"Need Maintenance" attribute cannot be set by cache owners after mid-April

[kanchan]

I just learned and confirmed that "Need Maintenance" attribute cannot be edited from "Edit Attribute" section of the cache listing. I don't personally rely on this attribute to plan maintenance of my own hides, but I know lots of people do (e.g., by creating a PQ to list their own hides with the NM attribute set), and I think that is a very good idea. Now that you'll be disallowing cache owners to post "Need Maintenance" log type, there is no way for the CO to add that attribute themselves. Not all visitors use "Need Maintenance" log type for various reasons, so I think the COs need to have ability to set the NM attribute on their own hides somehow.

 

[Edit to Add] Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. Yes, they can still temporarily disable it, and that was my first reaction to those rely on the attribute, but their argument was they don't want to disable it when it's just a matter of adding a new log sheet and the cache is still totally findable. I totally understand.

Edited April 1, 2017 by kanchan

[+Viajero Perdido]

And likewise, some COs (me!) are occasionally unable to find their own cache. Is this not worth a story? An owner DNF can happen and should be loggable.

 

I had a cache that Nature had covered up so well, it had truly become a D5. It was still there and was eventually found.

[kanchan]

Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. Yes, they can still temporarily disable it, and that was my first reaction to those rely on the attribute, but their argument was they don't want to disable it when it's just a matter of adding a new log sheet and the cache is still totally findable. I totally understand. I'll edit the original post to add this now.

[+TriciaG]

Make a bookmark list, "NM needed" or something like that. Add such caches to that list.

 

Sure, it's two lists/queries to make, but at least there are viable workarounds.

[+Mudfrog]

I can't tell y'all how many times i've forgotten about caches i owned that may have needed maintenance. I'd usually find out when another person's log came in or when i went to place a new cache. Had never thought of logging a NM on my own cache but now that i know, would definitely utilize the process,,, if it was going to be around. Yep i agree, this is another good thing we're losing because of a bad decision made.

[+dprovan]

I have no argument against your carefully crafted scenario for a use case, but I find it uninteresting compared to the basic logic that a CO should be able to tell the world one of his caches needs maintenance if he discovers it needs maintenance. After all, the response to your example is, "Well, they can't use NM for their own private purposes any more. End of discussion." But there's no good reason to stop a CO from making the condition of his own cache clear to everyone else.

[+frinklabs]

I wonder if this is how they are closing the loophole that is/was allowing a CO to set a so-called never needs maintenance attribute?

 

"Doesn't need maintenance" attribute

[+JoyfulNomad]

I do use this attribute. When I read our logs and someone says that the log is almost full or the cap is missing, but the rest of the cache is in great shape it doesn't warrant disabling. I throw a NM log to flag it. This also alerts others that there may be an issue. Lots of times somebody will replace the log before I can (very grateful for these cachers), then it's easy to remove. I'm not very computer savvy, so it's a very easy system​ for me.

 

I, personally would love to keep this system, but I know too often a NM gets left on caches when a newbie doesn't know how to remove it or the CO isn't playing anymore. But then, that's not the owner's log. Hmm. I guess I'll just have to learn something new!

[+JoyfulNomad]

Maybe they'd just leave mine active! Lol

[kanchan]

I have no argument against your carefully crafted scenario for a use case, but I find it uninteresting compared to the basic logic that a CO should be able to tell the world one of his caches needs maintenance if he discovers it needs maintenance. After all, the response to your example is, "Well, they can't use NM for their own private purposes any more. End of discussion." But there's no good reason to stop a CO from making the condition of his own cache clear to everyone else.

