Jump to content

Does the caching rules/system need updating?


crazycaren

Recommended Posts

Hi

There are a number of parts of the geocaching rules and website design that make sense for a new activity, but perhaps could use a review since this has become a mature hobby, at least in my part of the world.

 

In Victoria, BC, Canada, we are saturated with caches. There's at least 1000 within a 30min drive. There are ones that have been around for 10+ years. There is a thriving and vibrant community the puts out and finds caches and holds events. This is wonderful! I would call this a mature, rather than new or uncertain hobby.

 

Probably because of human nature, many people would rather put out a new cache than restock or even just maintain an old one. Swag & log books are often degraded, rusty, moldy or missing entirely.

 

Also, people have placed caches and then moved onto other activities, abandoning their caches.

 

Here are some examples of the current geocaching design that may be worth changing.

 

I hope other people will discuss these and their own suggestions for improving our game.

 

1. How to log that a cache needs maintenance

First you log your find, then you have to go and make an additional log for needs maintenance, and then the system asks you if you're sure.

 

People seem reluctant to post these logs. Perhaps an easier system, like the one used for favor points, would help. People will still be reluctant, but lowering the barrier to posting the log couldn't hurt.

 

2. Needs archive

The website system again asks for confirmation that you want to archive a cache. To me this was probably part of trying to ensure caches were available, but now, it could be streamlined.

 

It's very difficult to have a cache archived if the cache owner has left the community. Again, probably useful when geocaching was new but 15 years on and 2 millions caches later, perhaps we can rethink this.

 

3. General quality of caches

As I mentioned above, cache containers and contents degrade over the years, people are reluctant to post maintenance logs, people leave the game, and there's no where to put out new caches.

 

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?

I would say 5 years and then it has to be removed. Since the CO would be asked to remove it, they would have the first crack at replacing it. If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

 

By the way, I love geocaching. But sometimes the quality of caches bugs me.

 

CC

Link to comment

All this is unnecessary. We already have a system in place that allows us to alert the owner that their cache requires maintenance (while also alerting the community that there's an issue), and allows us to alert the reviewer that a cache requires a higher level of intervention.

 

If a cache owner is no longer active their cache will naturally degrade until someone logs Needs Maintenance against it, and if they don't respond someone logs Needs Archived, and the reviewer investigates. If people are reluctant to post NM and NA the solution is to make it clear that such logs are acceptable rather than introducing a new system that people will still be reluctant to use.

 

Personally I'd rename Needs Maintenance to Needs Owner Attention and Needs Archived to Needs Reviewer Attention but ultimately it's just semantics. Proposing that every cache have a finite lifespan because people aren't using the tools that already exist makes no sense.

 

For what it's worth there's a cache in an area I like that's still in good shape despite the owner having not logged in for at least four years. The cache remains in good condition so there's no need to archive it. If it starts to attract NM logs it will most likely get archived fairly quickly because someone will (reasonably) log NA on the basis the owner hasn't logged in for years, and the reviewer will disable it and later archive it for non-maintenance.

 

ETA: If we want to improve the quality of caches we need to encourage people to place hides that will last a long time, and insisting that every so many years the cache is removed will only encourage people placing caches for the short term. Also, if a cache needs to be replaced every five years that still does nothing to address the "me too" approach of the transient cacher who finds a few caches, hides a couple of caches, has moved on to the Next Big Thing within six months, leaving 4 years and 6 months before any automated system registers he isn't responding to the request to renew his cache. During that time the existing system will have seen the cache archived for non-maintenance, and if it isn't archived for non-maintenance it's presumably because the cache was sufficiently good that it's still in good order, in which case it doesn't need to be archived.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

All this is unnecessary. We already have a system in place that allows us to alert the owner that their cache requires maintenance (while also alerting the community that there's an issue), and allows us to alert the reviewer that a cache requires a higher level of intervention.

 

I agree that is the current system. It just isn't working as you describe in this area. I frequently come upon crappy, degraded caches. Some CO's have 1/3d of their caches listed as needs maintenance. The caches persist.

 

Oh, and I see the time-out thing as in addition to the current system. A fall-back.

Edited by crazycaren
Link to comment

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?

I would say 5 years and then it has to be removed. Since the CO would be asked to remove it, they would have the first crack at replacing it. If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to put a time limit on well maintained caches that do not result in any problems.

 

I know so many really old, but beautiful caches that I prefer over 95% of the new caches. I'm glad that a few caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCG1VR_grossofen?guid=320d836b-4975-4d82-b161-8ab8c30a5f75

still exist. The treasure here is of course the location and not what might be contained in the container.

 

I would not want to put out new caches close to the locations where I have placed caches that still are fine. That would make no sense at all to me.

For me it is about showing certain locations and not about offering others the chance to quickly increase their find count.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Gotta concur with t.t. on this. I agree that there is a problem with cache maintenance, but the current system can work well if people would just use it. The only things I see wrong with the current method is that finders are too reluctant to be honest in the cache logs and FAR too hesitant to log NM's and NA's (I like t.t.'s log type renaming suggestion) and TPTB are at times far too slow at taking action on NA's.

 

I have discussed with other locals, and have mentioned in these forums, that perhaps we need another cadre of volunteers. These folks would screen caches with numerous DNFs, NMs, and NAs to take action on them to free reviewers from most of this task. This level of volunteers would look for caches in their assigned areas, under the guidance of their area's reviewer, looking for caches in trouble or that are ready to be archived. They could handle everything from all the initial communication attempts with owners to get the caches fixed up to, ultimately, archival if necessary. But any situations that are questionable, complex, or contentious would get referred to the reviewer for the decision and, of course, any decisions could be appealed as they are now.

