Annoying 'Needs Maintenance' logs

[+Setan Meyacha]

It is really annoying when someone with less than 15 finds reports a cache needs maintenance when they didn't find the cache where they thought it should be. It is not only time-consuming and an added expense that isn't necessary, it is just plain inconsiderate. A simple e-mail to the CO explaining where they thought the cache should have been and asking if they were right or not would avoid all the hassle involved with setting things straight. I would only report a cache needing maintenance if I found the cache and it did indeed need maintenance. If I didn't find the cache and thought it might be missing, based on someone else's knowledge of where the cache was, then I would either log a note informing the CO of my beliefs, or log a DNF. The only time a cache, imo, should be logged as needing maintenance is if the cache was actually found and container has been compromised, someone didn't put the lid on tight and the contents were wet, or if there were some other evidence that the cache wasn't in good condition.

If I'm wrong in my thinking...ignore the above.

[+narcissa]

Why is it an added expense? If a n00b posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches, I just post an owner maintenance note to clear it. It happens. For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

[+t4e]

how's this for a NM log LMAO

 

i removed the name of poster and that of the cache, the log is their actual post

 

xxxx44 reported xxxxxx (Traditional Cache) needs maintenance at 5/26/2010

 

Log Date: 5/26/2010

The pen that is in the cache is broken just so you know. I had my own pen so I signed your logbook.

 

[+narcissa]

Some people shouldn't be allowed out of the house without a helmet.

[Little Miss Muffet]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

[+t4e]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

 

a missing TB/Coin does not warrant a NM log, your note is fine

as for the rest of the log that is no concern for NM either

 

the link to edit your own log are right bellow it

 

View / Edit Logs / Images Upload an Image for This Log

Edited May 29, 2010 by t4e

[+dfx]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

um. am i the only one that thinks that there's nothing wrong with posting a NM when the log is full?

[+thedeadpirate]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

um. am i the only one that thinks that there's nothing wrong with posting a NM when the log is full?

 

No, but mentioning it with your find log is probably enough unless there have been a number of similar logs prior.

 

But yes, a full log is a legitimate use for the NM log.

[+dfx]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

if there's a TB listed in the cache and the TB isn't actually in the cache, you can:

 

1) mention the fact in a log to the cache listing (usually the "found" log, but can be any other log type as well - it doesn't warrant its own NM log though).

2) post a "note" to the TB listing and mention the fact there.

 

this is because both the owner of the TB and the owner of the cache can mark the TB as "missing", effectively removing it from the cache listing, which is what they should do.

Edited May 29, 2010 by dfx

[+FunnyNose]

Newbs

 

FunnyNose performed maintenance for Now It's here ! (Traditional Cache)

Turned log over plenty of room now..

[+thedeadpirate]

Newbs

 

FunnyNose performed maintenance for Now It's here ! (Traditional Cache)

Turned log over plenty of room now..

 

[+Setan Meyacha]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

You just described one of the reasons a 'needs maintenance' log is appropriate.

[BCProspectors]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

I don't understand what's wrong with that. Replacing the logbook is part of the owner's maintenance responsibilities. When the log is full, the owner needs to go out and change it.

[+FunnyNose]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

I don't understand what's wrong with that. Replacing the logbook is part of the owner's maintenance responsibilities. When the log is full, the owner needs to go out and change it.

 

Or sometimes the cache owner just needs to flip the log sheet over.

 

And magically there is a bunch of empty spots to sign.

[BCProspectors]

But assuming the logbook is full and there is no way to cheat it out of more space, the logbook needs to be replaced.

[jholly]

But assuming the logbook is full and there is no way to cheat it out of more space, the logbook needs to be replaced.

 

I had a NM for a full logbook. Got a logbook and went to the cache to do my maintenance. Yep, the logbook was full on one side of the pages. If you just flipped it over and started writing on all those now newly discovered blank pages there was lots of room. What is it about writing on the back of the page that people find so hard to do?

[+FunnyNose]

But assuming the logbook is full and there is no way to cheat it out of more space, the logbook needs to be replaced.

