No "NM", when not finding a cache?

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:09 PM, 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. 

 

"Responding" does not mean rushing out to GZ immediately. It means every time a Reviewer Note is posted on your cache you respond with a Note or Owner Maintenance of your own.  "I am aware of the issue and will check on it next month" is an acceptable response.

 

In some cases an OM log of "NM logged in error" is a reasonable response. 

[+Jayeffel]

maybe a question/answer option for the cacher logging as a NM ; something along the lines 1) Did you see any residue of a cache ? 2) Did you search the area around the cache up to about 60 feet? 3) Is there anything to suggest the cache may have disappeared 4? What type of maintenance are you suggesting a) drying it out, b) replacing the log, c) verifying it is there. With a caveat stating something like "just because you did not find it does not mean it is not there" . 

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

Did you search the area around the cache up to about 60 feet?

That's rather excessive. If a cache is that far out, that needs a NM to correct the coordinates. I've seen reviewers put a request for coordinates to be corrected for less than that.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

maybe a question/answer option for the cacher logging as a NM ; something along the lines 1) Did you see any residue of a cache ? 2) Did you search the area around the cache up to about 60 feet? 3) Is there anything to suggest the cache may have disappeared 4? What type of maintenance are you suggesting a) drying it out, b) replacing the log, c) verifying it is there. With a caveat stating something like "just because you did not find it does not mean it is not there" . 

 

The trouble I have with questionaires like that is, a lot of the time, my situation doesn't fit with any of the options. It's a bit like those automated call-filtering systems on help desks - "Press 1 for account enquiries, press 2 for assassinations..." - where I often find myself going around in circles and give up in frustration. For example, the most recent NM/OAR I logged was on a water-access bison tube attached to a tree branch by some cord and a loop of wire. The bison tube was fine, the log was dry, the cord was okay and the branch still strong enough to hold it, but the problem was the wire loop that had rusted through and fell apart in my hands as I was trying to open the container. I managed to bodgy it up to temporarily secure it to the branch, but it probably won't be long before it falls in the water and will then need a "might be missing" NM, if that's allowed.

 

Edit to add: This is a good example of an OAR where the cache doesn't need to be archived by a reviewer if the owner doesn't respond. If it eventually falls in the water and goes missing, then yes, it probably should, but if the next finder reads my log beforehand and comes prepared with a new loop of wire then there's no reason it has to be removed from the gameboard if the OAR isn't cleared by an OM.

Edited October 17, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Jayeffel]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's rather excessive. If a cache is that far out, that needs a NM to correct the coordinates. I've seen reviewers put a request for coordinates to be corrected for less than that.

I was figuring possible error of 30 feet for CO and seeker both-- a bit exaggeration 

[+thebruce0]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is a good example of an OAR where the cache doesn't need to be archived by a reviewer if the owner doesn't respond. If it eventually falls in the water and goes missing, then yes, it probably should, but if the next finder reads my log beforehand and comes prepared with a new loop of wire then there's no reason it has to be removed from the gameboard if the OAR isn't cleared by an OM.

 

I think the response to this wasn't that the cache itself required archival, but moreso that it's owned by an inactive owner. You may come with a repair, but the next cacher may not and the geocache experience will have degraded - that in itself may be unavoidable, but in a case like this it's unavoidable because the owner is not responding. And the owner should be.

It's not a perfect system, but archival isn't just a granular act on 'bad' geocaches; the 'greater good' is have the game board filled with geocaches owned by active geocache owners who maintain their geocaches, for greater chance of increasing the general experience of geocaching.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's rather excessive. If a cache is that far out, that needs a NM to correct the coordinates. I've seen reviewers put a request for coordinates to be corrected for less than that.

 

2 x the standard, accepted margin of error for an adequate GPS 'lock' of ten meters = just over 60 feet.

 

30 feet for the hider, and an unlikely coincidental antipodal 'seeker' error of 30 feet (to stretch a term).

[+CCFwasG]

On 10/17/2023 at 3:45 PM, Goldenwattle said:

That's rather excessive. If a cache is that far out, that needs a NM to correct the coordinates. I've seen reviewers put a request for coordinates to be corrected for less than that.

