Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Goldenwattle

Some COs don't take kindly to NM, and then the NA (because the NM was ignored)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately some geocachers won't rate any cache above 2D/T. It used to be 1.5. It's so non-paying members can find it.

 

I should point out - this is only in the app. Non-paying users can find all caches on the website that are not marked PMO.

Just a clarifying point.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But if it still looks like a cache, then there could be an issue

No issue with me, because I never said I would take such a cache. Please don't twist what I wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So I should leave that crumbling pile of plastic without a log behind.

My concern is that you aren't picking up trash, you're spotting on-line what you've decided is an abandoned cache, you're walking to GZ, and you're picking up whatever you find there, rubbish or not, and sanctimoniously carrying it out and throwing it away. Meanwhile, there's tons of real trash along the trail that you could care less about because this isn't really about that crumbling pile of plastic, it's about sticking it to COs that you've decided are failures.

 

Yes, by all mean, if you find a crumbling pile of plastic, feel free to pick it up and pack it out whether it's a cache or not. The case that worries us is where you find a cache container and decide that, in your high standards, it isn't maintained well enough even though most of us would find acceptably marginal. Well, actually, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. My real concern is that you'll go out and pick up a container that's in fine shape just because you hate the idea of it being "abandoned".

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But if it still looks like a cache, then there could be an issue

No issue with me, because I never said I would take such a cache. Please don't twist what I wrote.

 

Did you even read what I wrote?

In actuality, if a cache is archived, even archived 4 years prior, but it still looks like a cache, would you pick it up?  If so, then the above does apply. But if not, great. Even so, the points I'm making still apply, relevant to more than the one situation you cite above.

 

51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Do you see the dilemma here? Why we're talking past each other? Surely you can.  We're not saying leave trash and don't clean up the environment. You're not saying that a merely abandoned cache is a crumbling pile of plastic without an owner.

Read this whole comment again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

No issue with me, because I never said I would take such a cache. Please don't twist what I wrote.

You haven't said you wouldn't, either, and your logic dictates that you are allowed to and would pick it up just because it's abandoned and not listed on geocaching.com. None of us have said you can't pick up trash. We're only saying you  should think hard before you pick up something that's still functioning as a cache. If you already agree with that, I'm not sure why you're arguing with us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

even archived 4 years prior

Of course I wouldn't remove an intact archived cache. Would you? I consider finding archived caches as part of the game. Many people, myself included like to find archived caches. I don't know why you think I would remove one...unless it was turning into shards and the small pieces of plastic were mixing with the ground. This described a recent non-archived cache I removed. At least the parts of the cache I could find. Some tiny bits of the broken plastic had already been washed or blown away into the environment on their way to being micro plastic. And I don't understand why some people have a problem with removing what's left of such a cache, and rather want the pieces to remain, so they too can be washed or blown away.

 

This is one cache (but far from the worst example which was just unrecognisable crumbly plastic chips) I removed. I never found all the bits of plastic for this cache. In this case there was a new throw down (a reasonable one) nearby.

 

 

image.thumb.jpeg.62882ce1a2dab3feca0d99c2e3214ec3.jpeg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2019 at 3:34 PM, Goldenwattle said:

What is your point?

 

That after all that, you brought it to the forums, and clearly have some sort of personal investment in how this cache owner is conducting business.

 

That's not your role.  You did what you needed to do to bring this to the attention of the cache owner and the reviewer, and that is where I would submit that your responsibilities as a finder of these caches, if any, ended.  To rephrase the thread title, some cache owners don't take kindly to self-appointed reviewers.

 

I'm moving on to another thread.  Have a swell day.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

You haven't said you wouldn't, either, and your logic dictates that you are allowed to and would pick it up just because it's abandoned and not listed on geocaching.com. None of us have said you can't pick up trash. We're only saying you  should think hard before you pick up something that's still functioning as a cache. If you already agree with that, I'm not sure why you're arguing with us.

What I have written is:

"if someone is not maintaining a cache to the point the plastic is crumbling into the ground / even when the plastic container is now in tiny crumbling pieces, as was the last cache I picked up / If a cache is in this condition I will carefully pick up the crumbling pieces and dispose of them responsibly. / So I should leave that crumbling pile of plastic without a log behind. No, I'm too responsible to leave that there to litter and continue to break further down to micro plastic which, depending where it is, could add to the micro plastic problem the environment has."

 

 

So after describing MANY times the type of cache I would pick up, why are you arguing with me? I have made it very clear numerous times what I am referring to.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

That after all that, you brought it to the forums, and clearly have some sort of personal investment in how this cache owner is conducting business.

 

That's not your role.  You did what you needed to do to bring this to the attention of the cache owner and the reviewer, and that is where I would submit that your responsibilities as a finder of these caches, if any, ended.  To rephrase the thread title, some cache owners don't take kindly to self-appointed reviewers.

 

I'm moving on to another thread.  Have a swell day.

Good bye.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

This is one cache (but far from the worst example which was just unrecognisable crumbly plastic chips) I removed. I never found all the bits of plastic for this cache. In this case there was a new throw down (a reasonable one) nearby.

 

And as I keep saying, the only person responsible for such a cache is still the owner. That is still a cache. It's in very bad shape. At the very least I would remove broken shards, but the container I wouldn't (necessarily). If I took the container, I would contact the owner - because it's not my property (no matter its condition). If I didn't take the container I would absolutely put a NM on it, because it's their responsibility.  I might put it on watch.  If nothing gets done about it, or it gets archived by a reviewer after a time, and repeated attempts at contacting proved fruitless, and no one else has yet done this, I might go and pick up the container. To my judgment, the theft would be justified because the owner (it's still owned by someone) is implying by their lack of activity that the container is abandoned (as opposed to the owner having archived it and left it, even in its condition) and the alternative is harm to the environment. Doesn't change the fact I'm taking someone else property (because I haven't confirmed it's not owned by anyone, I'm still assuming that)

If the owner seems to be active, I would never take it; unless perhaps I felt they were actually doing some wrong or illegal - in which case, again, my value judgment weighs taking it for the greater good as justified against the fact I took something that wasn't mine.

 

We can debate case by case scenarios till the cows come home.

My only point is that every time you take something that has had an implied owner (active or not), you are taking someone else's property. Even if it's "trash". But, we make a moral value judgment as to whether it's justified to "take" that property given the circumstances, and how we recognize the ownership of said property after the fact.

 

24 minutes ago, hzoi said:

That's not your role.  You did what you needed to do to bring this to the attention of the cache owner and the reviewer, and that is where I would submit that your responsibilities as a finder of these caches, if any, ended.  To rephrase the thread title, some cache owners don't take kindly to self-appointed reviewers.

