No "NM", when not finding a cache?

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

 

10 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.

Agreed. One less cache, or in some areas, no caches to find now. In those areas they won't be replaced. Sure, in cache saturated urban areas archive them, but leave caches alone in remote areas, where there will be NO replacements, when the cache is still in okay condition, or travellers are maintaining them, as often happens in remote areas in Australia. When I travel to more remote areas, I pack replacement cache containers and log paper, ready to do my part in maintaining lonely caches.

 

Added: And I don't leave the old crumbling cache there. I pick up the pieces to dispose of properly. Sadly, even though leaving a nice new cache container, not all geocachers do this. I have come upon new cache sitting on shards of plastic.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+colleda]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

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.

 

The "moldy" log may have indicated a problem with the container or perhaps it was not properly closed by a finder, we will never know. The CO could have done something about it and didn't. How often have caches lingered in a sorry state before they 'died', we've all found them. But some cachers are reluctant to put them out of their misery.

And, as someone once said. "You don't have to find them all".

 

[+Goldenwattle]

5 minutes ago, colleda said:

You don't have to find them all

And that will mean that in some areas you won't find any.

[+TriciaG]

Aaaaand, now we're back to the off-topic topica of absentee owners causing archivals, and the lack of caches in some areas of the world. Isn't this thread supposed to be about posting NM on caches one hasn't found?

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Aaaaand, now we're back to the off-topic topica of absentee owners causing archivals, and the lack of caches in some areas of the world. Isn't this thread supposed to be about posting NM on caches one hasn't found?

Unfortunately, thanks to CHS, the topic of NM logs is related to the topics of archived caches and of archiving caches in cache-poor places.

[+thebruce0]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

They still can, even if they're archived. They're still there. No one seems to own it. GC is under no obligation to keep abandoned trash listed as a geocache. There's really no defens to be pulled out to defend that ethic. The owner has 1, 2, or 3 possibly more months to respond. That's all that's needed for a judgment to be made. No response, the item(s) left in nature are no longer an "official" geocache, and the website does not list people's abandoned trash. Regardless of the ex-geocache's current quality or experience surrounding it.

 

 

Maybe someone should make another website that "re-lists" archived and abandoned, but still-good geocaches. There may be a demographic for that. But HQ has decided that is not what geocaching.com lists.

 

 

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

No, blame the owner for the fact that they have abandoned their property to become trash in nature, meaning its inevitable archival - regardless of quality - is "hurting the community". Or at least hurting those who only want to find active geocache listings for the numbers. Because if nothing change with the physical cache and container, then it's still findable and signable. Possibly even loggable unless/until the listing is locked. The only one to blame for an archived "good" cache is the ex-owner.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

when the cache is still in okay condition, or travellers are maintaining them, as often happens in remote areas in Australia. When I travel to more remote areas, I pack replacement cache containers and log paper, ready to do my part in maintaining lonely caches.

This falls under "and the reviewer/hq can be convinced to leave it active". That has happened, it can happen.  But if they can't be convinced, they are under zero obligation to feel bad about it. Even though it might be a reluctant archival as a geocacher, it's perfectly justified as a reviewer or hq lackey.

 

14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Added: And I don't leave the old crumbling cache there. I pick up the pieces to dispose of properly. Sadly, even though leaving a nice new cache container, not all geocachers do this. I have come upon new cache sitting on shards of plastic.

However this moves over into the topic of proxy-maintenance and why that can never be a condoned activity or solution. It can be fine, but it can also open the door for wandering. If the owner never double checks on a proxy-maintained cache, then years later it may not be anything like the owner placed or intended. Once again, the owner must be actively involved in maintaining their cache (or at least verifying it), whether or not there's been proxy-maint.

 

 

On the topic:

NM/OAR should never be withheld just because one thinks the owner is AWOL. Post it. Help the geocache to BE what the owner intended it to be, for as long as the owner continues to intend it to BE a geocache, and not abandoned trash.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Once again, the owner must be actively involved in maintaining their cache (or at least verifying it), whether or not there's been proxy-maint.

If it's being maintained, it's being maintained. What does it matter? Better the cache stay than have no, or almost no caches for 100s of kms. And no chance of a replacement. You must like big empty areas on the map. That's sad for travellers and doesn't help the game.

 

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If the owner never double checks on a proxy-maintained cache, then years later it may not be anything like the owner placed or intended.

It was likely just a plastic box. So it's say white now rather than say black. Not a thing to worry about. The even older ones were often ammunition tins, so they likely are still okay.

[+thebruce0]

26 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If it's being maintained, it's being maintained. What does it matter?

Take that up with HQ. It's been answered yearly in this forum.

 

26 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You must like big empty areas on the map.

Please refrain from irrelevant ad hominem.

[+MNTA]

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If it's being maintained, it's being maintained. What does it matter? Better the cache stay than have no, or almost no caches for 100s of kms. And no chance of a replacement. You must like big empty areas on the map. That's sad for travellers and doesn't help the game.

