Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+L0ne.R]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

In regions with few cachers and low cache density, which is the situation here and I'm sure in most of the world, removing perfectly good caches because their owners are currently inactive will just leave holes that won't be filled for a long time, and yes, that'll make geocaching worse for newcomers looking for finds in the area.

 

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines. Luckily I don't have that problem where I live. Having said that I've been tossing around the idea of "swapping" locations with other cachers in my community. for example, I have 6 caches in one general area. I know of another cacher that has 4 in another area. I adopt his and he adopts mine and we both hide new caches. Not sure if GS would go along with something like this but in an area that has limited cachers and caches it may be a way to keep things fresh without compromising the guidelines.

 

After re-reading you post something occurred to me. After you've found all the caches in your area why would you necessarily care if an ownerless cache was removed. It's not like your going to re-visit that cache over an over again after you found it? Or do you?

I'm concerned with the effect on the whole caching community, not on me. I put it to you that, globally, low cache density areas are the norm, not the exception. Just because some big cities in the USA and maybe Europe have saturation problems exacerbated by an unwillingness to post NMs and NAs on caches that have fallen into disrepair, doesn't mean the rest of the planet should suffer. As I said before, if abandoned rubbish hides by one-day-wonders are the cause of the problems you're experiencing, that needs to be fixed at its source. Killing off perfectly serviceable caches just because their owners haven't jumped through whatever hoops you're proposing doesn't help anyone. Local problems are best solved locally.

 

Cache density/saturation is a thing in the continent of North America and Europe, some parts of Australia are very dense with caches, especially tourist areas. (I know that New Zealand is not Australia but I screenshot it anyway because it surprised me with the density of caches there).

 

 

People vacationing in those densely populated tourist areas might like to find some caches in good shape. They might like to leave swag, a signature item or trackables that they brought from their own country. They might like a good quality maintained container to start it off. It will enhance their geocaching vacation experience. It's geocache vacationing that really did it for me--turned me off participating until something is done about all the mess out there.

[+coachstahly]

Again, "discernible issues" - with what, the cache itself? Or the listing?

Both are the responsibility of the CO. I'm not against disabling and removing ownerless caches that have issues, either on the cache page or the actual cache. Let me once again make that clear.

Right.

But on geocaching.com, a disabled listing (regardless of physical object state) is also in need of owner attention. It's in the agreement. And tmk, it's also legally advisable for GS to uphold that requirement, for reasons I mentioned above regarding responsible entity.

 

But I don't read into justin's comments that he thinks somehow listed caches with absolutely no problems are a problem.

I do, based on the quotes below from some of his posts.

 

What kind of caches? Ownerless ones? You mean if we start removing caches that are not being maintained the people who enjoy finding those will more on? Splendid lets get started.

Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

 

Nowhere does justintim1999 qualify his remarks to specify ownerless unmaintained caches in need of maintenance. Ownerless caches are lumped into a single entity. In fact, the bolded part of the second one is what I see him focusing on - the potential bad cache experience, even though it's currently a good cache experience.

See, those blue statements are already qualified as to me "not being maintained" implies maintenance is needed. Regardless of whether or not its state provides a "bad cache experience" (since that's entirely subjective). When I read those statements, I read it as "listings and/or caches which are in need of owner attention" (even as little as the owner re-enabling a disabled listing, so verifiably unmaintained). And not merely "reportedly bad experiences".

Potential, at least to me, implies something in the future so I see this as addressing ownerless caches, which are unmaintained BECAUSE they're ownerless, not because they're in need of maintenance.

 

Of course, we can keep dissecting his statements or we can ask him to weigh in on what he actually means. What say you, justintim1999? Ownerless caches that need maintenance or ALL ownerless caches?

[+thebruce0]

Potential, at least to me, implies something in the future so I see this as addressing ownerless caches, which are unmaintained BECAUSE they're ownerless, not because they're in need of maintenance.

 

Of course, we can keep dissecting his statements or we can ask him to weigh in on what he actually means. What say you, justintim1999? Ownerless caches that need maintenance or ALL ownerless caches?

True.

But, adjustment for hopeful clarity:

"Ownerless caches and/or listings that strictly have an outstanding issue or state which the listed owner is required to address, or ALL caches and/or listings including those for which the active responsiveness of the listed owner has not yet been tested?"

Edited May 18, 2017 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

Ownerless caches that need maintenance or ALL ownerless caches?

 

I doubt Groundspeak would do a sweep for ownerless caches. That would knock down the 3M active caches to maybe 1.5M active caches. Not good for trying to attract advertising and sponsorship revenue.

 

I'm glad that they are at least trying to address caches that are in need of attention. The ownerless caches that do not have reported problems will very likely stay.

Edited May 18, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+coachstahly]

People vacationing in those densely populated tourist areas might like to find some caches in good shape. They might like to leave swag, a signature item or trackables that they brought from their own country. They might like a good quality maintained container to start it off. It will enhance their geocaching vacation experience. It's geocache vacationing that really did it for me--turned me off participating until something is done about all the mess out there.

I don't disagree with anything you said except the very last sentence. I vacation cache when out with the family in new areas and I've rarely encountered much "mess" like you appear to find almost every time you go out. I cached in Branson, MO the first week of April and had very little mess. Most of the caches weren't in pristine shape but they were all in good shape with mostly dry logs that had room for more signatures and serviceable swag when possible. I posted two NM logs due to a full log in a nano, which I normally would have replaced and notified the CO that I had the log if they wanted it back, and a virtual that was missing the sign since it was painted over due to renovation, which might get repainted on. If not, it will be archived at some point in time since there are at least two NM logs on it now.

[+justintim1999]

Yes, I am looking for a hard target answer. I'm getting tired of 1000 word reply's to simple questions as well as outlandish scenarios put forth as proof of argument. I'm looking for a single timeframe that would best describe your idea of occasional.

It depends.

 

I can't give you a hard target because each and every cache I have is different and has different maintenance needs. It's my guess that no one else can either.

 

Keeping in mind that I too have caches with different maintenance needs, I'd say that once a year would be a reasonable interpretation of the word occasional. See it can be done, I just did it.

Edited May 18, 2017 by justintim1999

[+L0ne.R]

People vacationing in those densely populated tourist areas might like to find some caches in good shape. They might like to leave swag, a signature item or trackables that they brought from their own country. They might like a good quality maintained container to start it off. It will enhance their geocaching vacation experience. It's geocache vacationing that really did it for me--turned me off participating until something is done about all the mess out there.

