"Needs Maintenance" - etiquette help

[+CallSignFoxTail]

Hey there,

I geocached many many years ago with friends but only have gotten back in to it this summer once I got a GPS unit for my birthday.  My boyfriend and I are having a great time using geocaching to explore a new city and surroundings which we have moved to.

Today we were out on a lengthy hiking trail system and found cache after cache with soaking wet logs, disintegrated logs, cracked containers with lids that won't stay on, etc.  I had seen the the "needs maintenance" option on the online log so I checked that off as I assumed it would flag the owner of those caches that they will need to be checked out. Some of the caches had not been visited in months or years, but others had been logged relatively recently and no one had said anything about the problems, which I was a bit surprised about.  I was also somewhat annoyed to find that the site does't credit a "needs maintenance" log as a "find," even though I did find the caches!

So this got me wondering - what is the etiquette for using that feature?  Should I just be happily logging away as "found" if I truly find the cache, and leave my nose out of it as a newbie geocacher?  Or should I add two logs, one that says "found" and one that says "need maintenance" so that the owner is alerted but I still get the log recorded?  I don't want to step on any toes.

I'm not super caught up on my "find" count, but I do like credit when I truly make a find!

Thanks in advance for your help.

Edited August 27, 2017 by CallSignFoxTail

[+noncentric]

In most cases, if you found a cache and it needs maintenance, then you are entitled to log a "Found It" as well as the "NM".

Now, how to submit the logs?  There are currently two logging experiences on the website.  The NEW logging experience and the OLD logging experience.

• In the NEW logging experience, you would select Found It, write your log and include the details about the problems with the cache, select the 'Report a Problem' option underneath the log entry text box, click the appropriate category of the issue, and submit that log.
• In the OLD logging experience, you would select Found It, write your log describing your experience finding the cache, and submit that log. Then you would create another log selecting Needs Maintenance, write a log describing the issues with the cache, and submit that log.

If you are submitting your logs via the official app, then you would open the cache, select Report a Problem from the "..." menu, describe the issue, and submit that log. That will create the NM log. Then you would open the cache and select Log Geocache at the bottom of the cache details screen, choose Found It, describe your experience finding the cache, and submit that log.

[+CallSignFoxTail]

OK! That is exactly the info I was looking for. Thanks! I usually log from the Cachly app and will look for the correct procedure there.

Thanks again!

[+SeattleWayne]

Log a Needs Maintenance log then log a Found it! log. Make sure your NM logs are descriptive so the CO knows what's going on. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 8/26/2017 at 9:30 PM, noncentric said:

In most cases, if you found a cache and it needs maintenance, then you are entitled to log a "Found It" as well as the "NM".

This shouldn't need explaining but "if you found a cache" implies that you actually found a cache.  A piece of string or zip tie used to tether a container or just a container list isn't a cache, though it does means that "the cache" needs maintenance.  

[+thebruce0]

11 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

This shouldn't need explaining but "if you found a cache" implies that you actually found a cache.  A piece of string or zip tie used to tether a container or just a container list isn't a cache, though it does means that "the cache" needs maintenance.

Alternatively (personal caching ethics aside), in that case if you're ok with it you could log a note and NM and ask if the CO will let you log it as a find (some consider that "if it was there I'd have found it" sufficient justification for a find, even though that alone isn't allowance for the find log). Otherwise the CO would be in their rights to delete the Find log since your name isn't on the logsheet.

[+Team Microdot]

On 02/09/2017 at 11:19 PM, thebruce0 said:

On 02/09/2017 at 0:13 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

This shouldn't need explaining but "if you found a cache" implies that you actually found a cache.  A piece of string or zip tie used to tether a container or just a container list isn't a cache, though it does means that "the cache" needs maintenance.

Alternatively (personal caching ethics aside), in that case if you're ok with it you could log a note and NM and ask if the CO will let you log it as a find (some consider that "if it was there I'd have found it" sufficient justification for a find, even though that alone isn't allowance for the find log). Otherwise the CO would be in their rights to delete the Find log since your name isn't on the logsheet.

Although if you're going to just pretend that you've found the caches you could just stay at home and that way all the time which would have been wasted actually getting out there geocaching can be invested in armchair logging many more imaginary finds

[+thebruce0]

Note I stated: " (some consider that "if it was there I'd have found it" sufficient justification for a find, even though that alone isn't allowance for the find log) "

I don't condone the strategy of logging non-existent containers or caches that you yourself didn't sign, across the board. But I don't denigrate people who make use of the strategy, because they are "playing the game" by the actual rules, even if not by the 'spirit' you or I deem more appropriate.

Yep, you "may as well" stay at home and just couch log while friends go and find caches putting your name in the logsheet. But you know, there are many many other reasons why people will still go and stand at the foot of the tree, or on the shoreline, or at the entrance to the tunnel. Because they're outside and with people, spending time with friends, enjoying the adventure as they can even if through other people for what they can't, and they find that more valuable than merely logging from home for the smiley count.

So I won't be condescending to people who may not play the way you or I enjoy and encourage - as long as they're not breaking rules and making the game worse for other people beyond a difference of opinion.

