No Maintenance Required ;-)

[+edexter]

     I'd like to propose a change in the listed categories for caches to include "No Maintenance Required" Caches.  These would be caches that are exempt from the normal maintenance guidelines to recognize the reality that certain caches are currently exempt from the guidelines and alert prospective hunters in advance so they can either ignore the listing or bring a throwdown with them to avoid the annoyance of a dnf.  I know the that guidelines have been "relaxed" during the Plague, which is definitely helpful to the CO, but no so helpful to people actually actively caching.  (As an aside, caching was probably my activity least affected by The Plague while caching "in State")  Currently CO beneficiaries are power trail creators who include instructions in their write up encouraging replacements rather than dnfs and formerly active cachers who had withdrawn from the game but lack the ability to either archive or request adoption for their cache children but just can't seem to fix what is broken.  I realize many people might find such a radical recognition of reality too outrageous to consider, so as an alternative perhaps one could consider an "Occasional Maintenance Suggested" category instead.  This would instruct The Reviewers to notice caches with active NM and NA logs and multiple dnfs and no finds in at least a year to encourage the CO's to disable the cache, then wait for another year before sending a gentle reminder that nothing has been done...

     Now I believe all changes to existing guidelines should include a cost/benefit analysis so here goes:  Cost:  CO would have to actively request exemption from guidelines and Reviewer would have to approve them. Guideline 7.4. Maintenance Expectations would have to be modified to include time expectations such as "within three months" or "whenever you feel like it".  Therefore:   More work for the CO and The Reviewer when enforced.  Benefit:  Caches that aren't going to be maintained would be obvious, saving active seekers time and effort. Folks could match the different levels of maintenance to their actual behavior rather than pretending to maintain them.  For the Maintenance Required Caches more folks might post NM and NM logs in a timely fashion and more non- existent caches might be removed sooner:   Cache quality would improve.   Fewer inactive cachers would complain about "The Cache Police" nagging them since they could simply apply for "no maintenance required" status.  Folks who stop caching might maintain their caches or give them up for adoption more frequently.  Folks who can't bring themselves to do either might ask for assistance from active cachers willing to help out. 

    [I also want to recognized that the majority of active cachers do a pretty good job of maintenance.  In my experience, the no maintenance group is largely made up of newbies who place a few caches and then drop out or once active and prolific placers who age out, move or lose interest and effectively abandon their caches.  My Modest Proposal is an attempt to recognize that reality and speed up the archival process...]

[Keystone]

8 minutes ago, edexter said:

 This would instruct The Reviewers to notice caches with active NM and NA logs and multiple dnfs and no finds in at least a year to encourage the CO's to disable the cache, then wait for another year before sending a gentle reminder that nothing has been done...

 

Ummm, we're already doing this, using the Cache Health Score and other tools - but on a more accelerated timeline.  I don't see what a new "category" does to improve existing tools.

 

I am also against any rule which requires me to apply different standards to different caches and cache owners.  The same standards apply to everyone - including power trail and GeoArt owners.

[+L0ne.R]

Keystone, I think this is a tongue-in-cheek topic. I get edexter's 'why pretend' point. 

 

[+Hügh]

4 hours ago, edexter said:

No Maintenance Required

 

This just feels like an excuse for lazy cache owners to neglect their caches and/or offload the responsibility of cache maintenance to the finder.

 

Uh, no? That's not how (I believe) this game works? I don't care that there's a pandemic—whether you've hidden the cache at a nice viewpoint, or just to boost other people's statistics, if you want the cache to stay active, you need to take responsibility for it.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Hügh
words

[+JL_HSTRE]

18 hours ago, edexter said:

power trail creators who include instructions in their write up encouraging replacements rather than dnfs 

 

Any caches with descriptions encouraging such behavior should be reported to a Reviewer.

[+Max and 99]

11 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Any caches with descriptions encouraging such behavior should be reported to a Reviewer.

I did. But I did not realize at the time that it was standard for powertrail caches. 

[+mustakorppi]

Codifying these kind of awful regional maintenance practices would just help them spread.

[+terratin]

I can't quite figure out whether this topic is a joke or serious... Can I suggest a new option to the upvote button consisting of a combination of Surprised and Funny, please?

[+Michaelcycle]

I believe that Juvenal and Swift would recognize what the OP has called his "Modest Proposal" 

[+Isonzo Karst]

a change in the listed categories for caches to include "No Maintenance Required" Caches.

 

Hey, I want in.  On many of my caches, I'd be happy to add:

 

If you can't find it, please, feel free to replace.

