Maintained It = Didn't Maintain It

[+TriciaG]

In the spirit of the thread "Found It = Didn't Find It" comes this one, where you're invited to post Owner Maintenance logs where maintenance was clearly not performed.

 

Please, no naming of the cache or cache owner; just the log, please!

 

Here's the log that prompted this thread:

 

Quote

• Log Type: Owner Maintenance
• Date: 01/19/2019
• Location: ---
• Type: Traditional Cache

Log: I will check on this one as soon as i can when its not snowing, (large amounts of snow can make this one really hard to find) hopefully on the next mild day i will go have a look at it as it's close by.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

 

Owner Maintenance

Dec/10/2018

Maintenance will not be completed until Spring. Enjoy the view in the mean time.

[+JL_HSTRE]

8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Owner Maintenance

Dec/10/2018

Maintenance will not be completed until Spring. Enjoy the view in the mean time.

 

If the cache isn't Disabled this seems like an invite to treat the cache as a Virtual, thus grounds for a NA (or at least a message to a Reviewer).

[+IceColdUK]

14 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

If the cache isn't Disabled this seems like an invite to treat the cache as a Virtual, thus grounds for a NA (or at least a message to a Reviewer).

 

How can you possibly say this without context?  For all you know the ‘Needs Maintenance’ may have simply been for a wet logbook.  Surely, the cache wouldn’t need to be archived just because of a misused OM log?

[+Goldenwattle]

DNF
DNF
DNF
DNF
DNF

 

Found it " There is a lot we wanted to write to this cache and the recent logs, but we think this is not required as everyone can make up their own mind. Last time we spent 30 minutes searching for this well hidden cache with GPS putting us in a spot where there is nothing close to the hint. Some would call this lazy caching. Today with a fresh set of eyes and the GPS pointing to a different location we made the find within minutes. While it is understandble why the CO was sure that the cache was still in place the actions by other cachers still seem reasonable with a long list of DNFs and no action to a 'Needs Maintenance' log. TFTC "

 

Owner Maintenance "(Cacher's name) don't be an arsehole, you think I don't check my caches? So over lazy people looking for this THREE STAR cache as if it was a one star. There was also a good reason for my comment which I told the reviewer. Cache now has a new log. It was exactly where it should be "

 

Reviewer Temporarily Disable Listing

 

NM June " Sounds like you are guessing, so best to check, so as to reassure searchers. It hasn't been found since October last year. If this were my cache I would have checked long before this. Finders need reassurance that there is a cache to find. Plus with so many DNFs, there might be a tendency for people to have quicker searchers than they might otherwise."

 

Owner Maintenance "I I'm pretty sure this is still in place."

NA

DNF

DNF

DNF

NM

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

How can you possibly say this without context?  For all you know the ‘Needs Maintenance’ may have simply been for a wet logbook.

 

That's why I said seems, and noted that whether the cache was Disabled or not was important. However, the language "Enjoy the view in the mean time." in context of the log posted, that statement is all too reminiscent of language used in other cache listings I have seen over the years where a physical cache has been temporarily or indefinitely treated as a Virtual by the CO.

 

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Surely, the cache wouldn’t need to be archived just because of a misused OM log?

 

In this case NA = NRA (Needs Reviewer Attention). Disable the listing until maintenance is performed and remind the CO it can't be turned into a Virtual. The big concern is not the misuse of the OM (that's a small concern), but the (implied) treatment of the cache as a Virtual until maintenance occurs.

Edited January 21, 2019 by JL_HSTRE

[+Goldenwattle]

A cache published by a well known armchair logger. Almost certainly as real as their (non) finds and logs. So, the maintenance logs were likely done from their armchair. After many DNFs by experienced very cachers I wrote a log explaining that this person was an armchair logger and giving examples, to warn people about them. Naturally it was deleted by the CO, as I suspect were other people's similar logs.

 

CO archived it

DNF

NA

Temporary Disable Listing: "some one has put a fake cache here or it was a miracle that some one recently lost a new spray painted mint tin. we are disabling the cache until we visit on saturday to check our container and remove fake containers."