ETA: to bring it back to the topic - NM shouldn't be logged unless you've actually visited the cache and have a first-hand report that the cache container, or something in the cache listing details, actually needs owner maintenance. That does affect other people as its public information both for cachers reading it and the CO.

Edited September 5, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Note I stated: " (some consider that "if it was there I'd have found it" sufficient justification for a find, even though that alone isn't allowance for the find log) "

I don't condone the strategy of logging non-existent containers or caches that you yourself didn't sign, across the board. But I don't denigrate people who make use of the strategy, because they are "playing the game" by the actual rules, even if not by the 'spirit' you or I deem more appropriate.

Yep, you "may as well" stay at home and just couch log while friends go and find caches putting your name in the logsheet. But you know, there are many many other reasons why people will still go and stand at the foot of the tree, or on the shoreline, or at the entrance to the tunnel. Because they're outside and with people, spending time with friends, enjoying the adventure as they can even if through other people for what they can't, and they find that more valuable than merely logging from home for the smiley count.

So I won't be condescending to people who may not play the way you or I enjoy and encourage - as long as they're not breaking rules and making the game worse for other people beyond a difference of opinion.

ETA: to bring it back to the topic - NM shouldn't be logged unless you've actually visited the cache and have a first-hand report that the cache container, or something in the cache listing details, actually needs owner maintenance. That does affect other people as its public information both for cachers reading it and the CO.

So you're not condoning it - just offering it as a viable alternative to actually finding the cache and signing the log.

Right-oh

I haven't seen the actual rule that says you can log a cache that isn't there so long as the CO says it's OK. I thought that virtual finds (on non-virtual caches) were actually frowned upon by TPTB...

[+thebruce0]

7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So you're not condoning it - just offering it as a viable alternative to actually finding the cache and signing the log.

Right-oh

I haven't seen the actual rule that says you can log a cache that isn't there so long as the CO says it's OK. I thought that virtual finds (on non-virtual caches) were actually frowned upon by TPTB...

1. It's possible to know the difference between minimum requirement for the website part of the game and optimal experience for the spirit part of the game, and recognize that all are allowable, while still encouraging the best experience.

2. Name in the logbook is the rule for the Find Log. CO responsibility for the listing is the rule for cache ownership. Therefore if the CO allows a find on their listing, then it is allowed, whatever the circumstance (barring excessive abuse that GS might take notice of). If the CO does not allow it because the name is not in the logbook, then it's not allowed.

3. 'Virtual finds' may indeed be frowned upon by TPTB. They are frowned upon by you and I. Changes nothing, see above.

 

4. On topic: If someone were to log a NM on my cache without first-hand observation or a legitimate issue with the listing, I might be inclined to delete the NM log (likely with a note commenting why). But we should note that such 'virtual NM' logs do have an added effect - they add the NM flag to the listing, requiring the owner to also post an OM log to clear it. Another reason why you should only post a NM log if there's a good, legitimate reason, ideally by first-hand experience.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

3. 'Virtual finds' may indeed be frowned upon by TPTB. They are frowned upon by you and I. Changes nothing, see above.

If you frown upon the practice why offer it, unsolicited, in the Getting Started forum as an accepted option?

Are you trying to help people get off to a bad start? Encouraging them to adopt practices that you frown upon? Because?

[+thebruce0]

37 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If you frown upon the practice why offer it, unsolicited, in the Getting Started forum as an accepted option?

Are you trying to help people get off to a bad start? Encouraging them to adopt practices that you frown upon? Because?

Read again. Nowhere did I encourage. I'm stepping back now so this doesn't become another 2 person dialogue.

ETA: From the start: "personal caching ethics aside", in my response to NYPaddleCacher, I stand by the alternative as viable, as allowable. Which is not the same as encouraged. Rather, denigrating someone for doing so is the opposite of encouraging someone to do it a way I believe to be generally more rewarding. Because really, really, doing it the less rewarding way is a matter of opinion and not worth arguing about. And it's not directly related to NM etiquette.

Edited September 5, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If you frown upon the practice why offer it, unsolicited, in the Getting Started forum as an accepted option?

Are you trying to help people get off to a bad start? Encouraging them to adopt practices that you frown upon? Because?

Read again. Nowhere did I encourage. I'm stepping back now so this doesn't become another 2 person dialogue.

That would be better than suggesting to new cachers just getting started that they should log caches which they haven't found.

ETA - in a thread which is actually seeking advice related to Needs Maintenance logs.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+NanCycle]

Well, one good thing about arm-chair loggers--they don't leave throwdowns.  

 

[+Team Microdot]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

ETA: From the start: "personal caching ethics aside", in my response to NYPaddleCacher, I stand by the alternative as viable, as allowable. Which is not the same as encouraged. Rather, denigrating someone for doing so is the opposite of encouraging someone to do it a way I believe to be generally more rewarding. Because really, really, doing it the less rewarding way is a matter of opinion and not worth arguing about. And it's not directly related to NM etiquette.

Geez - when did you add all this? Thought you were stepping back?

