Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
dubidubno

How do I post a Needs Maintenance log on my own cache?

Recommended Posts

I would like to add a Needs Maintenance log to one of my own caches . How do I do that?
Alternativey, can I at least turn on the NM flag?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe you can. Prior to the new logging, you could, but as far as I know, it's not possible.  It hasn't been possible for COs to access the NM OM attributes from the attributes menu for quite some time.

It wasn't possible when NM logs were new either, and the ability for owners to use it was added, based on feedback  I was fond it myself. Some finder would mention an issue, I knew that I needed to log onto the cache page and add a specific NM log reminding myself what??  and which cache.  Porous memory, need all the help I can get.

You could ask someone else to do it. Post the GC Code in this thread, possibly some suggested text and I bet you'd have that NM. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dubidubno said:

I would like to add a Needs Maintenance log to one of my own caches . How do I do that?
Alternativey, can I at least turn on the NM flag?

You can try to use some Mobile App which is using Geocaching API. Some of them may allow NM logs.

Another way is to use secondary account and enter new note with "report a problem".

I think that you should find an another way to manage your maintenance routines. I have collected all suspicious logs to one e-mail folder. I found that easier than marking them to separate maintenance list. Anyway, I would prefer the old way to set need maintenance flag to caches which needs maintenance but are still possible to find.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

GS has decided it is too confusing to give the cache owner the option to post a Needs Maintenance log when his cache needs maintenance. I don't know why. When my cache needed maintenance but didn't need to be disabled, I was forced to post a Note instead.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

When my cache needed maintenance but didn't need to be disabled, I was forced to post a Note instead.

Another option would be to create a sock puppet account, and to use that account to post the Needs Maintenance log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

 I don't know why. When my cache needed maintenance but didn't need to be disabled, I was forced to post a Note instead.

 

I thought the purpose of a NM log was to alert the CO that their cache needs attention, not for the CO to post the fact that their cache is in need of attention. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

I thought the purpose of a NM log was to alert the CO that their cache needs attention, not for the CO to post the fact that their cache is in need of attention. 

In many cases CO knows that cache need maintenance by reading recent log entries. For example I have used to set NM to my own cache when a finder reports some problem but did not set NM because the cache is still working. For example, cache may be positioned in wrong way or camouflage is broken. When the NM flag is on, the CO can easily see it on the cache maintenance list.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, arisoft said:

For example, cache may be positioned in wrong way or camouflage is broken. When the NM flag is on, the CO can easily see it on the cache maintenance list.

If I get notice that there is something wrong with one of my cache, I don't set any flags or create any "need maintenance" lists, I just go out and fix the problem.  Job done.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If I get notice that there is something wrong with one of my cache, I don't set any flags or create any "need maintenance" lists, I just go out and fix the problem.  Job done.

It's nice if you can respond immediately, but that isn't always possible. What then?

If the problem is such that no one should look for the cache until it is fixed, then it makes perfect sense to disable the cache.

But sometimes the problem is relatively minor, so there is no need to disable the cache, but is also something that will take a while to address. An example might be camouflage that is almost ready to fail, and needs to be replaced soon. The cache can continue just fine while the CO spends a month or two obtaining supplies, rebuilding the camouflage, and eventually visiting the cache location to replace the camouflage.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If I get notice that there is something wrong with one of my cache, I don't set any flags or create any "need maintenance" lists, I just go out and fix the problem.  Job done.

This approach will work only if you have no daily job and you have not more than a dozen caches.

Share this post


Link to post

If it's not worth disabling and it's something you as the owner wants to fix up, then imo it's not something you need to flag publicly as important enough to need maintenance. It's a personal note and reminder to fix it up sometime to your own standards.  Use a bookmark list or a note of gc-related tasks saomewhere on a todo list; that's what I do.  It's not dire enough for disabling, it's not important enough for the community to know, it's only as important as my desire to ensure a personal standard.  Keep a to-do list somewhere.

For me, NM is more related to issues that affect findability or cache condition. In those cases as a CO I'd disable if I can't get there in a timely manner to maintain. If I feel it's just aesthetic (eg, positioning, or failing camo), it's not worth disabling, and it's findable, then there's no mechanism for that other than a personal bmk list or personal to-do list.

