NM & NA

[+AneMae]

Out of 86 cache finds, I have had to post 8 NM logs and 1 NA log, that is about 10% of all cache finds so far. (Six of the NM logs were for caches from the same CO).

Most were for wet/soaked/frozen logs. One cache was clearly destroyed and one (the NA) was right beside train tracks.

Of these logs only one NM has been addressed by a CO.

What are others experiences or thoughts this?

[I!]

10% seems perhaps a little high, but overall I'm thinking: well done for insisting on good-quality caches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I would say that that's a very hyperactive ratio. I've got 3583 finds with 16 NAs and 24 NMs. 1.1%

And one of the NAs was for an event that was held six months previously. Another for an EarthCache that had nothing to do with earth sciences. :X

I find that most problems can be resolved with a note, or within the log. Or you have a much higher expectation of what a cache needs to be. Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Well, at least several of those are from the same hider, so perhaps he had a defective run of containers, or some other design flaw in his hide. Generally it takes a while before one of these succumbs to the elements, even if it isn't very actively maintained. I think you have had a run of bad luck here, mostly, although poorly maintained caches certainly happen.

[AZcachemeister]

...was right beside train tracks.

 

 

Were they ACTIVE railroad tracks?

 

 

I find that most problems can be resolved with a note, or within the log.

 

Depends on what others have logged before me. If it's a ongoing problem that has already been mentioned in someone else's log, and a reasonable time has passed, I won't hesitate to post a NM, or even sometimes a NA. Sadly, some COs can't be bothered with maintenance unless the reviewer steps in to force the issue. Fortunately this is not often the case.

[+AneMae]

Yes, very busy railroad tracks. I took a photo and posted it to the NA log for the reviewer to see. This cache has been around for quite a while, I considered not reporting it but when I showed my wife the photo she said "yeah, that's way to close, it shouldn't be there" that was enough to convince me.

Unfortunately (on the same day no less) I put an NM on a different cache owned by he same CO because stage 1 of this multi was on/in an active skunks den. They have since disabled the cache.

 

They must think I am picking on them.

[+L0ne.R]

1300+ finds

 

36 NMs (water damage, lid rusted shut, destroyed and scattered container, broken cache container, full logbook, missing, no logbook, coordinates badly off)

• 8 are archived
• 2 are currently disabled
• 26 are active
  • 7 still have NMs, no action from COs
  • 2 fixed not cleared by CO
  • 17 fixed and cleared by COs

7 NAs (badly damaged/destroyed, missing (listing appears abandoned))

• 5 did get archived
• The other 2 are currently disabled

Edited February 9, 2012 by Solitario R

[+geocat_]

I am getting sick of a few COs complaining about NM logs. One recently called a NM log the "killer of good caches" Really???? Am I missing something here. I admit I have logged more than my fair share of NM logs, 70 to be exact (2% of my finds number) But of those 70, 55 have been archived and 5 have had the container replaced, 6 have had other maintenance performed to fix the problem, and 4 remain unanswered. So will someone reassure me or tell me I am way off base on this last one....spent 90 minutes over 3 trips to find a cache. No luck. Called a former finder for a hint and he decides to tell me exactly where he found it. I look there (a nano in the top of a wooden post holding up a guard rail) for another 15 minutes including using a flashlight to check impossible areas and it is not found. So I post a NM log to ask if it can be checked, also sending the CO an email explaining my specific reason for the NM log. Then I get lectured about overuse of NM logs from him in a response. I own 39 caches myself and see a NM log as a heads up to stop by and give it a check. Am I crazy???

[+Totem Clan]

I am getting sick of a few COs complaining about NM logs. One recently called a NM log the "killer of good caches" Really???? Am I missing something here. I admit I have logged more than my fair share of NM logs, 70 to be exact (2% of my finds number) But of those 70, 55 have been archived and 5 have had the container replaced, 6 have had other maintenance performed to fix the problem, and 4 remain unanswered. So will someone reassure me or tell me I am way off base on this last one....spent 90 minutes over 3 trips to find a cache. No luck. Called a former finder for a hint and he decides to tell me exactly where he found it. I look there (a nano in the top of a wooden post holding up a guard rail) for another 15 minutes including using a flashlight to check impossible areas and it is not found. So I post a NM log to ask if it can be checked, also sending the CO an email explaining my specific reason for the NM log. Then I get lectured about overuse of NM logs from him in a response. I own 39 caches myself and see a NM log as a heads up to stop by and give it a check. Am I crazy???

