Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
KerEliana

Maintenance, Archive, or something else?

69 posts in this topic

19 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

And now this becomes yet another "Inactive Owner" thread...  Sheesh...

Funny how many of these issues seem to circle around to inactive owners.

 Maybe there's something to it?

2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Funny how many of these issues seem to circle around to inactive owners.

 Maybe there's something to it?

Yeah, I agree...   Folks agendas overriding simple issues.

2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Yeah, I agree...   Folks agendas overriding simple issues.

Or maybe it's an actual issue that some refuse to accept.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Funny how many of these issues seem to circle around to inactive owners.

 Maybe there's something to it?

Yeah, I agree...   Folks agendas overriding simple issues.

You're absolutely right - it is incredibly simple - owner abandoned, unmaintained cache = NA = job done = no more pointless pantomime.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

About a year ago I had a cacher note that a large hanging branch was precariously close to one of my caches.   According to you I should have ignored it as a normal outdoor hazard.

No, that is not the point I've been trying to make.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

No, that is not the point I've been trying to make.

Your point is that normal outside hazards near a cache are not the cache owners responsibility and therefor not worthy of a NM.  I disagree.  I think any known hazard should be brought to the cache owners attention so that future seekers can be made aware of them.   I don't think a simple note is sufficient enough to do that.   Is it that big a deal to add an attribute or disable the cache until the danger is gone or removed?   

As far as I know there's no rule or guideline covering this so there's no penalty for doing nothing.  For me it's more of a moral issue.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Your point is that normal outside hazards near a cache are not the cache owners responsibility and therefor not worthy of a NM.

Exactly.

That doesn't mean that the cache owner should ignore a particular hazard, or that the cache owner should take action to eliminate a particular hazard. That is between the cache owner and the property owner/manager. I've found caches in places where pruning a "large hanging branch" is specifically prohibited.

And such normal outdoor hazards may or may not be worth noting in a log (Find, DNF, or Note). But they are to be expected in the outdoors, and do not usually warrant a NM log.

2

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, niraD said:

Exactly.

That doesn't mean that the cache owner should ignore a particular hazard, or that the cache owner should take action to eliminate a particular hazard. That is between the cache owner and the property owner/manager. I've found caches in places where pruning a "large hanging branch" is specifically prohibited.

And such normal outdoor hazards may or may not be worth noting in a log (Find, DNF, or Note). But they are to be expected in the outdoors, and do not usually warrant a NM log.

But sometimes they do and I think this is one of those situations. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

But sometimes they do and I think this is one of those situations. 

And commenters here seem to be split about 50/50 on whether a hive near a cache warrants owner maintenance. I think the split is completely understandable. It's subjective, and there's no guideline either way.

Now if you think the owner is inactive and that alone is the reason you put the "Cache Needs Maintenance" log (even though the cache itself is in good condition), I think you're also wrong. But that's your prerogative.

In this case, if you would put a NM log on the cache because of the nearby hive, so be it. But the OP did just fine, and many of us would have done exactly the same thing, because we don't think that a hive near gz is the owner's concern. But if an owner chooses to make it their concern, good on them.

Maybe there should be an attribute for "Stinging insect hazard" that can be added or removed. :ph34r:

2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Your point is that normal outside hazards near a cache are not the cache owners responsibility and therefor not worthy of a NM.  I disagree.  I think any known hazard should be brought to the cache owners attention so that future seekers can be made aware of them.   I don't think a simple note is sufficient enough to do that.   Is it that big a deal to add an attribute or disable the cache until the danger is gone or removed?   

As far as I know there's no rule or guideline covering this so there's no penalty for doing nothing.  For me it's more of a moral issue.  

Cachers sometimes mention seeing snakes on their way to my caches. Should they be logging NMs for that? And before you ask, I already have the "dangerous animals!" attribute set. But what about other hazards that don't have a corresponding attribute, like rocks that are slippery when wet? How is the CO supposed to respond to an NM about that? Or loose leaf litter on rocks, or leeches, or mosquitos or, back to the original topic, nearby wasps? The list of potential hazards in the bush is very long - I'm sure people have written whole books on the subject - and there's only so much a CO can do without the cache description becoming like the milk cartons with warnings saying this product contains milk.

I have no qualms with someone logging an NM if it's something the CO needs to fix - he or she can go out there, do what's required, log an OM when the hazard is removed to clear the red wrench and everyone's happy. But I don't think NM is an appropriate log to use to make future seekers aware of the many hazards the CO can't fix. Cache-seekers going out into the wilds need to have a bit of common sense and bushcraft.

1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I have no qualms with someone logging an NM if it's something the CO needs to fix - he or she can go out there, do what's required, log an OM when the hazard is removed to clear the red wrench and everyone's happy. But I don't think NM is an appropriate log to use to make future seekers aware of the many hazards the CO can't fix. Cache-seekers going out into the wilds need to have a bit of common sense and bushcraft.

If I got an NM on one of my caches because it was dangerously close to a nest of angry wasps, I might disable for a short while until it ceased to be an issue, so that the wasps could do their thing in peace and nobody got hurt. I'm nice like that.