Well, I haven't "crafted" anything myself. I saw at least two cachers who brought up this use case in other forums (one is from a cacher is your/our area and the other is from another country) and I thought they are reasonable. And if you thought I was requesting to reinstate the ability for the cache owners to post a "Need Maintenance" log, you read my post wrongly. Actually, I also think it is probably a bit too much that cache owners post a Need Maintenance log to tell everyone that the log is almost full. I think the best way to satisfy their requirement is just to bring back the "Need Maintenance" attribute in the "Edit Attributes" section of the cache listing. How could it be harmful and why did Groundspeak remove it from the "Edit Attributes" page? I can imagine they may not want to let the cache owners simply "remove" the NM attribute without posting an OM log or performing the actual maintenance task. But I don't see any strong reason why cache owners shouldn't be able to "add" the NM attribute in any way. Such capability doesn't compromise any part of the game as long as they post an OM log later to remove the attribute when the adequate maintenance is performed?

[+cerberus1]

Happy to see that there's still some COs who read their cache logs, being able to glean information that they may have issues with it's condition.

 

When we see logs like that, we just make a note on the wall calender.

As soon as we have free time to look/fix, after an OM, we strike our note from the wall calender.

Simple...

 

Now that there's a "health" system that totals up DNFs & NMs, the last thing I'd want to do is add a NM to my own cache.

[+Boggin's Dad]

Anyone seen what the dates is?

[+Lil Devil]

Anyone seen what the dates is?

This was officially announced yesterday, emailed to the API partners 3 days ago, and privately announced to the volunteer community (reviewers) the day before that. I'm pretty sure this is real.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I don't get it - what's the problem with me logging a NM on one of my caches? If I find out that it's busted, a NM is a great way to tell seekers that there may be an issue, as in:

 

"I'm the owner, and I'm filing this NM log to warn you that the area will be flooded for a few days - bring your galoshes, and don't bother filing another NM. I'll fix it next week."

 

And, while I don't know why a CO would REQUEST that one of his or her caches be archived instead of just doing it himself, what's so all-fired critical about that ability that it has to be disallowed?

[+dprovan]

I have no argument against your carefully crafted scenario for a use case, but I find it uninteresting compared to the basic logic that a CO should be able to tell the world one of his caches needs maintenance if he discovers it needs maintenance. After all, the response to your example is, "Well, they can't use NM for their own private purposes any more. End of discussion." But there's no good reason to stop a CO from making the condition of his own cache clear to everyone else.

Well, I haven't "crafted" anything myself. I saw at least two cachers who brought up this use case in other forums (one is from a cacher is your/our area and the other is from another country) and I thought they are reasonable. And if you thought I was requesting to reinstate the ability for the cache owners to post a "Need Maintenance" log, you read my post wrongly. Actually, I also think it is probably a bit too much that cache owners post a Need Maintenance log to tell everyone that the log is almost full. I think the best way to satisfy their requirement is just to bring back the "Need Maintenance" attribute in the "Edit Attributes" section of the cache listing. How could it be harmful and why did Groundspeak remove it from the "Edit Attributes" page? I can imagine they may not want to let the cache owners simply "remove" the NM attribute without posting an OM log or performing the actual maintenance task. But I don't see any strong reason why cache owners shouldn't be able to "add" the NM attribute in any way. Such capability doesn't compromise any part of the game as long as they post an OM log later to remove the attribute when the adequate maintenance is performed?

If the owner turns on or turns off the maintenance flag, there's a reason, and they should explain it. Forcing them to do it through NMs and OMs neatly encourages them to explain the change. I see no reason to allow anyone to change the flag without posting a log.

[+dprovan]

And, while I don't know why a CO would REQUEST that one of his or her caches be archived instead of just doing it himself, what's so all-fired critical about that ability that it has to be disallowed?

Yeah, I don't really care about preventing the CO from posting an NA except that it seems silly to go out of your way to prevent it just because you can't imagine a legitimate reason. But if anyone needs a legitimate reason, I think it might be a reasonable way for someone that can't maintain a cache any more to announce that it's going away in case anyone wants one last chance to find it or wants to volunteer to adopt it. I think that use would be logical, but it probably wouldn't be very effective unless it became standard practice.

[kanchan]

Forcing them to do it through NMs and OMs neatly encourages them to explain the change.

But the COs cannot do it through NMs after mid April, and that's my point.

