Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
FloridaPanther

Inactive Cache Owners

Recommended Posts

We've been finding quite a few geocaches lately that are in disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active.  Shouldn't these geocaches be archived?  It's becoming very frustrating especially in urban areas.  We're tired of sending out "Needs Archived" logs and wasting our time going to these caches.

Added to this, I know geocachers who throw down another container when they can't find a cache by a CO that doesn't maintain their caches.  

We're finding a lot of caches that CO's put out and never maintain.  I think this discourages a lot of new cachers when they can't find a cache or the container is in need of repair.  

Thoughts?

Edited by FloridaPanther
added more info
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, FloridaPanther said:

We've been finding quite a few geocaches lately that are in disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active.  Shouldn't these geocaches be archived?  It's becoming very frustrating especially in urban areas.  

Thoughts?

 

Throwdowns!  

Can’t beat em join em

 

😉

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, FloridaPanther said:

We've been finding quite a few geocaches lately that are in disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active.  Shouldn't these geocaches be archived?  It's becoming very frustrating especially in urban areas.  

Thoughts?

If there is no Needs Maintenance log on the cache, make one yourself (via the "report a problem" or similar wording when going to log a cache).

If there is/are NM log(s), or if your NM log from above goes unanswered for, say, a month, log a Needs Archived (via "report a problem") and explain the reason in the log.

 

Yes, if caches are out of repair and the cache owner has definitely disappeared, they should be archived. And the way to get that done is through NM and NA logs.

 

1 hour ago, speakers-corner said:

If I see there are 5+ DNF´s on a Cache I look to see if the owner is still active. If they are inactive for more than a year I write a NA explaining why.

What if it's just a hard to find cache? Better to do the Needs Maintenance route rather than head directly to NA.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think what the majority of finders want is reviewers, or GCHQ  to regularly sweep for caches that  "disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active".

 

Most finders don't want to be the bad guy. Reviewers are given the authority to uphold the guidelines, many (if not most) finders don't want to come across as community snitches.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Throwdowns!  

Can’t beat em join em

 

😉

 

Where's the downvote button when you need it.? This may have been a tongue-in-cheek response, but it's not appropriate in the Getting Started section where new players are apt to take it seriously.

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think what the majority of finders want is reviewers, or GCHQ  to regularly sweep for caches that  "disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active".

 

Most finders don't want to be the bad guy. Reviewers are given the authority to uphold the guidelines, many (if not most) finders don't want to come across as community snitches.

 

 

Don't think of the person who reports these caches as the "bad" guy.  When I report them I consider that I'm doing my civic duty--a form of CITO.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, FloridaPanther said:

We've been finding quite a few geocaches lately that are in disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active.  Shouldn't these geocaches be archived?  It's becoming very frustrating especially in urban areas.  

Thoughts?

If a cache needs maintenance, you should post a "Needs Maintenance" log. If a Needs Maintenance request has been made but was not attended to, you should post a "Needs Archived". At no time does you're hypothesis about the CO's lack of activity strike me as an important consideration.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think what the majority of finders want is reviewers, or GCHQ  to regularly sweep for caches that  "disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active".

 

Reviewers are doing this, in my experience.  Is it different in your area?

Share this post


Link to post

Definitely agree that GCHQ or volunteer reviewers should regularly sweep for caches that are in total disrepair and disparately need maintenance weather the CO is active or inactive. Many CO's put out geocaches and never maintain them.  A cache shouldn't be put out by a CO if it isn't maintained in a timely fashion.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

 

Where's the downvote button when you need it.? This may have been a tongue-in-cheek response, but it's not appropriate in the Getting Started section where new players are apt to take it seriously.

 

 

 

Yes, it's tongue and cheek. I missed that this was a Getting Started question. I did have a look at the OP's profile and they are quite seasoned (14000 finds in 11 years) so didn't even occur to me that the question was a newbie style question. My apologies. Perhaps the topic should be moved out of Getting Started. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

Don't think of the person who reports these caches as the "bad" guy.  When I report them I consider that I'm doing my civic duty--a form of CITO.

 

So do I. I too feel it's a civic duty and good for the pastime. I log usually 100 NMs/NAs per year. (I know that bothers a lot of people reading this. I can sense them thinking "cache cop".)

The reality is that we have yet to convince anyone who doesn't already post NMs and NAs that it's their civic duty (but we should keep trying).