 

Yes that is assuming that they flipped over the log sheet to check if there is any place to sign on the BLANK reverse side.

[+brslk]

Whole lot of assuming going on here. People assuming that people are or aren't flipping over the log book.

I really don't see it as a regional thing though and can't see how anyone would.

[+hydnsek]

But assuming the logbook is full and there is no way to cheat it out of more space, the logbook needs to be replaced.

 

Yes that is assuming that they flipped over the log sheet to check if there is any place to sign on the BLANK reverse side.

I sense FN has recent experience, hence his three posts to reinforce this point.

 

Yes, it's happened on one of my caches too...hiked out only to find the entire back side of the log book was vacant. Sheesh.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've never seen a log book so full that I could not add my name somewhere.

[+The Blorenges]

It's OK with me if a cacher wants to post a NM for a full logbook (really, really full). I don't know why some don't like working backwards through the book to use the backs of pages... I assume that some believe that all logs should appear in date order and so they don't want to mess with the system by going in reverse...

 

 

MrsB

[GermanSailor]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

If a logbook at one of my caches is actually full. (Not just one side of each page), than a NM log is appropriate.

 

Of course a NM should only be logged if you can be sure that some form of maintenance is required. Not finding it doesn't usually qualify.

 

GermanSailor

[+power69]

I've never seen a log book so full that I could not add my name somewhere.

ever found a nano

[+DragonflyTotem]

I think that it can be perfectly appropriate for anyone to log a NM if the cache isn't found -- newbie or not. Providing that they actually believe that a cache is missing. And that of course is the rub isn't it? That someone/anyone would assume that a newbie wouldn't have enough experience to determine that the cache is missing vs. a veteran cacher with thousands of finds.

 

I'm NOT suggesting that simply because a cache isn't found that a NM should be posted. I am trying to suggest that even a newbie **could** get to the cache site, see the obvious geotrail to the hide spot, find no cache and draw a logical conclusion that the cache is not there. AND I'm saying that even experienced cachers have posted NM based on their DNF, and that the assumption is (often) that because they are experienced that the cache must of course be gone....and when that has happened to me I found that the cache was in fact still there.

 

Frankly as a CO I'd rather have a NM than not know. And I think that at least some CO's pay attention to a NM but might not read a simple "found it" log emailed to them.

 

But I think that if someone posts a NM based on not finding the cache then additional information should be given - e.g., "Found the likely spot where the cache seemed to have been located and it wasn't there." or "Found a pencil and what might be swag remnants so you might need to check this one."

[+Isonzo Karst]

The first sentence of the Knowledge Book article on Needs Maintenance begins, "If you find a geocache that is in need of some help..."

 

bold on find added by me.

 

I'm not a fan of this log, I see it misused tons.

 

It's amazing how often people will log a NM instead of a DNF, or as others have referenced here, for a "full log". I go check it, and the is completely blank on the back, or after a NM log that's really a DNF I go find it right where it belongs.

[+drfred]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

 

You handled that well. Better than many seasoned cachers.

 

Re: full logbooks. I have never found a full-sized cache that had a logbook I couldn't sign SOMEWHERE. I have never found a micro where I couldn't add a new logsheet. Cachers are inherently lazy, but adding a logsheet to a micro is easy. Nanos are another story...

[+L0ne.R]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

if there's a TB listed in the cache and the TB isn't actually in the cache, you can:

 

1) mention the fact in a log to the cache listing (usually the "found" log, but can be any other log type as well - it doesn't warrant its own NM log though).

2) post a "note" to the TB listing and mention the fact there.

 

this is because both the owner of the TB and the owner of the cache can mark the TB as "missing", effectively removing it from the cache listing, which is what they should do.

 

It probably wouldn't hurt if you also mention to the CO that they can/should mark the TB as missing. I've seen the reports that a TB was missing from a cache but I thought those were just gripe posts, not a message to the CO in particular. I had no idea that as a CO I should mark the TB as "missing" until a finder told me what the procedure was.

[+L0ne.R]

I have never found a micro where I couldn't add a new logsheet. Cachers are inherently lazy, but adding a logsheet to a micro is easy.