[kanchan]

And, while I don't know why a CO would REQUEST that one of his or her caches be archived instead of just doing it himself, what's so all-fired critical about that ability that it has to be disallowed?

Yeah, I don't really care about preventing the CO from posting an NA.

NAs? I don't understand that either. If the cache owner thinks the cache needs to be archived, they should just archive it. That's not what I was talking about at all.

 

I can, however, understand some cache owners want to add the NM flag (attribute) without temporarily disabling it, when a visitor says the log was almost full, for example. I think it's legitimate enough.

Edited April 2, 2017 by kanchan

[+noncentric]

And, while I don't know why a CO would REQUEST that one of his or her caches be archived instead of just doing it himself, what's so all-fired critical about that ability that it has to be disallowed?

Regarding NA's - perhaps some CO's are using the "Needs Archived" log instead of going into the cache listing to "Archive" it. Since "Archive" is not a log option, then CO's may not realize they need to go to the actual listing to Archive their own cache.

 

And maybe it's adding to the Reviewers' workloads? They have to review the NA caches, set the Temp Disable, check back in 30 days and then Archive.

 

I wouldn't think that would be happening a lot, but maybe it's happened enough to raise the issue and TPTB decided to make the change now when they're making other changes to the logging rules. I have seen a few caches where there's an NA log from a CO when it's clear they should've Archived it instead.

Edited April 2, 2017 by noncentric

[kanchan]

I don't get it - what's the problem with me logging a NM on one of my caches? If I find out that it's busted, a NM is a great way to tell seekers that there may be an issue, as in:

 

"I'm the owner, and I'm filing this NM log to warn you that the area will be flooded for a few days - bring your galoshes, and don't bother filing another NM. I'll fix it next week."

 

And, while I don't know why a CO would REQUEST that one of his or her caches be archived instead of just doing it himself, what's so all-fired critical about that ability that it has to be disallowed?

I don't know what you mean by the cache is busted, but that might warrant a disabling? That's what I do.

[+dprovan]

Forcing them to do it through NMs and OMs neatly encourages them to explain the change.

But the COs cannot do it through NMs after mid April, and that's my point.

That's why I'm arguing against that change instead of suggesting a different change that's functionally inferior.

[kanchan]

Forcing them to do it through NMs and OMs neatly encourages them to explain the change.

But the COs cannot do it through NMs after mid April, and that's my point.

That's why I'm arguing against that change instead of suggesting a different change that's functionally inferior.

I'm lost. What should I do if I would like to add a NM attribute to one of my hides without disabling it? Type of the maintenance: Just add a piece of paper as the log is almost full.

[+dprovan]

I'm lost. What should I do if I would like to add a NM attribute to one of my hides without disabling it? Type of the maintenance: Just add a piece of paper as the log is almost full.

You should post an NM. If you can't post an NM, you should complain about the missing feature.

[kanchan]

I'm lost. What should I do if I would like to add a NM attribute to one of my hides without disabling it? Type of the maintenance: Just add a piece of paper as the log is almost full.

You should post an NM. If you can't post an NM, you should complain about the missing feature.

So I'm complaining about the feature to be missed in mid April... Ability for COs to flag their own hides as "needs maintenance". If one can't post a NM, they should provide another way for COs to be able to add the NM attribute.

Edited April 2, 2017 by kanchan

[+dprovan]

So I'm complaining about the feature to be missed in mid April... Ability for COs to flag their own hides as "needs maintenance". If one can't post a NM, they should provide another way for COs to be able to add the NM attribute.

Yeah, I get that, but it makes more sense to me to complain about the inability to file an NM, whether it's before they implement the change or after.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I don't get it - what's the problem with me logging a NM on one of my caches? If I find out that it's busted, a NM is a great way to tell seekers that there may be an issue, as in:

 

"I'm the owner, and I'm filing this NM log to warn you that the area will be flooded for a few days - bring your galoshes, and don't bother filing another NM. I'll fix it next week."