We might get people who post "something has got to be done" topics to log the occasional NM but there's no way they are ever going to post an NA. They want someone in authority to do it. I don't blame them. I've been on the receiving end of a few angry COs and their loyal followers. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, FloridaPanther said:

We've been finding quite a few geocaches lately that are in disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active.  Shouldn't these geocaches be archived?  It's becoming very frustrating especially in urban areasWe're tired of sending out "Needs Archived" logs and wasting our time going to these caches.

 

I agree.   We've found it's so much easier, and fun,  to go only after caches that don't have many of those issues.     :)

We found neglect mostly in low-terrain, urban/suburban, and roadside hides, and we simply don't do them anymore.

I look at a map, looking for large amounts of green, and few have had issues. 

No offense, but I find it unusual that folks will complain,  yet continue searching ("wasting time"...) for those same caches that have issues.

 - Skip 'em.  A lot less frustrating...   ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

We might get people who post "something has got to be done" topics to log the occasional NM but there's no way they are ever going to post an NA. They want someone in authority to do it. I don't blame them. I've been on the receiving end of a few angry COs and their loyal followers. 

 

I rarely post “NA”, but most caches in bad shape don't even have an “NM” yet. I do post NM. Although I try to avoid the poorly maintained caches, it's hard to tell the condition until I arrive. So if I'm hunting 4 or 5 caches in an area and post NM on the first one, then next container is even worse, followed by the next, if the first deserved an NM, these are even more deserving. But nobody's said anything before (well, off-hand mentions of maybe issues, followed by no-mention finds). I'd rather not be the only one around here doing all the NMs, doing them all in sequence like that. It's awkward, especially if I'm visiting some small town and the really bad caches, half the caches in that place, are getting archived because of me. Yeah, they are that bad. Yeah, I wish we'd all spread the wealth, so to speak. B)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, FloridaPanther said:

Definitely agree that GCHQ or volunteer reviewers should regularly sweep for caches that are in total disrepair and disparately need maintenance weather the CO is active or inactive. Many CO's put out geocaches and never maintain them.  A cache shouldn't be put out by a CO if it isn't maintained in a timely fashion.

 

There's the Cache Health Score algorithm that helps with that, and Reviewers in our area do "look at" caches that have action logs on them, but I don't feel it should be expected of them.  I think they already do a lot more then they should, for the big bucks they receive. 

Of course cachers have to place those NM and other actions logs, to help find which have issues too.  We're not seeing that...

 

"Timely" depends on D/T, and there's more than a couple threads on what some believe that is...

We know some who only make their caches PMO , thinking it helps with maintenance issues. 

 -  Maybe its simply with fewer finding them , issues take longer.   I wouldn't know, haven't done a pmo hide in years.

Seems no difference to me if a guard rail hide's pmo or not... It's still a guard rail hide.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think what the majority of finders want is reviewers, or GCHQ  to regularly sweep for caches that  "disrepair and disparately need maintenance but the CO is no longer active".

I'd rather the majority of finders log NMs and NAs themselves instead of whining for someone else that's never even seen the cache to do it for them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I filed a NA just yesterday on an identified missing cache by multiple people revisiting the cache with others. Yet those folks only log a Note rather than a NM. I filed a NM in July another cacher did so in August. Yet crickets and more DNFs. The CO did manage to hide more caches so it does even out, not really. 

 

When we had the planetary pursuit challenge this summer I probably visited 10 extra caches just for the very reason described in the OP. filed NM/NAs on all of them I think only one was eventually fixed. Pretty sad.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

...The reality is that we have yet to convince anyone who doesn't already post NMs and NAs that it's their civic duty (but we should keep trying).

We might get people who post "something has got to be done" topics to log the occasional NM but there's no way they are ever going to post an NA. They want someone in authority to do it. I don't blame them. I've been on the receiving end of a few angry COs and their loyal followers. 

 

We're seeing (in a couple states)  that many simply aren't concerned with a cache's condition,  just that they can mark it as a find. 

It's a game.  Games need "points".

I don't believe that "the average cacher" is looking at things the way you'd like them to anymore.  

 

For example, I NM a soaked cache after an event.  It's on an environmental education center's property.

Every log for a year has been about the find (one 2 months ago mentioned "little wet") .   Red wrench still on the search page.

Guess I would have thought that of anyone, the EC wouldn't have wanted that representing them.  

 - "Fun hike",  and the tftc  show that the cachers could care less.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I filed a NA just yesterday on an identified missing cache by multiple people revisiting the cache with others. Yet those folks only log a Note rather than a NM.

 

Those folks may have thought that the CO would act on their  Write Note without the need for a NM. 

