Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs

March 18, 2018

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Wrong.

We all need to know the guidelines - especially the local reviewer so that he can enforce them and help those who don't understand them or haven't read them.

Your made-up rules / descriptions / labels for people and their behaviours have zero value.

are you saying the local reviewer does not know the guidelines, as in earlier posts you say he has a different view compared to other reviewers

4.6k · March 18, 2018

15 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

are you saying the local reviewer does not know the guidelines, as in earlier posts you say he has a different view compared to other reviewers

No, not at all.

March 18, 2018

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Wow - wasn't aware I was on trial here

Ouch - you got me - bang to rights

Yes - I have logged NA on a couple of caches that I haven't recently visited - but only because it was painfully obvious that they were abandoned junk for an extended period of time.

Sue me.

I have news for you - there are plenty of people who log NA on caches which they haven't recently visited.

i have lost intrest in posting any more - just pleased that you admit to arm-chair logging

4.6k · March 18, 2018

14 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

i have lost intrest in posting any more - just pleased that you admit to arm-chair logging

That didn't take long.

Just for the record what I actually said was:

Yes - I have logged NA on a couple of caches that I haven't recently visited - but only because it was painfully obvious that they were abandoned junk for an extended period of time.

I did wonder why you PM'd me asking me to log NA on some local caches for you to clear space for a new project of some sort.

7.5k · March 18, 2018

44 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I did wonder why you PM'd me asking me to log NA on some local caches for you to clear space for a new project of some sort.

Ugggghhh. This sort of thing happened to me. I helped clear out an abandoned junk cache (visited but whatever it was still abandoned and had become a broken mess) only to have the local addicted hider, who doesn't go back to fix his caches, grab the spot within hours of archival. Sigh. I had hoped someone might come along and plant a nice swag-size watertight cache at that pioneer cemetery (forest in the back lots of room for something larger). Instead, it got a cheap poorly-milled leaky bison tube on the fence.

March 19, 2018

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I did wonder why you PM'd me asking me to log NA on some local caches for you to clear space for a new project of some sort.

Would that be classed as aiding and abetting? :lol:

4.6k · March 19, 2018

13 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I did wonder why you PM'd me asking me to log NA on some local caches for you to clear space for a new project of some sort.

Would that be classed as aiding and abetting?

I'm not sure what it might be called.

Needless to say, I won't be fulfilling this request - or any others.

March 19, 2018

I'd like to share my own thoughts on NAs being used in general. I have no issues in an NA providing all attempts to alert the CO have been exhausted. If after messaging the CO or emailing that CO (or both), there is a lack of response then providing the cache is in poor state - and by that I do not just mean the sheet is wet but the whole container is damaged, then an NA may be the reluctant route to go. I do feel however my issue is that where does the line get drawn in trawling the caches out there, and help (so sorry for using this term), but police other folks caches by sticking NAs all over the place? What about an NA on a wet log where a NM leading to a NA is more appropriate?

Heck I am sharing my opinion which I have the right to say, but if folks are very happy for the NAs to roll in then lets all stick NAs on caches with wet logs, and see where that leads - it all adds to mither I can assure you. I think a load of valid points have been raised on this thread about abuses in the system, and it's right to highlight this. Too often however I hear of reports from decent friendly and plain lovely folks that sticking a DNF or a NM on a cache results in the CO deleting the log, followed by abuse from the CO to the poster and that is plain wrong. Added to this, that same poster finds themselves reported for abusive language which is laughable really.

Again, I have no beef with folks - only those who do not like to operate in a civil and decent way, and we all feel that we want to operate decently? Also noone wants geolitter - do I have an issue with community maintenance? No, do certain others? Yes, I will have my own views, others have theirs - live and let live I say and peace dudes and dudettes ⚘

4.6k · March 19, 2018

34 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

I'd like to share my own thoughts on NAs being used in general. I have no issues in an NA providing all attempts to alert the CO have been exhausted.

As CO's commit to maintaining their caches when they place them there should be no need for others to contact them when they stop doing so - other than standard NM and NA mechanisms which exist for that purpose. Even then a volunteer reviewer will typically grant a grace period before taking action so I'm happy that CO's are given adequate time to make a positive response if they wish to do so.

