Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
TriciaG

Maintained It = Didn't Maintain It

Recommended Posts

Enable ListingEnable Listing

01/04/2017

It was our intention to revisit this cache and return it to its original construction. However finding the opportunity to do so has proven difficult as we now live rather far away... The cache should still be functional according to the last to find, with the adventure element intact. I hope to still restore this cache fully at some point, but for now it might just be a little easier to spot! Therefor going to reactivate. Happy caching!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Enable ListingEnable Listing

01/04/2017

It was our intention to revisit this cache and return it to its original construction. However finding the opportunity to do so has proven difficult as we now live rather far away... The cache should still be functional according to the last to find, with the adventure element intact. I hope to still restore this cache fully at some point, but for now it might just be a little easier to spot! Therefor going to reactivate. Happy caching!

 

When I gaze into my crystal ball, the signs do not bode well for whatever cache this might be.  But the spirits might be wrong.  Perhaps I should consult the bones...

 

Edit:

 

d63426235fedd08932ff415fb48ab6478198f527

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, no names to protect the innocent...

Cache placed 7 years ago rated 3.5/2.5 with 14 finds and 46 dnfs and last found in 2015 and no maintenance logs by the CO unless prompted by The Reviewer

Reviewer in 2017 :  May I request the cache owner verify this cache remains in play?

CO reply later the same day:  "Recently checked in this and it's there."

Reviewer:  8 dnfs and and a year later:  As this cache has been un-found since April of 2015, with a string of DNF's, may I ask you (the cache owner) confirm this cache remains in place and available to be found?

CO reply later same day:  "Have already checked and it still awaited someone to find it again."

Present day:  a year later, still no finds.  

Looking further down the list to the last recorded find we see:  "The hint no longer applies and was leading us astray!"  No change to the hint since the cache was published, eh?

 

Since the basic idea of cache maintenance is to have a cache available to be found, that actually can be found with the information provided, once you've identified a "pretend maintainer" the simpliest thing to do is avoid their caches.  Getting them to actually do maintence, well....not going to happen.  Identifying them in advance can be tough, but here are the signs:  1, They have many caches but never post OM logs.  2, The cache page is never updated no matter how long the cache has been in the field nor how many changes to the area have occured   3,  They either ignore NM logs completely or immediately post that they "just checked on it, and "it's fine".  4, When someone finally posts an NA log it's The Reviewer, not the CO, who eventually archives it....

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, edexter said:

pretend maintainer

We had an armchair logger, who then decided to publish a cache. It was no more real than their armchair logs, yet people (even many experienced cachers who knew of the armchair logging) kept trying to find it. NM logs were regularly published, which were logged in the same way as the CO's logs; from their armchair.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

We had an armchair logger, who then decided to publish a cache. It was no more real than their armchair logs, yet people (even many experienced cachers who knew of the armchair logging) kept trying to find it. NM logs were regularly published, which were logged in the same way as the CO's logs; from their armchair.

 

Funny how no one ever throws down in those cases. That would drive that pretend maintainer crazy. 😝He probably would actually get off his armchair to remove the throwdown, in order to "maintain" a DNF streak on the listing. And then delete all the "find" logs. 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

 

Funny how no one ever throws down in those cases. That would drive that pretend maintainer crazy. 😝He probably would actually get off his armchair to remove the throwdown, in order to "maintain" a DNF streak on the listing. And then delete all the "find" logs. 

There was a throw down found and the armchair CO got really upset about that.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

There was a throw down found and the armchair CO got really upset about that.

They'd know for sure it was a throwdown by virtue of there being a find log at all right!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

They'd know for sure it was a throwdown by virtue of there being a find log at all right!

 

Exactly.

There is no cache to find, so any "find" is either a throwdown or a fake find. 

I don't know if a reviewer can step in and archive a suspicious cache listing, if the owner posts (fake) OMs that say it's actually there. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Exactly.

There is no cache to find, so any "find" is either a throwdown or a fake find. 

I don't know if a reviewer can step in and archive a suspicious cache listing, if the owner posts (fake) OMs that say it's actually there. 