 

:antenna:  (why is there no ^-This emoticon? :)) yeahthat.gif.97b6388acda34a925c8d7c1f17130f04.gif

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And as I keep saying, the only person responsible for such a cache is still the owner. That is still a cache. It's in very bad shape. At the very least I would remove broken shards, but the container I wouldn't (necessarily). If I took the container, I would contact the owner - because it's not my property (no matter its condition). If I didn't take the container I would absolutely put a NM on it, because it's their responsibility.  I might put it on watch.  If nothing gets done about it, or it gets archived by a reviewer after a time, and repeated attempts at contacting proved fruitless, and no one else has yet done this, I might go and pick up the container. To my judgment, the theft would be justified because the owner (it's still owned by someone) is implying by their lack of activity that the container is abandoned (as opposed to the owner having archived it and left it, even in its condition) and the alternative is harm to the environment. Doesn't change the fact I'm taking someone else property (because I haven't confirmed it's not owned by anyone, I'm still assuming that)

If the owner seems to be active, I would never take it; unless perhaps I felt they were actually doing some wrong or illegal - in which case, again, my value judgment weighs taking it for the greater good as justified against the fact I took something that wasn't mine.

 

We can debate case by case scenarios till the cows come home.

My only point is that every time you take something that has had an implied owner (active or not), you are taking someone else's property. Even if it's "trash". But, we make a moral value judgment as to whether it's justified to "take" that property given the circumstances, and how we recognize the ownership of said property after the fact.

 

 

:antenna:  (why is there no ^-This emoticon? :)) yeahthat.gif.97b6388acda34a925c8d7c1f17130f04.gif

The photographic example was rubbish. I can't imagine any CO would want to keep it in the real world. It's the sort of object that regular organised clean up days target. That is if the rangers don't find it first.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

The photographic example was rubbish. I can't imagine any CO would want to keep it in the real world.

 

Irrelevant - you're still making an assumption. What if the owner does want to keep it in the real world? What if they have a different reason, a different purpose? What if it IS legitimate?  YOU are making the assumption and a judgment call that is potentially in conflict with the owner's, because you have no absolute confirmation that it's abandoned.

I'm not saying whether it's objectively right or wrong -- if your values scream THIS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT IN NATURE!1! then you will pick it up because your moral judgment outweighs the potential for theft. Some people's "value" is more stringent, some more lax.  All lie somewhere between "is it indistinguishable from trash?" and "is it merely archived on gc.com?" based on numerous factors.

 

That does not change the fact that it is someone else's property, and someone else's responsibility. And if that owner IS active and tells you to put it back (whether within the hour or 4 years from now), what will you do?  I'm not making a blanket objective statement drawing a line in this nebulous area - I'm simply telling you that if you take something that isn't yours, it is theft, even if you believe it to be trash. I've said that before. And it doesn't matter the objective physical state of the object you are taking. If you haven't determined that it is not actively owned, then it is not your responsibility and it is not your property. That's it. Pick it up if you believe it to be trash. But deal with the potential consequences of theft. And again, fully recognizing that in most cases, it will not be an issue, because in most cases there is no claim to ownership on (subjectively) awful condition geocaches especially if also archived. That is why we CITO. But that is not the point I'm making.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I can't replace remote caches because I don't live there and  many of those areas are 1000s of kms from where I live; WAY beyond the allowed 161kms. That's the same for almost 100% of the Australian population; they don't live near those caches. Those areas are really, really remote; as almost no-one lives near many of these caches, if anyone does at all. Some of these areas are not visited often either. The one I gave as an example is on a rough dirt 4WDtrack with no towns, no petrol for over a 1000km. You must carry petrol, supplies and car maintenance parts. That's why those caches are extremely unlikely to ever be replaced if they are archived. Not all the remote caches are quite as remote as the example given, but they are still remote. Most were placed there in the days before the rule of needing to live within 161kms, or regularly visit the area. Virtually no-one lives in many of those areas now; certainly no one who geocaches.

 

You've come on here to discuss/complain that COs take offense to NM/NA logs, in particular, one CO that you provided an example for.  I agree with you that some COs certainly take things too personally when another cacher files a NM/NA log.  It's a statement about the cache, not about the CO.  You've called out a CO for calling you a "troublemaker" because you believe your actions to be justified and correct but you have chosen to admit that in other situations with other COs, you're willing to do something completely opposite to what you did with this CO's caches.  Both actions can't be correct.  You can't preach to the choir about COs being the ones that should maintain their caches and they shouldn't be up in arms when a NM/NA log is filed and then go and maintain someone else's caches solely on the basis that they're remote and should be saved, without filing the same type of logs.  This is a clear example of hypocrisy. "Do as I say, not as I do." 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, dprovan said:

Exactly. They're the owner. Posting "NA: I picked up the container" gets the message to the CO just as efficiently as sending a private message. If they don't get one, they won't get the other. If they ignore one, they'll ignore the other. There's no good reason to waste time going both ways, so I stick to the one that puts my actions in the public record.

 

Your point was that you weren't going "...to the ends of the earth..." to let the CO know what you did.  I was strictly pointing out that you only needed to go to the top of the cache page to contact them, not really an ends of the earth search to get ahold of them.  You made it sound like it was a whole lot of trouble and effort.  It takes all of a minute to compose a quick, "Hey.  In case you didn't see my log, I picked up your cache and wanted to follow up here and in the message center, letting you know I have your cache.  Feel free to reach out to me if you have any issues.", then copy and paste the same message for the other system.  Yes, it's redundant but I'd rather be redundant and hope that perhaps the message or email might do what the log didn't.  Yes, if they ignore the log there's a good chance they'll ignore the email and the message, but it's really not that much extra effort to take.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

The CO is fully responsible.

 

Of course they are.  I never said they're not.  However, your actions for the remote caches show that you're willing to be responsible for another CO's caches instead of making the CO the one responsible.  Basically you're saying that a CO is responsible for their caches only when it's convenient for them to maintain them.  When it's not convenient, then others can and should do the maintenance for the CO.  There's nothing in the guidelines about maintenance of a cache being done only when it's convenient.

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Many are still laying power trails (they have the time for this it seems), but not willing and no time to go back and service old power trails, but still the new caches get placed and the old caches not maintained as they should be.