Of course all of this is subjective and up to the CO. But there really is no explicit way for a CO to flag a cache for a personal visit reminder. NM is external notifying a CO and a public flag for possible problems, and disabling implies "do not attempt, cache is not available". But the in-between?  It's personal, find a way... that's how I look at it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This approach will work only if you have no daily job and you have not more than a dozen caches.

Even with a daily job you should be able to do some maintenance within a couple of days.  If you (or someone else) have that many cache that you need some kind of "maintenance system" to manage your maintenance tasks, maybe its time to think about reducing the number of cache to maintain.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

there's no mechanism for that other than a personal bmk list or personal to-do list.

This new cache maintenance tool was highly anticipated to meet this need to collect all maintenance data to one tool. COs who have hundreds of caches must plan the maintenance routes forehand.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Even with a daily job you should be able to do some maintenance within a couple of days.  If you (or someone else) have that many cache that you need some kind of "maintenance system" to manage your maintenance tasks, maybe its time to think about reducing the number of cache to maintain.

This seems to be standard for most cache owners. Just "reduce" the number of caches when one needs maintenance. I see you have used this strategy. No thanks!

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If I get notice that there is something wrong with one of my cache, I don't set any flags or create any "need maintenance" lists, I just go out and fix the problem.  Job done.

This ^^

Although if I can't get there right away, I will disable if it means the next cacher will have a poor experience (example: burst bubble liquid has ruined the contents, or the trail is flooded),  before I can get there to fix the problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Ditto. And minor aesthetic issues aren't of public maintenance concern. So I keep that checkup on my own personal to-do list. Flagging it for NM is extreme, and there's no need to disable. But I still want to fix it up.  That's my call, my own list.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Just "reduce" the number of caches when one needs maintenance. I see you have used this strategy. No thanks!

That's not what I said, please read my posting again.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

That's not what I said, please read my posting again.

I read it again, but got the same conception. You offer redusing the number of caches instead of doing maintenance plans. Did I get it correctly?

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

This seems to be standard for most cache owners. Just "reduce" the number of caches when one needs maintenance. I see you have used this strategy. No thanks!

And I see you have resorted to the strategy of maintaining your caches.  Thank You!  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If a CO needs to flag their own cache as NM, then it may just be a suggestion that someone else maintain it for them. ;)

That said from someone who had listings in the hundreds. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Create a sock puppet account to log Needs Maintainance.

Edited by Rebore

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

If a CO needs to flag their own cache as NM, then it may just be a suggestion that someone else maintain it for them.

What a clever idea! And it is also true. Official way to ask finders to help.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

You offer redusing the number of caches instead of doing maintenance plans. Did I get it correctly?

No.  If you have that many open maintenance issues that you need some kind of maintenance system to keep track of what needs to be done, it might be time to reduce the number of cache owned.  This way, even with a daily job, you will get ahead of cache maintenance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

I thought the purpose of a NM log was to alert the CO that their cache needs attention, not for the CO to post the fact that their cache is in need of attention. 

You thought wrong. The purpose of the NM log is to alert everyone, including the CO, that there's a problem with the cache that needs attention.

2 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

If I get notice that there is something wrong with one of my cache, I don't set any flags or create any "need maintenance" lists, I just go out and fix the problem.  Job done.

It's very popular here on the forums to assume geocaching is everyone's highest priority and the entire world will collapse if there's any delay in fixing a cracked container during the dry season. But that's nonsense. Sometimes it takes me a month or two to address a non-critical maintenance issue, and I have no problem when I see other cachers being similarly relaxed. Every cache does not have to be perfect all the time. Since I'm not going to worry about the problem, I'd like to alert other users of the problem in case they want to worry about it. But I can't.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

 

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

You offer redusing the number of caches instead of doing maintenance plans. Did I get it correctly?

No.  If you have that many open maintenance issues that you need some kind of maintenance system to keep track of what needs to be done, it might be time to reduce the number of cache owned.  This way, even with a daily job, you will get ahead of cache maintenance.