I don't disagree with anything you said except the very last sentence. I vacation cache when out with the family in new areas and I've rarely encountered much "mess" like you appear to find almost every time you go out. I cached in Branson, MO the first week of April and had very little mess. Most of the caches weren't in pristine shape but they were all in good shape with mostly dry logs that had room for more signatures and serviceable swag when possible. I posted two NM logs due to a full log in a nano, which I normally would have replaced and notified the CO that I had the log if they wanted it back, and a virtual that was missing the sign since it was painted over due to renovation, which might get repainted on. If not, it will be archived at some point in time since there are at least two NM logs on it now.

 

My problem is, how do I go to Sydney Australia and filter for caches owned by responsibly active cache owners? I want to reward those owners and on principle, I don't want to litter-cache. I want to spend my valuable Australian time finding good quality swag size containers that will enhance my experience not detract from it. Provide the tools to make it easier for quality seekers to find quality caches. Allow me to filter for quality cache owners.

[+coachstahly]

People vacationing in those densely populated tourist areas might like to find some caches in good shape. They might like to leave swag, a signature item or trackables that they brought from their own country. They might like a good quality maintained container to start it off. It will enhance their geocaching vacation experience. It's geocache vacationing that really did it for me--turned me off participating until something is done about all the mess out there.

I don't disagree with anything you said except the very last sentence. I vacation cache when out with the family in new areas and I've rarely encountered much "mess" like you appear to find almost every time you go out. I cached in Branson, MO the first week of April and had very little mess. Most of the caches weren't in pristine shape but they were all in good shape with mostly dry logs that had room for more signatures and serviceable swag when possible. I posted two NM logs due to a full log in a nano, which I normally would have replaced and notified the CO that I had the log if they wanted it back, and a virtual that was missing the sign since it was painted over due to renovation, which might get repainted on. If not, it will be archived at some point in time since there are at least two NM logs on it now.

 

My problem is, how do I go to Sydney Australia and filter for caches owned by responsibly active cache owners? I want to reward those owners and on principle, I don't want to litter-cache. I want to spend my valuable Australian time finding good quality swag size containers that will enhance my experience not detract from it. Provide the tools to make it easier for quality seekers to find quality caches. Allow me to filter for quality cache owners.

Contact a local cacher to see what type of recommendations they offer and specify your guidelines. Even that, though, isn't really a guarantee that you'll find what you want but at least it's a start. I know the Branson guy I contacted wasn't much help but the two in Savannah, GA I contacted were great. I know we've discussed this in a separate thread (and this one is really careening off topic), but I filter on GSAK based on type of cache, size of cache, FPs, and recent log history (since my caching time is more limited than when I cache locally). There's no guarantee when it comes to selecting those caches either but your overriding desire for a good caching experience goes directly to fizzymagic's post about cachers wanting guarantees when it comes to finding caches. In a perfect world, that would be great, but we don't live in that type of utopia.

[+coachstahly]

Yes, I am looking for a hard target answer. I'm getting tired of 1000 word reply's to simple questions as well as outlandish scenarios put forth as proof of argument. I'm looking for a single timeframe that would best describe your idea of occasional.

It depends.

 

I can't give you a hard target because each and every cache I have is different and has different maintenance needs. It's my guess that no one else can either.

 

Keeping in mind that I too have caches with different maintenance needs, I'd say that once a year would be a reasonable interpretation of the word occasional. See it can be done, I just did it.

Of course you did it because you've already posted it. Has anyone else come back with a hard target for what occasional might mean? I can't think of anyone else that has given you a specific time frame like you've requested.

[+chaosmanor]

OK, this thread has gotten ludicrously long, and also a bit off topic, in that most of the last several pages are two people sniping at each other. That's fine, but it isn't what this thread was originally intended to do, based on the first page or so, which were interesting to read.

 

So.

 

I am going to write one paragraph and leave it at that...

 

If every DNF log is going to generate an automatic Needs Maintenance log from GCHQ, I'm going to pull and archive every single one of our caches, and will encourage others to do the same. A DNF may or may not mean that the cache is gone. Several of them probably does mean that it is gone. That being said, we have Found caches that had a string of several DNFs, once or twice more than a year long. We have also had several DNFs posted on our caches, and gone out to find the cache there and in good shape. I will not tolerate being told that I need to check on a cache just because of one DNF. And I will not just blow off all NM logs by posting fake Owner Maintenance logs just to clear out GCHQ corflu. This automatic "It might be missing" nonsense is 100% Bravo Sierra: it stinks and it is unnecessary.

 

Sincerely,

Jim, the other half of chaosmanor

[+thebruce0]

If every DNF log is going to generate an automatic Needs Maintenance log from GCHQ, I'm going to pull and archive every single one of our caches, and will encourage others to do the same.

This was never proposed, and that's not what the score system does.

Just in case that's what you were thinking. If not, I don't think either that anyone was proposing that the bolded actually be implemented.

[+redsox_mark]

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

 

Of course, no matter how often I check it, things can happen.

 

But I trust the logs. If the last log is 1 month ago and says the cache was in good shape, for me that is as good as checking it.

 

If it goes a year without a find, I'll check it. There, I've said a specific time. Well, approximately. I'll make a note to check it, it might not be exactly 1 year that I actually check it.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day. A very good CO. He owns around 200 caches, but maintains them. Any hint of an issue he'll address it. He said he has an ammo can which he hasn't visited since he placed in 9 years ago. It gets found regularly and no issues have been reported. You can argue he is not meeting his obligations and the cache should be archived or whatever.. but to me that is unnecessary.

[+justintim1999]

Yes, I am looking for a hard target answer. I'm getting tired of 1000 word reply's to simple questions as well as outlandish scenarios put forth as proof of argument. I'm looking for a single timeframe that would best describe your idea of occasional.

It depends.

 

I can't give you a hard target because each and every cache I have is different and has different maintenance needs. It's my guess that no one else can either.

 

Keeping in mind that I too have caches with different maintenance needs, I'd say that once a year would be a reasonable interpretation of the word occasional. See it can be done, I just did it.

Of course you did it because you've already posted it. Has anyone else come back with a hard target for what occasional might mean? I can't think of anyone else that has given you a specific time frame like you've requested.

 

Why won't they?

 

I'm not trying to back anyone into a corner here. I'm curious as to how most people interpret "occasional" as Groundspeak intended it. Maybe it's up to each and every owner to determine what that time line is? I think that number is at least once a year and that's what I do.