 

You and I are in agreement about this.  I agree that COs should be held responsible for maintaining their caches but I'm also not averse to helping out by replacing a full log.  I am averse to throwdowns and not filing NM or NA logs if they're needed.  I also find it contradictory of you to believe that some of the older caches aren't being maintained as they should be (and you won't help by replacing a full log) but you're more than happy to help maintain someone else's old cache , even going so far as to toss out a throwdown for a CO who is not maintaining their cache as they should be.

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

You expect me to be responsible for replacing many logs.

 

I don't "expect" you to replace the logs.  I would hope that you might consider doing it but I would never expect anyone to do so unless they wanted to.  You've shown that you're willing to do so for other caches and forego the customary NM/NA logs for those.  Yet you won't for these and you'll even go so far as to notify the reviewer that you'd like them to archive this cache because the CO hasn't replaced a full log.  Again, the contradictory actions with regard to maintenance expectations.  Convenience of maintenance isn't mentioned anywhere in the maintenance expectations of a CO.  

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

...but it's nice that a cacher might be able to celebrate their epic journey by having a cache to sign...

 

So it's not nice for cachers to have a cache to sign on any other regular mundane cache?

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

You are all hung up about ONE NA

 

I'm hung up on the fact that your actions for one cache are completely opposite to what you'd do for another cache.  On one hand you're saying that the CO is fully responsible for maintenance and on the other hand you're saying that it's OK for anyone else to help out the CO with maintenance.  You are attempting to justify that it's the remoteness of the cache that determines this but the maintenance expectations listed in the guidelines don't say anything about that.  They only specify that the CO is the one responsible for maintenance.  You even started off this post with those EXACT words, quoted at the top of this post.

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

And the replacements are not usually a thrown down pill bottle. It's usually a small sized good cache at least.

 

Irrelevant.  It's a throwdown if you do it without the CO's permission.  It's maintaining someone else's cache without their permission, as you've stated you've done.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Of course I wouldn't remove an intact archived cache. Would you?

Great! The discussion is over. I wouldn't, but other people would. They consider the mere charge of being abandon to make the cache unworthy of existence and go out of their way to get rid of them. If that's not you, try not to sound like that's you.

 

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What I have written is:

"if someone is not maintaining a cache to the point the plastic is crumbling into the ground / even when the plastic container is now in tiny crumbling pieces, as was the last cache I picked up / If a cache is in this condition I will carefully pick up the crumbling pieces and dispose of them responsibly. / So I should leave that crumbling pile of plastic without a log behind. No, I'm too responsible to leave that there to litter and continue to break further down to micro plastic which, depending where it is, could add to the micro plastic problem the environment has."

The problem is that you've argued vehemently against the rest of us, and we've been talking about caches, not bits of plastic. That made us all think you were one of those people that only see the logical designation "abandoned" and uses it as an excuse to ignore the physical condition of the container. I'm glad we've sorted that out, although I'm a little puzzled that the argument seems to be continuing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Irrelevant - you're still making an assumption. What if the owner does want to keep it in the real world? What if they have a different reason, a different purpose? What if it IS legitimate?  YOU are making the assumption and a judgment call that is potentially in conflict with the owner's, because you have no absolute confirmation that it's abandoned.

I'm not saying whether it's objectively right or wrong -- if your values scream THIS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT IN NATURE!1! then you will pick it up because your moral judgment outweighs the potential for theft. Some people's "value" is more stringent, some more lax.  All lie somewhere between "is it indistinguishable from trash?" and "is it merely archived on gc.com?" based on numerous factors.

 

That does not change the fact that it is someone else's property, and someone else's responsibility. And if that owner IS active and tells you to put it back (whether within the hour or 4 years from now), what will you do?  I'm not making a blanket objective statement drawing a line in this nebulous area - I'm simply telling you that if you take something that isn't yours, it is theft, even if you believe it to be trash. I've said that before. And it doesn't matter the objective physical state of the object you are taking. If you haven't determined that it is not actively owned, then it is not your responsibility and it is not your property. That's it. Pick it up if you believe it to be trash. But deal with the potential consequences of theft. And again, fully recognizing that in most cases, it will not be an issue, because in most cases there is no claim to ownership on (subjectively) awful condition geocaches especially if also archived. That is why we CITO. But that is not the point I'm making.

What about the assumption you are making?  The assumption that only a cacher is making this choice.  Using the pictured example, what would a reasonable person (let's say a non-cacher) think if they found that?  Would they (or should they, as you claim a cacher needs to do) think that somebody still claims that as personal property and it should be left alone?  If that is truly what you think, then every soda can along the trail needs to be considered the same - maybe the owner has a reason for it being there, wants it to be there and so should be left alone.  I've picked up many a Gladware type container (lousy cache containers, but often used as such) along the trail/road (CITO is more than an event) without ever thinking "maybe this empty container is a cache listed on some other site, so I need to leave it in place."

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, dprovan said:

try not to sound like that's you.

Ha, ha that was only in your mind; not everyones', or I wouldn't have got likes.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, dprovan said:

 

 

11 hours ago, dprovan said:

My concern is that you aren't picking up trash, you're spotting on-line what you've decided is an abandoned cache, you're walking to GZ, and you're picking up whatever you find there, rubbish or not, and sanctimoniously carrying it out and throwing it away

What the...this is sounding like the Twilight zone and getting so unreal. Now you are manufacturing stories.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Jester said:

What about the assumption you are making?  The assumption that only a cacher is making this choice.  Using the pictured example, what would a reasonable person (let's say a non-cacher) think if they found that?  Would they (or should they, as you claim a cacher needs to do) think that somebody still claims that as personal property and it should be left alone?  If that is truly what you think, then every soda can along the trail needs to be considered the same - maybe the owner has a reason for it being there, wants it to be there and so should be left alone.  I've picked up many a Gladware type container (lousy cache containers, but often used as such) along the trail/road (CITO is more than an event) without ever thinking "maybe this empty container is a cache listed on some other site, so I need to leave it in place."

 

Let me requote what I've already said relevent to picking up "trash":

 

On 9/16/2019 at 12:40 AM, thebruce0 said:

Now if the container is literally trash - broken, no log, indistinguishable from other garbage and refuse, then that's different. ...  In that case I would pick it up as trash as well, mainly because there's a good chance anyone would, and it's no longer a geocache.

On 9/16/2019 at 11:05 AM, thebruce0 said:

if it's indistinguishable from trash and no longer a geocache in any manner, then there's much less 'risk' of you being labeled a thief for knowingly taking someone else's property.

On 9/16/2019 at 11:14 AM, thebruce0 said:

I won't pick it up until I have confirmed or have reasonable doubt that it is abandoned by its owner - or it is without a doubt indistinguishable from trash.

