Maintenance issues back to 2012

[+Goldenwattle]

I found the remains of a cache recently, but no log. Seven NMs going back I was amazed to find, to 2012. However, although some finders mention the cache's condition in their logs (many don't), over all those years only 7 people have logged NMs and NONE a NA. Obviously the CO has no intention of ever maintaining this, or picking up the plastic shards. Eight years of inaction from the first NM indicates this. I logged the NA and removed the cache, rather than leave it there, as it will become litter, when this is archived. Actually, it appears to have been only litter for some time. And if anyone thinks the CO is still interested in this cache, or will remove the remains, after ignoring it for eight years, you are delusional. (I say this last part, as last time I mentioned removing a cache in this condition, I was accused of stealing property that doesn't belong to me.)

[+Lynx Humble]

The CHS should really give more points to a NM because those garbage caches will stay foverer polluting the map because people don't mind logging a found it on them.

[+ecanderson]

What's even stranger are the two found logs a day before yours that don't mention condition at all.

Take a look at the 7/4 log.  Did the person leaving the new container also leave the old one behind for you to find, or ???

I'm confused.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

7 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

Take a look at the 7/4 log

The cache I referred to (GC ending in R8) doesn't have a log for either 7 April or 4 July. I think you were looking at the wrong archive requested cache. Regarding that other NA, it's possible perhaps the cache I found was the new one, but it's also now very wet.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

The CHS should really give more points to a NM because those garbage caches will stay foverer polluting the map because people don't mind logging a found it on them.

 

The impression I've gotten from the hints that have been dropped about the way the CHS works is that, if the cache continues to get finds after an NM, the positive score of those finds soon cancels out the negative score of the NM so it never gets pinged. It seems as long as a cache continues to generate smileys, that's all that matters.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The impression I've gotten from the hints that have been dropped about the way the CHS works is that, if the cache continues to get finds after an NM, the positive score of those finds soon cancels out the negative score of the NM so it never gets pinged. It seems as long as a cache continues to generate smileys, that's all that matters.

:(

[+dprovan]

I'd guess is was a very old cache that people -- including reviewers -- were giving a lot of slack to. Anyway, the main problem was obviously no NAs, and there's no one to blame for that but ourselves.

[+Goldenwattle]

12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'd guess is was a very old cache that people -- including reviewers -- were giving a lot of slack to. Anyway, the main problem was obviously no NAs, and there's no one to blame for that but ourselves.

Not that old - 2011, and not a remote one either. Old and or remote I would be very hesitant to log a NA, or even a NM on.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not that old - 2011, and not a remote one either. Old and or remote I would be very hesitant to log a NA, or even a NM on.

 

There's an old (2001) cache near me that, up until fairly recently, was still the original container and logbook, but when a new fence was installed at the lookout the cache disappeared and someone dropped a throw-down in a slightly different spot. Now the throw-down appears to have gone missing too. Its owner doesn't do much caching now but occasionally pokes his head up, usually to archive another of his old caches that have gone missing.

 

I plan to go for a hike out there with a muggle friend on Thursday and, if the throw-down is indeed missing, will be logging an NM on it. An old listing with its original container and/or logbook is worth preserving, but one that's just become a missing throw-down, perhaps not so much.

[+ecanderson]

11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The cache I referred to (GC ending in R8) doesn't have a log for either 7 April or 4 July. I think you were looking at the wrong archive requested cache. Regarding that other NA, it's possible perhaps the cache I found was the new one, but it's also now very wet.

Ah, I was thinking of GC4X487.  Different cache with different history - but sounds like same outcome.

[Darwin473]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It seems as long as a cache continues to generate smileys, that's all that matters.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes - isn't that exactly how it's meant to work? Although, it only "works" if players do proper logs. I've seen people log a find with the message "couldn't find it, tftc". If people just want the smiley (which let's face it, many people in society now are more interested in the result than the effort) and don't care about responsibility then it's pretty hard to enforce - either on players or CO's.

 

17 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I logged the NA and removed the [geo-litter]

 

I totally agree, I'd do (and have done) the same thing. If the cache is now obviously useless as a cache and I don't think the CO is active any more, then I'll log the NA, remove the litter and note "if you want it, I'll hold it for 31 days".

 

Related to  that - does anybody know a reasonably reliable way to determine when a CO was last active? I was going off the "last active" note on the website, but I've since learned that this only marks when they were last active on the site. If they use an app all the time, it does not register as them being active. Do we need to dive deeper and look for the last find?

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes - isn't that exactly how it's meant to work? Although, it only "works" if players do proper logs. I've seen people log a find with the message "couldn't find it, tftc". If people just want the smiley (which let's face it, many people in society now are more interested in the result than the effort) and don't care about responsibility then it's pretty hard to enforce - either on players or CO's.

 

Consider a common occurrence, a container that's no longer waterproof so every time it rains, whatever scrap of paper is in there pretending to be the logbook turns into pulp. Along comes the next finder who turfs the pulp, puts in a fresh scrap of paper and maybe logs an NM. It could then get dozens more finds before the next lot of rain, cancelling out the NM in the eyes of the CHS. If you're happy with a cache like this, then fine, but if it was one of mine I'd be ashamed to show up at the next event.

[Darwin473]

9 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

Although, it only "works" if players do proper logs.

 

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. The finder who replaced the log (and the several before who found the damp log) should note "log is damp" and log an NM to alert the CO. Either the log got damp because moisture got in there while someone was signing (possibly sweat off the hand, or rain or just plain old humidity) or like you say - the container is no longer waterproof. A log of a damp cache should give the CO the idea that either the container is damaged, or the lid isn't being put back on properly. I wouldn't be happy if one of my caches was limping along like this either.

[+cerberus1]

16 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

Related to  that - does anybody know a reasonably reliable way to determine when a CO was last active? I was going off the "last active" note on the website, but I've since learned that this only marks when they were last active on the site. If they use an app all the time, it does not register as them being active. Do we need to dive deeper and look for the last find?

 

What would the "last find" tell you ?  

We know cachers who only collect coins now, and maintain caches when a NM placed, but haven't cached themselves in years.

 - How many cache pages has anyone seen NMs used ?  

If you're still talking about removing another person's property, I feel many just assume, and figure the odds will work in their favor.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

puts in a fresh scrap of paper and maybe logs an NM. It could then get dozens more finds before the next lot of rain, cancelling out the NM in the eyes of the CHS.

That's why people should before logging a NM check previous NMs. If there have been several of them and the CO has done nothing about them, then another NM isn't going to help. Log a NA instead. I logged 6 NMs this recent trip, but 2 NAs for caches which have already had NM logs. After a month if nothing is done about 5 of the NMs I will log a NA. Others ignoring the condition and making no reference to the fact they might not have been able to sign the log, has started; logs below. A lot of DNFs on a 1.5D. My GPS found other coords, which might part explain that.

The 6th NM cache, was more a question about access rights, because of the attached sign. I turned back after reading that. No mention in the cache description of permission ever being received. Not sure what to do about that, because there's likely nothing wrong with the cache. It's a permission issue.

Found it

18/Nov/2020

My GPS was out about 7 metres. S 33° 53.422 E 148° 08.699
The log has disintegrated very badly and a new log is needed. I signed GW, but as I did the log crumbled further. Needs a CO visit.

Needs Maintenance

18/Nov/2020

Log has disintegrated. Needs a new log.

Found it

23/Nov/2020

The roadtrip continues. Dubbo to Canberra (via Gundagai) today. A few more strategic stops on the way to break up the drive.

Thanks to all the COs for the reason to stop. This one was doubly convenient

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Goldenwattle