Found It but Needs Maintenance

[+ham fam]

Why do you have to choose either "Found It" or "Needs Maintenance". Why can't you choose both? I have come across a rash of caches in bad shape lately, but I still want the credit of the Found It, after all I did the work of searching it out.

[+K13]

You can do both. When that happens to me, I log the find with my story of that adventure. I then do a second log with a Needs Maintenance explaining the issue or problem in more detail.

[+Chief301]

Just do two logs....one Needs Maintenance log, and one Found It log.

[+ham fam]

Good call. Hadn't thought of that.

[+dprovan]

Yeah, they're two different logs serving two different purposes. Claim your find and describe your experience in the Found log. Then log that the cache needs maintenance and explain the maintenance problem in the Needs Maintenance log. Although naturally there might be some overlap, avoid describing the problem in the Found log and then saying "See Found log" in the maintenance log. Not terrible, it just makes you look a little dorky.

[+niraD]

And FWIW, there was a suggestion made a while back for Needs Maintenance to become a checkbox for other log types, rather than being a log type of its own. So you could have a Find with Needs Maintenance checked, or a DNF with Needs Maintenance checked, or a Note with Needs Maintenance checked.

 

Obviously, that suggestion hasn't been implemented yet.

[+ham fam]

And FWIW, there was a suggestion made a while back for Needs Maintenance to become a checkbox for other log types, rather than being a log type of its own. So you could have a Find with Needs Maintenance checked, or a DNF with Needs Maintenance checked, or a Note with Needs Maintenance checked.

 

Obviously, that suggestion hasn't been implemented yet.

This makes alot of sense to me, I wonder why they haven't done this yet?

[+kunarion]

And FWIW, there was a suggestion made a while back for Needs Maintenance to become a checkbox for other log types, rather than being a log type of its own. So you could have a Find with Needs Maintenance checked, or a DNF with Needs Maintenance checked, or a Note with Needs Maintenance checked.

 

Obviously, that suggestion hasn't been implemented yet.

This makes alot of sense to me, I wonder why they haven't done this yet?

One of the first caches I found was nasty (soaking wet, moldy, trash inside from locals), in a gross, smelly place. There was nothing to sign (the log books were ruined), I never logged "Found It", I logged NM and walked away. I know I can log "Found It", but I don't really want that one in my list. One log was fine with me, "NM".

 

No worries, though. Since that one, I've increased my tolerance of cache condition, and lowered my expectations.

Edited May 13, 2014 by kunarion

[+biggles1024]

And FWIW, there was a suggestion made a while back for Needs Maintenance to become a checkbox for other log types, rather than being a log type of its own. So you could have a Find with Needs Maintenance checked, or a DNF with Needs Maintenance checked, or a Note with Needs Maintenance checked.

 

Obviously, that suggestion hasn't been implemented yet.

This makes alot of sense to me, I wonder why they haven't done this yet?

One of the first caches I found was nasty (soaking wet, moldy, trash inside from locals), in a gross, smelly place. There was nothing to sign (the log books were ruined), I never logged "Found It", I logged NM and walked away. I know I can log "Found It", but I don't really want that one in my list. One log was fine with me, "NM".

 

No worries, though. Since that one, I've increased my tolerance of cache condition, and lowered my expectations.

What you did, logging a NM and walking away was correct. In the case of a physical cache, you can only log a find AFTER you have signed the physical log. If there's no log to sign, as was the case with the cache you described above, then unfortunately, you miss out on claiming a find.

[+kunarion]

And FWIW, there was a suggestion made a while back for Needs Maintenance to become a checkbox for other log types, rather than being a log type of its own. So you could have a Find with Needs Maintenance checked, or a DNF with Needs Maintenance checked, or a Note with Needs Maintenance checked.

 

Obviously, that suggestion hasn't been implemented yet.

This makes alot of sense to me, I wonder why they haven't done this yet?

One of the first caches I found was nasty (soaking wet, moldy, trash inside from locals), in a gross, smelly place. There was nothing to sign (the log books were ruined), I never logged "Found It", I logged NM and walked away. I know I can log "Found It", but I don't really want that one in my list. One log was fine with me, "NM".

 

No worries, though. Since that one, I've increased my tolerance of cache condition, and lowered my expectations.

What you did, logging a NM and walking away was correct. In the case of a physical cache, you can only log a find AFTER you have signed the physical log. If there's no log to sign, as was the case with the cache you described above, then unfortunately, you miss out on claiming a find.

Well, I definitely signed nothing. I didn't even want to touch the items in there. I added no slip of signed paper, either. And I didn't do a DNF log. That cache experience was less like a "cache", more like a little steaming pile of -- piled steaming things. Anyway, if NM was only a selection in any log, I'd have a decision to make.