I wish the local reviewer in my adjacent area would do that! I did put a NM on the cache which is at least 150ft off the coords. Several people had put alt coords. I used them but it was still tricky. But nothing has happened and I have figured the CO is a friend of the reviewer, so perhaps nothing will... but it REALLY IRKS ME (sorry irk thread closed) that we can't all play by the same darn rules. 

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

2 x the standard, accepted margin of error for an adequate GPS 'lock' of ten meters = just over 60 feet.

 

30 feet for the hider, and an unlikely coincidental antipodal 'seeker' error of 30 feet (to stretch a term).

If a previous finder has put coordinates which later finders, including experienced finders say are good, I think it's time for the stubborn (bloody minded) CO to fix those coordinates, and stop looking like a 'tool'. Or a NM should be made.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+TeamRabbitRun]

5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If a previous finder has put coordinates which later finders, including experienced finders say are good, I think it's time for the stubborn (bloody minded) CO to fix those coordinates, and stop looking like a 'tool'. Or a NM should be made.

 

Well, your reply isn't at all responsive to what I wrote.

I was simply pointing out that with the accepted MOE, two cachers could serendipitously and legitimately be 60' apart at the same coordinates.

[+niraD]

58 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

but it REALLY IRKS ME (sorry irk thread closed)

When the irk thread was closed, we were encouraged to create separate new threads for each type of irk. A few of us have already done so.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

I wish the local reviewer in my adjacent area would do that! I did put a NM on the cache which is at least 150ft off the coords. Several people had put alt coords. I used them but it was still tricky. But nothing has happened and I have figured the CO is a friend of the reviewer, so perhaps nothing will... but it REALLY IRKS ME (sorry irk thread closed) that we can't all play by the same darn rules. 

 

A single NM about inaccurate coordinates is unlikely to trigger the CHS, particularly if the cache is still getting finds since the positive health score of the find logs will soon cancel out the negative score of the NM. Unless the reviewer is actively seeking out and purging caches with outstanding NMs, which I understand they're not required to do, it's unlikely the reviewer would even be aware of it. If you want the reviewer to become involved, log an NA/RAR.

[+Goldenwattle]

12 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Well, your reply isn't at all responsive to what I wrote.

I was simply pointing out that with the accepted MOE, two cachers could serendipitously and legitimately be 60' apart at the same coordinates.

18.288 metres. Now I understand it better. That's too far out. Even half that is too far out.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

18.288 metres. Now I understand it better. That's too far out. Even half that is too far out.

 

Yes, I agree of course it is, but 'ten yards' or 'ten meters' is the often-quoted MOE for civilian GPS, post Big-Blue-Switch Day.

 

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Yes, I agree of course it is, but 'ten yards' or 'ten meters' is the often-quoted MOE for civilian GPS, post Big-Blue-Switch Day.

From experience with up-to-date hardware, it significantly depends on the surroundings. In a "normal" wood with tree coverage and mostly flat terrain, it's more like 5-7 meters. But on open land (more or less clear view at the sky in all directions), it's much better - with averaging over a minute or so, I usually get less than 3 meters deviation (measured at official GPS reference points, which exist is many towns here).

 

Bottom line: When I find a cache, which is 10 m or more off my device's GZ, I mention it in my log. And in most such cases, other logs mention similar deviations.

[+thebruce0]

And more often these days around here I see logs with people mentioning when coordinates are way off, but never providing their coordinates. That does help! If I find a cache and it's at least 10-15m off, I often add coordinates if it's really not all that clear (as opposed to, like, a cache in a lone tree in a field but the coordinates are 20m off - no bid deal).

 

I really miss the option add coordinates to a log.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And more often these days around here I see logs with people mentioning when coordinates are way off, but never providing their coordinates. That does help! If I find a cache and it's at least 10-15m off, I often add coordinates if it's really not all that clear (as opposed to, like, a cache in a lone tree in a field but the coordinates are 20m off - no bid deal).

 

I really miss the option add coordinates to a log.