Write Note

Write Note (They said they found a minie tin and had messaged the CO asking if this was it)

Owner Maintenance

Reviewer Asked to see a photograph of cache in place

NA

Write Note " Either it exists and is very, very poorly placed, or the troll gets the last laugh at all of us searching, "

NM

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

DNF

Write Note " "trolls ----", apt name I suspect."

DNF

DNF

DNF

Owner Maintenance

" another weekend spent in the bay. a quick check on our cache and yes he is still sleeping peacefully. just a reminder not to move any sleeping trolls. we will be back in the bay saturday week. "

DNF

DNF

Owner Maintenance " we have just come back from the weekend in batemans bay. we checked on the cache and it is still safe. there has been lots of movement in the area so make sure you dont move the rocks to much. a hint is homemade camoflage. be stealthy and gentle. "

DNF

DNF

DNF

Owner Maintenance

" back in the bay for the weekend and we checked up on our cache.
the troll is still safely asleep exactly how we placed him "

DNF

CO Write Note:  we will be ...... next week to check on the cache

DNF

CO Write Note: " i think we have underestimated the difficulty level of this cache. we might have to increase the difficulty again? "

DNF

DNF

CO Write Note: "difficulty level is raised to 3 because people couldnt find the cache

remember to look where trolls live
and dont move a sleeping troll"

DNF

Edited January 21, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+MtnGoat50]

Quote

Log Type: Owner Maintenance

Date: 01/04/2019

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:
This cache is under snow!! Once I can get to it I'll check on it.

 

Quote

Log Type: Owner Maintenance

Date: 01/12/2019

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:
Found a replacement!! Hope to get there this week and replace it. Thanks for your patience!

 

Quote

Log Type: Owner Maintenance

Date: 01/06/2019

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:
Had alot come but will repair soon

 

Quote

Log Type: Owner Maintenance

Date: 01/02/2019

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:
I will get on this one soon. I had forgotten about it.

 

 

Quote

 

Log Type: Owner Maintenance

Date: 12/25/2018

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:
As of 25 December, there is still construction happening very close to the cache location. Since they have a lot of stuff going on and security posted to watch the site, it is not possible to check this one or allow others to find it. I will take appropriate action when it is possible.

 

 

There you go, I can probably find more... 

 

The thing is if you are using the, "new logging experience" the default log type is, "Owner Maintenance".  It's easy for experienced cachers to forget to change it and new cachers assume (quite reasonably) that any log they post on one of their own caches should be OM. 

 

I think the default should either be "Write Note" or (like the old logging experience) no default. As long as it stays the way it is I find it hard to be very upset with people making this mistake. 

 

[+K13]

26 minutes ago, MtnGoat50 said:

 

 

 

 

 

There you go, I can probably find more... 

 

The thing is if you are using the, "new logging experience" the default log type is, "Owner Maintenance".  It's easy for experienced cachers to forget to change it and new cachers assume (quite reasonably) that any log they post on one of their own caches should be OM. 

 

I think the default should either be "Write Note" or (like the old logging experience) no default. As long as it stays the way it is I find it hard to be very upset with people making this mistake. 

 

 

Yes, this looks like another failure from the default choice being made by the site. Do the developers really believe that the users are too inept to select the log type, and need a default selection made for them?  SMH

[+barefootjeff]

45 minutes ago, MtnGoat50 said:

The thing is if you are using the, "new logging experience" the default log type is, "Owner Maintenance".  It's easy for experienced cachers to forget to change it and new cachers assume (quite reasonably) that any log they post on one of their own caches should be OM. 

 

Yes, here's one by me that on first glance looks fine...

 

 

...except I'd disabled the cache a few days earlier while I carried out repairs and this was meant to be an Enable log, not an OM.

 

If HQ think having default log types isn't causing any problems, maybe they should change the default owner log to Archive and see what happens.

