Caches Not Maintained

[+geckoboy49]

Mini-road trip recently searching for several caches 3 - 4 years old and a powertrail the same age. About half these hides were missing and most had several prior DNFs. One of the guilty cachers has more than 1000 hides and can't even maintain the ones close to their home, much less the more remote. Perhaps there should be a hide limit??   Cachers who don't maintain their hides are the bane of geocaching in my opinion.  It seems that unless someone writes a note using the May Be A Problem rubric, goecaching.com does very little about this problem. I had heard they had an algorithm which automatically flagged caches with more than 3 consecutive DNFs to be disabled, but if so, it ain't working very well! 

[+kunarion]

12 minutes ago, geckoboy49 said:

I had heard they had an algorithm which automatically flagged caches with more than 3 consecutive DNFs to be disabled, but if so, it ain't working very well! 

 

The algorithm was created because cachers, for various reasons, don't make a "Needs Archived" log on a cache that needs to be archived.  A "DNF" stands for "Did Not Find", and if three other cachers also log "DNF", we can be confident that some cachers did not find it, not that it needs to be "disabled".

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, geckoboy49 said:

It seems that unless someone writes a note using the May Be A Problem rubric, goecaching.com does very little about this problem.

So the solution is to post NMs and NAs. As kunarion points out, there now is an automated system, but it would have been easier and more effective if people had just followed the original plan of people posting appropriate logs. How many NMs did you post on all these caches that need maintenance?

 

1 hour ago, geckoboy49 said:

About half these hides were missing and most had several prior DNFs. One of the guilty cachers has more than 1000 hides and can't even maintain the ones close to their home, much less the more remote. Perhaps there should be a hide limit??

Why? Do you find this more common for people with lots of hides? I don't. Some of the best COs in my area have thousands of caches and have no trouble keeping them up. I would be outraged if you blocked them because of some experience you had on your mini-road trip through an area that has a poor standard of cache maintenance. Besides, I think you've misidentified the problem: the most common maintenance failures I see are the caches of people with only a few hides.

[+TriciaG]

If caches are already flagged as needing maintenance, then use the "Cache should be archived" flag on your log. This will alert the reviewer and set the clock ticking much faster than any algorithm.

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, geckoboy49 said:

I had heard they had an algorithm which automatically flagged caches with more than 3 consecutive DNFs to be disabled, but if so, it ain't working very well! 

 

In my opinion, as a Reviewer who has taken action against 15 cache pages in the past 24 hours due to the Health Score algorithm, you have greatly oversimplified both the nature of the algorithm and the processes in place to carry out this useful tool.  If I took action against 30 caches a day instead of 15, then people would be here complaining that the algorithm was doing too much to target viable caches.  If you do a search, you can find those discussions here in the Forums.

[+geckoboy49]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

So the solution is to post NMs and NAs. As kunarion points out, there now is an automated system, but it would have been easier and more effective if people had just followed the original plan of people posting appropriate logs. How many NMs did you post on all these caches that need maintenance?

 

Why? Do you find this more common for people with lots of hides? I don't. Some of the best COs in my area have thousands of caches and have no trouble keeping them up. I would be outraged if you blocked them because of some experience you had on your mini-road trip through an area that has a poor standard of cache maintenance. Besides, I think you've misidentified the problem: the most common maintenance failures I see are the caches of people with only a few hides.

Your experience seems singular. I sincerely doubt that cachers in your area with thousands of caches have no trouble keeping them up. Certainly, that is NOT the case in my area.

I didn't post NM notes but in every case stated that the CO needed to check on the cache. Seemed a more courteous first response.

 

 

[+frostengel]

2 hours ago, geckoboy49 said:

Perhaps there should be a hide limit??

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Some of the best COs in my area have thousands of caches and have no trouble keeping them up.