I often add coordinates too and I wish others would also. The CO has the right to ignore them, but when people start saying they used such and such coordinates and they were the correct ones, the CO who ignores this and doesn't correct their coordinates, looks a bigger fool than the CO who accepts theirs were wrong and changes the coordinates to the new ones. The CO who also ignores the accepted good coordinates (confirmed by several other geocachers) also looks silly when they insist, instead of accepting the coordinates others are saying are correct, insists on making another set of coordinates themselves, which might or might not be correct.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I often add coordinates too and I wish others would also. The CO has the right to ignore them, but when people start saying they used such and such coordinates and they were the correct ones, the CO who ignores this and doesn't correct their coordinates, looks a bigger fool than the CO who accepts theirs were wrong and changes the coordinates to the new ones. The CO who also ignores the accepted good coordinates (by several other geocachers) also looks silly when they insist, instead of accepting the coordinates others are saying are correct, insists on making another set of coordinates themselves, which might or might not be correct.

 

Some years ago (2019), I placed a new cache on the top of a ridge in a fairly open area, using the coordinates I got when originally sussing out the area and confirmed a few days later when placing the cache, but the first two finders, both using phones and a month apart (that's about as close as FTF races get around here now), mentioned in their log that they had it in the next cave along, about five metres away. So I went back out there with both my then fairly new Oregon 700 and the old GPSMAP 62s I started caching with in 2013. Standing on top of the cave where the cache was hidden and watching the drunken bee dance on each unit over the course of about half an hour, both units had the cache directly beneath me, whereas when I moved over to the other cave where the finders had been initially searching, both units showed it about 5 metres away.

 

Okay, 5 metres isn't much, but in a high open area like that I expect to get closer than that with my coordinates. In the end I was satisfied with my original coordinates and left them unchanged, and no-one since has mentioned being drawn to the wrong cave, but that one still bothers me a little.

[+niraD]

40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Some years ago (2019), I placed a new cache on the top of a ridge in a fairly open area, using the coordinates I got when originally sussing out the area and confirmed a few days later when placing the cache, but the first two finders, both using phones and a month apart (that's about as close as FTF races get around here now), mentioned in their log that they had it in the next cave along, about five metres away. So I went back out there with both my then fairly new Oregon 700 and the old GPSMAP 62s I started caching with in 2013. Standing on top of the cave where the cache was hidden and watching the drunken bee dance on each unit over the course of about half an hour, both units had the cache directly beneath me, whereas when I moved over to the other cave where the finders had been initially searching, both units showed it about 5 metres away.

 

I once found a cache on the top of a grassy hill, with a clear view of the sky. We reached GZ and found nothing. We read the hint and nothing matching the hint was anywhere near GZ. We read the recent logs, and several mentioned finding the cache about 60ft (18m) away in a particular direction. We looked in that direction and spotted something matching the hint. We went there and found the cache.

 

I was going to post correct coordinates, but the coordinates we took at that location, about 60ft (18m) from our original GZ, were virtually identical to the posted coordinates, the coordinates that took us to our original GZ.

 

We had no idea why we got the same coordinates for two locations so far apart from each other, given the clear view of the sky we had at both places.

[+Team Canary]

12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I really miss the option add coordinates to a log.

 

Me too!!!

[+baer2006]

BTW (and to get back a bit on topic) - the cache, which was the reason for my original posting has devolved into a pseudo-virtual, with a mixture of DNFs, find logs which openly say they didn't find anything but log a find anyway, and a few nondescript copy&paste find logs where it's highly questionable that the cache was actually found (when I find a cache with lots of DNFs and/or "found it = didn't find it"-type finds, I make it very clear in my log that I actually found it).

 

The listing can easily linger on forever in this state, because probably none of the DNF'ers will add an NM (and if they do, the reviewer has made it clear they will ignore it) and with all the pseudo-finds in-between, the CHS will never fall below a threshold.

[+thebruce0]

I think, in such a case, if some daring individual is aware of the blissfully-ignored cache listing, they could simply email a reviewer and point out the issue with it. Then at least you know the reviewer has seen the listing and should receive some sort of response or defence of its persistent state.  At worst, email HQ. There's no mechanism to have a cache-listing-with-issue remain unavoidably untouched and undealtwith, at least without reason.  If right to the top TPTB still do nothing, then they must have their reasons.