[+colleda]

2 hours ago, MtnGoat50 said:

 

 

 

 

 

There you go, I can probably find more... 

 

The thing is if you are using the, "new logging experience" the default log type is, "Owner Maintenance".  It's easy for experienced cachers to forget to change it and new cachers assume (quite reasonably) that any log they post on one of their own caches should be OM. 

 

I think the default should either be "Write Note" or (like the old logging experience) no default. As long as it stays the way it is I find it hard to be very upset with people making this mistake. 

 

I've been caught out like that with one of my own. Thought I had WN'd it.

[+L0ne.R]

Then there are the questionable OMs after a Reviewer Disable.

 

This one had "soaked" logs since 2015. 5 NMs since 2015. "Water container needs to have water repeatedly dumped out".

Another NM in 2016. Followed by a Reviewer Disable a day later.

An OM a few days later "Placed a replacement cache this morning, all good to go."  11/02/2016. 

 Followed by this finder log on 11/27/2016 "Unfortunately the container was full of water and the logbook was soaked". 

 

Followed by dozens of Find logs (yet no NMs) that reported a soaked container:

 

"Found it upside down, with water in everything"

"soaked unsignable log"

"The log was not usable"

"sopping wet"

"Container was pretty wet"

"container was sitting in water"

"Geocache could definitely use maintenance"

"It had water in it and the baggie holding the log book was unzipped, so it was soaked"

"The cache was full of water"

"Water was in the container. "

"The cache is in poor shape."

"Cache container and log wet."

"Cache is water damaged."

"The area where the cache is filled with water."

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by L0ne.R
clarity

[+NanCycle]

Premium Member (Me)

Needs Archived

01/20/2019

This geocacher reported that this geocache should be archived. A community volunteer reviewer has been notified.

 

Premium Member (Me) 

Write note

01/20/2019

Didn't look for it because cache was apparently removed 2 1/2 years ago without being disabled. No updates from CO in all that time. There may also be an issue of private property.

 

Premium Member 

Didn't find it

08/18/2018

We were driven by by here and thought we would go for this one but we couldn’t find anything at the GZ.

 

Premium Member

Didn't find it

10/17/2017

No luck at gz

 

Member (CO)

Owner Maintenance

07/12/2016

Sorry everyone! It appears they are going to do some construction where this cache was near, so I am going to have to relocate it. As soon as it has a new home I will update the website. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Member

Needs Maintenance

07/06/2016

When I took grandson to this cache, [Someone] came out and told me it was private property, he was going to remove it, PLEASE contact [Someone]!, or this cache will be gone

 

[+CAVinoGal]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If HQ think having default log types isn't causing any problems, maybe they should change the default owner log to Archive and see what happens.

 Oh, that would be interesting...   

[+J Grouchy]

On 1/20/2019 at 9:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, here's one by me that on first glance looks fine...

 

 

...except I'd disabled the cache a few days earlier while I carried out repairs and this was meant to be an Enable log, not an OM.

 

If HQ think having default log types isn't causing any problems, maybe they should change the default owner log to Archive and see what happens.

 

How about this? Don't have a default log type at all.  Force the user to select a log type before it can be sent.  

[+The A-Team]

7 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

How about this? Don't have a default log type at all.  Force the user to select a log type before it can be sent.  

...but, but, then we've have to click more! TWO MORE TIMES! Once to open the drop-down, and another time to select the log type. ON EVERY LOG! Why are you wanting to make things so much harder for all of us???!!!!1!!

 

 

(seriously, though, this just makes so much sense)

[+Rikitan]

12 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

How about this? Don't have a default log type at all.  Force the user to select a log type before it can be sent.  

 

I agree - when logging OWNED caches - owner's intentions are quite variable:

• I may want to inform the world, that I've completed maintenance - yes.
• But I just may want to post simple note about anything related with my cache - not completed maintenance.
• Often, sadly, I need to post Disable listing log.
• Less often, Update Coordinates, sometimes Enable and when the time comes - Archive.