Mostly I use 30 Cal cans, stenciled, with water resistant log books, but hey,

if you're throwing down,

feel free to use 50 Cal if that's what you got, and any notebook (3 for $1 from big box is fine) =;-)

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

8 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I did. But I did not realize at the time that it was standard for powertrail caches. 

 

Don't confuse "is widely done" with "should be allowed and condoned by the rules."

 

See also speed limits and underage drinking. 

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Don't confuse "is widely done" with "should be allowed and condoned by the rules."

 

See also speed limits and underage drinking. 

I didn't. ?

[+thebruce0]

On 4/25/2021 at 7:26 AM, Max and 99 said:

I did. But I did not realize at the time that it was standard for powertrail caches. 

Oh it's certainly not "standard for powertrail caches"... an pass for the ET isn't standard. If someone placed with a powertrail here that encouraged proxy maintenance, they would be thrown back immediately for the wording to be removed. Just as individual caches are.

[+edexter]

I see that some folks have understood my meaning   while others see the suggestion as encouraging bad behavior   Well, here's the cache that inspired the post:

GCY4WF     "DNF"     Take a look and see what you think is going on...Does it look like the Cache Health Score and the accelerated time table is working in this case? Or that "the same standards apply to everyone"?  Hmmm.  

 

 

[+Lynx Humble]

31 minutes ago, edexter said:

I see that some folks have understood my meaning   while others see the suggestion as encouraging bad behavior   Well, here's the cache that inspired the post:

GCY4WF     "DNF"     Take a look and see what you think is going on...Does it look like the Cache Health Score and the accelerated time table is working in this case? Or that "the same standards apply to everyone"?  Hmmm.  

 

 

Well it's a 2006 so it's normal for the reviewer to give more leeway than a 2018 but yeah maybe still too much in this case.

[+L0ne.R]

GCY4WF     "DNF" 

 

Taking a quick look at this owner's history it seems his MO is to post:  "I know... It's been a while. New and improved coming, I swear."  Then he does nothing. He seems to string a cache along for a many months until his caches in need of maintenance end up sometimes archived by him but mostly reviewer archived. 

[Keystone]

5 hours ago, edexter said:

I see that some folks have understood my meaning   while others see the suggestion as encouraging bad behavior   Well, here's the cache that inspired the post:

GCY4WF     "DNF"     Take a look and see what you think is going on...Does it look like the Cache Health Score and the accelerated time table is working in this case? Or that "the same standards apply to everyone"?  Hmmm. 

As a reminder, we are in a pandemic.  I see that this cache received a low cache health score notification email, and later follow-up from the local Community Volunteer Reviewer.  But, that Reviewer may just be implementing Geocaching HQ's guidance to give extra leeway due to the pandemic.

 

We should strive to avoid "calling out" other cache owners and caches in forum posts.  Instead, describe the situation that you'd like to discuss.

[JASTA 11]

Going on three years now... it's got almost two years on the pandemic.

 

What's been going on quite longer is subjectivity.

 

What reviewer is going to archive a cache when a fellow reviewer's name is associated with it?

 

C'mon now - be real.

[Keystone]

3 minutes ago, JASTA 11 said:

What reviewer is going to archive a cache when a fellow reviewer's name is associated with it?

 

C'mon now - be real.

Me.  I've archived caches hidden by reviewers probably 10 times in the last year or so.  They are subject to the same standards as everyone else.

 

C'mon now - be polite.

[+cerberus1]

On 4/27/2021 at 1:19 PM, Keystone said:

As a reminder, we are in a pandemic...

 

Yeah...   I actually got to go out a couple days ago, needed to check one of mine again (and archived it).

Road crews on both sides, making this area a crap shoot whether you can even get in there. At least one side closed 'til late June.

While there, I walked the coupla miles to two from another I missed (roads in the middle are closed), and both had maintenance issues.

One had NM since March, but the CO is older than me, IIRC lives in an area "hot" again, so took the virus and road into account when logging.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel piling on a CO in this hobby, when folks are already stressed-out just from the day-to-day stuff is a bit much.

I have our first cache TD for some time.  It's not cache maintenance, it's repair work on the property almost on GZ.

 - And because of this virus and regulations,  their work has been slow.

[+G0ldNugget]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

It's not cache maintenance, it's repair work on the property almost on GZ.

 

I had the same problem with a few of my hides along a canyon road that was hit by fire and flood. I disabled the caches while maintenance was going on but I had no control over the speed of the work. Luckily, the Reviewer was willing to work with me and three caches were eventually re-enabled and two were archived.