[+Om_and_Nom]

Wow, I'm aggressive when it comes to Owner Maintenance and archiving.  "A healthy geocaching gameboard is more fun for ALL of us".  If there are multiple DNF's and the cache hasn't been found in a few YEARS, and there are no notes from the CO during that time, AND I can't find it...I go immediately to a maintenance note AND a message to the CO.  If there is STILL no response from the CO within 48 hours of that, I request the cache to be archived.  From that point the CO STILL has another 28 days or so to respond.  I'm sorry I'm not going to apologize if the CO still can't respond within that window.  If you are going to place a cache, super cool.  Just be involved in the game afterwards.  If there are no finds in a year, go check it out and make sure it's still there, and place a note on your page giving confidence to those seeking that it is indeed still there.  If the last few finds indicate the log is wet, go out and replace it with a dry one and make a note on the page.  If that's too tough, either don't place the cache in the first place or don't complain when others are asking for maintenance and archiving.  Pretty basic stuff.  Respect the game.

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 10/18/2023 at 8:32 AM, thebruce0 said:

 

I think the response to this wasn't that the cache itself required archival, but moreso that it's owned by an inactive owner. You may come with a repair, but the next cacher may not and the geocache experience will have degraded - that in itself may be unavoidable, but in a case like this it's unavoidable because the owner is not responding. And the owner should be.

It's not a perfect system, but archival isn't just a granular act on 'bad' geocaches; the 'greater good' is have the game board filled with geocaches owned by active geocache owners who maintain their geocaches, for greater chance of increasing the general experience of geocaching.

VERY well said.  While I truly enjoy the journey of geocaching - it's brought me to places I've never been before, even locally - I want to have confidence that the geocache is...you know, actually THERE.  

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 10/17/2023 at 7:18 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

"Responding" does not mean rushing out to GZ immediately. It means every time a Reviewer Note is posted on your cache you respond with a Note or Owner Maintenance of your own.  "I am aware of the issue and will check on it next month" is an acceptable response.

 

In some cases an OM log of "NM logged in error" is a reasonable response. 

This right here.  That's why I don't hesitate to log a DNF and, based on the difficulty of the cache and the recent logs, I'll also log a maintenance - cache MIGHT be missing.  From my understanding, the CO doesn't have to rush out immediately, rather just throw a note up stating an expectation on when they can take a look and confirm it's still at the coorindates and all is good.  If they are following the guidelines, the cache should be relatively local to them, and checking on it within 30 days should not be a problem.  Communication & accountability are two CO attributes (see what I did there?) that are essential when deciding to place a cache into the wilderness.  

[+colleda]

I had a regular D2/T2.5 "pinged" by the CHS yesterday. It had 6 straight DNFs. No NMs.

It was convenient for me to check it on my way home from windsurfing yesterday afternoon. It was still there. I logged OM and the CHS message went away.

While I was at it I checked micro close by, a D3.5/T1.5 as it had 5 straight DNFs and no NMs. It was gone.

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by colleda

[+Goldenwattle]

On 10/18/2023 at 1:18 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

Responding" does not mean rushing out to GZ immediately. It means every time a Reviewer Note is posted on your cache you respond with a Note or Owner Maintenance of your own.  "I am aware of the issue and will check on it next month" is an acceptable response.

That should be a note only. The Owner Maintenance is for after the problem was fixed. I see too many people post OM when they haven't maintained it yet, but just intend to.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

On 10/21/2023 at 1:15 PM, Om_and_Nom said:

If you are going to place a cache, super cool.  Just be involved in the game afterwards.  If there are no finds in a year, go check it out and make sure it's still there, and place a note on your page giving confidence to those seeking that it is indeed still there.

 

Currently two of my fifty active caches have had no finds in the last year, one (GC6JMDK) was last found in October 2020 and the other (GC6XHHJ) last found in March 2021. I visited the latter and logged an OM in March this year, when the access trail (a part of the Great North Walk) was reopened after a twelve month closure due to a flood-damaged bridge (I disabled the cache and posted monthy updates for the duration of the closure). The other I last visited in July 2022 just to make sure everything was okay after the extreme rainfall earlier that year (it was). I have no immediate plans to revisit them, as both are in remote locations with sheltered hiding places where they're unlikely to be damaged or muggled. Hidden in 2016, they're both still the original container with its original logbook and neither have required any actual maintenance since I placed them. Getting to them is a pretty tough half-day hike, one a 12km return walk and the other much shorter but steep and through several hundred metres of thick scrub with rock scrambling across multiple ledges to it's spectacular cliff-top abode. A visit to them leaves me stiff, sore and with arms and legs covered in scratches, so I prefer not to do it more often than I have to, especially if the weather's hot, wet or windy.

