Log Need Maintenence on own caches.

[+OZ2CPU]

WHY on earth, did you remove the feature write a Need Maintenence log in OWN caches ??
we really seriously need this feature back ASAP !
for a CO to be able to see which cache need service, The CO use the own cacne list
and can easyly see a red marking, on caches with NM log,
but too many people log service needs in a note, or in their found it log,
CO read the users logs, and can then post a correct NM log so he can remember this important info (in the old days he could)
so NOW when CO gets back home from vacation, CO needs to read ALL 400 logs, on all his caches, to figure out what cache needs service..
please fix this back so it Works Again.

[RuideAlmeida]

Here you can see that information.

[+HHL]

28 minutes ago, OZ2CPU said:

[...]
but too many people log service needs in a note, or in their found it log,
CO read the users logs, and can then post a correct NM log so he can remember this important info [...]

Why didn't you put those caches immediately onto a "MyCachesAwaitingMaintenance" Bookmark List?

Hans

[+DkMumrik]

37 minutes ago, OZ2CPU said:

WHY on earth, did you remove the feature write a Need Maintenence log in OWN caches ??
...

 

13 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Here you can see that information.

Yes ?? And the question is, how can a cacheowner put one of his/her own caches on such list ?

Usually one could post a NM-log on ones own geocache.

[RuideAlmeida]

2 minutes ago, DkMumrik said:

 

Yes ?? And the question is, how can a cacheowner put one of his/her own caches on such list ?

Bookmark them.

[RuideAlmeida]

3 minutes ago, DkMumrik said:

Usually one could post a NM-log on ones own geocache.

The proper action for owners is to Disable the cache.

[+DkMumrik]

1 minute ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Bookmark them.

And how would that put a "needs maintenance" status on ones own geocache ?

[+DkMumrik]

Just now, RuideAlmeida said:

The proper action for owners is to Disable the cache.

Depends. If someone writes "lid broken, but content dry and usable", I would put my geocache in "need maintenance", by posting af NM-log stating what/when I would correct the issue.

Geocache still us-/find-/log-able, but needs maintenance.

[+TriciaG]

44 minutes ago, DkMumrik said:

And how would that put a "needs maintenance" status on ones own geocache ?

It doesn't - but it gives you a list of caches that you need to fix up, which is the desired outcome. (The desired outcome is not to put a red mark on one's own cache; the desired outcome is to have a handy list of caches that need maintenance.)

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, RuideAlmeida said:

The proper action for owners is to Disable the cache.

Sometimes but not every time. If you have hundred+ geocaches you want to organize the maintenance routines and the maintenance tool is the best way to organize that routine because it is always updated. For example, you may suspect that the cache is returned in a wrong place and is more difficult to find as supposed. There is no need to disable cache because it is difficult to find but definitely it may need some maintenance.

Edited April 4, 2018 by arisoft

[+L0ne.R]

 

4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

There is no need to disable cache because it is difficult to find but definitely it may need some maintenance.

A bookmark list would work. I find bookmark lists quite handy when using the Cachly app. A PQ works nicely too. But maybe I'm not understanding why PQs and bookmark lists are substandard options.

[+TriciaG]

12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

A bookmark list would work. I find bookmark lists quite handy when using the Cachly app. A PQ works nicely too. But maybe I'm not understanding why PQs and bookmark lists are substandard options.

The only reason I can think of is that they're not available for regular (non-PM) users. But even then, there are options. I'm not sure about other apps, but on the one I use, I can create custom lists in the app itself, even without being a PM.

[+arisoft]

15 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A bookmark list would work. I find bookmark lists quite handy when using the Cachly app. A PQ works nicely too. But maybe I'm not understanding why PQs and bookmark lists are substandard options.

I tried a bookmark list some years ago but, because it is separate list, I forgot to keep it updated with the primary list and then it was worthless. Currently I collect suspicious logs to separate mail folder and try to remember to check those caches when visiting nearby. Needless to say that I forget to check that list almost every time.

