CO not maintaining trackables inventory

[+dubidubno]

If a cache owner does not remove missing trackables from a cache's inventory, even after multiple needs maintenance logs has been posted, is it OK to post a needs archived log so a reviewer can deal with it? Maintaining the trackable inventory is part of a cache owners duties, according to this: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57 .

 

[+SeattleWayne]

Email the CO first. 

[+dprovan]

As much as I appreciate COs marking TBs as missing, I don't consider a failure to do that should be reflected in the cache status, whether with an NA or an NM. The CO might be responsible, but his failure to do so does not imply there's anything wrong with the cache, so I think it's inappropriate to file even an NM, and let alone try to get a cache archived when it's in perfectly good working order. The CO has failed, not the cache.

I'd actually argue that the guideline says the CO should mark TBs missing, not that the CO must mark TBs missing. Besides, that phrase only kicks in if the CO knows the TB is missing, so he can't be held to it if he hasn't had any reason to visit the cache lately. But my real opinion is that this is a guideline that is nice because it encourages useful behavior, but it's too draconian for any cacher to want to actually enforce in practice.

[+Aquacache]

The trackable owner can also mark it as missing. If the cache owner is unresponsive, let the trackable owner know that it's not in the last-noted location and they can mark it missing if they want to.

[+Team Christiansen]

6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

As much as I appreciate COs marking TBs as missing, I don't consider a failure to do that should be reflected in the cache status, whether with an NA or an NM. The CO might be responsible, but his failure to do so does not imply there's anything wrong with the cache, so I think it's inappropriate to file even an NM, and let alone try to get a cache archived when it's in perfectly good working order.

IMO, cache maintenance is not just for the physical cache container, but also the cache page of which the cache inventory is part. I don't think an NM is inappropriate, but I wouldn't go as far as posting an NA.

[+Team Christiansen]

1 minute ago, Team Christiansen said:

IMO, cache maintenance is not just for the physical cache container, but also the cache page of which the cache inventory is part. I don't think an NM is inappropriate, but I wouldn't go as far as posting an NA.

And I wouldn't post an NM until I have reached out to both CO and TO and neither responds within a reasonable amount of time.

[+Team Microdot]

10 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

11 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

IMO, cache maintenance is not just for the physical cache container, but also the cache page of which the cache inventory is part. I don't think an NM is inappropriate, but I wouldn't go as far as posting an NA.

And I wouldn't post an NM until I have reached out to both CO and TO and neither responds within a reasonable amount of time.

I personally would just log the NM and get on with the rest of my life.

[+NanCycle]

12 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

And I wouldn't post an NM until I have reached out to both CO and TO and neither responds within a reasonable amount of time.

After neither the  CO nor the TO has responded, you could email either a local reviewer or Eartha (moderator of the Trackables forum) and either of them can mark it missing.  I wouldn't use a NM for this, and certainly not a NA.  Just be sure you know that it is really not in the cache.  

[+kunarion]

6 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

After neither the  CO nor the TO has responded, you could email either a local reviewer or Eartha (moderator of the Trackables forum) and either of them can mark it missing.  I wouldn't use a NM for this, and certainly not a NA.  Just be sure you know that it is really not in the cache.  

 

A cache "may" be archived if a TB is not logged properly.  Good riddance.  Cache Owners aren't properly forcing cachers to make accurate logs, so cache owners should be ashamed of themselves.

According to Groundspeak, archival is a possibility, therefore "NA" is acceptable.  I'll be archiving my caches immediately when any TB is incorrectly logged.  It's the right thing to do.

6.4. Maintenance expectations
 
To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:
•Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
•Replace broken or missing containers.
•Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
•Replace full or wet logbooks.
•Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
•Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
•Delete inappropriate logs.
•Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.
 

Did this answer your question? Yes or No

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

A cache "may" be archived if a TB is not logged properly.  Good riddance.  Cache Owners aren't properly forcing cachers to make accurate logs, so cache owners should be ashamed of themselves.

According to Groundspeak, archival is a possibility, therefore "NA" is acceptable.  I'll be archiving my caches immediately when any TB is incorrectly logged.  It's the right thing to do.

6.4. Maintenance expectations
 
To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:
•Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
•Replace broken or missing containers.
•Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
•Replace full or wet logbooks.
•Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
•Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
•Delete inappropriate logs.
•Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.
 

Did this answer your question? Yes or No

Or you could just spend the few seconds it takes to mark the trackable as missing and then get on with the rest of your life.