 

I can not tell the difference between these two suggestions. Reducing number of caches instead on planning maintenance seems to be the same idea in both. Anyway, time used to maintenance, automatically reduces time used to make new caches, so there will be balance between them - UNTIL - you start reducing your caches due to maintenance problems.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Sometimes it takes me a month or two to address a non-critical maintenance issue,

Agree, but this non-critical issue does not require a NM log at all.

For me, a NM log indicates, that there is something really bad or wrong with my cache, like lid is broken, logbook wet, cache not reachable.  And this, in my opinion, needs immediate attention, not a maintenance plan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Since I'm not going to worry about the problem, I'd like to alert other users of the problem in case they want to worry about it. But I can't.

See, to me, in practice that becomes "post a note". For a cracked container, the cache is findable, and I'll allow finds by people who find it. I'll add the checkup to my todo list, then get out to find it. I'll likely post a note depending on what my concern is, since some finders might consider it a subpar find because the container is in bad shape; but knowing the CO knows can assuage the situation.  But if a log implies someone is finding a throwdown and not my container, I won't post a NM - I'll outright disable. Or if the cache of a high T is lying on the ground making it a 1T and people are finding it, I won't wish I could post a NM (as some finders may be led), I'll just disable it.

Minor maintenance issues that don't affect findability I don't see as a concern to the degree of raising the NM flag.  If the community does, sure, then I have to deal with it whatever the severity of the issue.  But if I know the problem, I'll relegate it to what I feel is appropriate, and that's either Major/unfindable=Disable, or Minor/aesthetic=Note+Personal errand.  I can't justify a situation where *I* would want to post a NM on my own cache, because the actual cause of the NM is either aesthetic or critical.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I can not tell the difference between these two suggestions. Reducing number of caches instead on planning maintenance seems to be the same idea in both

Maybe you need to explain your maintenance plan so I will understand this better.  I just have the impression we are taking about two different things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

For me, a NM log indicates, that there is something really bad or wrong with my cache, like lid is broken, logbook wet, cache not reachable.  And this, in my opinion, needs immediate attention, not a maintenance plan.

Some people think that an Owner Maintenance log is only for when the owner fixes something really bad or wrong with the cache, like replacing the container, replacing the log, or putting a misplaced container back where it belongs. This attitude and the quoted attitude above are opposite sides of the same coin.

On the other hand, there are people who think an Owner Maintenance log is appropriate whenever the owner visits the cache location, even if it's just to verify that everything's okay. And there are people who think a Needs Maintenance log is appropriate whenever there is something that could use owner attention, even if the cache is still perfectly findable. Those attitudes are opposite sides of a different coin.

Not everyone uses NM the way you do. Not everyone uses OM the way you do. And that is true no matter how you use NM or OM.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Minor maintenance issues that don't affect findability I don't see as a concern to the degree of raising the NM flag.

I was used to enter NM myself when some finders report a problem which needs visiting the site but not to disable the cache. For example: when pencil is not sharp.

When I have time to go outdoors, I open the need maintenance log https://www.geocaching.com/hide/cachemaintenance.aspx to plan where to go and what I need to take with.

Currently I have to check two separate lists because I can not flag caches as before.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

Not everyone uses NM the way you do. Not everyone uses OM the way you do. And that is true no matter how you use NM or OM

I got your point and I think you are absolutist right.  I understand, different people see and use it in a different way.

Thanks, niraD

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I was used to enter NM myself when some finders report a problem which needs visiting the site but not to disable the cache. For example: when pencil is not sharp.

I just said I understand, but quite obviously I still have some problems.  Who is logging a NM just because the pencil is not sharp?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

I just said I understand, but quite obviously I still have some problems.  Who is logging a NM just because the pencil is not sharp?

It is me as the cache owner, when it is obvious that the cache needs maintenance. Now I cannot flag that the cache needs maintenance when it needs maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post

guh, I would never log a NM on a cache if the pencil is not sharp. That's a bit extreme. If I had no writing utensil, I might include the pencil state in my find log, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is me as the cache owner, when it is obvious that the cache needs maintenance. Now I cannot flag that the cache needs maintenance when it needs maintenance.