 

A few months back, about a dozen of my other hides hadn't been found in over a year, but someone from Sydney has been recently working through them, trying to clear his map of unfound caches in this part of the Central Coast. None of those were missing, wet or damaged in spite of the long time since the last find or OM log. I suspect in a year's time my not-found-in-a-year list will be back up around a dozen or more, given that not even my new caches attract more than a handful of diehard finders these days. I do regularly visit my caches closer to civilisation, particularly after there's been a find to make sure it's been rehidden properly (sadly it's often not), but for the more remote ones that are good-sized rugged containers protected from the elements under rock ledges or in caves and unlikely to be damaged or muggled, an annual check just to post a note saying nothing's wrong seems a lot of effort for little benefit.

 

But my higher-terrain caches are nothing compared to the one our group will be visiting on a long trip into the wilderness this coming weekend. Published in 2006 and rated 5/5, it's only accessible by abseiling 15 metres down a vertical cliff and then crawling into a cave behind a small ledge. It's had 29 finds in the 17 years it's been there, the most recent being a group visit in January this year and the one before that in June 2020. It's had one OM logged when the owner abseiled down to it in 2007 to upgrade the container to an ammo can and add some swag, and in the intervening years it's had a couple of DNFs but those were from people who arrived at the cliff-top but baulked at the descent due to lack of equipment or strong winds. I don't know how active the CO is these days, but regardless I don't think it's a reasonable expectation for them to have to visit the cache every time it's gone unfound for a year. It's extremely unlikely to get muggled or fill up with water inside a cave halfway down a cliff, nor is it going to get up and walk away of its own accord.

 

A smiley is never a guarantee on remote high-terrain caches like these, as there are plenty of things that can go pear-shaped on the way to getting your name in the logbook, such as changeable weather, equipment failure, injuries or just realising you've bitten off more than you can chew (that's happened to me on numerous occasions). Back in March, I DNFed a 2/4 mountain-top cache when our group took a wrong turn and I didn't think I could safely climb the almost vertical rock face in front of us. The others in our group got up okay and made the find, but even though I didn't, I still had a great day out. With the group having found the correct and much easier route on the way back down, I hope to have the chance of redeeming that DNF this weekend as it's not far from the abseiling cache (which I won't be attempting, I'm just part of the support crew). If not, well I'm sure another opportunity will arise eventually and, regardless of whether my smiley count increases or not, it's bound to be another fun day out.

 

With all the calls recently for mandatory annual (or even six-monthly) CO visits, I'm becoming increasingly nervous about the future for remote high-terrain caches like these. Even more so after listening to the recent HQ podcast on "missing DNFs" which hinted that something like this could be under consideration. Caches like these get few finds and are an almost vanishingly small part of the global caching spectrum, so their loss might well be seen as acceptable collateral damage in any mandate for frequent owner maintenance, but for me and my caching friends it would kill off what are some of the greatest experiences this game has to offer.

[+fizzymagic]

On 10/17/2023 at 5:18 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

"Responding" does not mean rushing out to GZ immediately. It means every time a Reviewer Note is posted on your cache you respond with a Note or Owner Maintenance of your own.  "I am aware of the issue and will check on it next month" is an acceptable response.

 

An Owner Maintenance log is not an acceptable response to a Reviewer Note.unless the maintenance has been completed. 

 

This bad information has somehow gotten out and more and more COs are using Owner Maintenance logs inappropriately.  Please don't spread it further!

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

An Owner Maintenance log is not an acceptable response to a Reviewer Note.unless the maintenance has been completed. 

 

This bad information has somehow gotten out and more and more COs are using Owner Maintenance logs inappropriately.  Please don't spread it further!

 

Agreed. That was not what I meant, but my wording wasn't clear. 

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Agreed. That was not what I meant, but my wording wasn't clear. 

 

I understood what you were saying.  However, I'm dyslexic as heck, and that might have helped.   

