 

I doubt that the notion of an alternate maintenance plan was ever intended to be used for a cache within a geocachers normal geocaching area. The way the guideline reads, my interpretation is that an alternate maintenance plan (which identifies someone else that will be performing maintenance) is only for caches which might be considered a vacation cache. .

[+Planet]

It's the same as a vacation cache. No go.

[+Planet]

What does this.

 

<snip>

 

mean to you?

 

To me, it means the owner does not plan on regular maintenance, and expects finders to do it for them.

 

I wouldn't spread that around in public. That's just lazy and creates problems of multiple containers.

[AZcachemeister]

 

I wouldn't spread that around in public.

 

Sorry, but there is a power 'trail' a few miles south of me with one of those images on every cache page.

Which was how I was able to navigate to the site where I grabbed the image.

 

When someone decides they want to own a powertrail, I'm already less inclined to help with maintenance issues since they asked for it (all the maintenance needs) when they put out the series.

 

Seeing one of those images on the cache page removes the last vestige of my desire to be helpful.

 

I would hope a reviewer at least chokes when they publish a cache with something like that on the page, but I suppose they can't deny a listing just because the owner threatens to not do maintenance and can only archive it when they prove they are not going to do maintenance.