Jump to content

Would it be rude?


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

So I'm trying to walk a fine line...want to educate but don't want to offend (ya, not always possible). Being a the staff of a land manager who allows geocaches on their lands I feel a bit of a responsibility to keep the caches on our lands in ok shape (we want visitors to have a positive experience). I don't want to be the cache police but if a owner has been absentee for years and its fallen into poor condition I kinda want to see that cache removed....problem is there seems to be a number of people who will replace it just to keep it going. I know the topic has been hashed and re-hashed and don't want to open that can of worms. So my question is: As a land manager is it fair for us to ask that caches be maintained in fair condition? and Would it be really rude of me to post notes explaining to other cachers that replacing containers for absent owners is not proper? I'm thinking of only doing such in situations where visiting cachers specifically say they have replaced the cache BECAUSE they know the owner is no longer active or would have "oh now I see the owner has not been on in over 5 years! Clearly no longer around I would have brought a new container had I known that." I would respond in a note in the log that is not appropriate and why (ok I already posted one note.... :ph34r: )

...Rude? Ok? (flames?)

 

Something along the lines of :

 

"When a cache container is in bad condition please use the "Needs Maintenance" feature. When a cache has received multiple "Needs Maintenance" notifications and is still in bad condition, combined with the fact the owner has not logged on in years then the "Needs Archive" is in order. No mater how good the location the condition of the cache itself is also important. Only the OWNER can perform maintenance. Never replace a cache container without an owners permission. Sure everyone likely has done it once...as a newbie, but seasoned cachers should know better. If the owner is no longer active the cache should be archived. No one likes finding a moldy soggy logbook. Its nice to help out fellow cachers but its very different to help out (with permission) than it is to try to do patchwork fixes for a totally absentee owner.

Read about owner maintenance in the Help Center : http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=404

Or see the guidelines: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx "

 

(I feel like I'm going to get a really bad reputation if I start this as well as start asking for crappy caches of absentee owners to be archived....landowner or not I know some people will hate it....but as a cacher I am REALLY starting to hate the smell of moldy cache).

Link to comment

I'm in your area. Power caching is becoming a real problem. Lots of throw downs. It's really bothering me too. I'm certain I have a bad reputation because I'm quick to post NMs, then NAs. I try to be quick before the power cachers come along and replace the mouldy log in the leaky container or replace the missing container (with another carpy container), then abandon what they've thrown down. Please please help clean up the mess and send a message that caches are long term commitments and responsible cache ownership is important for a quality game that satisfies not just the people who only want another smiley. Quality caches matter. I know that you set a good example. :) I wish more people would.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

As a land manager is it fair for us to ask that caches be maintained in fair condition?

I don't see why not. I find it perfectly acceptable for a land manager to require that caches on their land not reflect poorly on them.

 

Would it be really rude of me to post notes explaining to other cachers that replacing containers for absent owners is not proper?
This is where it becomes contentious. I hope you have your flame-proof suit on. It's gonna get hot in here! :laughing::drama:

 

In my opinion, I think it would beneficial to remind people that problem caches shouldn't be propped up. There are too many people who just can't accept a DNF and throw-down so they can justify getting a smiley, and they need to get a kick in the rear. That being said, I don't see myself posting public notes to do so. I've never really considered this before, though, so there may be alternative avenues that would work better.

 

If you do choose to go this route, you might want to consider rewording your note with slightly more "vanilla" verbage. For example, tone down or remove things like "seasoned cachers should know better". Make it objective and don't attack or involve personal opinion. If you simply state facts, people will be less likely to be offended or become hostile.

Link to comment
Would it be really rude of me to post notes explaining to other cachers that replacing containers for absent owners is not proper?
This is where it becomes contentious. I hope you have your flame-proof suit on. It's gonna get hot in here! :laughing::drama:

Heh ya...hesitated long before hitting submit here... (but really rather get flamed up front rather than not know how bad I'm stepping on toes or getting flamed in the background)

 

In my opinion, I think it would beneficial to remind people that problem caches shouldn't be propped up. There are too many people who just can't accept a DNF and throw-down so they can justify getting a smiley, and they need to get a kick in the rear. That being said, I don't see myself posting public notes to do so. I've never really considered this before, though, so there may be alternative avenues that would work better.

 

If you do choose to go this route, you might want to consider rewording your note with slightly more "vanilla" verbage. For example, tone down or remove things like "seasoned cachers should know better". Make it objective and don't attack or involve personal opinion. If you simply state facts, people will be less likely to be offended or become hostile.

Very good point..It has occured to me I may tend to be to blunt and confrontational by default..I'll work on the wording. BUT the point of posting a public 'note' really would be to raise awareness. If a public messages states "oh I would have replaced it" or "I did replace it since CO is absent" I don't want that to stand alone to perpetuate the misconception this is ok when people go through and re-read old logs. If it was a very recent posting I may message the person in private and explain it and ask them to revise the log entry but the one that got me thinking is very old (I just came across it now in my quest to figure out how a cache with 5 NM logs and no repairs is still found constantly).

Edited by ConsHaltonCache
Link to comment

I'm in your area. Power caching is becoming a real problem. Lots of throw downs. It's really bothering me too. I'm certain I have a bad reputation because I'm quick to post NMs, then NAs. I try to be quick before the power cachers come along and replace the mouldy log in the leaky or replace the missing container (with another carpy container), then abandon what they've thrown down. Please please help clean up the mess and send a message that caches are long term commitments and responsible cache ownership is important for a quality game that satisfies not just the people who only want another smiley. Also quality caches matter. I know that you set a good example. :) I wish more people would.

Thanks!