 

In the end the amount of maintenance needed differs much between caches. Someone owning many (many!) multi or mystery caches with good hides in non urban areas with not many muggles won't have to do any maintenance at all for several years. And someone owning only one cache - but it is a nano cache hidden in a touristic hotspot - might have to maintain the cache once a week because of a full logbook. So it is hard to give a certain number how many caches one person - or team? don't forget this possibility - can maintain.

 

I think there should be something considering both the posts quoted above. As long as a cache owner proves to be able to maintain his caches he should be allowed to own more with no limit - in this case I see no problems. But if it is clear that someone is not able to he shouldn't be allowed to own more caches. So let's say if several of a cache owner's hides get archived by the reviewer due to missing maintenance (for a long time - don't forget that cache owners usually have plenty of time to maintain there caches) than a rule should kick in allowing the reviewers to decline his hides. Of course this "negative score" should heal be time if he starts maintaining his caches.

 

I have to admit that I would be ashamed if a reviewer had to archive my cache but some cache owners have many of there caches archived this way and they still put out new caches. I do not like that. We had such a specific example in a nearby town: the caching group put out about 10 traditionals and stopped maintaining them sometimes so they got lost, got many DNFs and finally each cache was archived by reviewers. Years later they put out reloaded caches (not without arguiing about the archival of the old caches) which in between all have been archived by the reviewers due to lacking maintenance again. If those owners will put out new caches (reloads again?) those should not be published. The number of hides are surely much less than you think of, geckoboy, but for those cachers any number of hides is too hard to maintain.

 

So in the end the limit should be individually, shouldn't it?

 

Jochen

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, geckoboy49 said:

I didn't post NM notes but in every case stated that the CO needed to check on the cache. Seemed a more courteous first response.

 

And that is why we have this problem. An NM isn't an insult or slur on the CO, it's supposed to be a helpful heads-up to them that their attention is needed. As a CO, I really truly want people to log an NM if there's anything at all they think I need to check out. I had a situation a few years back where someone vaguely mentioned an issue towards the end of a long find log and, for whatever reason (maybe I was distracted by something else when the notification email came in), I didn't twig to it. An NM would have set off enough bells and whistles that I couldn't overlook it.

 

Across all the caches I've hidden (a total of 50 of which 42 are still active) I've had 80 DNFs logged, only 2 of which were due to a problem with the cache (and they were both on the same cache which I've since archived). The rest were simply unsuccessful attempted finds for all manner of reasons and aren't something that's going to cause me to drop whatever I'm doing and dash out to do a cache check, even if there are several in a row as can sometimes happen on the trickier hides. If you want my attention, log an NM and I'll be thanking you for doing it even if it turns out to be a false alarm.

Edited September 29, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, geckoboy49 said:

Seemed a more courteous first response.

But is it a first response?  Have others reported problems (although maybe not with the correct log: NM). I feel you're just adding to the maintenance issue by not logging NM and NA.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you think a cache needs maintenance then submit a Needs Maintenance log. It's that simple.

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, geckoboy49 said:

Mini-road trip recently searching for several caches 3 - 4 years old and a powertrail the same age. About half these hides were missing and most had several prior DNFs. One of the guilty cachers has more than 1000 hides and can't even maintain the ones close to their home, much less the more remote. Perhaps there should be a hide limit??   Cachers who don't maintain their hides are the bane of geocaching in my opinion.  It seems that unless someone writes a note using the May Be A Problem rubric, goecaching.com does very little about this problem. I had heard they had an algorithm which automatically flagged caches with more than 3 consecutive DNFs to be disabled, but if so, it ain't working very well! 

 

There is no "may be a problem" log...

Does that mean no one is leaving NM logs ?  The route to take is a NM log.  Many NM logs then get a NA log.

If no one is leaving those logs, complaining about cachers not maintaining hides doesn't mean anything...

[+MotorZen10]

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

There is no "may be a problem" log...

Does that mean no one is leaving NM logs ?  The route to take is a NM log.  Many NM logs then get a NA log.

If no one is leaving those logs, complaining about cachers not maintaining hides doesn't mean anything...

