Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+narcissa]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

 

Seriously, the game did not start with someone looking for a cache, it started with someone hiding a cache and inviting others to look for it.

 

The sense of entitlement is really disheartening. I honestly don't know how someone can come into this game and treat cache owners as though they're an imposition. It's so illogical.

 

Very true - without one, the other is useless...

 

You can hide a thousand caches, but if no one looks, they just sit.

You can hide 0 caches, and you get seekers bumping into each other but finding nothing.

 

Cachers - both COs and seekers - are the lifeblood. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

We all try (or should) to be responsible cachers...

 

More specifically, it's commensalism. Cache finders benefit, cache owners are not really harmed by finders, but they don't specifically benefit either.

 

As a cache finder, it would never occur to me to demand gratitude from a cache hider. The cache hider is the one who spent money, time, and effort to create something for me to enjoy. It's my choice to find a cache and my experience at the cache is my responsibility, not the cache owner's. If I go to the cache in a sour mood and a dirty golf ball ruins my day, that's on me and nobody else.

 

When I log an NM or an NA on a cache, it's not in this vindictive spirit of "cleaning the database" and I don't cheer - or, like some, keep personal statistics - when that leads to archival. I mean for my cache logs to be informative, not destructive. But the logging system is no longer built to accommodate a helpful, community view of the game. They have caved into this atrocious attitude that a cache is a product that must be delivered in perfect shape. That's unreasonable, both practically and philosophically.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

 

Seriously, the game did not start with someone looking for a cache, it started with someone hiding a cache and inviting others to look for it.

 

The sense of entitlement is really disheartening. I honestly don't know how someone can come into this game and treat cache owners as though they're an imposition. It's so illogical.

 

Very true - without one, the other is useless...

 

You can hide a thousand caches, but if no one looks, they just sit.

You can hide 0 caches, and you get seekers bumping into each other but finding nothing.

 

Cachers - both COs and seekers - are the lifeblood. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

We all try (or should) to be responsible cachers...

 

More specifically, it's commensalism. Cache finders benefit, cache owners are not really harmed by finders, but they don't specifically benefit either.

 

As a cache finder, it would never occur to me to demand gratitude from a cache hider. The cache hider is the one who spent money, time, and effort to create something for me to enjoy. It's my choice to find a cache and my experience at the cache is my responsibility, not the cache owner's. If I go to the cache in a sour mood and a dirty golf ball ruins my day, that's on me and nobody else.

 

When I log an NM or an NA on a cache, it's not in this vindictive spirit of "cleaning the database" and I don't cheer - or, like some, keep personal statistics - when that leads to archival. I mean for my cache logs to be informative, not destructive. But the logging system is no longer built to accommodate a helpful, community view of the game. They have caved into this atrocious attitude that a cache is a product that must be delivered in perfect shape. That's unreasonable, both practically and philosophically.

 

I'm not sure we're reading the same thread. I've seen no post about anyone demanding gratitude from anyone. Lots of posts saying that cachers should be responsible, but nothing about demands for gratitude.

 

And I can't recall anyone asking for a vindictive cleaning of the DB. Sure, several posts about there being geotrash caches and that _they_ should be cleaned up. But nothing like "let's scour the DB and really take this COs to task! We'll show them!"

[+fizzymagic]

And I can't recall anyone asking for a vindictive cleaning of the DB. Sure, several posts about there being geotrash caches and that _they_ should be cleaned up. But nothing like "let's scour the DB and really take this COs to task! We'll show them!"

 

The "vindictive" used by Narcissa is her interpretation of the calls she (and I) have seen over the past couple of years here in the forums.

 

It's just human nature; I've seen it played out again and again in the forums over the last 15 years. Somebody doesn't like how somebody else plays the game, and proposes new rules to prevent the perceived wrongness or cheating or whatever. It's the same way in society at large; people who disagree try to create rules to punish those with whom they disagree. I believe that geocaching should be a live-and-let-live refuge from all that, but several forum denizens seem to disagree, demanding that the elimination of caches hidden by those with a different standard of maintenance than theirs.

 

Archiving truly bad caches is fine; but truly bad caches are rare. I've probably only seen 10 or so during my entire caching career. Archiving a cache because of a keyword search (as in the subject of this thread) steps way over the line, IMO, and represents a desire to punish those who don't toe the maintenance line.

Edited May 7, 2017 by fizzymagic

[+WearyTraveler]

And I can't recall anyone asking for a vindictive cleaning of the DB. Sure, several posts about there being geotrash caches and that _they_ should be cleaned up. But nothing like "let's scour the DB and really take this COs to task! We'll show them!"

 

The "vindictive" used by Narcissa is her interpretation of the calls she (and I) have seen over the past couple of years here in the forums.

 

It's just human nature; I've seen it played out again and again in the forums over the last 15 years. Somebody doesn't like how somebody else plays the game, and proposes new rules to prevent the perceived wrongness or cheating or whatever. It's the same way in society at large; people who disagree try to create rules to punish those with whom they disagree. I believe that geocaching should be a live-and-let-live refuge from all that, but several forum denizens seem to disagree, demanding that the elimination of caches hidden by those with a different standard of maintenance than theirs.

 

Archiving truly bad caches is fine; but truly bad caches are rare. I've probably only seen 10 or so during my entire caching career. Archiving a cache because of a keyword search (as in the subject of this thread) steps way over the line, IMO, and represents a desire to punish those who don't toe the maintenance line.

Thank you...

[+thebruce0]

Bur , the caches are NOT , in any way, part of Groundspeak's business inventory.

They belong to the cache owner. The cache owner chooses to allow Groundspeak to list their cache on the Groundspeak database in order to make that cache available to those cachers who use that particular database.

Oh my, no. Groundspeak is under no obligation to list people's caches on their site. You've got it backwards. Groundspeak chooses to allow cache owners to list their physical (owned) caches on geocaching.com, and that means there are listing guidelines and owner expectations in order to have that listing remain active (not archived) there. If a cache listing is archived, the physical cache sure can remain in place, and can still be found by cache seekers if they have the info - that's entirely the owner's property.

No, listing a cache on gc.com is a privilege, not a right, and Groundspeak's business model is based on providing a pleasing system that people will willingly flock to to list their caches, and friendly enough that people looking for them will use said listing. All while agreeing to the terms of use.

