Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
tfrank48

Cache Maintenance Error

Recommended Posts

When placing a new cache from the cache posting screen, I show 5 caches

that need maintenance, of which none have the maintenance icon/wrench

because I have deleted all/any logs having the icon in them, which is what Groundspeak says to do. However, they still show. Is this a matter of Groundspeak doing their own maintenance? Ideas ..... ?

Share this post


Link to post

Are you logging Owner Maintenance (after doing owner maintenance) ?

 

Please show a link where Groundspeak says to delete NM logs from the cache page.

Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
I have deleted all/any logs having the icon in them

 

Deleting an action log on Geocaching.com does not undo the action.

The action logs are all paired:

 

Temp Disable / Enable

Needs Maintenance / Owner Maintenance (these are "action" logs, as they act to add or remove the NM attribute)

Archive / Unarchive (Unarchive only available to admin accounts) (I bet you've seen an archived cache with No Archive log, sometimes with Enable logs posted by the cache owner. First, they archive the cache. Then changed their minds and tried deleting the archive log, then tried an enable log.... it's still archived)

 

Trackables likewise, if a TB is dropped into a cache, deleting the log will not take it out of the inventory of the cache it where it was dropped;

another action log (grabbed) will need to be posted to take it out of inventory

Share this post


Link to post

When placing a new cache from the cache posting screen, I show 5 caches

that need maintenance, of which none have the maintenance icon/wrench

because I have deleted all/any logs having the icon in them, which is what Groundspeak says to do. However, they still show. Is this a matter of Groundspeak doing their own maintenance? Ideas ..... ?

 

Groundspeak clearly states that deleting the NM log does not remove the MN attribute.

 

4.12. Log Deletion

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

Deleting a Needs Maintenance log will not clear the Needs Maintenance attribute from the listing. Log an Owner Maintenance to clear that attribute.

 

Did you look at the cache pages? Your caches still have the NM icon/red wrench.

 

https://coord.info/GC2ZV2F The reviewer told you "I'm temporarily disabling it to give the cache owner an opportunity to check on the cache and/or listing, take whatever action is necessary, and post an Owner Maintenance note." You posted a normal "write note" log instead.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.21. Removing the Needs Maintenance Icon

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=404

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

I preferred the previous solution where it was also possible to remove a NM icon by editing the set of attributes.

In case an NM log has been filed by mistake or when it is not a maintenance issue it is plain wrong to log a performed maintenance log.

 

I prefer to restrict performed maintenance logs to cases where I did something which I regard as mainentance. If someone writes a NM log and asks for example

for the removal of the bikes allowed attribute because this person complains that the cache is not suited for bicycle shoes, then I regard posting a performed maintenance log

as plain wrong and potentially misleading also (one neither visited any of the stages of the caches nor changed anything in the description in such a case).

Share this post


Link to post

I preferred the previous solution where it was also possible to remove a NM icon by editing the set of attributes.

In case an NM log has been filed by mistake or when it is not a maintenance issue it is plain wrong to log a performed maintenance log.

 

I prefer to restrict performed maintenance logs to cases where I did something which I regard as mainentance. If someone writes a NM log and asks for example

for the removal of the bikes allowed attribute because this person complains that the cache is not suited for bicycle shoes, then I regard posting a performed maintenance log

as plain wrong and potentially misleading also (one neither visited any of the stages of the caches nor changed anything in the description in such a case).

 

Being able to just delete the NM attribute was a bad idea. CO's could just delete them whether they were warranted or not. Legitimate NM's could be swept under the table, and the CO could lie about the situation. I'm glad GS removed the ability to lie about the cache condition.

 

In this case, the CO believes the NM is not showing on the cache pages. Which proves the CO did not even look at his cache listings.

 

It's not a hardship, and if owning this many caches is onerous, perhaps the CO should rethink cache ownership.

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

As this is not a website feature request or bug report, I'm moving the thread to the "How do I...?" forum.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not a hardship, and if owning this many caches is onerous, perhaps the CO should rethink cache ownership.

 

I addressed the issue where "performed maintenance" is not what corresponds to the reality. That's not a question of having to rethink ownership.

I like my logs to reflect the reality. I do not want to pay a price for others who abuse something.

 

I'm very careful about distinguishing between notes and performed maintenance for my caches. If I for example add something which is not of relevance to finding the cache to my cache description, I write a note but not a performed maintenance log.