Saying that - OM log is not so dominant and therefore it's wrong to make it Default. There should be no Default, because none of these is clearly most prevalent.

From couriosity and to demonstrate my statements - I checked my own total counts of these logs, posted in last 14 years:

• Owner Maintenance: 964 times
• Write Note: 2136 times (includes Notes on other caches, not only mine - can't split them)
• Temporarily Disable Listing: 346 times
• Enable listing: 322 times
• Update Coordinates: 57 times
• Archive: 55 times

Here's a link where anyone can check his own logs and their counts: https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=46

 

----------------------------

 

When logging other caches, not owned - I'm okay with Found it log being Default. It's clearly most usual. Around 80% in my case, perhaps higher for average player.

When logging future events, Will Attend should stay Default.

When logging past events, Attended should stay Default.

When logging Webcams, Webcam photo taken should stay Default.

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Rikitan

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, Rikitan said:

When logging other caches, not owned - I'm okay with Found it log being Default. It's clearly most usual. Around 80% in my case, perhaps higher for average player.

When logging future events, Will Attend should stay Default.

When logging past events, Attended should stay Default.

When logging Webcams, Webcam photo taken should stay Default.

 

I disagree with defaults on any of these logs too. For the sake of saving one or two mouse clicks, the defaults create errors that would not have otherwise occurred. My caches don't get many finds but since the change to the logging page I've already had to question two Found It logs where the text made it clear it was meant to be a DNF, and yes, on both occasions the logger agreed it was meant to be a DNF and changed it. I'm sure a fair percentage of the derided Found It = Didn't Find It logs were due to uninententional errors caused by this default log type.

[+Rikitan]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I disagree with defaults on any of these logs too. For the sake of saving one or two mouse clicks, the defaults create errors that would not have otherwise occurred. My caches don't get many finds but since the change to the logging page I've already had to question two Found It logs where the text made it clear it was meant to be a DNF, and yes, on both occasions the logger agreed it was meant to be a DNF and changed it. I'm sure a fair percentage of the derided Found It = Didn't Find It logs were due to uninententional errors caused by this default log type.

 

Yes, as CO, I experience this as well. That's why I used formulation:

Quote

When logging other caches, not owned - I'm okay with Found it log being Default. 

 

I would also be OK if there would be no Default log, when logging physical cache of different owner. I don't mind 2 more clicks, personally. 

 

----

 

However, when logging future and past events - there's little reason to cancel Default log (Will Attend, Attended) - they are far the most prevalent and should stay - to save millions of clicks by all users worldwide.

[+L0ne.R]

Owner Maintenance 12/09/2017

Will get out to check on Stg 2.
In the meantime, if anybody needs help, just message me.

 

--------------------

 

This was posted after an NM. The owner still hasn't fixed stage 2. You have to message the owner to get past stage 2. Stage 3 was reported missing in a Note log. People have reported finding the final using the PAF method. No more NMs since the 2017 OM. 

[+J Grouchy]

Just now, L0ne.R said:

Owner Maintenance 12/09/2017

Will get out to check on Stg 2.
In the meantime, if anybody needs help, just message me.

 

--------------------

 

This was posted after an NM. The owner still hasn't fixed stage 2. You have to message the owner to get past stage 2. Stage 3 was reported missing in a Note log. People have reported finding the final using the PAF method. No more NMs since the 2017 OM. 

 

Sounds like an NA is in order, with a description of everything that is still an ongoing issue with no maintenance.

[+me N u]

Oldest entry 1st:

 

Temporarily Disable Listing

23/07/2018

In view of recent DNFs will disable and check if cache still here.

 

Owner Maintenance

03/10/2018

Have not forgotten this one. I will sort it out shortly.

 

Post Reviewer Note

19/12/2018

We noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess of the "4 weeks" as contemplated by Guidelines.

The Geocache Maintenance guideline explains a CO's responsibility towards checking and maintaining the cache when problems are reported.

