Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+SeattleWayne]

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?

It's a stainless steel cooking pot from the local camping store, which I then painted grey to comply with the national parks service requirements. There's no gasket so it's not completely waterproof, but my hiding place is deep inside a wind-eroded alcove just below the edge of a ridge so it's unlikely to get wet and as a precaution against condensation I'm using an all-weather "Tradie" notebook with waterproof paper made from pulverised stone as the logbook.

 

Nice container. Muggles may not get to it but that one dishonest Finder who decides on keeping this puppy for themselves...well, that's a whole different story.

 

Two hours from the trailhead...sheesh! No thanks!

[+barefootjeff]

Today I found the perfect example of why a string of DNFs means nothing about the state of the cache. On this particular one, the last find was in August 2016 and there'd been three DNFs since then, one of which said they had 11 people plus a conscripted muggle scouring the island for it, and at 50 metres by 20 metres it's not a very big island! It must be missing, right?

 

Nup, it was right where it was meant to be, snug as a bug in a rug. Just a difficult find (D2.5) due to the thick interwoven ground cover and good camo. No need for a CO visit, disabling or archival.

[+Team Microdot]

Today I found the perfect example of why a string of DNFs means nothing about the state of the cache.

 

Remembering of course - in the interests of balance - that it really does depend on the specific cache in question.

 

There will be equally valid examples where a string of DNF's did mean something.

 

The ratio of these examples one to the other though would be interesting to know.

[+justintim1999]

Thankfully there is no current requirement for verifiable annual checkups on every single cache regardless of its excursion scale as a predetermined period; only that a CO may receive a potential request from a reviewer after a reasonable judgement that a cache should be checked on and/or maintained, which typically comes in the form of providing a time range for a maintenance plan, which also shows them that you the CO are active and have not abandoned the listing.

No reason to be up in arms about anything (yet?).

 

Exactly.

 

Nothing to be up in arms about, but to be clear, there are some posting on this forum that they want mandatory cache checks for all caches, regardless of any issues reported. So there are lots of posts discussing this suggestion, and the pros and cons.

 

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

[+barefootjeff]

Thankfully there is no current requirement for verifiable annual checkups on every single cache regardless of its excursion scale as a predetermined period; only that a CO may receive a potential request from a reviewer after a reasonable judgement that a cache should be checked on and/or maintained, which typically comes in the form of providing a time range for a maintenance plan, which also shows them that you the CO are active and have not abandoned the listing.

No reason to be up in arms about anything (yet?).

 

Exactly.

 

Nothing to be up in arms about, but to be clear, there are some posting on this forum that they want mandatory cache checks for all caches, regardless of any issues reported. So there are lots of posts discussing this suggestion, and the pros and cons.

 

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

There are two ways a cache can fail, either gradual degradation (full logs, perishing seals, torn bags, plastic embrittlement, etc.) or catastrophic failure (muggling, flood, fire, landslip, etc.). Regular CO visits can certainly help deal with gradual degradation if the cache design or placement makes it susceptible to this, but does little for catastrophic failure. If I do my annual visit today and find the cache is in perfect condition but it gets muggled tomorrow, how has my visit helped?

 

There's no one-size-fits-all maintenance regime that works for both film canisters or nanos on the side of the road, ammo cans or the like under dry ledges on remote mountains or everything in between. If there are local problems with maintenance in some places, that needs local solutions, not global smothering.

[+fizzymagic]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

[+justintim1999]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

 

First I've heard of the suggestion of a cache container requirement (maybe I glossed over it in a previous post) and my first impression is possibly. I have 11 containers out there right now that may not meet such a requirement. They are all watertight but they are not what you would call traditional containers.

[+WearyTraveler]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

 

Very good point. There are surely some crappy containers out there. Some were started with good intent but some plastic containers just won't hold up...

 

I don't think it's and either / or...

 

We need durable containers AND responsible COs AND finders that play by the rules.

 

A cache on my watch list had a throwdown yesterday because GZ was recently mulched. An inactive CO (several years) and a throwdowner (couldn't find it so I left a bison) are also to blame for this never ending thread...

