"Non-owner maintenance" log type

[+Mr.Benchmark]

http://blog.geocaching.com/2012/03/Groundspeak-weekly-newsletter-2/

 

Since the latest newsletter encourages people to help out their fellow cachers by doing simple, routine maintenance on caches, it seems to me that it would be helpful, and courteous to the cache owner to provide a separate log type to make the CO and others, aware that maintenance had been performed. If someone replaces a damaged or full log, it is helpful if others know this. Also it could conceivably save a CO a trip to the cache - perhaps they have a NM log filed, but before they get to the cache someone performs that maintenance, but embeds this fact in a rather long log. (I'm sure at least a few people write something other than TFTC sometimes...) Likewise, it would be helpful to know what maintenace was performed, and have that in a single log. Perhaps the CO will want to say thanks, or perhaps they will have very definite ideas about the condition of the cache, and want to check it out themselves, to make sure everything is as they intended it.

 

Although some of this information is available by reading logs, it's also easy to overlook this stuff, and it isn't really possible to filter it reliably with various cache listing search tools.

[+StarBrand]

I am deeply concerned that such a log type could lead to numerous "ownerless" caches being maintained by the community when they should in fact be archived.

 

Caches need real owners - not just maintainers. Especially to be the contact person for emails/issues and to make edits to the cache listing page/ update coordinates etc as necessary.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I am deeply concerned that such a log type could lead to numerous "ownerless" caches being maintained by the community when they should in fact be archived.

 

Caches need real owners - not just maintainers. Especially to be the contact person for emails/issues and to make edits to the cache listing page/ update coordinates etc as necessary.

 

1. This type of maintenance already happens - it seems to be a common practice.

2. Right now, it's difficult / impossible to tell WHAT non owner maintenance has happened, or if it's happened. Sometimes you have to go back reading through many logs to discover "oh, they completely changed the container, it is no longer a lock-n-lock". Should this type of thing happen? I dunno, I'm not a big fan of replacing an entire cache. However, apparently we are encouraged to replace a damaged container, so the same thing could legitimately happen.

 

Couldn't reviewers use a series of "non-owner maintenace" logs, combined with no owner maintenance logs as good evidence for archiving a cache listing? This would be evidence people weren't maintaining their caches.

 

Generally people mention that they perform this maintenance in their logs. Unfortunately, this tends to be mixed in with other information, like their tale of epic adventure while finding the cache, and buried under several other "Found It! TFTC" logs. So it's hard to find the information.

 

I'm not trying to judge whether or not any of this is a good thing, or a bad thing - it is simply a reality now, and it would be nice to have a way to document what is actually happening.

[Pup Patrol]

I'm not trying to judge whether or not any of this is a good thing, or a bad thing - it is simply a reality now, and it would be nice to have a way to document what is actually happening.

 

I agree, and think that a "finder maintenance performed" log would be both great and a recognition of the reality of what is happening (has been happening) in the real caching world.

 

A "finder maintenance performed" log would need to clear the useless/misleading "NM" logs.

 

 

B.

[+Lieblweb]

When do NON-Owners do maintenance?? It's when your caching and find a cache that NEEDS IT. A cache in bad shape!!!! Maintenance is supposed to be done by CACHE OWNERS and BEFORE they reach a 'bad' condition.

 

People who do maintenance for other owners - I call that 'maintenance to go'- because you'll probably never be back to that same cache again. Is that really maintenance? Or is it just 'convenient' for us (the cache finder) to ensure we get a smilie?

 

The only thing a Non-Owner maitenance log will do.....is promote irresponsibility in cache owners. Why would they do anything if everyone else is doing it for them? If CO's can't take care of their caches - have them adopted or archived. Make room for new caches and new CO's!

Edited April 11, 2012 by Lieblweb

[+Mr.Benchmark]

When do NON-Owners do maintenance?? It's when your caching and find a cache that NEEDS IT. A cache in bad shape!!!! Maintenance is supposed to be done by CACHE OWNERS and BEFORE they reach a 'bad' condition.

 

I'll replace full logsheets, or perform (minor) repairs on caches as I can to save the CO a trip for something small. I don't really do this if the CO doesn't seem to be active - there is no point in prolonging the inevitable. I'll drop off a little swag, if I have any, if the cache contents are looking a little tired.

 

People who do maintenance for other owners - I call that 'maintenance to go'- because you'll probably never be back to that same cache again. Is that really maintenance? Or is it just 'convenient' for us (the cache finder) to ensure we get a smilie?

 

I pre-print log sheets on weather-proof paper for this purpose because I am a nice person. I always email the CO when I do something like this. If I am not carrying proper supplies, I don't do this. If I don't find the cache - I don't throw one down - I log DNF. I guess look at my stats - yeah, I'm all about the numbers...