Please can you either repair/replace this cache, or archive it (using the archive listing link in the upper right) so that someone else can place a cache in the area,

If you plan on repairing this cache, please log a note to the cache (not email) within 30 days so we don't archive the listing for non-communication.

 

Owner Maintenance

22/12/2018

Will sort out over the next 30 days.

 

Owner Maintenance

14/01/2019

Will be sorted shortly.

[+TriciaG]

Owner Maintenance

01/19/2019

I will check on this one as soon as i can when its not snowing, (large amounts of snow can make this one really hard to find) hopefully on the next mild day i will go have a look at it as its close by.
 

[+allrounder]

Write note

20 Jan 19

Shouldn't that be a note rather than an Owner Maintenance log given you haven't done any actual maintenance??

 

Owner Maintenance

20 Jan 19

I will check that one

 

Didn't find it

11 Jan 19

No luck.

 

Needs Maintenance

11 Jan 19

Just a reminder for the CO if they didn't check this one back in October...thanks

 

Didn't find it

11 Jan 19

[…]Did the CO check up on it as promised back in October last year?

 

Owner Maintenance

05 Oct 18

will check update tomorrow

 

Didn't find it

29 Sep 18

Maybe we were tired. We looked but did not find.
On our list for another day.

 

Found it

19 Aug 18

Quick easy find ?

[+Goldenwattle]

Another CO doing an Owner Maintenance without checking...at least the first time. I quote the CO - "I'm pretty sure this is still in place." I colour coded this. The same colour for different logs is the same geocacher.

 

 Didn't find it   17/Feb/2019

Didn't find it   02/Jan/2019

Didn't find it   04/Nov/2018

Didn't find it  28/Oct/2018

Didn't find it  27/Oct/2018

Didn't find it  19/Sep/2018

Found it  04/Jul/2018

There is a lot we wanted to write to this cache and the recent logs, but we think this is not required as everyone can make up their own mind. Last time we spent 30 minutes searching for this well hidden cache with GPS putting us in a spot where there is nothing close to the hint. Some would call this lazy caching. Today with a fresh set of eyes and the GPS pointing to a different location we made the find within minutes. While it is understanding why the CO was sure that the cache was still in place the actions by other cachers still seem reasonable with a long list of DNFs and no action to a 'Needs Maintenance' log. TFTC

 

Enable Listing 01/Jul/2018

It was there just like every time before. Not inactive just not found

Owner Maintenance  01/Jul/2018

(Geocacher name of NM of 30/Jun/2018) don't be an arsehole, you think I don't check my caches? So over lazy people looking for this THREE STAR cache as if it was a one star. There was also a good reason for my comment which I told the reviewer. Cache now has a new log. It was exactly where it should be

Reviewer Temporarily Disable Listing  01/Jul/2018

Needs Maintenance  30/Jun/2018

Sounds like you are guessing, so best to check, so as to reassure searchers. It hasn't been found since October last year. If this were my cache I would have checked long before this. Finders need reassurance that there is a cache to find. Plus with so many DNFs, there might be a tendency for people to have quicker searchers than they might otherwise.

Owner Maintenance  30/Jun/2018

I'm pretty sure this is still in place.

Needs Archived  28/Jun/2018

Didn't find it  28/Jun/2018

 

Didn't find it  07/Jun/2018

 

Didn't find it  05/May/2018

Needs Maintenance  23/Apr/2018

CO needs to check this one to either replace, or reassure people it is still here. Without reassurance and with DNFs this can stop many people from attempting this one. Has not been found since October last year.

 

Didn't find it  23/Apr/2018

 

Didn't find it  19/Feb/2018

 

Didn't find it  17/Feb/2018

 

Didn't find it  16/Oct/2017

Found it  10/Oct/2017

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+colleda]

Missed it by that much.   Premium Member 553 Owner Maintenance 25/10/2015 This cache has been replaced. Please be sure to log your TravelBugs. Happy Caching!

