Checking on your caches you own?

[+ReedKyCacheFinders]

We use to check on the caches we owned as soon as there was a DNF log as we didn't want someone to go look for a cache & it was in fact gone & most of the time it was there right where we hid it, but with gas prices we started checking on our caches once they have gotten 3 DNF log's. We have some caches that have gotten just 1 DNF and the Reviewer in the area has Disabled them because of this. Sure a few of them have that 1 DNF that got that log a year or so ago but that doesn't mean it's not there. We thought this was all for the thrill of the hunt, not have a arrow at ground zero pointing to the hiding spot. Yes, We know it's up to us cache owners to keep check on our caches, but everytime someone can't find it & cries wolf? We think not. What you all think on this matter?

[4wheelin_fool]

Disabled for 1 DNF? Really?

[+ReedKyCacheFinders]

Disabled for 1 DNF? Really?

 

Yes, Really, Now that DNF log might be a year old or older, but still with just one DNF in that time we shouldn't have to go running around checking on it.

[+wmpastor]

Disabled for 1 DNF? Really?

 

Yes, Really, Now that DNF log might be a year old or older, but still with just one DNF in that time we shouldn't have to go running around checking on it.

Is it so remote that no one else went after it for a full year?

 

Is it so far away you didn't pass by for a year? What did you find when you went there after it was disabled?

[+Ma & Pa]

Disabled for 1 DNF? Really?

 

Yes, Really, Now that DNF log might be a year old or older, but still with just one DNF in that time we shouldn't have to go running around checking on it.

Is it so remote that no one else went after it for a full year?

 

Is it so far away you didn't pass by for a year? What did you find when you went there after it was disabled?

 

I agree with the cache owner. One DNF should not be reason to disable. I think it is clear that he did not go and check it after it was disabled and why should he have to do that. I don't think the fact that nobody went for it for over a year is relevant.

 

We have caches in wilderness areas and I would certainly want to wait for more than 1 DNF before I would take the time to go and check on one.

[+Walts Hunting]

I don't know about the one you are talking about maybe you could post the GC number so we could all see the whole story.

 

Here is one from your account that has three DNF's going back over 21 months with no effort made to correct the situation before the reviewer intervened and disabled it.

[+ReedKyCacheFinders]

None of them are in remote places that they would be nothing more than a Park & Grab or a very short walk on a well paved walking/bike riding trail, but we shouldn't have to go check on any of our hides after a single DNF Log no matter how long it's been since it got that DNF log. There are new caches popping up in the area of these caches all the time & we know that there are many cachers that live near by that havn't even logged a DNF for looking.

Edited September 16, 2013 by ReedKyCacheFinders

[+lamoracke]

I have a cache that just got its first DNF and the DNFer wants me to go check on it, but its like 30 miles to get there, I think I will wait til another DNF. If it was one of my closer ones, I would be more likely.

[4wheelin_fool]

It looks like there is a problem with people not posting their DNFs, and the reviewer is punishing the CO as an attempt to compensate for it. This may further discourage DNFs from being posted, if someone believes it may cause a cache to be disabled.

[+L&Ls_mom]

Pardon me if this is a silly question, as I'm a newbie and own no caches, but I would have thought routine cache maintenance would involve at least a yearly visit to ensure all is okay?

[+dprovan]

Well, my first observation is that you could easily resolve this issue by not worrying about whether the disable was reasonable and just go check on the caches. You don't have to choose between checking after 1 DNF and checking after 3 DNFs: you can check when there's a reason to check, which would be after 3 DNFs or after a reviewer disables them.

 

Having said that, personally, I don't like it when a reviewer takes action for no reason that can be seen publicly. He should leave it up to seekers to decide when he needs to take some action. If the cache has no issues indicated by an NM, I don't understand why the reviewer even considered getting involved.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As Walts Hunting mentioned: you have a cache that you adopted that has had three DNFs in the past year. I would have checked it out after adoption. Perhaps that is why the reviewer disabled it?

While I agree with the reviewer that many cachers will not seek caches with three DNFs, I do not see anything in the guidelines that she cited having to do with DNFs. (Myself, I seldom put caches with two or three consecutive DNFs into my GPSr.) But, I will agree with you that most DNFs are meaningless. I performed maintenance on a few caches this weekend. 3 DNFs? Still there. 2 DNFs and "I'm pretty sure its missing"? Still there. 1 DNF with "I know it is missing, I checked there thoroughly" Guess what? Still there. (These were not that tough a hide...)

I wonder if there is more to this story than we are hearing?

[+wimseyguy]

I'm thinking there is a whole lot more back story here that we aren't being told by the OP. A quick scan of their owned traditional hides sorted by last found date shows five that are disabled and haven't been found in 2 years.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

When I see a cache that hasn't been found in a year and the last log was a DNF, I'd ignore it unless I was within 500' of it. Then if I had time to waste sometime I might try it.