On 9/16/2019 at 4:41 PM, thebruce0 said:

Good practice, IMO, is if you do decide to pick something up that's not beyond anyone's doubt a piece of trash, then contact the presumed owner to let them know. Then deal with any potential response.  As a starting point, respect the owner (yes, even if it seems like the owner doesn't respect nature) because you don't know the reason why a cache is in the state it's in, and it's not your property.

On 9/17/2019 at 5:51 PM, thebruce0 said:

you are making a moral judgment. I said it's not your responsibility, and yes, even then you are still taking someone's property. There's no way around that. It's their responsibility, not yours. So we make the judgment as to where the moral line is. But that doesn't change the fact that you are taking someone else's property that's not your responsibility.

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As I said, we make a moral judgment as to whether picking up what we believe to be trash...outweighs the fact that I'm picking up someone else's property and responsibility. We never really have an issue when it is trash. ...we take that risk when we take what isn't ours. We make the assumption that what we see is trash, without confirmation. In the vast majority of cases (almost always), something that can no longer be a geocache at all truly is trash, and there's no issue with the owner.

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

our moral judgment has ruled that it is reasonable to 'take' someone else's property given our threshold for "trash" (knowing we haven't confirmed it's unowned).  In a case like this, we're still taking someone else's property, but the reason outweighs the charge.

On 9/17/2019 at 5:51 PM, thebruce0 said:

That's why we have CITOs after all

 

Note that it is not our responsibility to "CITO" (clean up the environment). We are not obligated to - we do so because we want to, and we feel it necessary. Picking up what we believe to be trash is still picking up someone else's property - but we have judged that that property (without confirmation) has no owner, is abandoned, and shouldn't be left in that place; and thus we are offering our time and effort to clean it up so it doesn't remain and become harmful.

When it comes to geocaching, it's not so simple, because there is an implied ownership even in the unnatural place it sits (as opposed to other objects (like coffee cups or plastic bottles) not in their expected place), so by taking the item we know was listed as an owned geocache, in whatever state it's in, we make additional assumptions about ownership if we haven't confirmed anything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, Goldenwattle said:

The CO is fully responsible.

 

This is the crux of the issue for me, with regard to your actions.  I fully agree with this statement.  If you truly agreed with it as well then your actions would be consistent from cache to cache.  You file the NM log for a full log and then go and follow it up with a NA due to the CO's inaction on this issue.  That's the way you're told to do it in the help center and here in the forums, typically regardless of the issue with the cache.  It's clear you believe the onus of cache maintenance is solely upon the shoulders of the CO.  I have no problem with this line of thought.  While I personally wouldn't do what you did with regard to the NA (and probably with the NM as well), I don't begrudge you the right to do so.  You are following the standard accepted practice as outlined in the guidelines.  You're doing what is asked of you as a member of the geocaching community.

 

Here's where the problem arises.  You then stated that you will (and have done so) take that presumed sole responsibility upon yourself by maintaining someone else's cache without their permission, even going so far as to toss out a throwdown.  What happened to your belief that the CO is fully responsible?  Where are the NM and subsequent NA logs that should have been filed if you believe the CO is the only one that should do maintenance on a cache?  Your throwdown goes against what is outlined in the guidelines. You are doing what you are asked NOT to do as a member of the geocaching community and what most here in the forums counsel against by tossing out a throwdown, yet you claim it's OK because the caches are remote and will disappear with an extremely small chance of being replaced if you don't do maintenance on them.

 

You stated CO responsibility as the basis for your actions on one cache (more appropriately a series of caches) but because a cache happens to be remote, you feel this standard no longer applies. I'm sorry but you don't hold any moral grounds here for your inconsistent application of whom you believe maintenance responsibilities lie with.  You should have never filed the NA for something as minor as a full log on one cache if you believe it's OK to put out a throwdown for another cache or you should have never put out a throwdown if you believe it's OK to file a NA log over something as minor as a full log.  You can't claim to be right in what you've done in one situation and then also claim to be right in another situation that completely refutes and contradicts the belief you used to claim your actions are justified in the first situation.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Let's make this simple:

Cache in urban area and populated country areas: Can be easily replaced by CO, or if not another geocacher can place another cache there after the earlier cache is archived because the earlier CO has abandoned it. Even if this doesn't happen there are still many other caches that can be found and keep geocachers busy finding them.

 

Cache in remote areas. There are no towns; there are no geocachers living here, and almost no people. (There is no mobile coverage either; but this is only an add on, as there are GPSs.)  If any stations (farms) they spread over hundreds of square kms and up; the biggest is Anna Creek Station which an area of 23,677 square kilometres. That is to give an idea of how remote some of Australia is. The extreme remote cache example I gave is on a rough dirt track of over a 1,000km with no towns, no petrol station etc. It takes preparation to drive that (unless you are careless with your life). Not all remote caches are quite as remote as that, but are still remote. If a cache is not maintained in these remote areas by travellers, which it has become customary to do (In effect they are community caches now.), there will be no caches for hundreds of kms, as no new ones will be placed. I am not alone in doing maintenance on these grandfathered caches; as most passing through geocachers here would do the same. So please stop making up statements such as, "You then stated that you will (and have done so) take that presumed sole responsibility upon yourself by maintaining someone else's cache." Because there's nothing "sole" about this maintenance. People who suggest this maintenance shouldn't be done and these remote caches should be archived and we should have no caches to find in large areas of the country, have in all cases been making these comments from far more populated places where they will likely never face a situation where there are no caches to find. I find it a nasty, selfish attitude suggesting it's okay that we have no caches to find; while they are alright Jack; they have plenty of caches to find, so what does it matter. Then to suggest that a carefully maintained cache is a throw-down, as though comparing it to a chucked down pill bottle in a city. It's customary here for travellers to maintain these remote, in effect, grandfathered caches. Please don't tell us in Australia not to do this and I won't tell you how to maintain the caches in your country. However fortunately a lot of these earlier caches have good cache containers, such as ammunition boxes, and last well, so often it's only minor maintenance.

 

 

As for placing a NM on a cache, I consider each situation and have no hard and fast rules on this.

Share this post


Link to post

I live in OZ and I treat all caches the same regardless of remoteness. We are not all like you Goldenwatlle. I have placed NMs on neglected caches that are quite remote and followed up with NA. One of these was in a country with a population over 1 billion and has fewer than 1000 caches. Even more remote are caches in Antarctica. If I ever had the opportunity to cache there I would apply the same guidelines. I just remembered another remote cache I NM'd then NA'd.  On Isle of Pines.

You are promoting community maintenance and it does not work.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

You are promoting community maintenance and it does not work.