 

Personally, if I find a micro with a full log I am definitely not going to add a logsheet. If someone's going to plant a micro then they've got to expect to maintain it more often when needed. However, I filter out micros so that's somewhat of a moot point except when I find a micro listed as a "small" (about 33% of the time) -- then I will absolutely not add a logsheet (and I will state in my log that the CO listed the wrong size and I will post a NM if the logsheet is full).

 

With larger caches I will put in a small sheet of paper. Enough to tide the cache over for a week or two. I am a firm believer in owner maintenance. If you can't maintain 'em, don't plant 'em.

[+drfred]

I am a firm believer in owner maintenance. If you can't maintain 'em, don't plant 'em.

 

Easily spoken from someone who has no hides. Maintain a few - just a few - for a while and you might appreciate someone dropping in a new logsheet.

[+DragonflyTotem]

The first sentence of the Knowledge Book article on Needs Maintenance begins, "If you find a geocache that is in need of some help..."

 

bold on find added by me.

 

I'm not a fan of this log, I see it misused tons.

 

It's amazing how often people will log a NM instead of a DNF, or as others have referenced here, for a "full log". I go check it, and the is completely blank on the back, or after a NM log that's really a DNF I go find it right where it belongs.

 

But it also does go on to say: "(e.g. container is cracked, logbook is full or wet), please post a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page so the cache owner and the community is notified."

 

Specifically saying to log a NM if the logbook is full.

 

Devil's Advocate: I've only been caching for eight months but how I figured out that you can use both sides was seeing signatures on both sides. I don't mean to sound like I'm dense or such, but until I saw my first log that had blank back sides (meaning no lines) all I'd seen were logs with lines on the front and back and signatures on the front and back. For all I knew perhaps the CO didn't want signatures on the backside of a log that lacked lines. That was long before I found caches where others had added pieces of "emergency logs" for when they'd found it full. So perhaps some cachers simply don't know that they are "allowed" to log on the back.

[+DanOCan]

I've never seen a log book so full that I could not add my name somewhere.

 

My thought exactly. Even on a nano I can scratch an initial on or between someone else's signature. I might still post a NM log for it though.

[knowschad]

Whole lot of assuming going on here. People assuming that people are or aren't flipping over the log book.

I really don't see it as a regional thing though and can't see how anyone would.

Around here, we refer to those people as "Flippin' left-coasters"

[+simpjkee]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

um. am i the only one that thinks that there's nothing wrong with posting a NM when the log is full?

There's nothing wrong with it. However, I think the irritation comes when no find logs even mention log space as it fills up and then WHAM someone says Log Full and slaps the NM log on it. It's like "yo give me a heads up people!" The community doesn't have to wait for it to be a problem to report a potential issue to the owner.

[+Chokecherry]

I haven't been doing this long but when I see an issue on the horizon with a cache I try to note it in my normal found it log. So log book is almost full, cache has some light leakage issues, and stuff like that.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

Reading ALL of the logs on this one, I think it may well need a bit more than maintenance, so to speak.

Multiple logs about the lid not on the container; Many, many references to standing water and a wet log; 50 or so feet from coords (not really so unusual) and a number of "enlarged" searches mentioned; one reference to animals (maybe they are the guilty party).

Strangely enough, there is not one single, solitary DNF. Maybe because so many said it was out in the open.

Redeeming factor though, one n00b made a double-find on it!

 

Methinks the ballpark and playground may have a bit to do with it open and empty a lot!

[+rawkhopper]

Wow there are a lot of whiners around here. Dude a full log is a needs maintenance item since it is safe to assume that the owner would like to keep the full logs and that without signing the log a lot of people consider it a did not find. If you can't keep up with the NM's then archive the cache.

 

As far as I am concerned I would like a pen or pencil in every cache big enough and if it is broken out of ink exploded or what have you that is a Needs Maintenance. You can simply clear it and say BYOP. But if you put it there and it don't work or is compromised then it needs maintenance.