 

[+kunarion]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Or you could just spend the few seconds it takes to mark the trackable as missing and then get on with the rest of your life.

 

 

That's no good.  Many caches have TBs that are in the cache, but not logged into the Inventory.  It's not just missing TBs, logs are wrong, and Cache Owners are the problem.  There's no getting on with life.  If it's not a proper Inventory, archive that cache.  See the official policy.  If you disagree, take it up with Groundspeak.

 

I don't make the policies.  I merely have major concerns about these polices.

Edited August 29, 2017 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I personally would just log the NM and get on with the rest of my life.

Why not just get on with your life before you log the NM?

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, kunarion said:

10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Or you could just spend the few seconds it takes to mark the trackable as missing and then get on with the rest of your life.

 

 

That's no good.  Many caches have TBs that are in the cache, but not logged into the Inventory.  It's not just missing TBs, logs are wrong, and Cache Owners are the problem.  There's no getting on with life.  If it's not a proper Inventory, archive that cache.  See the official policy.  If you disagree, take it up with Groundspeak.

 

I don't make the policies.  I merely have major concerns about these polices.

In fairness I wouldn't be NA'ing a cache if an inaccurate inventory was its only issue. That does seem a bit OTT.

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, dprovan said:

Why not just get on with your life before you log the NM?

^

Whoa!  I like that idea.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

25 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I personally would just log the NM and get on with the rest of my life.

Why not just get on with your life before you log the NM?

Trust me I do.

[+cerberus1]

19 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

That's no good.  Many caches have TBs that are in the cache, but not logged into the Inventory.  It's not just missing TBs, logs are wrong, and Cache Owners are the problem.  There's no getting on with life.  If it's not a proper Inventory, archive that cache.  See the official policy.  If you disagree, take it up with Groundspeak.

Curious, if there's no maintenance issues, how would a CO know that a trackable not in inventory is in his cache?

I agree, an incorrect  trackable log is an issue, and we find more trackables in caches not in inventory than missing these days (just had one this past week).

 - But I can't see that as a fault of the CO, it's whoever held it last who's "at fault" if anyone.   NA makes no sense...

[Keystone]

While the Help Center article mentions maintenance of the trackable inventory as a best practice, the subject is not mentioned in the Listing Guidelines for Geocache Maintenance.  I'm not aware of any Community Volunteer Reviewers who would archive a cache page solely because the trackable inventory isn't accurate.  Assuming there's a nice water-resistant container and a dry logsheet with room to sign, it seems a shame to lose a cache that way.

If I received a "Needs Archived" request for this reason, the most I'd do is mark a trackable missing.  I have done that 5,938 times as of today. 

[+niraD]

Be careful what you wish for. I know cache owners who place smaller cache containers because they've been hassled about the trackable inventory in the past. If the cache container isn't big enough for trackables, then they won't get hassled. And others have preemptively marked ALL trackables missing.

[+Team Microdot]

Of course - we can't expect everyone to behave like an adult.

With regard to box size, any bigger boxes I come across these days are either empty or full of junk anyway so meh.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

After neither the  CO nor the TO has responded, you could email either a local reviewer or Eartha (moderator of the Trackables forum) and either of them can mark it missing.  I wouldn't use a NM for this, and certainly not a NA.  Just be sure you know that it is really not in the cache.  

I agree. 

Can't count the times when we've been contacted by TOs to check after numerous "TB not in cache" mentions , or a cacher asking if we'd mark a trackable as missing because they just didn't see it,

 So far, most times it was indeed there and find it was just on the bottom of the ammo can, under carp left there by others, and a few times, somehow stuck to the lid.

Similar to niraD, if this kept up (it's slowed now that few want to walk anymore...), I'd be more than happy to "correct" that issue that has nothing to do with the condition of my cache, and make 'em all match stick holders. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

That's no good.  Many caches have TBs that are in the cache, but not logged into the Inventory.  It's not just missing TBs, logs are wrong, and Cache Owners are the problem.  There's no getting on with life.  If it's not a proper Inventory, archive that cache.  See the official policy.  If you disagree, take it up with Groundspeak.

Does anyone know of an instance where a NA was posted on a cache because the TB inventory wasn't up to date, and the cache was archived by a reviewer specifically because the CO didn't mark the TBs as missing?  Of course, a CO that has abandoned a cache wouldn't mark the TBs as missing but that's a separate issue.

[+J Grouchy]

Wish there was a "NA" style log for trackables...  