 

I agree with @thebruce0 take it up with HQ. The problem is your definition of maintained is different than the published definition of maintained. I'm ok with the current rules.

 

I think there is an opportunity here that if you wish to start a separate thread we can discuss the many ways to support remote areas and have community groups own and maintain. As I recall all is required is a reasonable maintenance plan.

 

Back to the OP I'll continue to file  NM/OAR logs on my DNFs if I believe it is needed. Specially if the hint is specific and/or previous DNFs of experienced cachers. Am I always right no. But if three DNFs exist on a D1.5 cache maybe there is a problem. Maybe the problem is the cache moved. Maybe it is not a D1.5. There are too many what ifs best that the CO check it out and confirm one way or the other. There is nothing worse than traveling out of my way and get to a GZ to find that the cache has probable issues. 

 

As an owner of a few remote caches, specially now that I recently moved 20 miles the wrong direction. I got a DNF on one of my caches by a relatively new cacher. Should another DNF pop up I'll make the effort to swing by. I did this on a different cache and even I had difficulty refinding and ended up adding additional directions to the listing. If remoteness and maintenance is an issue then I suggest very specific instructions in the hint.

Edited November 7, 2023 by MNTA

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

If remoteness and maintenance is an issue then I suggest very specific instructions in the hint.

 

Yes, my most recent cache (GCAEX05), while only 4.8km from home as the crow flies, is a 16km return hike to reach so the hint is intentionally quite explicit. It's placed in a large honeycombed sandstone cave where there are lots of potential hiding places for a small-sized container, but only one is the very distinctive "mousehole" at its base.

 

 

That cache may well get some DNFs for the usual reasons I tend to get (snakes, approaching storms, mosquitoes, tired kids, etc.), but I don't want it to get any "searched for an hour but couldn't spot it" ones. Again it's one of my robust Duratech instrument case containers with a large logbook, so If I ever have to do a maintenance run on it, it will probably just be to confirm it's missing before I archive it.

 

Another of my caches with a very explicit hint is GC9ZM7G. Not only is it 150km from home, it's then a long steep climb up a mountain to get to GZ and, while the actual hiding place is quite safe to reach, there are many potential hiding places within plus-or-minus GPS accuracy that would be quite hazardous to search. That one shouldn't get a DNF from someone who makes it all the way to GZ, unless their batteries die just as they are about to read the hint, so if it does get one it'll probably mean it's gone missing, with a final drive and climb up there to confirm before archival.

[+Om_and_Nom]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

 

As an owner of a few remote caches, specially now that I recently moved 20 miles the wrong direction. I got a DNF on one of my caches by a relatively new cacher. Should another DNF pop up I'll make the effort to swing by. I did this on a different cache and even I had difficulty refinding and ended up adding additional directions to the listing. If remoteness and maintenance is an issue then I suggest very specific instructions in the hint.

Thank you for being a good CO

[+Team Canary]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:19 AM, barefootjeff said:

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.

 

But you're blaming Groundspeak or the NM or the CHS.

 

How do you expect the reviewers to work out if the cache is in good condition and not get it Archived? That's the owners job!

[+Om_and_Nom]

I really do not understand the back and forth.  If the CO is active and engaged, none of this is an issue.  The standards of placing a cache and maintaining it are clear.  If someone doesn't think they can abide by those simple guidelines, then don't place a cache.  If you expect people to look for your cache but can't spend the time to check on it as needed, then don't place the cache.

 

Even if there is no activity on a cache in a year, go check on it.  Maybe the difficulty changed.  Maybe the last person that found it placed it somewhere besides the original spot.  Maybe the log is getting moldy.  Maybe there were a few attempts to find it but the GC'er didn't put a "DNF" on it.  Yet again, if we have an active and engaged CO, they go check on it and make a note confirming it's status.  

Edited November 8, 2023 by Om_and_Nom

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

How do you expect the reviewers to work out if the cache is in good condition and not get it Archived? That's the owners job!

 

Well there's always the logs that finders have written that can provide a good insight into the current state of the cache. If there's a serious problem and the owner hasn't responded, then sure, it needs to be archived, but there are many caches, particularly the higher terrain ones that are typically large rugged containers that don't need constant maintenance, that can continue to provide enjoyment and fulfilment to those who seek them out for years or even decades after the CO has left the game. What harm does it do to leave them in play until such time as they actually go missing or fall into disrepair?

 

I'd much rather find good old caches that are in reasonable condition even though their owners have long gone, than not have any at all.

 

[+MNTA]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Another of my caches 

Your caches appear to not be the issue. The issue is with absent COs or inattentive COs. The rules are set to handle absent or inattentive not folks like you or me. 