Share this post


Link to post

A much broader interpretation of the Owner Maintenace log type could also include maintenance on the Listing page. If someone erroneously posts an NM on a Listing, the OM merely demonstrates that maintenance has been performed on the Listing page. Just food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
A much broader interpretation of the Owner Maintenace log type could also include maintenance on the Listing page. If someone erroneously posts an NM on a Listing, the OM merely demonstrates that maintenance has been performed on the Listing page. Just food for thought.
I think cezanne's point is that there wasn't even any maintenance being performed on the listing page, unless you count posting the OM log to clear the NM attribute "maintenance on the listing page".

Share this post


Link to post

When placing a new cache from the cache posting screen, I show 5 caches

that need maintenance, of which none have the maintenance icon/wrench

because I have deleted all/any logs having the icon in them, which is what Groundspeak says to do. However, they still show. Is this a matter of Groundspeak doing their own maintenance? Ideas ..... ?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2ZV2F_brown-1

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2MAYX_picnic

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2CQY2_tight-squeeze

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2B6BM_got-meds

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2AR1H_double-cross

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1TTV8_shady-walk-2

 

If I had posted NM logs on any of your caches and you summarily deleted my NM logs, I would consider you a real Jerk. (Note this is a hypothetical case, not an actual name-calling.)

Share this post


Link to post
A much broader interpretation of the Owner Maintenace log type could also include maintenance on the Listing page. If someone erroneously posts an NM on a Listing, the OM merely demonstrates that maintenance has been performed on the Listing page. Just food for thought.
I think cezanne's point is that there wasn't even any maintenance being performed on the listing page, unless you count posting the OM log to clear the NM attribute "maintenance on the listing page".

In a way, yes, I would consider it "maintenance", in much the same fashion I would acknowledge deleting Find log entries from apparent bots, and Users that violate the TOU in their *creative* use of language in a log entry. Maintenance does not need to be confined to the cache itself.

Share this post


Link to post
A much broader interpretation of the Owner Maintenace log type could also include maintenance on the Listing page. If someone erroneously posts an NM on a Listing, the OM merely demonstrates that maintenance has been performed on the Listing page. Just food for thought.
I think cezanne's point is that there wasn't even any maintenance being performed on the listing page, unless you count posting the OM log to clear the NM attribute "maintenance on the listing page".

In a way, yes, I would consider it "maintenance", in much the same fashion I would acknowledge deleting Find log entries from apparent bots, and Users that violate the TOU in their *creative* use of language in a log entry. Maintenance does not need to be confined to the cache itself.

 

Personally I think that such tasks do not warrant a performed maintenance log (do you write such a log when you delete logs?)- performed maintenance logs in my opinion send out a signal which I do not consider as appropriate if neither the cache has been visited nor something of relevance has been changed in the description. Of course you are free to interpret maintenance as broad as you want - I just do not like that a broad interpretation is enforced on everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I think that such tasks do not warrant a performed maintenance log (do you write such a log when you delete logs?)

 

Yes, I do. If the User comes back to Log the Listing again, they'll see an explanation, in addition to the email I sent them, exactly why their Log was deleted. So far, that approach has prevented my Listings from turning into a Forum.

 

I just do not like that a broad interpretation is enforced on everyone.

 

I didn't see anywhere that anyone was suggesting *enforcing* anything.

Share this post


Link to post
A much broader interpretation of the Owner Maintenace log type could also include maintenance on the Listing page. If someone erroneously posts an NM on a Listing, the OM merely demonstrates that maintenance has been performed on the Listing page. Just food for thought.

I think cezanne's point is that there wasn't even any maintenance being performed on the listing page, unless you count posting the OM log to clear the NM attribute "maintenance on the listing page".

And I do, in fact, count clearing the maintenance flag with an OM as maintenance. People saw the mistaken NM log, so they also need to see the OM log that explains the mistake and corrects it.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I think that such tasks do not warrant a performed maintenance log (do you write such a log when you delete logs?)

 

Yes, I do. If the User comes back to Log the Listing again, they'll see an explanation, in addition to the email I sent them, exactly why their Log was deleted. So far, that approach has prevented my Listings from turning into a Forum.

 

If I happened to arrive in such a situation I would write a note. I still think that performed maintenance is not the proper log type for such cases - it sends out a wrong message.

 

The typical finder will care about the status of the cache and the cache description - that is all what is relevant for going for the cache and not whether a log got deleted. Putting such trivial actions up to the maintenance level creates noise and makes performed maintenance logs much less of an indicator for what they are supposed to exist in my opinion.