37 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

I do feel however my issue is that where does the line get drawn in trawling the caches out there, and help (so sorry for using this term), but police other folks caches by sticking NAs all over the place?

What do you mean by sticking NA's all over the place? Do you have any specific illustrative examples to quantify this?

38 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

but if folks are very happy for the NAs to roll in then lets all stick NAs on caches with wet logs, and see where that leads - it all adds to mither I can assure you.

I don't see anybody suggesting that and I'm not sure what mither will arise from caches which are archived long after the CO has left the game.

40 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Too often however I hear of reports from decent friendly and plain lovely folks that sticking a DNF or a NM on a cache results in the CO deleting the log, followed by abuse from the CO to the poster and that is plain wrong. Added to this, that same poster finds themselves reported for abusive language which is laughable really.

Again, the owners of most archived caches lost interest long before the archive takes place so in my experience CO abuse under normal circumstances tends to be minimal to non-existent. Of course - there are exceptions to every rule.

42 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Again, I have no beef with folks - only those who do not like to operate in a civil and decent way, and we all feel that we want to operate decently?

Except, it seems, those CO's who abandon their caches rather than archiving and cleaning up after themselves or, alternatively, adopting their caches out to someone who will take proper responsibility for them.

10k · March 19, 2018

Sometimes I wonder. Found a cache last year. Four finds in almost four years. And four favorite points! (I cannot imagine the effort that went into making that cache.) About three mile round trip on an old woods road. Cache damaged. Contents strewn about. Think a bear got to it, I put an NM on it. A couple of weeks later the CO said he'd try to get back there 'this month'. That was eight months ago.

Looking for some caches last weekend. Three NMs? With CO missing over a year? Nope. Not hunting for that one.

Two NMs after three DNFs? 'Cache is missing'. Member two weeks for a badge. Missing over a year. Nope. Not hunting for that one either.

Sometimes I wonder.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Harry Dolphin
Typo

March 19, 2018

23 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Sometimes I wonder. Found a cache last year. Four finds in almost four years. And four favorite points! (I cannot imagine the effort that went into making that cache.) About three mile round trip on an old woods road. Cache damaged. Contents strewn about. Think a bear got to it, I put an NA on it. A couple of weeks later the CO said he'd try to get back there 'this month'. That was eight months ago.

Looking for some caches last weekend. Three NMs? With CO missing over a year? Nope. Not hunting for that one.

Two NMs after three DNFs? 'Cache is missing'. Member two weeks for a badge. Missing over a year. Nope. Not hunting for that one either.

Sometimes I wonder.

Why did you jump straight to an NA if a bear got it? What I've got from this thread is surely a NM first would have been more valid.

7.5k · March 19, 2018

On 3/17/2018 at 2:41 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

I would be interested to know what your ratio of NA/NM on visited caches versus the ones you arm chair log.

I guess I'm not the one on trial, but I'd like to answer this.

My NAs are almost always on caches I haven't visited. To me, that's the main thing NAs are for: to point out that everything's been done and the cache hasn't been fixed, so I'm not going to go look for it and neither will anyone else. I'm not going to go count, but I'd guess maybe 20% of my NAs are caches that I visited at the time I posted the NA, and those are unusual situations. For example, once I was looking for a cache and an employee came out to tell me they didn't want the cache there. Once I felt like the cache should not be up in that tree because people climbing up to find the cache would damage it. A few times, I visited the cache incidentally and only when I went to log it realized it was time to file the NA. In the other 80%, I'm posting the NA based on evidence in the logs that everyone can see.

I don't hesitate to post NMs on caches I haven't visited, but it's not as common. Maybe 40%? In those 40% of the time, there's enough info in the logs to make it clear the last person to post a DNF should have posted an NM but didn't. And even when I see that, as often as not I try to visit GZ anyway to see if there's anything the other people logging problems might have missed. For the other 60%, I post a DNF and then realize my DNF is what puts the log over the line for calling for maintenance.

On 3/17/2018 at 2:41 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

This use of putting NA/NM on not visited could be seen as 'caching police' tactic, the more you do the less interested the 'local reviewer' may be.