I wouldn't want anyone to get stung. Nor would I want anyone throwing rocks at the wasp's nest to see if anyone's home - imagine if you lived in a paper house and someone smashed a big hole in it with a poorly aimed rock - how would you feel? :(

Yes, other hazards exist and it's entirely possible, in a global context, to make a list of them as long as both your arms, and many of them are beyond the CO's ability or responsibility to mitigate - but does any of that have anything to do with the OP? Perhaps we could just stick to the matter in hand - just for once - just to see how that works out?

1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If I got an NM on one of my caches because it was dangerously close to a nest of angry wasps, I might disable for a short while until it ceased to be an issue, so that the wasps could do their thing in peace and nobody got hurt. I'm nice like that.

I wouldn't want anyone to get stung. Nor would I want anyone throwing rocks at the wasp's nest to see if anyone's home - imagine if you lived in a paper house and someone smashed a big hole in it with a poorly aimed rock - how would you feel? :(

Yes, other hazards exist and it's entirely possible, in a global context, to make a list of them as long as both your arms, and many of them are beyond the CO's ability or responsibility to mitigate - but does any of that have anything to do with the OP? Perhaps we could just stick to the matter in hand - just for once - just to see how that works out?

Sure, if the wasp nest is so close to the cache that it can't be reached without disturbing them then an NM is fine, although I don't think an NA would be warranted if the CO didn't respond since wasp nests are transient things and in a few months it'll be gone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Sure, if the wasp nest is so close to the cache that it can't be reached without disturbing them then an NM is fine, although I don't think an NA would be warranted if the CO didn't respond since wasp nests are transient things and in a few months it'll be gone.

I completely agree.

Except in this instance the CO appears to be long gone and the cache seems to have other maintenance issues so a NA is probably a sensible course of action.

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2017 at 6:43 PM, barefootjeff said:

Cachers sometimes mention seeing snakes on their way to my caches. Should they be logging NMs for that?

No. But if the snake was nesting on top of your cache, then yes. 
If it were nesting in with your cache, what would you do?

0

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
On 16/09/2017 at 8:43 AM, barefootjeff said:

Cachers sometimes mention seeing snakes on their way to my caches. Should they be logging NMs for that?

No. But if the snake was nesting on top of your cache, then yes. 
If it were nesting in with your cache, what would you do?

If a snake (or any other animal for that matter) was nesting on top of my cache, it'd disable it until the hatchlings had hatched and everyone had moved on. And yes, in that situation an NM would be appreciated.

1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 6:43 PM, barefootjeff said:

Cachers sometimes mention seeing snakes on their way to my caches. Should they be logging NMs for that? And before you ask, I already have the "dangerous animals!" attribute set. But what about other hazards that don't have a corresponding attribute, like rocks that are slippery when wet? How is the CO supposed to respond to an NM about that? Or loose leaf litter on rocks, or leeches, or mosquitos or, back to the original topic, nearby wasps? The list of potential hazards in the bush is very long - I'm sure people have written whole books on the subject - and there's only so much a CO can do without the cache description becoming like the milk cartons with warnings saying this product contains milk.

I have no qualms with someone logging an NM if it's something the CO needs to fix - he or she can go out there, do what's required, log an OM when the hazard is removed to clear the red wrench and everyone's happy. But I don't think NM is an appropriate log to use to make future seekers aware of the many hazards the CO can't fix. Cache-seekers going out into the wilds need to have a bit of common sense and bushcraft.

It's my cache they're looking for.  As far as I'm concerned I'm the reason they're in that area in the first place.  Nature in and of itself can be dangerous and I'm not suggesting that a cache owner is responsible for each and every potential hazard out there.  I am suggesting,  as a cache owner,  we put safety first and our find count second. 

If I'm aware of a potential dangerous situation,  one that I have some control over,  I feel it's my responsibility to try and correct it or at least minimize the risk of someone getting hurt.

          

2

Share this post


Link to post

If there was a NM on cache of mine because of a nest nearby, I might sigh, but I'd judge after checking it out, if not described in detail.  It may be appropriate or it may not, by my opinion. If it is (container is affected), I'll maintain it. If it's sufficiently of concern (container not affected but access to it is severely hindered with high danger) I'll likely disable it. If it's just because someone's afraid of the hive a few meters away from the tree, I'll likely OM to remove the red wrench, and post a note letting people know to be cautious for a short while.

And it's the latter case many of us seem to be addressing here - where a Note feels (to us) more appropriate than a NM log. As a finder, a Note stands out more than a Find log. Heck a DNF would be more appropriate in that case, imo, than a NM. The log and its content stands out, more likely to be a read by the next visitor, and to me (in that case) a sufficient word of caution.  Because who knows, the hazard may be completely gone by the next time a cacher visits.

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2017 at 2:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

And commenters here seem to be split about 50/50 on whether a hive near a cache warrants owner maintenance. I think the split is completely understandable. It's subjective, and there's no guideline either way.

I once logged an NM on a cache where wasps were actively building a nest on the cache. The owner cleared it with an OM that basically said that happened every year, then at the end of the season the wasps leave and everything's fine. I was kinda surprised by that reaction, but it's his decision: I'm just providing input. This was a little bit different, though, since the cache was only found a few times a year, not a traditional that's visited every other day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/18/2017 at 7:16 PM, dprovan said:

I once logged an NM on a cache where wasps were actively building a nest on the cache.

I've logged 2 where ants had taken over the cache and nested (eggs inside cache container).  Everything in the container was literally crawling with the little buggers (pun intended).  In both cases, it was because someone had put comestibles/scented items in the cache.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6