[+thebruce0]

I think one big difference is the fact that there's no way to mandate physical container use. No reviewer or staff could possibly verify all worldwide, so it would be he-said-she-said from finders about the container. Requiring owner maintenance (not that I'm advocating it) can be demonstrated by an OM log - even though it's just a log and the maintenance action itself can't be verified. It's a lot easier to require owner maintenance (directly implied by owner's maintenance log at least) than it is to require specific container quality (at best implied by agreeing to the guidelines before publish, which everyone does anyway) - the container of which could also at any point in time without the owner's knowledge become something completely different.

I don't see HQ mandating container type/quality at all, definitely not like requiring owner maintenance demonstrated by an OM log (even though the action can't be verified) - which they don't do right now anyway.

[+cerberus1]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

I kinda agree.

We especially see this with new folks), where it seems that a "cache" is whatever they find around the house that holds a log, not necessarily something water resistant (much less waterproof).

One, a plastic, collapsible case with an indent that holds a Zippo lighter, was doomed to fail. But it had a baggie...

- Odd thing is (to me), seems they must have gotten the idea this is okay somewhere, maybe from one they found, not much better.

 

But, we started with Tupperware.

At the time, a "quality" container used by many, but later found to be carp (in this area...) for mold/leaking issues.

[+kunarion]

 

We especially see this with new folks), where it seems that a "cache" is whatever they find around the house that holds a log, not necessarily something water resistant (much less waterproof).

One, a plastic, collapsible case with an indent that holds a Zippo lighter, was doomed to fail. But it had a baggie...

- Odd thing is (to me), seems they must have gotten the idea this is okay somewhere, maybe from one they found, not much better.

I seem to think that way about baggies when I find caches. I open a container and there's a petrified, torn-up baggie, I dry the log sheet and place it into a brand-new ziplock bag, and can easily make myself believe it's fixed forevermore. I don't even consider that the baggie I removed looked just like this brand new one, like three finds ago. Yet I probably should remember that I have not once found a baggie in a condition to keep water off a log sheet, unless I was FTF. Go figure.

Edited May 27, 2017 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

 

First I've heard of the suggestion of a cache container requirement (maybe I glossed over it in a previous post) and my first impression is possibly. I have 11 containers out there right now that may not meet such a requirement. They are all watertight but they are not what you would call traditional containers.

Again it's horses for courses. Of my 24 active hides, all but six of them are in dry locations - up under rock ledges or in wind-eroded cavities or caves. In those places, practically anything will stay dry and it could be argued that a breathable container will work better than one that's fully sealed. At the other extreme, one of my hides (Patonga's Grotto) is in a very wet place and another has a physical waypoint that's partially submerged. They require different approaches and different levels of attention. It's all a learning experience too; I've had two caches and a physical waypoint washed away in severe storms, and made changes to hopefully prevent that in future weather events.

[+L0ne.R]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

I kinda agree.

We especially see this with new folks), where it seems that a "cache" is whatever they find around the house that holds a log, not necessarily something water resistant (much less waterproof).

One, a plastic, collapsible case with an indent that holds a Zippo lighter, was doomed to fail. But it had a baggie...

- Odd thing is (to me), seems they must have gotten the idea this is okay somewhere, maybe from one they found, not much better.

 

But, we started with Tupperware.

At the time, a "quality" container used by many, but later found to be carp (in this area...) for mold/leaking issues.

 

That's what I see a lot..."whatever they find around the house that holds a log, not necessarily something water resistant (much less waterproof)."

And yes, the infamous baggie that will make everything a-OK. Love them crammed into every magnetic key holder. If the cache is older then a couple of weeks and it has rained, that logsheet will be wet.

 

These days, when most people can upload digital photos, (since most are using apps on their phones equipped with cameras) I suppose Groundspeak could require a photo submission of the container.

But there's probably little a reviewer can do about it.

Except maybe deal with all of the micros that are listed as small. When they see a MKH or pill bottle or film canister or most preforms, etc. submitted as a small, they can tell the CO that "small has a capacity between 100ml and 1L", the size needs to be changed to micro. Might help for all of those nanos listed as 'other', too.

[+barefootjeff]

There are also some posting on this forum who don't necessarily want mandatory cache checks but think they may be necessary for the overall good of the game.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers. Why is there not an outcry in the forums about that?