 

The only thing a Non-Owner maitenance log will do.....is promote irresponsibility in cache owners. Why would they do anything if everyone else is doing it for them? If CO's can't take care of their caches - have them adopted or archived. Make room for new caches and new CO's!

 

How's that working out in reality? Seems like a lot of this goes on. It is encouraged apparently by GS, so why not make it official and noted in the logs? Or do you have a problem with recording what actually happens? Nobody is obligated to do maintenance for the CO, and some problems are (in my opinion) beyond a finder's ability to fix. There is still plenty of room for "Needs Maintenance", and owners who get some "NOM" logs should go out and see what is really going on with their cache.

 

BTW, if you have an idea for how to make people stop doing this, please feel free to start a thread on it. If GS likes your idea better and decides "non-owner maintenance is bad, don't do it!" I'm cool with that too.

 

edit: one of my reasons for posting this suggestion is the hope that aside from formalizing something that really is a very common practice, I'd also like to see GS formalize a little what is acceptable maintenance, and what isn't acceptable. (If not hard and fast rules, at least a little guidance that replacing an entire cache you've never found is not generally a very good idea.)

Edited April 11, 2012 by Mr.Benchmark

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I'd also be fine with an implementation where this was "finder maintenance" - you couldn't create this log tyep without logging "found it". I'd really prefer, though, that in such a case, "found it" was stipulated to mean that I'd found a recognizable container and preferably remains of a log of some sort. Hopefully this would encourage people to NOT throw-down caches.

 

However, this tendency may be unavoidable in some, so the first type log I suggest, "Non-Owner Maintenance" might be preferable.

 

Another motivation I have for this type of log is dealing with remote caches. In rural Oklahoma and many other places, there are areas that are genuinely remote and difficult to reach. I think it is helpful in such circumstances to help out a CO and do some minor patch-ups, rather than make them make a difficult trip. Obviously not all such trips can be avoided, but there are areas that are really quite challenging to access at times (example - down 15 miles of nearly 4WD quality dirt roads), and it just makes sense to me for the finder to help out, if they are willing and prepared to do this. (Nobody says you have to!)

 

[+OZ2CPU]

Your idea is good, I am just a little bit affraight it will encurage some weak minded people

to place a new cache incase they cant find the real one,

the real one could be gone, but could also be there, just hard to find.

 

it is VERY important with CLEAR rules about non owner service,

I prefer to get CO approval BEFORE making any service at all.

 

minor clean up, trach out of cache, dry log added and such is nice,

I did find a few cached with up to FOUR log books in it !!

and the box is still in a very bad shape so rain will come inside.

some people put in a new log, write maintained (now the CO and many others think it is all fine)

 

also what if non owner service means, more CO care even less ?

since if they are very lazy, more people will just do their service for them ?

 

Maybe it is better to wear down caches alot slower due to nicer use ?

and not to place so many you dont service ?

and also why do some people make so many caches over a very big area ?

they can offcourse not service them, we all see the results.

[+Totem Clan]

There already is one. It's called 'Needs Archive.'

[+Lieblweb]

How's that working out in reality? Seems like a lot of this goes on. It is encouraged apparently by GS, so why not make it official and noted in the logs? Or do you have a problem with recording what actually happens? Nobody is obligated to do maintenance for the CO, and some problems are (in my opinion) beyond a finder's ability to fix. There is still plenty of room for "Needs Maintenance", and owners who get some "NOM" logs should go out and see what is really going on with their cache.

 

BTW, if you have an idea for how to make people stop doing this, please feel free to start a thread on it. If GS likes your idea better and decides "non-owner maintenance is bad, don't do it!" I'm cool with that too.

 

edit: one of my reasons for posting this suggestion is the hope that aside from formalizing something that really is a very common practice, I'd also like to see GS formalize a little what is acceptable maintenance, and what isn't acceptable. (If not hard and fast rules, at least a little guidance that replacing an entire cache you've never found is not generally a very good idea.)

 

The fact that Groundspeak encourages doing maintenance for others is all good & dandy. They already know it happens. Since they encourage it - they don't need to know how OFTEN it happens or even by WHO does it. I think their motivation is to keep the hobby clean & fresh and ultimately....more members and more premium memberships. (Yeah, I had to go there...)

 

There's nothing wrong with doing maintenance for others - I do it especially for friends & fellow cachers I've met. We have a strong group of cachers in our area and we all chip-in to help each other out. I email owners to let them know OR I'll get permission ahead of time.

 

"Acceptable maintenance" isn't something Groundspeak can formalize. That depends on the cache owner, the cache/container, and the location. That is why communication to the CO after a log is replaced or other maintenance, is important.