Reviewer Archive 23/07/2015 As the owner has not responded to my prior note, I am archiving the listing. xxxxxxxxx Reviewer Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

Reviewer  Temporarily Disable Listing 02/07/2015 This geocache came to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either fix any problems or archive the listing, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Guidelines: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx?expand=1#cachemaintenance I've added this cache to a bookmark list, and I will check back in three weeks or so to be sure that the maintenance has been done, or that an explanation has been provided. In the meantime, I have temporarily disabled this listing. When the maintenance is completed, the owner can re-enable the listing by entering an 'enable listing' log. If the problem persists, I will need to archive this listing for lack of maintenance. Happy Caching, Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

[+L0ne.R]

Another local OM=Didn’t maintain

 

Owner Maintenance

03/25/2018

Cache requires maintenance. Do not bother trying to find right now. New container is ready to go; I'll update once it's been swapped out. Thanks.

[+Harry Dolphin]

89 Owner Maintenance 10/19/2018 Seems this one went to davey Jones locker. I’ll post when a new cache is placed. Even the chain was eaten by the sea.  Keep posted for updates.

Didn't find it 08/05/2018 (We) were caching (here) for the day and stopped to find this one. It looked like the tide was low, but we weren't able to find this one. Will have to return for another try when the tide is certain to be at its lowest.

Didn't find it 08/05/2018 Here today at 2:24 p.m. Thinking low tide has passed since the GPS wanted us to wade about 50' into the water. Wondering what we might have found if we could have gotten out there  Cache has been lonely for some time (last found October 2017). Will Watchlist for now.

[+L0ne.R]

Owner Maintenance

07/07/2017

I haven't been able to properly change the coordinates.. I have tried and don't know how to do it apparently! We are going to move this cache to a new location and repost in the near future!

[+noncentric]

Pretty sure that not understanding what the OM log type means, and having OM be the default CO log type selection, is a big part of the problem.

 

Quote

 

Owner Maintenance

03/22/2019

Thank you all for notifying me, I will make my way down there ASAP to give this one some care

 

 

 

[+K13]

3 hours ago, noncentric said:

Pretty sure that not understanding what the OM log type means, and having OM be the default CO log type selection, is a big part of the problem.

 

 

 

More proof that the default log should be removed from the site. Force a cacher to select the log type, and they always choose the one they intended. Populate a default in the box, and errors happen quite often.

[+Goldenwattle]

CO (less than 300 finds) did an Owner Maintenance without fixing what the NM mentioned; that the coordinates were out (mentioned by many finders over the years). Then threw a tizzy-fit and archived the cache after this was pointed out to them.

 

Feb 26             Archive      co-ordinates will always be out depending on which day you go as there can be up to a 20m variance in any coordinates. This should be known by anyone using gps

Feb 26             Temporarily Disable Listing the co-ordinates where not out they where checked today.. i think people need to be aware of

Feb 26             Note    But you haven't fixed the coordinates. Read people's logs

Feb 26             OM      maintenance has been performed and is in good working order

Jan 19              NM      CO, time to correct those coordinates, which are about 24 metres out.

Jan 19              Coords way out.

Jan 19              I think the coordinates were a little bit out

Dec 18             Thankfully the hint help out heaps here, as the GZ was 26m off today.

Nov 18            The coordinates are about 24 metres out and need correction.

Apr 18             the coords were out by 20metres for us

Apr 18             I made it about 50ft out.

Nov 17           We found the cache around 25m from where the GPS said we should be looking.

Nov 16             GPS had me over near the road which proved wrong.

Sep 16             my GPS was out and tried to take me to the middle of the road!!

Dec 15         both our GPS units indicated that we were 24m from GZ.

[+TriciaG]

Well, I dunno. Coordinates CAN be out, but OTOH, so many people saying the same thing (and assuming they were all off the same amount AND in the same direction) requires consideration.

[+The Jester]

1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

Well, I dunno. Coordinates CAN be out, but OTOH, so many people saying the same thing (and assuming they were all off the same amount AND in the same direction) requires consideration.

But with the accuracy of GPSr's at 10 meters (~30 feet) or better, 24 meters (~80 feet) is pretty bad.