It's a tricky one - how does the reviewer know? There is a certain level of trust this game relies upon and you cant get away from that. Luckily I guess, the number of times a cache is actually (not) hidden this way is apparently rather small and infrequent, and quickly becomes easy to spot by locals, even if not by definitive hard evidence. Frustrating perhaps for those who encounter one, but luckily not a pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/9/2019 at 1:27 PM, STNolan said:

29A9C4F0-E9D2-4EB1-8FFD-E8A285AD5DE8.jpeg

 

I think that Archive should be an option on the app but I just looked at the app and OM is not the only choice for owners.

He should have picked Disable.

Or he could have used Write Note. 

People may drive over (perhaps specifically for this cache, perhaps driving many miles) for a DNF, to then read the OM log that says It was not actually maintained. 

 

 

IMG_3750.thumb.jpg.12f3f36db0fe7d43ae93eb676d8ac681.jpg

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar, sentence structure
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

I think that Archive should be an option on the app but I just looked at the app and OM is not the only choice for owners.

 

I'd bet there's no "app" on a desktop computer, either.  But, besides the app there's the entire web site on the phone.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Maintenance? Instant geo-litter......

no-maint.jpg.6ca301b2dc45fe581a04516ed3fee850.jpg

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, lee737 said:

Maintenance? Instant geo-litter......

no-maint.jpg.6ca301b2dc45fe581a04516ed3fee850.jpg

Saw that, and others. This CO was the subject of a few of my earlier posts. He's finally got around to tidying up his caches many of which had strings of DNFs and unactioned NAs and reviewer NMs. Apparently community maintenance wasn't working for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

HAHAHA!  I think I may actually be guilty of having done this just yesterday!  Leave it to Forums to bring in a reality check:

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

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

06/21/2019

not ready for prime time players

Cache is put back together and in place BUT there is a kink in the system somewhere. That would be very frustrating, so leaving disabled through the weekend. Alternate lock still in place; please do not attempt to log.

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

My thinking was that maintenance had been done (and quite a bit) ... just not quite ready yet. 

Not trying to erase any NMs.  In fact, I was the one that discovered the need. 

Sooooo.... change to another Write Note?  Edit the last one, adding the updated status?

 

EDIT: Went ahead and added a dated update to the previous Note, so's not to clutter up the page with CO logs.

Edited by VAVAPAM

Share this post


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

 

...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.

 

Yes, thanks for noting that.  I just went back and noticed that a hastily posted Write Note is actually an OM.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, VAVAPAM said:

HAHAHA!  I think I may actually be guilty of having done this just yesterday!  Leave it to Forums to bring in a reality check:

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

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

06/21/2019

not ready for prime time players

Cache is put back together and in place BUT there is a kink in the system somewhere. That would be very frustrating, so leaving disabled through the weekend. Alternate lock still in place; please do not attempt to log.

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

My thinking was that maintenance had been done (and quite a bit) ... just not quite ready yet. 

Not trying to erase any NMs.  In fact, I was the one that discovered the need. 

Sooooo.... change to another Write Note?  Edit the last one, adding the updated status?

 

EDIT: Went ahead and added a dated update to the previous Note, so's not to clutter up the page with CO logs.

 

You got it right now. :)

A 'temporarily disable' alerts all that the cache is not available for finding. Followed by (monthly) 'write notes' to keep everyone, especially the reviewer informed that it's still not available to find yet, but you plan to have it available soon. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

 

You got it right now. :)

A 'temporarily disable' alerts all that the cache is not available for finding. Followed by (monthly) 'write notes' to keep everyone, especially the reviewer informed that it's still not available to find yet, but you plan to have it available soon. 

Hey, thanks for checking; appreciate the "all clear". 👍

Share this post


Link to post
One of the OMs in this debacle is somewhat correct, but the other definitely isn't.

Temporarily Disable ListingTemporarily Disable Listing

06/Nov/2018

shrub gone. needs to be redone.

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

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

07/Nov/2018

Note since the shrub is gone, I will have to find another spot and have a reviewer move the cache location. This will be done over the next week to month.

