Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Thegeofinders217

Maintenance Needed

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

How do you get the maintenance needed icon to pop up on a log? When you want to add it to the logs if you think that maintenance is needed?

Edited by Thegeofinders217

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

When you go to do the log, click on "Report a Problem" after you have written your log.  It's on the same page.

 

Log.jpg

Edited by ecanderson
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

On the App the process is completely different for some reason...

 

098A2F4D-2CDA-4AC9-BDEC-BC6065BC800E.thumb.jpeg.e2631fdb76ab3a8272be7b9cdaea3894.jpeg

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, good point.  Due to feature issues, I don't use the app, so rarely think of it in this context.

 

Share this post


Link to post

And if you use the "old" logging method, you simply log again with a separate "Needs Maintenance" log.   :)

I prefer it so it doesn't interfere with my Found It or DNF logging.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

And if you use the "old" logging method, you simply log again with a separate "Needs Maintenance" log.   :)

I prefer it so it doesn't interfere with my Found It or DNF logging.

 

And if you use the Cachly app there's also a "Needs Maintenance" log. I prefer a separate NM log too. 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

 

And if you use the Cachly app there's also a "Needs Maintenance" log. I prefer a separate NM log too. 


The official app keeps them separate too; it’s only the ‘new logging experience’ on the website that combines them with Found and DNF logs.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Only on rare occasions should you log Needs Maintenance with DNF.  If you did not find it, how do you know it needs maintenance?

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

Only on rare occasions should you log Needs Maintenance with DNF.  If you did not find it, how do you know it needs maintenance?

 

For example, you might find it in pieces, obviously beyond the status of working "cachitude". If there's no log to sign, I 'd file a DNF and a NM.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

Only on rare occasions should you log Needs Maintenance with DNF.  If you did not find it, how do you know it needs maintenance?

 

I have over 300 DNFs.    Many of those because the area was completely different than seen years earlier. 

We started when many parks were still wild.  One trail lost twelve caches when it was dug up and turned into a  packed stone road.

"The tree/boulders that used to stand here are gone" were common logs, and we're facing similar, with an area maybe no longer usable for one of ours.

Luckily we ask for permission, and the guys replaced our ammo can after they cut all the trees around it.   :)

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

Only on rare occasions should you log Needs Maintenance with DNF.  If you did not find it, how do you know it needs maintenance?

 

It helps alert an active CO and future finders that their cache may actually be gone. If all signs point to a missing cache post an NM. There are factors you can consider... Is it supposed to be an easy find? Is the D rating low? Is the hint a give-away? Are there spoiler photos in the gallery to corraborate a missing container? Are there a string of DNFs for a cache that got only find logs before the DNFs? Did something drastic change at the location, like a flood or the cutting down of trees? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

For example, you might find it in pieces, obviously beyond the status of working "cachitude". If there's no log to sign, I 'd file a DNF and a NM.

 

I think even if you are 99% sure.  It's better to just log the DNF and move on.  Here's an example of a cache I DNF'd recently where I was 99% sure that the container had been muggled: GC46XCG
It was some type of green bird-house attached to a tree.  There are photos of it in the gallery.  I found a single piece of broken green wood attached to the tree.  But... for all I know the CO may have moved the container to a new location and I wasn't spotting it.  How do I know that broken wood is still the right spot?  I've seen too many people overuse Needs Maintenance that I just caution against it.   

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

 

I think even if you are 99% sure.  It's better to just log the DNF and move on.  Here's an example of a cache I DNF'd recently where I was 99% sure that the container had been muggled: GC46XCG
It was some type of green bird-house attached to a tree.  There are photos of it in the gallery.  I found a single piece of broken green wood attached to the tree.  But... for all I know the CO may have moved the container to a new location and I wasn't spotting it.  How do I know that broken wood is still the right spot?  I've seen too many people overuse Needs Maintenance that I just caution against it.   

 

You don't know for sure, but the CO will. If I were the CO and someone posted an NM because they found a broken birdhouse at ground zero, I'd thank the finder for posting the NM and alerting me to my oversight, i.e. that I moved the cache and forgot to update the coordinates and description. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

Only on rare occasions should you log Needs Maintenance with DNF.  If you did not find it, how do you know it needs maintenance?