 

And, while I don't know why a CO would REQUEST that one of his or her caches be archived instead of just doing it himself, what's so all-fired critical about that ability that it has to be disallowed?

I don't know what you mean by the cache is busted, but that might warrant a disabling? That's what I do.

 

I'm using 'busted' as a generic term for 'not in prime shape'.

There are all sorts of things that could be wrong with a cache that don't warrant disabling.

[+TriciaG]

I'm lost. What should I do if I would like to add a NM attribute to one of my hides without disabling it? Type of the maintenance: Just add a piece of paper as the log is almost full.

If it's just a note to yourself, you could create a bookmark list for yourself: "My Caches that NM" and add that cache to your bookmark list. When doing maintenance, pull up the bookmark list.

 

Sure, it's not adding a NM attribute, but it's a way to use the tools available once you can't log a NM.

 

Alternately: PM a friend and ask them to log a NM on your cache(s).

[+niraD]

If it's just a note to yourself, you could create a bookmark list for yourself: "My Caches that NM" and add that cache to your bookmark list. When doing maintenance, pull up the bookmark list.

So as of mid-April, if I want to see my caches that need maintenance, I'll need to pull up my caches that have the NM attribute, as well as the caches on my "Groundspeak won't let me log NM on my own caches" bookmark list. I'll have two places to check for such caches.

 

Personally, I think an easier workaround would be to create a sock-puppet account and to use it to post NM logs on my own caches.

 

Or, Groundspeak could allow owners to post NM (as requested by the OP), and then I'd have all my caches that need maintenance listed in a single place, the way it is today.

 

Alternately: PM a friend and ask them to log a NM on your cache(s).

Yeah, I think a sock-puppet account is easier, and long term, it would allow me to use the NM attribute to track my caches that need maintenance without pestering anyone else to post NM logs on my behalf.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Still don't know why...

 

Anybody have an idea? Anybody from the company in here?

 

A rule change should be in response to something. What's up with this one?

 

If we knew, then we could be discussing the pros and cons.

[+cerberus1]

Still don't know why...

 

Anybody have an idea? Anybody from the company in here?

 

A rule change should be in response to something. What's up with this one?

 

If we knew, then we could be discussing the pros and cons.

I thought the announcement was concise, and it does say, "We’ll share more details in the coming weeks".

Maybe we'll find out then...

 

I'd think a response to this "rule" change is explained by, "We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members".

- Sounds (to me) that members already had quite a bit of input for a change like this.

 

But I guess I don't understand what discussing pros & cons would do, since we now know that the site wanted some stuff, members wanted some stuff, and now new folks may find this hobby that much "easier".

- Sounded kinda final (to me), but we have seen some ideas reversed.

[+bun34]

I am also reminding my cache maintenance plan using PQ and NM too.

I would like to continue to allow CO to write NM Log in my cache.

[+dprovan]

Redirecting some conversations from the other thread:

 

What do the remaining logs not do for you that only an owner NM or DNF log can?

NM says it needs maintenance and sets the maintenance flag. Find says I found it. DNF says I didn't find it. Note doesn't say anything unless someone reads it, and the whole point of having different log types is so people can get certain key information without reading the logs. Disable doesn't say it needs maintenance, but does disable the cache even if the cache doesn't need to be disabled.

 

That was a really simple question to answer. Why do I get the feeling you're not going to say, "Oh, yeah, I guess they are useful"?

 

The argument that owner NM logs shouldn't be allowed appears to be moot -- unless Groundspeak changes their position, they're going away. I didn't have an opinion as to whether they should have been eliminated, but now that they appear to be going away, I don't think it's a great loss to geocaching. I'm not looking to win or lose an argument, just discussing a point.

I don't claim it's a great loss for geocaching, I just think it's a mistake, and I think it's important to explore why it's a mistake. But that's hard to do when the only justification for not letting COs file NMs on their own caches is because COs shouldn't file NMs on their own caches.

[+L0ne.R]

Redirecting some conversations from the other thread:

 

What do the remaining logs not do for you that only an owner NM or DNF log can?