 

I didn't see anywhere that anyone was suggesting *enforcing* anything.

 

In my understanding the fact that since a while the NM attribute can be cleared only by writing a performed maintenance log is the kind of enforcement I referred to. The reality is that just because some people abuse something, the ones who never would do that are punished.

 

I also do not appreciate that wrong logs for TBs cannot be repaired in a way that corresponds to the physical reality. It e.g. happened more than once that the wrong account logged a trackable because some people share a computer at some point in time and did not check in advance who was currently logged in. The way to correct this creates a number of annoying logs which are unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post

The reality is that just because some people abuse something, the ones who never would do that are punished.

 

That's kind of the facts of life.

Share this post


Link to post

If I happened to arrive in such a situation I would write a note. I still think that performed maintenance is not the proper log type for such cases - it sends out a wrong message.

This is what I don't understand. I always see an OM as a positive message. Can you explain what wrong message it's sending? There was a problem, the CO fixed it. How can him saying he fixed it by posting a log that is designed to literally announce "I fixed it" send the wrong message? Is it just because you think there's some reason it should only be posted when something physical is fixed? Why?

Share this post


Link to post

If I happened to arrive in such a situation I would write a note. I still think that performed maintenance is not the proper log type for such cases - it sends out a wrong message.

This is what I don't understand. I always see an OM as a positive message. Can you explain what wrong message it's sending? There was a problem, the CO fixed it. How can him saying he fixed it by posting a log that is designed to literally announce "I fixed it" send the wrong message? Is it just because you think there's some reason it should only be posted when something physical is fixed? Why?

 

I clearly stated that I think a performed maintenance log is ok if something has been fixed which concerns the cache.

 

If one uses performed maintenance for irrelevant things (like deleting an log noone cares about), then the role of the performed maintenance log as an alert that something of relevance got done gets lost.

 

You write "if there was a problem" .....

In the cases I have in mind there was no problem and that's exactly the point.

Share this post


Link to post
[...]

I clearly stated that I think a performed maintenance log is ok if something has been fixed which concerns the cache.

[...]

 

You actually do exactly this when deleting an unappropriate NM attribute.

 

Hans

Share this post


Link to post

So hypothetically speaking, let's say there's a string of DNF's on a Listing with a high Difficulty, which is really hard to find. Finally someone gets kind of fed up and posts an NM, requesting a "welfare check" on the cache. The CO checks, and the cache is still in place. The CO did not do anything physically to the cache, other than to take a glance to confirm it was still there. Under your explanation of things, it sounds like an OM would be inappropriate and a Note won't clear the attribute. How do they get rid of the NM attribute in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
[...]

I clearly stated that I think a performed maintenance log is ok if something has been fixed which concerns the cache.

[...]

 

You actually do exactly this when deleting an unappropriate NM attribute.

 

touchstone argued that he writes performed maintenance logs when deleting bogus logs (that was not about NM logs, but in general).

 

As to your statement, that depends on one personal's definition of fixing a problem of the cache. In my opinion deleting an inappropriate NM attribute by deleting it directly (as it has been possible for a long time) makes more sense.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

If one uses performed maintenance for irrelevant things (like deleting an log noone cares about), then the role of the performed maintenance log as an alert that something of relevance got done gets lost.

I'm having a hard time imagining when an NM log would be one no one cares about.

Share this post


Link to post

If one uses performed maintenance for irrelevant things (like deleting an log noone cares about), then the role of the performed maintenance log as an alert that something of relevance got done gets lost.

I'm having a hard time imagining when an NM log would be one no one cares about.

 

First, oberve that touchstone suggested to log performed maintenance after every log deletion (as he considers log deletion as maintenance while I don't).

Second, I have seen many NM logs which were not about actual maintenance needs and so yes, everyone who just is interested into finding the cache and in its condition, will not care about such logs at all.

 

When I by mistake write a found it when I wanted to write a DNF or the other way round or use a wrong date (happens often), I also can easily correct it and I'm not writing a note that I changed my log type - I just do it.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

If I happened to arrive in such a situation I would write a note. I still think that performed maintenance is not the proper log type for such cases - it sends out a wrong message.