 

A friend and I pack up the car once or twice a year and hit all of our caches no matter what logs have said to make sure the log is dry and has room, add swag and see if it's okay in general.

Depending on the cache I will check on 1 DNF if I'm in the area, it's easy and it's not a new cacher. Otherwise I wait.

 

I don't understand being archived after 1 DNF. That said, I also don't understand why. if this is an easy walk or park and grab the CO would not check on it within the year.

[+giddeanx]

Are these the ones? GC252MR, GC1FDE2, GC21C43 Kinda weird that they are talking about maintenance logs when there is none on those caches. GC220XM is the only one that makes sense. Did the reviewer just disable all your caches that haven't been found in a while? Sounds hokey. Looks like the only thing you can do is to pay them a visit to confirm or replace.

[+L0ne.R]

Are these the ones? GC252MR, GC1FDE2, GC21C43 Kinda weird that they are talking about maintenance logs when there is none on those caches. GC220XM is the only one that makes sense. Did the reviewer just disable all your caches that haven't been found in a while? Sounds hokey. Looks like the only thing you can do is to pay them a visit to confirm or replace.

 

Were the maintenance logs deleted by the CO?

[+DanOCan]

Pardon me if this is a silly question, as I'm a newbie and own no caches, but I would have thought routine cache maintenance would involve at least a yearly visit to ensure all is okay?

It depends on the cache. One of my caches is relatively remote and has only been found seven times in five years. It's an ammo can so I'm confident it won't leak, the logbook is huge so it won't fill up for years. I haven't visited the cache since it was placed and likely won't unless someone either reports an issue or hides another one in the general area.

 

As for the original topic, I'll sit back and wait to learn the whole story before coming to any conclusions.

[+lamoracke]

Pardon me if this is a silly question, as I'm a newbie and own no caches, but I would have thought routine cache maintenance would involve at least a yearly visit to ensure all is okay?

 

There is not set in stone schedule. As a cache owner you are in charge of policing your logs and doing cache maintenance. If its reported to be missing or something happens, you check on it. If a cache is remote and gets 1 find a year and there is no report of anything wrong, you do not need to go check on it ever. Sure its nice to check on caches not found in a long time, but its your call. You mainly need to fix troubles that happen when you know about it, not be forced to be the only person to climb a certain tough mountain every year to check on a cache with almost no chance of being muggled where a cache in a LPC in a parking lot could be gone more easily two days after 2 finds.

[+u1bd2005]

I think the reviewer has every right to disable a cache if the last log was a DNF over a year or so ago, you could at least have left a note or something equivalent to at least state you would check on the cache if it received another DNF, but if you blatantly just ignore it then what are people going to think other than "oh, a dnf over a year ago, probably been more dnfs that haven't bothered logging"

 

"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."

 

I think it is reasonable for a reviewer to expect a visit within a year if the last log was a DNF, as most people would only post a NM if they'd found it trashed or there were numerous DNF's before them. Not if it was missing as they have no way of being sure.

 

"Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while travelling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan."

 

If you're not willing to make a trip within a year, I don't personally think that you have an adequate maintenance plan.

 

Those are just my views anyway. I had some of my hides disabled after not maintaining them a while back (before I got into caching as much and before I got my car), and reviewer gave me a warning about them saying they would be archived, so I voluntary archived 2 of them and let someone adopt the other as they wanted to maintain it.

 

I didn't have a maintenance plan back then, so I had no reason to argue with the reviewer's actions. I've placed caches since and I maintain them now, If there's even the slightest doubt then I go check on the cache, you placed it there to bring people to the location right? well use it as an excuse to revisit the location yourself

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

I think the reviewer has every right to disable a cache if the last log was a DNF over a year or so ago, you could at least have left a note or something equivalent to at least state you would check on the cache if it received another DNF, but if you blatantly just ignore it then what are people going to think other than "oh, a dnf over a year ago, probably been more dnfs that haven't bothered logging"

 

"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."

 

I think it is reasonable for a reviewer to expect a visit within a year if the last log was a DNF, as most people would only post a NM if they'd found it trashed or there were numerous DNF's before them. Not if it was missing as they have no way of being sure.

 

"Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while travelling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan."

 

If you're not willing to make a trip within a year, I don't personally think that you have an adequate maintenance plan.

 

Those are just my views anyway. I had some of my hides disabled after not maintaining them a while back (before I got into caching as much and before I got my car), and reviewer gave me a warning about them saying they would be archived, so I voluntary archived 2 of them and let someone adopt the other as they wanted to maintain it.