Edited April 4, 2018 by arisoft

[+HHL]

2 hours ago, RuideAlmeida said:

The proper action for owners is to Disable the cache.

And the most proper action is to maintain the cache instead of just putting it onto some kind of list.
If that's too much work for the CO then he should stop beeing a CO and archive his cache.

Hans

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Here you can see that information.

I don't understand how that link is supposed to show me the caches I own where someone reported a problem in a Find log, but didn't post a NM log to set the NM attribute.

3 hours ago, HHL said:

Why didn't you put those caches immediately onto a "MyCachesAwaitingMaintenance" Bookmark List?

That kinda works for premium members, except now some caches that need maintenance have the NM attribute, and others are on a bookmark list. And the bookmark list is not automatically maintained. And of course, it doesn't work for basic members.

3 hours ago, RuideAlmeida said:

The proper action for owners is to Disable the cache.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Not all maintenance issues require the cache be disabled until they can be fixed.

26 minutes ago, HHL said:

And the most proper action is to maintain the cache instead of just putting it onto some kind of list.
If that's too much work for the CO then he should stop beeing a CO and archive his cache.

Sure, but during the week or three between someone reporting a problem (in a Find or Note log that does not set the NM attribute), and the CO fixing the problem, it would be nice if the owner could set the NM flag.

 

3 hours ago, OZ2CPU said:

WHY on earth, did you remove the feature write a Need Maintenence log in OWN caches ??
we really seriously need this feature back ASAP !

As a workaround, you could create another account, and then use that account to post the NM log.

If you feel like educating the person who originally reported the problem (in a Find or Note log), then you could contact them and suggest that they post a NM log with the information in their original (Find or Note) log.

[+cerberus1]

34 minutes ago, HHL said:

And the most proper action is to maintain the cache instead of just putting it onto some kind of list.
If that's too much work for the CO then he should stop beeing a CO and archive his cache.

I agree.  We head out with logs as well, not waiting for an NM. We put a memo on the fridge, and the first person available heads out.  Simple.

(To me) fixing the cache as soon as possible shouldn't create a problem of "which one it was".   If a CO has so many caches needing maintenance that they can't keep track anymore, no "list" is gonna help much with that  ...

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, RuideAlmeida said:

The proper action for owners is to Disable the cache.

When you say that, you are implying that there's no difference between a cache that needs maintenance and a cache that is disabled. I assume you don't really believe that or you'd advocate getting rid of the two states altogether. So what you're doing -- which is what GS is doing -- is making the arbitrary and unjustified decision that the CO is, for some unstated special reason, not allowed to use that perfectly legitimate and useful "needs maintenance" state.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

As a workaround, you could create another account, and then use that account to post the NM log.

That would work.

 

[+OZ2CPU]

a few of you got the point . lovely :-)

I could use many other systems, my phone, a little paper notebook in my pocket..
The thing is, the geocaching web page DID actually work, perfectly, until "they" removed the option for CO to write NM logs on own caches.

When a cache got the NM flag, it is SUPER easy and fast for a CO to figure out where to go on his next planned fix and check route, this way we polute the air less, and we waste less time on the road, so it is even safer..
I you only got 5 caches, and they are only found 5 times pr year, then you do not have the "problem" as many of us got, as explained here.
Please can someone with a bit influence talk some sense into the Groundspeak software department ??
Thanks in advance.

[RuideAlmeida]

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

When you say that, you are implying that there's no difference between a cache that needs maintenance and a cache that is disabled. I assume you don't really believe that or you'd advocate getting rid of the two states altogether. So what you're doing -- which is what GS is doing -- is making the arbitrary and unjustified decision that the CO is, for some unstated special reason, not allowed to use that perfectly legitimate and useful "needs maintenance" state.

No.

