No "NM", when not finding a cache?

[+baer2006]

During my recent holiday in Greece, I had my share of DNFs (as usual on vacation ). In one case, I selected the "The cache might be missing" option with my DNF log, resulting in one of these "generic" NMs ("This geocacher reported that the cache might be missing."). Afterwards I put the listing on my watchlist to see what happens.

 

After a few more DNFs, a Reviewer Note was logged by the local reviewer. Amongst other things, the note included this paragraph:

 

Quote

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

 

What?!?

 

Given that the option to report "Cache might be missing" exists when posting a DNF, I think this reviewer's communication is not too well thought out. Many cachers are already quite unsure, when to post DNF and/or NM, and a statement like the one above can only add to the confusion.

[RuideAlmeida]

1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

Many cachers are already quite unsure, when to post DNF and/or NM...

 

One of those are certain if you didn't found the cache (DNF), the other not so much, because you can't be sure. Simple!

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, RuideAlmeida said:

... the other not so much, because you can't be sure. Simple!

The NM template says "Cache might be missing". And that's why I disagree with the reviewer who says, that an NM should only be posted if you actually found the cache.

[+Max and 99]

If there are multiple DNFs and no action from the CO, I will certainly log a NM with my DNF. Yeah, I did not find the geocache, but this is a totally appropriate use of NM. 

In the case of a geocache with multiple DNFs, how would a NM ever get logged if the geocache isn't there?

[RuideAlmeida]

12 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

The NM template says "Cache might be missing". And that's why I disagree with the reviewer who says, that an NM should only be posted if you actually found the cache.

 

After seeing a lot of NM logs here in Brazil, I posted a link to the Help Center about it in social media... and even if the text is not precise concerning to NM's, it is when related to NA's. So if we shouldn't use a Need Archive log when we didn't found the cache, surely we should not use also a Needs Maintenance. Makes full sense for me.

Besides, most of the times, a NM log just seems to be used to substitute a (shameful?) DNF... which is plainly wrong.

Edited September 22, 2023 by RuideAlmeida

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

So if we shouldn't use a Need Archive log when we didn't found the cache,

Huh?

[RuideAlmeida]

2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Huh?

 

From the Help Center:

 

Do not select this option (NA) if:

• You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t find it” log.

Edited September 22, 2023 by RuideAlmeida

[+Max and 99]

When to request reviewer attention

Cache should be 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.

 

Select this option if:

 

Property owners, business owners, or local authorities or law enforcement expressed concern during your search for the cache.

Cache placement or searching for the cache damages the area or defaces property.

You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t find it” or “Owner attention requested” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

Do not select this option if:

 

You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t find it” log.

The cache needs repairs — select the “Owner attention requested” option.

The cache location seems to be inappropriate — consider contacting the cache owner with your concerns.

There is no pen in the cache — caches are not required to contain pens.

The cache owner and local geocaching community volunteer 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.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Max and 99

[RuideAlmeida]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t find it” or “Owner attention requested” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

Do not select this option if:

 

You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t find it” log.

 

 

Precisely... without any previous NM (then another one, which wouldn't make any difference) or several DNFs, you should not use NA (or NM IMHO).

Edited September 22, 2023 by RuideAlmeida

[+Max and 99]

Back to the OP:

6 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues

This contradicts the NM / Report a Problem options:

 

[+cerberus1]

Maybe we're just lucky that our Reviewers look around once in a while, and multiple DNFs would get a Reviewer note with maybe a TD.

But I have an example why we don't leave NM.    A CO left an ammo can in a park...  

It was looked for by numerous people, a buncha DNFs and NMs, and the other 2/3rds (a FTF hound) asked the old fart to stop by.

I found the little "ammo can" that apparently held chocolate at one time in just a few minutes.

 - Not one person noticed the "other" for size on the cache page...

If I don't find it, I leave a DNF.   Here, odds are that DNF is the only one logged.

This past July my NM on a pill bottle that was 90' off since 2013 that had a science project inside since it's throwdown replacement in 2020, was only the second NM logged.