This is what I don't understand. I always see an OM as a positive message. Can you explain what wrong message it's sending? There was a problem, the CO fixed it. How can him saying he fixed it by posting a log that is designed to literally announce "I fixed it" send the wrong message? Is it just because you think there's some reason it should only be posted when something physical is fixed? Why?

 

I clearly stated that I think a performed maintenance log is ok if something has been fixed which concerns the cache.

 

I have on a couple of occasions had a NM posted on one of my caches with a suggestion that it was missing. I went out, found the cache exactly where I placed it and noted that the log was dry and had room for more signature. I didn't really "fix" anything, but I would still consider visiting that cache and confirming that there there wasn't a problem with it to be owner maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post

I have on a couple of occasions had a NM posted on one of my caches with a suggestion that it was missing. I went out, found the cache exactly where I placed it and noted that the log was dry and had room for more signature. I didn't really "fix" anything, but I would still consider visiting that cache and confirming that there there wasn't a problem with it to be owner maintenance.

 

That's not a what I consider as misleading "performed maintenance" log as you visited the cache and can report that everything is ok.

However if one neither has visited the cache or some stages nor has changed anything in the description, then I think that performed maintenance sends out a wrong message.

 

I prefer if performed maintenance either signals a cache visit and that things are alright or a change has been made that is relevant for searching the cache. Otherwise performed maintenance gets a very noisy log type.

Share this post


Link to post

I prefer if performed maintenance either signals a cache visit and that things are alright or a change has been made that is relevant for searching the cache. Otherwise performed maintenance gets a very noisy log type.

OK, I see now. And I disagree. My presumption is that the physical cache is in good shape if there are no indications to the contrary, so I don't see the value in reserving the OM to imply some kind of extra assurance based on a physical visit. So I prefer using the OM to flag all maintenance actions taken by the CO, including actions that involve only the cache description or the cache log.

 

I agree with you that deleting a random log isn't something in the category, but this thread is about how to clear the maintenance flag, and this subdiscussion, as I recall, started when you wanted another way to clear it because you want to reserve the OM for physical visits. Now that I understand your concerns, I still say that using the OM to clear the maintenance flag is a good use of the OM because clearing the flag itself is a maintenance operation and should be flagged as such.

 

Naturally I'm assuming that suitable text in the OM will explain the maintenance action, so as long as you read the OM, there's no danger you'll be deceived into thinking it involved a physical visit when it didn't.

Share this post


Link to post

Naturally I'm assuming that suitable text in the OM will explain the maintenance action, so as long as you read the OM, there's no danger you'll be deceived into thinking it involved a physical visit when it didn't.

 

Ha! I've seen a lot of OM logs that just say "It's fine." No way of knowing whether it was fine all along or the CO did major repairs to make it fine, or if the CO even visited the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Naturally I'm assuming that suitable text in the OM will explain the maintenance action, so as long as you read the OM, there's no danger you'll be deceived into thinking it involved a physical visit when it didn't.

 

Ha! I've seen a lot of OM logs that just say "It's fine." No way of knowing whether it was fine all along or the CO did major repairs to make it fine, or if the CO even visited the cache.

Such logs pose a significant judgment challenge for Reviewers, who must then decide whether the owner actually maintained the cache. If I notice a pattern where the owner always says this, I may take further action.

 

Fortunately, I know that this will never be the case for NanCycle. I personally inspected a number of her caches this week, and found all of them to be in excellent shape.

Share this post


Link to post

and this subdiscussion, as I recall, started when you wanted another way to clear it because you want to reserve the OM for physical visits.

 

For physical visits and for something which I regard as maintenance operation.

 

If someone writes a NM log by mistake, then repairing the mistake does not fall under maintenance operation.

 

I feel that (1) it should be possible that if the creator of a NM log deletes it the NM flag should be cleared and (2) that the cache owner should be able clear the NM attribute directly if it is inappropriate (along with a proper explanation). Sometimes there are even cachers who first write a found it and then a DNF and write in the DNF please delete my find - it has been written in error. Just having the power to clear NM logs that come into existence in this manner is much easier and less annoying than explaining cachers who have no idea whatsoever how to do what.

Share this post


Link to post

Naturally I'm assuming that suitable text in the OM will explain the maintenance action, so as long as you read the OM, there's no danger you'll be deceived into thinking it involved a physical visit when it didn't.

 

Ha! I've seen a lot of OM logs that just say "It's fine." No way of knowing whether it was fine all along or the CO did major repairs to make it fine, or if the CO even visited the cache.

