Cache Maintenance Etiquette #2

[+lee737]

I found a cache yesterday with my son and a muggle friend. We were only looking for it as it was close to the start of a well maintained walking trail we wanted to do (and cache!). Past reports of the first cache weren't great, wet/soggy etc, it was in a nice spot though, so we searched. We found it, completely saturated, a couple of past NMs ignored it seemed.

 

So we posted a Found It log, with the suggestion the cache be maintained, or removed/archived. I also posted a NA log.

 

Within half an hour the CO posted an Owner Maint log, saying he will replace this and its sister cache, and all will be well..... Obviously the NM attribute is now gone too.

Doesn't seem right - seems like a 'I'm planning to do maintenance log' rather than real maintenance. Annoyed me.....

 

I think the caches should be disabled, a write note posted, then re-enabled once maint done.... maybe its just me?

Edited April 18, 2016 by lee737

[+The A-Team]

...

Within half an hour the CO posted an Owner Maint log, saying he will replace this...

I'm starting to see this more often around here. Owners are using the Owner Maintenance log as a sort of "Owner Note" log rather than indicating that maintenance has been performed by the owner, with the side effect you pointed out that it clears the NM flag before the maintenance has been performed. I haven't noticed it happen after any of my NM logs yet, but if it did, I'd likely submit another NM log to re-set the flag, stating why I'm doing so and explaining why it would be better if the owner used "Write note" for such communication.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Why can't Groundspeak make those log actions just a whole lot more clear?

- Owner Maintenance Done

- Needs Reviewer Attention

 

Only one extra word each. Would it kill anything?

[+L0ne.R]

He's already ignored 2 NMs. I think your NA is negated with his OM. I don't know whether the reviewer will bother to look. You could try contacting the reviewer.

[+Team Hugs]

NA logs are automatically sent to the reviewer. What the reviewer does is up to him/her/it, but in principle the reviewer now knows about the problem and can keep an eye on the situation.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

I think the caches should be disabled, a write note posted, then re-enabled once maint done.... maybe its just me?

 

Sure, there is no reason to log owner maintenance before it's actually done.

 

But do we really need three logs for it? Sure if the cache is actually missing, or destroyed disable right away then proceed with maintenance and enabling it. But what about small things? Why do I need to have separate logs to replace the logbook? Or put a new LnL out because the other one is getting old and worn out? Neither of those require disabling the cache (it's still there, and findable.) One log-ower maintenance covers that just fine.

[+boothie103]

I am still relatively new, but I have found some disgusting caches that needed trashing and starting again. So my theory is start a new report that goes like NONASSCBI or some such whereby it is taken to the nearest bin and trashed and the site is opened up to someone that may care about a cache.

 

NONASSCBI would stand for No One Needs A Stinky Smelly Cache Bin It. This would enable waste of time caches that need to be propped up honest cachers to be disposed of and recycled. Logic goes with CITO, Cache Induced Trash Out.

[+J Grouchy]

Happens here too. There is a CO who used to live in Atlanta but now lives in Amsterdam. Usually when a NM gets posted on his caches, he'll do something similar, saying "a local cacher will fix the problem" or sometimes even "no maintenance necessary". He also happens to be the "founder" of a local cache group, so he gets a pass from everyone apparently...so I don't even bother objecting to it anymore since it does me no good.