How Do I Report a Cache/CO?

[+stedmanrecon]

So, there is a cache in my area that is obviously missing (again). It clearly states in the guidelines to placing and hiding caches that you should live in the area so that you can maintain the cache, and check up on it from time to time. The cacheowner is not from our area (four hours away at least), and even says in the cache description that basically they placed it on vacation. 

It is pretty obvious this cache has not been maintained, and possibly even removed. My idea was to report to Geocaching the situation, to see if they could get involved with making contact with the cache owner to see what they want to do about it. I have already sent the cache owner a message, but have not gotten any kind of reply. It is a really good place to have a cache, but nobody local can place one there until that one is archived or removed.

So, just curious on how to go about reporting it to Geocaching and the reviewers. I can't find a link on the cache page to "report".

[RuideAlmeida]

9 minutes ago, stedmanrecon said:

So, just curious on how to go about reporting it to Geocaching and the reviewers. I can't find a link on the cache page to "report".

 

Just log a Needs Maintenance (normally not seen by reviewers) or a Need Archive (the reviewer will see it).

Edited September 17, 2017 by RuideAlmeida

[+niraD]

For reference, see the Help Center article When a cache needs maintenance

[+K13]

3 hours ago, stedmanrecon said:

So, there is a cache in my area that is obviously missing (again). It clearly states in the guidelines to placing and hiding caches that you should live in the area so that you can maintain the cache, and check up on it from time to time. The cacheowner is not from our area (four hours away at least), and even says in the cache description that basically they placed it on vacation. 

It is pretty obvious this cache has not been maintained, and possibly even removed. My idea was to report to Geocaching the situation, to see if they could get involved with making contact with the cache owner to see what they want to do about it. I have already sent the cache owner a message, but have not gotten any kind of reply. It is a really good place to have a cache, but nobody local can place one there until that one is archived or removed.

So, just curious on how to go about reporting it to Geocaching and the reviewers. I can't find a link on the cache page to "report".

My usual procedure in situations like this is:  After attempting the find, do a Needs Maintenance log.  Wait a suitable amount of time, I usually give it a month or so, then search again and if nothing has changed, log a Needs Archived.

[+stedmanrecon]

Thanks all.

[+L0ne.R]

5 hours ago, K13 said:

My usual procedure in situations like this is:  After attempting the find, do a Needs Maintenance log.  Wait a suitable amount of time, I usually give it a month or so, then search again and if nothing has changed, log a Needs Archived.

My usual procedure....

1. Needs Maintenance -- wait a month -- Needs Archive

2. Needs Maintenance if there was one recent NM (in the past month or two) -- wait a month -- Needs Archive

3. Needs Archive if there are already a couple of NMs with no action from the CO

I don't go back to double check. I might go back if it's local to retrieve the broken container after the listing is archived. If I do that I leave a note log. I've never had a CO contact me after removing their broken cache. 

[+cerberus1]

Guess a bit different than some others.  If I attempt a cache and there's obvious issues, I'd log a NM  and move on.

I won't stalk a cache page to see if anything happened to it afterwards.     

[+L0ne.R]

12 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Guess a bit different than some others.  If I attempt a cache and there's obvious issues, I'd log a NM  and move on.

I won't stalk a cache page to see if anything happened to it afterwards.     

I think it's about the extent of how we perceive our involvement as a community service. I see the NM followed later by an NA as completing the service. Especially when no one else will do it. Otherwise the broken or missing cache could linger for years. An NM alerts the owner and may help those who want a better caching experience avoid the cache.   It might also alert others to bring a throwdown. The NA one month later, helps prevent the practice of throwdowns and frees up the space for (hopefully) an active responsible cache owner  

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think it's about the extent of how we perceive our involvement as a community service. I see the NM followed later by an NA as completing the service. Especially when no one else will do it. Otherwise the broken or missing cache could linger for years. An NM alerts the owner and may help those who want a better caching experience avoid the cache.   It might also alert others to bring a throwdown. The NA one month later, helps prevent the practice of throwdowns and frees up the space for (hopefully) an active responsible cache owner  

 

I understand how you feel about this, why I said I look at it different than others... 

Logging an NM is the first step in fixing what may/has become a problem hide.

I've always understood it that we're supposed to rely on others to complete the process in getting it fixed. 

To me, someone returning to make sure something gets done over their NM,  on what should be a simple, evolving  process, seems like a lesson in micromanagement/control over others.

[+K13]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I understand how you feel about this, why I said I look at it different than others... 

Logging an NM is the first step in fixing what may/has become a problem hide.

I've always understood it that we're supposed to rely on others to complete the process in getting it fixed. 