 

Just in my home area (relatively small considering our cache density) I have nearly 100 caches of questionable status bookmarked and I know many of these have several DNFs, more than a few NM's, and some have anywhere from 1 to 3 NA's. When expanded across a larger area this can be quite a lot for the reviewers to deal with and still keep up with their priority of publishing new caches, much less have a life of their own. Maybe they could use some assistance in this regard?

Link to comment

In Victoria, BC, Canada, we are saturated with caches

 

In Moscow, Russia we have really few caches. There are about 220 hides within the 3 hours drive. Most of our caches are less than 1 years old. There's a small and rather low-active community. See, our situations are quite different. What is good for your local geocaching atmosphere may influence the game badly around here. For instance, the idea of putting 5 years as a maximum cache life term sounds not so good.

Link to comment

According to my stats I have logged 54 NMs over the years, and 15 NAs.

 

Here's a tip - if there's already an NM, and the cache hasn't been fixed, post another NM. In my area (Ontario) the reviewers periodically do a sweep and caches with 3 (I believe that's the magic number) or more NMs will get a Reviewer Note, followed by an NA if there's no response from the owner in a month or 2.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

In Victoria, BC, Canada, we are saturated with caches. There's at least 1000 within a 30min drive.

Compared to many areas, that is not dense/saturated.

 

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?

I would say 5 years and then it has to be removed. Since the CO would be asked to remove it, they would have the first crack at replacing it.

By far, at least in my experience, the older caches are way better than the current junk being thrown out. This is backwards logic.

 

If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

That's just plain theft. The container belongs to the original CO, and only the original CO. You don't seem to be using that lawn mower beside your house, maybe I should just come take it to clean up the area. This is no different. You also forget that there are multiple listing sites. Just because this gc site doesn't meet the standards of the CO doesn't mean the others won't.

Link to comment

If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

That's just plain theft. The container belongs to the original CO, and only the original CO. You don't seem to be using that lawn mower beside your house, maybe I should just come take it to clean up the area. This is no different. You also forget that there are multiple listing sites. Just because this gc site doesn't meet the standards of the CO doesn't mean the others won't.

 

The way I work around it....

  1. I post the NA on the abandoned cache
  2. I put a Watch on the cache
  3. Reviewer archives it after 2 months with no response from owner
  4. I pick up what's left of the container (so it doesn't give the game a black eye) and put it in my garage
  5. I leave a note on the cache page explaining that the cache has been removed and in my possession and will keep until day-month-year
  6. I give the owner 2 months to contact me to have the cache returned
  7. No one has ever contacted me to get their defunct container back

I list some of my caches on 2 sites. I include that information in my cache/letterbox and on my listing. And I regularly check my email for messages posted to my cache listings. If a CO wants to keep their cache active they need to be responsive and responsible.

Link to comment

All this is unnecessary. We already have a system in place that allows us to alert the owner that their cache requires maintenance (while also alerting the community that there's an issue), and allows us to alert the reviewer that a cache requires a higher level of intervention.

 

I agree that is the current system. It just isn't working as you describe in this area. I frequently come upon crappy, degraded caches. Some CO's have 1/3d of their caches listed as needs maintenance. The caches persist.

 

Oh, and I see the time-out thing as in addition to the current system. A fall-back.

 

So if you come upon "crappy, degraded caches" log Needs Maintenance and if the owner does nothing for a month or so then log Needs Archived. Problem solved.

 

If the owner can't get out to fix the cache within a month there's no reason why they can't write a note against it and disable it until they can get out.

Link to comment

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?

I would say 5 years and then it has to be removed. Since the CO would be asked to remove it, they would have the first crack at replacing it. If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

 

In my immediate neighbourhood I am surrounded by beautiful urban parkland, right on Lake Ontario. I have lived here for over six years and had placed a couple of caches. There were also a few other geocachers who had hidden some too. There was plenty of room for more caches, but for some reason no one ever placed any more during that six years. However, it is such a great destination that over the last year I have placed a few more, each one a bit different in terms of location, container, difficulty and terrain and they seem to be well received by the active geocachers around here. This is not a 'power trail' but rather a great destination with lots of variety ranging from ammo cans to nanos. Unfortunately, now there isn't any more space for new hides.

 

While I believe that the guideline about cache permanence is good, I also don't think that there needs to be a time limit placed on existing geocaches. In the past, in the spirit of sharing good spots with newbies, I have archived viable geocaches to open up an area.

 

I don't feel particularly territorial about 'owning' the parkland around my home. Rather than archiving these caches on a timetable, I would rather have a new geocacher, (i.e. someone who has joined the hobby since I started placing these caches) that lived in this neighbourhood approach me with an idea for a new cache that would be different/better than mine, I would readily consider archiving some of them to make room for new ideas and to encourage participation in the hobby.

 

As a thought, perhaps an attribute could be created that would become active, if I selected it, after 12 months, and would be searchable by a premium member for caches/owners who would be open to archiving a cache to open up a spot for a new idea.

Link to comment

Couldn't disagree more. I noticed you haven't cached away from home much. Those of us who do travel and cache will often seek out the older caches in the area because they tend to bring you to the spots worth visiting. If a cache isn't being maintained you can post the NM log. Is it really that hard to post a quick second log? On the caches that aren't being maintained and really should be archived you post a NA log. Are you telling us that your local reviewers won't pull the trigger once a NA log gets posted? I find that hard to believe.

Link to comment
1. How to log that a cache needs maintenance

First you log your find, then you have to go and make an additional log for needs maintenance, and then the system asks you if you're sure.

 

People seem reluctant to post these logs. Perhaps an easier system, like the one used for favor points, would help. People will still be reluctant, but lowering the barrier to posting the log couldn't hurt.