If it needs maintenance becase you've confirmed that the problem is significant enough, then disable it.  If it's not significant enough to affect people finding it, then drop a note if you really want to describe the aesthetic problem. Or, as suggested earlier, if you really want the public flag set then get someone else to post it or use a sock puppet...

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If it needs maintenance becase you've confirmed that the problem is significant enough, then disable it.  If it's not significant enough to affect people finding it, then drop a note if you really want to describe the aesthetic problem. Or, as suggested earlier, if you really want the public flag set then get someone else to post it or use a sock puppet...

Note only does not help because it does not register to the cache maintenance page. Using sock puppet is complicated. Currently I am using an e-mail folder to collect this information from mailed logs. I am just missing the old better way to handle this.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

What a clever idea! And it is also true. Official way to ask finders to help.

 

I believe it is a good idea. I never needed help maintaining my own caches, but that was before TD's became the normal. I never thought I would be that person that props up other people's caches that they no longer care for, but I have ended up with lots of geocache containers like lock-n-locks and ammo cans. I won't help out the locals, but I maintain several "vacation caches" that the owners have abandoned. :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

You thought wrong. The purpose of the NM log is to alert everyone, including the CO, that there's a problem with the cache that needs attention.

Then why post NM on your own listing? Wrong or not, GS agreed and removed that option. :D

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Note only does not help because it does not register to the cache maintenance page.

Yes, that's the point. If it's not significant enough to affect findability and warrant disabling, then it's just aesthetic. As a CO, it sounds like you want to fix it up - that's great - but it's really not that relevant to finders.  If it's worth informing the world that the cache needs maintenance, then you should disable it.  If you want people to still find it, then it's not significant enough to affect findability.  If you really want to let people know that aesthetic maintenance is that significant to you, then you can post a note or use the workaround of asking someone else or using another account to post the NM.

Of course in time we could be wrong and GS may reinstate NM logs for owners. Until then, it stands to reason that NM is for non-owners to inform the CO and the community that a cache needs maintenance; until such time that the CO is able to address the NM status (either by removing the flag with an OM, disabling the listing until they can visit the cache, or just physically performing maintenance on it then removing the flag with an OM log).  I don't see an option there for intentionally leaving a cache in NM limbo with the CO knowing whether the cache is in good findable condition or not.

Findable? Remove the NM. Critical? Disable.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, that's the point. If it's not significant enough to affect findability and warrant disabling, then it's just aesthetic. As a CO, it sounds like you want to fix it up - that's great - but it's really not that relevant to finders. 

It depends on the particular finder. In most cases they ignore the NM flag. Sometimes I may skip a cache if NM flag is set.

What I fear is that this limitation has been made just because it was not known why NM by CO was used. Or maybe it was not intentional at all. Maybe this possibility just disappeared when the NM feature was moved to the new streamlined logging experience.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It depends on the particular finder. In most cases they ignore the NM flag. Sometimes I may skip a cache if NM flag is set.

I've found a few where there is a NM flag; I look through recent log and see several finds, with no issues listed.  I go for them,and have found them in decent shape.

I go back through logs and find the flag set (in both my examples) a year or several ago; no OM, no owner intervention, just an NM flag set and finds and DNF's continue (one has several DNF's as it is a bit rricky to find).  So these are cases where the NM stands, for years??

GC4797 & GC2B56M

 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What I fear is that this limitation has been made just because it was not known why NM by CO was used. Or maybe it was not intentional at all. Maybe this possibility just disappeared when the NM feature was moved to the new streamlined logging experience.

I think sometimes the NM gets used by a cache owner because if they post a Disable, it's likely that a reviewer will come along and post a Reviewer Note a month later. If nothing gets done within another month, the cache may be archived by the reviewer. I see evidence of this, in the OP's case. The NM gives a cache owner much more time and may alert a finder to bring along a replacement logsheet and/or container.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think sometimes the NM gets used by a cache owner because if they post a Disable, it's likely that a reviewer will come along and post a Reviewer Note a month later. If nothing gets done within another month, the cache may be archived by the reviewer. I see evidence of this, in the OP's case. The NM gives a cache owner much more time and may alert a finder to bring along a replacement logsheet and/or container.