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

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

10/Dec/2018

Cache moved to new location and coordinates and hide info sent to [reviewer name] reviewer today for their action.

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

Write noteWrite note

09/Jan/2019

Update: still no response from [town name] regarding cache placement. (The A-Team note: this town doesn't require approval of hides)

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

Write noteWrite note

27/Jan/2019

January 27, 2019 - to date no response from [town name] Parks. I will give 2 more weeks and if no response I will move it out of [town name].

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

Write noteWrite note

03/Mar/2019

[cache name] was transferred from [old owner] to user [new owner]

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

Post Reviewer NotePost Reviewer Note

18/May/2019

I see that your cache has been in need of your attention for a period of time beyond the four weeks mentioned in the cache Geocaching Guidelines. ...

Share this post


Link to post

Three DNFs and then this:

Quote

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

28/Jan/2019

We will go down and check on it right away.

 

If they did, they never came back to say that they had followed through on this promise, or what the result was.

Share this post


Link to post

Disappointingly in an area I plan to cache through soon...

 

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

30/Jul/2018

This one gets some DNFs from time to time. It is always still there when I check on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

03/Aug/2019

I’m flat out at the moment. Hoping to get up to replace this one soon

 

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

02/Aug/2019

There was a NM on 09/Jul/2019, but the cache is still in bad condition and no word from the CO. A new cache and log is needed, and the old cache needs to be taken away and disposed of and not left here to fall apart more. Either that, or the old cache should be removed and this archived.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

03/Aug/2019

I’m flat out at the moment. Hoping to get up to replace this one soon

 

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

02/Aug/2019

There was a NM on 09/Jul/2019, but the cache is still in bad condition and no word from the CO. A new cache and log is needed, and the old cache needs to be taken away and disposed of and not left here to fall apart more. Either that, or the old cache should be removed and this archived.

Looks like it should have been disabled.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

08/2018

Attempted to check on and perform maintenance on it before the big x&x Geocaching event next weekend. Unfortunately, we weren't able to find the cache as it wasn't where we left it and not anywhere in the close area. Hopefully someone during the event will be able to locate it.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Cache Owner

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

07/30/2019

Can the next finder add a new log. TiA

 
 

prem_user.gifPremium Member

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

07/21/2019

This one too needs a new container. Those pop-tops are no longer keeping water out.

 

reg_user.gifMember

Found itFound it

07/14/2019

A bit Waterlogged, needs new log

 
 
 

reg_user.gifMember

Found itFound it

07/06/2019

Found log is wet though live the history

 
 
Cache Owner

reg_user.gifMember

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

06/24/2019

This one needs a new log. Would the next finder be able to put one in? Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
Cache Owner

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

07/30/2019

Can the next finder add a new log. TiA

 
 

prem_user.gifPremium Member

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

07/21/2019

This one too needs a new container. Those pop-tops are no longer keeping water out.

 

reg_user.gifMember

Found itFound it

07/14/2019

A bit Waterlogged, needs new log

 
 
 

reg_user.gifMember

Found itFound it

07/06/2019

Found log is wet though live the history

 
 
Cache Owner

reg_user.gifMember

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

06/24/2019

This one needs a new log. Would the next finder be able to put one in? Thanks in advance!

 

Needs Archive should be the next log on that one. Let the Reviewer see the maintenance plan of this CO

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

11/Jul/2019

As suggested a plastic bag around the log sheet will be added just as soon as I have one small enough or some of that fancy wet/dry paper meant for geocaching if I have time to stop and get some :)

 

Quote

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

22/Jul/2019

[CO and kid] stopped by today and it’s missing already! Don’t have a replacement at the moment for it, but will procure one before the weekend.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

...both on the same cache.

Share this post


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

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

08/2018

Attempted to check on and perform maintenance on it before the big x&x Geocaching event next weekend. Unfortunately, we weren't able to find the cache as it wasn't where we left it and not anywhere in the close area. Hopefully someone during the event will be able to locate it.

