NM logged when its really a DNF. or Found it when its not

[+Waggy6]

I try to avoid caches that are marked NM. the problem is I have seen ones marked needs maintenance and they just didn't find it. Its my understanding that you need to find it to mark it that. A string of DNFs perhaps indicates its not there and then I would think the CO should check on it, if they don't maybe a nm? I did mark one cache NM without visiting as the logs of the past two years indicate they didn't find it but found the location. if its being marked found how in the world is the CO supposed to know it might be gone? I know this is rambling but logging these things right seems important to keeping caches there and keeping them clean and maintained.

 

I don't want to hunt for caches that aren't there because people didn't log it right, or to pass over a cache thinking its damaged and nothings wrong with it. Whats everyone's opinions?

[+kunarion]

everyone's opinions?

I agree that it was no good that you marked a cache "NM" without even visiting it.

Edited September 11, 2013 by kunarion

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I try to avoid caches that are marked NM. the problem is I have seen ones marked needs maintenance and they just didn't find it.

Nothing new there...

There are lots of folks that make the assumption that because they didn't find it, it "must" be missing.

I fail to see why that would cause you to not want to hunt for it.

 

I did mark one cache NM without visiting as the logs of the past two years indicate they didn't find it but found the location.

In my opinion, this is a bad move... and not at all unlike people that log a NM when it should have been a DNF. You haven't visited the cache, so how can you tell what condition it is/isn't in?

There are a few Cache Owners that are unaware of the method to remove Maintenance Needed flags.

What you are doing is jumping to a conclusion from information that is second or third-hand to you.

[+Waggy6]

I think I will email the CO about the one on the island and apologize for marking it NM without visiting it. Its probably not there but you are right i'm being hypocritical. The logs indicate it's been muggled but thats for the co to figure out. now after I contact him if he doesn't check on it then i'll revisit the issue.

[+Waggy6]

I think I will email the CO about the one on the island and apologize for marking it NM without visiting it. Its probably not there but you are right i'm being hypocritical. The logs indicate it's been muggled but thats for the co to figure out. now after I contact him if he doesn't check on it then i'll revisit the issue.

 

Co emailed. Maybe he would have checked on it if all the people that didn't find it had reported it dnf. So my revised question is, when I see an issue such as a possibly missing cache but I can't say nm cause I'm not sure and no one was willing to mark a dnf since they found the location is the best/only way to bring attention to the issue to email the co? what if they don't do anything about it what next?

[+Ladybug Kids]

I don't want to hunt for caches that aren't there because people didn't log it right, or to pass over a cache thinking its damaged and nothings wrong with it. Whats everyone's opinions?

When I'm traveling, I use GSAK to filter out every cache that has the Needs Maintenance attribute, two or more consecutive DNFs in the most recent logs (figuring less than half of the cachers out there actually log their DNFs), is temporarily disabled, or has a Needs Archived log in the four most recent logs. Then I filter out any cache that's older than three months old that doesn't have a favorite point. Those filters still leave me with more caches than I can possibly find during a short visit, yet virtually ensures I will have lots of positive caching experiences without needlessly thrashing around the brush looking for something that isn't their or trying to sign a soggy piece of pulp.

 

At home, I do look at the "questionable" cache pages more carefully and decide whether to load the cache or not. At least here I have the luxury of returning following an unsuccessful hunt.

[+dprovan]

I try to avoid caches that are marked NM.

Just be aware that in addition to the problem of flat out bogus NM logs that you've brought up, I've found many caches that were just fine yet the NM flag was still set for a problem that was fixed 2 years ago.

 

the problem is I have seen ones marked needs maintenance and they just didn't find it.

If they just didn't find it, an NM's almost always wrong. There are a few exceptions, such as a D1 cache that clearly says "under the lampskirt", and even then I probably wouldn't file an NM as the first DNF.

 

Its my understanding that you need to find it to mark it that.

This understanding is wrong, but it is true that NM is a more complicated claim if you haven't found the cache. One of the reasons for filing an NM is the suspicion that it's missing, so, as you've indicated, there are several factors that need to be considered before deciding an NM is appropriate. I say that if you're unsure, don't file one.

 

I know this is rambling but logging these things right seems important to keeping caches there and keeping them clean and maintained.

It's nice to have an NM when the cache needs one, but it's not so important that we shouldn't worry about filing an NM on a cache that doesn't need it.