We found a cache GC8YJK8 with a broken container, log it as found then a NM log. It's not hard to do. Just looked at the cache page, 8 found it, but no needs maintenance logs. Well it gets pretty rainy soon ( It's raining right now) up here in the NW. How many more will log this cache with "the container is broken" before the contents are mush? It's that simple, log that NM when you find there's a problem with the cache. After those NM pile up...   

[+Calypso62]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

As a CO, I really truly want people to log an NM if there's anything at all they think I need to check out.

On my geocaches, I'm 100% with barefootjeff on this!!!

 

If a cache needs maintenance, I log a NM log. No pussy-footing around!! I then wait 4-6 weeks to see if the CO responds. If the CO can't get to the cache straight away, all they have to do is post a WN log at some point in that 4-6 weeks saying they're aware of the problem.

 

After the 4-6 week period, if there's been no CO response, I then look at the CO's profile and see when they were last on the website, (yes, I know some cachers never or infrequently visit the website) but more importantly, when they last had a find. If there's been recent geocaching activity. I'll post a WN on the cache page asking if the CO intends to perform maintenance. I'll then follow this up with a message to the CO via the Message Centre. I'll give them another 2 weeks to respond. If no response again, the next step is a NA log to bring it to the attention of a Reviewer to, as I put it, to "determine this cache's future".

 

If after the initial 4-6 week period after a NM log and no recent CO geocaching activity, the next step is a NA log. Hopefully, the CO will get their act together and do something about the problem. In my experience, the cache generally is archived by the Reviewer after following their processes.

 

I'll add a caveat here. During Covid times including lockdowns, I tend to be more generous with my timeframes.

[+cerberus1]

 I write NM and NA logs when caches need them.  Often we're the only ones wherever we're at  that do.    

Neither of us have felt the need to micro-manage another person's hide, so we'll log an NM or NA and move on....  

 

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, Calypso62 said:

On my geocaches, I'm 100% with barefootjeff on this!!!

 

If a cache needs maintenance, I log a NM log. No pussy-footing around!! I then wait 4-6 weeks to see if the CO responds. If the CO can't get to the cache straight away, all they have to do is post a WN log at some point in that 4-6 weeks saying they're aware of the problem.

 

After the 4-6 week period, if there's been no CO response, I then look at the CO's profile and see when they were last on the website, (yes, I know some cachers never or infrequently visit the website) but more importantly, when they last had a find. If there's been recent geocaching activity. I'll post a WN on the cache page asking if the CO intends to perform maintenance. I'll then follow this up with a message to the CO via the Message Centre. I'll give them another 2 weeks to respond. If no response again, the next step is a NA log to bring it to the attention of a Reviewer to, as I put it, to "determine this cache's future".

 

If after the initial 4-6 week period after a NM log and no recent CO geocaching activity, the next step is a NA log. Hopefully, the CO will get their act together and do something about the problem. In my experience, the cache generally is archived by the Reviewer after following their processes.

 

I'll add a caveat here. During Covid times including lockdowns, I tend to be more generous with my timeframes.

That's what I usually do too. My experience has been it's common that when a CO has ignored the NM, they will ignore the NA as well, and it will be archived.

[+Shawna426]

Yeah, if the log is nearly full, or the container is broken but contents are dry because it's well sheltered, I'll mention it in a regular "Found It!" log.  But if the log is wet, or completely full, or the container is broken and NOT well-protected, I'll log the FI, but then also do a "Needs Maintenance" note (in the app, I think it's at the bottom where it says to report a problem with the cache).  That will draw the CO's attention.  No guarantee the CO will read the logs, but they ought to notice when they get an NM or especially an NA.  There's a local CO with over 300 hides, including some geo art puzzle caches that become a power trail when solved, and I wrote a couple NM on a mini power trail (12 caches), and he responded the same day that he was out of town but would look into it, then a few days later, told me that the "missing" hiding place I reported had simply been moved a ways farther from the road, and he's replaced the wet log.  Polite NM from me, quick and polite response from him (not that I needed a response), easy peasy, and how it's supposed to work.