This sounds similar to an earlier suggestion to replace the "Needs Maintenance" log type with a checkbox for "Needs Maintenance" when posting other log types (Finds, Notes, etc.).

 

It's very difficult to have a cache archived if the cache owner has left the community.
That doesn't match my experience. In the cases I'm familiar with where there were problems with a cache and the owner was no longer active, all I (or someone else) needed to do was post the NA log. Then a volunteer reviewer gave the CO a month to respond, and after that month passed without response, the volunteer reviewer archived the cache.

 

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?
Why should someone be forced to archive a perfectly good cache, just because it has been active for 2 years, or 5 years, or 7 years? One of my Favorites has been around for more than 8 years. It's great to be able to recommend it to others, and people still talk about it at events. Why should it be archived just to free up space for new caches?

 

And what would be the point of having someone simply relist a cache that has exceeded your time limit? Other than to allow numbers-oriented geocachers to earn another smiley, of course...

 

Once upon a time, the guidelines stated that the goals of the saturation guideline were "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area". IMHO, that's still a good idea.

 

Go find new places to hide caches. The area around here is more saturated that the area where you are, and yet people still find places to hide new caches.

Link to comment

All this is unnecessary. We already have a system in place that allows us to alert the owner that their cache requires maintenance (while also alerting the community that there's an issue), and allows us to alert the reviewer that a cache requires a higher level of intervention.

 

I agree that is the current system. It just isn't working as you describe in this area. I frequently come upon crappy, degraded caches. Some CO's have 1/3d of their caches listed as needs maintenance. The caches persist.

 

Oh, and I see the time-out thing as in addition to the current system. A fall-back.

 

I think the system is fine if people would grow a pair of balls and not be afraid to mark a cache as needing maintenance. What's the big deal about marking a cache like that? As a cache owner (1 now and a couple that I had adopted out years ago), I rely on those postings. Those will get my attention more so than a statement hidden amongst a found log that says log is wet or something. It doesn't hurt my feelings one bit.

 

I would rather see them limit the number of caches that someone could place. Seriously, there are people with hundreds of owned caches. Not saying that they can't maintain them, but it does take the fun out of it when someone hides a hundred caches in used pill bottles under parking lot light skirts almost every 528 feet. Maybe someone else out there could do a better hide within that 528 feet. Or maybe that a cache owner can not have a cache within a certain distance of one of their own caches. Lengthen out the 528 feet to 5280 feet. Meaning I can't place a cache within a mile of another cache I own.

Link to comment

I agree with you that the game has matured, and that the focus could now shift in some ways. I'm just not sure about how that shift should happen. :)

 

10 years ago, there weren't as many defunct, abandoned caches as now. I agree with making it easy to post NM or NA. I'm not certain, though, that anything needs to change mechanically; it's more people's attitudes that need changing. For example, posting a NM or NA on caches that need it shouldn't result in someone accusing you of being the Cache Police, but it sometimes does.

 

On the other hand, we need to be careful to realize that just because a cache is old and the owner has disappeared doesn't mean the cache should be archived. See the thread around here somewhere, "A Tale of Two Caches." There's been some interesting discussion in there about absentee owners, community maintenance, and exactly when a cache merits a NA.

Link to comment

I really appreciate all the replies telling me what to do. As if I don't post NM logs. I do. Although usually I remove all the garbage and restock the containers with whatever they need. I post NM logs when I don't have extra stuff with me or the container itself is compromised.

 

I restock my own caches with new swag and whatever else they need every 6 mo to a year.

 

But I'm not interested in checking on every cache to make sure it's OK. I don't want to be a cache-cop.

 

If people don't post NM or NA logs, we should change the system so that it works as intended. Saying people should just post those logs, if they don't already, is a was of forum space. Don't try to change people's behaviour, it doesn't work. We have to accept them for who they are.

 

If you don't like the time-out idea, then what I'd like to here from you are other ideas that take into account how people actually use or don't use the system as it exists now. And the bulk of the players, not just the keeners.

 

Interestingly, no one disagreed with the phenomenon of degraded caches and lost owners.

Link to comment

 

1. How to log that a cache needs maintenance

First you log your find, then you have to go and make an additional log for needs maintenance, and then the system asks you if you're sure.

 

People seem reluctant to post these logs. Perhaps an easier system, like the one used for favor points, would help. People will still be reluctant, but lowering the barrier to posting the log couldn't hurt.

How can it be easier? One log for found it. One log for NA/NM. They are not mutually exclusive-that means because you are logging a NM/NA does not mean you found it.

2. Needs archive

The website system again asks for confirmation that you want to archive a cache. To me this was probably part of trying to ensure caches were available, but now, it could be streamlined.

 

It's very difficult to have a cache archived if the cache owner has left the community. Again, probably useful when geocaching was new but 15 years on and 2 millions caches later, perhaps we can rethink this.

I don't see how having the CO present or not affects how easy it is for the cache to get archived. Even caches with missing owners still get the note giving the CO a chance to fix it. Or at least that's how my reviewer does it(who happens to be from BC)

3. General quality of caches

As I mentioned above, cache containers and contents degrade over the years, people are reluctant to post maintenance logs, people leave the game, and there's no where to put out new caches.

 

How about having time limits on caches? 2 years, 5 years, 7 years?

I would say 5 years and then it has to be removed. Since the CO would be asked to remove it, they would have the first crack at replacing it. If the CO doesn't respond then a flag could be posted at that location that it needs removal. If someone wants to put a cache near there, then they have to remove the old one.

 

 

Quality of the cache and how long it has been out are not equal. There are always new cachers to find those old caches. I've had my own caches not even last until they get published, and I've found old caches that are good as they where when they got placed. You said;

In Victoria, BC, Canada, we are saturated with caches. There's at least 1000 within a 30min drive.