Nope.

 

Sound like you're right on target to me.

[+AneMae]

Well, I got a message from the CO of the six caches i have posted NM's on. He owns over 350 caches, yes this is a "power trail", a film canister about every 161 metres..

Anyway, after being lectured about how my NM's badger him, that I have no etiquette and that I should read Geocaching for Dummies, he went on to say that he will report me to Groundspeak.

Long story short, I responded to him to go ahead and report away. I feel my actions are justified. I feel the NM and NA functions are useful to owners and cachers- for a "heads up" about potential problems. Taking them personally is just plain ignorant. I think if you want to be a CO you need to step up and deal with issues when and as they arise.

Should one person be allowed to have 350 caches? How could they reasonably expect to maintain them properly? Sadly in this case they haven't been. And there are all sorts of private property issues with the placements, but that is another story.

 

(He also went on to point out how he has more finds than me and is therefore more knowledgable about Geocaching- this tells me he is in this for the numbers. Clearly he doesn't care about the quality or state of his own caches.)

Edited February 9, 2012 by AneMae

[+dfx]

Yes, very busy railroad tracks. I took a photo and posted it to the NA log for the reviewer to see. This cache has been around for quite a while, I considered not reporting it but when I showed my wife the photo she said "yeah, that's way to close, it shouldn't be there" that was enough to convince me.

 

I never understood what the problem with railroad tracks is. Apparently in the US there's a trespassing issue, ok fair enough. But this isn't the US. Unless the cache is actually on some active railroad tracks, what's the big deal?

 

They must think I am picking on them.

Yup, I'd be thinking the same.

Edited February 9, 2012 by dfx

[+Totem Clan]

This is how NM should work when the CO cares about thier caches and not just the number of caches.

 

ProperCOs

 

Temporarily Disable Listing

 

02/08/2012

 

We always seem to forget this cache when preforming maintenance on our caches, We will check on cache today, Thanks for the maintenance note

 

Totem Clan

 

Needs Maintenance

 

02/07/2012

 

We found the first point but it has been muggled or something. The container is still there but that's all. There were no cooridnates or a log at this point. It needs to be check on.

 

Thanks.

 

[+WRASTRO]

I feel like a piker. I have only logged seven NM and five NA logs in 8+ years. I tend to note issues in my found it logs. If I don't find the cache I can't think of many reasons to log a NM or NA. I have 297 DNF logs as well as 3.099 finds on traditional caches. Just about 9.5% which I think is pretty average. If I do find the cache I will log a NM for wet logs or damaged containers.

[+jellis]

Well, I got a message from the CO of the six caches i have posted NM's on. He owns over 350 caches, yes this is a "power trail", a film canister about every 161 metres..

Anyway, after being lectured about how my NM's badger him, that I have no etiquette and that I should read Geocaching for Dummies, he went on to say that he will report me to Groundspeak.

Long story short, I responded to him to go ahead and report away. I feel my actions are justified. I feel the NM and NA functions are useful to owners and cachers- for a "heads up" about potential problems. Taking them personally is just plain ignorant. I think if you want to be a CO you need to step up and deal with issues when and as they arise.

Should one person be allowed to have 350 caches? How could they reasonably expect to maintain them properly? Sadly in this case they haven't been. And there are all sorts of private property issues with the placements, but that is another story.

 

(He also went on to point out how he has more finds than me and is therefore more knowledgable about Geocaching- this tells me he is in this for the numbers. Clearly he doesn't care about the quality or state of his own caches.)

Most power trails have been self maintained by the finders because it is hard to replace the caches. But their attitude to you is not right. GC will be able to see the communications between both of you if that cacher does try to report you which I doubt they would.

Power trails just don't bother with NM or NA. You either find them, DNF them or replace it.