 - We do...   :)

 

We had a new player leave a NM on a "missing" cache once. 

Claimed they went with an "experienced cacher" who found it earlier, so know it's missing.

 - If either turned on their GPSrs,  or skimmed the cache page, one of them would have known we moved it 300 feet away years after that "experienced cacher" found it.  ;)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We're seeing (in a couple states)  that many simply aren't concerned with a cache's condition,  just that they can mark it as a find. 

It's a game.  Games need "points".

I don't believe that "the average cacher" is looking at things the way you'd like them to anymore.  

 

 

Points then let's give them points. Track NM/NA logs just like smilies. Give a souvenir for filing your first. And say thank you. 

 

Or if the cache is truly abandoned and gets archived have the reviewer give "credit" and award the find.

 

I'm not saying these things will happen or should be implemented in this way. Just noodling on the thought of points.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TriciaG said:

If there is no Needs Maintenance log on the cache, make one yourself (via the "report a problem" or similar wording when going to log a cache).

If there is/are NM log(s), or if your NM log from above goes unanswered for, say, a month, log a Needs Archived (via "report a problem") and explain the reason in the log.

 

Yes, if caches are out of repair and the cache owner has definitely disappeared, they should be archived. And the way to get that done is through NM and NA logs.

@TriciaG is right on the money. Do the courtesy of posting an NM first without jumping directly to the NA. Even though it may seem obvious the CO is inactive, but in rare circumstances they may actually be watching the status. 

 

But may I add that I will never do an armchair NM. Although I post lots of NMs, they are limited to caches I have actually visited. Although a month was suggested above, I usually wait much longer before following a non-response with an NA. Although most suggestions I have seen here in the forums have been a month, I usually give the CO the benefit of the doubt and wait about 90 days. More than plenty. Here is my most recent example:

 

Quote

Not found in 11 months with multiple DNFs. No response to Needs maintenance log in 3 months. Cache owner has not placed a cache in 99 months, found a cache in 93 months, or logged into website in 75 months. Time to archive and make room for new cache.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I've been caching for a few years and during that time I have logged many maintenance and NA's on many, many caches. I do not own any caches but cache with many really good cachers that are also CO's and maintain their caches on a regular basis and often with my help. I also find a never-ending amount of caches in disrepair or that they are just abandoned. This is very upsetting especially if I just hiked 10 miles to get to said cache.   I check the logs, profiles, archived caches in that CO's profile, and even try to contact the CO, on the spot, to see if I can fix the cache for he\she, etc etc etc before I resort to the dreaded NA.  Not being a CO I still carry a large number of new logs and baggies, replacement containers(NOT THROWDOWNS) and such, just in case which I shouldn't have to do.  The problem is that this IS the case for many many caches in and around the area I cache in.  AND it doesn't seem to matter how many NM logs are logged or if the CO is active or even if the CO even lives in the area anymore.  As most would agree, it's not my job to fix caches, but I always try and help.  So in the scenario of hiking 10 miles to find yet another cache in disrepair, should I fix the cache? Log a DNF?, Log  NM?, Log a NA?, only having to hike back to a place I've been before only because the CO never does any regular maintenance or is no longer active???????  So, what to do.  I believe inactive CO caches should be archived within a reasonable amount of time.  Be it 30days or 6 months, I don't care. If you don't want to be a CO then archive your caches and move on and stop making the rest of us miserable trying to find the cache that YOU don't care about anymore. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

Reviewers are doing this, in my experience.  Is it different in your area?

 

In some areas this doesn't seem to be the case. Thus all the "something needs to be done" posts we see (almost monthly). 

 

In my area our reviewers are quite responsive. But the red wrenches within 35 miles of my GZ run around the 700-800 mark. I've been watching for about 2 years now. Today it is 761. A steady 700-800 red wrench caches is quite a lot in my opinion, and that's in an area where reviewers are responsive.  That doesn't count all of the abandoned caches that have issues but no one will post an NM. In saturated areas it can be too difficult to weed out the good (not abandoned and in reasonably good shape) caches. 

Edited by L0ne.R
Grammar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

i agree too many red wrenches. If I had my wishes GS would start by sending all an automated email about cache maintenance have if worded to be less offensive then the dreaded CHS emails. Allow for bogus log full 2 years ago or some time period to simply go away.  Others request maintenance to be performed if not archive. Then really start monitoring them going forward. Should not take months or years to identify problem caches and get them archived. I'm sure the urban/remote, aussie/us arguments will be made. 