[+L0ne.R]

22 hours ago, geckoboy49 said:

I had heard they had an algorithm which automatically flagged caches with more than 3 consecutive DNFs to be disabled, but if so, it ain't working very well! 

 

Around here. based on what I'm seeing, I think the algorithm is 5 consecutive DNFs. And I don't think it includes DNFs on the same day. If a group comes through and logs 5 DNFs that day, I think that may be counted as 1 DNF. Perhaps a reviewer could give us the Health Score rule when it comes to DNFs. 

[+CachedIronSkillet]

On 9/29/2021 at 3:53 PM, Keystone said:

 

In my opinion, as a Reviewer who has taken action against 15 cache pages in the past 24 hours due to the Health Score algorithm, you have greatly oversimplified both the nature of the algorithm and the processes in place to carry out this useful tool.  If I took action against 30 caches a day instead of 15, then people would be here complaining that the algorithm was doing too much to target viable caches.  If you do a search, you can find those discussions here in the Forums.

 

I live in Keytone's area.  From what I can tell Keystone does keep on top of this IF there are not Geocachers who screw it up.   I've taken to going after multi-DNF caches when there are two or three of us in the car, because the extra sets of eyes often have new ideas on where to look.  If we give a very serious search and don't turn something up and there are other DNFs, I suggest that the cache needs archived.  Some are archived... and some, with Keystone disabling them and warning the owner, suddenly get a owner visit even though there were previous multi-DNFs w/o owner notes or maintenance.   I don't know the algorithm involved, but I hope my involvement is helping the state of geocaching rather than hurting it.   But here is the rub... I've had cachers complain about my suggesting that a cache needs to be archived.  They would, instead, drop a replacement cache.  NO!!!!!  That isn't how this is supposed to work!!!   The OWNER should be dealing with broken containers, missing caches, etc.   Want to add some dry log to a wet cache?  Fine... as long as the container itself isn't damaged.  But I'd suggest writing the owner of a missing or broken cache that you desire to repair/replace and ask if you can adopt it first.  

Edited September 30, 2021 by CachedIronSkillet

[+Isonzo Karst]

 

On 9/29/2021 at 12:33 PM, geckoboy49 said:

 I had heard they had an algorithm which automatically flagged caches with more than 3 consecutive DNFs to be disabled,

 

There is an algorithm which automatically sends an email to the cache owner about cache maintenance.  I don't believe the algorithm basis is as simple as "3 consecutive DNFs", though on a D 1, that might well trigger the algorithm. 

 

Here's a link to the Help Center article on this.  LINKY

Other than the email being sent, nothing is automated.   

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Shawna426 said:

Yeah, if the log is nearly full, or the container is broken but contents are dry because it's well sheltered, I'll mention it in a regular "Found It!" log.  But if the log is wet, or completely full, or the container is broken and NOT well-protected, I'll log the FI, but then also do a "Needs Maintenance" note (in the app, I think it's at the bottom where it says to report a problem with the cache).  That will draw the CO's attention.

 

I'm curious as to why you don't want to draw the CO's attention to the broken container in the sheltered hide just because its contents are dry. If I was the owner of that cache, I'd really appreciate it being drawn to my attention with an NM because that's something I'd want to be on top of as quickly as possible, ideally before the next searcher came along. I want my caches to be in good condition and I want to be the one to fix them if they're not. Likewise for almost-full logbooks, that's when I want the heads-up, not after it's already become full and someone has replaced it with whatever scrap of paper they happened to have on hand.