[+justintim1999]

If he made that mistake with good intentions, well, we all make mistakes.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around it when someone says something like this. It goes without saying that the reviewer is acting with good intentions. I can't even imagine thinking otherwise. The point isn't to lay blame. The point is to ask whether he should be using this technique in the future and, more to the point, whether he should be encouraged to think it's his responsibility to take this kind of action in general.

 

The CO, if he reads the notification emails, and doesn't throw a "wait - don't archive" note, then he's at fault toot. He let something happen that he could have prevented.

A good cache is gone. I don't care why the CO didn't say anything. I'm not trying to figure out who's at fault. I just trying to avoid losing good caches.

 

they have an impact. They're trash in the environment and should be picked up.

No, sorry, that claim is illogical. Until someone discovers that they're trash, they have exactly the same impact on the environment as any other geocache. Furthermore, they continue to have this impact even after the reviewer's magic procedure archives them. In fact, I think the better claim is the reverse: it's more likely that a cache will be left out in the environment decaying if it gets archived through one of these reviewer based actions.

 

I'm certain that if there was an epidemic of wrongfully archived caches, there'd be a lot more forum discussion about it. It's not a regularly occurring problem, let alone an emidemic requiring all this teeth gnashing.

The point isn't that the sky is falling. The people gnashing their teeth are the people on the other side insisting that bad caches are ruining the game so GS must eliminate them at any cost. My point is that you have to take into account these good caches that you're archiving when you evaluate the new approaches you're supporting. The claim is that bad caches are bad enough to justify archiving good caches as collateral damage, but I feel the reverse: the bad caches are not a big deal even when you run into them, so killing off good caches just to be sure you get rid of all the bad caches is not warranted.

 

Talk about having a hard time wrapping your head around something. Where to begin?

 

An ownerless cache was archived. Sure it may have been in good shape and may have remained that way for some time but eventually it will develop problems unless the community chooses to prop it up. Who's to say that the reviewer wasn't informed of the passing of the cache owner and decided to be proactive?

 

Why do we even have NM's? Why do we even post them? Is it because we assume that the cache has an owner who will respond to them? What good is the whole logging system if there's no one on the other end to respond?

 

The trash issue is a whole other discussion. This one's a little more tricky. The reason active geocaches are not litter is because of the future promise to remove the cache when archived. One that's abandoned is trash. As far as I'm concerned these caches are personal property and not real property and can/should be claimed if abandoned.

 

You keep talking about good caches being archived as a result of all this. Please, please give me one example of a cache that was archived by Groundspeak which was owned by an active, responsible owner?

[+justintim1999]

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

 

Cache seekers and cache owners are both necessary, but there is another even more important group that is necessary: land managers. If land managers won't allow caches to be placed on the property they manage the neither caches seekers nor cache owners will be able to play their role. Leaving trash where a land manager may find it may just be enough for a land manager to prohibit the placement of caches in a park or other body of land.

 

Bingo! One of the big reasons why ownerless caches are a bad idea.

[+thebruce0]

You keep talking about good caches being archived as a result of all this. Please, please give me one example of a cache that was archived by Groundspeak which was owned by an active, responsible owner?

 

Exactly.

Remember, it's just the listing that gets archived because the owner does not hold up their end of the agreement. If that happens, guess what, the "good cache" is still "good" and can still be found. It's just no longer being listing Active on geocaching.com, and that ultimately is the owner's fault (for being inactive and 'abandoning' the listing).

For a cache to remain listed on geocaching.com, it, and its owner, have to be in good standing. Groundspeak isn't removing physical containers that are other people's property. They are requesting that a certain standard be upheld.

 

Yes, the standard might be getting tighter. But you know, there are now millions of geocaches worldwide. The size and scope of the hobby is much large than it was even a few years ago. Things have naturally progressed and changed with the times. Groundspeak didn't put GPS in smartphones. But people with smartphones would start using them regardless of there being an official app or not. So Groundspeak chose to get their foot in the door - for better or worse - but in an attempt to help retain some semblance of throttling and control over the popularity of their listing service, rather than let it run amok by people pushing the envelope and testing their lax rulesets. Location technology was a luxury when geocaching started. Now it's ubiquitous with smartphones. Groundspeak has to adjust. Location games are a dime a dozen. Groundspeak has to adjust.

Note this is not a blind praising of All Things Groundspeak. It just gets tiresome and annoying when GS gets the blame for everything that's wrong with geocaching (yep, even for fostering the type of game that leads to "bad caches" and "bad cachers").

 

The landscape has changed. There was no question that geocaching, fundamentally, would have to shift with the tide. And so, Groundspeak decided that the best way would be to streamline some processes and tighten the guidelines and agreement. Not perfectly. But no one is perfect. Oh I'm frustrated with many things... But I'll speak up when I feel I have more constructive criticism than just criticism (even if I don't think it'll be heard. sometimes).

 

Ok reigning myself back as I'm going off on a tangent. It's Monday morning. Rant over.

Edited May 8, 2017 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

And I can't recall anyone asking for a vindictive cleaning of the DB. Sure, several posts about there being geotrash caches and that _they_ should be cleaned up. But nothing like "let's scour the DB and really take this COs to task! We'll show them!"

 

The "vindictive" used by Narcissa is her interpretation of the calls she (and I) have seen over the past couple of years here in the forums.

 

It's just human nature; I've seen it played out again and again in the forums over the last 15 years. Somebody doesn't like how somebody else plays the game, and proposes new rules to prevent the perceived wrongness or cheating or whatever. It's the same way in society at large; people who disagree try to create rules to punish those with whom they disagree. I believe that geocaching should be a live-and-let-live refuge from all that, but several forum denizens seem to disagree, demanding that the elimination of caches hidden by those with a different standard of maintenance than theirs.

 

Archiving truly bad caches is fine; but truly bad caches are rare. I've probably only seen 10 or so during my entire caching career. Archiving a cache because of a keyword search (as in the subject of this thread) steps way over the line, IMO, and represents a desire to punish those who don't toe the maintenance line.

 

As a cache owner you should toe the maintenance line. That's what you agreed to do isn't it? I have a hard time with people who will say or do anything to get what they want then start making up excuses as to why they can't hold up their end of the bargain.

 

I love the argument that people who push cache maintenance believe every cache needs to be pristine or it should be eliminated. Dose any real geocachers out there expect a cache to be prefect?

 

Isn't it reasonable to expect a cache owner to legitimately try to maintain their caches at some level? Any level?

[+thebruce0]

As a cache owner you should toe the maintenance line. That's what you agreed to do isn't it? I have a hard time with people who will say or do anything to get what they want then start making up excuses as to why they can't hold up their end of the bargain.