What's the odds of a shiny new film pot or pill bottle suddenly appearing during the event (if it wasn't one of those already)?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Many new Cachers Don’t know the difference between owner maintenance and disabled. Lotta times they mean to disable but put under owner maintenance and doesn’t know that means it has already been maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/6/2019 at 4:21 PM, colleda said:

What's the odds of a shiny new film pot or pill bottle suddenly appearing during the event (if it wasn't one of those already)?

I attended an event where a  geocache I own was in the same park. Someone says they couldn’t find it so I walked over and saw it was missing and replaced it. But there was also a throwdown that was missing the bottom. Somebody contacted me and let me know. I let them know which one was mine and they went and removed the throwdown.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, jellis said:

Many new Cachers Don’t know the difference between owner maintenance and disabled. Lotta times they mean to disable but put under owner maintenance and doesn’t know that means it has already been maintained.

 

Having Owner Maintenance as the default log type for COs is more likely to blame. I've inadvertently logged an OM when I meant to log a Disable or Enable simply because I was concentrating on what I was writing in the log and forgot to change the default. This is simply bad UI design.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Having Owner Maintenance as the default log type for COs is more likely to blame. I've inadvertently logged an OM when I meant to log a Disable or Enable simply because I was concentrating on what I was writing in the log and forgot to change the default. This is simply bad UI design.

I've been caught out like that too.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

It is very unhelpful when a cacher comes along after the needs maintenance log and writes the following, ignoring the hole in the lid and not acknowledging over two months have passed and we are in a drought. It appears the really soaked log had a chance to dry out. But the disintegrating cache still has a hole in the lid, which will let rain in when it eventually rains and the cache is falling apart. It now sounds like there is nothing wrong with the broken cache with the exposed log.

The CO has not done anything yet about it. And this won't get picked up because the owner made the OM.

25/Oct/2019  Container is a bit sun damaged, but still doing it's job.
Log book is dry and in good condition.

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

03/Aug/2019

I’m flat out at the moment. Hoping to get up to replace this one soon

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

02/Aug/2019

There was a NM on 09/Jul/2019, but the cache is still in bad condition and no word from the CO. Log is soaked and the cache lid is disintegrating with a hole in the lid.
A new cache and log is needed, and the old cache needs to be taken away and disposed of and not left here to fall apart more. Either that, or the old cache should be removed and this archived.

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

09/Jul/2019

This geocacher reported that the container is damaged.

 

Found itFound it

09/Jul/2019

What an interesting high street! A quick find, but the container is damaged and the logbook soaked. Tftc though

 

Found itFound it

06/Jul/2019

Loves me a large cache to add to the tally. Sadly, the hotel is in a state of disrepair and the guestbook has suffered substantially as a result. Maintenance absolutely needed here.

 

 

 

ADDED: Another finder has just added a NM. Hopefully the CO won't do another non-OM log :rolleyes:.

Needs MaintenanceNeeds Maintenance

30/Nov/2019

This geocacher reported that the container is damaged.

Found it

30/Nov/2019

Easy find, but the container is badly UV damaged and the lid is broken. Log is OK, but only just.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

     Based on my experience based of repairing my caches and confirmed dnfs of caches I've dnf'd, I would estimate the percentage of caches that need maintenace or are missing at any given moment as roughy 5% for caches placed recently and higher for oldies.   So if a CO has 20 caches, odds are good that one of them needs repair.  If they have 50, it's a near certainty and many of them will be aging.  Some percentage of cachers simply don't do maintaince and if called on it (you know, by an NM log describing the situation) will choose to ignore, insult or prevaricate rather than repair the cache.  

     Perhaps you have heard of the concept of "the tragedy of the commons":   " The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action."

In this case, the shared resource is the listing service, and their self interest is in using their time doing something other than cache maintenence while pretending otherwise.  Shirking responsiblity would be another way to describe it.  Requiring folks who use the listing service to actually maintain caches listed is the simply remedy and that eventually comes down to a reviewer action when the individual user continues to ignore the community postings.  