 

I don't want to hunt for caches that aren't there because people didn't log it right, or to pass over a cache thinking its damaged and nothings wrong with it. Whats everyone's opinions?

I file an NM when I'm sure there's a problem. Generally I don't worry about whether a cache I'm thinking of visiting has an NM posted or should have an NM posted, since the worst case is not a big deal: I won't find the cache. So what? In the rare case where one specific cache makes a difference between whether I go somewhere or go somewhere else, then I'll read the logs myself, so it doesn't make much difference whether an NM is filed or just DNFs. What's important is that the logs are accurate, no matter which kind of log they are.

 

Oh, just saw your subsequent post while I was composing this:

So my revised question is, when I see an issue such as a possibly missing cache but I can't say nm cause I'm not sure and no one was willing to mark a dnf since they found the location is the best/only way to bring attention to the issue to email the co?

If what you know is that you didn't find it, then file a DNF to tell the CO you didn't find it. You should do that in any case, and, from what you're saying, people not filing DNFs might be part of the problem in this case. By itself, not finding a cache tells you nothing about whether the cache needs maintenance.

 

If there's significant evidence of a problem, like a string of DNFs that can't be otherwise explained, then you can also file an NM. Explain what led you to the NM conclusion in order to allow the CO to evaluate your conclusion and decide whether it's valid based on his knowledge of the hide.

 

I like to put these issues in the log, which is why I'd always file a DNF at least. If my concerns are elevated, I want to alert other cachers via the NM log instead of with private mail to the CO, but mail's a good choice if you are unsure there's really a problem. But normally I just leave that case to a DNF log unless the CO's a friend of mine or my concerns involve something that I think should be kept secret for the good of the cache.

 

what if they don't do anything about it what next?

Well, first of all, keep in mind that it's not the end of the world for you to have to ignore a cache, either explicitly through the ignore feature, or just by not worrying about a cache you know has problems. Again, it's nice to get caches that aren't there and won't come back off the map, but it's not something to sweat over doing as fast as possible.

 

Generally, once I've filed an NM, I forget about it. I leave it to someone later looking over the log and deciding whether the evidence, including my NM, calls for a Needs Archived. Once in a while I'll end up filing the NA, as well, but I prefer seeing someone else do it because I value the second opinion, and I don't want to give the appearance of a unilateral rush to judgement. And, as I've explained, I'm in no hurry.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I recently logged a NM on a cache that I didn't find, because I had logged multiple previous attempts over multiple years, and I had contacted the owner and confirmed that the owner had not visited the cache in the five years since it was placed. The first and only finds were by a single group one month after placement. Even if the cache is really there and in pristine condition, I wanted to post a reminder to the owner to try to re-visit the site sometime, as required by the guidelines. I also figured it would help prospective cachers be aware of the lack of maintenance in the meantime. Granted, the cache might really be there, but it still needs a maintenance visit.

[+Waggy6]

GC2CJ5G is the one that I wasn't sure what to do with, per descriptions its probably not there but peoples pride seems to prevent them from posting dnf. I want to go after this one but yes I would like to know its there before I try. If I know its there and I can't find it when I get there I will gladly post a dnf, but the effort involved to get there means I want a fair chance of finding it. But I did email the co about posting an nm improperly.

[+L0ne.R]

I try to avoid caches that are marked NM. the problem is I have seen ones marked needs maintenance and they just didn't find it.

 

A cache owner can negate the NM by posting an OM. If they've abandoned the cache and the cache listing well then the NM remains. And eventually that cache will be archived by a reviewer.

[+cheech gang]

I wanted to post a reminder to the owner to try to re-visit the site sometime, as required by the guidelines.

 

Seems logical but I haven't located this in the guidelines yet. Still looking.

[+L0ne.R]

I try to avoid caches that are marked NM.

I've found many caches that were just fine yet the NM flag was still set for a problem that was fixed 2 years ago.

 

Years ago that happened to me. The NM/OM feature was fairly new and I had no idea that I needed to post an OM. I had an NM on my cache that was about a year old. The Reviewer contacted me and explained. Since then I pay it forward. If I post an NM on a cache I check back to see if the CO fixed the problem and posted an OM. If not, I email them and let them know that they need to post an OM. I've had a couple of COs thank me for the help.