 

I love the argument that people who push cache maintenance believe every cache needs to be pristine or it should be eliminated. Dose any real geocachers out there expect a cache to be prefect?

 

Isn't it reasonable to expect a cache owner to legitimately try to maintain their caches at some level? Any level?

 

Hm. I think it's also disingenuous to take the opposite assumption - that people against he new rules think owners should have no responsibility. Clearly they're not saying that. The issue is a subjective one - how much responsibility should the owner have in maintaining their caches? The problem is there's no way to universally tell how much maintenance a cache should receive (as a minimal requirement), yet Groundspeak appears to be implementing a universal minimal requirement anyhow.

But, it comes again down to the fact that a cache won't get archived unless the Reviewer deems it worth archiving, so even in those "worst case" scenarios in which a good cache owner may find themselves, there is zero danger to a good cache if the owner is responsive and responsible - apart from some minor annoyance (the auto-notification cache score thing).

 

So the cricitism, at least the way I see it, is more against the spirit of what Groundspeak is implementing, not so much the practical end results. I can sort of understand that.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

But, it comes again down to the fact that a cache won't get archived unless the Reviewer deems it worth archiving, so even in those "worst case" scenarios in which a good cache owner may find themselves, there is zero danger to a good cache if the owner is responsive and responsible - apart from some minor annoyance (the auto-notification cache score thing).

 

 

Exactly - that's what I've been saying. Thank you...

[+L0ne.R]

You keep talking about good caches being archived as a result of all this. Please, please give me one example of a cache that was archived by Groundspeak which was owned by an active, responsible owner?

 

Exactly.

Remember, it's just the listing that gets archived because the owner does not hold up their end of the agreement. If that happens, guess what, the "good cache" is still "good" and can still be found. It's just no longer being listing Active on geocaching.com, and that ultimately is the owner's fault (for being inactive and 'abandoning' the listing).

For a cache to remain listed on geocaching.com, it, and its owner, have to be in good standing. Groundspeak isn't removing physical containers that are other people's property. They are requesting that a certain standard be upheld.

 

Well said, bruce0 and justintim.

[+dprovan]

Why do we even have NM's? Why do we even post them? Is it because we assume that the cache has an owner who will respond to them? What good is the whole logging system if there's no one on the other end to respond?

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches. You apparently are thinking the point of NMs and NAs is to prevent bad caches. I'm one of the bigger proponents of posting NMs and NAs, and I've never said a thing against them. The case here is a reviewer acting without an NM or NA and, consequently, getting rid of a cache which is good. I see no logic in your argument that this is a good idea because this perfectly good cache might someday go bad "and then what will we do?" The answer, of course, is if it ever goes bad, then we post the NM. Until that day, we should just enjoy the cache -- and let everyone else enjoy the cache -- and not worry about things that aren't affecting us.

[+thebruce0]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches. You apparently are thinking the point of NMs and NAs is to prevent bad caches.

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches. The point of NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

1. A good cache with a NM will be addressed by a good CO and remain. (yay!)

1b. A bad cache with a NM will be subject to potential archival by a reviewer, depending on the CO response (or lack).

2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good')

2b. A bad cache with a NA will likely swiftly be archived. (yay!)

Edited May 8, 2017 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

Why do we even have NM's? Why do we even post them? Is it because we assume that the cache has an owner who will respond to them? What good is the whole logging system if there's no one on the other end to respond?

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches. You apparently are thinking the point of NMs and NAs is to prevent bad caches. I'm one of the bigger proponents of posting NMs and NAs, and I've never said a thing against them. The case here is a reviewer acting without an NM or NA and, consequently, getting rid of a cache which is good. I see no logic in your argument that this is a good idea because this perfectly good cache might someday go bad "and then what will we do?" The answer, of course, is if it ever goes bad, then we post the NM. Until that day, we should just enjoy the cache -- and let everyone else enjoy the cache -- and not worry about things that aren't affecting us.

 

There seems to be some disconnect between you and I regarding the importance of a cache having a specific owner. The primary reason (at least it should be) for posting NM's is to alert the cache owner of a potential problem. This only work because we presume there's an actual owner that would like to know these things. The fact that a reviewer ever has to deal with a cache issue due to lack of cache owner participation is regrettable.

 

Why don't we just remove the review process and make hiding cache's a free-for-all? Accountability. Groundspeak requires that we meet their guidelines for hiding a cache. After the cache is published the responsibility falls squarely on the cache owner. From this point Groundspeak could realistically wipe their hands of the entire situation but they haven't. I'd like to think they realize they have a morel responsibility to try to clean up some of the abandoned caches listed on their site as well as a genuine concern for the health of the game.

 

I think the combination of the sheer number of caches now out there now combined with the inconstancy of the user based reporting system explains some of the reasons we are seeing more involvement by Groundspeak when it comes to cache maintenance.

[+coachstahly]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches. You apparently are thinking the point of NMs and NAs is to prevent bad caches.

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches. The point of NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

1. A good cache with a NM will be addressed by a good CO and remain. (yay!)

1b. A bad cache with a NM will be subject to potential archival by a reviewer, depending on the CO response (or lack).

2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good')

2b. A bad cache with a NA will likely swiftly be archived. (yay!)

I have no problem with 1b. or 2b. Here's my question for 1 and 2. If it's a "good" cache (I'm thinking one that's in good shape, not a good cache as in FP type of good) in good standing (well maintained, permission granted, log space, good swag, dry log, etc...), why would there be a NM or NA log as there's nothing wrong with it? Will it develop problems over time, especially if unmaintained? Most likely. However, as it stands right now, if it's unmaintained (or infrequently for various reasons) but in good shape due to being a good container, why would it be considered worthy of a NM or NA? Is it solely because the CO is no longer around? Why not let that unmaintained cache run its course until it actually develops some problems? As I see it, justintim1999 sees these types of caches as the type of caches that need to go away. I fail to see how this type of cache is harming anyone, at least until it eventually degrades to the point that it goes through the normal NM/NA process in place.

[+coachstahly]

The primary reason (at least it should be) for posting NM's is to alert the cache owner of a potential problem.

 

I thought a NM log was for an actual problem, not one that would eventually develop for whatever reason.

[+narcissa]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

 

The point of NM is to alert the cache owner and fellow geocachers to a problem that exists. It should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action.