    I have to admit however that among the most practical responses to the "fake OM" response ("I repaired it last week", in response to a Reviewer request for confirmation the cache has been visited)  despite the ever lenghtening list of dnfs, is the throwdown cache.  Simple, fiendish, and salutory.  A response to the non-response as it were.  Not that I would ever consider such an act....but it does make one go hmmmm.... 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, edexter said:

Based on my experience based of repairing my caches and confirmed dnfs of caches I've dnf'd, I would estimate the percentage of caches that need maintenace or are missing at any given moment as roughy 5% for caches placed recently and higher for oldies.   So if a CO has 20 caches, odds are good that one of them needs repair.  If they have 50, it's a near certainty and many of them will be aging.

 

I think there are too many variables to make that assertion. Some hiding styles, particularly urban micros, are far more likely to be maintenance-intensive than, say, an ammo can under a rock ledge on a remote mountain top. I currently have 38 active caches, have visited them all in the last twelve months and this is the sum total of maintenance performed:

  • GCMHXX - this is an old one I adopted last year and has been a bit of a maintenance headache, mainly due to people not putting it back properly. It's had a muggling as well as a cracked container from someone crushing it with a large rock.
  • GC4X42A - created in 2014, this is the oldest of the caches I've placed and gets a fair bit of traffic (291 finds to date). On my most recent visit a few weeks back, I noticed the container (a plastic Sistema) was starting to show its age so I replaced it with a new one. It still has its original logbook which is unlikely to fill for at least another couple of years.
  • GC5H5G2 - a finder had jammed and broken the camo's zipper so I took it home for some repair work and a modification that will hopefully prevent it happening again.
  • GC5P0CE - part of a tree had split off and fallen, making access to GZ difficult, so I returned with some gardening tools and cleared a crawl space under it.
  • GC5WHEM - a recent check after the park fire closure revealed a missing waypoint, which I've now replaced.
  • GC5YP8E - a recent finder reported a rat had been nibbling on the plastic container's handles, so I replaced it with a metal one.
  • GC6PE5B - a lot of muggles (probably a scout troup) had visited GZ and the first waypoint had gone missing. Replaced it in what I hope will be a less obvious spot and modified the puzzle to suit the new location.
  • GC752YF - replaced the information card in the cache to reflect the new expiry date for the National Parks permission.
  • GC7YP51 - routine battery replacement.

This may seem like a lot of maintenance at first glance but, apart from the missing waypoints, most were for minor things that wouldn't have prevented the cache from being found. Even the batteries for GC7YP51 are only for special effects and it can still be found and logged even if they expire. As for my other 29 hides, they were all spick and span and most have never needed any maintenance.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/7/2019 at 11:36 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

Having Owner Maintenance as the default log type for COs is more likely to blame. I've inadvertently logged an OM when I meant to log a Disable or Enable simply because I was concentrating on what I was writing in the log and forgot to change the default. This is simply bad UI design.

 

There are 3 options when an owner taps "Log". The first option is Owner Maintenance but there are clearly 2 other options to choose from--Write Note and Disable. Which suggests to me, that owners who post OMs but did not actually maintain their cache, given 3 choices, choose Owner Maintenance over Write Note or Disable.

 

Personally, I have yet to see an owner change their OM to a Write Note after it was pointed out them that, despite the OM, no maintenance was performed. I believe that these owners feel that they are performing maintenance--to the listing. That posting an OM shows they are still actively watching the listing and aware of the condition of the cache. 

 

IMG_3750.jpg.406ab51d8988342dc979878b366

Share this post


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

There are 3 options when an owner taps "Log". The first option is Owner Maintenance but there are clearly 2 other options to choose from--Write Note and Disable. Which suggests to me, that owners who post OMs but did not actually maintain their cache, given 3 choices, choose Owner Maintenance over Write Note or Disable.

 

On the website there are no choices presented, rather there's a drop-down menu that defaults to Owner Maintenance.

 

image.png.8b9bd2e065131f5dfe8a9785e714745a.png

 

It's way too easy to forget to change it if it's not intended to be an OM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

On the website there are no choices presented, rather there's a drop-down menu that defaults to Owner Maintenance.