Okay, not everywhere, but it was working on remote caches I found; most of which I didn't need to do any maintenance on, as others had done it before me. Or the cache was set up properly in the first place and it was surviving because of this. On the very few I did do maintenance on, I got more than one thank you from COs.

 

Look, there are many opinions here. I am not bullying anyone on their opinions, but I certainly felt there were bullies out there attempting to bully me. I wasn't the one who kept coming back to attack others opinions; even making up things about me such as suggesting I was searching online to find abandoned caches and then going there just so I could throw them away.

 

What the, I thought! I admit I did react though so to defend myself from bullying false accusations.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Okay, not everywhere, but it was working on remote caches I found; most of which I didn't need to do any maintenance on, as others had done it before me. Or the cache was set up properly in the first place and it was surviving because of this. On the very few I did do maintenance on, I got more than one thank you from COs.

 

Look, there are many opinions here. I am not bullying anyone on their opinions, but I certainly felt there were bullies out there attempting to bully me. I wasn't the one who kept coming back to attack others opinions; even making up things about me such as suggesting I was searching online to find abandoned caches and then going there just so I could throw them away.

 

What the, I thought! I admit I did react though so to defend myself from bullying false accusations.

That's the thing about forums, some can be quite benign others quite hostile. An another forum I frequent,  contributors are encouraged to treat it as an online campfire as though we are sitting around having good, constructive, discussions in a civil but accepting that some contributions will not always be agreed upon by everyone, including ones own.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The other aspect to community maintenance - which is so often overlooked, especially when community maintenance goes well - is the fact that a non-existent/inactive/possibly irresponsible owner retiains their 'owner' status on the website even though they're not being the owner, which is absolutely contrary to terms of use of listing geocaches on gc.com.  While practically speaking it doesn't matter all that much in such a case, it can matter to HQ who needs to enforce their guidelines for using the website. In many cases inactive owners do cause an issue, so cracking down on community maintenance both helps the community and enforces the TOU.

 

It's just a harder pill to swallow (especially when combined with the adoption rules) when a good cache being proxy-maintained is harmed by its cache owner who has shirked their responsibilities. And in such a case, HQ shouldn't be "at blame" for enforcing the TOU - that owner is 100% responsible for the fact that the cache they agreed to maintain they are no longer claiming responsibility for even though that's what they're still telling the world by being listed as the owner (and doing nothing to change that) (or being unable to change that in the case of actual decease..ment). In that last extreme case, it's quite unfortunate for all. But..

 

Thankfully there's always the option to republish the same cache at the same location once it's archived to keep giving the community the same experience (apart from cache age statistics).

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The other aspect to community maintenance - which is so often overlooked, especially when community maintenance goes well - is the fact that a non-existent/inactive/possibly irresponsible owner retiains their 'owner' status on the website even though they're not being the owner, which is absolutely contrary to terms of use of listing geocaches on gc.com.  While practically speaking it doesn't matter all that much in such a case, it can matter to HQ who needs to enforce their guidelines for using the website. In many cases inactive owners do cause an issue, so cracking down on community maintenance both helps the community and enforces the TOU.

 

It's just a harder pill to swallow (especially when combined with the adoption rules) when a good cache being proxy-maintained is harmed by its cache owner who has shirked their responsibilities. And in such a case, HQ shouldn't be "at blame" for enforcing the TOU - that owner is 100% responsible for the fact that the cache they agreed to maintain they are no longer claiming responsibility for even though that's what they're still telling the world by being listed as the owner (and doing nothing to change that) (or being unable to change that in the case of actual decease..ment). In that last extreme case, it's quite unfortunate for all. But..

 

Thankfully there's always the option to republish the same cache at the same location once it's archived to keep giving the community the same experience (apart from cache age statistics).

 

"Decession"?

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I am not alone in doing maintenance on these grandfathered caches; as most passing through geocachers here would do the same.

 

I have no problem with you doing this (except the throwdown part), although I dispute that they're truly "grandfathered" caches as you're allowed to place a cache out past whatever distance you stated (161km?) as long as you have a maintenance plan in place that isn't community based.  No plan in place, no cache to place.  You show that you want to help others maintain their caches and provide a better experience for other cachers (as do the other few who apparently visit).  Which finds me at a loss as to why you are completely at odds with your actions toward caches in less remote areas.  I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about why you choose to do what you do.  However, I am trying to get you to acknowledge that your actions are inconsistent and that you understand the inconsistency within what you have chosen to do and perhaps offer a little bit of leniency toward COs who choose to place caches closer to home.  Those inconsistent actions shouldn't allow you to come on this forum and complain about someone being upset about your actions when your actions for the exact same type of thing aren't consistent across the board.  This is a textbook example of hypocrisy and why I keep bringing it up because you either seem to not understand the issue raised or you willingly choose to be dogmatic about your actions.  

 

Yes, some COs take NM and NA logs personally rather than as an informational status check of their individual cache.  I understand your reasoning for why you filed the logs and I also understand their reasoning for why they might take it as a personal comment on them as a CO rather than a comment about the status of the cache.  However, in the example you provided, your logs run completely counter to your lack of logs for other caches so your points aren't making any sense.

 

17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If a cache is not maintained in these remote areas by travellers, which it has become customary to do (In effect they are community caches now.), there will be no caches for hundreds of kms, as no new ones will be placed

 

You're most likely right.  I'm not disputing that.  I'm also not against what you're doing (again up to the point of the throwdown).  I would most likely do the same thing.  I don't know how many times I need to say that for you to understand that I agree with what you have chosen to do.  However, the cache belongs to the individual who placed it and they alone are the ones that should provide any needed maintenance.  You said it yourself - "The CO is fully responsible."  Either the CO is responsible or they're not and all subsequent actions you take, regardless of which side of this statement you believe, should be based upon that premise. 

 

Also, there's no such thing as a community cache.  That cache might be community maintained but it still belongs to the CO.  You've already stated that you don't want anyone to do any maintenance on your caches.  How would you feel if others maintained your caches without your permission and didn't tell you about it?

 

83629513_ScreenShot2019-09-20at12_37_47PM.png.fcf60cb29ebf9a7368d66669525e695f.png

Where in this list of maintenance expectations does it say anything about how far away a cache is?

 

17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So please stop making up statements such as, "You then stated that you will (and have done so) take that presumed sole responsibility upon yourself by maintaining someone else's cache."

 

I didn't make this up.  YOU stated it when you said so back on the first page of this thread.  "...I only replace caches in very remote areas..." and "...Mind you, although remote, the caches I have helped maintain when travelling weren't as remote as this one...."  The presumed sole responsibility I'm referring to is also what you stated.  "The CO is fully responsible."