 

Seriously. I really want to know, because I am unable to understand the justification for one requirement over another.

I kinda agree.

We especially see this with new folks), where it seems that a "cache" is whatever they find around the house that holds a log, not necessarily something water resistant (much less waterproof).

One, a plastic, collapsible case with an indent that holds a Zippo lighter, was doomed to fail. But it had a baggie...

- Odd thing is (to me), seems they must have gotten the idea this is okay somewhere, maybe from one they found, not much better.

 

But, we started with Tupperware.

At the time, a "quality" container used by many, but later found to be carp (in this area...) for mold/leaking issues.

 

That's what I see a lot..."whatever they find around the house that holds a log, not necessarily something water resistant (much less waterproof)."

And yes, the infamous baggie that will make everything a-OK. Love them crammed into every magnetic key holder. If the cache is older then a couple of weeks and it has rained, that logsheet will be wet.

 

These days, when most people can upload digital photos, (since most are using apps on their phones equipped with cameras) I suppose Groundspeak could require a photo submission of the container.

But there's probably little a reviewer can do about it.

Except maybe deal with all of the micros that are listed as small. When they see a MKH or pill bottle or film canister or most preforms, etc. submitted as a small, they can tell the CO that "small has a capacity between 100ml and 1L", the size needs to be changed to micro. Might help for all of those nanos listed as 'other', too.

The reviewer here posted on one of the local FB groups that he likes to see a photo of the container in its hiding place in the pre-publication reviewer note to guard against containers not yet placed and obviously wrong locations, but clearly he can't enforce that under the current guidelines.

 

What I fear is a knee-jerk reaction that restricts new hides to using an "approved" container, with an official (and no doubt small) list of what's approved. That would kill a lot of creativity, particularly for hides in dry locations - an extreme example being a library cache I suppose where an ammo can would really be out of place. And of course ammo cans don't work very well in a maritime environment where they'll quickly rust out, while plastics don't work well when exposed to constant sunlight.

[+fizzymagic]

What I fear is a knee-jerk reaction that restricts new hides to using an "approved" container, with an official (and no doubt small) list of what's approved.

 

I completely agree. I was in no way advocating this policy; my post was intended primarily to gain information about what I perceived as a troubling inconsistency on the part of those constantly complaining about "cache quality." I think that requiring approved cache containers is a bad idea.

 

Now that I have heard some responses, I have two observations:

 

First, some have said that there is no way for reviewers to enforce such a policy. That response is pretty laughable, as lack of enforce-ability hasn't stopped any other proposal on this topic.

 

Second, I am astonished by the number of serious proposals that are floated on this topic that don't address the fundamental problem. People seem willing to place whatever burden they can on cache owners just because they can, even if the payoff is minimal.

 

As an aside, IMO there is no excuse for the use of little baggies to hold logs. Ever. If the cache is going to get wet inside, then use waterproof "paper" for the log. National Geographic Waterproof paper sells for $20 for 25 sheets, each of which will make 8 micro logs. That's about 10 cents a log. I may once or twice run across a cache in which the contents were wet but the baggie kept the log dry, but I certainly can't remember any offhand.

[+L0ne.R]

As an aside, IMO there is no excuse for the use of little baggies to hold logs. Ever. If the cache is going to get wet inside, then use waterproof "paper" for the log. National Geographic Waterproof paper sells for $20 for 25 sheets, each of which will make 8 micro logs. That's about 10 cents a log. I may once or twice run across a cache in which the contents were wet but the baggie kept the log dry, but I certainly can't remember any offhand.

 

If it isn't conveniently available and doesn't come free most won't use it. If a food label were made out of waterproof paper and could be re-used as a logsheet, then that might convince most COs to use the stuff.

It's possible COs might buy a sheet if one sheet were available for purchase at the dollar store.

Edited May 28, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

As an aside, IMO there is no excuse for the use of little baggies to hold logs. Ever. If the cache is going to get wet inside, then use waterproof "paper" for the log. National Geographic Waterproof paper sells for $20 for 25 sheets, each of which will make 8 micro logs. That's about 10 cents a log. I may once or twice run across a cache in which the contents were wet but the baggie kept the log dry, but I certainly can't remember any offhand.