 

image.png.8b9bd2e065131f5dfe8a9785e714745a.png

 

It's way too easy to forget to change it if it's not intended to be an OM.

I got caught out again last week with that. Had to delete them and write WNs. Doh! Slow learner?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

I got caught out again last week with that. Had to delete them and write WNs. Doh! Slow learner?

I opt out of this as I find the old version much more user friendly.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Currently irked by multis that are broken.  So many are broken that it makes me avoid all multis.

 

One was a 6 stage multi, the item at the 4th stage was no longer there and therefore crashed the sequence.

One was a 2 stage multi, and the signage had been removed.  I was able to google the answers, but that would be more of a puzzle than a multi.

Another one with a sign that had been removed.

Another one that was poorly written, again using signage -- this time it was a 'loop and spur' type trail.  The tasks required counting the letters on the 1st sign, second sign, etc.  But there was no way to know which direction I approached the trail ....  And again, some of the signs had been damaged.

 

Multis take more work to maintain!  Check the stages, not just the final!  Update the page if things change!

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Oops, I meant this for the irk thread, but it also kinda works here.

 

Psssst....  You can delete posts now.  Hit "options".    ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Barefoot Jeff said :"I think there are too many variables to make that assertion." my assertion being that at any given moment about 5% of caches need attention.  But then he documents 9 repairs to 38 caches over the course of a year which is 24% of caches needing a repair.  And Barefoot Jeff is a conscientious CO.  If some one who really pays attention to their caches needs to repair a quarter of them annually, then I think my estimate is in the ballpark, or possibly low, as a CO who doesn't maintain his caches would have an even higher "needing maintenance" rate.  Personally, in the past year I've done 44 maintenance runs on my 130 or so caches,  so a third of them needed repairs .  Most of them are multi's, so counting stages (roughly 540) the rate is much lower (8%) so I think roughly 5% at any given moment is a decent lowball estimate.  If you think in terms of an annual rate, it's clearly in the 20-30% region and this is for folks who actually do maintenance.  For folks who don;t, it's clearly higher.  But: this is one of those "your mileage may vary situations".  I agree with his experience that that more remote and fewer stages a cache has the less often it needs maintenance.   Single stage ammo boxes in the woods can go for many years without needing attention.  Six stage multis (five micros and a lock & lock) are lucky if a year goes by.  I tether everything and still the stages disappear... I would argue that anyone who has 50 or more stages is going to need to do a minimum of a couple of runs a year, very likely more, just to keep them up and running, and that if a CO with that many stages placed doesn't consistently log mainenance on their caches, prior to getting an NA log or a Reviewer nudge, they aren't doing it...

Edited by edexter
hadn't finished writing
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, edexter said:

Barefoot Jeff said :"I think there are too many variables to make that assertion." my assertion being that at any given moment about 5% of caches need attention.  But then he documents 9 repairs to 38 caches over the course of a year which is 24% of caches needing a repair.

 

That was 9 repairs over the course of a year, not 9 caches in need of repair at any one moment. And those 9 weren't all in need of repair, only two were actually for missing waypoints and most of the others were for cosmetic reasons or routine maintenance (replacing batteries, for example, or updating the information card). At this very moment, to the best of my knowledge, none of my caches are in need of repair, and for most of the year that was the case. Most of my multis have never needed any maintenance, with my OM logs just reporting that everything was fine. This recent OM log on GC5WGTZ, a seven-stage multi published in 2015, is typical:

 

Quote

As it's been over a year since the last find and nearly two since my last visit, I took advantage of the cooler morning today to go for a nice hike and check on the waypoints and cache. All good and still pretty much in pristine condition. Cache on!

 

This is the four-year-old cache in question:

 

20190429_105808.jpg.28e6d45d5516fa16dd966d134af0d7f1.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, edexter said:

... he documents 9 repairs to 38 caches over the course of a year which is 24% of caches needing a repair.  And Barefoot Jeff is a conscientious CO

 

I would say, based on my observations which include being a CO, that 24% is more accurate. 