Edited May 13, 2014 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

This makes alot of sense to me, I wonder why they haven't done this yet?

I don't know why they haven't done it, but I argue against it because, as I said, they're two different logs serving two different purposes with only incidental overlap. In particular, when you file a Needs Maintenance log, you're much more likely to focus that log on what needs maintenance. When you're logging the find, both conceptually and actually, both in your mind and in the text of the log, the maintenance issue will take a back seat, to the point that I foresee logs sometimes saying nothing at all about the maintenance issue beyond checking the box.

[+KC2WI]

What you did, logging a NM and walking away was correct. In the case of a physical cache, you can only log a find AFTER you have signed the physical log. If there's no log to sign, as was the case with the cache you described above, then unfortunately, you miss out on claiming a find.

 

Sorry but I don't buy that.

 

If I find a cache I log it as found.

 

Choice of proper cache container and cache maintenance is the responsibility of the CO. It is not my fault or my problem if the log is a soggy unsignable blob or the tiny strip of paper in a micros is so full there is zero room to sign.

[+T.D.M.22]

What you did, logging a NM and walking away was correct. In the case of a physical cache, you can only log a find AFTER you have signed the physical log. If there's no log to sign, as was the case with the cache you described above, then unfortunately, you miss out on claiming a find.

 

Sorry but I don't buy that.

 

If I find a cache I log it as found.

 

Choice of proper cache container and cache maintenance is the responsibility of the CO. It is not my fault or my problem if the log is a soggy unsignable blob or the tiny strip of paper in a micros is so full there is zero room to sign.

 

And what if there is not mention of a full log or the cache needing maintenance? Yes we should check our caches, but do you really expect me to go out and check on my cache after every finder? I should go out and check it every 3 or 4 days? Nope not going to happen, and I doubt anyone would do that.

[+KC2WI]

And what if there is not mention of a full log or the cache needing maintenance? Yes we should check our caches, but do you really expect me to go out and check on my cache after every finder? I should go out and check it every 3 or 4 days? Nope not going to happen, and I doubt anyone would do that.

Nope. You are not required to do that. This is just a game.

 

The thing that bothers me is when a NM or other notification(s) of problems has been posted, and the CO does nothing for months. If the CO is local they should be able to check and fix the cache within a few weeks, unless the cache is a really difficult one to get to, in which case allowances can be made. But what is especially annoying to me is when a CO has caches spread over hundreds of miles that he/she doesn't maintain. Even more annoying is when there seems to be no fix and no response at all for many months after a string of DNF/NM on a cache that should not be hard to find. At least theCO could post a note saying he/she can't get to it right away and would someone help? Or the cache could be temporarily disabled.

 

If I plan ahead before going geocaching and read cache info on the web site and there are notes about wet/full log or need maintenance, I might try to bring along some supplies to help repair a cache, or I just might avoid NM caches. If I am just finding them as I go by reading the GPSr then I may or may not have the supplies or time to dry out a cache, etc.

 

Either way, the fact that a cache has not been properly maintained is not my fault. If I find it I am going to count it as found whether or not the physical log is signable. That's all I'm saying.

[+tozainamboku]

What you did, logging a NM and walking away was correct. In the case of a physical cache, you can only log a find AFTER you have signed the physical log. If there's no log to sign, as was the case with the cache you described above, then unfortunately, you miss out on claiming a find.

 

There is no place in the guidelines that says you can ONLY log a find after you have signed the physical log. What the guidelines say is "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." You need to understand that this sentence was added to eliminate an old practice of having addition requirements for using the the online "Found" log. While the guideline was intentionally worded to allow cache owners to delete online Found logs if the physical log was not signed, the intent is only to delete logs which are bogus.

 

You may wish to define any online log where the physical log is not signed as bogus, but that is your personal choice. There is no reason in a light fun activity where there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find. Most cache owners are quite understanding if a cacher is unable to sign the physical log due to some maintenance issue.

 

Of course the puritans are correct in saying that allowing a find just because there was some maintenance issue is a slippery slope. If you don't sign the log, just how much of the cache do you have to find? I once found a few scattered trinkets that may have been swag from the cache, but decided that wasn't enough for me to claim a find.

 

What if you don't find anything, and later the cache owner confirms there was a maintenance issue (i.e. the cache was missing). Some cache owners will actually allow someone to change a DNF to a find in this case. And there is the practice of helping out the owner with maintenance by leaving a replacement cache (AKA throwdown). Many cache owners will allow this to logged as a find.

 

I'm not ready to adopt a silly rule about signing physical logs for this simple game. But I certainly salute any cacher who decided it's enough to post a Need Maintenance and pass on the Found log. I think a certain portion of geocachers will find any excuse to use the found log, even when they found nothing.

Edited May 19, 2014 by tozainamboku