I know one cacher who owns over 1500 caches. Not sure it they are all live. COs with that many usually enlist help from others.

Edited February 9, 2012 by jellis

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Well, I got a message from the CO of the six caches i have posted NM's on. He owns over 350 caches, yes this is a "power trail", a film canister about every 161 metres..

Anyway, after being lectured about how my NM's badger him, that I have no etiquette and that I should read Geocaching for Dummies, he went on to say that he will report me to Groundspeak.

 

He takes a risk if he does this. On a power trail in my area, someone reported some duplicate caches - throwdowns. They didn't say where they'd found the throwdowns, just that they had found some. (I reported one as well, but like you did, I noted which cache I'd found a throwdown, so that the CO could reasonably correct the problem.) Anyway, the local reviewer made the CO take down a fairly large section of their power trail, and perform a maintenance check on each and every location, to check for throwdowns. This could certainly happen to the CO in your area, depending on his relationship with the local reviewer.

 

Should one person be allowed to have 350 caches? How could they reasonably expect to maintain them properly? Sadly in this case they haven't been. And there are all sorts of private property issues with the placements, but that is another story.

 

You shouldn't expect high quality on these types of caches. If you are going to try to get them to raise the bar, I think you are going to be disappointed. They are generally intended to be easy, and intended to allow people to rack up a bunch of finds very quickly. For some people, this is all that matters, and that is fine. In my opinion, you'd be better served trying to find different types of caches. I don't think what you did was wrong in terms of the NM logs, btw. (You could, however, replace the ruined logs. No, the owner shouldn't expect this. Yes, it is commonly done now. And for the most part, we're talking about a piece of paper.)

 

(He also went on to point out how he has more finds than me and is therefore more knowledgable about Geocaching- this tells me he is in this for the numbers. Clearly he doesn't care about the quality or state of his own caches.)

 

I don't think geocaching is about the numbers. However, there are many geocachers who do, and it is very clear that Groundspeak is not going to alienate them. I got annoyed about this and quit the game 6 years ago. You know what? It made no difference. You can rail about this, you can fight this, you can be furious about this and write long diatribes on the forum, and at the end of the day - you won't win. You also won't have fun, which is the point here. My advice is to avoid these types of situations and find caches you like. I understand that this can be a challenge. Life is too short, though, to become annoyed over a game, in my opinion.

 

I would only get on to someone about private property / permission issues if you feel there is imminent danger of prosecution for trespassing. For one thing, it's possible that you aren't right about these issues - public / private property and permission can be pretty complex, and unless you are an expert in this, you probably don't know for sure what's what either. Not in every case. You really should save your efforts there for caches where there are real problems. You don't want the local reviewer to begin to ignore you because you complain about non-issues when you bring up a serious safety or legal concern. I've done a NA on maybe two caches because of this - in both cases I knew for a fact from firsthand experience that seeking a cache at that particular location would likely lead to prosecution. (In one case, an angry man with a firearm made this VERY clear to me!)

[7rxc]

 

I never understood what the problem with railroad tracks is. Apparently in the US there's a trespassing issue, ok fair enough. But this isn't the US. Unless the cache is actually on some active railroad tracks, what's the big deal?

 

 

Still trespassing, I'd say. In Canada railways lands were granted to the Railway Companies in most cases and are covered by the Railway Act which is a whole body of law unto itself. Notice that the Railways have their own police forces / security services?

 

They only let things like highways cross their right of ways when they can barter for something they want in return... there is no guaranteed right to such a crossing (separation) since they are entirely private lands... There was a case of a guy that complained about the number of trains that made it hard to cross off his property onto the local public road, the RR crew was a bit ticked with him complaining about it all the time, so they put up a fence along their property line and closed the crossing altogether... done.

 

To their credit they did allow him to merge his road over to a neighbours' crossing along his side of the tracks and use that.

They can remove anyone or anything from their property, anytime they say 'no way!' Not inclined to sell much either, since they never know when they want to rebuild a line to somewhere. RR rights of way are bit narrower up here though in many cases, I think it's about 50 feet from the ballast edge or something like that... at least on the ONR lines I was most familiar with. I'm sure it varies a bit... plus the guage has changed a bit as well, so it would have been based on whatever was originally used.