 

The point of NA is to alert the cache, fellow geocachers, and a reviewer that a cache has a serious problem that has not been fixed, or requires immediate attention. Again, it should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action with a higher alert level than NM.

 

Neither of these actions is particularly useful for dealing with bad caches or bad cache owners. The truly bad caches don't elicit detailed information from finders, so they rarely acquire these logs. The caches that do acquire these logs are the ones that attract people who are thoughtful enough to leave these informative logs. They aren't generally bad caches, they're just caches in need of care. Sure, if the cache owner never responds, the system needs to follow through on archiving them, but picking on these types of caches exclusively is not going to make the game better when bad power trails with hundreds or thousands of caches are left untouched because nobody will blow the whistle on them.

 

Additionally, bad cachers have learned to cover for each other, particularly where power trails and massive group logging are concerned, which makes it even more difficult to deal with truly bad caches.

Edited May 8, 2017 by narcissa

[+narcissa]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches. You apparently are thinking the point of NMs and NAs is to prevent bad caches.

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches. The point of NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

1. A good cache with a NM will be addressed by a good CO and remain. (yay!)

1b. A bad cache with a NM will be subject to potential archival by a reviewer, depending on the CO response (or lack).

2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good')

2b. A bad cache with a NA will likely swiftly be archived. (yay!)

 

And the very worst caches will never be subject to any of these actions, because the worst caches don't attract people who are thoughtful enough to use NM or NA.

[+dprovan]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

The point of NM is to alert the cache owner and fellow geocachers to a problem that exists. It should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action.

The desired outcome is for a cache with problems -- for which I am accepting the term "bad cache" used by the people I'm talking to -- to be fixed. When that happens, we have "gotten rid of" the "bad cache" by turning it back into a "good cache". I wouldn't normally use this phrasing, but the basic discussion is focused on the case where the CO doesn't respond to whatever's happening. There's no argument about the case where the CO fixes the cache and posts an OM, so I feel justified in not worry about it in this context.

 

What I object to is a cache being condemned as a bad cache not because of it's condition, but because of its owner.

[+justintim1999]

The primary reason (at least it should be) for posting NM's is to alert the cache owner of a potential problem.

 

I thought a NM log was for an actual problem, not one that would eventually develop for whatever reason.

 

There used as a reporting tool. The hope is that the cache owner will fix the problem. They only develop into an issue if left un checked. Part of the problem is the stigma that has been attached to NM's. People hesitate issuing them in fear that they will lead to the cache being archived. Some result in just that but in most cases it's these caches that should be removed from the game anyway.

[+justintim1999]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

The point of NM is to alert the cache owner and fellow geocachers to a problem that exists. It should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action.

The desired outcome is for a cache with problems -- for which I am accepting the term "bad cache" used by the people I'm talking to -- to be fixed. When that happens, we have "gotten rid of" the "bad cache" by turning it back into a "good cache". I wouldn't normally use this phrasing, but the basic discussion is focused on the case where the CO doesn't respond to whatever's happening. There's no argument about the case where the CO fixes the cache and posts an OM, so I feel justified in not worry about it in this context.

 

What I object to is a cache being condemned as a bad cache not because of it's condition, but because of its owner.

 

You can't place a cache without a clear owner attached to it, and for good reason. Why should one be allowed to continue without an owner?

[+dprovan]

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches.

I think we're having some confusion over the meaning of "prevent". Fixing is not preventing.

 

Anyway, since everyone's giving me a bad time about it, allow me to rephrase very precisely so we can go back to discussing the issue instead of discussing my phraseology: the purpose of NMs is to get a cache fixed and, if it isn't fixed, to move it along towards archival. The purpose of the NM is not to prevent a cache from developing problems to begin with.

 

2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good')

This is what I object to. If the cache is good, it's good. A good cache does not automatically become bad because it's been archived, so all archives are not automatically legitimate.

[+WearyTraveler]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches. You apparently are thinking the point of NMs and NAs is to prevent bad caches.

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches. The point of NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

1. A good cache with a NM will be addressed by a good CO and remain. (yay!)

1b. A bad cache with a NM will be subject to potential archival by a reviewer, depending on the CO response (or lack).

2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good')

2b. A bad cache with a NA will likely swiftly be archived. (yay!)

Bruce - your use of bad and good certainly hasn't been understood by several folks on the thread... not yay!!

 

For the pedants in this thread...

 

s/bad cache/cache that requires maintenance/

s/good cache/cache that is in good shape/

 

Then - yay!

[+coachstahly]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

The point of NM is to alert the cache owner and fellow geocachers to a problem that exists. It should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action.

The desired outcome is for a cache with problems -- for which I am accepting the term "bad cache" used by the people I'm talking to -- to be fixed. When that happens, we have "gotten rid of" the "bad cache" by turning it back into a "good cache". I wouldn't normally use this phrasing, but the basic discussion is focused on the case where the CO doesn't respond to whatever's happening. There's no argument about the case where the CO fixes the cache and posts an OM, so I feel justified in not worry about it in this context.

 

What I object to is a cache being condemned as a bad cache not because of it's condition, but because of its owner.

 

You can't place a cache without a clear owner attached to it, and for good reason. Why should one be allowed to continue without an owner?

Because the owner used a great container (an ammo can) and there are no issues with the cache. Will it eventually develop some? Most likely, but I fail to see how removing a perfectly fine cache with 0 reported issues, based solely on the fact that the CO is no longer active, helps the game at all (or hurts it for that matter). It's not causing any issues or problems and it's not in a state of dis-repair so why the rush to remove it from the books? Let it progress through the normal channels and it will eventually end up on the chopping block all by itself.

[+coachstahly]

 

Bruce - your use of bad and good certainly hasn't been understood by several folks on the thread... not yay!!

 

For the pedants in this thread...

 

s/bad cache/cache that requires maintenance/

s/good cache/cache that is in good shape/

 

Then - yay!

Pretty sure most people understand the difference in this context. Why would a good cache have a NM or a NA attached to it, with all guidelines being met? Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache? I believe justintim1999 believes so but I disagree. An ownerless cache will eventually get there but to single them out solely on the grounds that they have no owner doesn't even consider the possibility that it's in good shape and therefore a good cache, by all maintenance standards. At some point, that will catch up to the cache but it isn't hurting anyone by being kept active. When it does, it goes through the same protocol currently established, or possibly earlier, based on some newer protocols in place.

[+L0ne.R]

Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache?

 

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game.

[+L0ne.R]

1494270120[/url]' post='5653271']

it isn't hurting anyone by being kept active.