Such logs pose a significant judgment challenge for Reviewers, who must then decide whether the owner actually maintained the cache. If I notice a pattern where the owner always says this, I may take further action.

 

Fortunately, I know that this will never be the case for NanCycle. I personally inspected a number of her caches this week, and found all of them to be in excellent shape.

 

Thanks you for the kind words. Actually I do have a few that need some attention.

Share this post


Link to post

and this subdiscussion, as I recall, started when you wanted another way to clear it because you want to reserve the OM for physical visits.

 

For physical visits and for something which I regard as maintenance operation.

 

If someone writes a NM log by mistake, then repairing the mistake does not fall under maintenance operation.

 

I feel that (1) it should be possible that if the creator of a NM log deletes it the NM flag should be cleared and (2) that the cache owner should be able clear the NM attribute directly if it is inappropriate (along with a proper explanation). Sometimes there are even cachers who first write a found it and then a DNF and write in the DNF please delete my find - it has been written in error. Just having the power to clear NM logs that come into existence in this manner is much easier and less annoying than explaining cachers who have no idea whatsoever how to do what.

 

Back and forth, back and forth.

 

No. Sorry, I, too think you're wrong.

 

If you provide a quick way of deleting NM wrenches, MANY COs will just clear the wrench. If it were up to them, MANY COs would not stand for the 'embarassment' of having it displayed for all to see that their stuff is not pristine and perfect. We often read here about COs that delete critical logs, so why do you think it wouldn't be common that they would delete wrenches?

 

Your cache listing is part of your cache. You don't create one part without the other. Maintenance on any of it is maintenance on the whole.

 

If I fixed or added a hint to a cache description, I'd consider that Owner Maintenance, too, and I'd file an OM log.

 

If it doesn't sit right with you, maybe try a different seat; another perspective.

 

And, you haven't yet answered the question about what the 'bad message' will be if you have maintenance logs except to say that's would be "something <not> of relevance". Is it like having the "This post has been edited by..." tag on these forum posts? If that's your reason, it's not good enough.

 

I feel that (1) it should be possible that if the creator of a NM log deletes it the NM flag should be cleared

 

Maybe, but that's not what you've been saying.

 

<...> and (2) that the cache owner should be able clear the NM attribute directly if it is inappropriate (along with a proper explanation). <...>

 

Does that mean it has to be reviewed by someone? If not, how do you program that rule?

 

<...> Sometimes there are even cachers who first write a found it and then a DNF and write in the DNF please delete my find - it has been written in error. <...>

 

Irrelevant - not what we're discussing.

 

<...> Just having the power to clear NM logs that come into existence in this manner is much easier and less annoying than explaining cachers who have no idea whatsoever how to do what.

 

So, dumb-down a useful (and in my opinion, necessary) feature of the system, OUR system, because you say that some people don't know how to do something? By this logic, we should eliminate trackables.

 

<...> If I for example add something which is not of relevance to finding the cache to my cache description, I write a note but not a performed maintenance log.

 

Again, not what we're discussing. We're talking specifically about taking action that changes the status and efficacy of finding a cache, and not, for example, fixing a spelling error or adding an historical note to a description.

 

I can't see how getting rid of an NM wrench isn't "of relevance to finding the cache", since its presence will stop many people from looking for it or fundamentally change the nature of their hunt and the effort they expend.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun

Share this post


Link to post

If someone writes a NM log by mistake, then repairing the mistake does not fall under maintenance operation.

And I disagree. As the CO, you may know it's a mistake, but it's not reasonable to assume everyone else that saw the NM will understand it's a mistake unless you correct the problem by posting the OM explaining why the NM wasn't valid.

Share this post


Link to post

If you provide a quick way of deleting NM wrenches, MANY COs will just clear the wrench.

 

Yes, probably. I'm not one of those and I still prefer not to have to live with all these restrictions which just come because some people do not things as they are supposed to do them.

 

We often read here about COs that delete critical logs, so why do you think it wouldn't be common that they would delete wrenches?

 

I did not say that it will not happen.

Those who want to cheat can also write faked performed maintenance logs. They are not the ones who care about the meaning of the log types anyway.

 

As log deletions are regarded, I have no need to read stories about it - it happens to me at least once per year.

 

Your cache listing is part of your cache. You don't create one part without the other. Maintenance on any of it is maintenance on the whole.

 

The logs which are not authored by me do not belong to my cache.