[+dprovan]

Also, it's not so much a matter merely of "ownership", but "responsibility". An ownerless cache isn't a thing. Well, only insofar as the physical property. The physical property is either owned or it's trash. So who takes responsibility for that object sitting in public, otherwise discarded? As long as it's listed on geocaching.com, the responsibility and ownership is implied as that of the user who created the listing. What happens if there is no evidence that the listed user is an active human individual carrying out agreed-upon tasks to demonstrate responsibility for the otherwise-abandoned trash? Groundspeak is the next authority.

Well, at least we seem to be doing remarkably well at identifying our disagreement, and here's another big one. No, I do not agree that GS is the next authority. I say that the community is the next authority. The community has a far larger stake in the cache, so it's the obvious first choice for taking over responsibility from the missing owner. One might even be inclined to argue that, in a sense, the community takes up ownership once the original owner is gone. That doesn't mean the community should take care of the physical cache -- after all, we're not talking about GS taking care of the physical cache -- but I do claim the community should be the entity making decisions about its fate.

 

A lot of the positions I disagree with lately, including the ones being taken here, are based on the idea that you can ignore and even discount the community's role. Indeed, people have argued against me by claiming the community is a fiction. I find that not merely wrong headed, but counterproductive. The way to solve the problem of cache quality is by engaging the community, not by pretending it's unimportant.

[+redsox_mark]

If every DNF log is going to generate an automatic Needs Maintenance log from GCHQ, I'm going to pull and archive every single one of our caches, and will encourage others to do the same. A DNF may or may not mean that the cache is gone.

 

That isn't the case. What is true is

- Every DNF contributes to a cache's hidden health score.

- NM logs also contribute.

- If a cache falls below a threshold, the CO receives an automatic mail asking them to check it.

- A reviewer may also decide to disable a cache (with a plan to archive if no action) based on logs which can include DNFs.

- There have been documented (and not new) cases of caches being disabled and later archived triggered by a single DNF. Though they also generally weren't found for some time etc. Here is a thread about that from a couple of years ago.

 

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival

[+L0ne.R]

OK, this thread has gotten ludicrously long, and also a bit off topic, in that most of the last several pages are two people sniping at each other.

 

Looks like you added a little more fuel to the fire. Looks like it will continue on for a few more pages with some more replies.

 

You can read more about the Health Score here: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=713

[+thebruce0]

Well, at least we seem to be doing remarkably well at identifying our disagreement, and here's another big one. No, I do not agree that GS is the next authority. I say that the community is the next authority.

"I say" "You say" - this is why I said "TMK" (to my knowledge) it's a legal one. It's not about what you or I say, it's about what jurisdiction Groundspeak has in the matter of physical property listed on geocaching.com, as it pertains to a worldwide context. In some areas they may be legally bound, in others they may not. So their adviseable course of action, as I said, would be to universally take a hands-off approach to implied responsibility of abandoned physical property listed on geocaching.com. That was "another perspective".

Of course, without some official legal weigh-in from TPTB about this whole issue, it is, as usual, merely another aspect we forum posters take into consideration subjectively.

So I put it out there. Disagree if you wish. But I'm now firmly in the camp of GS having to address demonstrably ownerless listings as a course of legal process moreso than a moral/ethical one.

 

The community has a far larger stake in the cache, so it's the obvious first choice for taking over responsibility from the missing owner.

But who then takes on the responsibility? You can't say "community", because who becomes the subject of taking that responsibility? It can't be enforced. There is no tangible entity, no individual responsible. Sure, ideally, someone will step in. But objectively, "community" is an intangible, unspecific entity that can not be given any responsibility.

 

One might even be inclined to argue that, in a sense, the community takes up ownership once the original owner is gone. That doesn't mean the community should take care of the physical cache -- after all, we're not talking about GS taking care of the physical cache -- but I do claim the community should be the entity making decisions about its fate.

Even if so, "the community" can do nothing about the listing which is specifically what is being archived, not the physical geocache. If the listing needs addressing, only the listed owner can do so. And if the listed owner is AWOL, then the listing is subject to archival.

 

A lot of the positions I disagree with lately, including the ones being taken here, are based on the idea that you can ignore and even discount the community's role.

"The community" has no accountability. "The community" can't be held accountable for a physical cache, and certainly not an abandoned listing. So, it's all well and good to request that a community help keep a physical cache in decent condition because the owner is awol, but as soon as that owner's status is known and there is an outstanding issue that must be addressed (and can only be address) by that individual, then the listing may become subject to archival.

 

Indeed, people have argued against me by claiming the community is a fiction.

Definitely not a fiction.

But definitely not a physical individual who can be given responsibility and held accountable for it.

[+redsox_mark]

 

My problem is, how do I go to Sydney Australia and filter for caches owned by responsibly active cache owners? I want to reward those owners and on principle, I don't want to litter-cache. I want to spend my valuable Australian time finding good quality swag size containers that will enhance my experience not detract from it. Provide the tools to make it easier for quality seekers to find quality caches. Allow me to filter for quality cache owners.

 

I'm lucky enough to have cached in Sydney, Melbourne, and in New Zealand. Had great caching experiences all 3 places.

 

Tools you have are to search on size, and exclude caches with NM flag. That doesn't guarantee the size is listed correct, that there will be swag, or that the log isn't wet. But I can't think how a filter can do that.

 

The other tools I use are

- The map: I can tell a lot about a location from the map, and the location is important to me.

- Favorite points: While not perfect, they can be useful.

- Get recommendations: Seek out a local forum or FB group and ask

 

I may have different expectations, but I find the percentage of caches where I find myself thinking "that cache is so bad that it spoilt the experience for me" to be very, very small.

Edited May 18, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+dprovan]

I hear you I just don't agree with what you say.

I get that you have a position that's different than mine, I just don't see you putting any thought into why you hold that position.

 

I don't think I've ever said bad caches MUST be eliminated from the game. If I did let me correct that now. Bad caches SHOULD be eliminated from the game. GS, along with every cacher out there should be working together toward that goal.

I disagree. I think we should all be working to increase the number of good caches. To that aim, our goal should be to turn bad caches into good caches. Eliminating bad caches shouldn't be a goal in itself, only the unfortunate result if we fail to make them good.

[+thebruce0]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

So, spread the word, encourage people to do something, but GS can't sit back and HOPE the community is one composed of good samaritans. The line is drawn at the agreement all owners agree to when listing their cache.

[+L0ne.R]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

So, spread the word, encourage people to do something, but GS can't sit back and HOPE the community is one composed of good samaritans. The line is drawn at the agreement all owners agree to when listing their cache.

 

Again, well said.

[+coachstahly]

 

Why won't they?

 

I'm not trying to back anyone into a corner here. I'm curious as to how most people interpret "occasional" as Groundspeak intended it. Maybe it's up to each and every owner to determine what that time line is? I think that number is at least once a year and that's what I do.