 

Going forward some mechanism needs to determine proactively cache abandonment. Check if user accounts are active, if not disable for a few months then archive.This will be controversial I know but in urban saturated areas this will open up areas for further enjoyment and avoid the crappy experiences that come fro time to time. 

 

Found a new cache today it was awesome and a very clever hide. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

But may I add that I will never do an armchair NM. Although I post lots of NMs, they are limited to caches I have actually visited. Although a month was suggested above, I usually wait much longer before following a non-response with an NA. Although most suggestions I have seen here in the forums have been a month, I usually give the CO the benefit of the doubt and wait about 90 days. More than plenty. Here is my most recent example:

 

Quote

Not found in 11 months with multiple DNFs. No response to Needs maintenance log in 3 months. Cache owner has not placed a cache in 99 months, found a cache in 93 months, or logged into website in 75 months. Time to archive and make room for new cache.

 

Why waste time talking about the CO? It's the cache you think should be archived, not the CO. If the cache needs to be archived, I don't care if the CO is active or not. If the cache doesn't need to be archived, it doesn't matter whether the CO is active or not.

 

My only disagreement with your approach is that I had the luxury of having a community of people that posted NAs, so I don't think I ever had to file an NA on top of my own NM. If I posted an NM and it was valid, someone would always post the NA later confirming my assessment and pointing out that too much time had passed without a response. In my area, the time was normally about a month before the NA. It's not a "benefit of the doubt" issue; an NA isn't accusing anyone of anything, it's just pointing out that the CO didn't respond to the NM, so it's time to give up. If the CO wants to speak up and ask for more time, he's free to do so.

 

I say all that in past tense because NAs are very rare now that reviewers have been given the responsibility of finding caches that should be archived without waiting for an NA.

Share this post


Link to post
On 21/09/2018 at 8:31 PM, speakers-corner said:

If I see there are 5+ DNF´s on a Cache I look to see if the owner is still active. If they are inactive for more than a year I write a NA explaining why.

I really don't want to get into this discussion, but That's a little presumptious, isn't it? 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2018 at 10:17 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

In some areas this doesn't seem to be the case. Thus all the "something needs to be done" posts we see (almost monthly). 

 

In my area our reviewers are quite responsive. But the red wrenches within 35 miles of my GZ run around the 700-800 mark. I've been watching for about 2 years now. Today it is 761. A steady 700-800 red wrench caches is quite a lot in my opinion, and that's in an area where reviewers are responsive.  That doesn't count all of the abandoned caches that have issues but no one will post an NM. In saturated areas it can be too difficult to weed out the good (not abandoned and in reasonably good shape) caches. 

 

OK.  I know that some reviewers have responsibility for "reaping," in addition to reviewing submissions - see e.g. the Thüringen regional wiki, which lists Servatius Sebaldus as the regional reaper.  Not all regions list local reapers, so I don't know if there is a definitive list.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the friendly e-mail is a first step in determining if a cache is abandoned.    The e-mail goes out when a cache has some sort of issue.   IMO the idea is to elicit some sort of response from the cache owner thus confirming that they are still active.   Any cache issue that's resolved by the e-mail is one less cache that will require reviewer attention.

 

I see the issue as a lack of cacher involvement.   I hear time and time again how a cache is in disrepair yet no one bothers to post a NM.  People shy away from posting DNF's because they perceive them as some sort of black mark on their caching ability.    Getting people to post the correct logs consistently is the key.  

 

We also have to also keep in mind that volunteer reviewers are just that,  volunteer.    Don't misunderstand me,  for the money they do a great job but being a volunteer reviewer is a part time endeavor.   They have regular lives like you and I and I'm sure a cache that's been disabled for two or three months isn't the most pressing issue in their lives.  Nor is a cache that's been disabled for an extended period of time a big deal to us cachers.    Now GS could decide to make the job a paying one but that would mean the day's of joining free would be over and your $30.00 premium membership would be going up substantially.   

 

If someone finds a cache with an issue and doesn't document it,  how is the next cacher suppose to know not to go looking for it?   How can the CHS or a reviewer act if the information being provided from the field is inconsistent or not provided at all?   

 

The only real way to determine if a cache owner is still active is Owner Maintenance logs which each owner should be posting every time they check on a cache or fix a problem.   It actually wouldn't hurt to post one just to say hi and encourage people to get out and find the cache.      

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

There's a CO in my area that has hundreds of hides and looking through their caches it appears they haven't done any maintenance in a few years. Most of their hides haven't been found in couple of years but there hasn't been any DNF logs either. What I don't understand is that other caches nearby were found recently. So I guess people just found all the other caches along this trail but decided to skip that one? I will look for it and if I don't find it I log a DNF. It's tempting to log a NM or NA to try and start the archiving process but I figure if I didn't find it then how do I know it needs maintenance or needs to be archived?