To me, someone returning to make sure something gets done over their NM,  on what should be a simple, evolving  process, seems like a lesson in micromanagement/control over others.

If it's a cache or place I'm interested in, I may look more than one time, especially if I think the location is deserving of an actively maintained cache for others.

I hardly consider that micromanaging or controlling of others.

[+stedmanrecon]

On 9/17/2017 at 1:48 PM, niraD said:

For reference, see the Help Center article When a cache needs maintenance

Thank you, niraD. I was trying to do what everyone else suggested to do, but I could not find out how to start a NM log, and later a NA log from the cache page at all. Your link helped out quite a bit. Got the NM posted, and let's hope the cache owners come check the thing out. It is doubtful, because they live four or five hours away from here and placed the cache on a "trip", which I thought was in the guidelines not to do (maybe it slipped passed the reviewer). Anyway, thanks a bunch!

[+Team Microdot]

16 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I've always understood it that we're supposed to rely on others to complete the process in getting it fixed.

How did you come to this understanding?

[+justintim1999]

18 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I understand how you feel about this, why I said I look at it different than others... 

Logging an NM is the first step in fixing what may/has become a problem hide.

I've always understood it that we're supposed to rely on others to complete the process in getting it fixed. 

To me, someone returning to make sure something gets done over their NM,  on what should be a simple, evolving  process, seems like a lesson in micromanagement/control over others.

I don't think there's anything wrong with either position here.   The key point is you'd both issue the Needs Maintenance and that's the most important thing.

Personally I'll issue my NM and move on unless there's something serious going on with the cache.

 

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, stedmanrecon said:

It is doubtful, because they live four or five hours away from here and placed the cache on a "trip", which I thought was in the guidelines not to do (maybe it slipped passed the reviewer).

4 hours really isn't all that bad. Cruise stops as 'vacation caches' are a different beast. 4 hours really depends on the mobility and willingness of the CO to travel, so to assume they won't maintain is pretty..well, presumptuous. The guidelines certainly won't stop people from placing caches 4 hours away from home. More than likely a true vacation cache will be one that falls under "not having a regular maintenance plan".  Of course, being 4 hours away could still certainly mean the owner could easily abandon the listing, and in that case, see the process mentioned above as well.

Edited September 19, 2017 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, stedmanrecon said:

Got the NM posted, and let's hope the cache owners come check the thing out. It is doubtful, because they live four or five hours away from here and placed the cache on a "trip", which I thought was in the guidelines not to do (maybe it slipped passed the reviewer).

The current version of the guidelines do say:

Quote

• Don't hide caches far from home.
  • Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

However, four or five hours may or may not be a vacation/holiday cache. I personally travel those kinds of distances only once or twice a year, but I know people who travel those kinds of distances on a monthly--or even weekly--basis. It all depends on the owner. I am not a volunteer reviewer, but I have heard that they sometimes consider an owner's caching history. Someone who has found caches in a distant area on a frequent basis may be more likely to get a cache approved than someone who has found caches in a distant area only occasionally.

And there are circumstances where an owner may create a maintenance plan before listing a distant cache, or where an owner may move and arrange a maintenance plan rather than archiving/adopting out their existing caches.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

The current version of the guidelines do say:

However, four or five hours may or may not be a vacation/holiday cache. I personally travel those kinds of distances only once or twice a year, but I know people who travel those kinds of distances on a monthly--or even weekly--basis. It all depends on the owner. I am not a volunteer reviewer, but I have heard that they sometimes consider an owner's caching history. Someone who has found caches in a distant area on a frequent basis may be more likely to get a cache approved than someone who has found caches in a distant area only occasionally.

And there are circumstances where an owner may create a maintenance plan before listing a distant cache, or where an owner may move and arrange a maintenance plan rather than archiving/adopting out their existing caches.

Along these lines, there is a person who placed two caches in Southern Colorado who has no finds outside of Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina.  These two Colorado caches are their only hides.  It's not like these were placed many years ago when the guidelines were less rigorous; they were placed in August 2016.  I'm totally unable to figure out any possible reasoning for these caches to have been published.   Now that one of them has six consecutive DNF logs, the CO has realized that they can't "maintenance it."

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

Along these lines, there is a person who placed two caches in Southern Colorado who has no finds outside of Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina.  These two Colorado caches are their only hides.  It's not like these were placed many years ago when the guidelines were less rigorous; they were placed in August 2016.  I'm totally unable to figure out any possible reasoning for these caches to have been published.   Now that one of them has six consecutive DNF logs, the CO has realized that they can't "maintenance it."

Yeah, I recall one of the volunteer reviewers commenting on the impressive number of non-local cache owners have a local aunt or uncle who is willing to maintain the cache for them. Or something like that...