[+noncentric]

On 4/6/2019 at 5:40 AM, Goldenwattle said:

CO (less than 300 finds) did an Owner Maintenance without fixing what the NM mentioned; that the coordinates were out (mentioned by many finders over the years). Then threw a tizzy-fit and archived the cache after this was pointed out to them.

 

Maybe the CO "corrected" the coordinates on the cache page, but not by submitting an "Update Coordinates" log.  Not sure if it would help, but I usually include a link to the appropriate Help Center page when I mention in a Found It or NM log that the posted coords should be updated.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

 

Maybe the CO "corrected" the coordinates on the cache page, but not by submitting an "Update Coordinates" log.  Not sure if it would help, but I usually include a link to the appropriate Help Center page when I mention in a Found It or NM log that the posted coords should be updated.

There was no mention that they had ever updated the coordinates. I have met this problem with some geocachers before, but they let it be known they 'updated' the coordinates. With no communication from this CO, I'd say they didn't. Also, if they did have trouble with updating the coordinates, as they didn't know how, all they had to do was say this in a log and someone would have assisted them. But not a word from them about the coordinates; despite this mentioned by many finders. Some people are unwilling to accept they can make a mistake.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 4/6/2019 at 3:57 PM, TriciaG said:

Well, I dunno. Coordinates CAN be out, but OTOH, so many people saying the same thing (and assuming they were all off the same amount AND in the same direction) requires consideration.

 

Out of curiosity, did any of those logs provide a suggested set of coordinates where the the cache was found.    I had a cache that someone "hide in a better spot"  and started getting "coordinates are off logs", but nobody sent a PM or added coordinates where the cache was actually found.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Out of curiosity, did any of those logs provide a suggested set of coordinates where the the cache was found.    I had a cache that someone "hide in a better spot"  and started getting "coordinates are off logs", but nobody sent a PM or added coordinates where the cache was actually found.

I can't remember for sure, but I think so.

[+L0ne.R]

Owner Maintenance

08/12/2017

I have removed the Cache and have taken it home.
This weekend I will figure out what needs to be done in order to repair this Cache.

 

He's been working on it for 8 months. He left a 'note' in December saying "Work in progress". 

[+noncentric]

Owner Maintenance

... As you can tell, from previous logs (and due to the cache container not being really even remotely waterproof!!) the log is definitely soggy and virtually unsignable. We've replaced the Rite in the Rain paper SO many times but it only holds up for so long. We have had some really nice log entries about the container, though, so we want to keep the cache where it is - but by no means should you feel like you have to sign the log to earn that smiley!! ...

[+The A-Team]

Owner Maintenance

Apparently it went missing between yesteady and today. I will be replacing it tonight.

Hang on all you that are vying for a FTF.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Owner Maintenance

10/19/2018

Seems this one went to davey Jones locker. I’ll post when a new cache is placed. Even the chain was eaten by the sea. 
Keep posted for updates.

[+The A-Team]

Owner Maintenance

Have a new cache ready to go. When road works are finished I will place it

[+K13]

Maybe someone should repost a NM after those OM logs that say the CO is going to fix it sometime in the future.

[+Max and 99]

 

• Log Type: Owner Maintenance

I will go by and check on this one tomorrow morning.

[+L0ne.R]

Premium Member 1336 Owner Maintenance 05/06/2019 I'm just waiting for the dry weather to be here for at least a day before we get on those muddy trails. I will be out there soon!

Premium Member 1336 Owner Maintenance 04/26/2019 I will be out to replace this cache when the rain stops. The lower trail is flooded, but I think I can still get in on the upper trail.

Reviewer Temporarily Disable Listing 04/25/2019

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, K13 said:

Maybe someone should repost a NM after those OM logs that say the CO is going to fix it sometime in the future.

I did that once. Did I get told off by the owner for that. I'm a big girl and can take that though . I just thought they were stupid and a lazy CO. The supportive email from another cacher and the supportive log were appreciated though. (Oldest log is at bottom of page.)