[+CCFwasG]

On 10/18/2023 at 6:23 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

A single NM about inaccurate coordinates is unlikely to trigger the CHS, particularly if the cache is still getting finds since the positive health score of the find logs will soon cancel out the negative score of the NM. Unless the reviewer is actively seeking out and purging caches with outstanding NMs, which I understand they're not required to do, it's unlikely the reviewer would even be aware of it. If you want the reviewer to become involved, log an NA/RAR.

It's not getting finds, I was first and only find this year in July 2023. It had a DNF before that and last find in Nov 2022. Three finds total in '22, four in '21... placed in 2005 and adopted. 

I messaged the CO who refused to do anything. The reviewer knows but they're buddies. It'll either languish with few finds or get DNFs. (The CO often logs OM on caches they don't check, and they even say "will check soon" and don't.) It's a nice person but they just flaunt the rules all the time. Major irk. (I have several similar irks to be fair.)

[Keystone]

The advice from @barefootjeff is accurate.  The Cache Health Score algorithm is quite automated in nature.  We would never see a cache in our action queue if the CO logged a "false" Owner Maintenance.  The algorithm cannot distinguish between actual onsite maintenance visits and OM logs that say "I'll get to it," and the algorithm cannot tell whether a particular CO is "friends with the local reviewer."  A reviewer who slacks off in dealing with caches that appear on our dashboard WILL hear from the team at HQ that oversees our work.  Allegations of favoritism are also subject to scrutiny by Geocaching HQ. For most reviewers, myself included, we are probably MORE strict when decisioning issues coming from personal friends, in order to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism.

 

Don't count on the Cache Health Score to solve all of the geocaching world's problems.  Appropriately logging DNF's, "Owner Attention Requested," and "Reviewer Attention Requested" logs is the first line of defense.

[+CCFwasG]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:57 PM, Keystone said:

The advice from @barefootjeff is accurate.  The Cache Health Score algorithm is quite automated in nature.  We would never see a cache in our action queue if the CO logged a "false" Owner Maintenance.  The algorithm cannot distinguish between actual onsite maintenance visits and OM logs that say "I'll get to it," and the algorithm cannot tell whether a particular CO is "friends with the local reviewer."  A reviewer who slacks off in dealing with caches that appear on our dashboard WILL hear from the team at HQ that oversees our work.  Allegations of favoritism are also subject to scrutiny by Geocaching HQ. For most reviewers, myself included, we are probably MORE strict when decisioning issues coming from personal friends, in order to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism.

 

Don't count on the Cache Health Score to solve all of the geocaching world's problems.  Appropriately logging DNF's, "Owner Attention Requested," and "Reviewer Attention Requested" logs is the first line of defense.

Definitely not counting on any cache health scores fwiw. But just to be clear - if a CO logs OM but clearly has not done it (and often they even say so), the best option is one of your latter two choices (if you've found it rather than DNFd it), correct? 

[+fizzymagic]

6 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Definitely not counting on any cache health scores fwiw. But just to be clear - if a CO logs OM but clearly has not done it (and often they even say so), the best option is one of your latter two choices (if you've found it rather than DNFd it), correct? 

 

A false OM log always gets a Needs Reviewer Attention log from me, in which I point it out.  But only if I happen upon one.  I don't go looking for them.

[+Max and 99]

Related to the original topic, an excerpt from today's blog post:

 

Post an “Owner attention requested” log

Sometimes if you don’t find a cache, it could be because the cache actually isn’t there, or it’s drifted from its coordinates. If you’re still not finding the cache on a second visit, consider posting an “Owner attention requested” log. This will alert the cache owner that their cache might be missing and they should check on it.

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2023/10/five-ways-to-scare-away-the-ghosts-of-dnfs-past/

Edited October 31, 2023 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Related to the original topic, an excerpt from today's blog post:

 

Post an “Owner attention requested” log

Sometimes if you don’t find a cache, it could be because the cache actually isn’t there, or it’s drifted from its coordinates. If you’re still not finding the cache on a second visit, consider posting an “Owner attention requested” log. This will alert the cache owner that their cache might be missing and they should check on it.