[+Calypso62]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm curious as to why you don't want to draw the CO's attention to the broken container in the sheltered hide just because its contents are dry. If I was the owner of that cache, I'd really appreciate it being drawn to my attention with an NM because that's something I'd want to be on top of as quickly as possible, ideally before the next searcher came along. I want my caches to be in good condition and I want to be the one to fix them if they're not. Likewise for almost-full logbooks, that's when I want the heads-up, not after it's already become full and someone has replaced it with whatever scrap of paper they happened to have on hand.

 

Again.... I agree 100% with barefootjeff.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm curious as to why you don't want to draw the CO's attention to the broken container in the sheltered hide just because its contents are dry. If I was the owner of that cache, I'd really appreciate it being drawn to my attention with an NM because that's something I'd want to be on top of as quickly as possible, ideally before the next searcher came along. I want my caches to be in good condition and I want to be the one to fix them if they're not. Likewise for almost-full logbooks, that's when I want the heads-up, not after it's already become full and someone has replaced it with whatever scrap of paper they happened to have on hand.

I agree. I also would want to know.

[+dprovan]

On 9/29/2021 at 1:43 PM, frostengel said:

I think there should be something considering both the posts quoted above. As long as a cache owner proves to be able to maintain his caches he should be allowed to own more with no limit - in this case I see no problems. But if it is clear that someone is not able to he shouldn't be allowed to own more caches. So let's say if several of a cache owner's hides get archived by the reviewer due to missing maintenance (for a long time - don't forget that cache owners usually have plenty of time to maintain there caches) than a rule should kick in allowing the reviewers to decline his hides. Of course this "negative score" should heal be time if he starts maintaining his caches.

I don't understand why you say this considers the quote, "Perhaps there should be a hide limit??" Nothing in your proposal involves how many caches the CO has hidden.

 

On 9/29/2021 at 1:43 PM, frostengel said:

So it is hard to give a certain number how many caches one person - or team? don't forget this possibility - can maintain.

It's not just hard, it's nonsensical. Some people can maintain their caches, some can't. In my experience, the more caches a CO owns, the *better* maintained the caches are. I recognize several factors that cause this, but I think it boils down to experience.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

In my experience, the more caches a CO owns, the *better* maintained the caches are.

With an exception I can think of, that's not true for many COs I know with lots of caches. Typically when there's a problem, archive the cache and don't bother picking up the waste. Then publish more caches.

[+dprovan]

On 9/29/2021 at 1:28 PM, geckoboy49 said:

I didn't post NM notes but in every case stated that the CO needed to check on the cache. Seemed a more courteous first response.

You came to us and explained that these caches need maintenance. By definition, that means you should post a Needs Maintenance log. I don't know why you don't think you can post a courteous NM, and I don't understand why you're talking as if there's going to be anything but a "first response" for any of these caches.

[+Max and 99]

I WANT others to let me know when my cache needs maintenance. Always.

Today someone with zero finds logged a NM on my cache, saying: It's not there. Grrrrr. Went and checked, just to be absolutely sure, and it's there.

[+Team Canary]

On 10/1/2021 at 6:28 PM, Goldenwattle said:

With an exception I can think of, that's not true for many COs I know with lots of caches. Typically when there's a problem, archive the cache and don't bother picking up the waste. Then publish more caches.

 

100% true in ACT.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Team Canary said:

 

100% true in ACT.

100% true they don't look after their caches, or do? I know some here who don't look after their caches; then maybe archive them and not pick up the broken cache.

[+DARKSIDEDAN]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

100% true they don't look after their caches, or do? I know some here who don't look after their caches; then maybe archive them and not pick up the broken cache.

 

Who?

 

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, DARKSIDEDAN said:

Who?

I am not into naming and shaming here.

[+cerberus1]

On 10/1/2021 at 4:28 AM, Goldenwattle said:

With an exception I can think of, that's not true for many COs I know with lots of caches. Typically when there's a problem, archive the cache and don't bother picking up the waste. Then publish more caches.

 

Agreed.  One cache belonging to a "lots of 'em" owner, I NA'd one hide in a multi-park area  filled with theirs.