Please keep using NM and NA...HATE it when I see repeated "found it" logs stating logbook is soaked and container cracked but not a single NM. As an owner a NM really jumps at me but if I get 30 "found its" over the weekend I may not read them all. But oddly some (although rarely) of the replacements are actually GOOD containers. (which baffles me for other reasons)

Link to comment

No, it would not be rude. I find the reticence to post NA on a cache astonishing. I went to find one in my local area which had clearly been defunct for some time yet even the last finder, despite noting that it was in need of maintenance, had not logged an NM or NA. At GZ it was clearly not viable so I logged an NM, then an NA a week later.

 

The thing is, I've tried to find other caches by the same prolific owner and as they haven't logged in for a year, my assumption is that they are inactive,

 

There was another one locally which clearly was not there, yet there was eight months of DNFs and no-one reporting that it had gone.

 

Sorry, but I think it's a waste of everyone's time not to post an NA, when the cache clearly isn't there.

Link to comment

I'm thinking that you should just follow the normal NM and NA procedure ignoring any throwdowns. For example, you post an NM ("Based on the DNFs, I conclude this cache is missing"), someone drops a throwdown and logs a find ("I noticed the NM and replaced the cache"), and you continue with an NA ("I see people are dropping throwdowns, so the situation is getting out of hand, and we need to shut this cache down now. Hopefully someone willing to maintain will plant a new cache in this area."). The cache is still not being maintained. The throwdown doesn't change that. As the authority, I think it makes perfect sense for you to focus on the maintenance and ignore whether some container happens to be there.

 

Although not a requirement, this works even better if you can go out and inspect the cache yourself, but I'm fine if that's not practical and you have to go off the log.

Link to comment
As a land manager is it fair for us to ask that caches be maintained in fair condition? and Would it be really rude of me to post notes explaining to other cachers that replacing containers for absent owners is not proper?

There's a county not far from where I live that required a permit and yearly fee (I think the fee has since been retracted, not sure), for county parks. All caches were to be removed, then permits approved and fees paid, then approved permitted caches could be placed again. Supposedly the park manager would inspect cache placements for various criteria (nobody thinks that actually happens with all caches every year, but that's supposedly what happens). But there would be Cache Owner accountability, since each cache has a permit filled out. Meh, I wouldn't even place any caches in that county B). But I bring it up so the OP may see a plan in action, even contact these guys for insight on what may or may not work:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjACahUKEwittbK1rsjIAhUFFz4KHWokAR4&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gwinnettcounty.com%2Fstatic%2Fdepartments%2Fparks_rec%2Fpdf%2FPermitApplication.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGMc8sqv0l0X4hk85e8ooc8k0089w&sig2=A3hscjSeyIwBq0quE6DM9A

 

I have no idea how any new cache ever gets placed there, since it would also need to be activated on Geocaching.com. It's probably a lot of red tape. But there it is, for discussion purposes.

 

Anyway, there are some public land areas that require transparent and labeled containers. And even permits probably like the above one. The land manager is in charge and may remove any cache at his discretion (well, that would be the case in most places even without permits).

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

This really has nothing to do with you even being staff of the land manager. I applaud you. Geocachers are supposed to maintain their own caches. While occasionally it is polite to repair another's hide for them, actually replacing it with a new cache is taking politeness too far and enabling bad caching habits. Post a NM, watch the cache, and if there is no change in a month, post a NA and let the reviewer deal with it. Actually, from what you have written here, you might go directly to the Needs Archived state and let the reviewer and cache owner sort it out. You are not being the "cache police'... please let go of that idea.

Link to comment

If it is your land and you think there is a cache that isn't being taken care of I don't see why you couldn't post a NA at any point. Like said already if you see a throw down placed maybe just post on the cache page if the CO would please contact you or contact the CO and see if they respond. I wouldn't go after the ones placing the throw downs but would look to the CO who is not taking care of there cache. If it is a active CO who cares about there cache they will respond. If they don't in a week or so you can figure they don't care about it and post a NA. Just my opinion as a CO I would respond.

Link to comment

I don't know how large the area in question is or number of caches involved. I have cached in one large state park having over 2 dozen mostly hiking caches with terrains that go the range and the park staff, mostly the head ranger, helps take care of the caches. Many of the caches are built one of a kind and in 12 years and 48 states it could be our favorite caching place. Caches bring cachers to the park and land managers like the traffic and revenue ( they do where I live ) so its a win/win if someone on the staff teams up with the CO who could live many miles away.

Link to comment
I have cached in one large state park having over 2 dozen mostly hiking caches with terrains that go the range and the park staff, mostly the head ranger, helps take care of the caches. Many of the caches are built one of a kind and in 12 years and 48 states it could be our favorite caching place.

So that park has struck a nice balance between cache maintenance and placement.

 

The problem is often not the unattentive Owner as much as the destructive Muggles (or too many very inconsiderate "Geocachers"). I've seen really well-built caches with great Owners, get archived, because the park visitors overwhelm the maintenance by making a mess out of the cache (and the surrounding area) all the time -- sometimes on purpose. Some places can't have a cache, because they have too many vandals. This is why we can't have nice things. B)

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I don't know how large the area in question is or number of caches involved. I have cached in one large state park having over 2 dozen mostly hiking caches with terrains that go the range and the park staff, mostly the head ranger, helps take care of the caches. Many of the caches are built one of a kind and in 12 years and 48 states it could be our favorite caching place. Caches bring cachers to the park and land managers like the traffic and revenue ( they do where I live ) so its a win/win if someone on the staff teams up with the CO who could live many miles away.

 

Fairly large, I looked up some info on the Halton CA site. The Halton area has 7 conservation areas. They also manage regional forest tracts. Halton Region owns 665 hectares (1,645 acres) of forests in 14 separate tracts.

