Jump to content

Does the caching rules/system need updating?


crazycaren

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Often the problem is not between the CO and the person filing the NA. I've seen (and been targeted by) third parties over NA logs. I rarely post a NA these days as there are a few local players who will jump all over me as "the cache police" for pointing out that the cache is on private property or not maintained etc. Heck even make it Anonymous to everyone but the CO and the Reviewers and it would be better. Right now posting a NA in my area is certainly not worth it.

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.

 

It might just be semantics but I still think that renaming it to "Needs Reviewer Attention" would shift at least some of the focus.

 

"Needs Reviewer Attention" is merely a request for a reviewer to check out the cache, where it's easy to see why at least some people think "Needs Archived" has much more of a "this is trash, get rid of it" tone. Of course there will always be cachers who use the log vindictively and there will always be cache owners who regard anything less than glowing praise as some form of insult, but every little helps.

Link to comment

Often the problem is not between the CO and the person filing the NA. I've seen (and been targeted by) third parties over NA logs. I rarely post a NA these days as there are a few local players who will jump all over me as "the cache police" for pointing out that the cache is on private property or not maintained etc. Heck even make it Anonymous to everyone but the CO and the Reviewers and it would be better. Right now posting a NA in my area is certainly not worth it.

I'm even less interested in tolerating this kind of behavior from people that aren't involved. You're arguing that it's OK for them to be angry as long as they don't know they're angry with you. I claim that it's not OK for them to be angry to begin with, so we shouldn't allow them to bully us into acting in secret or not acting at all.

Link to comment

Often the problem is not between the CO and the person filing the NA. I've seen (and been targeted by) third parties over NA logs. I rarely post a NA these days as there are a few local players who will jump all over me as "the cache police" for pointing out that the cache is on private property or not maintained etc. Heck even make it Anonymous to everyone but the CO and the Reviewers and it would be better. Right now posting a NA in my area is certainly not worth it.

I'm even less interested in tolerating this kind of behavior from people that aren't involved. You're arguing that it's OK for them to be angry as long as they don't know they're angry with you. I claim that it's not OK for them to be angry to begin with, so we shouldn't allow them to bully us into acting in secret or not acting at all.

The bottom line is that people who get angry about a NM or NA log are doing so in blind regard for the guidelines. It's not like it is a personal attack. And, so long as the NA log is worded carefully with additional information/documentation is provided in the log if possible, the owner doesn't have much footing for their anger.

 

There are guidelines. We sign up for accounts and place caches after checking boxes that we have read and understand the guidelines. If a cache breaks the guidelines we have tools at all of our disposals to note any issues.

 

We can note different coordinates, maintenance issues, and reasons why a cache might need to be archived.

 

I just can't help but shake my head when it turns ugly about a NA log, and it is a clear violation of guidelines. It gets even more ugly when a cacher is still active, their caches are "crappy" (as others have started to quantify in other threads... <_< ), and there are issues that go unaddressed. When it isn't black-and-white for a NA log, owners should really take a deep breath and relax. It's feedback about the cache, and the goal should always be quality caches that are taken care of.

 

Bullying users into submission or secrecy over being "cache cops" (which I keep saying we all are anyway...or that we are supposed to be to help make sure caches are on the up and up...) is just plain wrong. And I will stand up against bullying in any form, and I don't think changing the name of the log or making it "hidden" should be options.

 

Just be sure that your NA log is clear about how the cache may be in conflict with the guidelines. Be specific when possible. Then it's a pretty easy case for Reviewers and Groundspeak appeals.

Link to comment

Often the problem is not between the CO and the person filing the NA. I've seen (and been targeted by) third parties over NA logs. I rarely post a NA these days as there are a few local players who will jump all over me as "the cache police" for pointing out that the cache is on private property or not maintained etc. Heck even make it Anonymous to everyone but the CO and the Reviewers and it would be better. Right now posting a NA in my area is certainly not worth it.