It had one NM, but was never fixed, and people where claiming a find on a "part" of it for over a year (mentioning finding the part...).

In a huff, they archived every "cache" in two parks, and when I went back up there for another, checked two, and containers were there.

I took those two away, but there's dozens left out there, tied to stuff.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Agreed.  One cache belonging to a "lots of 'em" owner, I NA'd one hide in a multi-park area  filled with theirs.

It had one NM, but was never fixed, and people where claiming a find on a "part" of it for over a year (mentioning finding the part...).

In a huff, they archived every "cache" in two parks, and when I went back up there for another, checked two, and containers were there.

I took those two away, but there's dozens left out there, tied to stuff.

I too have removed archived and abandoned caches.

[+DARKSIDEDAN]

I remove archived and abandoned caches too

[+Goldenwattle]

On 9/30/2021 at 11:50 AM, MotorZen10 said:

It's that simple, log that NM when you find there's a problem with the cache. After those NM pile up...   

That's the same with DNFs. Some people WON'T log a DNF. They must think people will think they are stupid or something. (I only think that when I find people haven't logged that DNF - cowards !!) I logged a DNF on a cache that hadn't had a find for six months. Going on past find numbers; twenty plus people did not log a DNF. I wondered how long the next DNF would take. It was only TWO DAYS! Yep, some people just won't log anything but a find, until someone else first logs a DNF. Horrors, can't be first to log a DNF; what will people think  !

 

The CO checked; the cache was missing and they sent a thank you note to me.

[+colleda]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's the same with DNFs. Some people WON'T log a DNF. They must think people will think they are stupid or something. (I only think that when I find people haven't logged that DNF - cowards !!) I logged a DNF on a cache that hadn't had a find for six months. Going on past find numbers; twenty plus people did not log a DNF. I wondered how long the next DNF would take. It was only TWO DAYS! Yep, some people just won't log anything but a find, until someone else first logs a DNF. Horrors, can't be first to log a DNF; what will people think  !

 

The CO checked; the cache was missing and they sent a thank you note to me.

Just tonight I was notified of a Found It on one of mine, just four words "Third times a charm". I checked back through the previous logs and guess what? No previous DNFs from that cacher.

[+lee737]

My sons and I have hides on all of our accounts, if a log suggests an issue but no NM raised, we'll put a NM on our own cache (from a different account, you don't seem to be able to do so for your own), so we don't forget to fix it, as it shows up more clearly in the dashboard....

[+Goldenwattle]

42 minutes ago, colleda said:

Just tonight I was notified of a Found It on one of mine, just four words "Third times a charm". I checked back through the previous logs and guess what? No previous DNFs from that cacher.

I have seen logs with more DNFs than that. I think one mentioned six attempts. Not one DNF logged.

 

Someone contacted me for help, saying they couldn't find one of my caches. I think they said they'd had a couple of attempts. I checked; sigh, no DNF for either attempt. I replied that I hadn't seen their DNFs and if I had, I would likely have already sent them a message to offer assistance. I told them they need to log their DNFs. They replied they don't log DNFs. I replied, I don't offer help, unless they log their DNFs.

They still didn't log a DNF.

 

 

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have seen logs with more DNFs than that. I think one mentioned six attempts. Not one DNF logged.

 

Someone contacted me for help, saying they couldn't find one of my caches. I think they said they'd had a couple of attempts. I checked; sigh, no DNF for either attempt. I replied that I hadn't seen their DNFs and if I had, I would likely have already sent them a message to offer assistance. I told them they need to log their DNFs. They replied they don't log DNFs. I replied, I don't offer help, unless they log their DNFs.

They still didn't log a DNF.

 

 

I have experienced this several times! 

[+dprovan]

On 11/7/2021 at 3:09 AM, lee737 said:

My sons and I have hides on all of our accounts, if a log suggests an issue but no NM raised, we'll put a NM on our own cache (from a different account, you don't seem to be able to do so for your own), so we don't forget to fix it, as it shows up more clearly in the dashboard....