 

If it isn't conveniently available and doesn't come free most won't use it. If it a food label were made out of waterproof paper and could be re-used as a logsheet, then that might convince most COs to use the stuff.

It's possible COs might buy a sheet if one sheet were available for purchase at the dollar store.

 

Logs written in certain types of ink just wipe off that material. Not great.

[+kunarion]

Logs written in certain types of ink just wipe off that material. Not great.

Truth, and you won't know how the ink will perform at the time you sign it. One of my inkjet printers has ink with that effect on National Geographic Map paper, but only with the black ink. Other inkjet colors from that same printer can fade or bleed while some stay perfect. It's expensive to experiment with that paper.

 

Waterproof paper that stays moist gets moldy, slimy and gross. The log sheet in the picture below, Nat Geo paper, is from a match tube (o-Ring sealed) that had some humidity, the ink is bleeding, and it has the beginnings of mold, after 6 months in Hotlanta. Sharpies tend to be good, yet even those can run or bleed, and you must completely dry “waterproof paper” before using a Sharpie, or risk ruining the pen – waterproof paper gets wet, it's not water repellent. My containers are water-tight, and water that gets inside when a container is opened stays tightly sealed inside. I use no baggie, but I swap the paper almost as frequently as I would if I did use a baggie.

 

I've started using ordinary paper instead, because “waterproof paper” is not at all the cure-all it's said to be. But Nat Geo map paper does feel classy, while it stays dry.

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

As an aside, IMO there is no excuse for the use of little baggies to hold logs. Ever. If the cache is going to get wet inside, then use waterproof "paper" for the log. National Geographic Waterproof paper sells for $20 for 25 sheets, each of which will make 8 micro logs. That's about 10 cents a log. I may once or twice run across a cache in which the contents were wet but the baggie kept the log dry, but I certainly can't remember any offhand.

 

If it isn't conveniently available and doesn't come free most won't use it. If it a food label were made out of waterproof paper and could be re-used as a logsheet, then that might convince most COs to use the stuff.

It's possible COs might buy a sheet if one sheet were available for purchase at the dollar store.

We've used Rite in Rain in paper sheets, and a couple sizes of notebooks, since we started.

A lot don't realize that a simple wipe on a rag will dry it off again (evidenced by the "damp" logs).

 

But many just use note paper, some not even straight-edged, but torn in strips.

One here simply uses his company's note pads (cache-with-an-ad).

Another uses calendar pages, so yeah, whatever's free I guess...

[+FiveEyes]

A DNF "should" be just a DNF, so that geocachers are free to interpret the implications of that in their own way, depending on the context.

 

I can see Groundspeak "suggesting" that a CO go and check the cache if a series of DNFs have been logged, but not just one -- and I can't see Groundspeak archiving a cache just because there were recent DNFs. As others have said, some geocaches are just difficult to find and half the geocachers, or more, may not find them.

 

I would prefer that geocachers log a DNF, as opposed to not leaving a log, if they did search and didn't find the cache, because I may decide not to look for certain caches (that could involve quite some time to get to) if I see they have a string of DNFs.

[+niraD]

As an aside, IMO there is no excuse for the use of little baggies to hold logs.

I've seen ziplock bags work well to organize the contents of a larger container. For example, the MROSD caches have a bag for the log and pens, another bag for the passport stamp and an explanation of the MROSD passports, and another bag for trade items.

 

But yeah, even the heaviest ones don't remain waterproof very long.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you advocate requiring cache checks for the "good of the game" but won't consider cache container quality requirements?

 

If it were me, and I were all wrapped around the pole on cache "quality," I would first address it by getting people to stop hiding lousy containers. I'd estimate 98% of all cache problems I have encountered have been a result of poor containers

 

In the UK we have country specific guidelines which include guidelines on "Unsuitable cache containers". It might not cover every container which you may see as poor quality, but it is an attempt. Why your cache may not be published.

[+coachstahly]

I've resorted to using, occasionally, vinyl logs in my smaller cache containers (micros). They're clear vinyl file folders that cut up easily into strips to keep maintenance down to a minimum in those particular caches in wet areas. That being said, they don't take ink from roller pens well but you can "etch" your name and I make sure to note that marker works best for this type of log.