 

[+edexter]

    I've had a couple of similar situations where renewal construction projects required disabling the cache until the work was completed. This is not at all the situation I was referring to and the solution is simple and obvious:  1, Disable the Cache explaining the reason in the log. 2, Periodically update the status.  3, Enable the cache once the construction has concluded and you have check on the cache.  

     As regards the cache I was referring to, I have since contacted The Reviewer and once again basically been told to stop asking for the cache to be dealt with with the rational being impact of  The Virus.  In Massachusetts all Virus related restrictions on outdoor activities were lifted many months ago and currently not even masks are required.  Just to recap, I am requesting that the cache be archived because it has no finds since 3/23/18, five consecutive dnfs (the last in June 2019), the cache was "temporarily disabled" in September 2019 (so 20 months ago), the CO acknowledged the container was gone and he promised a "new and improved one is on the way" on 8/8/20 and The Reviewer stated he was "watching" it a few weeks later.  Both are pretending to follow the guidelines...

   I'm not complaining about this CO in particular as the CO is essentially doing nothing.  I am raising the issue to address an obvious and growing issue in the game which is that as folks drop out of the game they do not "let go" of their caches (by archiving or having others adopt them) nor do they "hang on" to them by continuing to maintain them.  This is an obvious and expectable problem which is The Reviewer's responsibility to deal with but it is not being addressed.  This cache is simply a glaring example of it and the result is a less and less accurate listing service.  

[+Ragnemalm]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:04 PM, edexter said:

 ...bring a throwdown with them to avoid the annoyance of a dnf...

Who are doing that? People who don't know that a throwdown log can get erased? You didn't sign the log, just your own piece of paper - erase! What bothers me most are the people coming next who believe that the throwdown is valid. But it is still invalid AFAIK.

[+IceColdUK]

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

What bothers me most are the people coming next who believe that the throwdown is valid. But it is still invalid AFAIK.

 

The Help Center says:
If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim...

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=427

 

Personally, unless it was absolutely obvious that the throwdown was not the actual cache, I’d let the subsequent logs stand.

[+L0ne.R]

On 5/18/2021 at 10:47 AM, edexter said:

and the result is a less and less accurate listing service.  

 

This is what Groundspeak should pay attention too. As a business model, a database that can't be trusted is a poor way to grow and retain members. 

[Keystone]

The listing is "Disabled."  That means "don't go looking for this cache."  Sounds like an accurate database to me.

 

Fun fact:  There are more than 440 Disabled caches right now in the State of Massachusetts.  Of those, there are 32 that have gone longer without being found than the cache which triggered this discussion.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This is what Groundspeak should pay attention too.

As a business model, a database that can't be trusted is a poor way to grow and retain members. 

 

Maybe it's just me, but if the cache is TD, doesn't it seem everyone is able to "pay attention" to the accurate listing ?   

[+edexter]

The Fun Fact "there are 32 (caches) that have gone longer without being found than the cache which triggered this discussion" that Keystone noted sort of highlights the problem doesn't it?  Some of us would prefer that "the rules" such as they are be applied more or less equally so that if a cache is apparently missing and a CO doesn't do anything to replace it, the listing be removed.  That not only maintains an accurate listing but also allows anyone interested it placing a "non-ghost cache" at or near that location can do so.  Here is another example of a  cache that requires no maintenance:  GC4D34G

 First NM log in August 2017 after repeated postings that log was soaked.  No response from CO.  Following this a sequence of 12  different cachers over a two year period  reported the log was wet and finally this log recording a dnf and and NA "No luck today. From the picture the hiding place is empty. The tornado may have blown it away."  Which resulted in:

09/26/2019 By Massquerade (Found=3 Hidden=0, as of 05/26/2021) It would be more appropriate to post a "Needs Maintenance" log here, rather than a "Needs Archive".  The cache owner should still respond to the concern from the community.  I've added this cache to my watchlist, and I will check back in four weeks to be sure that the owner has replied.

The Reviewer did not follow through.  Then three more DNFs before The Reviewer finally disabled the cache on 11/20/20 stating "

I will check back in 30 days to verify a note has been left on this page by the owner

Six months later, cache still listed.  Cacher is currently active, sort of.  No documented maintenance on any of their caches ever...This cache last found over two years ago.  If The Reviewer isn't going to require maintenance for three and a half years then my suggestion for a No Maintenance Required category is starting to look a fait accompli, eh?

•  

[Keystone]

I've previously warned against "calling out" or "naming and shaming" specific caches, cache owners and/or reviewers.  As that advice was not respected, I am closing this thread.  The OP is advised not to open a similar thread going forward.