[+TriciaG]

Nope, sorry. There are cases in which it's clearly okay to log a NM/OAR log even if you didn't find the cache. Examples:

 

- A D1 where the hint totally gives away the hiding spot, there's nowhere else it could be, and there are multiple DNFs already (along with your own)

- Where the area has been cleared of all vegetation, etc., so the cache cannot conceivably be there anymore

- Where a previous log says outright that they removed the container

 

If I were in Greece, I'd still log such cases with a NM/OAR and stick my tongue out at the reviewer from safely behind my computer screen.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, baer2006 said:

After a few more DNFs, a Reviewer Note was logged by the local reviewer. Amongst other things, the note included this paragraph:

 

Quote

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

 

 

First up, NM isn't called "Needs Maintenance" anymore, it's now "Owner Attention Requested". It's a request, not a demand, and it's just asking the owner to please do a check because something might be amiss. I don't even know why a reviewer should be getting upset about OAR logs because they're directed to the owner, not the reviewer.

 

"A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache"? If the hint says the cache is hanging in a tree but all that's at GZ is a stump and a pile of sawdust, then I'd be pretty sure there's a problem the owner needs to be made aware of. Likewise, there are many caches where there's a limited choice of potential hiding places at GZ. Take my cache GCA2XJY for example, where the description and hint say the cache, an ammo can, is in a small cave down a slope in a gap with a grass tree out the front. There's only one cave anywhere near GZ matching that description, and the cave's not big enough to lose an ammo can in, so if someone crawls in there and can't find it I'd be pretty sure it's missing and, as CO, would want them to log an OAR.

 

Another way a searcher can know with a high degree of certainty that a cache is missing is if they PAF a previous finder (or even better if a previous finder is with them). If that finder has a photo of where the cache was and there's now nothing there, then it's pretty certain that it's gone. Even if it's just been rehidden in the wrong place, that's still something the owner needs to attend to because they're the only one who knows for sure where the right place is.

 

A DNF doesn't cut it in situations like these, as the vast majority of DNFs (on my hides at least and also on the DNFs I've logged) aren't because the cache is missing but are simply because the searcher's attempt to find the cache failed that day for whatever reason. Across the 47 caches I've hidden that are still active (excluding the 3 I've adopted), there have been 59 DNFs but only once was that due to a missing cache. Also OARs are sticky and provide a constant reminder that there's an ouistanding issue, but DNFs aren't. The system was designed around DNFs being reports of a searcher's experience, not calls to action to the CO.

 

Okay, maybe the CHS is now supposed to be the way missing caches are detected but it doesn't always get it right, particularly on more remote caches that get few attempted finds. All it can do is count DNFs, not read them, so it sometimes pings a cache that isn't missing and, probably a lot more often, doesn't ping a cache that is missing. If a missing cache occasionally gets false found-it logs, it'll probably never get picked up by the CHS. The best ones to judge whether a cache is likely to missing or not are the searchers on the ground at GZ, not a head-office log-counting algorithm.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm of the mindset that a NM for "container might be missing" should primarily be for GZ has been destroyed or evidence of container theft like a cut chain, scattered swag, or lid without body.

 

For NM due to DNFs I would usually want multiple DNFs from different experienced cachers on different days. How many depends on the hide. There are exceptions, but they are extreme corner cases.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

After a string of DNFs, or I find the cache in bad condition, I post a NM, and will continue to do so. If after a month (at least) there is no action from the CO, I will look at the cache and decide whether another NM or a NA is needed. I have never had a complaint from my local reviewer for doing this, and often the reviewer ends up making a log.

However,  I put a NA on a cache for elsewhere and the reviewer told me off for doing this. People had been logging a sodden, unusable log.

 

Me: "Two NM ignored; the earliest made in..... (4 months earlier), and the problem was referred to in logs pre those. Log is unusable. CO still has not fixed the problem."

 

Reviewer "----- - the appropriate log is Needs Maintenance." (I wondered how many NM were needed first...already had two.)

 

However the CO did replace the log soon after. I can imagine though if a less experienced geocacher had that response from a reviewer, they may be less or not willing at all to log needed NM & NA in the future. And some wonder why not enough NM/NA are done.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I don't think the same cacher ever needs to log a second NM on the same cache for the same issue. Especially since the CHS or Reviewer sweeps of caches flagged for NM usually get the cache Disabled by a Reviewer within a month or two if the CO doesn't act.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I don't think the same cacher ever needs to log a second NM on the same cache for the same issue. Especially since the CHS or Reviewer sweeps of caches flagged for NM usually get the cache Disabled by a Reviewer within a month or two if the CO doesn't act.