I know it needs maintenance because I'm the fifth person to look for this D1.5/T1.5 cache, or I'm only the 3rd but the hint is "Under the lamp post cover". If that doesn't indicate it needs maintenance, what ever will?

 

2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I think even if you are 99% sure.  It's better to just log the DNF and move on.  Here's an example of a cache I DNF'd recently where I was 99% sure that the container had been muggled: GC46XCG
It was some type of green bird-house attached to a tree.  There are photos of it in the gallery.  I found a single piece of broken green wood attached to the tree.  But... for all I know the CO may have moved the container to a new location and I wasn't spotting it.  How do I know that broken wood is still the right spot?  I've seen too many people overuse Needs Maintenance that I just caution against it.

You're completely missing the point of needing maintenance. If the cache description says "Bird house" or even if it's merely common knowledge that it's a bird house, and there's a piece of a bird house on the tree, the cache needs maintenance. In the extraordinary possibility that the CO moved the cache without removing the remnants, then the maintenance that's required is the description needs to be fixed even if only to add the comment, "This used to be a bird house (see gallery), but now it's not." If you don't post an NM in this case and the cache really hasn't been replaced, no one will *ever* post an NM and the cache will *never* get fixed. (Well, thanks to people like you, reviewers now jump in even when no problem has been reported, but it's still better to report the problem when you detected it and not leave it to a reviewer to guess whether there's a problem.)

 

Way too many people think "Needs Maintenance" means "You are stupid and lazy because your cache is obviously broken, so fix it right away or else." No, it means "You might want to know that I think this cache needs maintenance, but I could be wrong, so I hope I'm not wasting your time reporting this."

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Some people are mistaking the word "rarely" (used in my initial comment) and "never".  If you personally have a strong conviction to log NM on a cache, go for it.  In my original post, I was simply trying to caution new geocachers not to log NM simply because they can't find a cache, which I see a lot of new geocachers do, and this discussion thread is in the "getting started" forum.

 

Edited by HoochDog

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HoochDog said:

Some people are mistaking the word "rarely" (used in my initial comment) and "never".  If you personally have a strong conviction to log NM on a cache, go for it.  In my original post, I was simply trying to caution new geocachers not to log NM simply because they can't find a cache, which I see a lot of new geocachers do, and this discussion thread is in the "getting started" forum.

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. You said, "even if you are 99% sure." That's essentially never. The newbie's problem is different. They lack the very concept of failing to find a cache even though it's there. They're 100% sure it needs maintenance because they don't know any better.

 

In addition, you said it's rare for an NM to be posted when you DNF a cache, which I assumed was a different point than how convinced you are it's not there. My experience is exactly backwards: almost all NMs I file are on caches I couldn't find because, by far, the most common reason a cache needs maintenance in my area is because it is truly missing. I almost never find the cache but then decide it's in such bad shape it needs maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post

I log NM where I think it's necessary and this year I have logged 11 NMs. They are to let the CO know there is a problem. The reasons I did:

 - Co-ordinates more than 30 metres out. Others have mentioned this too. Still not corrected.

 

- Marked 1.5D, my DNF following several DNFs, I did a NM. CO checked and it’s still there, but they WON’T change the rating because they think it’s easy, even though of those who logged DNFs, they outnumber finds. And many don’t bother to log DNFs, so likely there are more. If this had been rated say 3.5D I would not have made a NM. It was made because it’s rated only 1.5D. A nano on a place with many hidey holes.

 

- Made after several DNFs. The Reviewer stepped in a month ago, and still no action from the CO.

 

- Full log. CO has now replaced.

 

- Coordinates are 510m out. Still not fixed months later. I am considering a NA.

 

- Log soaked. Owner replaced with a better cache.

 

- Clip missing off cache and cache with water in it. Still not fixed.

 

- Lid had a hole in it. Has been replaced by CO.

 

- Log was soaked. CO replaced log.

 

- Log wais soaked. CO replaced log.