 

Yea a cacher can add a strip of paper or a pen if he has a spare, which I do, but if I don't I would put a needs maintenance as it informs the next cacher that they should not expect to find a pen, pencil or log that can be written in.

 

I saw a needs maintenance because of a full log and purposely brought some extra paper with me so that I could sign and leave behind. I noted this and if the CO is happy with this then they can say it is taken care of without a visit.

 

Stop whining and maintain your caches or hand it off to someone who can or archive it.

[+Setan Meyacha]

The OP wasn't about 'full logs', it was about logging a NM on a cache that wasn't even found. I've had a number of new cachers log that they thought the CO might want to check to see if the cache was still there when they couldn't find it and that is okay. But, logging a NM when you haven't even found the cache to determine whether it needs maintenance or not is abusing the NM capability. Someone finds ten or twenty caches and they think they have automatically become an authority on where a cache should be placed; if it isn't there, then it MUST be missing and NM, or so they seem to think. If I didn't know for sure the cache in question was there (I just happened to have visited the cache the day before while in the area), then that would necessitate a needless trip to verify the cache was still there. I couldn't, with a good conscience, just post a maintenance fix without knowing for sure the cache was okay.

As to full logs; yes, that does require maintenance. As would wet logs, cracked containers and/or definitely missing caches. I don't obejct to doing necessary maintenance on my caches or I wouldn't have put them out there. I do object to cachers, experienced or otherwise, logging a NM on a cache they haven't found and don't know for a fact that it is missing.

[+Setan Meyacha]

Wow there are a lot of whiners around here. Dude a full log is a needs maintenance item since it is safe to assume that the owner would like to keep the full logs and that without signing the log a lot of people consider it a did not find. If you can't keep up with the NM's then archive the cache.

 

As far as I am concerned I would like a pen or pencil in every cache big enough and if it is broken out of ink exploded or what have you that is a Needs Maintenance. You can simply clear it and say BYOP. But if you put it there and it don't work or is compromised then it needs maintenance.

 

Yea a cacher can add a strip of paper or a pen if he has a spare, which I do, but if I don't I would put a needs maintenance as it informs the next cacher that they should not expect to find a pen, pencil or log that can be written in.

 

I saw a needs maintenance because of a full log and purposely brought some extra paper with me so that I could sign and leave behind. I noted this and if the CO is happy with this then they can say it is taken care of without a visit.

 

Stop whining and maintain your caches or hand it off to someone who can or archive it.

 

You obvioulsy didn't read the OP. It had nothing to do with a full log, Dude. It had to do with someone logging a NM when they didn't find the cache. You have 44 finds and 0 hides; guess that makes you an authority already.

[+dorqie]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

um. am i the only one that thinks that there's nothing wrong with posting a NM when the log is full?

no, you are not the only one, and as a CO I wouldn't mind that. To me NM is anything that would require me a trip to my cache.

 

edited to add that I don't think a DNF warrents a NM. Just because one cacher DNF doesnt mean much, a string of DNFs is a different story, but I wouldn't need someone to post NM after that, if there's more than 2 DNFs in a row, I check.

Edited May 29, 2010 by dorqie

[+dorqie]

I'm a newbie. I've had my first two finds this past week. Since you are an experienced cache owner, how should I have handled this one? A teachable moment...

 

I just put the details in the log that says I found it.....maybe a NM note needed to be done?? I dunno, but I'm all ears for your opinion (and the other owners)

 

Here's the link to the cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...94-3a13cce9d43e

 

I made 2 entries on May 27. I didn't know how to edit my first one......is there a way to?

 

Thanks

I think your note is enough, since you were able to clean out the cache yourself.

I generally don't post a NM unless the owner needs to visit the cache.

As for the two containers, one was probably muggled (sounds like by animal muggles this time) and the CO replaced it, but couldn't find the original cache's lid at the time, but it has turned up now.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Oh yeah, NM logs are for when you have evidence of a problem not when you think there is a problem.

Can't find the cache where you think it should be ≠ missing, regardless of how much experience one thinks they have.

 

I am a firm believer in owner maintenance. If you can't maintain 'em, don't plant 'em.