 

Doug 7rxc

[I!]

Should one person be allowed to have 350 caches?

It can work. Try counting the NMs on Flatcoat Walker's 604 hides, for example.

[+danielwest76]

Here's the simple answer. If you don't like a particular cacher's style of hides, DON'T DO THEM!!!! There is nothing saying you have to find a cache just because it's there. Click the ignore button. Yes, it takes a bit of time to clear off caches that you don't like, but a lot less time than going out, making the find, discovering you didn't like it, writing a log/series of emails b***hing about it. Just ignore them and get on with life. I've done that with a number of caches in the area, and some regarding specific hiders. Makes my life a whole lot more pleasant not thinking about their caches that I don't like. The beauty of this activity is that there's cache styles for all people. You won't like all the caches out there, get over it!

 

As for wet/frozen, last I looked it's winter out in Southwestern Ontario. That fact alone is hard on the best of caches out there. The good cache owners out there will make a sweep of their caches once winter passes (no point dealing with frozen caches until it thaws).

[+Isonzo Karst]

I've never logged a Needs Maintenance, this based on my experience that the cache owners who are paying attention don't need that additional log, and the cache owners who aren't will just ignore it. I do have some NA logs.

 

That the cache owner told you he's going to "report me to Groundspeak" is amusing. I think your use of the log is correct, as the log's purpose was envisioned by Groundspeak.

 

Yours is the second tale of this nature I've heard in the last week - ie, where the owner of a large number of caches honestly feels that the community owes him cache maintenance. An interesting development.

 

A couple of responders to this thread have expressed what seems to be the coming understanding about large runs of caches - ie, find or dnf or replace 'em - or ignore 'em, but don't complain about them. Unlike say, a regular trading cache in a park, "Child Friendly" where people will complain when the lid is cracked and the cache is a moldy mess. Apparently when the cache is largely intended for the purpose of amassing numbers of finds, it's not also to meet any other usual expectations of a cache.

 

I'll disagree with the notion that these are harmless. Two of my own early caches have been swallowed by micro powertrails.

What were once interesting and fun caches to own, and caches that appealed to a sense of adventure, in their modestly remote locations, now get "TFTC" "#37 of 122" logs. I've archived one of those. These caches are placed for "correct spacing", rather then on the interesting features. I watched someone working the one series the day I walked in to remove my own cache. he hardly saw anything, for having to fiddle with the gps constantly. I don't doubt that he was having fun, but it's an entirely different experience, and the previous meme "about the journey" is gone, not to return.

 

(as seeker of caches, I filter out micros at >1.5 terrain, this is easy and helpful).

[+niraD]

FWIW, at 1029 finds, I have posted only 1 NA and 14 NMs. The NA was a QEF that went from no DNFs to all DNFs months prior, and the CO hadn't logged in for a couple years. My NM logs have generally been for damaged/missing containers, although there are a few for blinkers with full logs. I can't add another log sheet for blinkers, but for larger caches, I generally leave a weatherproof supplemental log sheet rather than posting a NM for a damp/full log.

 

But I haven't visited any numbers run trails either. (I've done old-school power trails, but not the modern numbers run trails.)

[+dfx]

I never understood what the problem with railroad tracks is. Apparently in the US there's a trespassing issue, ok fair enough. But this isn't the US. Unless the cache is actually on some active railroad tracks, what's the big deal?

 

Still trespassing, I'd say. In Canada railways lands were granted to the Railway Companies in most cases and are covered by the Railway Act which is a whole body of law unto itself.

...

RR rights of way are bit narrower up here though in many cases, I think it's about 50 feet from the ballast edge or something like that... at least on the ONR lines I was most familiar with. I'm sure it varies a bit... plus the guage has changed a bit as well, so it would have been based on whatever was originally used.

 

That's what I was getting at. I don't buy the "too close" thing. Either it's on their property or it isn't. Simply being too close (or more precisely, somebody feeling/thinking that it's too close) to some tracks is not an argument. Only if you know that it's a trespassing issue.