 

It sends a message that set-em-and-forget-em is sanctioned.

In cache dense areas, and if it's a nice scenic spot, it means no one else gets a chance to be an owner there.

If the owner placed 100s of caches power trail style, then abandoned them all, it could mean that those ownerless caches live on forever.There will always be a throwdown cache there. The trail will never open up with the hopes that a variety of monitoried caches and active responsible cache owners can hide a few caches there.

Edited May 9, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

The point of NMs and NAs is to get rid of bad caches.

The point of NM is to alert the cache owner and fellow geocachers to a problem that exists. It should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action.

The desired outcome is for a cache with problems -- for which I am accepting the term "bad cache" used by the people I'm talking to -- to be fixed. When that happens, we have "gotten rid of" the "bad cache" by turning it back into a "good cache". I wouldn't normally use this phrasing, but the basic discussion is focused on the case where the CO doesn't respond to whatever's happening. There's no argument about the case where the CO fixes the cache and posts an OM, so I feel justified in not worry about it in this context.

 

What I object to is a cache being condemned as a bad cache not because of it's condition, but because of its owner.

 

You can't place a cache without a clear owner attached to it, and for good reason. Why should one be allowed to continue without an owner?

Because the owner used a great container (an ammo can) and there are no issues with the cache. Will it eventually develop some? Most likely, but I fail to see how removing a perfectly fine cache with 0 reported issues, based solely on the fact that the CO is no longer active, helps the game at all (or hurts it for that matter). It's not causing any issues or problems and it's not in a state of dis-repair so why the rush to remove it from the books? Let it progress through the normal channels and it will eventually end up on the chopping block all by itself.

 

What if an issue develops regarding a change in attitude by the land owner? What if they decide they no longer want geocaches on their property. Who will respond? How about if a cache location develops a dangerous situation and should be disabled for safety reasons? I know that these situations are not the norm as I'm pretty sure that most abandoned caches are not placed in containers designed to last years and years.

 

The reason for not letting it progress through the normal channels is purely based on perception of the game and is of more concern to GS than it is to me. I expect to find a cache in need of maintenance from time to time and finding one won't stop me from geocaching. A new player may be put off by the experience and that's not good for business.

[+narcissa]

Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache?

 

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game.

 

So why not come up with ideas that actually deal with the vast majority of abandoned caches that will never be addressed by the system we have?

[+barefootjeff]

As a cache owner you should toe the maintenance line. That's what you agreed to do isn't it? I have a hard time with people who will say or do anything to get what they want then start making up excuses as to why they can't hold up their end of the bargain.

 

I love the argument that people who push cache maintenance believe every cache needs to be pristine or it should be eliminated. Dose any real geocachers out there expect a cache to be prefect?

 

Isn't it reasonable to expect a cache owner to legitimately try to maintain their caches at some level? Any level?

What we agree to is to make "occasional" visits to the cache. Yes, metal will eventually rust, wood will rot and plastic will go brittle, but for a remote cache with a well-made container in a dry hiding place, it could take five, ten or more years for this to happen. Not everything is an urban nano needing constant log replacement or a bison tube with rubber seals that give out after a few months. I'm sure the guideline is intentionally vague - there's no one-size-fits-all maintenance schedule and it's reasonable to allow the CO to decide how often he or she needs to visit the cache.

 

As I keep saying, a cache that's well made for its hiding place doesn't need constant maintenance attention. As long as the find logs are saying it's good, what's the pressing need to keep sending the CO out there? It may well be that the one and only maintenance visit a cache needs is when the CO goes out to collect it when it reaches end of life and voluntary archival.

[+fizzymagic]

What we agree to is to make "occasional" visits to the cache. Yes, metal will eventually rust, wood will rot and plastic will go brittle, but for a remote cache with a well-made container in a dry hiding place, it could take five, ten or more years for this to happen. Not everything is an urban nano needing constant log replacement or a bison tube with rubber seals that give out after a few months.

 

I have an ammo can that I placed in May, 2002 that I have never visited again. That's 15 years ago. I got within about 150 feet a couple of years ago but waited while those I was with went to find it, and they reported it in perfect shape, so I didn't perform any maintenance.

 

This cache is rather difficult to reach, but because of the container and the hide, it has never needed any maintenance. According to JustinTim1999, I should have checked on it every year. For no reason.

 

The point is this: Good containers in good locations will last indefinitely. Bad containers decay. If you are so hot on making caches better, why not emphasize better containers and better hides rather than focusing on punishing those of us who make good hides? If you, as a cacher, choose to use Lock-n-lock containers, then yes, you probably should check them regularly because they will decay. However, for those of us who use ammo cans, there is no need to check on them unless they are reported as missing or having a problem. The NM log is an ideal way to do that! No changes needed.

[+eigengott]

it has never needed any maintenance.

 

Have you ever been pushed by Groundspeak or a reviewer to do maintenance on it?

[+fizzymagic]

it has never needed any maintenance.

Have you ever been pushed by Groundspeak or a reviewer to do maintenance on it?

 

Nope. And that's how I would like to keep it.

[+coachstahly]

Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache?

 

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game.

If the container is a good one, the swag is in good shape, there are no wrenches or logs mentioning issues, and it meets expectations/guidelines, how is this bad for the quality of the game? Isn't that the exact type of cache you prefer to find - a swag sized container in good shape? The only thing wrong is that the CO is no longer active. For me, that does NOT automatically means it's a bad cache or bad for the game. Once the cache begins to develop problems, let the community take care of it as it's supposed to do, or with the new "emphasis" on health score and cache quality, eventually it will come to the attention of a reviewer and go through its normal death throes, seeing as how the CO is no longer active. Why immediately single out a cache in good shape for a NM or NA when there's nothing wrong with it?

 

As far as integrity of the game, there is a point to that, but it shouldn't be grounds for an immediate NM, the subsequent disablement, and the eventual archival of a cache in good condition, the sole reason being that it's ownerless. As mentioned above, as long as the cache in question is in good shape, why shouldn't it stay listed until it eventually gets to the point that it will go through the normal, established process of eventual archival?

 

If we're (and Groundspeak for that matter) really concerned about absentee COs, why haven't TPTB gone through all the caches and filtered out all the caches with COs who haven't logged on in a predetermined time (2 years? 1 year? 5 years?) and disabled them to notify the CO that they're concerned about the quality and integrity of the game and this is the first step to address this issue?