So you really don't have to worry about running out of caches to find. And even though I've never been there I know that number has to be higher-in Medicine Hat, AB there is about 1000 within a 15 minute drive.

Link to comment

People seem reluctant to post these logs. Perhaps an easier system, like the one used for favor points, would help. People will still be reluctant, but lowering the barrier to posting the log couldn't hurt.

In my area, problems are reported through NMs and NAs, and caches in bad shape are fairly rare. So why are the cachers in your area reluctant to post them? Do you really think it's because it isn't easy enough? My guess would be that ease of use isn't the issue. I think it's much more likely that they either don't realize that it's up to them to post NMs and NAs, or they're worried about the owner's reaction if they post them. In either case, I think that's what you should work on. I don't think changing the user interface will make any difference.

 

Furthermore, I like that the system forces you to log specifically that a cache needs maintenance, and insists you write something about why. When someone gives a cache a favorite point, their reasons might be vague or hard to explain, so it's fine to leave them free to explain the reasons or not when they check the favorite box. But when they say a cache needs maintenance, I want them to be quite explicit about why it needs maintenance, and having NM as a separate log type forces that.

 

Oh, by the way, a couple times now you've said things that make me suspect that you feel restocking is an important and required part of cache maintenance. It isn't.

Link to comment
Interestingly, no one disagreed with the phenomenon of degraded caches and lost owners.

For me, it's because I agree wholeheartedly with your observation.

Odd thing is, at least in my area, the majority of those degraded caches and lost owners started - and in most cases ended, within or long before your minimum two year time limit.

Seems the older hides are the ones still doing fine.

- Go figure...

 

Unfortunately, as I don't do C&Ds and similar, what amounts (to me) as lame hides, I can't be the one to place NM/NA on them.

- That'd be improper as well as impolite.

Many that do hit 'em, could care less what condition they're in, as long as they got that smiley.

- Just have to wait for one who cares and eventually it's removed from play.

It's not always immediate, but then it really doesn't need to be.

Link to comment

For example, posting a NM or NA on caches that need it shouldn't result in someone accusing you of being the Cache Police, but it sometimes does.

 

I agree that being labelled a 'cache cop' is what stops many people from posting an NM/NA.

 

Also, COs that flip out when an NA is posted is also a reason some people are reluctant to post more NAs. And, posting an NA on a cacher you have met can be awkward, especially if they are active but slacking in their responsibilities (not only to the physical cache but to the cache listing).

 

Personally, I see the NM and NA as a community service. And I agree with woodsters, as a CO I like the NM log because it grabs my attention.

Link to comment

Interestingly, no one disagreed with the phenomenon of degraded caches and lost owners.

 

I could not care less if a owner is lost if a cache is perfectly fine.

 

I also do not care at all about the contents of a cache container and I do not put any swag at all in my cache containers. So someone like you might come along and talk about a degraded cache because it is empty even though there never has been swag into those caches.

 

What is important to me is that caches provide me with a nice walk, are findable and that the log book and the container are in proper condition.

I do not care about anything else, neither as my own caches are regarded nor caches owned by others.

 

If caches really need maintenance (this does not include no or no nice swag), then writing NM logs works reasonably well in my area.

 

If it does not work in your area, that could maybe a topic at a local event or a in a local forum. Have you tried that approach?

 

Setting up a time limit will effect well maintained caches and caches that have an issue alike? Does that really make sense?

To me your post rather sounds like "I would like to find new caches within a very small area and have already found all of them."

 

For me a beautiful old caches I have already found is of higher value as a new one that I have not found but which cannot beat the old one.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Rather than looking at the range of maintenance that owners may engage in (or in how long a cache owner may remain involved in geocaching), I see the problem more of the range of expectations that cache hunters have. Some may be expecting everyone to be the type of cache owner that checks on caches periodically and who responds to needs maintenance requests quickly. Others understand that geocaching is a game and not the most important thing in life. They understand some people quit the game who may have left caches around and that others are still playing but are unable get to every cache that needs maintenance on demand.

 

For many people, the expection is that a certain percentage of geocaches are going to be in less than tiptop shape. With that accpeptance the need to report every cache that needs maintenance goes down. Others who report every minor propblem are seen as being a bit obsessive about a silly game, perhap putting their own ideal of cache maintenace ahead of what other might find adequate. There has to be a balance somewhere. In every case, eventually someone will post that NM or NA log and the caches will get taken care of. The pace may seem too slow for some people and too quick for some cache owners who feels they would eventually get to the cache on their own time.

Link to comment

Another rant about caching here? Since you ranted about all the micros in East Sooke park, I haven't seen you place any good-sized caches of your own out there, even though there is lots of space available. Instead of agonizing about the quality of other people's caches, how about placing some good quality caches of your own and/or helping out with caches as you go along.

 

I went out the other day and found alot of wet caches. The containers were good quality lock n locks, so I don't blame the cache owners. This is just something that happens in our climate. Some how moisture gets in, by condensation or whatever. I bring a towel along and dry out caches as I go, making sure the seal is clean. I remove rusty or moldy stuff, throw in some dessicant and sometimes add new swag or logbooks. I bring a roll of flagging tape too. Sometimes a piece of flagging tape is missing or needed and it's a helluva lot easier for me to take a few minutes if I'm already there than have the cache owner drive across town. I don't always do this, but I try to do it as much as I can. All this sounds like alot of work, but it isn't, really. It takes only a few minutes at each cache and quite often the cache is fine and doesn't need anything.