I'm even less interested in tolerating this kind of behavior from people that aren't involved. You're arguing that it's OK for them to be angry as long as they don't know they're angry with you. I claim that it's not OK for them to be angry to begin with, so we shouldn't allow them to bully us into acting in secret or not acting at all.

 

No, I am saying attack the idea not the person. Frankly there are people who will attack others NA logs regardless of the wording because of who posted it. Making it anonymous to third parties takes that drama out, but yes could empower the troll behind the keyboard just the same. What I said is that I am unlikely to ever post a NA log again, under he current system, based on my previous experiences around here. I will mention things in my found it or would not find it log and leave it at that.

Link to comment

OK, so clearly the time-out idea is a poor one! :) Heard

 

I wonder if having a tool-tip that explained when a NM and NA log are appropriate would be helpful for users? Clearly different people, even within this forum have different ideas as to appropriate cache standards. (To the person who said they put no swag in your cache, that isn't common here, but if you included that in the description I would certainly respect it. Otherwise I would likely add stuff.)

 

Also, it sounds like reviewers are given some guidelines as to the number of NMs or timelines or similar. Although not all reviewers may interpret them similarly. I think it would be helpful for those guidelines to be public, e.g. part of the FAQ or tool tip.

 

For example, perhaps a reviewer is only keying in on caches with 3 NM logs. But if a cache has a NM log, I wouldn't think to add another one because I would feel like that was being a nag.

 

thanks

Link to comment

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.

 

 

As I already said, drying and restocking is my approach as well. That's part of what I consider my contribution to the community.

Link to comment

Reviewers are obligated to review and respond appropriately to "Needs Archived" logs. The cache listing guidelines govern our response. The guideline relied on most often to justify the archival of a cache listing is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. The timeline from initial report to final archival varies at the discretion of the reviewer, based on their local community standards, the nature of the problem and even the time of year, among other considerations.

 

There is NO reviewer obligation to perform periodic reviews of caches that have a lot of DNF logs, "Needs Maintenance" logs, etc. The entire point of adding the Needs Maintenance log was to alert the cache owner without involving the reviewer. We are not notified of them and there are no magic rules, guidelines or formulas.

 

Some reviewers choose to give extra service back to their communities by doing periodic "sweeps" that look for disabled caches, listings with the NM attribute, caches with DNF's, etc. If your reviewer does this, thank them. If your reviewer does not do this, don't get mad, because they're not obligated.

 

I'm going very light on maintenance issues right now because of the frigid weather throughout my review territory. Come March, I'll bring the hammer down -- call it "spring cleanup" of the cache listings. At this time I'm concentrating on other issues like land manager relations, long-range planning and scrubbing the listings in my territory by marking long-lost trackables "missing" so they no longer appear in the cache's inventory.

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.

 

Yes, but why not? If a cache owner is not replying to communication (especially from reviewers), then after a time period it would be nice to offer it up for adoption. What's the difference of archiving it and letting someone else have the space? If someone can take a cache and update it, then by all means. Or perhaps cachers should try and contact the cache owner and ask them to adopt it.

 

 

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.

 

Yeah, but it's evident that not everyone is going to take care of what was once a decent cache. Just like you can't stop people from putting out those "piece of junk" caches you mentioned. This is not for every cache. This is for those caches that are in great locations and have given a good expierence, but may need a little TLC. I hate finding crappy unattended caches myself. One issue I have is that if you place a NM on a cache, that they are given a month to correct it. The cache owner is expected to disable it until they can fix it, but they don't. It could be something so simple as the log was completed or wet. If a cacher had a piece of paper to put in it to continue the log and a baggy to protect it, then it would make it to where that cache is in poor health for what could be a month. Personally. I think the time needs to be knocked down to at least half that time. If you place a cache that you can not get to in a week or so, then it's too far out for you and you shouldn't of placed it in the first place.

 

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.