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, njsk8rdan said:

There's a CO in my area that has hundreds of hides and looking through their caches it appears they haven't done any maintenance in a few years. Most of their hides haven't been found in couple of years but there hasn't been any DNF logs either. What I don't understand is that other caches nearby were found recently. So I guess people just found all the other caches along this trail but decided to skip that one? I will look for it and if I don't find it I log a DNF. It's tempting to log a NM or NA to try and start the archiving process but I figure if I didn't find it then how do I know it needs maintenance or needs to be archived?

 

Were the caches that you feel might have maintenance issues placed earlier than the ones found now?

 - It could simply be that folks already found them, so of course they'd be skipped.    :)

We see that on the rare time we go back to a cache page (we found it in '08, with the last find last week :-) .

 

When going to an earlier, well placed  long-walk hide, leading to an awesome view,  I'll skip right by those later "left while on the way to..." pill bottles placed leading to it  (just because they can).  Simple, really.

 - Guess some think that it now gives those who normally don't walk any distance a reason to. 

I feel they just rode the back of that first guy's cool spot.    Parasites.  :D

 

I think it's great that someone writes a DNF if they don't find a cache after actively looking.

I don't think it's a good idea to NM or NA a cache when someone doesn't even know why others are passing it by...

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, njsk8rdan said:

There's a CO in my area that has hundreds of hides and looking through their caches it appears they haven't done any maintenance in a few years. Most of their hides haven't been found in couple of years but there hasn't been any DNF logs either. What I don't understand is that other caches nearby were found recently. So I guess people just found all the other caches along this trail but decided to skip that one? I will look for it and if I don't find it I log a DNF. It's tempting to log a NM or NA to try and start the archiving process but I figure if I didn't find it then how do I know it needs maintenance or needs to be archived?

Bravo!!!   Not only have you taken the time to look into these caches but, after some careful thought, have come to the right conclusion.   I too would have a hard time posting a NM on a cache I simply couldn't find even knowing the cache history.    The only caveat here is the cache owner has not checked in for some time.   In the help center under ownership after publication it suggests:    " To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived." 

 

Two points here. 

 

Although I basically agree with visiting your cache periodically,  some caches are remotely hidden and can be tough to access.  Also the word periodically can mean different things to different people.   There's a thread in this forum that covers that discussion at length.   The idea here is to encourage people to post owners maintenance logs regardless whether or not  a cache has a noted issue.   I think GS is hoping to get a more current picture of a cache owners status.      

 

"Unmaintained caches MAY be archived"  seems a little wishy washy to me.    Not sure why unmaintained wouldn't be archived unless the appropriate logs are not being posted on a regular basis.    

 

Now I notice on your profile you have 81 finds.  Congratulations on that.  It's a good start.  

 

When a cache is first placed it usually gets hit hard by all the regulars in the area.   After time the finds slow down.    A couple of years of no finds seems like a long time but depending on some factors,  like new cachers in your area,  it's not unheard of.    

 

Give it a shot and see if you can find it.   If not post a dnf and sleep the sleep of the just and the right knowing you did your part.    Good Luck and stay safe.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 1:58 PM, Bundyrumandcoke said:

I really don't want to get into this discussion, but That's a little presumptious, isn't it? 

I don't think so.   If there's footprints in the snow and mail in the box you can assume the mailman has been there.   I'd certainly pump the breaks on posting a NA on a cache if I've never searched for but IMO 5 dnf's is enough for at least an owner visit.  The fact that an owner would allow 5 dnf's without checking up on it and posting an owners maintenance log is a little suspicious,  regardless of the D/T.     

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, njsk8rdan said:

if I didn't find it then how do I know it needs maintenance or needs to be archived?

 

Very good question. The most propable reason for missing logs is that nowadays only few geocachers log DNFs at all. Normally you log NM if you find a cache with a problem you can't fix yourself and NA if you want to wake up the reviewer. But if you find nothing, you should log DNF if you dare. No one if expecting you to guess wether the cache needs maintenance or not but the cache owner and the reviewer expects you to log only DNF when you don't find it.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Were the caches that you feel might have maintenance issues placed earlier than the ones found now?

 - It could simply be that folks already found them, so of course they'd be skipped. 