 

If I fixed or added a hint to a cache description, I'd consider that Owner Maintenance, too, and I'd file an OM log.

 

That's ok for me.

 

And, you haven't yet answered the question about what the 'bad message' will be if you have maintenance logs except to say that's would be "something <not> of relevance". Is it like having the "This post has been edited by..." tag on these forum posts? If that's your reason, it's not good enough.

 

No, it is not at all related to that tag.

I still think that performed maintenance should be kept as a signal for when it is either confirmed that the cache is ok or if something of relevance to the cache changed.

 

If one uses performed maintenance to reply to silly NM logs (like remove the bicycle allowed attribute if bicycles are allowed), then the performed maintenance log gets used in an inflationary way and has no meaning any longer at all. Of course the text of a log is what is more important than the type, but that does not mean that the type is irrelevant.

 

Does that mean it has to be reviewed by someone? If not, how do you program that rule?

 

No, no review needed. In the same way as someone can write an inappropriate performed maintenance log one could provide an inappropriate reason for a NM attribute deletion in a note (that could well be compulsory).

 

Irrelevant - not what we're discussing.

 

It's not irrelevant in my opinion as many inappropriate NM logs are due to cachers who are not familiar enough with what should be done when.

 

 

So, dumb-down a useful (and in my opinion, necessary) feature of the system, OUR system, because you say that some people don't know how to do something? By this logic, we should eliminate trackables.

 

Actually, I have never really regarded needs maintenance logs and wrenches as important - I cached for many years without them existing and I enjoyed caching more than I do now.

 

Either the cache owner takes care of a cache and reads logs and reacts or he/she does not. NM logs do not change anything and they typically also have no influence on whether other cachers visit a cache or whether they come prepared to help out.

 

 

 

Again, not what we're discussing. We're talking specifically about taking action that changes the status and efficacy of finding a cache, and not, for example, fixing a spelling error or adding an historical note to a description.

 

No we are not talking about the former as when the former is concerned, logging a performed maintenance is ok for me while it is not when the changes to the cache description or the log history are of no relevance to a cache visit.

 

I can't see how getting rid of an NM wrench isn't "of relevance to finding the cache", since its presence will stop many people from looking for it or fundamentally change the nature of their hunt and the effort they expend.

 

I just regret that the old option to remove the wrench is gone. I did not say that I want to let the wrench stay.

 

I know that most cachers are pragmatic and just care about the result of an action, i.e. that the wrench is removed. They do not care about whether the types of their logs make full sense while I do care about that very much.

Share this post


Link to post

<...>

 

Well, we seem to fundamentally disagree over what comprises a cache, what we as COs should communicate to our customers, what people look at, how it effects them and their behavior, how people will compromise and sidestep this function and to what extent this function is useful.

 

Other than that....

 

I guess it's closer than the two Koreas, right?

Share this post


Link to post

I know that most cachers are pragmatic and just care about the result of an action, i.e. that the wrench is removed. They do not care about whether the types of their logs make full sense while I do care about that very much.

I also care about what the log type says, which is why I take the other side from you. Clearing a wrench is an obvious maintenance procedure, and it makes no sense for the CO to be able to perform that maintenance procedure without posting an OM.

Share this post


Link to post
If one uses performed maintenance for irrelevant things (like deleting an log noone cares about), then the role of the performed maintenance log as an alert that something of relevance got done gets lost.

 

Oh, come on. This discussion is ridiculous. If you don't want the Owner Maintenance log to stay, but you want the Needs Maintenance wrench gone, just log Owner Maintenance and then delete that log.

 

Seriously, how hard can it possibly be?

Share this post


Link to post
If one uses performed maintenance for irrelevant things (like deleting an log noone cares about), then the role of the performed maintenance log as an alert that something of relevance got done gets lost.

 

Oh, come on. This discussion is ridiculous. If you don't want the Owner Maintenance log to stay, but you want the Needs Maintenance wrench gone, just log Owner Maintenance and then delete that log.

 

Seriously, how hard can it possibly be?

 

There, done.

------------

 

But, (he said, unnecessarily stepping back into it) when I see red and green wrench flags at the top of the log list telling me how many of each type of log have been filed, I frequently go look for them, to see what kind of issues this cache may have had in the past. It all goes to getting the 'total picture'. (My playstyle is not the one where I blindly hunt dots on a screen, YMMV.)