 

Repairs, for me, include: logbook full, logbook in rough shape and could use a replacement, container contents in rough shape (dirt, moisture buildup, mess due to improper contents--food, bubble liquid, perhaps a catastrophic fail due to failure to close it properly, or broken container), location has changed considerably making a check of the area a good idea, the cache might be missing. 

 

Often the cache is in need of maintenance but finders have not reported on the condition. I only know about the need once I visit the cache. 

 

When someone submits a power trail cache of 100 caches, with in the year, there's a good chance that at least 20 of those caches will need a check up. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

This is the four-year-old cache in question:

 

20190429_105808.jpg.28e6d45d5516fa16dd966d134af0d7f1.jpg

 

It's amazing how pristine your caches are after 4 years. 

Due to weather conditions in my area, and visits to the cache of about 40 people per year, none of my caches looked like that after 4 years. I would need to do seasonal checks (4 times a year) to have it look reasonably good. The baggie, logbook, and label (especially the label) look great. :) 

Share this post


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

It's amazing how pristine your caches are after 4 years. 

Due to weather conditions in my area, and visits to the cache of about 40 people per year, none of my caches looked like that after 4 years. I would need to do seasonal checks (4 times a year) to have it look reasonably good. The baggie, logbook, and label (especially the label) look great. :) 

 

It's tucked in under a rock ledge protected from sun and rain (but probably not fire as there's thick scrub a few metres away) and has only had 16 finds in those four years. I replaced a five-year-old Sistema a few weeks back which was looking a bit bedraggled, mostly because it's hidden under some loose rocks and with 291 finds it was looking pretty scuffed and starting to develop hairline cracks. It's under a large rock overhang so it won't get wet but better to have something looking a bit more presentable.

 

Replacement.jpg.7fbb793d9241e896071deee80362c874.jpg

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 1:08 PM, L0ne.R said:

I would say, based on my observations which include being a CO, that 24% is more accurate. 

 

Repairs, for me, include: logbook full, logbook in rough shape and could use a replacement, container contents in rough shape (dirt, moisture buildup, mess due to improper contents--food, bubble liquid, perhaps a catastrophic fail due to failure to close it properly, or broken container), location has changed considerably making a check of the area a good idea, the cache might be missing.

 

Interesting. The number is nowhere near as high as that for me, based on my current count of 53 hides. Like with barefootjeff, my number sits at 0 for most of the year. I'd say it's only a handful of times a year that I have even one cache needing maintenance, let alone more than that. I don't exactly live in a cache-friendly environment, either. The standard description here is "temperate rainforest", which is pretty self-explanatory.

 

Honestly, I probably wouldn't even keep hiding caches if 12 of my hides had any of those issues at any given time. At the very least, I'd be re-evaluating the type of containers I'm hiding and where I'm hiding them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

 

Interesting. The number is nowhere near as high as that for me, based on my current count of 53 hides. Like with barefootjeff, my number sits at 0 for most of the year. I'd say it's only a handful of times a year that I have even one cache needing maintenance, let alone more than that. I don't exactly live in a cache-friendly environment, either. The standard description here is "temperate rainforest", which is pretty self-explanatory.

 

Honestly, I probably wouldn't even keep hiding caches if 12 of my hides had any of those issues at any given time. At the very least, I'd be re-evaluating the type of containers I'm hiding and where I'm hiding them.

 

Point taken. I suppose it depends on ones threshold. 

 

I like to get out and wipe down the container of any built up dirt and twigs, remove the old bus tickets and bottle caps, replace the log if it's tattered or full. In general, twice a year when I do a maintenance run,  I would find that 1 out of 4 caches often needed some TLC attention. But nothing major like a container replacement.

 

Probably only one every other year had a catastropic failure--the classic example would be in late Spring when I do a maintenance run, a Lock & Lock(TM) might have had a baggie (which I didn't put in but a finder thought would necessary to protect the logbook), catch in the seal and resulted in contents swimming in water.

 

This was a letterbox that I checked on after the Spring thaw this year (that photo is after I dumped the water that completely filled the container):

 

IMG_3534.JPG.834fac0b778d1f371f5fa449988

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...