Yes, they were placed earlier but there is no online log from a cacher that found the more recently placed cache on the page for the cache that might have maintenance issues. The CO hasn't found a cache in a couple of years and hasn't logged on in months. Their most recently archived caches have a note from a reviewer asking them to check on the cache, then it's archived by the reviewer because of no response from the CO.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, njsk8rdan said:

There's a CO in my area that has hundreds of hides and looking through their caches it appears they haven't done any maintenance in a few years. Most of their hides haven't been found in couple of years but there hasn't been any DNF logs either. What I don't understand is that other caches nearby were found recently. So I guess people just found all the other caches along this trail but decided to skip that one? I will look for it and if I don't find it I log a DNF. It's tempting to log a NM or NA to try and start the archiving process but I figure if I didn't find it then how do I know it needs maintenance or needs to be archived?

Good call. It's one thing to speculate that people are looking but not filing DNFs, but it's quite another to act as if you know that's true. In particular, don't convince yourself that the cache is missing before you ever look for it or you won't be able to find it whether it's there or not, dollars to donuts.

 

There's nothing wrong with making friends: why don't you ask some of the people you suspect of not logging DNFs whether they looked for it? That conversation will help them understand the value of logging DNFs, and it also will give you some additional information that might, in fact, give you enough supporting evidence to present in an NM despite the lack of logs to support the claim.

 

As I've said before, don't worry about whether the CO is "active". That's just a distraction: the cache needs maintenance or should be archived just the same whether the CO's active or not.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

The fact that an owner would allow 5 dnf's without checking up on it and posting an owners maintenance log is a little suspicious,  regardless of the D/T.

 

Regardless of the D/T? As I've said many times, a properly rated D5 where the difficulty is all in the cache concealment should rarely get anything but DNFs. Expecting the owner to go and check on it after every five DNFs, particularly if it's in a remote location where it's not going to get muggled or otherwise go missing of its own accord, is silly - the cache is working as designed. Take a look at this one (GC6T390) as an example of what I mean. It was hidden in 2016 and has only just had its FTF after 36 DNFs. Yes, the owner has checked on it several times, fending off NMs and an NA, and at one point said, "Please don't ask me to check again. It is a five star difficulty and is meant to be difficult. Please don't ask for hints because offence may be taken when refused. If you can't find my Forest Elbow cache, then you probably won't be able to find this one. Good luck everyone, you'll need it."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't think so.   If there's footprints in the snow and mail in the box you can assume the mailman has been there.   I'd certainly pump the breaks on posting a NA on a cache if I've never searched for but IMO 5 dnf's is enough for at least an owner visit.  The fact that an owner would allow 5 dnf's without checking up on it and posting an owners maintenance log is a little suspicious,  regardless of the D/T.     

 

Well, sorry, but I do think so. 

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1N6N4_the-torture-test-ccc-no-2?guid=b4df6a4c-5ecf-4338-a9f7-5fc875c7aeb5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Although I basically agree with visiting your cache periodically,  some caches are remotely hidden and can be tough to access.  Also the word periodically can mean different things to different people.   There's a thread in this forum that covers that discussion at length.   The idea here is to encourage people to post owners maintenance logs regardless whether or not  a cache has a noted issue.   I think GS is hoping to get a more current picture of a cache owners status.

 

I'm just wondering where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says to post an OM log at each visit even if no maintenance is performed. The only thing I can find kind of says the opposite:

Quote

Owner Maintenance: Tell geocachers and reviewers that you have visited your geocache and performed maintenance. This will remove the needs maintenance icon.

So, um, if there's no actual maintenance performed and no NMs to clear, where's the requirement for an OM specified?

 

One of my caches (GC664DZ) hasn't been found for nearly two years, although I've visited it numerous times since, usually after the school holidays to make sure people camping illegally in the reserve haven't messed with it. I've posted two more recent OMs on it when I did a bit of a clean-up around the first waypoint, until realising that what I wrote in the second OM was almost the same as the first. I'm mindful that PQs and GPX files contain a limited number of past logs so I don't want to fill that useful space with OMs just saying everything's fine or that I brushed away a few twigs and leaves.