I'm rather "implying" that NMs are for every other geocachers than the owners. Obviously a owner won't need to Disable their caches nor having a list of NM, even if that "list" already exists, using the link I placed. Look into the context, please.

[+OZ2CPU]

7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

That would work.

 

YES exactly :-)
but the best thing is to solve the software issue, so the system works,
or even better, educate users so they use the correct log type, this way CO dont even need to make a NM log.
But so many add the important service information to CO, in their found it log, and 5 days later, the cache got another 20 new found it, just saying Thanks it was funny..
now it is impossible for co to remember the important message, and bring the correct fix it tools

[+OZ2CPU]

as it is right now, when a CO hear about minor service stuff, a CO can:

Disable, or Archive, or forget about it, Until the cache is in such bad condition, one visitor finally make a NM log.
Is this what GS wants ? it this what we want ?

[+Team DEMP]

You can also use a nice 3rd party app like Cachly, if you are on an iPhone, and you can continue to submit a NM against your own cache.  The restriction appear to be built into the front-end of the official geocaching apps. 

[+L0ne.R]

I think the system works as it is intended. Some owners have figured out a sideways use for NMs but it muddies the water. However, I understand that cache owners want an easy way to manage their hundreds of active caches.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by L0ne.R
grammar

[+cerberus1]

8 minutes ago, OZ2CPU said:

I you only got 5 caches, and they are only found 5 times pr year, then you do not have the "problem" as many of us got, as explained here.
Please can someone with a bit influence talk some sense into the Groundspeak software department ??

The number of caches has nothing to do with it.   

It's really simple... If you have so many caches that need maintenance, there's an issue that needs to be addressed (containers maybe...).   Could be a reduction to an amount that can be handled a bit easier is in order.  

[+OZ2CPU]

>The restriction appear to be built into the front-end of the official geocaching apps. 
Aha, i dont own a fruit phone, but how about the web link to log caches, any one know it ?
Does it works, can a CO make NM log on own caches  ?

>But I understand that cache owners want an easy way to manage their hundreds of active caches.
YES thanks..

[+OZ2CPU]

>It's really simple...
NO it is not, i assume you did not read one single input i made into this thread ?
you clearly did not understand my point.

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Some owners have figured out an sideways use for NMs but it muddies the water.

I don't think using the NM attribute to indicate caches that need maintenance, but which are not so bad that they need to be temporarily disabled, is in any way a "sideways use" of anything. And I don't see how it "muddies the water" either.

[+HHL]

7 minutes ago, OZ2CPU said:

[...]
you clearly did not understand my point.

He did. The message is: you are obviously not able to handle this amount of caches. Full Stop.

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

It's really simple... If you have so many caches that need maintenance, there's an issue that needs to be addressed (containers maybe...).   Could be a reduction to an amount that can be handled a bit easier is in order.  

By the same logic, we should just get rid of NM logs, and the NM attribute, the CHS, and anything else that supports cache owners. After all, if a CO needs these tools to keep track of which caches need maintenance, then a reduction to the number of owned caches instead will allow them to handle the maintenance load.

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, HHL said:

He did. The message is: you are obviously not able to handle this amount of caches. Full Stop.

BZZZZT! Thank you for playing. As a consolation prize, we have a copy of the "Cache Me If You Can" board game for you.

[+L0ne.R]

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

I don't think using the NM attribute to indicate caches that need maintenance, but which are not so bad that they need to be temporarily disabled, is in any way a "sideways use" of anything. And I don't see how it "muddies the water" either.

NMs were intended as a tool that finders would use to alert owners of a problem. Then the owner could go out and fix it quickly, or disable their cache if they couldn't go out right away (or for minor issues write a note or ignore it). I've never read anywhere in the Help Center that one of its uses is as a reminder tool for cache owners to use. But when they removed that option then it's additional use came out of the woodwork (in the forums). It's interesting to see how people use tools and interpret guidelines. 