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2023/10/five-ways-to-scare-away-the-ghosts-of-dnfs-past/

 

Yes, I saw that. So who's right, the author of that blog post or the reviewer who said "Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues."?

[+TriciaG]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, I saw that. So who's right, the author of that blog post or the reviewer who said "Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues."?

The author of the blog, as demonstrated throughout this thread.

[+barefootjeff]

It looks like the new logging page also supports logging an OAR (NM) on an unfound cache, from what a lackey has posted in this Release Notes thread:

 

Quote

Here's what those options look like on an unfound cache:

 

[+Team Canary]

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It looks like the new logging page also supports logging an OAR (NM) on an unfound cache, from what a lackey has posted in this Release Notes thread:

 

 

 

Excellent. As it should.

 

Owner attention is all some caches need, the responsible owners will do so.

[+Team OPJim]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:55 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, I saw that. So who's right, the author of that blog post or the reviewer who said "Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues."?

If it is posted on the Internet it must be true.   
 

if a cache has multiple DNF then NM “could” be appropriate.  It is not appropriate the first time it isn’t found unless there are is other preponderance of evidence that maintenance is not needed, such as but not limited to finding only a portion of the cache, seeing that the location is compromised (hint says hanging in a tree and there is only a fresh cut stump), or the area of ground zero is within a newly fenced area with a “no trespassing” sign, etc etc etc.  My objection remains to the first DNF posting NM because they are sure if there own cleverness in finding caches

 

Some say that there is no harm to posting a NM.  This, from todays email shows another cache which bites the dust due to a NM from five years ago. Now it is geotrash. https://coord.info/GC3MDVG

[+barefootjeff]

56 minutes ago, Team OPJim said:

If it is posted on the Internet it must be true.

 

Well it was in an official blog post by HQ so I'd hope it represents official policy, but it's also contrary to what reviewers are posting as official policy, so it would be nice to get some clarification on this from HQ.

 

1 hour ago, Team OPJim said:

Some say that there is no harm to posting a NM.  This, from todays email shows another cache which bites the dust due to a NM from five years ago. Now it is geotrash. https://coord.info/GC3MDVG

 

I think it's sad that NM (now Owner Attention Requested) has now been effectively turned into NA (Reviewer Attention Requested). Looking at the logs on that cache, the three consecutive NMs were from five years ago and were about water getting into the container, but there's no mention of wetness in the more recent logs, in fact one of them says "all good here". Archiving a cache simply because the owner is inactive and hasn't cleared an historic red wrench isn't punishing the absent owner, it's punishing the community and only serves to further discourage logging NMs for issues that don't require archival of the cache if they're not addressed by the owner.

[+Team Canary]

2 hours ago, Team OPJim said:

This, from todays email shows another cache which bites the dust due to a NM from five years ago. Now it is geotrash. https://coord.info/GC3MDVG

 

Nope. It was Archived because the owner didn't respond. 

 

59 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Archiving a cache simply because the owner is inactive and hasn't cleared an historic red wrench isn't punishing the absent owner, it's punishing the community and only serves to further discourage logging NMs for issues that don't require archival of the cache if they're not addressed by the owner.

 

Unfortunately the community or Groundspeak don't own the cache. It is the owner's property and they failed to follow the rules on the Listing site manged by Groundspeak. They are the only one to blame. Someone can now go and place a new cache there.

[+Goldenwattle]

17 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Someone can now go and place a new cache there.

I don't know about this case, but that is not always possible, depending where it is, and won't happen. It's the 161km rule. But some reviewers seem more aware of this where a cache WON'T be replaced and there are none or few other caches.

[+barefootjeff]

36 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Someone can now go and place a new cache there.

 

That rarely happens for non-urban caches, most of the time they just become more empty space on the map. I've archived 18 caches of my own over the past decade, but no-one else has ever come along and put a new cache there.

[+Team OPJim]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I think it's sad that NM (now Owner Attention Requested) has now been effectively turned into NA (Reviewer Attention Requested). Looking at the logs on that cache, the three consecutive NMs were from five years ago and were about water getting into the container, but there's no mention of wetness in the more recent logs, in fact one of them says "all good here". Archiving a cache simply because the owner is inactive and hasn't cleared an historic red wrench isn't punishing the absent owner, it's punishing the community and only serves to further discourage logging NMs for issues that don't require archival of the cache if they're not addressed by the owner.