 

It is frustrating to me when I find poorly maintained caches or waste my time on missing caches from absent COs. Just because 10 years ago everything was husky dory does not mean that this game will survive with community maintenance. GS has set the rules probably in my opinion based upon data that shows the way it used to be is a bad idea.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Your caches appear to not be the issue. The issue is with absent COs or inattentive COs. The rules are set to handle absent or inattentive not folks like you or me. 

 

It is frustrating to me when I find poorly maintained caches or waste my time on missing caches from absent COs. Just because 10 years ago everything was husky dory does not mean that this game will survive with community maintenance. GS has set the rules probably in my opinion based upon data that shows the way it used to be is a bad idea.

 

I'm not concerned about my caches, although most get few finds these days so if mandatory annual (or even six-monthly) owner visits were introduced I'd likely just archive the more remote ones and retrieve them during the cooler months. No, my concern is more for the old-fashioned high-terrain caches like the 5/5 abseiling one I visited with my friends a couple of weeks ago. It was placed in 2006, with an OM log a year later saying they'd upgraded it from a plastic pot to an ammo can, but no owner logs since and the CO's more recent finds suggest they left the area in around 2010 and, with their most recent (and only find since 2020) in Italy, they might not even still be in the country. That cache is inside a crack 15 metres down a vertical cliff and, not surprisingly, was still in pristine condition when my friends made their find, which they said is one of the best caches they've ever done.

 

 

It, like most of the other remote ammo cans (or similar) around here with or without active owners, doesn't need constant maintenance to keep it in good condition, and will likely remain in good condition of its own accord for decades to come. Had the owner done the "right" thing and archived it when they presumably left the area in 2010, none of those who've found it since would have had that memorable experience, instead it just would have become more empty space on the map. I'm sure my friends are glad they didn't.

 

I find it frustrating when I look at the map and see just empty space, or a trail of roadside micros, where there used to be a good smattering of scenic and challenging caches like these. A month or so back I did a bunch of kayaking caches with my friends along a stretch of river in southern Sydney. A few of the caches were missing and some had wet logs but, hey, it didn't matter, it was still a great day out. The CO might no longer be active or responsive but it's still better than sitting at home staring at a blank map.

 

[+Team Canary]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Well there's always the logs that finders have written that can provide a good insight into the current state of the cache.

 

So, you expect the volunteer reviewers to go through every cache with a fine tooth comb before they Archive the caches with non-responsive owners.

 

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It, like most of the other remote ammo cans (or similar) around here with or without active owners, doesn't need constant maintenance to keep it in good condition, and will likely remain in good condition of its own accord for decades to come.

 

And will not get DNFs, or Owner Attention Required logs, or Reviewer Attention required logs or have a ow Cache Health Score. Long may good caches live.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

16 hours ago, MNTA said:

to support remote areas and have community groups own and maintain

There are no community groups; no towns even often. It's remote. If the cache is okay why archive it, just because the owner is no longer active.

That stretch of road is 446kms. There are two caches in that distance, and one at either end. (Found and logged all four.) That's one cache for every 111kms. If they are okay they should be left alone. There are no towns in that distance to have community groups.

That's my car doing the crossing. The speed limit is 140kph, so a relatively quick crossing .

 

This is a general comment, not aimed at anyone, but don't think some people get 'remote'.

 

 

  

16 hours ago, MNTA said:

I think there is an opportunity here that if you wish to start a separate thread we can discuss the many ways to support remote areas and have community groups own and maintain.

 

That's a reasonable suggestion.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Team Canary said:

And will not get DNFs,

 

That cache has already had two DNFs, one in 2010 from someone who got to the top of the cliff but hadn't looked at the description and didn't realise they needed abseiling gear, and the other in 2016 from someone who had the right gear but was thwarted by strong wind. I get lots of DNFs on my caches for all manner of reasons, but out of about 60 only two turned out to be a missing cache. Most of the time, particularly on the more physically challenging caches where there are a lot of ways to not complete the find, DNFs don't mean there's a problem with the cache, they're just a report of an unsuccessful attempt at it.

[+TriciaG]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

A few of the caches were missing and some had wet logs but, hey, it didn't matter, it was still a great day out. The CO might no longer be active or responsive but it's still better than sitting at home staring at a blank map.

You'd rather have non-existing caches with a spot on the map? Seriously?

If that's not a way to kill future interest in Geocaching, I don't know what is.

[+thebruce0]

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If the cache is okay why archive it, just because the owner is no longer active.

Already asked and answered.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, TriciaG said:

You'd rather have non-existing caches with a spot on the map? Seriously?

If that's not a way to kill future interest in Geocaching, I don't know what is.

 

As I keep saying, if a cache with an absent owner is missing or in a state of disrepair then yes, it should be archived (isn't that what the NA log is for?), but all the other caches in that series, placed by the same absent owner, don't need to be, even though everyone here thinks they should be.

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

As I keep saying, if a cache with an absent owner is missing or in a state of disrepair then yes, it should be archived (isn't that what the NA log is for?), but all the other caches in that series, placed by the same absent owner, don't need to be, even though everyone here thinks they should be.