I think the additional account to log NMs and track their caches with problems is the best solution, given how the NM tool is currently being used, and unlikely to be used as a reminder tool. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+L0ne.R]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

By the same logic, we should just get rid of NM logs, and the NM attribute, the CHS, and anything else that supports cache owners.

I hope they don't, especially the NM tool. It really does support cache owners. I encourage finders to post NMs (via my cache description) even for minor issues like part of the camouflage job came off (even if it doesn't affect the inner cache container). I've never had the problem of needing some other type of reminder but I've only had at most 25 active caches.

[+OZ2CPU]

i dont even know how many active i got right now,

the system count archived also.. DOH.. and there is no way to hide old archived from the list as far as i see.

I think the problem come with 20-40 active, when they are found a few times pr week, some of mine do get many finds,
some logs, like log is soon full, does offcourse not require the finder to make a NM log,
But i need a way to remember this, so i can fix it in good time, maybe i even pass by that road soon anyways,
and this way i save time, and polution, and get caches in general better condition.
IF only i got a way to flag this info, so it is easy to remember..
GOT it NOW ??

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, OZ2CPU said:

IF only i got a way to flag this info, so it is easy to remember..
GOT it NOW ??

They do not get it because they knows this better than you.

My solution is to do nothing until there is NM or some DNF logs. Saves lots of trouble.

[+OZ2CPU]

>My solution is to do nothing until there is NM or some DNF logs. Saves lots of trouble.

ya, i just liked to do it a bit better and smarter, so much for trying to do better :-(

[+L0ne.R]

14 minutes ago, OZ2CPU said:

>My solution is to do nothing until there is NM or some DNF logs. Saves lots of trouble.

ya, i just liked to do it a bit better and smarter, so much for trying to do better :-(

Try the other account solution to post an NM on your caches that need minor attention. See how that goes.

Edited April 4, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

By the same logic, we should just get rid of NM logs, and the NM attribute, the CHS, and anything else that supports cache owners. After all, if a CO needs these tools to keep track of which caches need maintenance, then a reduction to the number of owned caches instead will allow them to handle the maintenance load.

A NM is simply a notification (Report a Problem) from another  that a cache has an issue.  It isn't a tool for, or have anything to do with how that CO is to remember or "keep track" of fixing the problem...

[+OZ2CPU]

look at your caches page, scroll down while you look at the info section

BINGO, it is VERY useful indeed to keep track of caches to check,
one system to rule it all, now even you learned something cool and useful today :-)

[+The A-Team]

1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

A NM is simply a notification (Report a Problem) from another  that a cache has an issue.  It isn't a tool for, or have anything to do with how that CO is to remember or "keep track" of fixing the problem...

NMs are many things, and there's nothing stopping people from using it for many purposes.

Keep in mind that there's an NM log type AND an attribute. The NM log type is there to notify the owner and other cachers that the cache needs maintenance. The attribute is there to allow anyone to filter in or out caches with that attribute from searches. "Anyone" can also include the owner.

It seems like some folks in this discussion have enough time on their hands that they can perform proactive checks on all of the their caches often enough to avoid any of their caches ever being reported as needing maintenance. While that's great for them, not everyone has this amount of time available. Many people might need to wait a week or two (or sometimes more) until they can get out and perform the necessary maintenance. It's for those cases that the NM attribute and resulting PQ list could be useful.

[+OZ2CPU]

in the good old days, a CO could even access the attribute directly, add it, or remove it,

today he need to make Owner Maintenance log to clear it, and then delete his log, if he only wanted to clear the attribute with out adding a log.

[+The A-Team]

11 minutes ago, OZ2CPU said:

in the good old days, a CO could even access the attribute directly, add it, or remove it,

today he need to make Owner Maintenance log to clear it, and then delete his log, if he only wanted to clear the attribute with out adding a log.

I have no problem with that change. It used to be that owners could quietly remove the attribute without explaining what maintenance they performed (or whether they actually performed any maintenance at all). Now, they're at least forced to type something in a log that becomes public.