[+Waggy6]

Hi cheech, you live in the same area as me! If there's no indication of a problem then I wouldn't think the owner needs to check it. I've noticed that things get labeled NM and then a kindly visitor fixes it. IE new log inserted but then the nm never gets cleared. Reading the logs goes a long way, I've made the mistake of going for something on the map only to find when I go to log the dnf that i'm the 10 person to do so and its probably gone.

[+cheech gang]

Took me a while, but I found it.

 

•Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

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. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

[+kunarion]

If there's no indication of a problem then I wouldn't think the owner needs to check it.

I took a look at the logs for your example GC2CJ5G, and it is frustrating that people log "Found It" while they insist the container's missing. A "NM" among a bunch of "Found It" logs would only add to the confusion. But if you check those logs, it does seem that it's gone, and you must research in advance anyway, unless you intend to log "Found It" like the others. It's a boat trip, so as with most such caches, checking the logs is part of the planning. Decide if it's worth the trip alone.

 

I also think that the Cache Owner should archive it if he's not interested, after all this time and all those logs. You may PM the CO, and upon no resolution, ignore that cache. However, there are examples of containers in place just fine, where a few DNFs produce more DNFs simply due to the expectation of no find.

Edited September 11, 2013 by kunarion

[Pup Patrol]

GC2CJ5G is the one that I wasn't sure what to do with, per descriptions its probably not there but peoples pride seems to prevent them from posting dnf. I want to go after this one but yes I would like to know its there before I try. If I know its there and I can't find it when I get there I will gladly post a dnf, but the effort involved to get there means I want a fair chance of finding it. But I did email the co about posting an nm improperly.

 

That's ridiculous. Claiming they found it because someone pointed out where it "should" be.

 

From the sounds of things, it's a "party place" and the cache is long gone. An ammo can is attractive to partiers, too.

 

The cache owner has logged in recently, so maybe you will get a reply.

 

This isn't the first time that folks refuse to post "dnf" for some idiotic reason. It's not just "newbies" either, eh? "Big number" finders posting "found it" to keep their numbers up. Ridiculous.

 

 

B.

[+Waggy6]

I will always mark a DNF and DNF even if I thinks its just gone. I'm just cheating myself if I don't. If I haven't physically signed the cache assuming there is paper in there then its not a Found. I've left notes to the effect of "need to come back with a pen" but I do not mark those as a found. I probably won't go after that one until I know there is something there for me not to find.

 

Yes apparently people have found some very Clintonesque ways of inerpreting the word "found"

Edited September 11, 2013 by Waggy6

[Pup Patrol]

I will always mark a DNF and DNF even if I thinks its just gone. I'm just cheating myself if I don't. If I haven't physically signed the cache assuming there is paper in there then its not a Found. I've left notes to the effect of "need to come back with a pen" but I do not mark those as a found. I probably won't go after that one until I know there is something there for me not to find.

 

I do believe the last legitimate find for that cache was back in 2011.

 

Picking up a "container" and sticking a piece of cardboard in it is not a real find of the cache. It's just a way to avoid having to post a dnf. It's called a throw-down.

 

I've seen "needs maintenance" logs posted for the express purpose of asking the cache owner to check on things.

 

To be honest, I would contact the reviewer. The cache sounds like it's been gone for quite a while, and should be disabled until the cache owner responds.

 

 

B.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+Waggy6]

well I would normally not post a NM for DNFs but this one seemed like a special circumstance based on the logs. Its the only time I did that. My other NMs were damage to container and missing log as well as possibly wrong location.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Stale NM logs (with the flag still there) is a problem around here as well. In some cases, the CO disables a reported cache, visits it to fix it, and then enables the cache. What he doesn't realize is that the "Enable" log doesn't clear the flag. Also, it results from a finder that resolves the problem (replacing a full log with new, fixing a broken cap, etc.). But the CO doesn't post an OM log to clear it, either because he doesn't even realize it's there or doesn't know how to do it.

 

Whenever I visit a cache that has a NM flag and I find it in good condition, I'll include in my Found It log that the maintenance issues has been resolved and the CO can post his "OM" log. Sometimes we all just forget the details.

[+Waggy6]

I've come to the conclusion they need to change "Found it" to "signed log". With the accuracy of gps, finding the location is not much of the accomplishment, but it would save me a lot of time wandering in the woods (lol)