Who is to say if the cache since the last 'good' find is still good? There is NO ONE who is checking on it, NO ONE who is verifying it. It would remain in that "trash" limbo state until another report from a non-owner. No, all anyone can ever know is that the now-abandoned-trash was apparently reportedly in a findable state according to the last assumedly accurate find log. WAY too many assumptions for Geocaching.com, the geocache listing service, to make about a piece of abandoned trash that is now being listed on their website.

As repeated ad nauseum - archiving the listing does nothing to whatever may (or may not) still be at the listing's coordinates. For all intents and purposes, it is still findable. It is still loggable, for as long as the listing is not locked.

 

Why is there such a push to keep abandoned trash listed actively as if it were a geocache on geocaching.com?

Have the listing archived and publish a real geocache at the same location if it's worth keeping attractive as an active geocache (meaning it's owned and maintained by someone, as a geocache is defined by geocaching.com).  Otherwise it is simply a remnant of what was a geocache yet is still a potentially amazing experience or location to visit, which people can still do -- Just without logging a geocache Find online.

Edited November 8, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Who is to say if the cache since the last 'good' find is still good?

 

Who is to say my cache I visited and posted an OM log on last year is still good? Or the cache I placed last month and haven't been back to since? How often do you want COs to be visiting their caches to make sure they haven't turned to trash behind their backs?

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

As repeated ad nauseum - archiving the listing does nothing to whatever may (or may not) still be at the listing's coordinates. For all intents and purposes, it is still findable. It is still loggable, for as long as the listing is not locked.

 

Just how easy is it to find out there's an archived cache in an area you're visiting? Even if you know its GC code, you can't look at its listing on the app. Unless someone is specifically seeking out archived caches, such as by using the Map Compare feature on Project GC, archived cache listings are essentially invisible to the community.

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Why is there such a push to keep abandoned trash listed actively as if it were a geocache on geocaching.com?

Have the listing archived and publish a real geocache at the same location if it's worth keeping attractive as an active geocache (meaning it's owned and maintained by someone, as a geocache is defined by geocaching.com).

 

This is the crux of it, isn't it? It must be wonderful to live in a part of the world where someone will likely come along and create a new listing whenever an old one is archived. That simply doesn't happen here, because we have few active COs now, even fewer who will hide anything other than roadside micros, and there's plenty of empty space on the map for them to hide the style of cache they like in the places they like without having to wait for another cache to be archived. No, with few exceptions, when a cache is archived here, it will most likely just remain an empty space on the map. This compares all the caches I've found in my local area over the past decade to what's here now:

 

 

If all the remaining caches that have absent owners were also archived, regardless of their condition, there wouldn't be much left. It doesn't affect me as I've already found them, but it would leave little for new players and visitors to do. Maybe caching here is already dead, and those of us still playing just don't know it yet, but I guess it soon will be.

Edited November 8, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Who is to say my cache I visited and posted an OM log on last year is still good? Or the cache I placed last month and haven't been back to since? How often do you want COs to be visiting their caches to make sure they haven't turned to trash behind their backs?

If you're an active owner, pay attention to reports. Since you posted an OM log, you're active at least as of that date. So the argument you are making about yourself is not relevant to cache listings that have been abandoned by their owner having given no response to a report.

 

14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Just how easy is it to find out there's an archived cache in an area you're visiting?

Who cares? It's not a geocache. If it's archived, and it's not retrieved, and its owner is no longer active, it's abandoned trash. If you want to find abandoned trash, start or find a website where people list them. That's not geocaching.com

People are creative and intelligent enough to find archived cache listings if they really want to. I have found archived caches. But that's beyond what geocaching.com is around to list and provide for an active community.

 

More relevant in the past, but an archived listing doesn't mean the container is removed or abandoned or not even an active game piece on another website. That's another reason this is just a listing service for active geocaches which align with the TOU and responsibilities of the listing owner.

 

17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

This is the crux of it, isn't it? It must be wonderful to live in a part of the world where someone will likely come along and create a new listing whenever an old one is archived.

Anecdotes can't apply worldwide. We know well that you live in a relative 'sucky' region. It's unfortunate. Really. But once again, there is simply no reasonable excuse for an active owner to NOT respond in any way to a request by a reviewer or HQ to tend to their listing, or a community that can convince them the listing is worth leaving alone. If they don't, the result is an archived listing because the physical item left in nature can only be assumed to now be abandoned trash and no longer a geocache as required to be listed on geocaching.com - having a responsive owner.  There is no way around this.

 

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If all the remaining caches that have absent owners were also archived, regardless of their condition, there wouldn't be much left.

So then don't report them. And cross your fingers there's no issue with them and that no one else decides to report them.

Otherwise the caches will eventually be known to be abandoned trash because of the now ex-owner who is not responding.

[+barefootjeff]

51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

So then don't report them. And cross your fingers there's no issue with them and that no one else decides to report them.