You took the thread off topic in order to promote to newcomers to the game the idea of logging caches they hadn't found - so long as the CO would let them.

You're still indicating that it is a viable, allowable alternative - to actually finding and logging the cache properly - which is as good as encouraging it, despite your repeated attempts to claim otherwise.

I can't understand why, If you believed that you were offering good adice to these newcomers to the game, you couched the whole idea inside "personal caching ethics aside" air quotes, then decided it wasn't worth arguing about and then played the now we're off topic card - given that you're the originator of the tangent!

To conclude - I think suggesting to newcomers to the game that they consider logging virtual finds - especially when that isn't relevant to their question(s) anyway is unwarranted and bad advice.

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Team Microdot
typo

[+thebruce0]

10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

...You took the thread off topic...

No I didn't. I replied to a comment, which certainly didn't help keep the thread on topic. Tho I'm clearly not alone in this. Now please PM me or post in a relevant thread to continue this line with me if you absolutely must, if it's not about NM etiquette.

Edited September 5, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

...You took the thread off topic...

No I didn't. I replied to a comment, which certainly didn't help keep the thread on topic. Tho I'm clearly not alone in this. Now please PM me or post in a relevant thread to continue this line, if it's not about NM etiquette.

Amazing

[+thebruce0]

You know what. I apologize. I looked back at the first comment I made (Saturday) and in retrospect for some reason I got threads crossed and indeed I converted NYP's last sentence which cemented it about NM logs, and turned it into find logs, and that was not in any way topically relevant. I did begin the 'find log' side topic, and got very very distracted by TM who feels like he's riding my coattails on these forums; that, compounded with a recent 'social' complication in the past two weeks has thrown me off game. In this case, despite a few attempts to return to the topic, the sidetrack was my fault. I'm fine with admitting that. The comments expressed in that sidetrack though I stand by, and still request that if discussion about it must continue, please PM me or take it to a relevant thread.

Now back to our regularly scheduled topic... please.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

You know what. I apologize. I looked back at the first comment I made (Saturday) and in retrospect for some reason I got threads crossed and indeed I converted NYP's last sentence which cemented it about NM logs, and turned it into find logs, and that was not in any way topically relevant. I did begin the 'find log' side topic, and got very very distracted by TM who feels like he's riding my coattails on these forums; that, compounded with a recent 'social' complication in the past two weeks has thrown me off game. In this case, despite a few attempts to return to the topic, the sidetrack was my fault. I'm fine with admitting that. The comments expressed in that sidetrack though I stand by, and still request that if discussion about it must continue, please PM me or take it to a relevant thread.

Now back to our regularly scheduled topic... please.

Glad we sorted that out.

I still reject the comments expressed in your sidetrack as poor advice and refute the idea that my challenge to them ever had anything to do with you beginning the 'find log' side topic in the first place.

That said, I'm happy to park this here. Recognising that taking the discussion to PM would be a pointless exercise in futility and frustration I won't be doing that.

I return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[+L0ne.R]

Team Microdot there's something new in the guidelines!

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/09/guidelines/#more-46818

(Edit to add:)

 

 

Quote

 

Cache owner responsibilities

If you are a cache owner and unsure about your responsibilities, head over to this new section that details maintenance expectations.

With more than 3 million geocaches worldwide, cache owners must be extra careful to keep their geocaches in good shape. This prevents “geo-litter” and keeps the game fun for all involved. If a cache owner shows that they can’t keep up with the maintenance of their existing caches, they might lose their hiding privileges.

In addition to keeping the cache page and cache container in good shape, cache owners are also responsible for keeping the cache page guideline compliant after publication.

 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

• Visit the geocache regularly.
• Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
• Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
• Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

Edited September 5, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Team Microdot there's something new in the guidelines!

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/09/guidelines/#more-46818

(Edit to add:)

 

 

 

I know - just been reading through them

There are so many changes in there that seem to relate directly to stuff that's been discussed at length here in the forums that it seems like Groundspeak is really taking notice of and placing real value community ideas - I'm really chuffed* to see that

*stoked for those of you in the USA

[+thebruce0]

Giving reviewers direct official links to point to regarding decisions that they've essentially only been able to defend as 'reviewer authority' alone or 'unwritten guidelines' is a Good Thing (for their sanity at least).

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Giving reviewers direct official links to point to regarding decisions that they've essentially only been able to defend as 'reviewer authority' alone or 'unwritten guidelines' is a Good Thing (for their sanity at least).

Agreed

 

[+RufusClupea]

53 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

• Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Uh-oh...   Just met a GC at an event who's into finding (and signing) years-old archived caches.  He's been doing pretty well at it...

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, RufusClupea said:

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

• Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Uh-oh...   Just met a GC at an event who's into finding (and signing) years-old archived caches.  He's been doing pretty well at it...

Just goes to show how many irresponsible cache hiders there are. 

He does the responsible thing and removes the geolitter, right?   

Or does he leave the litter? 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+RufusClupea]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Just goes to show how many irresponsible cache hiders there are. 

He does the responsible thing and removes the geolitter, right?   

Or does he leave the litter?

Dunno.

[+briansnat]

This has veered way too far off of the original topic.