There's no shortage in this area of cachers who want to hide caches. Carpet bombing is an epidemic here and that includes the Halton region parks and tracts.

If ConsHaltonCache maintained the caches that the COs have abandoned, he would be sending the message that it's OK to plant poor quality caches and abandon them on Halton managed land. I would rather the message sent was 'Halton region takes pride in their parks and encourages responsible cache ownership which provides a quality geocaching experience to enhance the visitor's experience.'

Link to comment

So I'm trying to walk a fine line...want to educate but don't want to offend (ya, not always possible). Being a the staff of a land manager who allows geocaches on their lands I feel a bit of a responsibility to keep the caches on our lands in ok shape (we want visitors to have a positive experience). I don't want to be the cache police but if a owner has been absentee for years and its fallen into poor condition I kinda want to see that cache removed....problem is there seems to be a number of people who will replace it just to keep it going. I know the topic has been hashed and re-hashed and don't want to open that can of worms. So my question is: As a land manager is it fair for us to ask that caches be maintained in fair condition? and Would it be really rude of me to post notes explaining to other cachers that replacing containers for absent owners is not proper? I'm thinking of only doing such in situations where visiting cachers specifically say they have replaced the cache BECAUSE they know the owner is no longer active or would have "oh now I see the owner has not been on in over 5 years! Clearly no longer around I would have brought a new container had I known that." I would respond in a note in the log that is not appropriate and why (ok I already posted one note.... :ph34r: )

...Rude? Ok? (flames?)

 

Something along the lines of :

 

"When a cache container is in bad condition please use the "Needs Maintenance" feature. When a cache has received multiple "Needs Maintenance" notifications and is still in bad condition, combined with the fact the owner has not logged on in years then the "Needs Archive" is in order. No mater how good the location the condition of the cache itself is also important. Only the OWNER can perform maintenance. Never replace a cache container without an owners permission. Sure everyone likely has done it once...as a newbie, but seasoned cachers should know better. If the owner is no longer active the cache should be archived. No one likes finding a moldy soggy logbook. Its nice to help out fellow cachers but its very different to help out (with permission) than it is to try to do patchwork fixes for a totally absentee owner.

Read about owner maintenance in the Help Center : http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=404

Or see the guidelines: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx "

 

(I feel like I'm going to get a really bad reputation if I start this as well as start asking for crappy caches of absentee owners to be archived....landowner or not I know some people will hate it....but as a cacher I am REALLY starting to hate the smell of moldy cache).

 

The term "cache cop" is a derogatory term. There should be no backlash for cachers who correctly use the "NM" and "NA" logs to report caches that need maintenance or are beyond repair and owned by absentee owners.

 

Throwdowns by other cachers should not be allowed anywhere at any time. It's inappropriate and goes against GS's guidelines.

 

Your profile has a link that is broken:

 

The main task is to ensure they are placed acceptably (ecologically and safely). See our geocache placement guidelines for details: (visit link)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?id=1640240

 

I did a search of the Conservation Halton site and found this:

 

http://www.conservationhalton.ca/geocaching

 

Hiding your own geocache

 

Our parks often have sensitive plants and animals unique to our protected areas. Check with us before you hide you cache. Don’t worry; your secret location is safe with us. Email us at geocache@hrca.on.ca before placing any geocaches within our network of conservation areas.

 

To place a geocache on Conservation Halton properties please read the Conservation Halton Geocache Guidelines and fill out a Geocache Placement Application. Keep in mind all caches must also meet the GEOCACHING.COM placement guidelines.

 

Also, a brief Additional Hints for Geocachers may be useful.

 

We also recommend you download the "Ontario Trails Project" trails file to your GPS unit so that you can see the trails in the area while you are caching. This will also help you know that you are taking the right trail to your cache. We have many sensitive species in our parks so it is important to stay on the trails. We have provided our trails to the project. You can download the trails file at the Ontario Trails Project website.

 

So, from the looks of things, you should be in contact with your local Reviewer(s) and deal with the situation directly.

 

You should already be in contact with the local Reviewer(s) when it comes to cache placements.

 

Perhaps it would be possible to add some required text in any cache descriptions for caches placed in Conservation Halton lands.

 

I would worry more about following the GS Guidelines and Conservation Halton guidelines than about getting a "bad reputation".

 

B.

Link to comment

Thanks for all the great replies.

 

I do work/have contact with my local reviewer. I do try to get out and visit the caches in person before posting NM and NA and I know I could just request the caches be archived but really I was wanting to educate those leaving the throwdowns. I think if the (seemingly fine...because of the throwdown) caches just disappeared one day it may not be understood WHY and that may create some negativity.

 

I do try to check in on the caches on our lands every once and a while and remove garbage from them and let owners know if there are issues but I will not maintain another persons caches. I have placed a number of caches for CH in our lands and will be maintaining those (as long as they let me/its in my job specs...and if that ever STOPPED and someone else was not designated to take over the maintenance then I certainly hope that the unmaintained caches would be archived!).

 

The question was mostly about the educational NOTES about throwdowns and it seems like there is a consensus that may not be a good way to go.

 

So going forward I will use the NM if needed and state that the owner has been contacted about their cache and only they can do the needed maintenance, then if no response is received will continue on with the NA after a few months and again state there was no response from the owner (who is the only one who can do it).

Link to comment
I have cached in one large state park having over 2 dozen mostly hiking caches with terrains that go the range and the park staff, mostly the head ranger, helps take care of the caches. Many of the caches are built one of a kind and in 12 years and 48 states it could be our favorite caching place.

So that park has struck a nice balance between cache maintenance and placement.