Otherwise the caches will eventually be known to be abandoned trash because of the now ex-owner who is not responding.

 

It's not caches that have problems being reported on that I have concerns about, if there really is a problem and the owner doesn't respond then the cache should be archived, and the sooner the better. It's the inferred reports, typically based on counting DNF logs on caches where most of the DNFs are just accounts of an attempt at finding the cache that went wrong rather than saying anything about the cache itself, that end up resulting in caches that are in good condition being archived because the owner didn't respond to the false positive.

[+barefootjeff]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, if people were encouraged to log an NM (or an NA if there's already an unanswered NM) when they think the cache is likely to be missing, instead of being told "You can't know a cache needs maintenance if you haven't found it" and then relying on the all-seeing CHS to decide whether it's missing or not, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

The CHS was introduced because people were being reluctant to use NM and NA logs, or didn't understand their use or even know they existed, so now we have people reluctant to log DNFs unless they're certain the cache is missing and HQ are complaining loudly about all the missing DNFs. Where will it end?

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Who is to say if the cache since the last 'good' find is still good?

Who is to say that all my caches, or yours are still okay? I don't check mine daily and I can presume you don't either. 

Stop trying to ruin the game for others. If a cache is okay, leave it alone.

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Already asked and answered.

Yes, you want to archive caches that don't need archiving, and empty areas of caches. Yes, understood.

[+fizzymagic]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Who is to say that all my caches, or yours are still okay? I don't check mine daily and I can presume you don't either.

 

Ha!  You think once a day is enough?  How do you know your cache is still OK in the last hour?

 

The best cache owners check on their caches hourly and post OM logs daily (at least0!

Edited November 9, 2023 by fizzymagic

[+Goldenwattle]

6 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

The best cache owners check on their caches hourly and post OM logs daily (at least0!

 LOL, maybe I should go check the one in my front garden now...oh it's raining. How about at night ...when it's like, gee, dark...🦇

[+Team Canary]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

As I keep saying, if a cache with an absent owner is missing or in a state of disrepair then yes, it should be archived (isn't that what the NA log is for?), but all the other caches in that series, placed by the same absent owner, don't need to be, even though everyone here thinks they should be.

Nope. We agree. 
 

Caches with reported problems and non-responsive owners should be archived. 
 

Caches with no issues should be left alone. As I said earlier, long may the good caches live. 
 

We’re only talking caches with reported problems, DNFs, NM and NA logs. 

[+niraD]

32 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

We’re only talking caches with reported problems, DNFs, NM and NA logs. 

And the point being made repeatedly is that DNFs are not necessarily "reported problems", despite the CHS (and volunteer reviewers, when nagged by the CHS) treating them as such.

[+Hynz]

On 11/8/2023 at 6:59 AM, Team Canary said:

On 11/8/2023 at 2:22 AM, barefootjeff said:

Well there's always the logs that finders have written that can provide a good insight into the current state of the cache.

 

So, you expect the volunteer reviewers to go through every cache with a fine tooth comb before they Archive the caches with non-responsive owners.

In my opinion that's *exactly* what reviewers should do. At least they should read and digest the last logs.

And I want to believe that many reviewers are doing this. But whenever a reviewer of the other kind is archiving a perfectly findable remote cache of an inactive owner we have again such a heated discussion.

 

I also think that many of those who vehemently demand to archive every cache with two vague DNFs and an inactive owner have in mind a micro already replaced by three throwdowns in the middle of a cache dense area.

[+thebruce0]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's not caches that have problems being reported on that I have concerns about, if there really is a problem and the owner doesn't respond then the cache should be archived, and the sooner the better. It's the inferred reports, typically based on counting DNF logs on caches where most of the DNFs are just accounts of an attempt at finding the cache that went wrong rather than saying anything about the cache itself, that end up resulting in caches that are in good condition being archived because the owner didn't respond to the false positive.

 

First, as we know, and have seen demonstrated, the reviewer looks over DNFs and makes a decision. If you think a reviewer is archiving a cache that shouldn't be archived merely because of 2 DNFs that are clearly not relevant to the cache state but the owner is not active, then YOU (royal) are the only one that can attempt to convince the reviewer that the cache should not be archived. Because all it would otherwise take is one freakin' communication from the CO to effectively have the best chance at stopping the archival. Just be responsive! I have no sympathy for a CO who makes no effort to respond within 1-3 months to a request from a reviewer to tend to the listing. No sympathy.

 

 

14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Who is to say if the cache since the last 'good' find is still good?

Who is to say that all my caches, or yours are still okay?

 

For mine I am, because I'm active and can look at them and/or respond to the claim that they may need maintenance, within a reasonable time, so that they don't get archived. No so with an ex-owner who has created trash in nature because they are no longer laying claim to their maintenance (container and/or listing) responsibilities.

The rest of your comment about my desire to 'empty areas of caches' is completely irrelevant and flatly incorrect and once again ad hominem and not worth responding to.