 

- 1.5D. I made a NM after several DNFs and the mention of out coordinates.
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Everybody has an opinion, here's mine:

 

If I log a NM, I owe the Co a description, within the visit log, (or by PM if visit log would contain a spoiler) of what the problem is. That allows the CO to come to GZ with the materials necessary to make the repairs in one visit. If I cannot adequately describe what they need to do, I suspect a NM log is likely nit appropriate. Consider the following examples

 

1. I arrive at GZ, search for an hour and am not successful. That is a DNF log. There is no additional information to be shared by adding a NM. Maybe its there. Maybe its not. That information is provided by a DNF.

 

2.  I search for an hour unsuccessfully. I PM the CO, who gives me a photo of precisely where they placed he cache. I return again and cannot find the cache. Thats also a DNF. The CO knows from our previous interraction that I had a spoiler and still didn't find the container.

 

3.  I arrive at GZ, find the cache but the log is wet, and cannot be signed. I add a zlock with a small log sheet, which I sign. That's a found it with a note that I added a log sheet. It alerts the owner that at their next caching run they may wish to add a full log sheet, and materials to re-seal the container.

 

4.  I arrive at GZ and find the cache, which has lying in the open, with a hole in the corner and the inner plastic bag protruding out the hole. I sign the log, return the bag to the container, and place the cache at a location 3 feet from where i found it, in coordination with the hint in the cache page.  That is a found it and a NM log. the NM log says " Found container in the open, with a hole in it. Needs a new water tight container. 

 

I have encountered very few situations where I entered a NM log.Most issues I can mitigate at least temporarily until  the CO does their regular maintenance run, with materials i carry in my caching bag. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

If I log a NM, I owe the Co a description, within the visit log, (or by PM if visit log would contain a spoiler) of what the problem is. That allows the CO to come to GZ with the materials necessary to make the repairs in one visit. If I cannot adequately describe what they need to do, I suspect a NM log is likely nit appropriate.

Interesting way of looking it. When I file an NM, I include a detailed explanation simply because an NM is pointless without a detailed explanation. The fact that the CO can correct the problem in one trip is the least of my concerns, although I'd certainly be embarrassed if my description didn't give the CO enough information to deal with it. (I'm not sure why you say, "within the visit log", but I assume it's because you file NMs by clicking the box in the new logging interface. If so, within the visit log is the best you can do. I always use the old logging page to log an explicit NM with the description there because that way the CO sees the explanation in the higher priority NM instead of in the background drone of DNFs.)

 

15 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

Consider the following examples

 

1. I arrive at GZ, search for an hour and am not successful. That is a DNF log. There is no additional information to be shared by adding a NM. Maybe its there. Maybe its not. That information is provided by a DNF.

Unless, of course, I have some additional information, such as a low difficulty, mine being the last of several DNFs, or something about the environment having changed such that it doesn't agree with the cache description. Then I'll file an NM, summing up whatever it is that led me to think there's enough doubt for the CO to check out whether it's still there.

 

15 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

2.  I search for an hour unsuccessfully. I PM the CO, who gives me a photo of precisely where they placed he cache. I return again and cannot find the cache. Thats also a DNF. The CO knows from our previous interraction that I had a spoiler and still didn't find the container.

The CO knows that the cache is missing, but other seekers do not, so that's the main reason I file an NM even if I've talked to the owner. Besides, why not? It's just a fact that the cache needs maintenance, so there's no harm whatsoever in filing the NM even if you consider the information redundant. (But it's not redundant: it sets the maintenance flag to remind the CO in case he forgets.)

 

15 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

3.  I arrive at GZ, find the cache but the log is wet, and cannot be signed. I add a zlock with a small log sheet, which I sign. That's a found it with a note that I added a log sheet. It alerts the owner that at their next caching run they may wish to add a full log sheet, and materials to re-seal the container.

I agree problems with the physical log isn't worth an NM, which is why it annoys me that the new NM check box encourages people to file NMs to report log problems. (As it happens, I almost never replace a wet log because it strikes me as pointless, but I understand people that do. And I don't find ziplock bags make much difference, but that's another topic.)

 

15 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

4.  I arrive at GZ and find the cache, which has lying in the open, with a hole in the corner and the inner plastic bag protruding out the hole. I sign the log, return the bag to the container, and place the cache at a location 3 feet from where i found it, in coordination with the hint in the cache page.  That is a found it and a NM log. the NM log says " Found container in the open, with a hole in it. Needs a new water tight container. 

I'm generally satisfied with mentioning a minor structural failure like this in the DNF and leaving it at that, but I don't mind if you file an NM. Perhaps that's just because I live in California, so a little bit of critter damage isn't likely to cause much trouble any time soon for future seekers. I'd be more likely to file an NM if the hole had already caused trouble, but I wouldn't typically file one just because I suspected the hole might in the future cause trouble. I'll leave the NM to the seeker that actually encounters the trouble, if there ever is one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Interesting way of looking it. When I file an NM, I include a detailed explanation simply because an NM is pointless without a detailed explanation. The fact that the CO can correct the problem in one trip is the least of my concerns, although I'd certainly be embarrassed if my description didn't give the CO enough information to deal with it. (I'm not sure why you say, "within the visit log", but I assume it's because you file NMs by clicking the box in the new logging interface. If so, within the visit log is the best you can do. I always use the old logging page to log an explicit NM with the description there because that way the CO sees the explanation in the higher priority NM instead of in the background drone of DNFs.)

 

Unless, of course, I have some additional information, such as a low difficulty, mine being the last of several DNFs, or something about the environment having changed such that it doesn't agree with the cache description. Then I'll file an NM, summing up whatever it is that led me to think there's enough doubt for the CO to check out whether it's still there.

 

The CO knows that the cache is missing, but other seekers do not, so that's the main reason I file an NM even if I've talked to the owner. Besides, why not? It's just a fact that the cache needs maintenance, so there's no harm whatsoever in filing the NM even if you consider the information redundant. (But it's not redundant: it sets the maintenance flag to remind the CO in case he forgets.)

 

I agree problems with the physical log isn't worth an NM, which is why it annoys me that the new NM check box encourages people to file NMs to report log problems. (As it happens, I almost never replace a wet log because it strikes me as pointless, but I understand people that do. And I don't find ziplock bags make much difference, but that's another topic.)

 

I'm generally satisfied with mentioning a minor structural failure like this in the DNF and leaving it at that, but I don't mind if you file an NM. Perhaps that's just because I live in California, so a little bit of critter damage isn't likely to cause much trouble any time soon for future seekers. I'd be more likely to file an NM if the hole had already caused trouble, but I wouldn't typically file one just because I suspected the hole might in the future cause trouble. I'll leave the NM to the seeker that actually encounters the trouble, if there ever is one.

I agree with all this except in some situations the last. If the cache has a hole in the lid, if it's in a protected location where it won't get wet, with similar caches found in a protected location I have mentioned the hole in my log, but not added the NM. I would likely add the NM if the cache is in a place where future rain will get in through the hole, even if it hasn't yet, because it will happen in an exposed position.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

(I'm not sure why you say, "within the visit log", but I assume it's because you file NMs by clicking the box in the new logging interface. If so, within the visit log is the best you can do.

 

This is only true if you want to have the easiest logging time and only have to write a log once.  When you click the box for NM, finish writing your log and submit it, a separate NM log is created with your found it log on the cache page.  However, it's not populated with any text and is just a blank NM.  Just like any other log, you can edit the NM log, which requires you to do a couple more clicks to get to the same point you would with the separate NM log that used to be the "old" way of filing a NM log on the site, at which point you can then fill in the specifics that led you to filing the NM log in the first place.  That's what I do now.  I don't provide as many specifics about the issue in my found it log and go into a bit more detail in the associated NM log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

This is only true if you want to have the easiest logging time and only have to write a log once.  When you click the box for NM, finish writing your log and submit it, a separate NM log is created with your found it log on the cache page.  However, it's not populated with any text and is just a blank NM.  Just like any other log, you can edit the NM log, which requires you to do a couple more clicks to get to the same point you would with the separate NM log that used to be the "old" way of filing a NM log on the site, at which point you can then fill in the specifics that led you to filing the NM log in the first place.  That's what I do now.  I don't provide as many specifics about the issue in my found it log and go into a bit more detail in the associated NM log.

 

The trouble with doing it that way is that the email the CO gets will just be the original "this geocacher reported a problem with this cache", not your edited version.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The trouble with doing it that way is that the email the CO gets will just be the original "this geocacher reported a problem with this cache", not your edited version.

The old system with the separate NM log is far superior and much more obvious and therefore easier to know what to do. Dare I say, MUCH more use friendly. Everyone who used this older system knew where to find NM, because there was no automatic 'Found' log in the selection. You had to select that, and in selecting 'Found', the other options would be seen. NM and NA never has to be searched for. Far more obvious and user friendly that method; no searching was required; the options were seen easily.

It appears to me, this new logging system is set up for muggles with apps, who only need to be able to log their few finds, before they bore of it all and move onto other five minute interests.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It appears to me, this new logging system is set up for muggles with apps, who only need to be able to log their few finds, before they bore of it all and move onto other five minute interests.


Yet the App does still have separate logs for NM and NA.  However, they are not accessed from the same place as the other logging options.  Consistency would be nice.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

On Saturday, I attempted a cache in a small roadside park.  As I was walking toward the cache coords, I saw a cache in a downed log.  At first I thought the coords were wrong, then I remembered the cache description didn't match what I found, so I checked the front of the log book.  Sure enough, the cache was one that must have been previously archived and not retrieved.  I continued toward the coords and found yet another previously archived cache!  I continued to hunt for a while, but couldn't find the actual cache.  I marked it as a DNF and sent a message to the CO.

 

I'm very reluctant to flag a cache as NM or NA because I believe those notes go to the local reviewers as well as the CO.  Just the CO receives a DNF notice.  Since I don't always know the details, I prefer not to get "management" involved on the first step.

 

In the case of the small roadside park, if the cache owner doesn't acknowledge the message or DNF in a week or so, I'll go back and hit it with a NM.  I believe (but could be wrong) that if a CO fails to acknowledge a NM notice within a certain timeframe, that the local reviewer will archive it as an inactive player or try to find someone who will adopt it.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, 'yakinCacher said:

On Saturday, I attempted a cache in a small roadside park.  As I was walking toward the cache coords, I saw a cache in a downed log.  At first I thought the coords were wrong, then I remembered the cache description didn't match what I found, so I checked the front of the log book.  Sure enough, the cache was one that must have been previously archived and not retrieved.  I continued toward the coords and found yet another previously archived cache!  I continued to hunt for a while, but couldn't find the actual cache.  I marked it as a DNF and sent a message to the CO.

 

I'm very reluctant to flag a cache as NM or NA because I believe those notes go to the local reviewers as well as the CO.  Just the CO receives a DNF notice.  Since I don't always know the details, I prefer not to get "management" involved on the first step.

 

In the case of the small roadside park, if the cache owner doesn't acknowledge the message or DNF in a week or so, I'll go back and hit it with a NM.  I believe (but could be wrong) that if a CO fails to acknowledge a NM notice within a certain timeframe, that the local reviewer will archive it as an inactive player or try to find someone who will adopt it.

NM does not go to a reviewer, CO only.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, 'yakinCacher said:

I'm very reluctant to flag a cache as NM or NA because I believe those notes go to the local reviewers as well as the CO.  Just the CO receives a DNF notice.  Since I don't always know the details, I prefer not to get "management" involved on the first step.

Don't worry about what goes where. The only questions you should worry about is whether the cache needs maintenance (NM) or needs to be archived (NA) or you just didn't find it. Log which applies. In the case you described, although there are lots of other interesting things you discovered, as I understand it, the only thing that applies to the cache you were looking for is that you didn't find it. I'm not sure why you think an NM is called for because of the unrelated containers you found that used to be previous caches that are no longer listed.

 

There were once rules about which logs alerted who about what, but as colleda mentions, you didn't quite understand them, anyway. That doesn't really matter anymore, it turns out, because those "rules" are now moot: reviewers now look for cache problems using techniques that no longer depend on any particular kind of log being filed for the cache. So that's just another reason to file the log because is says what you want to say about the cache, not because of what happens behind the scenes after you file that kind of log.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, dprovan said:

unrelated containers you found

They are not always archived caches from this game. They could belong to another game, so unless you know what they are I would leave them where you found them, just in case :).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, 'yakinCacher said:

In the case of the small roadside park, if the cache owner doesn't acknowledge the message or DNF in a week or so, I'll go back and hit it with a NM.  I believe (but could be wrong) that if a CO fails to acknowledge a NM notice within a certain timeframe, that the local reviewer will archive it as an inactive player or try to find someone who will adopt it.

1. As a CO I am not required to acknowledge a DNF or message. Maybe the cache is a little tricky for new geocachers? I know which caches are likely to get DNFs even though there is no problem. Lately I've gotten DNFs on puzzle caches from people who don't even know they need to solve a puzzle. 

2. A reviewer will never try to adopt out someone's cache. NM or an inactive CO will not lead to that action.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

1. As a CO I am not required to acknowledge a DNF or message.

2. A reviewer will never try to adopt out someone's cache. NM or an inactive CO will not lead to that action.

1) As a CO myself, a group of DNFs in a row is a red flag to me that something might be amiss and that I need to check on my cache. 

2) This does indeed happen.  I just followed up on a local cache this week that was an old cache which had been abandoned by the original CO and the local reviewer had reached out to someone else to adopt it because it was one of the originals for this area.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 'yakinCacher said:

1) As a CO myself, a group of DNFs in a row is a red flag to me that something might be amiss and that I need to check on my cache. 

2) This does indeed happen.  I just followed up on a local cache this week that was an old cache which had been abandoned by the original CO and the local reviewer had reached out to someone else to adopt it because it was one of the originals for this area.

Then the reviewer is not following the guidelines. 

Yes, a bunch of DNFs may warrant the CO checking on the cache. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 'yakinCacher said:

This does indeed happen.  I just followed up on a local cache this week that was an old cache which had been abandoned by the original CO and the local reviewer had reached out to someone else to adopt it because it was one of the originals for this area.

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Then the reviewer is not following the guidelines. 

 

Could this possibly be about that plan we heard about in another thread to save "legacy" and "pioneer" hides ?   

 Folks with 2000 caches were supposedly contacted, and asked about what they'd like to do with their caches "JIC".  

Never did find much info on it... 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, 'yakinCacher said:
9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

1. As a CO I am not required to acknowledge a DNF or message.

1) As a CO myself, a group of DNFs in a row is a red flag to me that something might be amiss and that I need to check on my cache.

That's a good approach in normal situations, assuming it's a cache that normally doesn't pose problems. 

 

For high difficulty caches, one can take DNFs with a grain of salt - there are some tough caches out there, and DNFs are par for the course sometimes. 

 

DNFs can also just pile up.  Someone looks in the wrong place and just doesn't have time to look for long, and they log a DNF.  The next seeker does the same, sees the previous DNF, and says, well, shoot, the last guy couldn't find it, and neither can I, so I'm moving on.  Then the next seeker sees that two other cachers didn't find it...and so on.  Sometimes it takes a CO maintenance note to assure folks that it's still there, or for someone who has more time to actually seek the thing out.  And then the finds start up again.  (I see the same thing just came up in the "line in the sand" thread.)

 

2 hours ago, 'yakinCacher said:
9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

2. A reviewer will never try to adopt out someone's cache. NM or an inactive CO will not lead to that action.

2) This does indeed happen.  I just followed up on a local cache this week that was an old cache which had been abandoned by the original CO and the local reviewer had reached out to someone else to adopt it because it was one of the originals for this area.

 

That's the exception, and not the rule.  Substitute "never" for "very rarely" if it helps.  

 

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Then the reviewer is not following the guidelines. 

 

While technically correct, this isn't the right way of looking at it.  Reviewers may make exceptions to the guidelines in appropriate situations.  Some exceptions are up to the discretion of the reviewer; some are coordinated with Groundspeak.

 

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Could this possibly be about that plan we heard about in another thread to save "legacy" and "pioneer" hides ?   

 

Could be.  Without knowing what cache(s) we're talking about, I can only guess.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Could this possibly be about that plan we heard about in another thread to save "legacy" and "pioneer" hides ?   

 Folks with 2000 caches were supposedly contacted, and asked about what they'd like to do with their caches "JIC".  

Never did find much info on it... 

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Could be.  Without knowing what cache(s) we're talking about, I can only guess.

 

Okay, I found the post.   Other than this one post, we haven't seen anything else on it.  

Share this post


Link to post

Found this thread after noticing on a cache run yesterday, there was a newer cacher with 30 finds who was logging every cache she couldn't find with a DNF & NM. Every single cache she couldn't find. We must have been on a similar path because I kept seeing it. And the caches were there, and didn't need any maintenance at all. I used my FIND log to state the cache is in good condition no maintenance needed. And I know there is no way to tell newer cachers to stop this annoying habit, but I wish there was. As a CO if I get a DNF I run by the cache location asap to check on it, and write a note that all is well if it is. If I can't find a cache a few times, and I see a lot of people can't find it, and the CO hasn't logged in in 9 years, I may log a NM. But if the CO is active, and I have tried a few times, I will 1st message them. I am big on communication with active players.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Cali9-1-1 said:

And I know there is no way to tell newer cachers to stop this annoying habit, but I wish there was.

Private messages or private mail both work find to communicate to other cachers. But before you contact them, try to think less "annoying habit" and more "misguided mistake". Everyone sometimes needs a friend with a helping hand to guide them.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/4/2020 at 6:58 PM, ecanderson said:

When you go to do the log, click on "Report a Problem" after you have written your log.  It's on the same page.

 

Log.jpg

Thank you for this. I haven't needed to post a NM log in a while but found a cache today that needed it. There used to be a NM option in the drop down menu but that seems to have gone away. Now when you log a NM, there are 2 entries to the cache page. One is a generic "This geocacher reported there is a problem with this cache." The second is a log where you explain why it needs maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JeepGPS said:

Thank you for this. I haven't needed to post a NM log in a while but found a cache today that needed it. There used to be a NM option in the drop down menu but that seems to have gone away. Now when you log a NM, there are 2 entries to the cache page. One is a generic "This geocacher reported there is a problem with this cache." The second is a log where you explain why it needs maintenance.

 

This dropdown option is still available. You just need to go into the old editor.

obraz.png.d21c26665f3fd784b557ed522d6c1353.png

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

   

42 minutes ago, JeepGPS said:

Thank you for this. I haven't needed to post a NM log in a while but found a cache today that needed it. There used to be a NM option in the drop down menu but that seems to have gone away. Now when you log a NM, there are 2 entries to the cache page. One is a generic "This geocacher reported there is a problem with this cache." The second is a log where you explain why it needs maintenance.

34 minutes ago, sernikk said:

 

This dropdown option is still available. You just need to go into the old editor.

 

Yep.  Guess you looked at JeepGPS's start date.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2020 at 10:29 AM, Cali9-1-1 said:

I used my FIND log to state the cache is in good condition no maintenance needed. And I know there is no way to tell newer cachers to stop this annoying habit, but I wish there was. As a CO if I get a DNF I run by the cache location asap to check on it, and write a note that all is well if it is

 

I hear you. I think new cachers feel it's part of the game. Maybe Geocache headquarters can add a few suggestions before logging a DNF or NM, like contacting the CO and/or going back again to find it. We had a newbie say she couldn't find a cache of ours and thinks it was stolen. Went immediately down to check on it and it was still there. Caused a few stressful moments for us. lol

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2020 at 11:01 AM, dprovan said:

But before you contact them, try to think less "annoying habit" and more "misguided mistake". Everyone sometimes needs a friend with a helping hand to guide them.

 

 

Great advice! Geocaching is meant to be a fun activity for everyone. I know someone who kept accusing  cachers fake logging in their logs. A geocacher put him in his place. Told him to stop ruining the enjoyment of geocaching. 

  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

contacting the CO and/or going back again to find it.

A NM is also a considerate way to let other cachers know there is a problem. Private messages to COs does not consider other people who might come and waste their time. If it's a low rated cache with a string of DNFs it needs a NM. The CO has had a chance already to check the cache, or at least to write a note (not OM) to say they are away/ in hospital/ too busy/ etc, but they or their designated assistant will get to the cache as soon as they can. This shows they are still active, and not ignoring the cache. A higher rated D cache, needs more consideration before placing the NM.

 

4 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I know someone who kept accusing  cachers fake logging in their logs.

Were the signatures to be found in the log? Otherwise it's the CO's right to question this. They could have been logging from home. The rules are, "Sign the logbook."

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 2

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...