Many people log finds even if they can't sign the log. Missing, too soggy, etc. They WON'T log the second NM, so the person who made the first NM has to do the second one. Then you get the case of a missing cache and along come someone and logs a find and resets the cache to findable. The TFTC type log, with no information. Gees if I found a cache following a line of DNFs I would write much more than TFTC. I find those logs suspect. So a second NM can be warranted. Also, I have done that on 'special' caches; a second NM rather than a NA.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

 Then you get the case of a missing cache and along come someone and logs a find and resets the cache to findable. The TFTC type log, with no information. Gees if I found a cache following a line of DNFs I would write much more than TFTC. I find those logs suspect. 

Sounds like a "throw-down" to me.

[+Mudfrog]

20 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I'm of the mindset that a NM for "container might be missing" should primarily be for GZ has been destroyed or evidence of container theft like a cut chain, scattered swag, or lid without body.

 

For NM due to DNFs I would usually want multiple DNFs from different experienced cachers on different days. How many depends on the hide. There are exceptions, but they are extreme corner cases.

 

 

This is the way I see it as well. A needs maintenance log is better used when there's an evident problem with the cache or cache site. A person should NOT use it just because he or she wasn't able to come up with the cache. But,,

 

 

Quote

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

 

I feel the reviewer is off base with his thinking of how/when a NM log is to be used. There are certainly other times when a NM log is appropriate. For instance, a string of DNFs on an easier cache, or people not finding after reading a hint that totally gives the cache's hiding place away. Things like these are good indications there is a problem that needs to be looked into. 

[+niraD]

41 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I feel the reviewer is off base with his thinking of how/when a NM log is to be used. There are certainly other times when a NM log is appropriate. For instance, a string of DNFs on an easier cache, or people not finding after reading a hint that totally gives the cache's hiding place away. Things like these are good indications there is a problem that needs to be looked into. 

I've also posted NM logs when GZ was squarely inside a fenced-off construction zone. No, I didn't find it. No, I couldn't even search for it. But the CO clearly needs to deal with the situation, so NM is warranted.

[+JL_HSTRE]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

I've also posted NM logs when GZ was squarely inside a fenced-off construction zone. No, I didn't find it. No, I couldn't even search for it. But the CO clearly needs to deal with the situation, so NM is warranted.

 

In the case of a construction zone I would usually go straight to NA/NRA because the listing needs to be Disabled immediately. 

[+barefootjeff]

35 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

In the case of a construction zone I would usually go straight to NA/NRA because the listing needs to be Disabled immediately. 

 

You wouldn't even give the owner a chance to deal with it themselves first before getting a reviewer involved? I've had caches that have found themselves inside construction zones, but they haven't needed archival and survived intact during the works. As soon as I became aware of the situation, I disabled them for the duration and did a check after the fences came down before re-enabling them. Not all COs are evil maintenance-shirkers, some of us actually want to know (preferably via an NM/OAR as that's sticky) if there are any problems with our caches.

[+Mudfrog]

20 hours ago, niraD said:

I've also posted NM logs when GZ was squarely inside a fenced-off construction zone. No, I didn't find it. No, I couldn't even search for it. But the CO clearly needs to deal with the situation, so NM is warranted.

 

Yep, another situation where a needs maintenance  may be warranted. I might also post a needs archived later on if I somehow found out there hadn't been any response from the cache owner.

[+JL_HSTRE]

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

You wouldn't even give the owner a chance to deal with it themselves first before getting a reviewer involved? I've had caches that have found themselves inside construction zones, but they haven't needed archival and survived intact during the works. As soon as I became aware of the situation, I disabled them for the duration and did a check after the fences came down before re-enabling them. Not all COs are evil maintenance-shirkers, some of us actually want to know (preferably via an NM/OAR as that's sticky) if there are any problems with our caches.

 

Depending on the construction and the CO I might instead go with a NM - Container Might Be Missing, but this would usually be a situation where the construction seems relatively mild and unlikely to affect the cache. Most construction projects I encounter represent the destruction of the cache and radically altering GZ.

 

Also, when it's a situation where trying to get to GZ would get you arrested, I think it's reasonable to get a Reviewer involved. (I don't know the law in Australia, but in the USA trespassing on a construction site is a felony.) Depending on the construction it might be more of a Needs Reviewer Attention rather than a Needs Archived. The log reflects the severity of the situation, not necessarily any negligence by the CO.