 

[kanchan]

Trackables belong to their owners, not the cache owners. I see it as a trackable owners' responsibility to mark their trackables missing, not the cache owners'. This kind of discussion discourages some cache owners to put larger containers which can hold trackables.

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, kanchan said:

This kind of discussion discourages some cache owners to put larger containers which can hold trackables.

Meh. So long as the cache holds a log it's all good.

[+fuzziebear3]

Log a note on the Trackable that it was not in the ______  cache.   The Trackable Owner will see that log, and then they can mark it missing if they choose.

 

[+MartyBartfast]

29 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Log a note on the Trackable that it was not in the ______  cache. 

Don't you need the TB code to do that, difficult if the TB wasn't there

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

32 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Log a note on the Trackable that it was not in the ______  cache. 

Don't you need the TB code to do that, difficult if the TB wasn't there

You don't need the tracking code to log a note. You only need the tracking code for retrieve/grab logs that bring the trackable into your inventory, or for discover logs.

[+arisoft]

4 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Don't you need the TB code to do that, difficult if the TB wasn't there

You can contact directly to the owner by Message Center. No need to enter note because there is no certainty that the owner will read the note.

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

No need to enter note because there is no certainty that the owner will read the note.

There's also no certainty that the owner will read anything on the Message Center.

A Note has the advantage that other geocachers can see it as well.

[+Shop99er]

To the OP...

You could not get all worked up over caches that aren't yours.. If the trackable is yours mark it as missing, and move along. If it also isn't yours, it's log status probably won't have any long term affect on you life.

 

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

No need to enter note because there is no certainty that the owner will read the note.

There's also no certainty that the owner will read anything on the Message Center.

Especially if the TB owner is no longer active - in which case they are also not going to correct the cache inventory -  only the cache owner can do that - which brings us full circle

Edited August 29, 2017 by Team Microdot
typo

[+SeattleWayne]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Especially if the TB owner is no longer active - in which case they are also not going to correct the cache inventory -  only the cache owner can do that - which brings us full circle

Might as well post a NA then if CO is MIA. 

[+nextlogicalstep]

The only time this annoys me is when a cache has been muggled with several trackables inside, the cache owner has replaced the cache, and not marked the trackables missing. In that situation, the cache owner is very much aware that those trackables are gone. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a cache owner to go check the cache to make sure the trackable inventory is accurate when there's no reason to believe there's anything wrong with the cache itself.

[+MartyBartfast]

12 hours ago, niraD said:

You don't need the tracking code to log a note.

Ah, didn't know that - I don't think I've ever done it.

[+niraD]

47 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Ah, didn't know that - I don't think I've ever done it.

I've done it every now and then, typically when I discover that a trackable is no longer where the system thinks it is, and hasn't been for some time. Then I mention the fact in my Find log, and post a Note to the trackable.

[+Team Microdot]

9 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Especially if the TB owner is no longer active - in which case they are also not going to correct the cache inventory -  only the cache owner can do that - which brings us full circle

Might as well post a NA then if CO is MIA. 

Are we talking about an absent CO here?

 

[+SeattleWayne]

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Are we talking about an absent CO here?

 

Indeed we are. 

[+Team Microdot]

19 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Are we talking about an absent CO here?

 

Indeed we are. 

News to me.

[SicilianCyclops]

I only own a few caches which I maintain regularly. However, if I were ever hassled about a missing trackable (i.e., have a NM logged over it), I would probably archive all of my caches immediately. 

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, SicilianCyclops said:

I only own a few caches which I maintain regularly. However, if I were ever hassled about a missing trackable (i.e., have a NM logged over it), I would probably archive all of my caches immediately. 

Do you think that your geocide would have the slightest impact on anybody but yourself?

[SicilianCyclops]

1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

Do you think that your geocide would have the slightest impact on anybody but yourself?

Nope, I don't. My point was that trackables are a side game to geocaching and shouldn't warrant a NM. If I had to deal with nonsense like that, it would cease to be fun therefore I would opt out. I'm not sure why you think my intent would be to impact anyone else.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, SicilianCyclops said:

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Do you think that your geocide would have the slightest impact on anybody but yourself?

Nope, I don't. My point was that trackables are a side game to geocaching and shouldn't warrant a NM. If I had to deal with nonsense like that, it would cease to be fun therefore I would opt out. I'm not sure why you think my intent would be to impact anyone else.

I don't.

I just can't see the moitivation for such outrage over something that might happen once every blue moon, if ever at all, that takes seconds to complete and has a positive impact for others.