All of my NAs and NMs are carefully and completely justified in the log. If the reviewer makes a decision about my NA or NM based on anything except what I put in the log, I'd be pissed. Even in theory, the most anyone could accuse me of is applying an existing rule too strictly, but in practice I'm one of the least rule oriented people around, so in most cases you'd have to be an anarchist to think I'm applying a rule too strictly.

On 3/17/2018 at 2:41 PM, CHEZRASCALS said:

But targeting non-active CO's seems to me as nothing better to do, lots of people feel that helping out a CO is correct and helpful.

I go against the existing consensus when I say that COs are COs, and "non-active" isn't a useful adjective in the context of NAs and NMs. A cache is either in good shape or not. If it's in good shape, it doesn't deserve NMs or NAs regardless of whether anyone has any idea whether the CO is "active", whatever that means. If the cache is not in good shape, it should be flagged with NMs or NAs even if the CO is more active than the pope.

10k · March 19, 2018

25 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Why did you jump straight to an NA if a bear got it? What I've got from this thread is surely a NM first would have been more valid.

Sorry. I posted NM. (Will edit original post.) Though now I'm starting to wonder.

March 19, 2018

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

As CO's commit to maintaining their caches when they place them there should be no need for others to contact them when they stop doing so - other than standard NM and NA mechanisms which exist for that purpose. Even then a volunteer reviewer will typically grant a grace period before taking action so I'm happy that CO's are given adequate time to make a positive response if they wish to do so.

What do you mean by sticking NA's all over the place? Do you have any specific illustrative examples to quantify this?

I don't see anybody suggesting that and I'm not sure what mither will arise from caches which are archived long after the CO has left the game.

Again, the owners of most archived caches lost interest long before the archive takes place so in my experience CO abuse under normal circumstances tends to be minimal to non-existent. Of course - there are exceptions to every rule.

Except, it seems, those CO's who abandon their caches rather than archiving and cleaning up after themselves or, alternatively, adopting their caches out to someone who will take proper responsibility for them.

What are we doing here - fishing for examples? I have posted my opinion, which is based on observations of various postings over the years. I am not lying in what I say - I have seen them, I just did not feel I had to be an anorak in keeping said examples to hand for such threads like this - but hey my bad. Besides you have done tons of posts on here and provided your thoughts, and I have done the same. Surprise surprise we do not agree - that much is evident.

In answer to your point about COs responsibilities, yes it is and no it shouldn't be for others to contact those COs, then again also it shouldn't be for other cachers to tell those folks not to contact the COs. After all I would rather a cache be saved if possible rather than cull at the first opportunity. Then again you and I have differing approaches to NAs so again c'est la vie.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Hitman9956

7.5k · March 19, 2018

2 hours ago, Hitman9956 said:

I'd like to share my own thoughts on NAs being used in general. I have no issues in an NA providing all attempts to alert the CO have been exhausted. If after messaging the CO or emailing that CO (or both), there is a lack of response then providing the cache is in poor state - and by that I do not just mean the sheet is wet but the whole container is damaged, then an NA may be the reluctant route to go. I do feel however my issue is that where does the line get drawn in trawling the caches out there, and help (so sorry for using this term), but police other folks caches by sticking NAs all over the place? What about an NA on a wet log where a NM leading to a NA is more appropriate?

Heck I am sharing my opinion which I have the right to say, but if folks are very happy for the NAs to roll in then lets all stick NAs on caches with wet logs, and see where that leads - it all adds to mither I can assure you. I think a load of valid points have been raised on this thread about abuses in the system, and it's right to highlight this. Too often however I hear of reports from decent friendly and plain lovely folks that sticking a DNF or a NM on a cache results in the CO deleting the log, followed by abuse from the CO to the poster and that is plain wrong. Added to this, that same poster finds themselves reported for abusive language which is laughable really.

Again, I have no beef with folks - only those who do not like to operate in a civil and decent way, and we all feel that we want to operate decently? Also noone wants geolitter - do I have an issue with community maintenance? No, do certain others? Yes, I will have my own views, others have theirs - live and let live I say and peace dudes and dudettes ⚘

Cache owner responsibilities

Maintain cache page online

To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must

Monitor logs for reported problems.
Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance.
Update the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.
Disable a cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.
Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache.
Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate.

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.