[+coachstahly]

It sends a message that set-em-and-forget-em is sanctioned.

 

No. It just means the cache is still a viable cache. Once it reaches the point where problems occur, it's no longer viable and will hopefully go through the process in place, either driven by the local community or the newer Groundspeak driven process, or both.

 

In cache dense areas, and if it's a nice scenic spot, it means no one else gets a chance to be an owner there.

 

Until it gets archived. Let it be a good cache until it's no longer good and then start the process for removing it.

 

If the owner placed 100s of caches power trail style, then abandoned them all, it could mean that those ownerless caches live on forever.There will always be a throwdown cache there. The trail will never open up with the hopes that a variety of monitoried caches and active responsible cache owners can hide a few caches there.

 

It could. That's not disputable. PTs, at least to me, are a completely different subset of caches with their own issues, related to this current discussion, but with different issues in place that make things harder on the local community to get removed if not being maintained as intended. I think an example of that is being discussed in a separate thread. As to the second point, about new COs hiding caches on the old PT, are you making the assumption that if the trail opens up for new hides, EVERY cache owner who places a cache along there will maintain it properly? I would hope that's the case but I think that's yet another pipe dream. Some of them will abandon their caches, just like the previous CO of the PT did. Some will fastidiously maintain them and some will provide maintenance when they feel it's warranted, just like every other cache that's been placed since geocaching first began.

Edited May 9, 2017 by coachstahly

[+justintim1999]

As a cache owner you should toe the maintenance line. That's what you agreed to do isn't it? I have a hard time with people who will say or do anything to get what they want then start making up excuses as to why they can't hold up their end of the bargain.

 

I love the argument that people who push cache maintenance believe every cache needs to be pristine or it should be eliminated. Dose any real geocachers out there expect a cache to be prefect?

 

Isn't it reasonable to expect a cache owner to legitimately try to maintain their caches at some level? Any level?

What we agree to is to make "occasional" visits to the cache. Yes, metal will eventually rust, wood will rot and plastic will go brittle, but for a remote cache with a well-made container in a dry hiding place, it could take five, ten or more years for this to happen. Not everything is an urban nano needing constant log replacement or a bison tube with rubber seals that give out after a few months. I'm sure the guideline is intentionally vague - there's no one-size-fits-all maintenance schedule and it's reasonable to allow the CO to decide how often he or she needs to visit the cache.

 

As I keep saying, a cache that's well made for its hiding place doesn't need constant maintenance attention. As long as the find logs are saying it's good, what's the pressing need to keep sending the CO out there? It may well be that the one and only maintenance visit a cache needs is when the CO goes out to collect it when it reaches end of life and voluntary archival.

 

I wish all cache hides were thought out with longevity in mind. Most of the maintenance issues I see are self inflected.

 

My position is simple. As a cache owner, if you actually think the cache has an issue fix it. The only requirement should be your own conscious. More emphasis needs to be directed toward making cachers understand the commitment involved in owning a cache.

 

The only real opposition to all this are the fans and owners of long distance hiking caches which makes up a very small portion of what's hidden out there today. They're unwilling to look past their own caches and at the big picture. The only way to make the game better is to be willing to look at issues from all points of view. For the long distance cache owners the prospect of actually tightening the guidelines on cache maintenance is terrifying. So it stands to reason that when anyone even remotely suggests something along those lines it becomes the end of the world. Something as simple as an occasional visit gets blown all out of proportion.

 

If your a good cache owner than it's hard to see why any of this may be necessary because it really doesn't apply to you. Maybe I'm blowing all this out of proportion myself and there's no real issue here. I'm just wondering why lately we're seeing such an emphasis on cache maintenance by Groundspeak? I don't think it's to spur the activity on the forums.

[+L0ne.R]

Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache?

 

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game.

If the container is a good one, the swag is in good shape, there are no wrenches or logs mentioning issues, and it meets expectations/guidelines, how is this bad for the quality of the game?

 

The container is fine. The irresponsible ownership and detriment to the integrity of the game, is not.

 

As far as integrity of the game, there is a point to that, but it shouldn't be grounds for an immediate NM

 

The abandoned cache that's in good shape isn't grounds for an NM. It will remain in play until something happens that requires the attention of the owner.

 

If we're (and Groundspeak for that matter) really concerned about absentee COs, why haven't TPTB gone through all the caches and filtered out all the caches with COs who haven't logged on in a predetermined time (2 years? 1 year? 5 years?) and disabled them to notify the CO that they're concerned about the quality and integrity of the game and this is the first step to address this issue?

 

I don't think Groundspeak is concerned (at this point) with absentee COs. At this point, the health of the game seems to only include abandoned caches that are in need of attention.

Edited May 9, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache?

 

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game.

If the container is a good one, the swag is in good shape, there are no wrenches or logs mentioning issues, and it meets expectations/guidelines, how is this bad for the quality of the game?

 

The container is fine. The irresponsible ownership and detriment to the integrity of the game, is not.

 

As far as integrity of the game, there is a point to that, but it shouldn't be grounds for an immediate NM

 

The abandoned cache that's in good shape isn't grounds for an NM. It will remain in play until something happens that requires the attention of the owner.

 

If we're (and Groundspeak for that matter) really concerned about absentee COs, why haven't TPTB gone through all the caches and filtered out all the caches with COs who haven't logged on in a predetermined time (2 years? 1 year? 5 years?) and disabled them to notify the CO that they're concerned about the quality and integrity of the game and this is the first step to address this issue?

 

I don't think Groundspeak is concerned (at this point) with absentee COs. At this point, the health of the game seems to only include abandoned caches that are in need of attention.

 

I tend to think that absentee COs are exactly what their concerned about. The one eventually leads to the other.

[+L0ne.R]

As to the second point, about new COs hiding caches on the old PT, are you making the assumption that if the trail opens up for new hides, EVERY cache owner who places a cache along there will maintain it properly?

 

Absolutely not. But there's a better chance. There's a better possibility that at least some of the caches will be monitored and maintained by responsible COs. If the whole trail is saturated by one CO/team that never intends to return to those caches, and expects throwdowns, then there's no chance that dozens, maybe 100s of caches are going to be maintained properly by the CO(s).

Edited May 9, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+coachstahly]

 

What if an issue develops regarding a change in attitude by the land owner? What if they decide they no longer want geocaches on their property. Who will respond? How about if a cache location develops a dangerous situation and should be disabled for safety reasons? I know that these situations are not the norm as I'm pretty sure that most abandoned caches are not placed in containers designed to last years and years.