This may be a motivator but is this logical? Now CO does nothing or leave a note instead. Who will benefit in the end?

If that was the real reason, the reviewer could be alerted for NM by CO log as easy as NA log entries does. It is just matter of automation, not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Agree, but this non-critical issue does not require a NM log at all.

For me, a NM log indicates, that there is something really bad or wrong with my cache, like lid is broken, logbook wet, cache not reachable.  And this, in my opinion, needs immediate attention, not a maintenance plan.

"Lid is broken" was exactly the case I mentioned: yeah, it's broken, and it needs fixed, but here in California it's just not going to rain during the summer, so there's no reason for the CO to run out and fix it in June ever though it's undeniably a problem. Specifically, if the CO doesn't post the NM, it will make perfect sense for someone else to waste their time posting an NM for something the CO already knows about.

Besides, even if I'm going to run out and fix it in two days, I still want to flag it in case someone else ends up wanting to go there tomorrow.

You're arguing that there's never a case, in practice, where the CO will need to file an NM. Even if that were true -- and it's not -- I'm arguing that it's logically possible for a CO to want to file an NM, so he should be able to. Giving the CO the option costs nothing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think sometimes the NM gets used by a cache owner because if they post a Disable, it's likely that a reviewer will come along and post a Reviewer Note a month later. If nothing gets done within another month, the cache may be archived by the reviewer. I see evidence of this, in the OP's case. The NM gives a cache owner much more time and may alert a finder to bring along a replacement logsheet and/or container.

Huh? If the CO's trying to duck the issue, why would they post either an NM or a Disable? It makes no sense whatsoever to think a CO will want to call a little attention to his problem with an NM, but not call too much attention to his problem by disabling the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I've found a few where there is a NM flag; I look through recent log and see several finds, with no issues listed.  I go for them,and have found them in decent shape.

I go back through logs and find the flag set (in both my examples) a year or several ago; no OM, no owner intervention, just an NM flag set and finds and DNF's continue (one has several DNF's as it is a bit rricky to find).  So these are cases where the NM stands, for years??

GC4797 & GC2B56M

 

GC4797 - I was going to say that someone needs to post a note telling the cache owner that they can remove the NM with an Owner Maintenance log. Some cache owner's don't realize this, and appreciate the nudge. But the cache owner hasn't logged in since 2011.

GC2B56M HIdden July 2010 in the Joshua Tree National Park, near the park sign. First NM Dec 2010 for a broken container. Original container a throwaway ziploc container. See photo. The cache owner never responded to problems. Cache owner hasn't logged in since 2013. Several finders have replaced the container. The second one was another ziploc-style throwaway container that ended up (in 6 months) with a cracked lid and contents swimming in water. Then it became a tin candy tin. Then the tin was was run over. Someone replaced it with another candy tin. See photo. 

4 NMs. No response from the owner to any NM.

First container:

6fce30d4-7786-446a-a643-d675392debee.jpg

4th container.
2nd, 3rd and 4th containers were left by finders:

92c875aa-d3c0-4da2-be17-42b692722932.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Huh? If the CO's trying to duck the issue, why would they post either an NM or a Disable? It makes no sense whatsoever to think a CO will want to call a little attention to his problem with an NM, but not call too much attention to his problem by disabling the cache.

It makes a lot of sense if the CO is trying to alert people who carry supplies to bring some for the cache. When someone replaces the container and/or log the CO can then log an OM to get rid of the NM.

One NM does not get the attention of a reviewer.

If the cache owner does actually want to visit his cache to replace the log or container, maybe he wants more time. Maybe he doesn't live in the area but vacations there every  summer so is hoping to get 6 months of time but wants to let finders know there's a problem by using an NM.

All speculation though. Hopefully the OP will come back and tell us why he would prefer to log an NM as opposed to a Disable.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...