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Edited March 19, 2018 by L0ne.R
Added the link

7.5k · March 19, 2018

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Again, the owners of most archived caches lost interest long before the archive takes place so in my experience CO abuse under normal circumstances tends to be minimal to non-existent. Of course - there are exceptions to every rule.

I agree. An NA log usually follows after multiple found logs describing a problem, then one or more NM logs. Then the NA. Which usually results in a reviewer note or disable giving the owner another 4 weeks to reply.

In 16 years of cache ownership, and 60+ geocaches I have never received an NA log.

Edited March 19, 2018 by L0ne.R
My answer was incomplete.

March 19, 2018

20 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Cache owner responsibilities

Maintain cache page online

To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must

Monitor logs for reported problems.

Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance.

Update the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.

Disable a cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.

Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache.

Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate.

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.

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

Thank you for the guidelines - I do know all of the above, which is not in doubt nor do I need a lesson. Heck I agree - too many folks have jumped into caching without realising that to do so requires responsibility. If cachers abuse that privilege the sure thing they should be prevented in placing said caches.

Just to let you know, I own several caches and I have adopted caches too, as I try to find ways of maintaining them, and I sure as hell try to respond to serious maintainance requests. I have had an illness in the last six months, which has hampered my efforts - yet in spite this I have done my best to keep up in maintenance, and will always pride myself in doing so.

4.6k · March 19, 2018

32 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

What are we doing here - fishing for examples? I have posted my opinion, which is based on observations of various postings over the years. I am not lying in what I say - I have seen them, I just did not feel I had to be an anorak in keeping said examples to hand for such threads like this - but hey my bad. Besides you have done tons of posts on here and provided your thoughts, and I have done the same. Surprise surprise we do not agree - that much is evident.

In answer to your point about COs responsibilities, yes it is and no it shouldn't be for others to contact those COs, then again also it shouldn't be for other cachers to tell those folks not to contact the COs. After all I would rather a cache be saved if possible rather than cull at the first opportunity. Then again you and I have differing approaches to NAs so again c'est la vie.

I'm not fishing for anything. I would expect not to need to. Claims made here without supporting evidence are generally disregarded so I'd expected you'd have that stuff to hand to support your claims and campaign.

I can't see why anybody would tell you not to contact the CO if you really want to, no matter how futile that might be but there is no requirement to do so and nobody should be made to feel that there is, or that they should feel bad about themselves if they don't.

Ironically the people who like to slap 'police' labels on others seem to be perfectly at home trying to impose their own made-up legislation.

4.6k · March 19, 2018

25 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Heck I agree - too many folks have jumped into caching without realising that to do so requires responsibility. If cachers abuse that privilege the sure thing they should be prevented in placing said caches.

Something we agree on.

March 19, 2018

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm not fishing for anything. I would expect not to need to. Claims made here without supporting evidence are generally disregarded so I'd expected you'd have that stuff to hand to support your claims and campaign.

I can't see why anybody would tell you not to contact the CO if you really want to, no matter how futile that might be but there is no requirement to do so and nobody should be made to feel that there is, or that they should feel bad about themselves if they don't.

Ironically the people who like to slap 'police' labels on others seem to be perfectly at home trying to impose their own made-up legislation.

Really? So if I do not have examples, I am not allowed an opinion? Made up legislation? I'm sorry but it sounds like you are gearing the post towards the fact that you are right and I am wrong? Again I have said we share different views - I would not tell anyone to follow my example, I am sharing my opinion which is what I thought I was allowed to do?

Hey you want to disregard what I say then do so cos that's your issue. I certainly will not lose sleep at that fact, as again it's my opinion right and all other cachers on this forum agree with everything you say, so what's the issue?

As for contacting COs being futile, I adopted caches from COs who were assumed to have stopped caching. Yet when I contacted them, I gained responses and gratefulness of a fellow cacher offering to adopt. NAs are important as are adoptions, so I refuse to accept such options are "futile".

7.5k · March 20, 2018

48 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Just to let you know, I own several caches and I have adopted caches too, as I try to find ways of maintaining them, and I sure as hell try to respond to serious maintainance requests. I have had an illness in the last six months, which has hampered my efforts - yet in spite this I have done my best to keep up in maintenance, and will always pride myself in doing so.