NM says it needs maintenance and sets the maintenance flag. Find says I found it. DNF says I didn't find it. Note doesn't say anything unless someone reads it, and the whole point of having different log types is so people can get certain key information without reading the logs. Disable doesn't say it needs maintenance, but does disable the cache even if the cache doesn't need to be disabled.

 

That was a really simple question to answer. Why do I get the feeling you're not going to say, "Oh, yeah, I guess they are useful"?

 

The argument that owner NM logs shouldn't be allowed appears to be moot -- unless Groundspeak changes their position, they're going away. I didn't have an opinion as to whether they should have been eliminated, but now that they appear to be going away, I don't think it's a great loss to geocaching. I'm not looking to win or lose an argument, just discussing a point.

I don't claim it's a great loss for geocaching, I just think it's a mistake, and I think it's important to explore why it's a mistake. But that's hard to do when the only justification for not letting COs file NMs on their own caches is because COs shouldn't file NMs on their own caches.

 

I sometimes wonder if COs use NM instead of Disable because 'disable' gets the attention of a reviewer and sets the clock.

A reviewer might come along a month later and post a note asking if the cache will be fixed, which then sets the clock for archival.

[+The A-Team]

I sometimes wonder if COs use NM instead of Disable because 'disable' gets the attention of a reviewer and sets the clock.

A reviewer might come along a month later and post a note asking if the cache will be fixed, which then sets the clock for archival.

I don't see why anyone would use NM in place of disable.

 

First, reviewers are not notified of disable logs. Only NA logs do that. A reviewer would have to manually go looking for disabled caches, in the same way they would have to go looking for NM caches.

Second, if a CO disables a cache and the reviewer posts a reviewer note asking what's happening, the presumably-active CO (they did disable their own cache, after all) can just post a note explaining why they need more time.

 

In short, there's really no benefit from mis-logging the cache. If anything, it's detrimental because the status of the cache isn't accurate.

 

The NM and disable log types are used for completely different things, so I'm not sure why some people seem to think one implies the other or that they're two names for the same thing.

[+dprovan]

Ten pages of posts are hard to get through, but I'd direct you to some of my earlier comments, where I cited examples such as the case where I learn something about a cache of mine and develop plan to fix it. I wouldn't want to disable it if it's a minor problem, or a temporary environmental situation, etc.

 

In the meantime, I want to alert potential seekers that there's an issue. A 'Note' log gets lost quickly if DNF's start to pile up. The best solution is to file a NM that says that you know about it and will get to it. The presence of the Red Wrench will alert anyone who's paying attention that there's something more to look at.

 

That's one example.

It's an example, but not a very convincing one that an owner NM log is "the best solution."

I guess I don't know what you mean by "convincing". The case presents a situation where an NM is the solution. The only thing that makes the case any different than any other NM posting is that the CO's the one that came to that conclusion. What is the logic being blocking him from using a log type that's designed to do exactly what he wants to do?

 

I looked to your caches to see if there was a better example of your argument in action, but I didn't find one. Your hides appear to get finds about once a month on average. Please show me where your note logs have ever gotten lost quickly. (I also don't see that you've ever left a NM log on any of them, but perhaps you deleted them.)

Well, first of all, this is the pot calling the kettle black. You show us where anyone anywhere posting an NM has caused a problem, and then it might make sense to compare which is more important. I'm not convinced by this argument that GS did it, so it must be true.

 

But anyway, I've seen a few owner NMs, although I agree it's not common. I don't remember ever seeing one that didn't make perfect sense. (The only one I can point to off the top of my head, though, is one recently posted by kanchan, but he makes it clear that he had never considered posting an NM on his own cache until this thread brought it up, so I don't think it really counts.)

[+dprovan]

I sometimes wonder if COs use NM instead of Disable because 'disable' gets the attention of a reviewer and sets the clock.

A reviewer might come along a month later and post a note asking if the cache will be fixed, which then sets the clock for archival.