 

17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

People who suggest this maintenance shouldn't be done and these remote caches should be archived and we should have no caches to find in large areas of the country, have in all cases been making these comments from far more populated places where they will likely never face a situation where there are no caches to find. I find it a nasty, selfish attitude suggesting it's okay that we have no caches to find; while they are alright Jack; they have plenty of caches to find, so what does it matter.

 

Again, I've stated that I'd do the same type of thing, up to the point of putting out a throwdown.  I'm all for trying to keep caches going when it's feasible.  Just because I live in a cache rich area does NOT mean that I don't sympathize with those who live in cache desolate areas.  I feel for @barefootjeff and the lack of caching opportunities he has available.  The same goes for others who live in similar situations.  I would rather you try to keep caches alive (when feasible and not against guidelines) rather than get them archived.  Apparently so do you.  Except that you selectively choose which caches to maintain and that's the issue with me.  You're willing to keep some caches going, even going so far as to put out a throwdown, but you are also willing to get a cache possibly archived by filing a NA log to get the CO to do maintenance.  Those two actions are completely at odds with one another.

 

17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then to suggest that a carefully maintained cache is a throw-down, as though comparing it to a chucked down pill bottle in a city.

 

Maintained by whom? By you?  Is it your cache that you replaced or is it someone else's cache?  Did you have permission?  You've already stated you put out a container but based on the facts, you put out a throwdown container.  It wasn't your cache, you don't have permission, and you performed maintenance on someone else's cache, replacing it for them with another container.  It does not matter how nice the container is.  It's still a throwdown.  

 

So if someone replaces someone else's cache without permission with a better container than the one that was there previously, then it's not a throwdown?  So if I put out a bison tube with a nice o-ring to replace a missing pill bottle, it's OK and not a throwdown?  That's what you seem to be saying here.  A throwdown is a throwdown, regardless of the container and where it's placed, be it in the middle of NYC or the middle of nowhere.

 

17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

However fortunately a lot of these earlier caches have good cache containers, such as ammunition boxes, and last well, so often it's only minor maintenance.

 

That's great and I'd do the same thing.  So you're saying you're willing to perform minor maintenance.  Except that you're not willing to perform minor maintenance all the time and instead claim the CO is fully responsible in those cases when you're not willing to perform minor maintenance.  Which is it?  Why can't you see that your actions for both of these caches is hypocritical?

 

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

On the very few I did do maintenance on, I got more than one thank you from COs.

 

That's great! So why are you willing to forego this benevolent action and receive thanks from other COs by doing something so simple as replacing a full log?  I rarely get anything like that from COs.

 

Let me get this straight.  Some of the COs, who didn't do the maintenance that was apparently needed, relied upon you to do it, are still active enough to contact you to thank you but not active enough to go out and maintain their caches that you provided maintenance on?  And you're OK with their actions (or more appropriately their lack of action)?  How is that any different than the CO of a PT (or any other cache in a cache dense area) waiting or hoping for others to do their maintenance?

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Cache in remote areas. There are no towns; there are no geocachers living here, and almost no people. (There is no mobile coverage either; but this is only an add on, as there are GPSs.)  If any stations (farms) they spread over hundreds of square kms and up; the biggest is Anna Creek Station which an area of 23,677 square kilometres. That is to give an idea of how remote some of Australia is. The extreme remote cache example I gave is on a rough dirt track of over a 1,000km with no towns, no petrol station etc. It takes preparation to drive that (unless you are careless with your life). Not all remote caches are quite as remote as that, but are still remote. If a cache is not maintained in these remote areas by travellers, which it has become customary to do (In effect they are community caches now.), there will be no caches for hundreds of kms, as no new ones will be placed. I am not alone in doing maintenance on these grandfathered caches; as most passing through geocachers here would do the same. So please stop making up statements such as, "You then stated that you will (and have done so) take that presumed sole responsibility upon yourself by maintaining someone else's cache." Because there's nothing "sole" about this maintenance. People who suggest this maintenance shouldn't be done and these remote caches should be archived and we should have no caches to find in large areas of the country, have in all cases been making these comments from far more populated places where they will likely never face a situation where there are no caches to find. I find it a nasty, selfish attitude suggesting it's okay that we have no caches to find; while they are alright Jack; they have plenty of caches to find, so what does it matter. Then to suggest that a carefully maintained cache is a throw-down, as though comparing it to a chucked down pill bottle in a city. It's customary here for travellers to maintain these remote, in effect, grandfathered caches. Please don't tell us in Australia not to do this and I won't tell you how to maintain the caches in your country. However fortunately a lot of these earlier caches have good cache containers, such as ammunition boxes, and last well, so often it's only minor maintenance.

Different communities can have different standards. In an area like that, I assume you know the other COs, so helping them maintain their remote caches makes sense because you know their standards and how they'd maintain their own caches. The problem comes when people unilaterally maintain a cache that really should be taken off the books.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, dprovan said:

Different communities can have different standards. In an area like that, I assume you know the other COs, so helping them maintain their remote caches makes sense because you know their standards and how they'd maintain their own caches. The problem comes when people unilaterally maintain a cache that really should be taken off the books.

Not always, but yes I often do know these other cachers. I might have even met them, but if not, at least I know many by name. They would know my name too.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not always, but yes I often do know these other cachers. I might have even met them, but if not, at least I know many by name. They would know my name too.

OK. I don't think the people arguing with you are imaging a friend helping another friend with his cache maintenance. They're talking about the all-too-common practice of blowing through an area away from home and dropping throwdowns whenever you can't find a cache.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

OK. I don't think the people arguing with you are imaging a friend helping another friend with his cache maintenance. They're talking about the all-too-common practice of blowing through an area away from home and dropping throwdowns whenever you can't find a cache.

After one has been caching for years, of course you get to know the names of many other geocachers (even if you have never actually met them) and even from logs can see their travels. I'm sure that's the same for much of the world. I don't know all the names, but some are familiar. Entering a new area the names might not be familiar at first, but then they become more so, so if later that name turns up in my local area (they log one of my caches for instance, or turn up at a get-together), I have been known to say to a geocaching friend, I noticed that such and such from the NT, or Tasmania, is passing through the area.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

After one has been caching for years, of course you get to know the names of many other geocachers (even if you have never actually met them) and even from logs can see their travels. I'm sure that's the same for much of the world. I don't know all the names, but some are familiar. Entering a new area the names might not be familiar at first, but then they become more so, so if later that name turns up in my local area (they log one of my caches for instance, or turn up at a get-together), I have been known to say to a geocaching friend, I noticed that such and such from the NT, or Tasmania, is passing through the area.