 

Photos of the site strongly advisable and definitely communicate the situation in detail in your log.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Depending on the construction and the CO I might instead go with a NM - Container Might Be Missing, but this would usually be a situation where the construction seems relatively mild and unlikely to affect the cache. Most construction projects I encounter represent the destruction of the cache and radically altering GZ.

 

I'm probably in a different situation since all my hides are in bushland rather than urban areas. I currently have two caches disabled due to works going on in the vicinity. One (GC5H5G2) where a section of the walking track is being upgraded and although the cache is some 50 metres away from the track, the closure makes access impossible. In this case, the works are minor and expected to be completed by the end of the week, at which point I'll do a quick check and re-enable it. The other, GCA4AG7 in Strickland State Forest, I've removed while a scheduled hazard reduction burn-off is done as, depending on how close to the cache the fire comes, it could easily melt. After the burn-off is finished and the forest re-opened, I'll put it back.

 

I try to keep a close watch on park and forest closure notices, particularly at this time of year when burn-offs are widespread, but I can occasionally get caught unawares and would appreciate a heads-up from cachers who might encounter an access closure. I'd be less appreciative if that heads-up came in the form of an NA log and a TD from the reviewer giving me 30 days to fix the problem.

[+Goldenwattle]

  

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

(I don't know the law in Australia, but in the USA trespassing on a construction site is a felony.)

Here in Canberra, I once was taking record stage photographs of a multistorey building for the customers, being build by a well known (here) building company that builds high rise apartment buildings, etc. (This building was rather different; more 'out there' in design.) I had to go through an induction to be allowed on without an escort, given instruction what to do and not do, such as don't walk backwards (good instruction for a photograph 😁), or I might fall down a hole, where the first aid is, etc. After the induction I could put on my yellow vest and hard hat and just make a phone call to let them know I was going on site. Certain areas I was not allowed (along with many workers), but they were signed so, such as on the roof, where only roofers were allowed. I did go up and stand on the top of the temporary stairs though to take pictures.

 

I had a new house built, and I was only allowed on site when the builders were there.

 

Yes, without permission and being escorted or inducted, it's not allowed to just wander onto a building site.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Depending on the construction and the CO I might instead go with a NM - Container Might Be Missing, but this would usually be a situation where the construction seems relatively mild and unlikely to affect the cache. Most construction projects I encounter represent the destruction of the cache and radically altering GZ.

I once came to a walking bridge where the old wooden bridge had been removed and a new metal replacement was being constructed. A cache had been hidden under the old wooden bridge and as I had found it I knew where it had been hidden. I was going to contact the CO and say their cache was gone, when I spotted it under a nearby tree. The workers had found it as they removed the old bridge and placed it safely under the tree. So, even with construction, the cache might sometimes be rescued.

[+barefootjeff]

Here's an example of what can happen when people follow that reviewer's advice and log only DNFs and not NMs if they think the cache might be missing. This is a high D/T traditional (3.5/4.5) placed in 2006, though I think the 4.5 terrain rating is an exaggeration by today's standards. It was last found in December 2018 (almost five years ago) and was subsequently DNFed in March 2020, May 2021 and April 2023. All three DNFers said they'd done a thorough search but thought the cache had most likely washed away in the extreme la Nina rainfall events during those years. Finally, in July 2023, it got another DNF but this time they added an NA. In the past, our reviewer has said he won't generally accept NAs unless there's already been an NM that's been ignored, but in this case he disabled the cache a couple of weeks later, giving the CO 4 weeks to check on it. But almost ten weeks later, the listing continues to linger on like the Mary Celeste, even though its owner last found a cache in 2007 and last visited the website in 2008.

 

Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference if any of those earlier DNFers had added a "cache might be missing" NM, but five years does seem like an awfully long time to clear a missing cache with a long-gone CO from the game board. The location is one that deserves to have a findable cache and, when our reviewer finally gets around to administering last rites, I'm keen to revisit the site and place a new cache there as part of my Chasing Waterfalls series, provided the weather's still mild enough to do the 15km return hike.

Edited September 27, 2023 by barefootjeff

[Keystone]

56 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Here's an example of what can happen when people follow that reviewer's advice and only log DNFs if they think the cache might be missing.

Are you aware of a specific example where a Reviewer said this?  'Cause that's not a thing we do.

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Are you aware of a specific example where a Reviewer said this?  'Cause that's not a thing we do.

 

It was quoted by baer2006 at the top of this thread:

 

"Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache."

[+Max and 99]

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5YQW3

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Here's an example of what can happen when people follow that reviewer's advice and only log DNFs if they think the cache might be missing.

Are you aware of a specific example where a Reviewer said this?  'Cause that's not a thing we do.

 

Oops, I just reread what I wrote and realised it could be taken the wrong way. What I meant to say is "log only DNFs and not NMs if they thing the cache might be missing". I've edited the original accordingly.

[+edexter]

    I believe the purpose of an "NM" or "Needs Owners Attention" log is to point out that the cache container is damaged in some way and is no longer watertight.  The most common complaint is that the log it too wet to sign.  Many folks simply note that, don't post an NM, replace the wet log with another piece of paper and move on and the cache never gets fixed.  Even when you do log an NM frequently nothing happens.  Here's a prime example (names excluded to protect the guility)

5/7/21:  Cache first reported as damaged "This cache needs some TLC. The box is rusted, and filled with bugs and moisture.

12/18/21:  Sixth report of damaged cache:  "Old, needs maintenance"

12/26/21:  First "Owner Attention Needed" log:  "Wet log. Relatively empty. Left some thing but the condition of the cache box itself is bad"

10/2/22:  After another half dozen wet log reports:  "Everything inside was pretty wet and getting moldy."

12/23/22  "Reviewer attention requested" log:  "No response to NM Log posted a year ago; seven logs since report issues including leaky container and destroyed logbook. NR from CO who has not been active since 2019"

12/31/22 "Post reviewer note":  The Reviewer posts a boilerplate note requesting "CO check on cache"

5/25/23  Note: "No response to NM Log posted a year ago; seven logs since report issues including leaky container and destroyed logbook. NR from CO who has not been active since 2019"

   CO has never responded, cache is still old, rusty, leaking and limping along as folks add baggies around it. This is a typical "No Maintenace Required" Cache more than two years on.  

edexter

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 9/26/2023 at 11:59 PM, barefootjeff said:

in this case he disabled the cache a couple of weeks later, giving the CO 4 weeks to check on it. But almost ten weeks later, the listing continues to linger on like the Mary Celeste, even though its owner last found a cache in 2007 and last visited the website in 2008.

 

While in theory every Reviewer checks all Disabled cache listings in their area monthly, in practice it can be up to 3 calendar months between nudges.

 

When the Reviewer next makes a pass the listing will no doubt be Archived. In the meantime it's Disabled. That part of the system is working just fine.

 

When a NM or NA should have been logged is uncertain from here. If GZ clearly went through a flood since the last find then I might go straight to a NM, but usually I would hold back on a 3.5/4.5 especially if it had any history of DNFs (which a D3.5 should).

 

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

While in theory every Reviewer checks all Disabled cache listings in their area monthly, in practice it can be up to 3 calendar months between nudges.

 

When the Reviewer next makes a pass the listing will no doubt be Archived. In the meantime it's Disabled. That part of the system is working just fine.

 

When a NM or NA should have been logged is uncertain from here. If GZ clearly went through a flood since the last find then I might go straight to a NM, but usually I would hold back on a 3.5/4.5 especially if it had any history of DNFs (which a D3.5 should).

 

 

As it turned out, the reviewer archived it yesterday. I wasn't overly concerned about the time taken to go from reviewer-disabled to archived (although if it had gone much longer I'd have asked our reviewer about it when our paths next crossed at an event), more that it's taken 5 years to get to that point. Relying on the CHS to identify missing caches might work well for urban micros, but on more remote caches it really needs those on the ground at GZ to take the initiative and log OAR and RAR when there's good evidence the cache is no longer there, rather than just saying that in a DNF log, which an absent owner will never see.

 

Anyway, I'll be heading out there once we get some cooler weather to see about placing a new cache and provide something findable at what is a stunning location.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

OAR and RAR

?

[+Max and 99]

15 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

?

___

Edited October 1, 2023 by Max and 99

[+Goldenwattle]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

Thanks. I don't use a phone to cache. And prefer the old page to log, as it's better. There it's NM and NA. Never seen those.

[+barefootjeff]

48 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Thanks. I don't use a phone to cache. And prefer the old page to log, as it's better. There it's NM and NA. Never seen those.

 

Se this Release Notes thread. The change has also been made in some parts of the website, such as My Logs list, but I see email notifications are still using the old names.

[+baer2006]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The change has also been made in some parts of the website, such as My Logs list [...]

As long as you don't click on the log type, to select all your logs of that type:

 

 

As a user of the website, I don't care. But as a software developer, I'm really wondering:

• Why are the display strings to represent the various log types apparently different, depending on whether a log type is selected or not?
• How could this pass even the most basic software test?

[+Team OPJim]

On 9/22/2023 at 2:14 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

First up, NM isn't called "Needs Maintenance" anymore, it's now "Owner Attention Requested". It's a request, not a demand, and it's just asking the owner to please do a check because something might be amiss. I don't even know why a reviewer should be getting upset about OAR logs because they're directed to the owner, not the reviewer."

The reviewers have been archiving caches because the CO didn't "clear" the NM with a reviewer note, even though the subsequent logs clearly state that the cache has been maintenanced, is in good shape, and has been found.  So it isn't true that it is not a demand.  COs are required to respond to all NM/OAR logs, with archiving of the cache as the penalty for noncompliance. 

 

I support the notion that NM should not be used for a DNF unless there is clear evidence that the cache was missing (such as the stump and sawdust for a cache hanging in a tree example above).  I recently had a NM placed on one of my multicaches, because said cacher had looked everywhere and couldn't find it.  My maintenance run, which came at a very inconvenient time, required a 60 minute drive and 30 minute hike, and when I got there, the stage was hanging right where it should have been, over this cacher's head while he focused on digging around the stump where he thought it was hidden.  Bottom line, I felt compelled to rush there because the reviewers are so aggressively taking action if you don't respond, and I knew it would be another month before I could get there otherwise. 

 

So to quote the statement above, "how do you know it needs maintenance if you couldn't find it?"  A DNF is a DNF, no matter how much confidence you have in your own caching ability. 

[+Max and 99]

14 minutes ago, Team OPJim said:

Bottom line, I felt compelled to rush there because the reviewers are so aggressively taking action if you don't respond, and I knew it would be another month before I could get there otherwise. 

I've never been asked to clear a NM with a reviewer note.

In my area we are always given a month after the cache is disabled, usually longer if we post updates on the cache page. This also gives time for other people to find the geocache so you know it's okay and you may not need to make the trip. 

But I feel your frustration with that one!

Edited October 10, 2023 by Max and 99

[+Team OPJim]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

In my area we are always given a month after the cache is disabled, usually longer if we post updates on the cache page. This also gives time for other people to find the geocache so you know it's okay and you may not need to make the trip. 

But I feel your frustration with that one!

Almost every day I get notification of a local (within 60 miles) cache being archived.  Some of them are archived even though contemporaneous logs clearly show the cache is fine, but the CO is either MIA or doesn't get how to log a maintenance log (not everyone is computer savvy).  My question is, how likely is this cache to become geotrash if it is no longer on the radar?

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, Team OPJim said:

Almost every day I get notification of a local (within 60 miles) cache being archived.  Some of them are archived even though contemporaneous logs clearly show the cache is fine, but the CO is either MIA or doesn't get how to log a maintenance log (not everyone is computer savvy).  My question is, how likely is this cache to become geotrash if it is no longer on the radar?

Yikes!

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Team OPJim said:

I support the notion that NM should not be used for a DNF unless there is clear evidence that the cache was missing (such as the stump and sawdust for a cache hanging in a tree example above).  I recently had a NM placed on one of my multicaches, because said cacher had looked everywhere and couldn't find it.  My maintenance run, which came at a very inconvenient time, required a 60 minute drive and 30 minute hike, and when I got there, the stage was hanging right where it should have been, over this cacher's head while he focused on digging around the stump where he thought it was hidden.  Bottom line, I felt compelled to rush there because the reviewers are so aggressively taking action if you don't respond, and I knew it would be another month before I could get there otherwise.

 

I think it's sad in a way that some reviewers are now treating an NM (OAR) as if it were an NA (RAR), as it takes away the usefulness of the OAR log to the owner, especially for minor issues that they might want to be made aware of beyond just some vague mention in a Found or DNF log. But in any case, the reviewer here has said that what he's looking for is a response from the CO that they're aware of the situation and, if more time is needed, regular updates with WN logs. You don't have to drop everything and dash out to the cache, just make sure the reviewer knows you're across it, you have a plan to attend to it and provide regular updates if more time is needed.

 

Would you rather caches that are really missing remain on the game board forever? An example is a cache I attempted on Sydney's northern beaches about a year ago. All I found at GZ was what was likely to have been the cache's lid cable-tied to a branch, with no sign of the container body or logbook. There were a few previous DNFs, but there were also lots of people logging it as found and saying that they only found the lid. Six months earlier some brave (or is that irresponsible) cacher logged an NM with their DNF, but there was no response from the long-gone owner so I added an NA to my own DNF log. A couple of months later the reviewer disabled it, giving the owner 28 days to respond:

 

 

Note the second paragraph: this is not a death sentence for the cache and the owner, if they wanted to, could respond, ask for more time, or whatever, and as long as they poked their head up and ultimately fixed the cache then it could have happily lived on. But no, the owner didn't respond and, another two months later, the reviewer archived it. Had that irresponsible cacher not logged an NM with their DNF, and had irresponsible me not logged the NA with my DNF, none of that would have happened and, because of all the fake found logs from people just finding the lid, the CHS would never have been triggered into action. If you think a cache that's just a lid with no body or logbook is a good thing, and people should just log finds when they see the lid, then fine, I guess, but if not then someone has to step forward in a situation like this and bring it to the reviewer's attention.

 

Finally, an update on that other cache I mentioned, the one that was last found nearly five years ago, had three DNFs in the intervening time and then finally an NA with the fourth DNF. The reviewer eventually archived it a couple of weeks ago, so last Friday I did the 8km bike ride / T4 hike to the area to see about placing a new cache. I'd previously found the old cache so, while there, I had a good look around for it and, while I couldn't remember exactly where it had been, I was unable to turn up anything. Anyway, my new cache (GCAEX05) was published on Sunday so hopefully it will provide a better outcome for those (rare) cachers visiting the waterfalls and pools than the DNFs of recent years. I also placed the new cache in a elevated spot where it won't wash away and is unlikely to be disturbed by muggles, so hopefully it won't suffer the same fate as the old one. But it's the same story, if that irresponsible DNFer hadn't added their NA because "they can't know it needs attention if they couldn't find it", then the old listing would still be active and my new cache would have been impossible. Again I ask, which is the best outcome for the community?

Edited October 10, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Team OPJim said:

I support the notion that NM should not be used for a DNF unless there is clear evidence that the cache was missing

So after say ten DNFs in a row from experienced geocachers of a 1.5D cache, where there has never been a DNF before, you don't think it's right to log a NM. How about after 20, 50, 100 DNFs, is it yet time to log a NM? Or because there is no clear evidence, such as the area has been bulldozed clear, it's never?

 

I'm logging that NM, which someone should have done before me.

[+colleda]

I have to admit, in my experience as a CO, I have rarely seen a NM logged on any of my caches by a DNFer. This week I checked on one of mine that had four DNFs in a row - it was still there although it is a D4. This cache, in ten years, has had 101 Finds and 57 DNFs but not a single NM or NA.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, colleda said:

I have to admit, in my experience as a CO, I have rarely seen a NM logged on any of my caches by a DNFer.

That's my experience. It rarely happens.

[+Team OPJim]

As with most areas of life, I advocate moderation. A cache that is clearly needing attention, like the hanging lid without a logbook needs a NM. 

a cache that had many DNFs NM could be appropriate. I don’t know what the correct answer is but it is clearly not 1 DNF, perhaps five, definitely 10 or more. I believe the actions in my area for archiving caches are a bit over aggressive, which is a view shared by other local Cachers as well.

 

I guess my question when I can’t find a cache is, is the problem me or the cache?  When in doubt, just post the DNF

[+thebruce0]

Obviously DNF or NM is a judgment call in the context of the cache. a 4D with 4 DNFs likely won't warrant a NM. But a 1.5D with 10 DNFs is more likely to prompt someone to post a NM/OAR without having found the cache. The action makes more sense in the latter case than the former.