1

I never have more then I can reasonably manage. Which has been on average 15 caches per year.

When we owned several 2-hour-drive-away caches we still managed to get to them within in a month. We did eventually archive them as we grew tired of making the trip once or twice a year. We believe in maintenance and try to check the caches, whether they need it or not, at least yearly. Often I've found them in a substandard condition, once in deplorable condition--bubble container burst and someone left candy in the cache. Yet no NM log and barely a mention in the found logs--"logbook damp". I guess most people adhere to that old saying "if you can't say something nice, say nothing".

Anyway, I'm a firm believer in having only as many caches as I can comfortably maintain within a 4 week period should problems arise (including full logbooks and wet logbooks, they are an integral part of the geocaching experience).

Edited March 20, 2018 by L0ne.R
typos and grammar

4.6k · March 20, 2018

16 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Really? So if I do not have examples, I am not allowed an opinion? Made up legislation? I'm sorry but it sounds like you are gearing the post towards the fact that you are right and I am wrong? Again I have said we share different views - I would not tell anyone to follow my example, I am sharing my opinion which is what I thought I was allowed to do?

Hey you want to disregard what I say then do so cos that's your issue. I certainly will not lose sleep at that fact, as again it's my opinion right and all other cachers on this forum agree with everything you say, so what's the issue?

As for contacting COs being futile, I adopted caches from COs who were assumed to have stopped caching. Yet when I contacted them, I gained responses and gratefulness of a fellow cacher offering to adopt. NAs are important as are adoptions, so I refuse to accept such options are "futile".

Of course you're allowed an opinion - not one person here even hinted otherwise.

It's just that claims made carry more weight when there's facts to support them which can be brought to the forum and less weight if not.

I don't remember seeing anywhere in the guidelines a requirement to exhaustively try to contact the CO before posting an NA. Therefore if you were trying to legislate that this must happen or else anyone not in compliance should be branded caching police that would be made up legislation, incorrect and also rather rude.

7.5k · March 20, 2018

25 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

As for contacting COs being futile, I adopted caches from COs who were assumed to have stopped caching. Yet when I contacted them, I gained responses and gratefulness of a fellow cacher offering to adopt. NAs are important as are adoptions, so I refuse to accept such options are "futile".

It sounds like the active owner was ignoring problems with his cache. And only responded when someone was willing to take on the responsibility. My guess, he would have disregarded an email asking if he was going to do anything about maintaining his cache. Or he may have said he had no intention of fixing the cache or archiving it. It would have made it awkward for the person who would then have to log the NA anyway.

March 20, 2018

This is the log for the next cache on my list. What do you make of it?

Edited March 20, 2018 by garyo1954

March 20, 2018

16 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

This is the log for the next cache on my list. What do you make of it?

Looks like an NM then NA is needed to prod the CO into action. No maintenance in over a year is exactly why this thread has made clear about cache maintenance in general, and why it's essential for COs to be reponsible when taking on an adopted cache or placing a cache.

March 20, 2018

24 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Looks like an NM then NA is needed to prod the CO into action. No maintenance in over a year is exactly why this thread has made clear about cache maintenance in general, and why it's essential for COs to be reponsible when taking on an adopted cache or placing a cache.

I do think you're right on this.

I'd feel better to at least look for it before doing anything. (The same owner has another cache I've looked for twice and have yet to find.)

15k · March 20, 2018

48 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't remember seeing anywhere in the guidelines a requirement to exhaustively try to contact the CO before posting an NA.

You probably won't, given the underlying attitude demonstrated by Groundspeak's no contact required guideline: "Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else."

There are exceptions for virtual caches and for EarthCaches, but I doubt there would be one for posting a NM or NA log.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

17 minutes ago, niraD said:

You probably won't, given the underlying attitude demonstrated by Groundspeak's no contact required guideline: "Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else."

There are exceptions for virtual caches and for EarthCaches, but I doubt there would be one for posting a NM or NA log.

Thanks for clearing that up

2.4k · March 20, 2018

11 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

I do think you're right on this.

I'd feel better to at least look for it before doing anything. (The same owner has another cache I've looked for twice and have yet to find.)