 

I agree there are people who place caches when they are not maintaining their old ones. Many of us find that very annoying :rolleyes: , but there doesn't seem much to be done. All we can do is to post Needs Archive requests when the cache goes missing and help out by cleaning up caches as we go.

 

1) I disagree that our area is saturated with caches. There is still tons of space, you just have to look. Look harder. <_<

 

2) I disagree with the proposal caches should be archived after 5 years. It actually kind of offends me that you say that because I put alot into my caches and intend to keep many of them going for a long time.

 

3) I disagree that it's hard to get a cache archived. Our reviewer is very responsive. If the cache is missing or in really bad shape, she will archive it.

 

4) For heavens sake, stop whining there are no places to hide new caches. There will be 300 new caches published this Saturday. Look harder.

Link to comment

Some may be expecting everyone to be the type of cache owner that checks on caches periodically

Yep, that would be me. That and decent cords are my only expectations.

 

I agree.

 

I expect that people who take on the responsibility of cache ownership agree to the guidelines

....http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

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.

 

...http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=57...

 

  • Replace the container if the current one is not holding up in its environment.
  • Make sure that that your container is watertight and that the contents are free from debris.
  • If any of the geocache contents are wet, dry them off or replace them.
  • Check that there is enough space left in your logbook for many more entries.
  • If winter is approaching, make sure you include a pencil in your geocache since the ink in pens can freeze.
  • If your geocache will not be accessible due to seasonal weather conditions, note this on the geocache page.
  • Verify the Trackables that are listed in your geocache. Those that are listed in the online inventory but are no longer physically in the cache can be marked as "missing" by using the appropriate link on the Trackable's page.

Link to comment
If people don't post NM or NA logs, we should change the system so that it works as intended. Saying people should just post those logs, if they don't already, is a was of forum space. Don't try to change people's behaviour, it doesn't work. We have to accept them for who they are.

 

If you don't like the time-out idea, then what I'd like to here from you are other ideas that take into account how people actually use or don't use the system as it exists now. And the bulk of the players, not just the keeners.

 

Interestingly, no one disagreed with the phenomenon of degraded caches and lost owners.

 

So because people don't use the existing system the answer is to introduce a new system? Why will the people who won't log NM now suddenly log NM under a new system?

 

The time-out idea is just wrong. The caches that stand the test of time don't need to be archived even if the owners disappear. The problem is the people with the attention span of a goldfish who try a new game, find a couple of caches, have their "me, me, me too" moment and rush out to hide caches but can't be bothered to do it properly, with the result that we see takeaway containers that crack within a couple of weeks of being placed and clip-lock boxes with the lids broken off. If a cache is broken within a month and the owner has already lost interest by then, what benefit does a 5-year timeout offer? The cache will long since have been archived by then.

Link to comment
If people don't post NM or NA logs, we should change the system so that it works as intended. Saying people should just post those logs, if they don't already, is a was of forum space. Don't try to change people's behaviour, it doesn't work. We have to accept them for who they are.

 

If you don't like the time-out idea, then what I'd like to here from you are other ideas that take into account how people actually use or don't use the system as it exists now. And the bulk of the players, not just the keeners.

In order for "the system" to work as intended, we would all need to do our part.

The "bulk" of the players may well go about their merry way, with little thought of the hide other than the smiley they accrued and, "on to the next...".

If they aren't using the system now, doubtful they'll bother with another.

As you say, "Don't try to change people's behaviour, it doesn't work. We have to accept them for who they are."

- Well, the system can't fix itself...

Unfortunately and as usual then, it's up to the responsible players to take up any slack.

Isn't it like that in most aspects in life?

Why would it be any different in this hobby?

 

Edited 'cause the name was weird...

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment

The system doesn't need to change, attitudes do. Cache owners need to stop taking NMs and NAs as a personal insult and finders shouldn't have to fear the wrath of the CO, and sometimes the community if they post a NA/NM

 

Agreed! I remember many moons ago that it was promoted here that we help out others with their caches. That if we come across a cache with wet contents, that we try to dry it out as much as possible. If it needs a new log, we put one in it. If it needs a new baggy to keep things dry, we put on it. I have a bag (small backpack type) that I carry with me when caching. Inside it is extra printed logs, tape, and a couple sizes of small baggies. If I come across a cache that needs a little TLC, then I will help it out as much as possible. I will let the cache owner know what I did. That way, they can decide to go and fix it to their liking or let it go the way I took care of it. If there is a cache and the owner seems to not be around anymore, then I see no reason for the cache to not go on. The community can help take care of it. It makes no difference whose name is labeled with it. Now perhaps if the owner is not responding to the reviewers, then maybe they should be able to make it to where it is adopted out to another active cacher. Then the cacher can replace the cache as they feel needed.

 

But it's all about community in my book. I have a couple caches up in massachusetts that I placed over 10 years ago and adopted them out to another cacher when I left 10 years ago. They are still going strong. I often go and check their pages online to see how they are going and will often leave a note expressing how I am happy people are still enjoying those caches.

Link to comment

The system doesn't need to change, attitudes do. Cache owners need to stop taking NMs and NAs as a personal insult and finders shouldn't have to fear the wrath of the CO, and sometimes the community if they post a NA/NM

Bingo.

 

It's hard at times as a cache owner to take criticism. Thankfully, I learned early on to have a thick enough skin to use the NM logs (or even just notes or subtle nudges in a found it log) to make my caches better.

 

Sometimes I feel like the NM/NA angst comes down to owners having the feeling that they couldn't possibly have it wrong. The mentality of the game has changed as it has grown, and it needs to settle back on the guidelines. NM and NA logs are not a personal insult. They are tools used to keep caches listed on this site on the up-and-up.