 

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

2 hours ago, Team Canary said:

We’re only talking caches with reported problems, DNFs, NM and NA logs. 

And the point being made repeatedly is that DNFs are not necessarily "reported problems", despite the CHS (and volunteer reviewers, when nagged by the CHS) treating them as such.

 

Right. And as unfortunate as it is for statistics (because again assuming it's a "good" cache the container is still findable, it's just no longer searchable in the active geocache database), if the listing's owner has zero desire to respond even to a reviewer request, who has judged by their human nature, then the reviewer is under no obligation to be lenient and let the listing remain active.  The "problem", which has come to light due to DNFs that have prompted the reviewer to request a response, is the ex-owner who has effectively left trash listed as an active geocache.  That's what's getting archived.

[+Goldenwattle]

36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

For mine I am, because I'm active and can look at them and/or respond to the claim that they may need maintenance, within a reasonable time,

It's good you are an active owner. And so am I, but I still can't know they are all okay at this moment. Some don't get found for months and most are suburban caches. And if people won't log DNFs, or at the least mention the cache condition (I like to do this) I don't know what condition the cache is in, until one of my regular checks. Likely to be okay though. I checked on one of my caches a couple of days ago and found it was out of its hide, lying out on the grass, and I was lucky to spot it among the lawn clippings. Initially I thought it was missing. Last log over four months ago. Back in its hide now. If someone had looked for it and didn't do the DNF, I wouldn't know there was a problem. Silly them too, as I often contact the person who made the DNF and offer more hints. But only if they make a DNF. I like to offer to assist people to find the cache if they are struggling.

 

54 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The rest of your comment about my desire to 'empty areas of caches' is completely irrelevant and flatly incorrect and once again ad hominem and not worth responding to.

That has been the feeling of your answers, and responding to that.

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's good you are an active owner. And so am I, but I still can't know they are all okay at this moment.

That's not the point. The point is the owner should be able to respond to possible reports of problems, or if a reviewer or hq requires you to respond. THAT is the point.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, Team Canary said:

We’re only talking caches with reported problems, DNFs, NM and NA logs.

 

If I log a DNF on one of your excellent caches, please don't take it to be a "reported problem" as it will most likely just be me doing my usual Blind Freddy impersonation. It's pretty rare for a cache I've DNFed to actually turn out to be missing, I'm just not very good at finding caches, even the ones that are supposed to be obvious. If I do want to report a problem, I'll log an NM, otherwise a DNF from me is just an account of my bungled attempt.

[+thebruce0]

I took that as a list.

* Reported problems

* DNFs

* NM

* NA

Each of those only needing to be dealt with if a reviewer decides it needs to be dealt with. Typically requiring at the very least a response from the owner.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I have no sympathy for a CO who makes no effort to respond within 1-3 months to a request from a reviewer to tend to the listing. No sympathy.

 

I'm not asking for sympathy for unresponsive COs, unless perhaps they're laid up in a hospital bed where attending to their CO duties is their least concern, all I'm asking for is consideration for the impact archiving caches that aren't missing or broken has on the game in places where caches are scarce and the likelihood of a new cache appearing in its place is negligible. Most DNFs aren't due to missing caches, and not even all unanswered NMs require archival as the only remedy. For example, an NM reporting a full log doesn't need the cache to be archived if the owner is unresponsive, it just needs a new log which the next finder will likely provide anyway. Maybe that doesn't matter if there are hundreds of other nearby caches, but it does matter if it's the last remaining cache in a vast expanse of geo-emptiness, or if it's the last hilltop ammo can in a sea of rusty roadside mint tins.

 

[+Team Canary]

10 hours ago, niraD said:

And the point being made repeatedly is that DNFs are not necessarily "reported problems", despite the CHS (and volunteer reviewers, when nagged by the CHS) treating them as such.

 

I reckon that would be less than 5% of DNFs. Four in a row of failure to get to GZ then would be well less than 1%.

 

This is so rare I have no idea why you're so concerned. How many are you seeing?

 

I see inactive owners and caches that are missing, so much more then DNFs used inappropriately.

[+Team Canary]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

If I log a DNF on one of your excellent caches, please don't take it to be a "reported problem" as it will most likely just be me doing my usual Blind Freddy impersonation. It's pretty rare for a cache I've DNFed to actually turn out to be missing, I'm just not very good at finding caches, even the ones that are supposed to be obvious. If I do want to report a problem, I'll log an NM, otherwise a DNF from me is just an account of my bungled attempt.

 

And if it gets four of those in a row? Then a NM?

 

I need to check it after multiple DNFs.

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

 

I reckon that would be less than 5% of DNFs. Four in a row of failure to get to GZ then would be well less than 1%.

 

This is so rare I have no idea why you're so concerned. How many are you seeing?

 

I see inactive owners and caches that are missing, so much more then DNFs used inappropriately.