I too also feel better if I've at least attempted to find the cache before posting a NM or NA. In this case I don't think I would post a NM or NA on the cache in question.

I'm assuming that the notes were posted by the cache owner. If so I see two problems. The first note should have been an owners maintenance log. The second note should have been a disabled log. I'm also wondering why they didn't simply fix or replace the cache instead of posting the 9/14 note?

Replace the 2/19 note with an owners maintenance log and the 9/14 note with a disabled log and what do you have? I see an active cache owner who probably looked at the three dnf's (which were logged a day apart) and surmised that it was three people caching together and were either inexperienced or having a bad caching day.

Other than the 6 month laps between the last dnf and the note it's not really that bad.

It's amazing how using the correct logs can change the perception of a caches condition. It also helps take some of the guess work out of trying to decipher the owners maintenance history.

Edited March 20, 2018 by justintim1999

4.6k · March 20, 2018

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's amazing how using the correct logs can change the perception of a caches condition. It also helps take some of the guess work out of trying to decipher the owners maintenance history.

That's why it's important to read back through those past logs so that we may act confidently and responsibly.

Knowing the CO and knowing that they've left the game years previous and knowing that they've ignored every previous maintenance request and their caches have as a result been archived by the local volunteer reviewer adds weight to the argumument for NA.

2.4k · March 20, 2018

27 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That's why it's important to read back through those past logs so that we may act confidently and responsibly.

Knowing the CO and knowing that they've left the game years previous and knowing that they've ignored every previous maintenance request and their caches have as a result been archived by the local volunteer reviewer adds weight to the argumument for NA.

Your right. I guess I need to know who posted the notes? If it was the cache owner than it looks like they were active at the time and just not posting the correct logs.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Your right. I guess I need to know who posted the notes? If it was the cache owner than it looks like they were active at the time and just not posting the correct logs.

Just realised I typed argumument :lol:

2.4k · March 20, 2018

13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Just realised I typed argumument

It looks much less confrontational when spelled that way.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Just realised I typed argumument

It looks much less confrontational when spelled that way.

Noted

7.5k · March 20, 2018

15 hours ago, garyo1954 said:

This is the log for the next cache on my list. What do you make of it?

It needs maintenance so you should post an NM. This is a no brainer: the note posted (apparently) by the CO even says it needs maintenance. I don't understand why the CO himself didn't disable it in September. The NM text should explain all that and note that it hasn't been found for a year despite multiple attempts. There's no need to go there: the reason this cache needs maintenance has nothing to do with whether there's a container at GZ that you can find.

7.5k · March 20, 2018

15 hours ago, Hitman9956 said:

As for contacting COs being futile, I adopted caches from COs who were assumed to have stopped caching. Yet when I contacted them, I gained responses and gratefulness of a fellow cacher offering to adopt. NAs are important as are adoptions, so I refuse to accept such options are "futile".

If you want to adopt the cache, well, of course, you have to contact the CO. But posting an NA is how you contact a CO to tell him it's time for the cache to be archived unless he wants to finally do something about it. The only thing suggesting archival privately to the CO accomplishes is to keep it secret from everyone else, so anyone else coming to the same conclusion has to post the NA you didn't post.

March 20, 2018

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Your right. I guess I need to know who posted the notes? If it was the cache owner than it looks like they were active at the time and just not posting the correct logs.

The notes were posted by a different cache owner who it would appear was out checking caches, as he says in his first note. Whether that was by arrangement or not, we can't say. Perhaps he was checking all caches in that part of the county. I get the impression he left the note so for the cache owner to see.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

15 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

The notes were posted by a different cache owner who it would appear was out checking caches, as he says in his first note.

It doesn't say he was specifically out checking caches - or who 'he' is, at least in the screenshot you've presented - so it's a bit difficult for those of us who don't have access to all the facts to draw any conclusions.

2.4k · March 20, 2018

19 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

The notes were posted by a different cache owner who it would appear was out checking caches, as he says in his first note. Whether that was by arrangement or not, we can't say. Perhaps he was checking all caches in that part of the county. I get the impression he left the note so for the cache owner to see.

That changes things. With the three dnf's and their observations, the second note should have been a NM. The dnf's alone may not trigger anything but along with the NM it should get someone's attention.