 

As for periodicity of cache visits, well, it depends. Another of my hides, GC6JMDK, I've only visited once since I hid it in May 2016 and that was because I was bushwalking in the area with a muggle friend in July last year and wanted to show him the amazing GZ. It's a T4 with some pretty tough rock-hopping through thick scrub to reach and this time of year (mid spring) is bad for snakes, so I don't plan to visit it again until next winter at the earliest, unless there's a genuine need to go out there. The hiding place is sheltered from the elements and there's plenty of room in the logbook for the likely number of visitors it's ever going to get. I don't know if this makes it a neglected cache, but I guess some don't think so as it just won the Geocaching New South Wales Geocache of the Month for August.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just wondering where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says to post an OM log at each visit even if no maintenance is performed. The only thing I can find kind of says the opposite:

 

I tend to think of a visit to one of my own caches is a bit like putting my car in for its MOT.  Even if there’s nothing wrong with the car, I still get the certificate.  If there’s nothing wrong with my cache, I still post an OM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
Quote

Owner Maintenance: Tell geocachers and reviewers that you have visited your geocache and performed maintenance. This will remove the needs maintenance icon.

So, um, if there's no actual maintenance performed and no NMs to clear, where's the requirement for an OM specified?

Um... I think it's also clear, but the opposite way: it says to post an OM when you've visited your cache, so you should post an OM when you visited your cache. The fact that you might perform maintenance when you visited the cache or that there might be an NM flag to clear is just extra information. You say your two OM were the same, but they were significantly different: they had different dates. (Besides, just put a little effort into it and you can say something different each time. Do you like "TFTC" in other people's find logs? Then why do you think anyone else likes "Still there" in your OM logs?)

 

Still, I agree with you it's not a requirement. But why wouldn't you? (Don't answer that because it's a rhetorical question: I just today visited one of my caches and didn't post an OM for good reason, but normally I do post an OM just because why not mention that I checked it?) Furthermore, justintim1999 didn't say it was a requirement, either, so who are you arguing with?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Still, I agree with you it's not a requirement. But why wouldn't you? (Don't answer that because it's a rhetorical question: I just today visited one of my caches and didn't post an OM for good reason, but normally I do post an OM just because why not mention that I checked it?) Furthermore, justintim1999 didn't say it was a requirement, either, so who are you arguing with?

 

I read his line "I think GS is hoping to get a more current picture of a cache owners status" as implying there was something official saying that is what they want people to do and was wondering where it was.

 

As for why you wouldn't, as I said, the number of logs in a PQ is quite limited and I'd rather leave that space for finders' (and DNFers') logs that seekers might find helpful rather than a bunch of OMs each saying "everything's fine." As I said, I generally pay that cache a quick visit after each school holidays or heavy rain (with the present drought that hasn't happened for a couple of years), but unless I actually do something to the cache or have something worth saying about the state of GZ, there doesn't seem much point. Had I logged an OM with every visit, it'd have at least another eight racked up by now.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'd rather leave that space for finders' (and DNFers')

 

For me, a recent OM log on a cache is the best indication that it’s in the right place and in good condition.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

 

For me, a recent OM log on a cache is the best indication that it’s in the right place and in good condition.

 

If the CO does not hesitate to log OM then a Note is as good. I post OM logs when visiting my own caches.

 

I don't understand why DNF is so hard to post for so many players. To everyone, why you didn't post a DNF at the previous time you Did Not Find a cache?

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:

And this 4.5/2 cache is suppose to represent the majority of the caches that are hidden around the world?   This is an exception,   not the rule. 

 

Have you read the logs on this cache page?    This cache is actually a great example of how communication by the cache owner makes a big difference on how the cache is treated by reviewers

 

12/3/11     Published

12/21/11   Owners Maintenance Log 

1/5/12        Owners Maintenance Log 

1/22/12      Owners Maintenance Log 

2/14/12      Cache Transferred

2/23/12      Owners Maintenance Log 

5/4/12        Found

5/14/12     Owner Disables Cache

6/27/12     Owners note about cache

8/2/12       Owners note about cache

8/29/12     Owners note about cache

9/1/12       Reviewer thanks owner for updates (I though this was very telling)

9/2/12       Owner enables cache

9/23/12     Owners Maintenance Log 

10/4/12    Owner Disables Cache 

12/9/12    Owner Archives Cache

 

If I were a reviewer and looked at this cache and specifically the owners commitment to maintenance and communication,  I wouldn't bat an eyelash at the number of dnfs.

The only reviewer note I saw apart from the cache being published was a note thanking the cache owner for keeping on top of things.  

 

In this case there were a lot of people trying to find the cache within the first month or so of publication.   Since the cache is a 4.5/2  I'm sure the reviewer expected to see many dnfs.    I have no idea how the CHS would handle a cache like this because I don't know exactly how the CHS works but knowing what I do know I'd say the CHS was designed to help handle the millions of caches out there that fall within a more normal T/D.     