 

The problem is often not the unattentive Owner as much as the destructive Muggles (or too many very inconsiderate "Geocachers"). I've seen really well-built caches with great Owners, get archived, because the park visitors overwhelm the maintenance by making a mess out of the cache (and the surrounding area) all the time -- sometimes on purpose. Some places can't have a cache, because they have too many vandals. This is why we can't have nice things. B)

 

This is about GZ of the park I refer to.....what a great place to do REAL geocaching.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2QZWV_csp-root-of-all-evil

If you're ever in the area give it a shot.

Link to comment
This is about GZ of the park I refer to.....what a great place to do REAL geocaching.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2QZWV_csp-root-of-all-evil

If you're ever in the area give it a shot.

Cool, that's not too far! I might just go there pretty soon.

 

There is a fake bird house (tricky to get into) just next to the ranger station where you enter...he gets a kick out of watching that one. We gave him a geocoin and other goodies for helping out with the park caches. The main CO in the park is woodnut and he has placed MANY caches in south Alabama....quite a few are one of a kind caches that he makes himself so try not to miss any of his if you're in the area.

Link to comment
This is about GZ of the park I refer to.....what a great place to do REAL geocaching.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2QZWV_csp-root-of-all-evil

If you're ever in the area give it a shot.

Cool, that's not too far! I might just go there pretty soon.

 

There is a fake bird house (tricky to get into) just next to the ranger station where you enter...he gets a kick out of watching that one. We gave him a geocoin and other goodies for helping out with the park caches. The main CO in the park is woodnut and he has placed MANY caches in south Alabama....quite a few are one of a kind caches that he makes himself so try not to miss any of his if you're in the area.

 

If you know the land manager why don't you set up a re-occurring application process. I have a couple of caches that fall into this category. Here is how it works in my case. Every year I have to appear before (in my case) a board of trustees and "apply" for permission to continue using the land. A few members "watch" the caches and enjoy reading the logs so they are well aware that they are being maintained. Once granted it's good for one year. If for some reason I don't re-apply the caches can be removed.

 

Adopt this policy. Send out a letter or e-mail explaining the new policy and request that the cache owner contact the land manager. If they do great. You can make it clear that they are expected to take care of the caches and they will be removed by the land manager if they are not. If they don't respond great. Post a needs archived log and note the new policy to the reviewer.

 

Again this is not designed to push anyone out. It's designed to have some recourse when a cache owner is not being responsible. In the end it's the land owner or manager that has final say on when and how their land is being used.

Link to comment

So I'm trying to walk a fine line...want to educate but don't want to offend (ya, not always possible). Being a the staff of a land manager who allows geocaches on their lands I feel a bit of a responsibility to keep the caches on our lands in ok shape (we want visitors to have a positive experience). I don't want to be the cache police but if a owner has been absentee for years and its fallen into poor condition I kinda want to see that cache removed....problem is there seems to be a number of people who will replace it just to keep it going. I know the topic has been hashed and re-hashed and don't want to open that can of worms. So my question is: As a land manager is it fair for us to ask that caches be maintained in fair condition? and Would it be really rude of me to post notes explaining to other cachers that replacing containers for absent owners is not proper? I'm thinking of only doing such in situations where visiting cachers specifically say they have replaced the cache BECAUSE they know the owner is no longer active or would have "oh now I see the owner has not been on in over 5 years! Clearly no longer around I would have brought a new container had I known that." I would respond in a note in the log that is not appropriate and why (ok I already posted one note.... :ph34r: )

...Rude? Ok? (flames?)

 

Something along the lines of :

 

"When a cache container is in bad condition please use the "Needs Maintenance" feature. When a cache has received multiple "Needs Maintenance" notifications and is still in bad condition, combined with the fact the owner has not logged on in years then the "Needs Archive" is in order. No mater how good the location the condition of the cache itself is also important. Only the OWNER can perform maintenance. Never replace a cache container without an owners permission. Sure everyone likely has done it once...as a newbie, but seasoned cachers should know better. If the owner is no longer active the cache should be archived. No one likes finding a moldy soggy logbook. Its nice to help out fellow cachers but its very different to help out (with permission) than it is to try to do patchwork fixes for a totally absentee owner.

Read about owner maintenance in the Help Center : http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=404

Or see the guidelines: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx "

 

(I feel like I'm going to get a really bad reputation if I start this as well as start asking for crappy caches of absentee owners to be archived....landowner or not I know some people will hate it....but as a cacher I am REALLY starting to hate the smell of moldy cache).

 

As the land manager (or agent thereof) it is totally reasonable to have standards, and to revoke permission for a cache that fails to meet those standards. If a cache is a problem, tell the reviewer it no longer has permission to be there.

 

Many land managers have detailed rules about geocaches, including strict guidelines about cache containers and contents.

 

You can't educate an absentee owner. If the cache maintainers are so keen on keeping a cache there, they can follow your rules and submit their own.

Link to comment

I have always maintained that there should be a periodic Cache Owner Maintenance visitation, it could be 1 year or 5 or even 10 years.

If the CO does not do cache maintenance ( at least say it was done), the cache would automatically archive and would eliminate abandoned caches including many that are kept alive by ghost owners.

You may disagree as does Groundspeak but that's alright, I got my suit on.

Edited by Student Camper
Link to comment

I have always maintained that there should be a periodic Cache Owner Maintenance visitation, it could be 1 year or 5 or even 10 years.

If the CO does not do cache maintenance ( at least say it was done), the cache would automatically archive and would eliminate abandoned caches including many that are kept alive by ghost owners.

You may disagree as does Groundspeak but that's alright, I got my suit on.

 

I agree, especially with so many people throwing down and propping up abandoned caches these days. And few people willing to log NMs and NAs.