[SicilianCyclops]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't.

I just can't see the moitivation for such outrage over something that might happen once every blue moon, if ever at all, that takes seconds to complete and has a positive impact for others.

Perhaps I was using hyperbole when I said I would archive everything. However, if I received a NM over a missing trackable, I would find it ridiculous and inappropriate.

[+J Grouchy]

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't.

I just can't see the moitivation for such outrage over something that might happen once every blue moon, if ever at all, that takes seconds to complete and has a positive impact for others.

Exactly.  Time and again I'm blown away by how stuff that takes little to no effort is ignored or put off until the very existence of the cache is threatened...then outrage, which often takes more effort than anything else, is often the result.

Even if the trackable IS in the cache, what do you actually lose by marking it missing?  Mark it missing and either let the trackable owner deal with it or let the next person to find it log it back into circulation.  How is any of that worthy of archiving all your caches?  Such a reaction is rather hot-headed and immature.

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, SicilianCyclops said:

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't.

I just can't see the moitivation for such outrage over something that might happen once every blue moon, if ever at all, that takes seconds to complete and has a positive impact for others.

Perhaps I was using hyperbole when I said I would archive everything. However, if I received a NM over a missing trackable, I would find it ridiculous and inappropriate.

I think the same about threats to archive caches over such trivial issues as a request to tick a box.

[SicilianCyclops]

7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I think the same about threats to archive caches over such trivial issues as a request to tick a box.

 

8 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Exactly.  Time and again I'm blown away by how stuff that takes little to no effort is ignored or put off until the very existence of the cache is threatened...then outrage, which often takes more effort than anything else, is often the result.

Even if the trackable IS in the cache, what do you actually lose by marking it missing?  Mark it missing and either let the trackable owner deal with it or let the next person to find it log it back into circulation.  How is any of that worthy of archiving all your caches?  Such a reaction is rather hot-headed and immature.

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about marking it missing if I find out it is indeed missing. I thought I made it clear that someone logging a NM or NA would be way too extreme a reaction which was the original discussion of this thread. In addition, I already said I was exaggerating when I said I would archive them. You act like I actually DID IT.

Edited August 31, 2017 by SicilianCyclops

[+J Grouchy]

1 minute ago, SicilianCyclops said:

 

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about marking it missing if I find out it is indeed missing. I thought I made it clear that someone logging a NM or NA would be way too extreme a reaction which was the original discussion of this thread.

A 'needs maintenance' log isn't "extreme" in my opinion.  I would post a NM for any problem I saw with the cache page.  Inappropriate hints, inaccurate information, D or T ratings that may need to change...a 'needs maintenance' log is entirely appropriate for anything to get the CO's attention.  I can't even tell you how many times I've seen Notes posted about inaccurate coordinates or problems with the cache that go completely ignored...then when someone posts a NM log, it gets attention by the Reviewer or the CO and stuff gets done.  NM logs aren't just for the cache container...they also apply to the listing page itself.

[SicilianCyclops]

2 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

A 'needs maintenance' log isn't "extreme" in my opinion.  I would post a NM for any problem I saw with the cache page.  Inappropriate hints, inaccurate information, D or T ratings that may need to change...a 'needs maintenance' log is entirely appropriate for anything to get the CO's attention.  I can't even tell you how many times I've seen Notes posted about inaccurate coordinates or problems with the cache that go completely ignored...then when someone posts a NM log, it gets attention by the Reviewer or the CO and stuff gets done.  NM logs aren't just for the cache container...they also apply to the listing page itself.

At least you're now understanding my point. I just think that the trackable owner bears more responsibility for the trackable than the CO. A NM for a missing trackable seems to push the responsibility onto the CO, however, and I think a note to the trackable owner or CO would suffice.

[+J Grouchy]

1 minute ago, SicilianCyclops said:

At least you're now understanding my point. I just think that the trackable owner bears more responsibility for the trackable than the CO. A NM for a missing trackable seems to push the responsibility onto the CO, however, and I think a note to the trackable owner or CO would suffice.

I've done the Note thing countless times to no effect.  Notes are worthless for getting things done, in my opinion.  I've never had anything get fixed after posting a Note.

[SicilianCyclops]

1 minute ago, J Grouchy said:

I've done the Note thing countless times to no effect.  Notes are worthless for getting things done, in my opinion.  I've never had anything get fixed after posting a Note.

Well, if that's the case then perhaps that CO or trackable owner shouldn't be in the game.