March 20, 2018

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

It doesn't say he was specifically out checking caches - or who 'he' is, at least in the screenshot you've presented - so it's a bit difficult for those of us who don't have access to all the facts to draw any conclusions.

Yes, I understand that. I cut off that part of the log to keep from calling anyone out unnecessarily.

In his 2/19/17 note he says "Checking on area caches A OK." In my thinking the necessity of that note would be moot, if he were only out looking for caches. In other words he left that note to signify to the owner he checked and everything was in order.

If you want to see the log yourself, I'll PM the cache number.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

28 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

The notes were posted by a different cache owner who it would appear was out checking caches, as he says in his first note. Whether that was by arrangement or not, we can't say. Perhaps he was checking all caches in that part of the county. I get the impression he left the note so for the cache owner to see.

That changes things. With the three dnf's and their observations, the second note should have been a NM. The dnf's alone may not trigger anything but along with the NM it should get someone's attention.

There's no need to PM the details - I'm not that keen to drill down into this particular cache.

I just wanted to point out how it was pretty much impossible for anyone here to offer anything like a considered opinion when we're no idea who has written any of the logs / notes in your screen capture. Personally I had assumed that the notes were from the CO.

ETA:

OK - so the notes are from a cacher who found that cache in September 2014 and so should know what they are looking for. They confirmed it was A OK in February 2017 and then missing in September 2017.

The CO seems to remain active - at least up until Feb 2018 and doesn't seem to have responded to any of these notes on their cache.

Maybe this is because nobody has logged an NM or an NA as not all CO's are interested in reading logs on their caches, especially when most of them consist of two or three words at most - but a CO _might_ pay attention to an NM or NA log so someone should post one of those. Unless of course they are afraid that somebody with an overly large sense of self importance might brand them caching police.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Team Microdot
Additional comment

4.6k · March 20, 2018

13 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

Well, too late. By you having access to the log, I feel better about what I posted.
I just got a message from the owner who checked the cache as well, I asked if he has anything new on it.

See addition to my post above

March 20, 2018

20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

There's no need to PM the details - I'm not that keen to drill down into this particular cache.

I just wanted to point out how it was pretty much impossible for anyone here to offer anything like a considered opinion when we're no idea who has written any of the logs / notes in your screen capture. Personally I had assumed that the notes were from the CO.

Well, too late. By you having access to the log, I feel better about what I posted.
I just got a message from the owner who checked the cache as well, I asked if he has anything new on it.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

14 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

My thinking as well. Being the new kid on the block I don't want to come off as one of those troublemaker types......LOL

You certainly don't come off as one of those troublemaker types to me

March 20, 2018

26 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

There's no need to PM the details - I'm not that keen to drill down into this particular cache.

I just wanted to point out how it was pretty much impossible for anyone here to offer anything like a considered opinion when we're no idea who has written any of the logs / notes in your screen capture. Personally I had assumed that the notes were from the CO.

ETA:

OK - so the notes are from a cacher who found that cache in September 2014 and so should know what they are looking for. They confirmed it was A OK in February 2017 and then missing in September 2017.

The CO seems to remain active - at least up until Feb 2018 and doesn't seem to have responded to any of these notes on their cache.

Maybe this is because nobody has logged an NM or an NA as not all CO's are interested in reading logs on their caches, especially when most of them consist of two or three words at most - but a CO _might_ pay attention to an NM or NA log so someone should post one of those. Unless of course they are afraid that somebody with an overly large sense of self importance might brand them caching police.

My thinking as well. Being the new kid on the block I don't want to come off as one of those troublemaker types......LOL

March 20, 2018

Thank you for that.

4.6k · March 20, 2018

15 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

39 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You certainly don't come off as one of those troublemaker types to me

I added him to my ignore list.

Erm :blink:

15k · April 2, 2018

Apparently the volunteer reviewers are advising cache owners to deal with "false positives" from the CHS system by posting "armchair OM logs":

April 3, 2018

Another case of OM-to-be-done-in-the-future... maybe.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1D0AT_up-the-canal-without-a-paddle

2.7k · April 3, 2018

I see that often. I think some COs don't know how the OM log should used.

Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Cache owner responsibilities

Link to comment

Link to comment

Cache owner responsibilities

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment