Bring back "Needs Maintenance" for COs

[Captain Clorox]

Definition:

Alternate Account -

Does No Evil

PS Love the Cat

Don't become a sock puppet

Lest ye suffer the Captain's wrath

[PS LOVE THE CAT]

2 minutes ago, Captain Clorox said:

PS Love the Cat

 

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

On 5/19/2020 at 11:38 AM, NanCycle said:

On 5/19/2020 at 9:04 AM, L0ne.R said:

My guess, COs were abusing NM so Groundspeak had to remove the option. 

I find it hard to see how/why this would be subject to abuse.  

 

Maybe not. But why was the option removed? From my observation, GCHQ has removed options and types for a reason. If not abuse (or the lesser charge of using a tool as it was not intended), then why was it removed as an option for owners?

 

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

 

Addendum:

 

Did some searching and found the announcement (I bolded the part that sort of explains why. It seems to suggest some misuse and confusion that affected the community):

 

Quote

 

Posted March 31, 2017

 

As you may have learned from a community volunteer reviewer or from one of our API partners, in early to mid-April, we will begin enforcing changes to the logging rules through the user interface on Geocaching.com and the Geocaching® app. The changes take effect for Authorized Developers on May 8, 2017.
 

• Cache owners will no longer be able to log a Find, DNF, Webcam Photo Taken, Needs Archived, or Needs Maintenance on their owned caches. However, event owners can log an Attended or Will Attend on their own events.
   
• Players will no longer be able to log more than 1 (one) Find, Attended, Webcam Photo Taken, or Will Attend per cache. Players will still be able to change a Write Note to a Find if they have not already logged a Find on the cache.

 

These changes are not retroactive. Past logs are not affected.

 

Geocaching HQ will not be making exceptions to these logging rules for any specific caches.

 

We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members.

 

We’ll share more details in the coming weeks.

 

 

 

An example of abuse I found while searching for the answer for this one: 

 

Quote

Well this is interesting. I didn't know that this was possible but sure enough the cache mentioned by the OP indeed has a "needs no maintenance" attribute. Is this a hack or a new feature? Why in the world would anybody need an attribute like this?

 

Quote

As with others, there's no direct "Doesn't Need Maintenance" icon selection, although I could probably figure out how to submit that selection, if I tried . It is in fact an icon in the set, just not designed to be selectable. Once checkmarked, if you then deselect "Needs Maintenance" by clicking the "N/R" radio button, that entire icon option vanishes from the list.

Quote

 

The presence of the Needs maintenance attribute in the GPX file with a setting of inc="0" I think says that the attribute is present in the NOT state - i.e. with a red line through it.

 

This is certainly true of other attributes with NOT states i.e. wheelchair accessible.

 

If a valid Needs Maintenance flag had been raised on that cache, the attribute would appear in the GPX file set as inc="1", I think.

Quote

When you do a PQ for caches around there that Need Maintenance, those don't show up.

 

Interesting...

Quote

 

The owner of that power trail is a group, at least one member of which is rather well known for taking advantage of various loopholes on the site. I imagine that they once again exploited some loophole to toggle on the "no" version of the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, even though that form of the attribute is not supposed to be available. I have purged these bogus values from the database.

 

Quote

I am surprised that the thread has gone this far without someone pointing out that the icon doesn't mean "Needs No Maintenance" but actually means "The CO does not maintain this cache".

Quote

I do not mind that they're good enough to hack your system but what I do mind is that geocachers do not see the red wrench flag in the cache list and therefore they do not know they'd better avoid particular part of the power trail that is likely to have issues.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by L0ne.R
Addendum

[+cerberus1]

38 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 From my observation, GCHQ has removed options and types for a reason. If not abuse (or the lesser charge of using a tool as it was not intended), then why was it removed as an option for owners?

 

Possible that the few COS that were logging their own caches NM were distorting the Cache Health Scores on some, and the site simply decided to remove it ?

 

I'd like to think of it as maybe not noticing that COs could log their own cache NM,  and simply corrected it when they did.

That (to me) is a lot more believable than there's still more people looking to "abuse" yet-another function, that in most cases could only hurt them.  

[+L0ne.R]

Posted November 22, 2017

  On 11/22/2017 at 4:00 PM, said:

If a CO needs to flag their own cache as NM, then it may just be a suggestion that someone else maintain it for them.

What a clever idea! And it is also true. Official way to ask finders to help.

Edited May 29, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+L0ne.R]

 

Quote

 

  On 11/22/2017 at 6:10 PM, arisoft said:

What I fear is that this limitation has been made just because it was not known why NM by CO was used. Or maybe it was not intentional at all. Maybe this possibility just disappeared when the NM feature was moved to the new streamlined logging experience.

I think sometimes the NM gets used by a cache owner because if they post a Disable, it's likely that a reviewer will come along and post a Reviewer Note a month later. If nothing gets done within another month, the cache may be archived by the reviewer. I see evidence of this, in the OP's case. The NM gives a cache owner much more time and may alert a finder to bring along a replacement logsheet and/or container.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

On 5/19/2020 at 1:43 PM, hzoi said:

Unless/until Groundspeak decides this is worth dedicating a programmer to execute, consider making a basic member sock puppet account to flag your own caches. 

 

I don't believe that throngs of abusers are doing this, but curious... since LOne.R just brought this up (and added/edited to a post I replied to ...).

 

If it's shown that the "alternate" account was using it merely to get other folks to notice so they'd fix things for them (abuse of the system...),  would that now make it a "sock" account,  and possibly risk a penalty for the account creating it ? 

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Maybe not. But why was the option removed? From my observation, GCHQ has removed options and types for a reason. If not abuse (or the lesser charge of using a tool as it was not intended), then why was it removed as an option for owners?

In my opinion, GS tends to add these features to avoid mistakes. So although I think it was the wrong decision, everything I see is consistent with GS thinking, "No CO would file an NM on their own cache, so we should prevent them from making that mistake." That's why I'm arguing that not only is there no reason to think a CO filing an NM on their own cache would be a mistake, it's hard to imagine the scenario where a CO would do it by mistake.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If I need to perform maintenance on my cache I will disable it until I do so.

[+barefootjeff]

17 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If I need to perform maintenance on my cache I will disable it until I do so.

 

Last week I visted some of my caches. On a waypoint object of one of them, the split ring attaching the label tag is starting to rust so I plan to replace it with something non-ferrous on my next visit. On another, a piece of the decoration on the outside of the novelty container has broken off, so next time I'll take some glue to repair it. These are both maintenance issues as far as I'm concerned, but they don't affect those searching for the caches and hardly warrant disabling them. Granted an owner-logged NM might be overkill too, but it would be nice if there was some integrated maintenance reminder flag that a CO could set. Personal cache notes was something that immediately came to mind, but with the recent change to accomodate the new search map, we can no longer search for caches that have PCNs.

[+Rikitan]

I'm using my wife's account to log NM at my own caches. 

It also adds extra sense of urgency, psychologically 

 

 

I remember those days when I was testing new log flow - and this is one the issues I've addressed back then. Didn't understood this re(move) of important CO tool/option.

[+the Seagnoid]

On 5/19/2020 at 12:37 PM, Max and 99 said:

Can you just disable it if it needs maintenance? It's hard to overlook that when you look at your caches. 

Why disable it if it is still findable and logable?

Obviously if the maintenance needed is so extreme that the cache should be disabled then disable it. 

[+Max and 99]

27 minutes ago, the Seagnoid said:

Why disable it if it is still findable and logable?

Obviously if the maintenance needed is so extreme that the cache should be disabled then disable it. 

I wouldn't.

[+kia71]

Hi,
 

It often happens that the finder just writes the problem in his online "Found" log, but does not log "Need maintenance". This geocache will not be listed in "Need owner maintenance" list, and the owner could easily forget about maintaining this geocache.

It would be great if the owner could report "Need maintenance" for its own geocache for replacing the missing "Need maintenance" log and the geocache would be included in the "Need owner maintenance" list.

Thanks.
 

[+kia71]

I do not want to disable the cache, because it is there .... however I would like to remind myself to maintain the cache through the "Need owner maintenance" list.

 

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, kia71 said:

I do not want to disable the cache, because it is there .... however I would like to remind myself to maintain the cache through the "Need owner maintenance" list.

 

From the Help Center:

You can temporarily disable your cache page if the cache needs repairs or if the area is closed temporarily.

 

(The cache does not need to be missing to be listed as disabled)

 

You can make a list of "Caches I need to check on", but that could be forgotten just as easily as the information in a notification email.

Disabling the cache gets more notice. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Max and 99

[+lazyuncle]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

You can temporarily disable your cache page if the cache needs repairs or if the area is closed temporarily.

 

(The cache does not need to be missing to be listed as disabled)

I personally have no qualms about searching for a disabled cache unless the "disable" log is preceded by a string of DNFs or says the cache is missing or inaccessible. I know many other cachers who share this opinion. So I agree with M&99: disabling the cache would be the right choice in this scenario.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, kia71 said:

It often happens that the finder just writes the problem in his online "Found" log, but does not log "Need maintenance". This geocache will not be listed in "Need owner maintenance" list, and the owner could easily forget about maintaining this geocache.

It would be great if the owner could report "Need maintenance" for its own geocache for replacing the missing "Need maintenance" log and the geocache would be included in the "Need owner maintenance" list.

For the record, this was discussed here almost 4 years ago...

 

[+kia71]

I do not want to disable the cache because it is misleading. I usually disable the cache if it is missing or the area is not reachable. But in this case, this is not true. The cache is there, it can be found.

Own "need maintenance" list is a good idea .... however I think it is unnecessary if there is already an official list for this purpose.

Why can't I use the official list for my purpose?

Edited March 9, 2024 by kia71

[+kia71]

+1 .... I would like also to get back co "need mainteance" log.

[+cerberus1]

Most in my area read logs and fix, TD, or archive when a note about the issue is in with a Found It log. 

I do prefer they OM/NA if there really is an issue (one page side of a logbook isn't "full"...), but we act on notes in with Found It too.  

Often discussed at events, we find some will watch the cache page for mentions like "Full Log" or similar, weeks/months on end, and just leave it there in hopes that someone else may eventually fix it for them...  

[Keystone]

I merged together a new thread and a bumped thread about the same feature request.

[+thebruce0]

On 3/9/2024 at 7:19 PM, Keystone said:

I merged together a new thread and a bumped thread about the same feature request.

Ah, makes now that it looks like kai "+1"'d their own comment

 

 

I would also echo that having a separate list for that awkward limbo-state of owned caches that you yourself added an OAR log to.  If the response to a NM is that the owner either visits and fixes, or disables, then really the followup to knowing that a cache needs checking on would be to visit it or disable it. If you aim to visit it in the future sometime, put it on your calendar. If you know it's missing, disable it. If you know by someone's note that the container needs a fix but they didn't post an OAR, then you could 1] post a note explaining you'll be visiting soon/when, 2] disable saying that it's still there to be found but will be fixed soon, 3] send a message to the note poster asking them to add an OAR (this would be closest to intended workflow), 4] get a friend to post an OAR if you really need it flagged but you don't want to address it yet.

 

The question really is how do you want to address the request for maintenance? The OAR is intended to alert the owner that attention is requested; if you want to post the OAR, then you already know this, and should be responding. But, one could say that if the person didn't think it important enough to alert the owner, then you really don't need to post it yourself. It's really is a pretty exceptional case if you think your own cache deserves an owner notification for an issue the person didn't feel it did, or you feel the public should be alerted, kind of, to a potential problem you don't want to yet be seen as addressing which the note-poster didn't feel wasn't significant enough to be noticed by an alert.

 

*shrug*

On one hand letting owners post an OAR to their own cache is a very quick fix.

OTOH, proper understanding of the system already in place means nothing really needs to be done, just learning the right process.

Dunno, I could go either way