 

Easily spoken from someone who has no hides. Maintain a few - just a few - for a while and you might appreciate someone dropping in a new logsheet.

Keyword "might".

I didn't appreciate someone dropping a scroll of write in the rain graph paper into the water then stuffing a wad of 8.5x10 in it's place. I would have been much happier if they left a NM log, better yet, put the scroll back and left a NM log.

At first I though I was just helping out by keeping a supply of those tiny 1.5" x 2" notepads in my pack. I eventually came to realize that I was helping lazy COs to expect the community to take care of the cache for them.

Now if I have to add to the cache in order to add my sig, it only gets enough paper for my sig and the backside gets scribbled on so no one else can use it, then the CO gets a NM from me.

I have to be willing to adopt a cache before I'll start helping with logbooks/sheets now.

[+L0ne.R]

I am a firm believer in owner maintenance. If you can't maintain 'em, don't plant 'em.

 

Easily spoken from someone who has no hides. Maintain a few - just a few - for a while and you might appreciate someone dropping in a new logsheet.

 

This is my individual account. We also have a team account where we've planted 23 hides since January 2002. I appreciate a piece of paper to tide the cache over for a couple of weeks. It shouldn't take longer then that to get to any of our caches. There's one that's a 2 hour drive away but I have family up there who will replace a logbook for me if I need them to. What I mostly appreciate is a log (find it, note or NM) that let's me know the cache is almost full, enough pages to give me 2 weeks to get to the cache to replace the logbook.

[+narcissa]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

I don't understand what's wrong with that. Replacing the logbook is part of the owner's maintenance responsibilities. When the log is full, the owner needs to go out and change it.

 

If it's the first time a log has even mentioned the logbook getting full, then an NM log is a bit annoying. I consider it my responsibility to read ALL logs and watch out for problems, and if someone mentions that the logbook is full or getting full, I change it as soon as I can.

 

I spend time living in Ontario and British Columbia, and I have lots of finds and some hides in both provinces. I've noticed a pretty big regional difference. In Ontario, another cacher will mention in their log "logbook was looking full so I added a piece of paper." British Columbia cachers seem much more trigger-happy about Needs Maintenance logs.

 

Posting a Needs Maintenance log with little provocation is a minor nuisance for the owner, and it's also kind of annoying for other cachers. If I'm out in the field with my Dakota and want to check back through the last five logs, it's kind of frustrating if one of those logs is a petty Needs Maintenance over an issue that doesn't affect my ability to find the cache. There are also cachers who filter out cachers with the NM attribute, so posting a NM over a really minor issue comes across to me as an overreaction.

 

If the cache owner has ignored several logs mentioning the logbook, then, by all means, hit the NM. But pestering good, proactive cache owners with NM logs doesn't foster the healthy community spirit that is integral to the game.

[+narcissa]

Wow there are a lot of whiners around here. Dude a full log is a needs maintenance item since it is safe to assume that the owner would like to keep the full logs and that without signing the log a lot of people consider it a did not find. If you can't keep up with the NM's then archive the cache.

 

As far as I am concerned I would like a pen or pencil in every cache big enough and if it is broken out of ink exploded or what have you that is a Needs Maintenance. You can simply clear it and say BYOP. But if you put it there and it don't work or is compromised then it needs maintenance.

 

Yea a cacher can add a strip of paper or a pen if he has a spare, which I do, but if I don't I would put a needs maintenance as it informs the next cacher that they should not expect to find a pen, pencil or log that can be written in.

 

I saw a needs maintenance because of a full log and purposely brought some extra paper with me so that I could sign and leave behind. I noted this and if the CO is happy with this then they can say it is taken care of without a visit.

 

Stop whining and maintain your caches or hand it off to someone who can or archive it.

 

Why don't you just carry your own pen? Pens and pencils invariably become geojunk, and they poke holes in ziplocks to boot. I generally don't put pens or pencils in my caches.

[+dfx]

Why don't you just carry your own pen? Pens and pencils invariably become geojunk, and they poke holes in ziplocks to boot. I generally don't put pens or pencils in my caches.

every Good Geocacher™ probably carries a pen. the point is that if the cache listing says there's a pen, then there should be a pen.