Whats the difference of archiving it and throwing someones property in the trash than assigning it to a different person?

 

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.

 

I agree

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.

 

Normally a lot of it has to do with peoples lack of social skills. Either the person that gets mad doesn't know how to receive constructive criticism. Or people are afraid to give constructive criticism. In the long run, either of the two just hurts the activity of geocaching in the long run.

 

How about making it that if you place a NA on a cache, that you are exempt from taking the place if the cache does in fact get archived. I think that might take some of the unecessary NA's out of the equation. I know there are probably plenty of people will be quick to mark one NA to just get the spot at the instant of a little maintenance in order to get the great spot. I do think there should be a limit of the number of caches that you own. If you reach the max amount and want to place another one, then you need to archive one of your others. There's over 2 millions caches worldwide. Thats double of what it was 10 years. I've yet to see someone with 2 million finds yet. So there's plenty out there to search for.

Link to comment

Yes, but why not? If a cache owner is not replying to communication (especially from reviewers), then after a time period it would be nice to offer it up for adoption. What's the difference of archiving it and letting someone else have the space? If someone can take a cache and update it, then by all means.

 

It may be a legal issue. Geocaching.com is a listing service. If they allow adoption of caches that might be construed as ownership of the caches in their database. Ownership could get them into legal trouble.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I agreed with practically nothing the OP wrote. I guess we should just archive Mingo then too. I love getting old, historic caches and would hate to see good ones go. Apart from some who hide crappy caches (which can be a huge issue in most areas) a lot of the problem comes from those who don't post DNF logs. I swear that so many refuse to do so because the feel it is an indictment on their caching abilities. WRONG! Perhaps (if you are like me) many a cache will evade your glance, but frequently a missing cache goes unnoticed because no one logs the frownie face. As a CO, I like knowing that someone DNF'd my hide, sometimes because I am evil but mostly because I might give pause to go check on it, especially if it is an "easy" one. Of course, this assumes that all COs will do this but I still see multiple DNFs as a "warning sign" to COs.

Link to comment

I agreed with practically nothing the OP wrote. I guess we should just archive Mingo then too. I love getting old, historic caches and would hate to see good ones go. Apart from some who hide crappy caches (which can be a huge issue in most areas) a lot of the problem comes from those who don't post DNF logs. I swear that so many refuse to do so because the feel it is an indictment on their caching abilities. WRONG! Perhaps (if you are like me) many a cache will evade your glance, but frequently a missing cache goes unnoticed because no one logs the frownie face. As a CO, I like knowing that someone DNF'd my hide, sometimes because I am evil but mostly because I might give pause to go check on it, especially if it is an "easy" one. Of course, this assumes that all COs will do this but I still see multiple DNFs as a "warning sign" to COs.

 

One hint for COs that your cache might be missing is if it's been getting regular finds then suddenly things get quiet. Might be time to go have a look.

Link to comment

I agreed with practically nothing the OP wrote. I guess we should just archive Mingo then too. I love getting old, historic caches and would hate to see good ones go. Apart from some who hide crappy caches (which can be a huge issue in most areas) a lot of the problem comes from those who don't post DNF logs. I swear that so many refuse to do so because the feel it is an indictment on their caching abilities. WRONG! Perhaps (if you are like me) many a cache will evade your glance, but frequently a missing cache goes unnoticed because no one logs the frownie face. As a CO, I like knowing that someone DNF'd my hide, sometimes because I am evil but mostly because I might give pause to go check on it, especially if it is an "easy" one. Of course, this assumes that all COs will do this but I still see multiple DNFs as a "warning sign" to COs.

 

Don't get me wrong. I love old caches too. We have several here that are quite old and are still the original cache with the original log in the original spot and they are fantastic. But other than the location, Mingo has not been "Mingo" for a long time. I just don't see the significance or importance of a cache whose only claim to fame is a low GC number.

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?