I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me since we all understand it. The point people are making here is that you shouldn't drop a throwdown or do major maintenance for just any cache. I'm acknowledging that it's OK to help a friend with his cache maintenance, based on the assumption that you know him well enough to approximate the maintenance he'd do himself, and that you're in contact with him and will let him know what you found and what you did to fix it. If that's what you're doing, we're fine. If you're going into these new areas and replacing caches in speculation of someday being the CO's friend, then please don't.

 

That's the distinction people are trying to explain to you: a CO is responsible for his own cache's maintenance. If you're on the CO's "team", then he can use you to help him with his maintenance, including (in my opinion) you guessing what he'd want you to do and talking to him about it later. If you're a stranger to the CO, then you're not helping him with maintenance, you're just dropping caches for your own sake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me since we all understand it. The point people are making here is that you shouldn't drop a throwdown or do major maintenance for just any cache. I'm acknowledging that it's OK to help a friend with his cache maintenance, based on the assumption that you know him well enough to approximate the maintenance he'd do himself, and that you're in contact with him and will let him know what you found and what you did to fix it. If that's what you're doing, we're fine.

And yet even then Groundspeak could come down on the CO if they show a repeated habit of letting a friend or friends maintain their caches for them. So even in good will, the CO could get a slap on the wrist, or more. They might suggest the CO adopt the cache out to whoever is doing the maintenance.

 

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

a CO is responsible for his own cache's maintenance. If you're on the CO's "team", then he can use you to help him with his maintenance, including (in my opinion) you guessing what he'd want you to do and talking to him about it later. If you're a stranger to the CO, then you're not helping him with maintenance, you're just dropping caches for your own sake.

And it may be possible to convince HQ that part of "your maintenance plan" is having another person perform maintenance when necessary, and that may sidestep the issue of not doing your own maintenance as the cache owner. But IANAR, and many reviewers are dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

And yet even then Groundspeak could come down on the CO if they show a repeated habit of letting a friend or friends maintain their caches for them. So even in good will, the CO could get a slap on the wrist, or more. They might suggest the CO adopt the cache out to whoever is doing the maintenance.

I don't think GS cares who physically does the maintenance. The guidelines make it the CO's responsibility, but I don't see any particular limits to how the maintenance is actually performed. There are restrictions, such as against vacation caches, that might come into play, but I don't think GS would ever come down on anyone who's otherwise perfectly normal cache ended up always being fixed by someone else. And that's even assuming there's any reason they'd find out about it. When I do maintenance, I don't have to pledge the I did the maintenance personally or inform GS that someone else did it. I don't even have to tell anyone maintenance has been done unless the maintenance flag is set.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I don't think GS cares who physically does the maintenance. The guidelines make it the CO's responsibility, but I don't see any particular limits to how the maintenance is actually performed. There are restrictions, such as against vacation caches, that might come into play, but I don't think GS would ever come down on anyone who's otherwise perfectly normal cache ended up always being fixed by someone else

Oh we've had instances of proxy-maintenance being noticed by reviewers and being dealt with. It gets to the point that people won't mention in find logs that the cache was missing and so a replacement was set in place (whether knowing beforehand or not, with permission or not). It happens. And when it happens regularly, and the CO continues to allow it as if it's the norm, then reviewers will take action. At least around here.  Now, I suppose it depends on what style of 'maintenance' is happening -- replacement caches (throwdowns or condoned) will likely get quicker action than other people merely replacing wet/full logs. But the underlying point remains - if a CO repeatedly allows others to 'maintain' their caches, they could face repercussive action by reviewers.  But my thinking is it's one of those things that can be discussed since it's really a matter of CO reasoning and judgments, how bad the situation is, how it affects the community, and well, whether that cacher is in the reviewers' good books or not :P (how they've demonstrated their cache ownership ethics in the past).

 

The base point is - you're the cache owner, YOU do the maintenance. There can be exceptions to that rule, and it may be possible to set a different approved maintenance plan in place, but that basic responsibility exists - the cache owner does cache maintenance. Stray from that and you risk repercussions.

 

Always, the best course of action otherwise is to talk to your local reviewer. Positively and respectfully. It goes a long way. :)

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Oh we've had instances of proxy-maintenance being noticed by reviewers and being dealt with. It gets to the point that people won't mention in find logs that the cache was missing and so a replacement was set in place

 

Could we separate maintenance from a new cache placement. When I bring my car for a maintenance I am not supposed to get a new car when I get it back. I know that this word is used for both cases but the total replacement is usually called a throwdown - not maintenance. People tends to mix these things up and get the wrong conclusion that all maintenance should be done by the CO and only by the CO because throwdowns are not allowed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, arisoft said:

People tends to mix these things up and get the wrong conclusion that all maintenance should be done by the CO and only by the CO because throwdowns are not allowed.

 

I did separate the two. And yes, even for 'simple' maintenance fixes. If the CO repeatedly shows that they are not checking on their cache after allowing others to continually maintain, then reviewers can take action.  Can.  I have seen them take action.  They're absolutely more likely to take action with "throwdowns" (which can also be broken down deeper to distinguish "I couldn't find it so I put down a new one" vs "the CO confirmed it was missing and asked/allowed me to put down a new one"), but they can also take action if they feel a CO is not being a CO.

The degree of maintenance technically doesn't matter - whatever the issue, the CO is the one with the sole responsibility to confirm that their geocache is ready to be found (ie, visit and check, at the very least, based on their reasonable maintenance plan). Reviewers can judge based on where the issue is on that maintenance scale between replacing logsheet to placing new containers (w/ or w/o permission) whether it should be dealth with.

 

In other words, it's a risk if you as a CO never visit your cache and your cache history shows other people doing your maintenance for you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

In other words, it's a risk if you as a CO never visit your cache and your cache history shows other people doing your maintenance for you.

 

In the context that maintenance ≠ throwdown, do you remember an example of cache having such problems?

Share this post


Link to post

Ontario is huge. I see actions by reviewers in notifications that pass through my inbox fairly often related to (non)maintenance concerns.  I don't look into them very much because I'm not overly concerned with them. I'm simply saying that if a CO does not BE a CO, then reviewers can respond to that. Community maintenance isn't allowed (whatever the maintenance may be).  Different regions may have reviewers that have different thresholds for what they allow to pass mainly due to the state of the community.  Ontario reviewers can crack down pretty hard, and your own reputation as a CO can also affect how much they might crack down in any particular circumstance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Community maintenance isn't allowed

 

Am am sorry for you in Canada. In Finland we have an official community for maintenancing geocaches.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2019 at 2:47 AM, dprovan said:

OK. I don't think the people arguing with you are imaging a friend helping another friend with his cache maintenance.