Never mind that it reminds you: if you, as the CO, have concluded there's a problem, I think it's even more important to file an NM to tell everyone else. The fact that the NM you file also reminds you that it needs to be taken care of is just a happy side effect.

 

GS made that impossible from the CO's account a couple years ago when they made a bunch of changes to eliminate unusual use cases in the name of preventing mistakes. I never really understood that thinking, since I never saw COs accidentally filing NMs on their own cache, and I never understood why it would be a huge problem if they did.

[+hzoi]

On 9/29/2021 at 4:28 PM, geckoboy49 said:

I didn't post NM notes but in every case stated that the CO needed to check on the cache. Seemed a more courteous first response.

 

i leave Needs Maintenance logs on caches that need maintenance, because they needed maintenance.

 

There should be no stigma to either writing or receiving those logs. It's "Needs Maintenance," not "You Are A Bad Person And You Smell Bad, And By The Way, The Log Was Wet."

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On 11/9/2021 at 1:45 PM, hzoi said:

 

i leave Needs Maintenance logs on caches that need maintenance, because they needed maintenance.

 

There should be no stigma to either writing or receiving those logs. It's "Needs Maintenance," not "You Are A Bad Person And You Smell Bad, And By The Way, The Log Was Wet."

 

Of course, if the CO's wet, then they probably also smell bad.

 

Just sayin'.

[+Max and 99]

From today's blog post:

 

What to do when a cache needs maintenance

 

Have you ever found a geocache that is in rough shape? Have you wanted to report that a geocache needs maintenance but you are unsure how to alert the cache owner? 

We have an easy way to help you decide which log to use to report a geocache for maintenance. 

Write Note

Use the log type Write note when you have previously logged and found the cache, but want to add additional information. You can also add a note to indicate that you have dropped off or picked up a trackable from the cache. Another reason you will want to use the Write note feature is when the cache that you found is part of a challenge cache, but you have not yet completed the requirements for logging the cache. 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Unable to find anything at the coordinates? Once you read through the cache description, give the area a thorough search, and read the hint to make sure you have not missed anything, then it is time to use the DNF log. DNF logs are helpful for the cache owner to know if they need to check on the container. Even if you cannot find the cache that does not necessarily mean that it is missing, it could just be a difficult cache that is hard to find. You worked hard for that DNF, you should still log it. 

Needs Maintenance

The Needs Maintenance log is used when the logbook is full or the container is damaged. If you are unable to sign the logbook either because it’s full or too wet, select Report a problem and select the appropriate Needs Maintenance log after your initial Found It log, including Logbook is full, Container is damaged, or Other. Be sure to explain why the cache needs maintenance to give the cache owner as much clear information as possible about the condition of their cache. 

Additionally, use the Needs Maintenance log when the cache container is damaged or not working properly. 

Needs Archived

Cache archival is permanent, so this option is only used under rare circumstances. Consider contacting the cache owner directly with your concerns before selecting this option. Use the Needs Archived log if the property owners, business owners, local authorities, or law enforcement have expressed concern during your search for the cache. Use this log if the cache’s placement or searching for the cache damages the area or defaces the property. 

Lastly, you might use this option if you couldn’t find the cache and it has several DNF or Needs Maintenance logs. When you post a Needs Archived log the cache owner and local reviewer will get notifications and may follow up. The cache will not be archived automatically and you may not see a public response to your log.

You’re now more equipped to effectively use the correct log when you come across a cache that needs maintenance! You can learn more about reporting problems in your logs by checking out when a cache needs maintenance. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

From today's blog post:

 

What to do when a cache needs maintenance

 

Sadly it's just leaving me scratching my head more than ever. From that, it seems you should never use the "Cache might be missing" NM, because NM should only be used if the log is full, the container is damaged, or "Additionally, use the Needs Maintenance log when the container is damaged". I guess the CHS is supposed to automagically take care of missing caches. But it also says to log an NA if the cache has several DNF logs, so I guess my hide with 13 DNFs under its belt (GC5H5G2) is long overdue for archival.