While I disagree with almost every suggestion the OP made, including this one, technically, the process could be made easier. Personally, I write so few logs that pecking out a separate one to report a maintenance issue doesn't trouble me. But since you asked, imagine, rather than NM being a log type, how about making it a box you check, similar to the current favorites points box? That way, those folks too lazy to peck out a second log could simply check the box indicating the cache needed maintenance, when they posted their found it, DNF or note.

 

Do we need this change? I don't think so.

 

But it would make the process easier.

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.

 

Would CO's appreciate an email on the anniversary of each published cache saying how many years it has been out, if it has a NM or NA log, and gently reminding them of the above guidelines?

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.

All that's needed is a new reviewer. And since you volunteered....

 

:grin:

Link to comment

What do people think of this idea?

 

Yeah, but it's evident that not everyone is going to take care of what was once a decent cache. Just like you can't stop people from putting out those "piece of junk" caches you mentioned. This is not for every cache. This is for those caches that are in great locations and have given a good expierence, but may need a little TLC. I hate finding crappy unattended caches myself.

 

One issue I have is that if you place a NM on a cache, that they are given a month to correct it. The cache owner is expected to disable it until they can fix it, but they don't. It could be something so simple as the log was completed or wet. If a cacher had a piece of paper to put in it to continue the log and a baggy to protect it, then it would make it to where that cache is in poor health for what could be a month. Personally. I think the time needs to be knocked down to at least half that time. If you place a cache that you can not get to in a week or so, then it's too far out for you and you shouldn't of placed it in the first place.

Link to comment

All that's needed is a new reviewer. And since you volunteered....

 

:grin:

 

If you mean going and visiting every cache I've already found to check on them and post NM and NA logs, then no, I'm not volunteering for cache-cop.

 

If you mean volunteering as a reviewer for Groundspeak, then I think the situation is way more complicated. It has to do with what people expect from caches, what CO's expect of themselves, whether they do or do not post NM and NA logs, why they do not do so, reviewer guidelines, reviewer interpretations of guidelines, extra things people (cachers or reviewers or a community as a whole) do to help raise the quality of caches.

 

The main reviewer in our area is, I've been informed, great at responding to NA logs. Other people describe different experiences in other areas.

Edited by crazycaren
Link to comment

While I disagree with almost every suggestion the OP made, including this one, technically, the process could be made easier. Personally, I write so few logs that pecking out a separate one to report a maintenance issue doesn't trouble me. But since you asked, imagine, rather than NM being a log type, how about making it a box you check, similar to the current favorites points box? That way, those folks too lazy to peck out a second log could simply check the box indicating the cache needed maintenance, when they posted their found it, DNF or note.

 

Do we need this change? I don't think so.

 

But it would make the process easier.

I don't want anyone that's too lazy to type in a separate NM report to report that a cache needs maintenance. I want them to have to think about and take specific action to report why they think it needs maintenance. If they can't be bothered to do that, I don't care whether they vaguely think the cache might need some unspecified maintenance. The explicit, independent NM log forces them to consider the maintenance issue in isolation of their experiences in finding the cache. Just what I want.

 

So not only do I agree we don't need this change, I claim we don't want this change, either. It makes calling for maintenance so easy as to be pointless.

Link to comment

I'd like a person to explain why they posted a NM.

Checking a box and simply adding it to the log (without any explanation) isn't much help.

We respond with a note and no need for a NM, but if I got a NM without an explanation why, I would wait for another to say there was a problem.

We get NM placed instead of DNFs around here.

- Lotta folks very sure of themselves. :)

Link to comment

While I disagree with almost every suggestion the OP made, including this one, technically, the process could be made easier. Personally, I write so few logs that pecking out a separate one to report a maintenance issue doesn't trouble me. But since you asked, imagine, rather than NM being a log type, how about making it a box you check, similar to the current favorites points box? That way, those folks too lazy to peck out a second log could simply check the box indicating the cache needed maintenance, when they posted their found it, DNF or note.