 

of course personally i wouldn't post a NM if there was no pen and/or the pen was broken, simply because having a pen is not a listing requirement for geocaches. on the other hand, if the listing says there's a pen and there really isn't, it's an obvious (but minor) mistake in the listing, which should be fixed. on the other other hand, this mistake can be fixed without performing maintenance on the actual cache itself, meaning an NM log isn't warranted. on the other other other hand, having a broken pen in the cache equals having trash in the cache, and removing trash from the cache is also a maintenance duty.

 

oh well, whatever. i think i need more (other) hands.

[+simpjkee]

Posting a Needs Maintenance log with little provocation is a minor nuisance for the owner, and it's also kind of annoying for other cachers. If I'm out in the field with my Dakota and want to check back through the last five logs, it's kind of frustrating if one of those logs is a petty Needs Maintenance over an issue that doesn't affect my ability to find the cache.

That frustration is directed at your unit, not the use of the needs maintanence log since the log was used appropriately.

 

There are also cachers who filter out cachers with the NM attribute, so posting a NM over a really minor issue comes across to me as an overreaction.

This frustration is directed at how other cachers filter caches when they play the game, not the use of the needs maintanence log since the log was used appropriately.

[+narcissa]

 

That frustration is directed at your unit, not the use of the needs maintanence log since the log was used appropriately.

 

In my opinion, posting NM without any prior indication that the cache owner has been lazy, absent or neglectful is inappropriate. Good cache owners monitor their logs and rarely need an NM to spur them to act on an issue. An NM should only be used if it appears that the owner needs a nudge.

 

This game relies on community and camaraderie to work. Pestering cache owners with petty NM logs is the sort of thing that leads to little annoyances and grudges that break apart the foundation of the game.

 

Treating other geocachers with consideration is important.

[+Max and 99]

I find it very frustrating, like many have mentioned in the forum already, when I get a NM log stating the log in the cache is completely full and they had no room to sign anywhere. I go do a maintenance run, only to find out that there is PLENTY of room on the log! I don't understand why people can't just sign on the back.

 

And on another note, I recently received a DNF on a very difficult cache, from someone with a total of 3 finds, and since they could not find the cache, they instructed me I needed to check on it (akin to NM, in my opinion). Just because you can't find a cache doesn't mean it needs maintenance.

[+drfred]

Got not only a NM log, but also a NA log because the cacher didn't like the location of one of my caches! Being a radius clearer/slave/whore myself, I can't let a cache lie that is close to me, but I'd never put in a NA because I just don't like the spot.

[+simpjkee]

 

That frustration is directed at your unit, not the use of the needs maintanence log since the log was used appropriately.

 

In my opinion, posting NM without any prior indication that the cache owner has been lazy, absent or neglectful is inappropriate. Good cache owners monitor their logs and rarely need an NM to spur them to act on an issue. An NM should only be used if it appears that the owner needs a nudge.

 

This game relies on community and camaraderie to work. Pestering cache owners with petty NM logs is the sort of thing that leads to little annoyances and grudges that break apart the foundation of the game.

 

Treating other geocachers with consideration is important.

Replacing the log is cache maintanence. The log being full and needing to be replaced is needed maintanence. Therefor it would be entirely appropriate for a cache to log that the cache needs maintanence. The cacher who has used up the last of the log is right to post a needs maintanence log since maintanence of replacing the log is needed.

 

However, I'm in total agreement that it shouldn't come to that. The caching community should be willing to share with the owner, as the log nears totall fillage, that the log is getting full. Responsible cache owners could then go replace it before the needs maintanence log would ever be used. Either way, the cacher who does get the last of log sheet is entirely in the right to notify the owner of the situation and post the needs maintanence log without being considered a pest. The "pests" or "inconsiderate cachers" are the ones who see that the log is getting full and say nothing which puts that last cacher in a position where they have to be the first to notify the cache owner of the situation with the needs maintanence log. It is unfair to criticize the appropriate actions of the NM logger because of the inaction of the cachers before him.