 

 

Edited by justintim1999
Bifrost D/T mistake
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm just wondering where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says to post an OM log at each visit even if no maintenance is performed. The only thing I can find kind of says the opposite:

So, um, if there's no actual maintenance performed and no NMs to clear, where's the requirement for an OM specified?

 

One of my caches (GC664DZ) hasn't been found for nearly two years, although I've visited it numerous times since, usually after the school holidays to make sure people camping illegally in the reserve haven't messed with it. I've posted two more recent OMs on it when I did a bit of a clean-up around the first waypoint, until realising that what I wrote in the second OM was almost the same as the first. I'm mindful that PQs and GPX files contain a limited number of past logs so I don't want to fill that useful space with OMs just saying everything's fine or that I brushed away a few twigs and leaves.

 

As for periodicity of cache visits, well, it depends. Another of my hides, GC6JMDK, I've only visited once since I hid it in May 2016 and that was because I was bushwalking in the area with a muggle friend in July last year and wanted to show him the amazing GZ. It's a T4 with some pretty tough rock-hopping through thick scrub to reach and this time of year (mid spring) is bad for snakes, so I don't plan to visit it again until next winter at the earliest, unless there's a genuine need to go out there. The hiding place is sheltered from the elements and there's plenty of room in the logbook for the likely number of visitors it's ever going to get. I don't know if this makes it a neglected cache, but I guess some don't think so as it just won the Geocaching New South Wales Geocache of the Month for August.

See my reply to Bundyrumandcoke above.   This is exactly why posting OMLS can be very important.

Edited by justintim1999

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

If the CO does not hesitate to log OM then a Note is as good. I post OM logs when visiting my own caches.

 

I don't understand why DNF is so hard to post for so many players. To everyone, why you didn't post a DNF at the previous time you Did Not Find a cache?

A Note may or may not be as good for other cachers but in regards to the CHS and Reviewers it's not because the CHS can't interpret the information contained in a note and a Reviewer has to take the time to read the note to get the same information an OML would provide at a glance.      

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just wondering where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says to post an OM log at each visit even if no maintenance is performed. The only thing I can find kind of says the opposite:

 

I tend to think of a visit to one of my own caches is a bit like putting my car in for its MOT.  Even if there’s nothing wrong with the car, I still get the certificate.  If there’s nothing wrong with my cache, I still post an OM.

 

I agree.  Whether I am actually fixing something or just checking things out, I log Owner Maintenance.  Maybe folks ignore it, maybe it has no effect on cache health score.  But someone out there's going to see that and be reassured that I'm still paying attention to the cache. 

 

If I visit and log nothing, how else are they going to know that I'm not just presumed to be keeping an eye on the cache, but have actually put my eyes on the cache and given an assurance that nine o'clock and all's well?

 

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

As for why you wouldn't, as I said, the number of logs in a PQ is quite limited and I'd rather leave that space for finders' (and DNFers') logs that seekers might find helpful rather than a bunch of OMs each saying "everything's fine." As I said, I generally pay that cache a quick visit after each school holidays or heavy rain (with the present drought that hasn't happened for a couple of years), but unless I actually do something to the cache or have something worth saying about the state of GZ, there doesn't seem much point. Had I logged an OM with every visit, it'd have at least another eight racked up by now.

 

That's fair, I had not considered that.  Maybe I wouldn't post an OM each and every time if I visited a cache that often. 

 

Perhaps pick a number between 0 and 8, and in the logs you do leave, indicate how regularly you have stopped by, seen no issues, and left no OM log?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would rather see an Owner Maintenance log in the last five logs than seeing five "TFTC" logs.  All other things being equal, I'm more likely to visit a cache if I know it was checked by the owner recently.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Leprechauns said:

I would rather see an Owner Maintenance log in the last five logs than seeing five "TFTC" logs.  All other things being equal, I'm more likely to visit a cache if I know it was checked by the owner recently.

I think visiting a cache to verify that it's okay does count as owner maintenance, but at the same time, I think posting 5 OM logs in a row indicates a problem, not a cache in great condition.

 

I've had caches that I have visited more often than they were found. But I wouldn't post an OM log just because I visited the cache location. If the previous log is an OM, then I'm not going to post a second "all's well" OM log. For that matter, if the previous log is a recent Find that indicated that all is well, then I'm not going to post a first "all's well" OM log. If the previous log indicates that all is well (whether it's an OM or a Find), then I'm only going to post an OM if something else was going on, if I had to actually do something to fix the cache.

 

I don't want to clutter the cache's log history with "all's well" OM logs, and I don't think doing so is a sign of a good cache owner.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×