[+Harry Dolphin]

But I haven't visited any numbers run trails either. (I've done old-school power trails, but not the modern numbers run trails.)

 

The 'power trails' I've done were not of the 'move 529' down the road' type. 28 caches along the roadway in this park. Or 55 caches along this road'. Not all were easy cache and dashes. And they could actually be fun caches! And both series are well maintained. Oh, and the 35 along the old canal towpath. Likewise: variety, and well maintained.

[+niraD]

That's what I was getting at. I don't buy the "too close" thing. Either it's on their property or it isn't. Simply being too close (or more precisely, somebody feeling/thinking that it's too close) to some tracks is not an argument. Only if you know that it's a trespassing issue.

I've found a few caches that were within the 150ft/46m distance of active railroad tracks. Even in the US, it isn't a hard-and-fast rule. It is still possible to hide a cache in such locations if you can demonstrate adequate permission to the volunteer reviewers.

[+Mitragorz]

Out of my 353 finds, I think I've only posted 2 NM logs... No NA. I got chewed out a little by the last CO that I posted a NM to... I logged a DNF because, well, I didn't find the cache. I also posted a NM because the cache was clearly gone. Totally obvious that it wasn't where it was supposed to be.

 

He got a little testy bc I posted the logs back-to-back. Apparently, that's bad form...

[+AneMae]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

[Trinity's Crew]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

+1

[+AneMae]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

 

Cache Cop- hey that suits me just fine. If it means CO's are held to account to maintain quality caches (through the use of NM and NA logs) I am all for it. I expect the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches. I suspect that people who don't report issues they come across (using the appropriate tools), only contribute to the problem. Sounds to me Harry like you may fall into that category.

[+Totem Clan]

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

I've been accused of being a 'cache cop,' and I only have and NM rating of .036 and a NA of rating of .015, and most of the NA's were posted when I was the Geocaching Coordinator for a state park in North Dakota and had to NA a group of caches placed with premission from the park.

 

So..... yeah, that's how I saw it too.

[Trinity's Crew]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

 

Cache Cop- hey that suits me just fine. If it means CO's are held to account to maintain quality caches (through the use of NM and NA logs) I am all for it. I expect the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches. I suspect that people who don't report issues they come across (using the appropriate tools), only contribute to the problem. Sounds to me Harry like you may fall into that category.

He was pointing out that you only paid attention to the answers you liked. From my experience you seem to do that quite a bit. He also offered some good advice early in the thread.

[+Totem Clan]

Cache Cop- hey that suits me just fine. If it means CO's are held to account to maintain quality caches (through the use of NM and NA logs) I am all for it. I expect the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches. I suspect that people who don't report issues they come across (using the appropriate tools), only contribute to the problem. Sounds to me Harry like you may fall into that category.

That's it. Strike out at others that don't agree with you.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+Totem Clan]

He was pointing out that you only paid attention to the answers you liked. From my experience you seem to do that quite a bit. He also offered some good advice early in the thread.

Of which, it would would seem, he doesn't want.

[+AneMae]

Cache Cop- hey that suits me just fine. If it means CO's are held to account to maintain quality caches (through the use of NM and NA logs) I am all for it. I expect the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches. I suspect that people who don't report issues they come across (using the appropriate tools), only contribute to the problem. Sounds to me Harry like you may fall into that category.

That's it. Strike out at others that don't agree with you.

 

I would hardly consider that "striking out" at someone who doesn't agree with me, more of an observation based on what he stated in an earlier post.

[Trinity's Crew]

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

[+AneMae]

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

I did find that one- in pieces all over the ground.

[Trinity's Crew]

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

I did find that one- in pieces all over the ground.

The "tie strap and ring it was originally on" isn't the cache.

[+Totem Clan]

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

I did find that one- in pieces all over the ground.

Did you sign the log?

 

I thought for sure that someone that cared about the quality of cahcing as you seem to would.

[+AneMae]

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

I did find that one- in pieces all over the ground.

Did you sign the log?

 

I thought for sure that someone that cared about the quality of cahcing as you seem to would.

 

Yes I recorded my visit to the cache, in an appropriate way to show the CO I found it (what was left of it at least).