 

I wonder, if you delete a wrench log, does that count decrement? Because if I saw wrench flags and couldn't find the corresponding logs, I might think (correctly) that someone was hiding something and with hidden issues, I might think twice about that one. Hinky logs, hinky cache. If I may be overly dramatic, is, for example, someone not letting me see that GZ is covered in used hypodermics?

Share this post


Link to post
If one uses performed maintenance for irrelevant things (like deleting an log noone cares about), then the role of the performed maintenance log as an alert that something of relevance got done gets lost.

Oh, come on. This discussion is ridiculous. If you don't want the Owner Maintenance log to stay, but you want the Needs Maintenance wrench gone, just log Owner Maintenance and then delete that log.

 

Seriously, how hard can it possibly be?

I agree it's easy, but why would anyone bother?

Share this post


Link to post

I preferred the previous solution where it was also possible to remove a NM icon by editing the set of attributes.

In case an NM log has been filed by mistake or when it is not a maintenance issue it is plain wrong to log a performed maintenance log.

 

I prefer to restrict performed maintenance logs to cases where I did something which I regard as mainentance. If someone writes a NM log and asks for example

for the removal of the bikes allowed attribute because this person complains that the cache is not suited for bicycle shoes, then I regard posting a performed maintenance log

as plain wrong and potentially misleading also (one neither visited any of the stages of the caches nor changed anything in the description in such a case).

 

Being able to just delete the NM attribute was a bad idea. CO's could just delete them whether they were warranted or not. Legitimate NM's could be swept under the table, and the CO could lie about the situation. I'm glad GS removed the ability to lie about the cache condition.

 

In this case, the CO believes the NM is not showing on the cache pages. Which proves the CO did not even look at his cache listings.

 

It's not a hardship, and if owning this many caches is onerous, perhaps the CO should rethink cache ownership.

 

B.

 

There is a cacher that had various missing caches and even said the caches were still there even though many were gone. They've finally archived some of them, and replaced them but for over 1 year the cache was missing. Cacher deleted various NM logs on many of these caches.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a cacher that had various missing caches and even said the caches were still there even though many were gone. They've finally archived some of them, and replaced them but for over 1 year the cache was missing. Cacher deleted various NM logs on many of these caches.

 

As we've said, deleting the NM log did not delete the attribute. So a long-standing NM would still show on the cache page.

 

In my area, Reviewers have been known to make "sweeps" of caches with long-standing NM attributes.

 

Also, long-standing NM attributes and a constant flow of DNF logs warrants a Needs Archived log.

 

Help Center → Finding a Geocache → Finding a Geocache

3.8. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=434

 

And just "deleting" a log does not mean it no longer exists. Folks can petition Groundspeak to have their deleted logs returned to the cache page. So, keep a copy or a screenshot of any NM log you post, just in case it gets "deleted" by the cache owner.

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

 

In my area, Reviewers have been known to make "sweeps" of caches with long-standing NM attributes.

 

 

How usual is this?

Share this post


Link to post

In my area, Reviewers have been known to make "sweeps" of caches with long-standing NM attributes.

 

 

How usual is this?

Very usual. At least in Germany.

 

Hans

Share this post


Link to post

In my area, Reviewers have been known to make "sweeps" of caches with long-standing NM attributes.

 

 

How usual is this?

Very usual. At least in Germany.

 

Hans

 

And Canada.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

In my area, Reviewers have been known to make "sweeps" of caches with long-standing NM attributes.

How usual is this?

Very usual. At least in Germany.

And Canada.

On the other hand, it almost never happens in my area. I think it depends on the local culture: in my area, an NM that isn't dealt with will be followed by someone else posting an NA in a month or two, so the reviewer is explicitly notified of the problem. From what I hear, in other areas geocachers are reluctant to file NAs for one reason or another, so apparently reviewers in those area feel they have to monitor NMs themselves. I've also heard that in some areas, the locals don't even file NMs, so reviewers scan for caches with a string of DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post
... From what I hear, in other areas geocachers are reluctant to file NAs for one reason or another, so apparently reviewers in those area feel they have to monitor NMs themselves. I've also heard that in some areas, the locals don't even file NMs, so reviewers scan for caches with a string of DNFs.

My area, I'm the bad guy, as most are sheepish when it comes to actions against another here.

Never thought of it that way, but it may be why we see a Reviewer get involved time-to-time.

- But I don't believe they feel they have to.

Rather, they've got some free time, and might be better than what's on tv at the moment. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...