Well put.  

[+kunarion]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I think it's sad that NM (now Owner Attention Requested) has now been effectively turned into NA (Reviewer Attention Requested). Looking at the logs on that cache, the three consecutive NMs were from five years ago and were about water getting into the container, but there's no mention of wetness in the more recent logs, in fact one of them says "all good here". Archiving a cache simply because the owner is inactive and hasn't cleared an historic red wrench isn't punishing the absent owner, it's punishing the community and only serves to further discourage logging NMs for issues that don't require archival of the cache if they're not addressed by the owner.

 

There are wrench caches that became archived (or today are soon to be) that I know are in place and seem fine to me.  Yeah, some dried out just fine, maybe they had merely been once opened in a rainstorm.   It's at that point that I kind of wish the Cache Owner was active.  The situation would be better that way.

 

I never post NM if I haven't found at least evidence of parts of the cache.  I do describe what the problem is, even if my description is in a Found It log without any NM.  I'm one of the few cachers around here who will wait and dry a log sheet enough to sign it, rather than "didn't sign it because it's soaking wet, so gimme the Smilie".   And I do NA even less frequently, for a host of reasons.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by kunarion

[+thebruce0]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

15 hours ago, Team Canary said:

Someone can now go and place a new cache there.

 

That rarely happens for non-urban caches, most of the time they just become more empty space on the map. I've archived 18 caches of my own over the past decade, but no-one else has ever come along and put a new cache there.

 

If someone goes to find it, then it's not a dead zone. If they don't wish to place one, then it's still abandoned trash. They're just signing abandoned trash. HQ doesn't want to list abandoned trash. So the owner is to blame for its archival. Even though it's still there for people to find - because it's abandoned trash. But who wants to find abandoned trash? If it's not for the numbers, then it's the abandoned trash that's still there for anyone to sign if they value the hike and experience, even though it's no longer actively listed on the website. As abandoned trash.

Blame the owner.

Edited November 6, 2023 by thebruce0

[+colleda]

21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Well it was in an official blog post by HQ so I'd hope it represents official policy, but it's also contrary to what reviewers are posting as official policy, so it would be nice to get some clarification on this from HQ.

 

 

I think it's sad that NM (now Owner Attention Requested) has now been effectively turned into NA (Reviewer Attention Requested). Looking at the logs on that cache, the three consecutive NMs were from five years ago and were about water getting into the container, but there's no mention of wetness in the more recent logs, in fact one of them says "all good here". Archiving a cache simply because the owner is inactive and hasn't cleared an historic red wrench isn't punishing the absent owner, it's punishing the community and only serves to further discourage logging NMs for issues that don't require archival of the cache if they're not addressed by the owner.

One log described the log as "moldy". Yuk.

There is no shortage of caches in the area.

Edited November 6, 2023 by colleda

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, colleda said:

One log described the log as "moldy". Yuk.

There is no shortage of caches in the area.

 

But that was nearly six years ago. None of the more recent logs mentioned any problems so perhaps one of the finders fixed it, or maybe the CO did but forgot to log an OM. If a present-day finder found it mouldy or otherwise in poor condition, they could always log an NA.

 

When I started caching in 2013, there was no shortage of caches on the Peninsula, with new ones popping up every month or two, but those new ones dried up and one by one the older ones got archived. Now there are just 5 caches in Woy Woy, 4 in Blackwall (2 of them mine), 1 in Ettalong (my AL bonus cache) and 6 in Umina (3 of them mine). A new player could knock them all off before lunch. Four of those caches have inactive owners and another, although still active, now lives interstate and gets her father to remove any remaining hides that become problematic, so that number will continue to dwindle. Of the sixteen caches still here, three were placed in 2020, one in 2022 and one of mine just a couple of months ago, but the rest are more than six years old and most predate my involvement in the game. If one were to "refresh the game board" here, there'd be almost nothing left.

 

By all means archive caches that have gone missing or have fallen into disrepair, but the ones that remain in good condition can still provide enjoyment to new players and visitors.

 

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Blame the owner.

 

How does blaming an absent owner improve the game? You can blame all you want, but at the end of the day there's still one less cache for the community to find.