 

I think it should be every 2 years. And maintenance doesn't necessarily have to be a visit to the cache, but at least a visit to the cache listing saying that the s/he is still monitoring the logs for notifications of potential problems.

Link to comment

I have always maintained that there should be a periodic Cache Owner Maintenance visitation, it could be 1 year or 5 or even 10 years.

If the CO does not do cache maintenance ( at least say it was done), the cache would automatically archive and would eliminate abandoned caches including many that are kept alive by ghost owners.

You may disagree as does Groundspeak but that's alright, I got my suit on.

 

So it goes from abandoned cache with a listing to an unlisted abandoned cache that's as good as rubbish?

Link to comment

I have always maintained that there should be a periodic Cache Owner Maintenance visitation, it could be 1 year or 5 or even 10 years.

If the CO does not do cache maintenance ( at least say it was done), the cache would automatically archive and would eliminate abandoned caches including many that are kept alive by ghost owners.

You may disagree as does Groundspeak but that's alright, I got my suit on.

 

So it goes from abandoned cache with a listing to an unlisted abandoned cache that's as good as rubbish?

 

That's the fault of the cache owner. They agreed to the maintenance guidelines when they posted to the site. Groundspeak has no obligation to keep their databases full of abandoned caches.

I'd be happy to oblige with a periodic retrieval of archived caches in my area. I would give the absentee cache owners a month to have their container returned. I've done this with several archived caches and never had an absentee owner ask for their cache back.

I think this would have several positive effects: Less carpet bombing, fewer power trails, fewer junk caches, fewer throw downs, open up space in cache dense areas.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

As a land manager, you have the right to dictate some rules for caches on your land - like if CO absent for x time, doesn't sort out maintenance issues in x time, the cache will be removed.

 

Some of the counties here have specific rules for placing caches in their preserves.

One such rule is "CO must check on the caches every year and report that to the land manager"

It helps to identify CO's who are no longer in the game and no longer maintaining their caches.

Link to comment

It helps to identify CO's who are no longer in the game and no longer maintaining their caches.

This is what bothers me about proposals like this: why do we care about the state of the CO if the cache is in good shape? And if the cache isn't in good shape, why hasn't it gone away through the defined NM/NA process?

 

I think it's reasonable for a land manager to force periodic contact with someone given permission to use the land, but I don't think it makes sense to take action against an innocent cache listing with no problems simply because of the CO hasn't followed some arbitrary procedure.

Link to comment

It helps to identify CO's who are no longer in the game and no longer maintaining their caches.

And if the cache isn't in good shape, why hasn't it gone away through the defined NM/NA process?

 

The NM/NA process is not for the faint of heart. You have to be thick-skinned, or feel very strongly about the state of the game. A lot of people could care less about the condition of the cache.

 

It's not for the cacher that doesn't like to make waves, or the cacher who doesn't want to be labelled a cache cop, or the cacher who is popular in the caching community and wants to remain that way.

 

Link to comment

Be careful, you might get your wrist slapped etc.

 

Stay low and fly slow to remain under the radar to avoid any blow-back.

 

Some folks have thin skins and are capable of taking something tiny and blowing it all out of proportion which might come back and bite you. >>>>>>>>> "Just saying"

 

I've been "bitten" a few times by angry cache owners (thankfully the reviewers in my area are very supportive), but I feel strongly that quality caches reflect well on this pastime and make for a more enjoyable adventure.

Link to comment

It helps to identify CO's who are no longer in the game and no longer maintaining their caches.

This is what bothers me about proposals like this: why do we care about the state of the CO if the cache is in good shape? And if the cache isn't in good shape, why hasn't it gone away through the defined NM/NA process?

 

I think it's reasonable for a land manager to force periodic contact with someone given permission to use the land, but I don't think it makes sense to take action against an innocent cache listing with no problems simply because of the CO hasn't followed some arbitrary procedure.

 

So we wait till something goes wrong with the cache before we admit that the cache owner is MIA? We know the cache owner is gone from the game but as long as the cache is in good shape it's ok?

 

This is part of the problem along with fixing others caches & not posting needs maintenance logs. I think we should hold cache owners responsible to do what they agreed to do when they hid the cache. As long as you own it you take care of it. If you leave the game you collect the cache and archive it.

 

Placing a cache and respecting land that's not yours shouldn't be arbitrary. Again, the land owner or manager sets the rules and it's up to us to follow them.

Link to comment

The NM/NA process is not for the faint of heart. You have to be thick-skinned, or feel very strongly about the state of the game.

The problem with accepting that people refuse to log NMs and NAs when needed is that it leaves you with trash caches regardless of the CO's behavior. I want a trash cache fixed or archived within a few months, not the year or two being proposed for this automated archival trigger.

 

But the more important point is that the proposal for automated archival presupposes a missing CO, so it will only clean up caches for those COs that couldn't possibly react negatively when the existing mechanism is applied. Those caches by active COs you're worried about offending still won't be fixed.

 

A lot of people could care less about the condition of the cache.

I'm not worried about people that don't care about the condition of the cache since they aren't complaining and, presumably, aren't the ones calling for automated archival.

 

It's not for the cacher that doesn't like to make waves, or the cacher who doesn't want to be labelled a cache cop, or the cacher who is popular in the caching community and wants to remain that way.

Yawn! Either help or don't complain. Please don't propose a mechanism that will, for no good reason, archive perfectly good caches, constructed and placed so that they don't need maintenance.

 

So we wait till something goes wrong with the cache before we admit that the cache owner is MIA? We know the cache owner is gone from the game but as long as the cache is in good shape it's ok?

Why not? Why should we be concerned about detecting the owner is MIA if the cache has no problems?

 

This is part of the problem along with fixing others caches & not posting needs maintenance logs.

I discourage unilateral maintenance of someone else's cache, too. But I don't see how that's relevant: if the cache is maintained to the same level, what difference does it make who did the work?

Link to comment

This is part of the problem along with fixing others caches & not posting needs maintenance logs.

I discourage unilateral maintenance of someone else's cache, too. But I don't see how that's relevant: if the cache is maintained to the same level, what difference does it make who did the work?

 

When I'm leaving a thank you to the cache owner, I'm thanking them for providing a quality cache experience and for being a good cache owner. But in essence their cache has become litter. It irks me to inadvertently thank someone for letting their cache become litter.

 

I like thinking I participate in a hobby/pastime that discourages geolitter and encourages responsible cache ownership.

Link to comment

The NM/NA process is not for the faint of heart. You have to be thick-skinned, or feel very strongly about the state of the game.

The problem with accepting that people refuse to log NMs and NAs when needed is that it leaves you with trash caches regardless of the CO's behavior. I want a trash cache fixed or archived within a few months, not the year or two being proposed for this automated archival trigger.

 

But the more important point is that the proposal for automated archival presupposes a missing CO, so it will only clean up caches for those COs that couldn't possibly react negatively when the existing mechanism is applied. Those caches by active COs you're worried about offending still won't be fixed.

 

A lot of people could care less about the condition of the cache.

I'm not worried about people that don't care about the condition of the cache since they aren't complaining and, presumably, aren't the ones calling for automated archival.

 

It's not for the cacher that doesn't like to make waves, or the cacher who doesn't want to be labelled a cache cop, or the cacher who is popular in the caching community and wants to remain that way.

Yawn! Either help or don't complain. Please don't propose a mechanism that will, for no good reason, archive perfectly good caches, constructed and placed so that they don't need maintenance.

 

So we wait till something goes wrong with the cache before we admit that the cache owner is MIA? We know the cache owner is gone from the game but as long as the cache is in good shape it's ok?

Why not? Why should we be concerned about detecting the owner is MIA if the cache has no problems?

 

This is part of the problem along with fixing others caches & not posting needs maintenance logs.

I discourage unilateral maintenance of someone else's cache, too. But I don't see how that's relevant: if the cache is maintained to the same level, what difference does it make who did the work?

 

As cachers we should be concerned. Isn't geo-litter one of the knocks on geocaching. That's exactly what an absentee owner is contributing to. What happens when the cache has problems? Needs maintenance log? We all know how effective that is.

 

Unilateral maintenance is part of the problem. These abandoned caches are not being filtered out of the system due in part to other cachers are doing the maintenance the owner should be doing.

 

Cache Cop? What's wrong with identifying a cache that's been abandoned and having it removed. Who is going to be offended by that? The owner of the cache? I'm sure the general geocaching community would be grateful.

 

Is being responsible that foreign a concept.

Link to comment

When I'm leaving a thank you to the cache owner, I'm thanking them for providing a quality cache experience and for being a good cache owner. But in essence their cache has become litter. It irks me to inadvertently thank someone for letting their cache become litter.

As cachers we should be concerned. Isn't geo-litter one of the knocks on geocaching. That's exactly what an absentee owner is contributing to.

I don't understand why it's litter if it's being maintained as well as it ever has, just by someone else.

 

(And, no, actually, I don't think geocaching gets any serious knocks from geo-litter. I doubt anyone except geocachers even understands the concept. To muggles, in extremely rare cases, a cache becomes actual litter, but that's not even a drop in the bucket compared to the more common sources of litter.)

 

What happens when the cache has problems? Needs maintenance log? We all know how effective that is.

What happens when the cache has problems is that seekers post NMs and NAs, and reviewers respond by archiving the cache. It is very effective, at least when it's used. And it works whether the CO's paying any attention or not.

 

Cache Cop? What's wrong with identifying a cache that's been abandoned and having it removed. Who is going to be offended by that? The owner of the cache? I'm sure the general geocaching community would be grateful.

I don't understand why you bring up "cache cop". I'm advocating seekers post the appropriate messages. I'm arguing against a procedure that requires the CO to take some positive action to avoid cache archival even when there is no problem with the cache precisely because it undermines the seekers' responsibilities in determining when a cache should be archived.

Link to comment

When I'm leaving a thank you to the cache owner, I'm thanking them for providing a quality cache experience and for being a good cache owner. But in essence their cache has become litter. It irks me to inadvertently thank someone for letting their cache become litter.

As cachers we should be concerned. Isn't geo-litter one of the knocks on geocaching. That's exactly what an absentee owner is contributing to.

I don't understand why it's litter if it's being maintained as well as it ever has, just by someone else.

 

Not the point. The point is that the cache owner agreed, when they placed the cache to maintain it and remove it when they are no longer able or willing to take care of it.

 

(And, no, actually, I don't think geocaching gets any serious knocks from geo-litter. I doubt anyone except geocachers even understands the concept. To muggles, in extremely rare cases, a cache becomes actual litter, but that's not even a drop in the bucket compared to the more common sources of litter.)

 

This was an example of the problems caused by an absentee owner. What happens when people are attempting a particular cache at night and the land owner would like "no night caching" added to the cache page. What if the area is designated conservation land and the land owners need to have the cache moved? Maybe the land owner simply doesn't want people caching on their property any more.

 

Someone has to be responsible to address these issues. Unresponsive cache owners give the activity a bad reputation.

 

What happens when the cache has problems? Needs maintenance log? We all know how effective that is.

What happens when the cache has problems is that seekers post NMs and NAs, and reviewers respond by archiving the cache. It is very effective, at least when it's used. And it works whether the CO's paying any attention or not.