Link to comment

The system doesn't need to change, attitudes do. Cache owners need to stop taking NMs and NAs as a personal insult and finders shouldn't have to fear the wrath of the CO, and sometimes the community if they post a NA/NM

If there is a cache and the owner seems to not be around anymore, then I see no reason for the cache to not go on. The community can help take care of it. It makes no difference whose name is labeled with it. Now perhaps if the owner is not responding to the reviewers, then maybe they should be able to make it to where it is adopted out to another active cacher. Then the cacher can replace the cache as they feel needed.

 

Except that only the owner can log things like "performed maintenance" and "enabled cache". If the community is constantly going to the reviewer to act as a proxy owner maybe it's better that the cache is archived and another one listed.

 

But it's all about community in my book. I have a couple caches up in massachusetts that I placed over 10 years ago and adopted them out to another cacher when I left 10 years ago. They are still going strong. I often go and check their pages online to see how they are going and will often leave a note expressing how I am happy people are still enjoying those caches.

 

If caches are adopted out they can live on, so the new owner can take care of the maintenance issues (even if that just means posting the logs when someone else has done the maintenance)

 

The system doesn't need to change, attitudes do. Cache owners need to stop taking NMs and NAs as a personal insult and finders shouldn't have to fear the wrath of the CO, and sometimes the community if they post a NA/NM

Bingo.

 

It's hard at times as a cache owner to take criticism. Thankfully, I learned early on to have a thick enough skin to use the NM logs (or even just notes or subtle nudges in a found it log) to make my caches better.

 

Sometimes I feel like the NM/NA angst comes down to owners having the feeling that they couldn't possibly have it wrong. The mentality of the game has changed as it has grown, and it needs to settle back on the guidelines. NM and NA logs are not a personal insult. They are tools used to keep caches listed on this site on the up-and-up.

 

I remember someone in another area of the forums who periodically railed against the people who wrote NM on his caches, asking if they really thought he had nothing else to do with his life than go round fixing every little perceived problem with his caches. A few of us tried to get through to him that NM is a notification that his cache needs some attention rather than a public slanging match telling him and the world that he's no good as a cache owner and is failing in his duties. He was clearly regarding NM as being the equivalent of shouting "hey, you're useless, get on with fixing this cache RIGHT NOW" while we were trying to get him to see that it is more like someone saying "hey, don't know if you knew this but your cache is leaking, check it out when you have a minute"

Link to comment

Except that only the owner can log things like "performed maintenance" and "enabled cache". If the community is constantly going to the reviewer to act as a proxy owner maybe it's better that the cache is archived and another one listed.

 

Other cachers can leave notes on the log stating that they fixed the issue. As I mentioned, eventually the cache can be adopted out. If the original cache owner is not around anymore, but the cache is a popular and good one, then I see no reason to archive it and have it gone. After all, who is going to physically go remove the cache? Leave the cache there and put another responsible party on it.

 

And if the community keeps the caches going, then it should not really be much of an issue. Cachers should take some responsibility. Just as you are supposed to leave something of equal or greater value if you take something out of a cache, we should all leave a cache in as good or better condition than we found it. Just my honest opinion.

Edited by woodsters
Link to comment

He was clearly regarding NM as being the equivalent of shouting "hey, you're useless, get on with fixing this cache RIGHT NOW" while we were trying to get him to see that it is more like someone saying "hey, don't know if you knew this but your cache is leaking, check it out when you have a minute"

 

I have never understood a NM log in the sense "you are useless", but in most cases NM logs are superfluous as it regards my own caches as the message that e.g. the log book is damp is also mentioned in the "found it" log and I read every single word of every log written for my caches and getting the same message twice within a few minutes sometimes feels a bit annoying for me. I feel somehow punished for those cache owners that do not read every log entry and only look at those of a special type. I do understand that NM logs are valuable for some cachers, for me they aren't and I preferred the system without them. That does not diminish the importance I put on maintenance - it is just that I do not like to be told things more than once without any necessity. It also makes me feel that the message is that normal write notes, did not found and found it logs do not need to be read.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

He was clearly regarding NM as being the equivalent of shouting "hey, you're useless, get on with fixing this cache RIGHT NOW" while we were trying to get him to see that it is more like someone saying "hey, don't know if you knew this but your cache is leaking, check it out when you have a minute"

 

I have never understood a NM log in the sense "you are useless", but in most cases NM logs are superfluous as it regards my own caches as the message that e.g. the log book is damp is also mentioned in the "found it" log and I read every single word of every log written for my caches and getting the same message twice within a few minutes sometimes feels a bit annoying for me. I feel somehow punished for those cache owners that do not read every log entry and only look at those of a special type. I do understand that NM logs are valuable for some cachers, for me they aren't and I preferred the system without them. That does not diminish the importance I put on maintenance - it is just that I do not like to be told things more than once without any necessity. It also makes me feel that the message is that normal write notes, did not found and found it logs do not need to be read.

 

Cezanne

 

I read every log on everyone of our caches, but I don't always react to minor problems in a found log. I had an experience once where someone mentioned a damp log in one of our caches - just a quick mention in their found log. I had recently replaced the old Rubbermaid with a new authentic Lock n Lock so I thought it was rather odd that the logbook would be damp. I figured that the person got their cache finds mixed up. The next 3 logs didn't mention anything about a damp log and damaged contents. But a couple of months later I got an NM that said the logbook was moldy. That got my attention. In my experience when someone posts an NM they are serious about the problem and are not mixing up their cache finds.

 

Turned out it was in really rough shape. Likely a tab hadn't been closed and someone put candy in the cache. Then the moisture was locked in for a couple of months resulting in a sticky moldy mess. The NM log to me says there really is a substantial maintenance issue.