 

The reason for not letting it progress through the normal channels is purely based on perception of the game and is of more concern to GS than it is to me. I expect to find a cache in need of maintenance from time to time and finding one won't stop me from geocaching. A new player may be put off by the experience and that's not good for business.

Just like the current policy, if the land manager/owner doesn't want caching on their property, it immediately gets archived, either by the CO (if active) or Groundspeak (if inactive). If dangerous, I would hope the cacher who went after it posted the appropriate NM or NA (depending on the severity of the issue) and follow up with the appropriate NA if no action is taken by the CO after a reasonable amount of time. The more severe the safety issue, the less time involved in waiting to post the NA.

 

How does a new cacher know that their first cache is a bad experience? If the caches look like the pictures posted of bad caches, by all means, that's a bad experience. Is a damp log a bad experience? Soggy log? Inappropriate swag? Is that outweighed by the fact that it brought them to a neat spot and they found their very first cache? Is a LPC a bad experience? How about a DNF? Their first experience can be bad, regardless of whether or not the cache is owned or abandoned.

 

I just don't think that a cache that is ownerless is automatically perceived to be a bad cache. In time, it WILL become a bad cache, even if it's a good container. Rain will eventually find its way inside an ammo can, getting the swag and log wet. O-rings will crack and allow moisture into the container. Seals will crack, critters will chew, and containers will eventually degrade to the point that they're no longer viable. Once these issues arise and the cache needs maintenance, file the NM, file the appropriate NA after a reasonable amount of time, and let things run their course.

[+justintim1999]

 

What if an issue develops regarding a change in attitude by the land owner? What if they decide they no longer want geocaches on their property. Who will respond? How about if a cache location develops a dangerous situation and should be disabled for safety reasons? I know that these situations are not the norm as I'm pretty sure that most abandoned caches are not placed in containers designed to last years and years.

 

The reason for not letting it progress through the normal channels is purely based on perception of the game and is of more concern to GS than it is to me. I expect to find a cache in need of maintenance from time to time and finding one won't stop me from geocaching. A new player may be put off by the experience and that's not good for business.

Just like the current policy, if the land manager/owner doesn't want caching on their property, it immediately gets archived, either by the CO (if active) or Groundspeak (if inactive). If dangerous, I would hope the cacher who went after it posted the appropriate NM or NA (depending on the severity of the issue) and follow up with the appropriate NA if no action is taken by the CO after a reasonable amount of time. The more severe the safety issue, the less time involved in waiting to post the NA.

 

How does a new cacher know that their first cache is a bad experience? If the caches look like the pictures posted of bad caches, by all means, that's a bad experience. Is a damp log a bad experience? Soggy log? Inappropriate swag? Is that outweighed by the fact that it brought them to a neat spot and they found their very first cache? Is a LPC a bad experience? How about a DNF? Their first experience can be bad, regardless of whether or not the cache is owned or abandoned.

 

I just don't think that a cache that is ownerless is automatically perceived to be a bad cache. In time, it WILL become a bad cache, even if it's a good container. Rain will eventually find its way inside an ammo can, getting the swag and log wet. O-rings will crack and allow moisture into the container. Seals will crack, critters will chew, and containers will eventually degrade to the point that they're no longer viable. Once these issues arise and the cache needs maintenance, file the NM, file the appropriate NA after a reasonable amount of time, and let things run their course.

 

I can tell you that most of the land owners/managers wouldn't know who to contact to get a cache archived. The only contact they have is me and I promised them, when they gave me permission, I'd handle any issues that may arise. Many people don't read cache pages and previous logs. Posting a NA or NM would be good, but disabling the cache to ensure no one even attempted it would be better.

[+WearyTraveler]

This thread certainly has evolved from the OP's question, hasn't it?

 

I received a NM email last night that made me think "dang, one heck of a coincidence between the log and this thread!"

 

It's about 3 miles from home, so I'll take GeoPup to the park for some frisbee and check the cache. This is the primary reason I plant them close to home - I know that if it were 20 miles, I'd delay until it appeared that I'm irresponsible.

 

• 
   
  
• The cache has been there for 20 days.
  
• There has been one DNF logged
  
• The NM logger did not log a DNF
  
• The placement of the cache itself is in a secluded area of the park, off the trail. The only way that the cache could really Nm would be it someone had accidentally located it (highly unlikely) or if the city maintenance crew came through and cut and cleared a swath of trees in said secluded corner, on a slope (highly unlikely).
   
  

As I said, I'll do the right thing and check (then respond with a pithy OM log if, as I suspect, it's still there, lonely and unloved), so, I don't want to get called out for calling out, but this shows that cachers of all levels tread "DNFs" differently...

 

And will hopefully bring the discussion back onto the original topic.

 

The cache in question...

[+coachstahly]

Is a cache without an active owner automatically a bad cache?

 

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game.

If the container is a good one, the swag is in good shape, there are no wrenches or logs mentioning issues, and it meets expectations/guidelines, how is this bad for the quality of the game?

 

The container is fine. The irresponsible ownership and detriment to the integrity of the game, is not.

 

As far as integrity of the game, there is a point to that, but it shouldn't be grounds for an immediate NM

 

The abandoned cache that's in good shape isn't grounds for an NM. It will remain in play until something happens that requires the attention of the owner.

 

If we're (and Groundspeak for that matter) really concerned about absentee COs, why haven't TPTB gone through all the caches and filtered out all the caches with COs who haven't logged on in a predetermined time (2 years? 1 year? 5 years?) and disabled them to notify the CO that they're concerned about the quality and integrity of the game and this is the first step to address this issue?

 

I don't think Groundspeak is concerned (at this point) with absentee COs. At this point, the health of the game seems to only include abandoned caches that are in need of attention.

 

I'm not disagreeing any of the points you raised (as mentioned in my second part you quoted) , with the exception of quality, which you seem to somewhat agree with. justintim1999 seems to think abandoned caches, regardless of the condition they're in, need to go. I have no problem with abandoned caches in need of attention being removed from the field.

[+coachstahly]

 

I can tell you that most of the land owners/managers wouldn't know who to contact to get a cache archived. The only contact they have is me and I promised them, when they gave me permission, I'd handle any issues that may arise. Many people don't read cache pages and previous logs. Posting a NA or NM would be good, but disabling the cache to ensure no one even attempted it would be better.