 

While I understand where you're going with this, it still doesn't seem to make sense in this case.  Here's the reply offered up.

 

On 9/20/2019 at 11:59 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Not always, but yes I often do know these other cachers. I might have even met them, but if not, at least I know many by name. They would know my name too.

 

Not always (admit they don't always know the CO yet still do maintenance), might have even met them (perhaps haven't met them while also believing that meeting them once or twice is now justification for doing their maintenance), if not, know many by name (they only have heard their caching name, not actually met them, yet that's apparently enough to call them friends and do maintenance on their caches) and they'd know my name (so it's OK if I do maintenance for them because they've heard of me but never met me).  How can you know anyone if you've never even met them? That's not a very strong basis for a friendship.  Most of these aren't friends in the true sense of the word.  I wouldn't even call those type of people acquaintances.

 

I know cachers' names as well.   @dprovan  logged a note on a multi cache in Carmel-by-the-sea right before my DNF.   @thebruce0 logged Entmoot, which I have a watch on and is just over the border from my state.  The same goes for @Isonzo Karst finding Power Island, the same state north of me.  I've even met @Fugads who used to be on here more frequently.  However, that doesn't mean I can or should perform maintenance for them on caches that they might not apparently maintain because somehow knowing their caching name or meeting them once means I understand their standards as it pertains to maintenance.  However, I do have some cachers I know, have met multiple times, been to events with, cached with, and met their families and I would be comfortable helping maintain their caches because I know the type of people they are as well as the type of geocacher they are.  I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, based on these comments.

 

Also, based on what was said, it's a good bet that GW "knows" the CO that they filed the NM/NA logs on.  If the COs on the remote caches are known by GW and the COs of less remote caches are known just as well, then why two different applications of the same concept?  Yet another justification that conflicts with itself for maintenance actions that were taken.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

In Finland we have an official community for maintenancing geocaches.

 

Do you mean that community maintenance is allowed as a maintenance plan for new cache placements (and reviewers will publish such caches) or do you mean that the community is willing to help each other out by doing minor maintenance on others' caches?  There's a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Do you mean that community maintenance is allowed as a maintenance plan for new cache placements (and reviewers will publish such caches) or do you mean that the community is willing to help each other out by doing minor maintenance on others' caches?  There's a difference.

 

New caches by this official cache maintenancing group have been accepted. I know this for sure because I have made one of these caches.

The same community is also maintenancing caches (minor and major way) and this is also the official maintenance plan of some caches.

So it works in both ways you asked. I hope that the Canadian way will stay in Canada only. :)

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Am am sorry for you in Canada. In Finland we have an official community for maintenancing geocaches.

 

Don't be sorry. There are very good reasons why it's not condoned.

And Europe has quite a number of cultural and geocaching guidelines 'differences', and I have no idea how many are officially condoned from hq and how many are just left to exist while turning a blind eye to it.  Local law differences can have an enormous impact on how reviewers deal with geocaching issues.

Again, don't be sorry.

 

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

New caches by this official cache maintenancing group have been accepted. I know this for sure because I have made one of these caches.

The same community is also maintenancing caches (minor and major way) and this is also the official maintenance plan of some caches.

 

If the 'official maintenance plan' is accepted by the reviewers on publishing (or defended after publishing), that's not the same as ad hoc maintenance by community members.  The former can be accepted in North America as well. The latter, as I said, runs you the risk of reviewers taking action at shirking your own cache owner responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If the 'official maintenance plan' is accepted by the reviewers on publishing (or defended after publishing), that's not the same as ad hoc maintenance by community members.  The former can be accepted in North America as well. The latter, as I said, runs you the risk of reviewers taking action at shirking your own cache owner responsibilities.

 

I am not talking about ad hoc maintenance but a community engaged to maintaining caches. The situation is opposite of the one you have described deliberately or accidentally.

 

14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If the CO repeatedly shows that they are not checking on their cache after allowing others to continually maintain, then reviewers can take action.  Can.  I have seen them take action.

 

As you may see, my experience is opposite of your experience and I think that the reason is regional.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, arisoft said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

If the 'official maintenance plan' is accepted by the reviewers on publishing (or defended after publishing), that's not the same as ad hoc maintenance by community members.  The former can be accepted in North America as well. The latter, as I said, runs you the risk of reviewers taking action at shirking your own cache owner responsibilities.

 

I am not talking about ad hoc maintenance but a community engaged to maintaining caches. The situation is opposite of the one you have described deliberately or accidentally.

 

Note the bold. The key word being "can". It's an exception. Cache owners worldwide agree to terms of use to maintain their own geocaches when listing them on gc.com. IF reviewers deem an official maintenance plan sufficient that involves other people, then they can allow it and publish the cache.  If that's your case, then great.

If somehow your country is allowing community maintenance that isn't approved, and is just people who are going around doing 'good deeds' for cache owners (whether replacing logs or containers) and there's absolutely no concern over the fact that owners aren't maintaining their own caches and that's norm, well then I'd say your region has very different reviewer policies for what's acceptable practice and seems to be to go directly against the agreed terms of cache ownership on this website.

 

OTOH, if your 'group' does it occasionally and when necessary, and cache owners don't mind if it's done but still actively maintain their own caches (or show that they want to), then there lkely wouldn't be any issue at all, because reviewers would be seeing that cache owners aren't relying on other people to do their own maintenance - it just happens that occasionally when there's a wet log, it gets replaced by someone without being asked.  Great then. That's nice.

That's not what we're talking about.

 

If your cache owners have an approved maintenance plan, then this isn't relevant to you.

If your cache owners show diligence in maintaining their own caches despite others regularly stepping in without being asked, then this isn't relevant to you.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am not talking about ad hoc maintenance but a community engaged to maintaining caches.

 

How does this maintenance community work? I would like to know specifically how a community member knows she/he is allowed to maintain a particular cache.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Note the bold. The key word being "can". It's an exception.

 

This is important. We can maintain caches collectively in Finland. Couple of days ago I found a cache lying on ground. The hook was missing. I made a new hook and moved the cache back to the ground zero. No reviewer has archived the cache yet. :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rapotek said:

I would like to know specifically how a community member knows she/he is allowed to maintain a particular cache.

 

There is a public list of players engaged to this activity.

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...