Link to comment

I agree that being labelled a 'cache cop' is what stops many people from posting an NM/NA.

 

People shouldn't be afraid of this. If a cache is obviously missing or in bad shape, then likely the cache owner is no longer interested in geocaching and probably wouldn't care (or notice!) the NM/NA.

 

Please realize that in general, a NM is meant for the cache owner, not a reviewer. While some reviewers will do sweeps of caches that have the NM bit set on them, if a cache is obviously gone a NA is a pretty quick way to get the attention of a reviewer. If the reviewer looks at the cache and believes it needs help, it will usually get disabled and archived in about a month or so if no action is taken by the cache owner.

 

In some cases people post a NA because they couldn't find it and *think* it's missing. That's a good reason for posting your DNFs as well as a string of DNFs followed by a NA is more likely to be acted upon by a reviewer than a single NA with no history of other problems.

 

If you really are afraid of the cache cop label, you can always contact a local reviewer directly.

Link to comment

If you really are afraid of the cache cop label, you can always contact a local reviewer directly.

 

Tried this once with a problem cache where the active CO was not responding to NMs, I thought a 'reviewer note' might spur them to fix their cache. But the reviewer asked me to post an NA. I'm reluctant to post an NA on an active cacher because a geocacher once got angry, committed geocide and left about 20 caches in the wild to rot after I posted an NA.

 

 

Link to comment

If you really are afraid of the cache cop label, you can always contact a local reviewer directly.

 

Tried this once with a problem cache where the active CO was not responding to NMs, I thought a 'reviewer note' might spur them to fix their cache. But the reviewer asked me to post an NA. I'm reluctant to post an NA on an active cacher because a geocacher once got angry, committed geocide and left about 20 caches in the wild to rot after I posted an NA.

 

If a cacher geocided over the NA note, then they had issues unrelated to that note and would have geocided for some other reason anyway, such as they didn't like the tense in a log on their cache, or the length of a log, or the name of a cacher. I wouldn't be overly concerned that you were the cause.

Link to comment
I had an experience once where someone mentioned a damp log in one of our caches - just a quick mention in their found log. I had recently replaced the old Rubbermaid with a new authentic Lock n Lock so I thought it was rather odd that the logbook would be damp. I figured that the person got their cache finds mixed up. The next 3 logs didn't mention anything about a damp log and damaged contents. But a couple of months later I got an NM that said the logbook was moldy. That got my attention. In my experience when someone posts an NM they are serious about the problem and are not mixing up their cache finds.

 

You might be right. People are visiting too many caches per day and also the hiders of cache series can be blamed as well.

Personally, I try to be very considerate about logging and I certainly do not confuse caches and a NM log is of no higher value to me than a normal log.

 

If logs had still the same importance than they had 10 years ago, then I still think that NM logs would not be necessary at all.

If someone reports an issue in a log (regardless of the log type) about which I'm not sure, I ask for details. With my caches that works reasonably well as they are not the type of caches one usually visits 30 of which per day.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I agree that being labelled a 'cache cop' is what stops many people from posting an NM/NA.

 

People shouldn't be afraid of this. If a cache is obviously missing or in bad shape, then likely the cache owner is no longer interested in geocaching and probably wouldn't care (or notice!) the NM/NA.

It's not the necessarily the CO that's the problem...

 

We went to an event once, where most in the area are known for being very interested in the numbers.

I watched people get up and move to fill another table when they saw others entered.

A lady at the next table leaned over to CJ (my other 2/3rds) and whispered about some cache cop drama.

I got up and sat with them.

Even though she understood what I was doing, she was more than uncomfortable.

Many of the folks there she has on her PAF list , which has become a social thing playing phone games together, as well as asking for help.

I haven't been to one of their events since.

 

In social interaction, being ostracized by the community for doing the right thing, (I believe) is a bigger reason to not "get involved" than the little bother of a cranky or unresponsive CO.

Link to comment

If you really are afraid of the cache cop label, you can always contact a local reviewer directly.

 

Tried this once with a problem cache where the active CO was not responding to NMs, I thought a 'reviewer note' might spur them to fix their cache. But the reviewer asked me to post an NA. I'm reluctant to post an NA on an active cacher because a geocacher once got angry, committed geocide and left about 20 caches in the wild to rot after I posted an NA.

 

If a cacher geocided over the NA note, then they had issues unrelated to that note and would have geocided for some other reason anyway, such as they didn't like the tense in a log on their cache, or the length of a log, or the name of a cacher. I wouldn't be overly concerned that you were the cause.

 

Most of the time we reviewers in Ontario understand that cachers might be apprehensive to post a Needs Archived. An email sent privately to a reviewer should be handled confidentially when a public posting makes someone uncomfortable. Ultimately we should want issues brought to our attention so they can be addressed, instead of focusing on what procedure is used. Personally I think that Needs Archived logs should be public but anonymous (except to reviewers and Lackeys). I might suggest that and see if HQ thinks it would be beneficial.

 

Anyway, I will send a message to the rest of the Ontario team reminding them that we should accept either method without trying to influence.

 

:cool: CD

Link to comment
I read every log on everyone of our caches, but I don't always react to minor problems in a found log. I had an experience once where someone mentioned a damp log in one of our caches - just a quick mention in their found log. I had recently replaced the old Rubbermaid with a new authentic Lock n Lock so I thought it was rather odd that the logbook would be damp. I figured that the person got their cache finds mixed up. The next 3 logs didn't mention anything about a damp log and damaged contents. But a couple of months later I got an NM that said the logbook was moldy. That got my attention. In my experience when someone posts an NM they are serious about the problem and are not mixing up their cache finds.