If permission is needed in the first place, they should absolutely know because the CO should have explained it to them thoroughly to let them know what it is, how it works, as well as the impact it might have on the area. If they think it's a geocache, all they need to do is google the term and the site will be the first thing that pops up.

[+coachstahly]

This thread certainly has evolved from the OP's question, hasn't it?

 

I received a NM email last night that made me think "dang, one heck of a coincidence between the log and this thread!"

 

It's about 3 miles from home, so I'll take GeoPup to the park for some frisbee and check the cache. This is the primary reason I plant them close to home - I know that if it were 20 miles, I'd delay until it appeared that I'm irresponsible.

 

• 
   
  
• The cache has been there for 20 days.
  
• There has been one DNF logged
  
• The NM logger did not log a DNF
  
• The placement of the cache itself is in a secluded area of the park, off the trail. The only way that the cache could really Nm would be it someone had accidentally located it (highly unlikely) or if the city maintenance crew came through and cut and cleared a swath of trees in said secluded corner, on a slope (highly unlikely).
   
  

As I said, I'll do the right thing and check (then respond with a pithy OM log if, as I suspect, it's still there, lonely and unloved), so, I don't want to get called out for calling out, but this shows that cachers of all levels tread "DNFs" differently...

 

And will hopefully bring the discussion back onto the original topic.

 

The cache in question...

The DNF on a 4/4 was by a cacher with 46 finds to date. The NM was logged by a cache with over 5000 finds. Seems to me that someone jumped the gun on this one. I would also venture to guess that the NM poster didn't even visit GZ before posting the log. Both of these things apparently factor into the cache health score and, as I understand it, bring the automated score down from its high point as a new cache.

[+justintim1999]

 

I can tell you that most of the land owners/managers wouldn't know who to contact to get a cache archived. The only contact they have is me and I promised them, when they gave me permission, I'd handle any issues that may arise. Many people don't read cache pages and previous logs. Posting a NA or NM would be good, but disabling the cache to ensure no one even attempted it would be better.

If permission is needed in the first place, they should absolutely know because the CO should have explained it to them thoroughly to let them know what it is, how it works, as well as the impact it might have on the area. If they think it's a geocache, all they need to do is google the term and the site will be the first thing that pops up.

 

Yes in most cases they are aware of what it is and generally where they are hidden but it's not the land managers responsibility to remove the unwanted caches. It's mine.

[+justintim1999]

 

I can tell you that most of the land owners/managers wouldn't know who to contact to get a cache archived. The only contact they have is me and I promised them, when they gave me permission, I'd handle any issues that may arise. Many people don't read cache pages and previous logs. Posting a NA or NM would be good, but disabling the cache to ensure no one even attempted it would be better.

If permission is needed in the first place, they should absolutely know because the CO should have explained it to them thoroughly to let them know what it is, how it works, as well as the impact it might have on the area. If they think it's a geocache, all they need to do is google the term and the site will be the first thing that pops up.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Somehow after permission is granted some cache owners get amnesia. The land owner initially granted permission because I assured them that if they had any problems I'd be the one to take care of them.

 

It's my responsibility to deal with issues, not Groundspeak, land owners or other cachers. That includes picking up after myself the day I decide to leave the game.

[+WearyTraveler]

This thread certainly has evolved from the OP's question, hasn't it?

 

I received a NM email last night that made me think "dang, one heck of a coincidence between the log and this thread!"

 

It's about 3 miles from home, so I'll take GeoPup to the park for some frisbee and check the cache. This is the primary reason I plant them close to home - I know that if it were 20 miles, I'd delay until it appeared that I'm irresponsible.

 

• 
   
  
• The cache has been there for 20 days.
  
• There has been one DNF logged
  
• The NM logger did not log a DNF
  
• The placement of the cache itself is in a secluded area of the park, off the trail. The only way that the cache could really Nm would be it someone had accidentally located it (highly unlikely) or if the city maintenance crew came through and cut and cleared a swath of trees in said secluded corner, on a slope (highly unlikely).
   
  

As I said, I'll do the right thing and check (then respond with a pithy OM log if, as I suspect, it's still there, lonely and unloved), so, I don't want to get called out for calling out, but this shows that cachers of all levels tread "DNFs" differently...

 

And will hopefully bring the discussion back onto the original topic.

 

The cache in question...

The DNF on a 4/4 was by a cacher with 46 finds to date. The NM was logged by a cache with over 5000 finds. Seems to me that someone jumped the gun on this one. I would also venture to guess that the NM poster didn't even visit GZ before posting the log. Both of these things apparently factor into the cache health score and, as I understand it, bring the automated score down from its high point as a new cache.

 

I agree - someone jumped the gun.

 

However, I disagree that the logger never visited GZ. I find it difficult to fathom that anyone would armchair log a NM without actually seeing that there's something wrong with the cache itself, or at least visit GZ.

 

But that's because my view of NM is that someone found it and determined that something was wrong with it.

 

I think that a string (subjective count) of DNFs without the owner noting that it's there or replacing a missing container should go dnf dnf dnf no-owner-response NA

 

Others will not agree - but to me, I wouldn't log a NM to designate a missing cache. And I wouldn't log a NA without first a DNF or two...

[+coachstahly]

 

Yes in most cases they are aware of what it is and generally where they are hidden but it's not the land managers responsibility to remove the unwanted caches. It's mine.

Every place I've hidden that needs permission wants to know exactly where it is. I include a link to the cache page to the person responsible for approval. I even had to go walk with a park naturalist to each stage of a multi that required permission. I'd be surprised if land managers only want to know the general area of a cache being hidden on their property.

 

As to removal, yes, it's the COs responsibility in the case that the land manager no longer gives approval. However, if there's no reply from the CO when contacted (for whatever reason be it amnesia or an unwillingness to actively maintain a cache they received permission for), then they can go get it themselves if they're really that concerned. It's my guess that most of them would. They can contact Groundspeak on their own to request archival as well, especially if the CO isn't responding.

 

I also find it a bit of a stretch that a CO who goes out of their way to hide a cache and get the required permission (having to jump through whatever hurdles the land manager requires of a hider) would suddenly develop amnesia and decline to maintain the cache that was placed. I'm not saying it couldn't happen; I'm just saying that it's unlikely more than it's likely.

 

And, as far as I've heard previously, land owners sometimes do take it up directly with Groundspeak. I'm pretty sure I remember a thread involving NJ caches and the land managers contacting Groundspeak, rather than each individual CO impacted by the new policy, in order to get them archived as soon as possible.