 

Yesterday I was trying to find a T4 cache that's supposed to be in a cave on a ledge four metres down from the top of a cliff. I got to where my GPSr said it was directly below me, found a cleft I could climb down onto a ledge and worked my way back around but couldn't find any cave, let alone the cache. I even climbed down to another ledge below the one I was on, but that soon became a dead end with no caves in sight. Caves don't get muggled so clearly I wasn't really at GZ in spite of giving it a pretty thorough search in every spot I could get to, so from the blog post I shouldn't log a DNF, but it doesn't fit any of the categories for other log types either. I've had the same thing happen on another of the CO's caches, as he's half my age and twice as tall so can climb about in places that look impossible to me, so maybe it doesn't deserve any log and I should just quietly put it on my Ignore list.

 

The same goes for the cache I DNFed and NMed last week because GZ had become a construction zone. The NM was clearly wrong because the log wasn't full, the container wasn't damaged or even additionally damaged, and the DNF was wrong because I didn't give the area a thorough search. It can't have been a WN either because I wasn't dropping or retrieving a TB or revisiting a previous find and it wasn't a challenge cache.

 

Yes, I realise the blog post is essentially a word-for-word cobbling together of what's in the Help Centre, but to me it highlights the inadequacies of that Help Centre documentation, particularly for higher terrain caches where there are more obstacles to finding the cache than just clever camo.

[+Max and 99]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, I realise the blog post is essentially a word-for-word cobbling together of what's in the Help Centre, but to me it highlights the inadequacies of that Help Centre documentation, particularly for higher terrain caches where there are more obstacles to finding the cache than just clever camo.

All good points!

[+Lynx Humble]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sadly it's just leaving me scratching my head more than ever. From that, it seems you should never use the "Cache might be missing" NM, because NM should only be used if the log is full, the container is damaged, or "Additionally, use the Needs Maintenance log when the container is damaged".

(Removed part here. Oups I misspoke here because of auto generated log type)

 

Also Groundspeak can you please spend 5 minutes and ask someone to proofread your texts before publishing because you put twice the part about damaged container. Also that part about Write Note at the beginning doesn't make any sense in this article because it doesn't say anything about NM...

Edited December 2, 2021 by Lynx Humble
Remove wrong information

[Moun10Bike]

22 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I guess I missed an announcement somewhere but Groundspeak removed ''Cache might be missing'' option for NM... Guess I will need to skip that step and go directly to NA from now on. I just hope Groundspeak send an email to their reviewers about that very big change.

 

The option is simply not available if the log type is set to "Found it." You'll see it with other log types.

[+Lynx Humble]

38 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

The option is simply not available if the log type is set to "Found it." You'll see it with other log types.

Oh yeah you are right I didn't change the auto generated log type. I edited my previous post.

 

Still according to the blog I should skip NM and go directly to NA if there are a bunch of DNFs while it shouldn't be the case.

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

54 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

The option is simply not available if the log type is set to "Found it." You'll see it with other log types.

Oh yeah you are right I didn't change the auto generated log type. I edited my previous post.

 

Still according to the blog I should skip NM and go directly to NA if there are a bunch of DNFs while it shouldn't be the case.

 

Yet one of the reviewers locally has said that they won't act on an NA on a missing cache unless there's already been an NM with sufficient time elapsed for the CO to respond, although that was a few years back. Maybe it's changed now.

 

I'm also surprised the Help Centre makes no mention at all of the "cache might be missing" NM even though it's one of the available predefined options on the website and in the app. I even saw a post from a reviewer on the forums a few years back saying you should never log an NM on a cache you can't find because you can't know for sure it's missing. Is there any wonder about the continual confusion over log types? Sadly this blog post only reinforces that confusion.

Edited December 2, 2021 by barefootjeff
Spelling