Like the logs before mine, this CO accepts this as a find. Time to move on.

This is getting a little off topic.

 

Edit: One thing I am pre-plexed about is why the cachers before (experienced ones) noted a major problem in their logs but did not post a NM. Why are some people afraid to use the right tools when they are clearly needed?

Edited February 10, 2012 by AneMae

[Trinity's Crew]

The "right tools" for your visit were "Needs Maintenance" and "DNF".

 

Edit: Spelling

Edited February 10, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+Shop99er]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

 

Cache Cop- hey that suits me just fine. If it means CO's are held to account to maintain quality caches (through the use of NM and NA logs) I am all for it. I expect the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches. I suspect that people who don't report issues they come across (using the appropriate tools), only contribute to the problem. Sounds to me Harry like you may fall into that category.

He was pointing out that you only paid attention to the answers you liked. From my experience you seem to do that quite a bit. He also offered some good advice early in the thread.

 

+1

[+Lil Devil]

The "right tools" for your visit were "Needs Maintenance" and "DNF"

^^^ This.

[+blue_eyedbutterfly]

What I find funny is that cache by the tracks has been there since 2008 and no one has mentioned the tracks until now.

[+L0ne.R]

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

I did find that one- in pieces all over the ground.

Did you sign the log?

 

I thought for sure that someone that cared about the quality of caching as you seem to would.

 

The CO knows the cache is in bad shape and scattered when it was reported back in July and he does nothing, except he allows the finder who reported the problem to claim a find. So is it OK for the finder in July to claim a find on a scattered cache because he didn't post an NM. Are you saying people should not post NMs on destroyed caches? And this owner knows it's destroyed but does nothing for 7 months (it's still not maintained 1.5 months after the NM log).

[+blue_eyedbutterfly]

What I find funny is that cache by the tracks has been there since 2008 and no one has mentioned the tracks until now.

[+dfx]

Thank you for the variety of responses. Gives me a good sense that I am on the right track with my NM and NA logs here.

 

I don't see using these Groundspeak tools back to back as bad form. They are there for a reason and should be used when/as required.

Some CO's just don't get it! Taking it as a personal attack is what is bad form.

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

 

That's gotta be because of his "type A personality"

[Trinity's Crew]

From your log from the cache you posted a NA on...

Groundspeak guidelines state "Cache is near active railroad tracks. We generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary."

 

A couple of things strike me. They use the word "generally". It doesn't sound as hard and fast as some other guidelines.

 

Also you left out "In the United States" at the beginning of the guideline. This cache is in Canada.

[+jellis]

From your log from the cache you posted a NA on...

Groundspeak guidelines state "Cache is near active railroad tracks. We generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary."

 

A couple of things strike me. They use the word "generally". It doesn't sound as hard and fast as some other guidelines.

 

Also you left out "In the United States" at the beginning of the guideline. This cache is in Canada.

It can be closer if there is some type of barrier like a fence within the 150ft

[+Moose Mob]

The "right tools" for your visit were "Needs Maintenance" and "DNF"

^^^ This.

I will pile on here.

 

If cachers places hundreds of hides, they should expect to be 'badgered' on occasion. One can't toss out mass quantities of containers and expect them to maintain themselves.

[+AneMae]

What I find funny is that cache by the tracks has been there since 2008 and no one has mentioned the tracks until now.

 

Maybe this will demonstrate why caches should not be placed near tracks:

 

http://peekskill.patch.com/articles/video-geocache-near-railroad-causes-bomb-scare-in-peekskill#video-7752602

[+Totem Clan]

What I find funny is that cache by the tracks has been there since 2008 and no one has mentioned the tracks until now.

 

Maybe this will demonstrate why caches should not be placed near tracks:

 

http://peekskill.patch.com/articles/video-geocache-near-railroad-causes-bomb-scare-in-peekskill#video-7752602

Are you honestly that afraid of everything, or are you just trolling the threads? Please don't ignore this post like you have you two others on the alarmist topics you've started before. I really want to know.

 

Are you that scared of things all of us see every day or are you just trying to stir the pot here in the forum?