 

Do a simple pocket query using the needs maintenance icon and see how many caches come up. 491 within a 25 mile radius of where I live. There are many that have been like that for years. When you look a little deeper you see that the owners have been inactive for just as long, Someone replaces a log or container and the problem perpetuates.

Cache Cop? What's wrong with identifying a cache that's been abandoned and having it removed. Who is going to be offended by that? The owner of the cache? I'm sure the general geocaching community would be grateful.

I don't understand why you bring up "cache cop". I'm advocating seekers post the appropriate messages. I'm arguing against a procedure that requires the CO to take some positive action to avoid cache archival even when there is no problem with the cache precisely because it undermines the seekers' responsibilities in determining when a cache should be archived.

 

This is in response to another comment in the thread. Many cachers are unwilling to post a needs maintenance log never mind a needs archived log. I don't understand the fear in doing so. If a cache is in bad shape and the cache owner is doing nothing about it why should you care what others think.

 

 

There has to be a better way of holding cache owners responsible. If a cache has been abandoned why wait to have it removed. Open up the space for new cachers to place new caches.

Link to comment

This seems to be veering off topic.

 

I have had my initial query fulfilled. (I will not try "educational notes" but just use NM and NA as appropriate and explain why I am logging such)

 

We do not need another heated discussion on owner responsibilities/maintenance. The guidelines are clear what is required of owners. I do think all cachers should use the NM and NA when needed and when appropriate. There should not be a fear associated with alerting an owner there is an issue with their cache...but again off topic, thats not what my query was really about. I've come to the conclusion that I cannot educate everyone everywhere, some will continue in a behavior even if you asked them not to, and if a cacher really wanted to educate they themselves would read the help center and other resources.

 

Mods feel free to close post if you feel appropriate.

Edited by ConsHaltonCache
Link to comment

This is in response to another comment in the thread. Many cachers are unwilling to post a needs maintenance log never mind a needs archived log. I don't understand the fear in doing so.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

If a cache is in bad shape and the cache owner is doing nothing about it why should you care what others think.

Don't be silly. You should always care what others think. I think part of the reason NMs and NAs have a bad rap is that it's too easy for people logging them to see themselves, however unconsciously, as punishing the CO for bad maintenance. For example, "your cache is bad" vs. "your cache has this specific problem which I think you should address". Combine a log which inadvertantly comes across as "this cache stinks" with a thin skinned CO, and you have a bad experience all around. This is harder to do if you phrase the log while considering what the CO will think.

Link to comment

This is in response to another comment in the thread. Many cachers are unwilling to post a needs maintenance log never mind a needs archived log. I don't understand the fear in doing so.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

If a cache is in bad shape and the cache owner is doing nothing about it why should you care what others think.

Don't be silly. You should always care what others think. I think part of the reason NMs and NAs have a bad rap is that it's too easy for people logging them to see themselves, however unconsciously, as punishing the CO for bad maintenance. For example, "your cache is bad" vs. "your cache has this specific problem which I think you should address". Combine a log which inadvertantly comes across as "this cache stinks" with a thin skinned CO, and you have a bad experience all around. This is harder to do if you phrase the log while considering what the CO will think.

 

Sorry, I can't help it I'm silly by nature.

 

Not sure where all that you typed above was going. I'm certainly not qualified to speak about the psychological ramifications of the needs maintenance log. Here is what I was saying.

 

I don't believe there is such a thing as a bad cache.

 

Any cache that gets me outside and having fun is a good cache (that means all of them). I do think there are bad cache owners and that is what this discussion thread is all about.

 

"I don't care what others think."

 

If I find a cache that needs maintenance I'll post a N/M. If the cache owner doesn't like it, to bad. If the caching community thinks I'm running around policing geocaches, oh well. You make it sound like posting a N/M or N/A log is a personal attack on the cache owner. If that's how they see it they should gather up there caches and find another hobby. I'm extremely grateful to cachers who take the time to let me know that there's something's wrong with one of my caches. When I see a N/M I know it's means work for me but it's more important that the next person who chooses to do one of my cache finds a cache in good shape.

 

Why would a reasonable, responsible cache owner take offense to a needs maintenance log? I'll tell you why. Placing the cache was fun. But now your telling me I have to spend my time watching over it and fixing it up when there's a problem? The're offended that you expect them to do what they agreed to do when they placed the cache.

 

Don't make the mistake of reading into someone else's words and actions. Take things at face value until you learn otherwise. Perfect example is you response above. Why dose a needs maintenance log need to mean anything else other than the cache needs help?

 

It's this simple. You hide a cache. You take care of the cache. You archive the cache when you're done.

Link to comment

Sorry, I can't help it I'm silly by nature.

Noted.

 

You make it sound like posting a N/M or N/A log is a personal attack on the cache owner.

I consider myself one of the biggest supporters of posting NMs and NAs in the forums, so you might consider whether you misunderstood me.

 

Why would a reasonable, responsible cache owner take offense to a needs maintenance log?

I thought I explained this pretty well, but I'll try again. A reasonable, responsible CO could take offense in the following scenario:

 

  1. The person posting the NM or NA doesn't think there's such a thing as a bad cache, so they don't consider that anyone else might think there's such a thing as a bad cache.
  2. That person doesn't care what anyone else thinks, so they don't consider that their words might not be interpreted exactly how they intend them to be interpreted.
  3. They post a poorly worded log that could be mistakenly read as being negative and unhelpful.
  4. The CO recognizes that some people think there's such a thing as a bad cache, understands that some people really can be mean and thoughtless, and reads the poorly worded log as being from such a person.

The moral of the story is, as I said at the beginning, that you should care what other people think.