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Found it   There is a lot we wanted to write to this cache and the recent logs, but we think this is not required as everyone can make up their own mind. Last time we spent 30 minutes searching for this well hidden cache with GPS putting us in a spot where there is nothing close to the hint. Some would call this lazy caching. Today with a fresh set of eyes and the GPS pointing to a different location we made the find within minutes. While it is understandble why the CO was sure that the cache was still in place the actions by other cachers still seem reasonable with a long list of DNFs and no action to a 'Needs Maintenance' log. TFTC  (Another cacher; not me)

Enable Listing  It was there just like every time before. Not inactive just not found

Owner Maintenance   Golden wattle don't be an arsehole, you think I don't check my caches? So over lazy people looking for this THREE STAR cache as if it was a one star. There was also a good reason for my comment which I told the reviewer. Cache now has a new log. It was exactly where it should be.  (Yes, I think they don't check their caches - see their OM log below)

 

Reviewer

 

Needs Maintenance     Sounds like you are guessing, so best to check, so as to reassure searchers. It hasn't been found since October last year. If this were my cache I would have checked long before this. Finders need reassurance that there is a cache to find. Plus with so many DNFs, there might be a tendency for people to have quicker searchers than they might otherwise.   (MY NM)

Owner Maintenance     I'm pretty sure this is still in place.       (Seems the CO didn't check their cache and is guessing)

Needs Archived  (Another cacher; not me)

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Needs Maintenance   CO needs to check this one to either replace, or reassure people it is still here. Without reassurance and with DNFs this can stop many people from attempting this one. Has not been found since October last year.  (My log)

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Didn't find it

Edited May 22, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+The A-Team]

21 hours ago, K13 said:

Maybe someone should repost a NM after those OM logs that say the CO is going to fix it sometime in the future.

 

I've considered it before. I'm hesitant to stick my nose into a situation that I'm not already involved in, though, so I'm waiting for a "non-OM" after one of my own NMs.

[+L0ne.R]

Reviewer Archive 02/17/2019

Reviewer Temporarily Disable Listing 01/2019

L0ne.R Premium Member 3395 Needs Archived 01/2019 This geocacher reported that this geocache should be archived. A community volunteer reviewer has been notified.

L0ne.R [Back to try again 2 months later, still missing] Premium Member 3395 Didn't find it 01/2019 Still missing. Is the owner no longer in Ontario and unable to check? All of the CO's finds since December 2012 have been outside of Ontario (Quebec, Maritimes and United States).  Great story  Helpful

Cache owner [Responded the same day as my NA--but didn't respond to 6 years of NMs] Member 273 Owner Maintenance 11/2018 Two DNF's in a row to not justify for the item to be archived, it was last found in Aug and the year prior. this item was fixed up since the 2012 logs that the paper was wet.

L0ne.R Premium Member 3395 Needs Archived 11/2018 This geocacher reported that this geocache should be archived. A community volunteer reviewer has been notified.

[I posted this NA/DNF not because it was not found (although the container was almost certainly missing)  but because there are 5 NMs on this cache that go all the way back to 2012 with no response from the CO].    L0ne.R Premium Member 3395 Didn't find it 11/2018 Did not find. There are 5 NMs on this cache and many reports of wet/frozen contents, going back to 2012. The first NM was posted in 2012. History: 10/25/2012 NM log - Needs new container and logsheet. The lid is missing and the logsheet is soaked. 08/04/2013 Log too wet to sign 08/08/2013 NM log - Log book soaked 10/23/2014 - log is waterlogged, has not been signed in a long time 04/05/2015 - log was too wet to sign. 05/24/2015 - log was way to wet to sign 06/04/2015 NM log - Log needs to be replaced. Very wet. 01/15/2016 - Log wet and frozen

Member Didn't find it 10/2018

[+NanCycle]

 

Premium Member

1038

Owner Maintenance

05/25/2019

Does catch is temporary gone I will get the replacement soon as possible