 

Turned out it was in really rough shape. Likely a tab hadn't been closed and someone put candy in the cache. Then the moisture was locked in for a couple of months resulting in a sticky moldy mess. The NM log to me says there really is a substantial maintenance issue.

 

I had a similar experience recently. I received a NM log complaining that the log was covered in "black mold". I thought that was odd because it was an ammo box. I checked it out and it turned out that the logbook and contents were covered in mud. I can only guess that the contents were spilled on the ground at one point and a finder put everything back inside. No mention of it in the logs though.

Link to comment

The game is sloppy now. Gonna have to get use to it. It is a product of the size of the game. I don't like it, and will rant about it....but I'm getting burnt out on ranting and just simply will try to find better caches and place better. But that will come in time. I long realized the days of old are gone. At least I can say I was there and feel lucky and privileged to have been there as far back as 2002.

Link to comment

Personally I think that Needs Archived logs should be public but anonymous (except to reviewers and Lackeys).

I think that's a terrible idea. The last thing needed here is people thinking they can post whatever they want in NMs and NAs without putting their own reputations behind what they say.

 

I am very saddened to think that some COs react negatively to NMs and NAs -- and I thank my lucky stars I haven't run into anyone like that -- but it doesn't hurt for people to imagine the cache their writing about might be owned by someone with either a hot temper or a glass jaw and make sure to focus on being helpful rather than being critical. I think rather than encouraging people to act in secret to avoid upsetting anyone, we should be working on identifying any problem COs and getting them whatever help with social skills they might need. No one on either side should think that reacting poorly to problem reports is normal and accepted behavior.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with you, as a reviewer, from accommodating anyone that's concerned. I just don't like the idea of changing the procedures to accommodate obnoxious owners.

Link to comment

Except that only the owner can log things like "performed maintenance" and "enabled cache". If the community is constantly going to the reviewer to act as a proxy owner maybe it's better that the cache is archived and another one listed.

 

Other cachers can leave notes on the log stating that they fixed the issue. As I mentioned, eventually the cache can be adopted out. If the original cache owner is not around anymore, but the cache is a popular and good one, then I see no reason to archive it and have it gone. After all, who is going to physically go remove the cache? Leave the cache there and put another responsible party on it.

 

And if the community keeps the caches going, then it should not really be much of an issue. Cachers should take some responsibility. Just as you are supposed to leave something of equal or greater value if you take something out of a cache, we should all leave a cache in as good or better condition than we found it. Just my honest opinion.

 

Cachers can leave logs but the Needs Maintenance attribute remains until an Owner Maintenance is logged. So anyone filtering out caches that need maintenance will never see it, and in a busy location the logs showing the maintenance will soon disappear. The cache can't be adopted out without the owner's consent.

 

I don't have a problem with the community helping people maintain caches but draw the line at behaviour that enables those who just dump some old piece of junk out there and expect everyone else to look after it. It's one thing to drain water out of a cache or to replace a full log book or to add some tape to keep a magnet in place (assuming, of course, you have the required things with you). It's another thing entirely to replace a cracked takeaway box with a stronger box or make fundamental changes. A cacher who puts out decent caches won't need the entire box replaced (or will have a local reputation such that people are willing to help) while making such fundamental changes for new hiders or routine hiders of trash will merely convey and reinforce the lesson that you can put any old junk out there and someone else will step in and make it all good.

 

If a cache has fallen into disrepair and the owner isn't looking after it, archive it and the next willing cacher can throw it in the trash. When a cache is archived for non-maintenance there's plenty of warning so the cache owner has more than enough chance to go and retrieve their container if they are so inclined.

 

If the cache is in good order there's no need to archive it, as long as it remains in good order. If it starts to fall into disrepair (most caches will eventually fall into disrepair if the owner isn't around) then it can be archived and the spot opened for someone else to place a cache. If the spot was good enough for an ownerless cache to survive for any length of time chances are it's good enough for an active cacher to place another hide there.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

Personally I think that Needs Archived logs should be public but anonymous (except to reviewers and Lackeys).

I think that's a terrible idea. The last thing needed here is people thinking they can post whatever they want in NMs and NAs without putting their own reputations behind what they say.

 

I don't think it would apply to NMs. Personally, I haven't seen negative reaction (in my area) to NMs.

 

It's the NAs that sometimes get a CO angry, or make finders reluctant to post them. I personally think anonymous (except to reviewers and Lackeys) is a great idea. We can post NAs without worrying about awkward moments should we know, or meet up with deliquent COs. It may increase the number of NAs posted, which would give reviewers more work, but hopefully they won't mind the extra work to clean up the neglected caches. It may also decrease negativity at events when someone is ostracised for being a cache cop.

 

As a CO, if someone posts NAs maliciously I would report them to the reviewer. I wouldn't know the name, but the reviewer does.

 

Link to comment

We can post NAs without worrying about awkward moments should we know, or meet up with deliquent COs.

So let's look at what makes these moments awkward. One is that the CO's a jerk and thinks poorly of someone that files a legitimate request for a cache to be archived when it has a serious problem. As I say, I'm against changing the mechanism in a manner that suggests such behavior by a CO is something we should accept as normal.

 

The other reason such a moment might be awkward is because the archive request was marginal, unclear, or even wrong. I want people filing archive requests to worry about this kind of awkward moment so that they are sure they only report the facts they actually have and avoid lapsing into opinions, such as the worth of the CO and his ability to maintain caches, for example. Indeed, I want someone filing an archive request to imagine they're standing face to face with the owner so they think about how their log is going to be received.

 

Above all, when I meet the CO in real life, I want us to be able to have a rational discussion about the archive request. If we can't -- if it's awkward -- something's already wrong with our interaction that isn't fixed by him not knowing who I am.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...