 

I didn't have a maintenance plan back then, so I had no reason to argue with the reviewer's actions. I've placed caches since and I maintain them now, If there's even the slightest doubt then I go check on the cache, you placed it there to bring people to the location right? well use it as an excuse to revisit the location yourself

+1 x 10

Edited September 16, 2013 by Scrabblers

[Clan Riffster]

I think the reviewer has every right to disable a cache if the last log was a DNF over a year or so ago, you could at least have left a note or something equivalent to at least state you would check on the cache if it received another DNF, but if you blatantly just ignore it then what are people going to think other than "oh, a dnf over a year ago, probably been more dnfs that haven't bothered logging"

 

"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."

 

I think it is reasonable for a reviewer to expect a visit within a year if the last log was a DNF, as most people would only post a NM if they'd found it trashed or there were numerous DNF's before them. Not if it was missing as they have no way of being sure.

 

"Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while travelling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan."

 

If you're not willing to make a trip within a year, I don't personally think that you have an adequate maintenance plan.

 

Those are just my views anyway. I had some of my hides disabled after not maintaining them a while back (before I got into caching as much and before I got my car), and reviewer gave me a warning about them saying they would be archived, so I voluntary archived 2 of them and let someone adopt the other as they wanted to maintain it.

 

I didn't have a maintenance plan back then, so I had no reason to argue with the reviewer's actions. I've placed caches since and I maintain them now, If there's even the slightest doubt then I go check on the cache, you placed it there to bring people to the location right? well use it as an excuse to revisit the location yourself

I like your thoughts on revisiting the location, since, hopefully, that's why you placed the cache there. But I'm pretty much gonna have to disagree with everything else you wrote. The guideline you quoted talks about caches which have reported problems. A single person failing to locate a cache is not, in itself, indicative of a problem. Had there been a year old NM being ignored, I'd be more likely to side with you.

[+Frank Broughton]

Cache maintenance and visiting your caches is caching 101 - too many dog lazy cache owners IMO, get out and check your caches. Gas prices is not a valid excuse.

[4wheelin_fool]

The question is which is more disrespectful? Not logging a DNF, or not checking on your cache after only one DNF?

 

I'd say not logging a DNF was worse. There should be no reason to disable it for just one unsuccessful visit.

[+WarNinjas]

When we first started we definitely would go out and check our caches after one DNF! However there were many trips where it was still there. More times there then not there. Now we will wait for a few DNF's unless the log of the DNF shows something that leads us to believe it is not there.

[+TopHatSnake]

Two of my caches had to be archived this week. They were both along dirt paths in a thickly undergrown forest in a park, right in the middle of town. Five minutes into the woods, it was very easy to forget you were still inside city limits. This alone made them my favorites of all the, albeit few, caches I own. As I walked past that park on my way to work last week, I noticed crews clearing out the brush, leaving just the biggest trees. Miraculously, both caches were still in place, and completely unharmed. However, the twisting, shaded trail-through-the-forest experience was utterly destroyed. I'm sad the caches had to be archived, but I am glad I discovered the changes in the area before any unsuspecting cachers had a disappointing experience with them. Ces't la vie, farewell "Minnow Haven" and "Tools Needed".

 

Wow, that got a little sadder than I expected.

[+OZ2CPU]

you should respect other people, and their spare time..

if you place a cache at a very remote location,

if that one gets a DNF, you can expect the cacher actually searching quite well for it !

no one hikes 4 hrs, and search just 4 minutes for it..

 

So the chance is alot higher it is maybe gone,

or moved by animal, or area changed so hint dont fit,

many things can happen..

 

Would you go for a very long hike, to search for a very remote cache with 1 DNF as its last log ??

I would NOT !!

 

the CO should offcourse check it, if he do not care for it, then he placed a cache too remote,

and he should archive it.

another methode is to contact the DNF'er and ask more deep into where he searched, for how long,

and what did he see there ? sounds like the correct spot ? and so on.

a CO who hides very remote caches, also take pictures of the spot,

and also very remote caches are rarely hidden that well, like a nano drilled into a branch 25 meters off GZ

[+Lieblweb]

For me.... Most of my caches are within 5 miles of the house and easily accessed anytime. Only a few are 20 miles out and that's my limit.

I usually wait for 3 DNF's (people NOT in the same group) before making a trip. I check mine about once a year regardless - change logs, check the containers, the area, etc.

 

But....I had checked one of my caches (creative container) and only 2 days later, someone dropped the lid. They placed their own container at GZ to make up for the loss (which I'm Thankful). I had to drive out again and fix the container so it would retain its original creativeness. But again, this one was only a few miles from the house.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Lieblweb

[+u1bd2005]

It's not just the fact of the 1 DNF that makes me say the CO should go check on the cache, t's the fact of the 1 DNF being a year ago, if it was a few weeks or so it would be understandable not to check after just one DNF, but after a year you'd think they'd have at least check it once, just to at least be able to put cachers minds at easy for the travel, so they know it's still there.