I can't see why any of us should be concerned if some CO wants to game the system by posting a slightly inaccurate log to buy himself a little more time. Sure, I'd tell him not to do that, but I feel no need to delete the feature just because it might be misused in this way.

 

(I agree with The A-Team that this doesn't seem likely, but I'd still be shrugging my shoulders even if it was known to happen.)

[cezanne]

I sometimes wonder if COs use NM instead of Disable because 'disable' gets the attention of a reviewer and sets the clock.

A reviewer might come along a month later and post a note asking if the cache will be fixed, which then sets the clock for archival.

 

I have not seen such a case. In those cases where I have seen NM used by cache owners it was due to minor issues where disabling the cache did not seem appropriate and quite often the NM log was posted by the cache owner because those who pointed out the problem did not want to do so (and only reported their observation by e-mail or in a log of a different type).

 

Some situations where an owner NM makes perfect sense, is helpful and harmless.

Someone mentions that he plans to bring a new pencil and that those who to visit the cache before are welcome to leave a pencil if it is convenient for them. Someone mentions that taking a new spoiler photo being more accurate to the changed level of vegetation is planned and that if someone happens to visit the cache and does not bother to take a spoiler photo their help would be appreiated.

 

As a cache owner who does not want to attract any attention to a cache I rather would not log anything at all and even less a NM - I would wait for other cachers to act.

[kanchan]

I also think L0ne.R's use case is a bit weird. My original post is not about it. I still wonder what the logic behind the change was. I think it's very legitimate that the cache owner posts a NM log when they know the log is almost full and it may take a few days before they can add a piece of paper. Maybe TPTB thinks that the cache owner should just disable it, or just add a piece of paper if they have time to post a NM log? Either way, I'm disappointed.

[+L0ne.R]

From the Help Center https://support.Grou...=kb.page&id=235

If your cache needs to be disabled for a longer time, explain why in a cache log. Community volunteer reviewers may archive listings that are disabled for an extended time with no explanation. If you decide not to replace a missing geocache,

archive your listing

.

 

 

Published geocaches that are temporarily disabled do not show up in the Geocaching® mobile app. They do show up on Geocaching.com.

 

Reviewers may not officially get notified but it does seem that they are instructed or encouraged to run sweeps for caches with extended disables.

In my location it almost always gets noticed if the disable extends beyond a month.

I still say that some COs would prefer to use an NM instead of a disable because it buys them more time and keeps their cache visible on the apps. It may also help them get assistance from future finders -- as I think cezanne alludes to in post #37.

Edited April 9, 2017 by L0ne.R

[kanchan]

From the Help Center https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=235

If your cache needs to be disabled for a longer time, explain why in a cache log. Community volunteer reviewers may archive listings that are disabled for an extended time with no explanation. If you decide not to replace a missing geocache,

archive your listing

.

 

 

Published geocaches that are temporarily disabled do not show up in the Geocaching® mobile app. They do show up on Geocaching.com.

 

Reviewers may not officially get notified but it does seem that they are instructed or encouraged to run sweeps for caches with extended disables.

In my location it almost always gets noticed if the disable extends beyond a month.

I still say that some COs would prefer to use an NM instead of a disable because it buys them more time and keeps their cache visible on the apps. It may also help them get assistance from future finders -- as I think cezanne eludes to in post #37.

Many volunteer reviewers certainly review disabled caches in their jurisdictions periodically to take appropriate actions, but that CANNOT justify that CO might just want to post a NM instead of a TDL. If the cache really needs to be disabled (e.g., the cache is know to have gone, the cache location is temporarily inaccessible, etc...), the owner should absolutely disable it instead of just flag it as "needs maintenance". NM can't be an alternative to "Temporarily Disable Listing".

[+dprovan]

Reviewers may not officially get notified but it does seem that they are instructed or encouraged to run sweeps for caches with extended disables.

If the reviewer's running sweeps, it's unlikely he'd look only at disabled caches without looking for caches with NM set at the same time. Even if some COs play that trick, I doubt it's effective.