 

Do we need this change? I don't think so.

 

But it would make the process easier.

I don't want anyone that's too lazy to type in a separate NM report to report that a cache needs maintenance. I want them to have to think about and take specific action to report why they think it needs maintenance. If they can't be bothered to do that, I don't care whether they vaguely think the cache might need some unspecified maintenance. The explicit, independent NM log forces them to consider the maintenance issue in isolation of their experiences in finding the cache. Just what I want.

 

So not only do I agree we don't need this change, I claim we don't want this change, either. It makes calling for maintenance so easy as to be pointless.

I think that is key to why making posting an NM easier would have a negative effect on the game. I suspect that those folks who already feel the need to control every single aspect of this hobby they encounter would be clicking the proposed NM box for all manner of asinine reasons.

 

Easier is not necessarily better.

Link to comment

No, I am saying attack the idea not the person. Frankly there are people who will attack others NA logs regardless of the wording because of who posted it. Making it anonymous to third parties takes that drama out...

No, it doesn't reduce the drama one bit. It just means the person reacting negatively to the NA doesn't know who to blame, but it doesn't mean they will be any less upset. Many will be more upset that the complaint was made by someone not willing to show their face. They'll almost certainly try to guess who to be mad at, so your anonymous NA may very well cause them to target someone that has nothing to do with it. Reduces the drama for you, but not for that innocent bystander.

 

...but yes could empower the troll behind the keyboard just the same.

Someone intentionally abusing anonymity is a very minor aspect of the issue, but it is interesting to consider what the practical difference is between someone upsetting someone intentionally and hiding behind anonymity and someone, by mistake, upsetting someone and hiding behind anonymity.

 

What I said is that I am unlikely to ever post a NA log again, under he current system, based on my previous experiences around here. I will mention things in my found it or would not find it log and leave it at that.

I'm sorry to hear you're being so seriously threatened. I would rather you'd do something about it to avoid other people that do still want to get rid of bad caches from being similarly harassed, but I accept your decision to lay low and, as I said near the beginning of this conversation, I'm fine with the reviewer taking action based on your private observations and pleas for help.

 

Being able to call for archival anonymously presupposes that the request is valid and complete, since it shuts out any possibility of discussion that might lead to understanding, either understanding by the requester of why the cache shouldn't be archived, or understanding by the owner of why the cache should be archived. I'm sorry to hear that this is, apparently, impossible in your area, but I do not want the official procedure to change in a way that makes it less likely, if not even impossible, in my area where NAs are handled gracefully almost every time.

Link to comment

So it sounds like there is a standard, as people have described, that after 1 month with NM then it is appropriate to post a NA log.

 

Can we make it easier to sort the logs so you can find the NM log posting and see how long it has been?

 

Or perhaps the icon change over time from a white plus on red background to more and more red as months go by, until there is just a little red pile of mud.

 

If I saw that, and had been to the cache and found it wanting, I would feel justified in posting a NA on contacting the CO.

Link to comment

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.

What is the flagging tape for?

 

To show where the cache is? I'm glad this isn't the custom in my area (or at least I don't think it is because I've never noticed flagging tape marking any caches I've found.) I'd be really ticked off if anyone came through here and marked all my caches with flagging tape because they thought it was "missing or needed."

Link to comment
So it sounds like there is a standard, as people have described, that after 1 month with NM then it is appropriate to post a NA log.
Maybe. Maybe not. A lot depends on what problem(s) the NM reported, the nature of the cache, and what (if anything) the CO has done since the NM was logged.
Link to comment

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.

What is the flagging tape for?

 

To show where the cache is? I'm glad this isn't the custom in my area (or at least I don't think it is because I've never noticed flagging tape marking any caches I've found.) I'd be really ticked off if anyone came through here and marked all my caches with flagging tape because they thought it was "missing or needed."

 

I suppose the flagging tape is in case someone forgets their GPS and doesn't read the hint? :huh:

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...