 

After a year and no log since the DNF it will put many many cachers off searching imo, you know where you hid it, all you have to do is head to GZ and check on it, post a note or if needed owners maintenence log saying the cache is still fine or if needed say that you've replaced or sorted any issues, much more likely to get people looking for it or even get the DNF logger back to retry his/her search.

[+kunarion]

Yes, We know it's up to us cache owners to keep check on our caches, but everytime someone can't find it & cries wolf? We think not. What you all think on this matter?

I check mine after a find. Certainly after a DNF. I want my caches ready for the next cacher.

[+terrkan78]

Two of my caches had to be archived this week. They were both along dirt paths in a thickly undergrown forest in a park, right in the middle of town. Five minutes into the woods, it was very easy to forget you were still inside city limits. This alone made them my favorites of all the, albeit few, caches I own. As I walked past that park on my way to work last week, I noticed crews clearing out the brush, leaving just the biggest trees. Miraculously, both caches were still in place, and completely unharmed. However, the twisting, shaded trail-through-the-forest experience was utterly destroyed. I'm sad the caches had to be archived, but I am glad I discovered the changes in the area before any unsuspecting cachers had a disappointing experience with them. Ces't la vie, farewell "Minnow Haven" and "Tools Needed".

 

Wow, that got a little sadder than I expected.

I like inside-the-city-but-feels-like-you're-out-in-the-boonies locations.

 

This is why I check on my caches regularly. I choose locations because I like the experience that getting to those locations brings. I want others to have a similar experience.

 

One of my hides had a massive homeless camp spring up close to GZ. I'm glad I found this out via a maintenance visit before someone else went out there and had a bad experience.

[+-CJ-]

Sometimes a geocacher logs DNF and contacts me personally. After his explanation it could be pretty clear that the cache has gone and should be disabled. One who doesn't know the situation may think that the cache was disabled after just 1 DNF and be surprised by this fact.

 

I can think about different situation when a cache can get his only DNF by mistake - it should be logged NA because of conditions have changed dramatically. For example, a cache disappears after local powers started construction works right at that place, it is seriously guarded and the CO is not responding.

 

the CO should offcourse check it, if he do not care for it, then he placed a cache too remote, and he should archive it

 

I'd add there can be exclusions from this policy or we will have no geocaches in really remote places.

[+NeverSummer]

Disabled for 1 DNF? Really?

 

Yes, Really, Now that DNF log might be a year old or older, but still with just one DNF in that time we shouldn't have to go running around checking on it.

My vote would be to just go out and check on it. If all is ok, post an Owner Maintenance log, and move on.

 

Is it strange to have your cache disabled after 1 DNF, yes. Should it be a big deal? No.

[+Dode222]

I usually wait about 5-6 DNF logs before checking them, and immediately when needs maintence.

 

As for 1 DNF, I think disabling it was silly.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'd add there can be exclusions from this policy or we will have no geocaches in really remote places.

 

And that is the problem in a nutshell with what many here are saying. If I had to check my caches every year, I would archive most of them! And only leave the cache and dashes! I checked my first hide after seven years. (Only because I was hiking in the area.) No problems with it. I have a few that haven't been found in a few years. Nothing too remote. A few miles hike, and couple hundred feet of climb. Modern cachers are too lazy, and numbers oriented, for nice hikes. The ones who find them love them! But that's what I'm hearing here: "If you cannot go check on it tomorrow, after one DNF, then you should not have hidden it."

If I seriously think there is a problem, I can get to it in a month or so. (Remember, I like to go geocaching!) All these cache and dashers! Sad what Geocaching has turned into.

And I'm not talking 'really remote places'. A couple of miles to find a cache in a great spot? Naw. Not these days.

My caches are there, ready to be found! Go hike a few miles. You'll enjoy it!

[+JohnnyVegas]

We use to check on the caches we owned as soon as there was a DNF log as we didn't want someone to go look for a cache & it was in fact gone & most of the time it was there right where we hid it, but with gas prices we started checking on our caches once they have gotten 3 DNF log's. We have some caches that have gotten just 1 DNF and the Reviewer in the area has Disabled them because of this. Sure a few of them have that 1 DNF that got that log a year or so ago but that doesn't mean it's not there. We thought this was all for the thrill of the hunt, not have a arrow at ground zero pointing to the hiding spot. Yes, We know it's up to us cache owners to keep check on our caches, but everytime someone can't find it & cries wolf? We think not. What you all think on this matter?

After one DNF is not right even if it has been a year. When I see a DNF on one of my caches I look at the profile of the cacher that is posting DNF and unless they are very experience cachers I do not give the DNF any attention. Now some of my caches are even hard for me to find so unless a cacher has 500 finds in my book they are not all that experienced. This might appear to be harsh but with so many easy drive ups such as Lamp post hides,park bench hides, telephone pole crack hides and inside the fence post hides to name a few a person can run up big numbers without seeing a very hard to find cache.

[+-CJ-]

But that's what I'm hearing here: "If you cannot go check on it tomorrow, after one DNF, then you should not have hidden it."

 

After being here at this forum for a while I think that this is just a part of the common attitude to any issues based on regulations that have been worked out years ago and designed mostly for a different reality. While there could be exclusions for some really remote caches and some "grace period" for them to be maintained after being reported missing, users seem to be convinced that caches must be maintained by COs only and in short period of time.

 

This is much like in the neighbouring thread when some guy wished to maintain geocaches in his area which he liked and which were obviously missing - and asked for advice. He's got replies like "No!", "Never!", "Don't do it!" and "You should not maintain cache that you don't own!" A better advice (IMHO) could be "Contact COs and ask what they think about your idea".

 

Geocaching has often been described as a social game where people make interesting acquaintances, meet each other and cooperate for things like CITO. However when it comes to specific situations around caches it can be often heard "Place a NM log and leave as is", "Wait until ... DNFs and then check you cache" or anything of this kind. Looks like the cache listing and its logs are the only allowed way to communicate between those who hide and those who search.

 

If I seriously think there is a problem, I can get to it in a month or so. (Remember, I like to go geocaching!)

 

Me too. However I had to archive three caches in Khamar-Daban, three caches in Polar Urals, seven caches in Carpathian mountains and nine caches in Khibiny mountains. All in good condition. Or, better say, I failed to publish them at geocaching.com because of the known regulation and the popular attitude "log DNF/NM and leave as is" and "if a CO cannot maintain his cache soon this cache should be archived". There are no conditions in these really remote regions to do any maintenance by myself quickly. For "Montalor" (Polar Urals) it takes at least three days of a serious hike through tundra, partially without any paths, to get to the container. No civilization at all. I didn't invent anything to suggest as a maintenance plan for our local reviwer. Moreover, if I even managed to publish this, what should I do if anyone gets there and (persuaded by what people say) just leave a "NM" log?

[+bflentje]

I'd add there can be exclusions from this policy or we will have no geocaches in really remote places.

 

And that is the problem in a nutshell with what many here are saying. If I had to check my caches every year, I would archive most of them! And only leave the cache and dashes! I checked my first hide after seven years. (Only because I was hiking in the area.) No problems with it. I have a few that haven't been found in a few years. Nothing too remote. A few miles hike, and couple hundred feet of climb. Modern cachers are too lazy, and numbers oriented, for nice hikes. The ones who find them love them! But that's what I'm hearing here: "If you cannot go check on it tomorrow, after one DNF, then you should not have hidden it."

If I seriously think there is a problem, I can get to it in a month or so. (Remember, I like to go geocaching!) All these cache and dashers! Sad what Geocaching has turned into.

And I'm not talking 'really remote places'. A couple of miles to find a cache in a great spot? Naw. Not these days.

My caches are there, ready to be found! Go hike a few miles. You'll enjoy it!

 

-Like

[^up]

I'm new too, but have had the help of a geocaching mentor or told me that three DNFs was the unwriten rule of a maximum before other geocachers expected the cache owner to check on or disable or archive. I like hiding caches more than hunting and have caches in two states, and do check them. I have had one that got a DNF but luckily it was right when I was in that state and checked it within a day. The reviewers have asked me about the fact that they are not near my home. I haven't described in detail, but it is just easier for me to hide caches while I'm away working than when I'm home (not home much so when I am there is no time for geocaching).

 

My mentor also said that there is no actual rule, that the reviewers will do what they want as they are protecting the game more than pleasing individuals. That seems fair though annoying. I have not had any problems myself though.

[+Don_J]

Well, my first observation is that you could easily resolve this issue by not worrying about whether the disable was reasonable and just go check on the caches. You don't have to choose between checking after 1 DNF and checking after 3 DNFs: you can check when there's a reason to check, which would be after 3 DNFs or after a reviewer disables them.

 

Having said that, personally, I don't like it when a reviewer takes action for no reason that can be seen publicly. He should leave it up to seekers to decide when he needs to take some action. If the cache has no issues indicated by an NM, I don't understand why the reviewer even considered getting involved.

 

We had a cache in the next valley over where a guy looked for it four times in a month, posted his four DNFs and finally posted a NA. No action from the reviewer so he posted another NA, which prompted a note from one of our reviewers, "No reviewer is going to archive a cache because a single cacher can't find it, please stop posting NA logs unless you are certain there is a problem with this cache".

 

I guess they do things differently in Kentucky, or logs have been deleted and we are not seeing the overall picture.

 

Oh, the CO checked it a few weeks later and reported that everything was as it should be. The other guy just couldn't find it.

[+Don_J]

I think the reviewer has every right to disable a cache if the last log was a DNF over a year or so ago, you could at least have left a note or something equivalent to at least state you would check on the cache if it received another DNF, but if you blatantly just ignore it then what are people going to think other than "oh, a dnf over a year ago, probably been more dnfs that haven't bothered logging"

 

"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."

 

I think it is reasonable for a reviewer to expect a visit within a year if the last log was a DNF, as most people would only post a NM if they'd found it trashed or there were numerous DNF's before them. Not if it was missing as they have no way of being sure.

 

"Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while travelling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan."

 

If you're not willing to make a trip within a year, I don't personally think that you have an adequate maintenance plan.

 

Those are just my views anyway. I had some of my hides disabled after not maintaining them a while back (before I got into caching as much and before I got my car), and reviewer gave me a warning about them saying they would be archived, so I voluntary archived 2 of them and let someone adopt the other as they wanted to maintain it.

 

I didn't have a maintenance plan back then, so I had no reason to argue with the reviewer's actions. I've placed caches since and I maintain them now, If there's even the slightest doubt then I go check on the cache, you placed it there to bring people to the location right? well use it as an excuse to revisit the location yourself

I like your thoughts on revisiting the location, since, hopefully, that's why you placed the cache there. But I'm pretty much gonna have to disagree with everything else you wrote. The guideline you quoted talks about caches which have reported problems. A single person failing to locate a cache is not, in itself, indicative of a problem. Had there been a year old NM being ignored, I'd be more likely to side with you.

 

And I'll +1 this. No where in the text is DNF mentioned, much less a single DNF.

 

Take a look at my cache, http://coord.info/GC15ZC5. No where in it's history has it ever been missing or needed maintenance. It has a 1/3 DNF to find rate and I believe that about ten others have looked for it and not posted a DNF. It went 30 months without a find despite being only 2 miles up a moderate trail with parking being on a paved road, 1 mile from an exit from US 101, on the edge of the City of Los Angeles.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Don_J

[+OldLog]

Surprisingly there are a lot of caches out there that are ignored by the owners. I have run into plenty that where neglected to the point of being trash.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Surprisingly there are a lot of caches out there that are ignored by the owners. I have run into plenty that where neglected to the point of being trash.

Boy Scout of America caches (not all, but many). One hide, no find users, after a silly badge.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Surprisingly there are a lot of caches out there that are ignored by the owners. I have run into plenty that where neglected to the point of being trash.

when I find a cache that is in poor shape I will try to repair it I carry extra logs in baggies, tape, camo tape and a few other items. Now if I find a messed up cache and read that the cache owner has not been to the web site for a long time I post a SBA, as I did a few days ago.

[+Tassie_Boy]

I'm going to chime in here as I've had an experience in the last few weeks that has lead to my cache being disabled.

 

In my case I think it depends on what the dnf's say, the first my cache received said that they looked in the obvious spot nearby and couldn't find. as cache was not in obvious spot there was no reason to go out. Second one spoke off looking in obvious spot, not finding and only other thing around was a smashed up stump, cache "was" in said stump prompting visit to see what was going on.

[+NeverSummer]

 

We had a cache in the next valley over where a guy looked for it four times in a month, posted his four DNFs and finally posted a NA. No action from the reviewer so he posted another NA, which prompted a note from one of our reviewers, "No reviewer is going to archive a cache because a single cacher can't find it, please stop posting NA logs unless you are certain there is a problem with this cache".

 

I guess they do things differently in Kentucky, or logs have been deleted and we are not seeing the overall picture.

 

Oh, the CO checked it a few weeks later and reported that everything was as it should be. The other guy just couldn't find it.

This makes me think of a related scenario.

 

Say I go out and look for a cache 4 times in a month, post my DNFs, and contact the owner after the fourth time to ask if they can check on it to be sure it's there. Case context: No other searchers in between the 4 DNFs.

 

What is the social norm of geocaching in this case? Owner goes out and checks, and as in your case says, "All is well"? Owner says, "It's there", without checking? Owner ignores altogether?

 

What if the last option is true? Those stories are where a seeker might feel that a NM or NA log might be in order. If a cache goes unfound, and an owner is non-responsive...then how "should" we proceed as a community?

 

Some will say to put the cache on your ignore list. "You don't have to find every cache" they'll say. On the contrary, I like to think that the guidelines of the game put the onus firmly on the owner to be involved and check on their caches, as well as be constructively responsive to email contact/DNF/NM/NA logs on their caches.

 

I know that there are many different scenaios that could make this one moot. But for purposes of illustration, I think that we can all benefit from cache owners being involved, proactive, and constructive about DNF, NM and NA logs on their caches.

[+dprovan]

Say I go out and look for a cache 4 times in a month, post my DNFs, and contact the owner after the fourth time to ask if they can check on it to be sure it's there. Case context: No other searchers in between the 4 DNFs.

 

What is the social norm of geocaching in this case? Owner goes out and checks, and as in your case says, "All is well"? Owner says, "It's there", without checking? Owner ignores altogether?

Asking the owner to go check on it is the wrong approach, since it implies that the cache isn't there, and you really have no idea whether it's there or not. All you know is you couldn't find it. The correct approach is to ask the owner to help you find the cache, hoping he'll give you some hints so you can go find it.

 

After that, a few things can happen:

 

1. Nothing. In this case, you're done, so forget about it. You can put it on your watch list if you want to see if anyone else looks for it, or if the CO does something about it.
   
2. The owner thinks it's unlikely you would have any trouble finding this cache if it's there, so he goes to check on it and reports what he found.
   
3. The owner gives you some hints which make you realize you might have missed it, so you go back and look again.
   
4. The owner gives you some hints which make you think it's not there, so you explain why to the owner.
   

What if the last option is true? Those stories are where a seeker might feel that a NM or NA log might be in order. If a cache goes unfound, and an owner is non-responsive...then how "should" we proceed as a community?

As a community? I think that's a key question. As a community, someone else goes to look for the cache, and its fate isn't resting on your lone DNFs. Until the community is involved, I don't think you're in a position to invoke "the community" against the CO for inaction.

 

Some will say to put the cache on your ignore list. "You don't have to find every cache" they'll say. On the contrary, I like to think that the guidelines of the game put the onus firmly on the owner to be involved and check on their caches, as well as be constructively responsive to email contact/DNF/NM/NA logs on their caches.

This thinking depends on the mistaken belief that if you can't find the cache, then it must be missing. Instead of asking, "Why won't the CO check on the cache?", you should be asking, "Why can't I find the cache?" Only after you have more information can you start thinking that the reason you can't find the cache is because it's missing, and only then do the CO's responsibilities come into play.

 

As some have been telling you, you don't have to find every cache. Some are just hidden too well, or require special equipment you don't have, or involve a puzzle you can't solve, or are otherwise beyond your physical or mental abilities. Yes, and some aren't there. I don't think there's any reason to be more annoyed by that last case or more insistant that those caches be removed from your map.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I used to run out after 1 DNF, but now I wait a bit. Too many false-alarms and I do have a life.

[+NeverSummer]

Say I go out and look for a cache 4 times in a month, post my DNFs, and contact the owner after the fourth time to ask if they can check on it to be sure it's there. Case context: No other searchers in between the 4 DNFs.

 

What is the social norm of geocaching in this case? Owner goes out and checks, and as in your case says, "All is well"? Owner says, "It's there", without checking? Owner ignores altogether?

Asking the owner to go check on it is the wrong approach, since it implies that the cache isn't there, and you really have no idea whether it's there or not. All you know is you couldn't find it. The correct approach is to ask the owner to help you find the cache, hoping he'll give you some hints so you can go find it.

 

After that, a few things can happen:

 

1. Nothing. In this case, you're done, so forget about it. You can put it on your watch list if you want to see if anyone else looks for it, or if the CO does something about it.
   
2. The owner thinks it's unlikely you would have any trouble finding this cache if it's there, so he goes to check on it and reports what he found.
   
3. The owner gives you some hints which make you realize you might have missed it, so you go back and look again.
   
4. The owner gives you some hints which make you think it's not there, so you explain why to the owner.
   

What if the last option is true? Those stories are where a seeker might feel that a NM or NA log might be in order. If a cache goes unfound, and an owner is non-responsive...then how "should" we proceed as a community?

As a community? I think that's a key question. As a community, someone else goes to look for the cache, and its fate isn't resting on your lone DNFs. Until the community is involved, I don't think you're in a position to invoke "the community" against the CO for inaction.

 

Some will say to put the cache on your ignore list. "You don't have to find every cache" they'll say. On the contrary, I like to think that the guidelines of the game put the onus firmly on the owner to be involved and check on their caches, as well as be constructively responsive to email contact/DNF/NM/NA logs on their caches.

This thinking depends on the mistaken belief that if you can't find the cache, then it must be missing. Instead of asking, "Why won't the CO check on the cache?", you should be asking, "Why can't I find the cache?" Only after you have more information can you start thinking that the reason you can't find the cache is because it's missing, and only then do the CO's responsibilities come into play.

 

As some have been telling you, you don't have to find every cache. Some are just hidden too well, or require special equipment you don't have, or involve a puzzle you can't solve, or are otherwise beyond your physical or mental abilities. Yes, and some aren't there. I don't think there's any reason to be more annoyed by that last case or more insistant that those caches be removed from your map.

You raise valid points. Also, those points are not ones I have not used or entertained the thought of.

 

What you also did was twist around my examples to present your own, and then used that new scenario to aruge against what I said. I chuckled.

 

What I should have done was proof the example I provided, and added every single detail about the cache so that it would make more sense. D/T rating, size, location, dates of last finds, history of each cacher who did find, timing of visits, on and on.

 

What I was trying to get across is that we, as cache owners, should be more receptive to people contacting us for help. If someone emails us, we should answer. If they need help, we should offer it. This idea that "My cache is tough to find, and that's the point. This person is clearly not smart enough to recognize their search protocol errors" isn't helpful.

 

Like you said, if someone emails me about a hide that can't be found by them, I email back and ask questions. I can give hints, I can go check the cache. Bottom line is that an email correspondence will likely have more context than your run-of-the-mill online log.

 

I can't abide by the idea that we, as owners, don't have some kind of obligation to check on caches we own on some kind of regular basis.

 

Asking the owner to go check on it is the wrong approach, since it implies that the cache isn't there, and you really have no idea whether it's there or not. All you know is you couldn't find it. The correct approach is to ask the owner to help you find the cache, hoping he'll give you some hints so you can go find it.

Agreed, bot not necessarily on the first line. 4 DNFs, even if by the same person raises my eyebrow. I, at that time, would be hoping they contact me, or I would reach out and contact them. (Especially on a 1.5/1.5. And there is, again, some context which is important to the matrix of cache-owner response to DNF logs...)

 

Lastly, I have no problem ignoring caches. I'm hoping that, based on our lack of interpersonal context dprovan, you used "you" as a general statement, not directed at me specifically. My "community" comment was pointed at the community of geocachers and the guidelines/rules of thumb we can all shoot for in cases like this. (That is the point of having these converations on the forums, is it not?) I wasn't implying that a local community should grab pitchforks and torches.

[+dprovan]

What you also did was twist around my examples to present your own, and then used that new scenario to aruge against what I said. I chuckled.

Well, no, I really don't think that's what I did. What I did was take your example at face value, carefully not imagining any additional details not presented, and explaining what I consider the reasonable reaction to it. The point being that there are additional responsibilities that you have as a seeker before you can pass judgement much less ask me to pass judgement.

 

The points you make in this post are perfectly reasonable. Yes, CO's should be more helpful. CO's shouldn't be snotty. That's all great, but a CO ignoring 4 DNFs on a cache with unknown difficulty and an unknown history don't make that point in the least.

 

What I should have done was proof the example I provided, and added every single detail about the cache so that it would make more sense. D/T rating, size, location, dates of last finds, history of each cacher who did find, timing of visits, on and on.

I suppose my main point was that the lack of detail led you to present an unsupportable generalization.

 

Part of the problem here is that if your question is, "How do we deal with a cache that's known to be missing and the CO isn't being responsive?", then I think the answer is clearly established and well known, involving NM, NA, and an escalation path.

 

What I was trying to get across is that we, as cache owners, should be more receptive to people contacting us for help. If someone emails us, we should answer. If they need help, we should offer it. This idea that "My cache is tough to find, and that's the point. This person is clearly not smart enough to recognize their search protocol errors" isn't helpful.

Just to make this clear: that point didn't come across because nothing about your post demonstrated that anything like that was happening.

 

Agreed, bot not necessarily on the first line. 4 DNFs, even if by the same person raises my eyebrow. I, at that time, would be hoping they contact me, or I would reach out and contact them.

As nice as it would be for the CO to contacting you unilaterally to ask if you need help, it's not their responsibility.

 

My "community" comment was pointed at the community of geocachers and the guidelines/rules of thumb we can all shoot for in cases like this. (That is the point of having these converations on the forums, is it not?) I wasn't implying that a local community should grab pitchforks and torches.

You asked what the community should do, and I told you: the community should check into it because the simple example you presented didn't provide enough information for them to do anything else. It goes without saying that if they confirm the cache isn't there and the CO isn't doing anything about it, then I'm all in favor of pitchforks and torches, or at least a Needs Maintenance request.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Agreed, bot not necessarily on the first line. 4 DNFs, even if by the same person raises my eyebrow. I, at that time, would be hoping they contact me, or I would reach out and contact them.

As nice as it would be for the CO to contacting you unilaterally to ask if you need help, it's not their responsibility.

 

Right there. You're misreading, and taking things out of context, simply to disagree.

 

I am saying that if I, as a cache owner, see 4 DNFs in a row by 1 single geocacher, and no other logs in between, my eyebrow would be raised. And I would hope that the cacher would contact me, the owner, directly about their DNFs if they like. I'm open to an email asking for help. And, depending on the all-important context of the situation which I obviously must have in place for you to not rush to judgement, I might reach out to them first if I see that one single cacher is having an issue with finding one of my caches over and over.

 

 

Ah, I see what I've done here. I've fallen for it before. We agree, but you nitpick and make it seem like we don't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</feedings>

Edited September 27, 2013 by NeverSummer