 

It depends on where you look. Take a look at GC13C3B, a 3.5/2.5 trad placed in 2007 with 138 finds and a whopping 83 DNFs. Several times it's had 4 DNFs in a row and in 2017 it got 5 in a row but it's never been missing. I almost DNFed it in 2017, just after those 5 DNFs, but as I was about to give up I tilted my head just the right way and spotted a hidey-hole I hadn't previously noticed. It's a tough cache, but that's what makes it such a good one too, and it would be a shame if a cluster of DNFs triggered the CHS and led to its archival.

 

One of my own caches (GC5H5G2), a 2/3.5 traditional, has had 15 DNFs in its nine years of existence, and sometimes two in a row, but it's never been missing. It shouldn't be that hard, and those DNFers who've had another go can't believe they didn't see it the first time, but people either search two-dimensionally and don't look down, or they see the hiding place but just dismiss it without really looking in there, and then spend the next hour scouring the area in increasingly wide circles before giving up and logging a DNF. Fortunately it's close to home and easy for me to do a quick check if I have any concerns, otherwise if it got a statistical cluster of DNFs enough to trigger the CHS I'd likely just archive it and go to retrieve it later.

[+Team Canary]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It depends on where you look. Take a look at GC13C3B, a 3.5/2.5 trad placed in 2007 with 138 finds and a whopping 83 DNFs. Several times it's had 4 DNFs in a row and in 2017 it got 5 in a row but it's never been missing. I almost DNFed it in 2017, just after those 5 DNFs, but as I was about to give up I tilted my head just the right way and spotted a hidey-hole I hadn't previously noticed. It's a tough cache, but that's what makes it such a good one too, and it would be a shame if a cluster of DNFs triggered the CHS and led to its archival.

 

One of my own caches (GC5H5G2), a 2/3.5 traditional, has had 15 DNFs in its nine years of existence, and sometimes two in a row, but it's never been missing. It shouldn't be that hard, and those DNFers who've had another go can't believe they didn't see it the first time, but people either search two-dimensionally and don't look down, or they see the hiding place but just dismiss it without really looking in there, and then spend the next hour scouring the area in increasingly wide circles before giving up and logging a DNF. Fortunately it's close to home and easy for me to do a quick check if I have any concerns, otherwise if it got a statistical cluster of DNFs enough to trigger the CHS I'd likely just archive it and go to retrieve it later.

 

You were talking about DNFs that were not a failure to find. But for other reasons.

 

D3.5 should have a lot of DNFs.(I was lucky enough to find it on a Geocaching NSW walk in the hands of others.)

 

Your one is probably a little harder than D2 in my experience and based on those DNFs.

 

Both have active owners.

[+Om_and_Nom]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm not asking for sympathy for unresponsive COs, unless perhaps they're laid up in a hospital bed where attending to their CO duties is their least concern, all I'm asking for is consideration for the impact archiving caches that aren't missing or broken has on the game in places where caches are scarce and the likelihood of a new cache appearing in its place is negligible. Most DNFs aren't due to missing caches, and not even all unanswered NMs require archival as the only remedy. For example, an NM reporting a full log doesn't need the cache to be archived if the owner is unresponsive, it just needs a new log which the next finder will likely provide anyway. Maybe that doesn't matter if there are hundreds of other nearby caches, but it does matter if it's the last remaining cache in a vast expanse of geo-emptiness, or if it's the last hilltop ammo can in a sea of rusty roadside mint tins.

 

Well that's the thing though, right?  How do we know if they are missing or broken unless there is some kind of communication from the CO?  From what I've seen, a CO has AT LEAST 28 days to respond to a reviewer request notice, and that's normally after a few DNF's or OM request.  Even in a super aggressive situation...say there was a DNF on a cache a week ago, a DNF today where I looked for it (and based on past evidence it should be there), I log an OM request, 2 days later I message the CO directly, 3 days later I ask for reviewer attention...we are talking about 5 weeks for the CO to provide something...anything...in regards to communication.  Not fix it, just make a note.  If they can't even do that, I have ZERO issues with the cache being archived.  

 

I keep going back to the fact that if a CO is active and engaged and following the guidelines of placing a cache, the above scenario is a non-issue.  If the cache isn't there, the CO can decide what to do (replace, archive, etc.)  If the cache IS there, CO confirms and everything is a-ok and cache lives on for others to enjoy.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Team Canary said:

so much more then DNFs used inappropriately

 

So what is an "inappropriate" DNF? To me, if I was trying my hardest to find a cache but failed to get my name in the log, for whatever reason, it's a DNF. There's a cache on Sydney's northern beaches, published earlier this year, that involves swimming across a lagoon to an island followed by what the CO described as "an easy tree climb". It sounded like fun so I took the ferry across the bay, caught a bus to the nearest stop and, with a kayaking dry bag for my glasses, phone and pen tied to my back, made the swim. After a bit of searching I spotted the cache but it looked a lot higher than I was expecting and the tree was pretty spindly and, by the look of it, only just hanging onto life. Nonetheless I'd come that far so I started to climb, but about halfway up I realised the next branches I'd need to step on were dead and unlikely to support my weight. At that point I reluctantly gave up and logged my DNF. Was that inappropriate because it didn't imply there was a problem with the cache?