Personally, I see no reason to prevent COs from logging a NM log on their own caches. If there's a maintenance issue with a cache, it shouldn't matter who reports the issue. A lot of other cachers agreed when this action was removed from the site, but TPTB haven't changed their minds so far and it probably won't be coming back.

[+OZ2CPU]

people are in a hurry, or simply dont know how to log correctly, or even dont know what kind of nice service it makes for a CO,

maybe they dont even own caches them self, so they are perfectly excused for not knowing.

it is just easier for me to post a NM on own caches, over kindly asking people to do it, 
i can also just make up a new profile, and use that to post it, then delete the log with my normal user, and bingo, the flag is set, 

just too much trouble for this simple thing. maybe HQ only want us to perform service on caches with a NM log, 

just too bad people only perform a NM log, when stuff is really bad bad and terrible

[+niraD]

This deserves to be repeated:

23 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Keep in mind that there's an NM log type AND an attribute. The NM log type is there to notify the owner and other cachers that the cache needs maintenance. The attribute is there to allow anyone to filter in or out caches with that attribute from searches. "Anyone" can also include the owner.

Yep. It absolutely deserves to be repeated.

[+OZ2CPU]

i now tested a work-arround

open a new inprivate browser, log in using another user

log NM on the cache, then delete the log, and the red flag is on the cache as i wanted,

now all people can filter it in or out, and the CO (me) get a remember tool as i wanted

[+OZ2CPU]

this also works for PMO caches, even if my extra "user" is not PM

this link, 
https://www.geocaching.com/play/geocache/gcXXXX/log

put in the GC number, and then OPT OUT , else you dont have access to Need Maintenance log, 
right after post log, you also have a Delete log, very smart :-)
The Red Flag, remains as wanted.

Edited April 4, 2018 by OZ2CPU

[RuideAlmeida]

2 hours ago, OZ2CPU said:

as it is right now, when a CO hear about minor service stuff, a CO can:

Disable, or Archive, or forget about it...

In my opinion you missed the best option. Go to the location and do maintenance, if really necessary.

After all, this is an outdoor game.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, RuideAlmeida said:

In my opinion you missed the best option. Go to the location and do maintenance, if really necessary.

Some of us (not me and you) are not able to prioritize cache maintenence over daily work, childcare or other hobbies. We do what we can do with the tools given to us. Better tools equals better results. We do not need fake excuses why should we be satisfied with anything less than the best available tools if our service task is so important to the community.

1 hour ago, RuideAlmeida said:

After all, this is an outdoor game.

Well, at least partly, but many of us are geocaching more indoor than outdoor. Check your own numbers if not sure about this.

Edited April 4, 2018 by arisoft

[RuideAlmeida]

23 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Check your own numbers if not sure about this.

Maybe you are aware that many volunteers have separate accounts as players... check my signature if not sure about it.

Edited April 4, 2018 by RuideAlmeida

[+NanCycle]

5 hours ago, niraD said:

I don't understand how that link is supposed to show me the caches I own where someone reported a problem in a Find log, but didn't post a NM log to set the NM attribute.

That kinda works for premium members, except now some caches that need maintenance have the NM attribute, and others are on a bookmark list. And the bookmark list is not automatically maintained. And of course, it doesn't work for basic members.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Not all maintenance issues require the cache be disabled until they can be fixed.

Sure, but during the week or three between someone reporting a problem (in a Find or Note log that does not set the NM attribute), and the CO fixing the problem, it would be nice if the owner could set the NM flag.

 

As a workaround, you could create another account, and then use that account to post the NM log.

If you feel like educating the person who originally reported the problem (in a Find or Note log), then you could contact them and suggest that they post a NM log with the information in their original (Find or Note) log.

ALL OF THE ABOVE!  

But it would be nice if all these workarounds were not necessary