They won't because of the bolded part. One year works for you but that may or may not work for others. Because of that, I'm against a set time limit for "occasional" maintenance on every cache when it's in fine working order with no problems. Sometimes that means no visits for a couple years or sometimes that may mean monthly visits. I just don't want to be told that I MUST perform maintenance yearly. Since I'm the owner of the cache, let me determine the maintenance schedule based on the various logs coming in as well as the way in which the cache is hidden, both with regard to the container and the possible "covering" in place.

[+niraD]

I'm curious as to how most people interpret "occasional" as Groundspeak intended it.

oc·ca·sion·al / ə ˈkā ZHə nl / adjective: occurring, appearing, or done infrequently and irregularly.

 

Do we now need to define "infrequently" and "irregularly"?

 

Maybe it's up to each and every owner to determine what that time line is?

That works for me. Does it work for you?

[+coachstahly]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

So, spread the word, encourage people to do something, but GS can't sit back and HOPE the community is one composed of good samaritans. The line is drawn at the agreement all owners agree to when listing their cache.

You're right. GS can't just HOPE but they haven't even attempted to engage the community with this new push for cache quality. It's my guess that it probably wouldn't help a whole lot but it's plausibly better than doing nothing. This new NM/NA logging format hasn't come with any explanation or help in figuring out how to make things easier to convey what is exactly wrong with the cache except for a release note from 24 APR 17 and the blog news release. The only four options are log full, container damaged, needs archived, and other, which would require you to either edit your NM log after it's submitted, which means the CO will have to go to the cache page rather than getting it via email, or email the CO directly.

 

It's my guess that less than 10% of the people who cache knew it was coming and that's if they read the release note page here in the forums or the Blog release. The community is the best way to get caches maintained as they're the ones responsible but it seems, at least to me, that they're not even engaging the community in any manner. The ones who are engaged (that would be most of the forum regulars) aren't the ones that need reminding or encouragement to perform maintenance. That would be the other 90% out there who don't frequent the forums or read the blog.

[+L0ne.R]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

So, spread the word, encourage people to do something, but GS can't sit back and HOPE the community is one composed of good samaritans. The line is drawn at the agreement all owners agree to when listing their cache.

You're right. GS can't just HOPE but they haven't even attempted to engage the community with this new push for cache quality. It's my guess that it probably wouldn't help a whole lot but it's plausibly better than doing nothing. This new NM/NA logging format hasn't come with any explanation or help in figuring out how to make things easier to convey what is exactly wrong with the cache except for a release note from 24 APR 17 and the blog news release. The only four options are log full, container damaged, needs archived, and other, which would require you to either edit your NM log after it's submitted, which means the CO will have to go to the cache page rather than getting it via email, or email the CO directly.

 

It's my guess that less than 10% of the people who cache knew it was coming and that's if they read the release note page here in the forums or the Blog release. The community is the best way to get caches maintained as they're the ones responsible but it seems, at least to me, that they're not even engaging the community in any manner. The ones who are engaged (that would be most of the forum regulars) aren't the ones that need reminding or encouragement to perform maintenance. That would be the other 90% out there who don't frequent the forums or read the blog.

 

I can't think of a better way to contact cache owners about the need for maintenance, then one-on-one by HQ and by reviewers. It holds more clout.

What new tools would you suggest to engage the community that doesn't participate in the forums, or read newsletters, or the official blog, or doesn't log on to the website?

[+dprovan]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

I don't know how you can say the community can't be held accountable. The community is the primary victim of any mistakes they make.

 

And rules can be easily forced on them through NMs and NAs filed by dissenters within or people visiting from outside.

[+coachstahly]

I can't think of a better way to contact cache owners about the need for maintenance, then one-on-one by HQ and by reviewers. It holds more clout.

What new tools would you suggest to engage the community that doesn't participate in the forums, or read newsletters, or the official blog, or doesn't log on to the website?

The fastest way to get attention is to offer a souvenir. I say it in jest but it would certainly garner LOTS of attention.

 

Make an announcement, blog release, note release, email to all cachers, link on the new dashboard - anything or all things, that says they're looking to upgrade the quality of the caches with regard to maintenance and that they need the community's help in order to reach as many caches and cachers as they can. It's better than doing nothing to engage the community.

 

Of course it offers more clout but it's a one on one interaction. That means you're addressing a single cache at a time instead of attempting to reach more with less work. This also puts the onus on a reviewer (at least initially) rather than the cache owner. Reviewers do enough on their own just to keep up with the flood of activity in their respective areas, which in many cases they can't keep up with anyway. In the 200 caches within 5 miles of my home, 21 have a red wrench and only one of them has been disabled or has a reviewer note posted that either tells them to fix it or that it appears it's in good working order and doesn't really need reviewer attention. I don't want them to do more than they already do and as a volunteer, it's my guess that they don't want to do more either. Perhaps GS needs to get another reviewer in each area so that they can focus on caches with NM logs while the primary reviewer takes care of everything else.

Edited May 18, 2017 by coachstahly

[+Furrhan]

You know, I wonder how many reviewers there are. If they're struggling to keep up perhaps it's time to give them some help and employ additional reviewers, especially for cache-dense areas.

[+Team Microdot]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

I don't know how you can say the community can't be held accountable.

 

I'm a member of the community.

 

Good luck trying to hold me accountable for the caches owned by someone else who has shirked their responsibility for them.

 

I think that about covers it.

[+barefootjeff]

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

Again I have to say that well-made caches in appropriate hiding places don't need constant maintenance. They can remain serviceable for years, even decades, providing enjoyment for generations of cachers, without the owner going anywhere near them. If a problem arises, solve it then with an NM/NA. Why is that so hard?

 

The guidelines currently don't require any owner action in the absence of an NM/NA other than the vaguely-worded "occasional visit", so what guidelines are being bypassed by leaving serviceable caches in play until such time as the owner fails to respond to a reported problem?

 

In all honesty, what dose "occasional visit" mean to you?

It depends entirely on the cache and where it's hidden. I have some in places where there are lots of muggles around, particularly during school holidays when inquisitive kids are poking fingers into places perhaps they shouldn't, so I visit those every few months and do a sweep straight after each holiday period. Some are close to (or in one case in) watercourses so I check on them after heavy rain, learning from experience what works and what doesn't in those environments. Others are in remote places unlikely to ever see a muggle, let alone be found by one, are solidly-made and hidden high and dry under rock ledges, so as long as none of the logs suggest any problems I'll only visit them if I happen to be nearby or feel like spending a day hiking.

 

In an extreme case (and none of mine yet fall into this category) an occasional visit could mean just two - one to place the cache and the second to remove it when the time comes to archive it. If the cache never has any reported problems and is eventually archived by the CO if they move away or feel they'll soon be getting too old to make the perilous journey to GZ, what purpose would extra visits serve?

 

I'm not against wanting COs to uphold their end of the bargain and carry out maintenance when it's needed, far from it, but I don't like the idea of forcing unnecessary visits based on some arbitrary schedule or, getting back to the original subject of this thread, because someone logged a DNF that had nothing to do with a cache issue.

[+barefootjeff]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

In regions with few cachers and low cache density, which is the situation here and I'm sure in most of the world, removing perfectly good caches because their owners are currently inactive will just leave holes that won't be filled for a long time, and yes, that'll make geocaching worse for newcomers looking for finds in the area.

 

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines. Luckily I don't have that problem where I live. Having said that I've been tossing around the idea of "swapping" locations with other cachers in my community. for example, I have 6 caches in one general area. I know of another cacher that has 4 in another area. I adopt his and he adopts mine and we both hide new caches. Not sure if GS would go along with something like this but in an area that has limited cachers and caches it may be a way to keep things fresh without compromising the guidelines.

 

After re-reading you post something occurred to me. After you've found all the caches in your area why would you necessarily care if an ownerless cache was removed. It's not like your going to re-visit that cache over an over again after you found it? Or do you?

I'm concerned with the effect on the whole caching community, not on me. I put it to you that, globally, low cache density areas are the norm, not the exception. Just because some big cities in the USA and maybe Europe have saturation problems exacerbated by an unwillingness to post NMs and NAs on caches that have fallen into disrepair, doesn't mean the rest of the planet should suffer. As I said before, if abandoned rubbish hides by one-day-wonders are the cause of the problems you're experiencing, that needs to be fixed at its source. Killing off perfectly serviceable caches just because their owners haven't jumped through whatever hoops you're proposing doesn't help anyone. Local problems are best solved locally.

 

Cache density/saturation is a thing in the continent of North America and Europe, some parts of Australia are very dense with caches, especially tourist areas. (I know that New Zealand is not Australia but I screenshot it anyway because it surprised me with the density of caches there).

 

 

People vacationing in those densely populated tourist areas might like to find some caches in good shape. They might like to leave swag, a signature item or trackables that they brought from their own country. They might like a good quality maintained container to start it off. It will enhance their geocaching vacation experience. It's geocache vacationing that really did it for me--turned me off participating until something is done about all the mess out there.

Zoomed out that far it looks dense, but remember Australia has similar land area to the whole USA and each one of those circles might represent just one or a handful of caches. This is what it looks like around home, with this map covering about 150 square kilometres. It's not exactly remote either - just the other side of the Hawkesbury River is Sydney.

 

 

Speaking of Sydney, I occasionally go down there to do some caching in the tourist spots around the harbour and the caches I find are mostly in good condition. Of course there's the odd one with a wet log or maybe missing, but by and large I don't see anything resembling "all the mess out there".

[+justintim1999]

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

Again I have to say that well-made caches in appropriate hiding places don't need constant maintenance. They can remain serviceable for years, even decades, providing enjoyment for generations of cachers, without the owner going anywhere near them. If a problem arises, solve it then with an NM/NA. Why is that so hard?

 

The guidelines currently don't require any owner action in the absence of an NM/NA other than the vaguely-worded "occasional visit", so what guidelines are being bypassed by leaving serviceable caches in play until such time as the owner fails to respond to a reported problem?

 

In all honesty, what dose "occasional visit" mean to you?

It depends entirely on the cache and where it's hidden. I have some in places where there are lots of muggles around, particularly during school holidays when inquisitive kids are poking fingers into places perhaps they shouldn't, so I visit those every few months and do a sweep straight after each holiday period. Some are close to (or in one case in) watercourses so I check on them after heavy rain, learning from experience what works and what doesn't in those environments. Others are in remote places unlikely to ever see a muggle, let alone be found by one, are solidly-made and hidden high and dry under rock ledges, so as long as none of the logs suggest any problems I'll only visit them if I happen to be nearby or feel like spending a day hiking.

 

In an extreme case (and none of mine yet fall into this category) an occasional visit could mean just two - one to place the cache and the second to remove it when the time comes to archive it. If the cache never has any reported problems and is eventually archived by the CO if they move away or feel they'll soon be getting too old to make the perilous journey to GZ, what purpose would extra visits serve?

 

I'm not against wanting COs to uphold their end of the bargain and carry out maintenance when it's needed, far from it, but I don't like the idea of forcing unnecessary visits based on some arbitrary schedule or, getting back to the original subject of this thread, because someone logged a DNF that had nothing to do with a cache issue.

 

If a reviewer is reading this maybe they can chime in and let us know what their personal thoughts are on what they consider Occasional? And how many dnf's are too many? And how many licks dose it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

[+WearyTraveler]

I honestly haven't read the 58 posts since my last login this morning, but how about we forget about what everyone defines as an inactive owner (last sign in etc) and use the "how long has a NM been unanswered" method?

 

If the CO hasn't logged in for years and the cache is in good enough condition that there are no NMs, then all is well.

If the cache has had an NM and the CO s performed maintenance, all is well.

If the cache has an NM for over a month (or whatever period), then the cache is suspect to being in trouble. If this cache doesn't get OM for months, then it's subject to disable and NA.

 

Caches that continue in their own, with finders replacing logs and baggies are not the issue.

 

Caches that deteriorate and are ignored by finders and COs are the problem.

 

I saw a post with information from project gc- can someone with access run a count to see how many caches have NMs for over 60 days? That'll tell us how large of a problem unmaintained caches are.

 

True, the count will only be as accurate as finders logging needed NMs, but we're not looking for exact...

[+barefootjeff]

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

 

Of course, no matter how often I check it, things can happen.

 

But I trust the logs. If the last log is 1 month ago and says the cache was in good shape, for me that is as good as checking it.

 

If it goes a year without a find, I'll check it. There, I've said a specific time. Well, approximately. I'll make a note to check it, it might not be exactly 1 year that I actually check it.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day. A very good CO. He owns around 200 caches, but maintains them. Any hint of an issue he'll address it. He said he has an ammo can which he hasn't visited since he placed in 9 years ago. It gets found regularly and no issues have been reported. You can argue he is not meeting his obligations and the cache should be archived or whatever.. but to me that is unnecessary.

And that's just it - if you only own one cache, visiting it once a year isn't much, but if you own 200, having to visit each of them every year wouldn't leave much time for anything else, particularly if a lot were high-terrain rated and required considerable effort to reach.

[+barefootjeff]

I honestly haven't read the 58 posts since my last login this morning, but how about we forget about what everyone defines as an inactive owner (last sign in etc) and use the "how long has a NM been unanswered" method?

 

If the CO hasn't logged in for years and the cache is in good enough condition that there are no NMs, then all is well.

If the cache has had an NM and the CO s performed maintenance, all is well.

If the cache has an NM for over a month (or whatever period), then the cache is suspect to being in trouble. If this cache doesn't get OM for months, then it's subject to disable and NA.

 

Caches that continue in their own, with finders replacing logs and baggies are not the issue.

 

Caches that deteriorate and are ignored by finders and COs are the problem.

 

I saw a post with information from project gc- can someone with access run a count to see how many caches have NMs for over 60 days? That'll tell us how large of a problem unmaintained caches are.

 

True, the count will only be as accurate as finders logging needed NMs, but we're not looking for exact...

Out of curiosity I went looking at some of the caches around here that had outstanding NMs and nearly all of them were nanos or micros with full logs where the next finder has replaced the log and the CO didn't bother to clear the NM.

[+WearyTraveler]

I honestly haven't read the 58 posts since my last login this morning, but how about we forget about what everyone defines as an inactive owner (last sign in etc) and use the "how long has a NM been unanswered" method?

 

If the CO hasn't logged in for years and the cache is in good enough condition that there are no NMs, then all is well.

If the cache has had an NM and the CO s performed maintenance, all is well.

If the cache has an NM for over a month (or whatever period), then the cache is suspect to being in trouble. If this cache doesn't get OM for months, then it's subject to disable and NA.

 

Caches that continue in their own, with finders replacing logs and baggies are not the issue.

 

Caches that deteriorate and are ignored by finders and COs are the problem.

 

I saw a post with information from project gc- can someone with access run a count to see how many caches have NMs for over 60 days? That'll tell us how large of a problem unmaintained caches are.

 

True, the count will only be as accurate as finders logging needed NMs, but we're not looking for exact...

Out of curiosity I went looking at some of the caches around here that had outstanding NMs and nearly all of them were nanos or micros with full logs where the next finder has replaced the log and the CO didn't bother to clear the NM.

 

Your scenario is probably very common. Good Samaritans can't log an OM. That's why in another thread I suggested a FM (finder maintenance) log type. That would probably get rid of a boatload of little red wrenches. It would also create a checker method for a Good Samaritan Challenge cache!

 

If we want to make GC better, first thing we should do is strive to clean up all those caches in bad shape. Getting the Nm flag off a maintained cache will help narrow down the caches that truly NM... fewer to argue about, errr, concentrate on.

[+thebruce0]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

So, spread the word, encourage people to do something, but GS can't sit back and HOPE the community is one composed of good samaritans. The line is drawn at the agreement all owners agree to when listing their cache.

You're right. GS can't just HOPE but they haven't even attempted to engage the community with this new push for cache quality.

Actually their social media publishes have been littered with etiquette guides and tips for cachers and owners. Quite often. So they are, to some degree.

[+thebruce0]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

I don't know how you can say the community can't be held accountable. The community is the primary victim of any mistakes they make.

 

And rules can be easily forced on them through NMs and NAs filed by dissenters within or people visiting from outside.

Uh... WHO can actually be held accountable - that is, is given responsibility and required to follow through - for a listing (not even the physical object) that the owner has abandoned?

Who? And how can you demonstrate that such a person must be held accountable? By what rules, by what regulation, by what enforceable standard can another individual automatically be given that responsibility? Can GS punish the community if no one voluntarily accepts responsibility? Is archival that "punishment"? The inactive owner does not transfer ownership. Therefore no one owns the cache, despite the owner being listed. It is abandoned. And with no one enforceably to be given responsibility, Groundspeak's response is archival. That's the end of it.

I fail to see how you intend to move responsibility from the explicitly listed owner to some other vague concept of "community", let alone no one person in particular, and have it be an enforceable agreement, if no one has agreed to do so.

If someone has, then of course, if the owner were active, they could transfer ownership (thus responsibility) to said individual. If not, then sure ideally a listing could be transferred by TPTB, but we all know that adopting without the owner's consent is not going to happen, and many threads in the past attest to that discussion. So no, an inactive owner means the listing will eventually be archived because no one else can claim responsibility for it, and Groundspeak will not.

 

I'm a member of the community.

 

Good luck trying to hold me accountable for the caches owned by someone else who has shirked their responsibility for them.

 

I think that about covers it.

But wait! You signed up at gc.com. Therefore as a user, you are now automagically held accountable for all abandoned caches. If you decline to maintain, then, then... well those abandoned caches will get archived! There's your punishment for not picking up someone else's litter! That's in the TOU, right? ... ...

[+L0ne.R]

1495144672[/url]' post='5656232']

1495123955[/url]' post='5656108']

1495117417[/url]' post='5656073']

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

 

Of course, no matter how often I check it, things can happen.

 

But I trust the logs. If the last log is 1 month ago and says the cache was in good shape, for me that is as good as checking it.

 

If it goes a year without a find, I'll check it. There, I've said a specific time. Well, approximately. I'll make a note to check it, it might not be exactly 1 year that I actually check it.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day. A very good CO. He owns around 200 caches, but maintains them. Any hint of an issue he'll address it. He said he has an ammo can which he hasn't visited since he placed in 9 years ago. It gets found regularly and no issues have been reported. You can argue he is not meeting his obligations and the cache should be archived or whatever.. but to me that is unnecessary.

And that's just it - if you only own one cache, visiting it once a year isn't much, but if you own 200, having to visit each of them every year wouldn't leave much time for anything else, particularly if a lot were high-terrain rated and required considerable effort to reach.

 

If you can't reasonably manage 200 cache hides you need to cut back. Only hide what you can manage. Better to have 25 monitored and maintained caches then an extra 175 caches that get no attention and become junk.

[+colleda]

I honestly haven't read the 58 posts since my last login this morning, but how about we forget about what everyone defines as an inactive owner (last sign in etc) and use the "how long has a NM been unanswered" method?

 

If the CO hasn't logged in for years and the cache is in good enough condition that there are no NMs, then all is well.

If the cache has had an NM and the CO s performed maintenance, all is well.

If the cache has an NM for over a month (or whatever period), then the cache is suspect to being in trouble. If this cache doesn't get OM for months, then it's subject to disable and NA.

 

Caches that continue in their own, with finders replacing logs and baggies are not the issue.

 

Caches that deteriorate and are ignored by finders and COs are the problem.

 

I saw a post with information from project gc- can someone with access run a count to see how many caches have NMs for over 60 days? That'll tell us how large of a problem unmaintained caches are.

 

True, the count will only be as accurate as finders logging needed NMs, but we're not looking for exact...

Out of curiosity I went looking at some of the caches around here that had outstanding NMs and nearly all of them were nanos or micros with full logs where the next finder has replaced the log and the CO didn't bother to clear the NM.

 

Your scenario is probably very common. Good Samaritans can't log an OM. That's why in another thread I suggested a FM (finder maintenance) log type. That would probably get rid of a boatload of little red wrenches. It would also create a checker method for a Good Samaritan Challenge cache!

 

If we want to make GC better, first thing we should do is strive to clean up all those caches in bad shape. Getting the Nm flag off a maintained cache will help narrow down the caches that truly NM... fewer to argue about, errr, concentrate on.

And why are log and baggies being replaced by finders?

Would it possibly be because the baggie is ripped and the log is mush or at least unsignable?

And could that possibly be because the cache itself has an integrity problem that should be seen to by the CO?

And, would having a "FM" just be enabling laziness or propping caches for absent COs?

[+barefootjeff]

1495144672[/url]' post='5656232']

1495123955[/url]' post='5656108']

1495117417[/url]' post='5656073']

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

 

Of course, no matter how often I check it, things can happen.

 

But I trust the logs. If the last log is 1 month ago and says the cache was in good shape, for me that is as good as checking it.

 

If it goes a year without a find, I'll check it. There, I've said a specific time. Well, approximately. I'll make a note to check it, it might not be exactly 1 year that I actually check it.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day. A very good CO. He owns around 200 caches, but maintains them. Any hint of an issue he'll address it. He said he has an ammo can which he hasn't visited since he placed in 9 years ago. It gets found regularly and no issues have been reported. You can argue he is not meeting his obligations and the cache should be archived or whatever.. but to me that is unnecessary.

And that's just it - if you only own one cache, visiting it once a year isn't much, but if you own 200, having to visit each of them every year wouldn't leave much time for anything else, particularly if a lot were high-terrain rated and required considerable effort to reach.

 

If you can't reasonably manage 200 cache hides you need to cut back. Only hide what you can manage. Better to have 25 monitored and maintained caches then an extra 175 caches that get no attention and become junk.

Why this assumption that any cache that doesn't have the CO constantly visiting it will rapidly turn into junk?

 

This is the container I'm going to use for my next hide. It's made from stainless steel so it won't rust, it's sturdy so won't break if dropped, the logbook will be an all-weather notepad made from pulverised-stone paper so it won't turn to pulp even if it gets wet, which is unlikely since it'll be placed deep under a rock ledge out of the weather, and with the number of finds it's likely to get, I'll be long dead before the logbook comes close to being full. The T3.5 location, if the national parks service approves it, will be a two hour hike from the nearest transport and will be well out of sight of any casual glances so muggling is unlikely to be a problem. How often do you think this will need a maintenance visit?

Most of the remote bushland hides around here use containers just as rugged and will stay good for many years without maintenance. While none of their COs have 200 such hides (yet), some have 40, 50 or more, many of which are T4 or higher and require a lot of effort to visit. Visiting 26 T4+ hides annually is one every two weeks, and that doesn't allow for bad weather, family or work commitments getting in the way. If an annual visit were to be mandated and enforced, many of those top-grade caches would probably be archived by their owners for no good reason and to the detriment of the caching community.

Edited May 19, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+colleda]

A local example here.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2F71_hands-on-rock

This is an ammo can that the CO replaced in 2008 for the perished and broken plastic box that he originally placed in 2001.

When I found this one (about 3 years ago) it was still going strong considering it was exposed with very little in the way of cover. Recent finds don't mention any problem with the cache.

The CO was doing yearly checks until the can was placed and hasn't (or needed to) logged an OM since.

[+Team Microdot]

A noble cause.

But "community" can't be held accountable, and thus rules and processes cannot be forced on them for caches that they do not "own".

I don't know how you can say the community can't be held accountable. The community is the primary victim of any mistakes they make.

 

And rules can be easily forced on them through NMs and NAs filed by dissenters within or people visiting from outside.

 

I'm a member of the community.

 

Good luck trying to hold me accountable for the caches owned by someone else who has shirked their responsibility for them.

 

I think that about covers it.

But wait! You signed up at gc.com. Therefore as a user, you are now automagically held accountable for all abandoned caches. If you decline to maintain, then, then... well those abandoned caches will get archived! There's your punishment for not picking up someone else's litter! That's in the TOU, right? ... ...

 

Bring it on

[+redsox_mark]

 

If you can't reasonably manage 200 cache hides you need to cut back. Only hide what you can manage. Better to have 25 monitored and maintained caches then an extra 175 caches that get no attention and become junk.

 

But my friend DOES manage his 200 caches. His caches are maintained better than 95% of other cachers in the area (who have much fewer). They aren't junk.

Why should he have to check EVERY cache every X months if there are no reported issues? I think it is great that:

 

1) He maintains his caches

2) He has managed to hide a quality container in a remote spot that has been going 9 years without issue.

 

He is proud of both points. Not checking that one quality cache for 9 years doesn't make him a bad CO.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

 

Of course, no matter how often I check it, things can happen.

 

But I trust the logs. If the last log is 1 month ago and says the cache was in good shape, for me that is as good as checking it.

 

If it goes a year without a find, I'll check it. There, I've said a specific time. Well, approximately. I'll make a note to check it, it might not be exactly 1 year that I actually check it.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day. A very good CO. He owns around 200 caches, but maintains them. Any hint of an issue he'll address it. He said he has an ammo can which he hasn't visited since he placed in 9 years ago. It gets found regularly and no issues have been reported. You can argue he is not meeting his obligations and the cache should be archived or whatever.. but to me that is unnecessary.

And that's just it - if you only own one cache, visiting it once a year isn't much, but if you own 200, having to visit each of them every year wouldn't leave much time for anything else, particularly if a lot were high-terrain rated and required considerable effort to reach.

 

If someone doesn't have time to maintain 200 caches, maybe they shouldn't own 200 caches.

 

 

[+redsox_mark]

 

If someone doesn't have time to maintain 200 caches, maybe they shouldn't own 200 caches.

 

And if someone can maintain 200 caches well without visiting each cache once a year (or any other arbitrary period), maybe they should be allowed to continue to have 200 well maintained caches, without needing to visit each cache once a year (or any other arbitrary period).