 

Once upon a time, NMs were for reporting problems and DNFs were just informational accounts of unsuccessful attempts. When I logged that DNF, I just wanted to tell my tale of woe, not request a maintenance visit or have it archived if that didn't happen. If that was inappropriate then I'm sorry, but for me DNFs are about tales of unsuccessful searches and WNs are for other stuff like TB drops or anything not directly related to an attempted find.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Om_and_Nom said:

How do we know if they are missing or broken unless there is some kind of communication from the CO?

 

Maybe from the logs of the most recent finders? This ammo can part way down the cliff face isn't missing or broken, even though its owner appears to have left the area in 2010 and isn't even in the country now. Yet it's had two earlier DNFs, both of which explained that they hadn't actually descended the cliff.

 

 

We should be reading the logs, not just counting them.

 

There's always a possibility a cache could be missing or broken, even if the CO checked it yesterday. I'd much rather have a cache to go out and attempt to find, even if there's a chance it might be gone, than just be sitting at home looking at all the empty space on the map. For the sort of caches I enjoy the most, which usually mean being out in the wilds for most of the day, it's largely immaterial to my enjoyment whether that day ends with a smiley or a DNF, because most of the fun is getting to GZ and the find is just the icing on the cake.

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Team Canary]

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So what is an "inappropriate" DNF? To me, if I was trying my hardest to find a cache but failed to get my name in the log, for whatever reason, it's a DNF. There's a cache on Sydney's northern beaches, published earlier this year, that involves swimming across a lagoon to an island followed by what the CO described as "an easy tree climb". It sounded like fun so I took the ferry across the bay, caught a bus to the nearest stop and, with a kayaking dry bag for my glasses, phone and pen tied to my back, made the swim. After a bit of searching I spotted the cache but it looked a lot higher than I was expecting and the tree was pretty spindly and, by the look of it, only just hanging onto life. Nonetheless I'd come that far so I started to climb, but about halfway up I realised the next branches I'd need to step on were dead and unlikely to support my weight. At that point I reluctantly gave up and logged my DNF. Was that inappropriate because it didn't imply there was a problem with the cache?

 

100% a DNF, the condition of the cache stopped you. Amazingly, I was contemplating that one in two days time. Hmmm! Thanks for the information.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Om_and_Nom said:

I keep going back to the fact that if a CO is active and engaged and following the guidelines of placing a cache, the above scenario is a non-issue.  If the cache isn't there, the CO can decide what to do (replace, archive, etc.)  If the cache IS there, CO confirms and everything is a-ok and cache lives on for others to enjoy.

That's fine in urban areas and populated country areas. A cache in an area with plenty of other caches should be archived with no response from an owner. Unless there is some special reason why the cache shouldn't be archived, but those are rare. Say a 2000 cache. I have found caches like that, and one I reported a problem with, that someone had stolen the container. The original log was still there though. I would not have considered for one moment doing a NM, etc on this cache. No, NEVER! I would consider that as bad an action as those who stole the cache. The best I could do was add a plastic bag. I put the information in my log could the next person please bring a new container. The locals who were maintaining the cache (who I didn't know of), had a new cache there, I think it was, next day. If I had made that NM log it would now be a mark against the cache, as those maintaining it can't do OM logs. I have found at least one other 2000 cache also being maintained by locals. (Then there was the 2000 cache - Europe's Oldest, when I turned up and met the CO who was doing maintenance.) So some still have active COs. But many don't.

For remote areas in contrast to urban areas I would be very reluctant to do a NM. The COs often live a long way away. Doing a check on some remote caches, that can be thousands of kms away. They can't just take that drive to check the cache. Some might get to it in a year's time. Many people, especially grey nomads (older retired people) regularly drive around Australia with their caravans, and some are geocachers. Some are on the road for years. However, caches in remote areas are often maintained before that by other travellers. Each country, and part of a country is different, and the rules for urban caches and populated country areas, shouldn't apply everywhere, because 'everywhere' is not the same.

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

all I'm asking for is consideration for the impact archiving caches that aren't missing or broken

Who's to say the geocache is not abandoned trash, except for an active, responsive owner. Again, there's no getting around this. Active and responsive is the requirement to have an owned geocache container listed on geocaching.com. The website isn't here to give us stats. It's here to provide a place for owner to opt in to list their geocache. Once again, as unfortunate as it is if a cache is archived because a CO is non-responsive, reviewers have no obligation to let a listing stay active - making every assumption that the cache is okay - given they have no contact with its owner. There are far too many questions and unknows that GCHQ doesn't want to adopt in this process. BE RESPONSIVE. Convince the reviewer or HQ that the cache should not be archived.