 

Now I'm sure your logs are always perfectly worded, so even though you've declared yourself that you match #1 and #2, you never make the mistake in #3. But I'm speaking up because other people reading this thread might not be as good at writing clear logs, and it's much easier to avoid a log that can be misinterpreted if you understand the concept of a bad cache and care about whether you might, however unintentionally, hurt someone's feelings by suggesting they have one.

Link to comment

Sorry, I can't help it I'm silly by nature.

Noted.

 

You make it sound like posting a N/M or N/A log is a personal attack on the cache owner.

I consider myself one of the biggest supporters of posting NMs and NAs in the forums, so you might consider whether you misunderstood me.

 

Why would a reasonable, responsible cache owner take offense to a needs maintenance log?

I thought I explained this pretty well, but I'll try again. A reasonable, responsible CO could take offense in the following scenario:

 

  1. The person posting the NM or NA doesn't think there's such a thing as a bad cache, so they don't consider that anyone else might think there's such a thing as a bad cache.
  2. That person doesn't care what anyone else thinks, so they don't consider that their words might not be interpreted exactly how they intend them to be interpreted.
  3. They post a poorly worded log that could be mistakenly read as being negative and unhelpful.
  4. The CO recognizes that some people think there's such a thing as a bad cache, understands that some people really can be mean and thoughtless, and reads the poorly worded log as being from such a person.

The moral of the story is, as I said at the beginning, that you should care what other people think.

 

Now I'm sure your logs are always perfectly worded, so even though you've declared yourself that you match #1 and #2, you never make the mistake in #3. But I'm speaking up because other people reading this thread might not be as good at writing clear logs, and it's much easier to avoid a log that can be misinterpreted if you understand the concept of a bad cache and care about whether you might, however unintentionally, hurt someone's feelings by suggesting they have one.

 

This whole thread is about posting a needs maintenance log when a cahce needs maintenance. The fact that it needs maintenance has nothing to do with the quality of the hide. How a cacher "words" the log has no bearing on the fact that the cache needs maintenance and that the cache owner should take care of the problem. If a cacher posted a needs maintenance log because they didn't like my cache than so be it. I guess, for you, it boils down to how thin skinned the cache owner is. I guess you could put on the cache page "Please no negative logs" if it bothers you that much. People are going to write all kinds of logs. You can't and shouldn't expect every log to be wonderful. It's there log and there experience whether you like it or not. The important thing is to respond to the needs maintenance log and fix the problem.

 

The moral of the story, in this case, is you shouldn't hesitate posting a legitimate needs maintenance log because your afraid of offending the cache owner.

Link to comment

The moral of the story, in this case, is you shouldn't hesitate posting a legitimate needs maintenance log because your afraid of offending the cache owner.

The fact that you still don't understand, after all I've written, that I agree with this 100% tells me I'm not going to get through to you, so I won't bother to respond again.

Link to comment

No. You agree with the needs maintenance log (most do). The problem is your trying to connect some significance to the actual wording of the log in regards to the quality of the cache rather than the importance of the log itself. It's ok to see that a cache has had multiple needs maintenance logs, as long as it also has multiple owners maintenance logs. That tells me more about the cache and cache owner than any negative log would.

 

I'm sure people in the forum could come up with a few logs that were down right nasty toward a particular cache or owner. We can also agree that the majority of needs maintenance logs are used as intended. As a helpful tool to aid cache owners in maintaining their caches.

 

Lets agree that when posting a needs maintenance log we should do so tastefully and for the right reasons.

Link to comment

No. You agree with the needs maintenance log (most do). The problem is your trying to connect some significance to the actual wording of the log in regards to the quality of the cache rather than the importance of the log itself.

I'm suggesting people consider how their wording will be interpreted.

Link to comment

No. You agree with the needs maintenance log (most do). The problem is your trying to connect some significance to the actual wording of the log in regards to the quality of the cache rather than the importance of the log itself.

I'm suggesting people consider how their wording will be interpreted.

 

Understood. But how dose that pertain to the posters question whether or not to be proactive in having an un-maintained cache removed?

 

My comment about not caring was in regards to the absentee cache owner being put off by a maintenance log. In this case I don't care if the cache owner is upset. I'm upset that they've allowed their cache to degrade and are unwilling to do anything about it. Fix it, disable it or archive it. All are acceptable. But doing nothing isn't.

 

If the cache owner chooses to take offense to my needs maintenance log well that's unfortunate. I would hope that any cache owner would interpret a needs maintenance log as a reminder of the commitment they made when they chose to hide the cache.

 

I tend to take things at face value. I'm sure you can interpret all kinds of bad things in the simplest of statements. Why not look at a needs maintenance log and think "Thanks for the heads up, I need to get out there and fix that thing up soon?" rather than an attack on your cache hiding abilities. Maybe their afraid that the cachers in their area will think their a bad cache owner. If you are a responsible cache owner and maintain your caches you know your a good owner. Why worry about what others think. If someone is going to judge you on a single comment in a single log why would that persons opinion of you even matter? Unless of course you are a bad cache owner.

 

to be specific to the original question. It's well within the land owner/managers right to insist that caches placed on their property be maintained. It's irrelevant whether or not other cachers are maintaining the cache out of the goodness of their heart. Someone has to be accountable for the cache and accountable to the land owner/manager, and that person is the one with the ability to post the owners maintenance log. If they are unwilling or unable to do that then the cache should be archived.

Link to comment

Understood. But how dose that pertain to the posters question whether or not to be proactive in having an un-maintained cache removed?

In the subtitle, the OP calls them "crappy caches".

after reading the post it seems like they are referring to the condition of the cache and the lack of maintenance not the cache hide in general.

It doesn't matter why they think the cache is crappy, it's still not a good thing to say in the NM. I wasn't really thinking the OP would say anything like that, but someone that doesn't care what other people think might.

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...