 

Obviously no owner should own more caches than they can maintain. The point is (for example):

 

- If "maintain" means actively monitor caches, promptly address them when there is an issue, my friend Stan can maintain 200 caches. He does this today.

- If you make him arbitrarily visit each cache once a year, maybe he can only maintain 50 caches. He'll need to archive 150.

- If you make him arbitrarily visit each cache once a month, maybe he can only maintain 5 caches.

 

In my view, forcing visiting of caches which have no issue would not make the game better.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If someone doesn't have time to maintain 200 caches, maybe they shouldn't own 200 caches.

 

And if someone can maintain 200 caches well without visiting each cache once a year (or any other arbitrary period), maybe they should be allowed to continue to have 200 well maintained caches, without needing to visit each cache once a year (or any other arbitrary period).

 

I completely agree. How many caches any geocacher can adequately maintain can vary a lot depending on many factors. One of those is the foresight to create a cache that does't require frequent visits Unfortunately, when the primary goal of a hider is to place a lot of caches they might not think so much about creating caches that they can easily maintain, and may instead depend on others to maintain them.

[+coachstahly]

Actually their social media publishes have been littered with etiquette guides and tips for cachers and owners. Quite often. So they are, to some degree.

I'm on page 7 of the news blog, dating back to September and nothing about cache maintenance or responsibilities involved when hiding a cache. The community section has one from May 1 that addresses what makes a cache stand out and one of the talking points is about quality and what that entails but nothing else back to November. Under the Learn section, a post from Jan. 12 about maintenance. 7 more pages dated back to 2015 and nothing else about maintenance except for another quiz on geocaching manners/etiquette. On FB, I've scrolled back to February and the only thing even close to maintenance or a mention of a focus on cache quality is a quiz on geocaching manners. Another month back and January 12 is the very first post from them that focuses on maintenance (same post as the blog post in the Learn section). Nothing on Instagram from October to now (except some really cool pictures) with regard to maintenance. They may be trying, but they certainly didn't make it easy to locate these things. Also, no links provided to the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines section in any of the posts.

 

LOTS of stuff about the app and what it can do. LOTS of stuff about souvenirs. LOTS of stuff about geocaches of the week. LOTS of stuff about unique locations. LOTS of stuff about new features coming to the site. Very little about the nuts and bolts behind what goes into placing and maintaining a cache, which is what drives their business. You want to know why there are so many set 'em and leave 'em COs? Because they get drawn in by all the great photos and locations and then realize that those types of caches are the exception and not the norm. If they posted photos of cachers finding LPCs or guard rail caches you can certainly bet that that wouldn't drive business up.

 

I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking this to death, but there's been little emphasis placed on maintaining, regardless of whether or not it's ownerless. Nothing has been mentioned by GS about the cache health score (I think someone mentioned it on a thread but nothing from GS on any of their social media outlets), which directly correlates with this topic - DNF and maintenance. I just thought they'd have made a bigger fuss about it to their members in conjunction with the reviewers' apparent emphasis on cache quality.

[+coachstahly]

One of those is the foresight to create a cache that does't require frequent visits

This right here.

[+L0ne.R]

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

 

Of course, no matter how often I check it, things can happen.

 

But I trust the logs. If the last log is 1 month ago and says the cache was in good shape, for me that is as good as checking it.

 

If it goes a year without a find, I'll check it. There, I've said a specific time. Well, approximately. I'll make a note to check it, it might not be exactly 1 year that I actually check it.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day. A very good CO. He owns around 200 caches, but maintains them. Any hint of an issue he'll address it. He said he has an ammo can which he hasn't visited since he placed in 9 years ago. It gets found regularly and no issues have been reported. You can argue he is not meeting his obligations and the cache should be archived or whatever.. but to me that is unnecessary.

And that's just it - if you only own one cache, visiting it once a year isn't much, but if you own 200, having to visit each of them every year wouldn't leave much time for anything else, particularly if a lot were high-terrain rated and required considerable effort to reach.

 

If you can't reasonably manage 200 cache hides you need to cut back. Only hide what you can manage. Better to have 25 monitored and maintained caches then an extra 175 caches that get no attention and become junk.

Why this assumption that any cache that doesn't have the CO constantly visiting it will rapidly turn into junk?

 

It sounded to me like you were excusing people who owned a lot of caches. My take on what you said was: If you own one then of course you can manage it regularly, if you own hundreds of course you can't.

 

Someone with 200 active cache hides is likely to use cheap containers. Even at a dollar per container it will cost them $200. In my experience dollar store containers are leaky. Cheap bulk buy containers like bison tubes are leaky. Most likely those containers will be pill bottles, food containers, film canisters, bulk-buy bison tubes -- anything that can be bought cheaply in bulk, or rescued from the trash for free. And it's likely that prolific hiders will not hide anything bigger then an aspirin jar because it's easier to carry a sackful of pill bottles and drop them while travelling. Cheap containers need upkeep more often. Micro containers need upkeep more often -- the logsheet fills up faster and is often unsignable because it's soaked. From my experience people who hide 100s of caches rely on others to at least replace the log when it fills up or gets soaked. And finders will, which encourages COs to continue hiding 100s of cheap containers that they can't reasonably get to when problems happen.

 

This is the container I'm going to use for my next hide. It's made from stainless steel so it won't rust, it's sturdy so won't break if dropped, the logbook will be an all-weather notepad made from pulverised-stone paper so it won't turn to pulp even if it gets wet, which is unlikely since it'll be placed deep under a rock ledge out of the weather, and with the number of finds it's likely to get, I'll be long dead before the logbook comes close to being full. The T3.5 location, if the national parks service approves it, will be a two hour hike from the nearest transport and will be well out of sight of any casual glances so muggling is unlikely to be a problem. How often do you think this will need a maintenance visit?

Most of the remote bushland hides around here use containers just as rugged and will stay good for many years without maintenance. While none of their COs have 200 such hides (yet), some have 40, 50 or more, many of which are T4 or higher and require a lot of effort to visit. Visiting 26 T4+ hides annually is one every two weeks, and that doesn't allow for bad weather, family or work commitments getting in the way. If an annual visit were to be mandated and enforced, many of those top-grade caches would probably be archived by their owners for no good reason and to the detriment of the caching community.

 

Nice. It looks like a tiffin box (lunch boxes used in India). Metal, sturdy latch. Very nice. My one concern is I don't see a gasket. Have you tried putting it under water? If it's watertight, that's an impressive container.

Can you imagine hiding 200 of these?

Edited May 19, 2017 by L0ne.R