 

I just can't see how the Non-Owner maintenance log is going to make things any different than just logging a NM log. Say for instance, you have a cache with 5 Non-owner maintenance logs.... What will that do?

Notify the Reviewers of.....what? Will they temporarily disable a fully functional cache? What will they say in their TD log? If the CO hasn't logged online for 6 months - they probably won't see the note from the reviewer anyway. Will reviewers be expected to inspect how many NOM logs there are? Will these NOM logs be tracked? And at what point will something be done? What will they do? Isn't that adding a s***-ton of work for our reviewers?

 

Just do a NM or NA log and be done with it....

(just an oppinion...and not meant to offend anyone)

[+Carbon Hunter]

I am deeply concerned that such a log type could lead to numerous "ownerless" caches being maintained by the community when they should in fact be archived.

 

Caches need real owners - not just maintainers. Especially to be the contact person for emails/issues and to make edits to the cache listing page/ update coordinates etc as necessary.

In principle I agree with you - but there are certain parts of the world where "ownerless" caches are the norm, and the current active caching community keeps these active.

 

It would be pointless to archive these caches and get new ones going.

 

I do ot agree with you - especially in high cacher or cache density areas (urban - most caching countries in EU, North America etc.).

 

The geographies I am thinking about are those in a region such as the Arabian Peninsula (or even war zones such as Iraq or Afghanistan).

 

I'd also argue for those difficult to reach caches in wilderness areas etc. - as a cacher, I would be willing to maintain a cache on a mountain top - as I certainly do n ot expect a cache owner to get there on a regular basis (he may only get there once a year).

[+thebruce0]

Toughy. I can see why it could actually be feasible. But at the same time there are problems. I don't think a NM flag should be cleared by a user-maintained log.

 

IMO, something like this really promotes a "half-maintained" type of status. If a NM log is posted, it should remain for the owner until they explicitly clear it. But if cachers can maintain it, that's more important for following cachers to know.

 

It might add a layer of complexity to the 'Maintenance' status of a listing.

Instead of just an on/off flag, it would be the most recent status.

 

ex log orders:

1) Needs Maintenance posted (status: NM)

2) Owner maintains (status: Good)

 

1) Needs Maintenance posted (status: NM)

2) A cacher finds, maintains (status: User Maintained)

3) A bunch of finds

4) Owner maintains (status: Good)

 

1) Needs Maintenance posted (status: NM)

2) A cacher finds, maintains (status: User Maintained)

3) A bunch of finds

4) Needs Maintenance posted (status: NM *UM is cleared as it's returned to requiring maintenance)

5) Cacher finds, maintains (status: User Maintained)

6) a bunch of finds, then a series of DNFs w/o NM

7) Reviewer sees status has been flagged Maintenance req'd for some time (through both user- and needs-), and proceeds with regular "Disable and please tend to your cache" process so the owner is reminded to verify the cache is in good standing

 

Essentially, once a NM is posted, the cache is in Owner Maintenance Required mode. But for cachers who may seek it while it's in that mode, having a UM status would be helpful, being told that previous concerns aren't an issue and the cache is good to go even though the owner hasn't verified it. BUT the maintenance flag is still there on the top level both for reviewers and the CO. For finders, at least they'll know it's reportedly good to go for finding.

 

But I think this is all far too complex (or maybe just how I'm explaining it ) for a simple game such as this, and not really feasible. But I can certainly see how that process could make things a little nicer for finders.

 

If you only want reportedly good standing caches in a PQ, you can filter out NM caches, but keep UM caches, for instance.

If you maintain a cache while on a powertrail, you can post a UM log, but the owner will still see that the cache needs revisiting, and may wait for a longer set of NM/UM caches before heading out for a much more optimal run of maintaining a collection of their caches in one go.

 

*shrug* just ideas. But I'm still happy with the current system

Edited April 11, 2012 by thebruce0

[+The A-Team]

I think you're taking the newsletter a bit too seriously. A single mention in the weekly newsletter doesn't constitute official policy to me. If they additionally changed the guidelines in the Help Center, then I'd put more stock in it. We all saw the previous newsletter where they mentioned not to use a smartphone to place a cache. We also know that the official policy and guidelines don't reflect this. There's nothing in the guidelines saying you can't use a smartphone.

 

I think people need to start taking the newsletter with a grain of salt. I suspect they're written by someone that either doesn't cache, or doesn't have a good grasp of the guidelines and the unwritten rules. Attempting to formalize a policy that may or may not exist is going a bit far.

[+StarBrand]

I am deeply concerned that such a log type could lead to numerous "ownerless" caches being maintained by the community when they should in fact be archived.

 

Caches need real owners - not just maintainers. Especially to be the contact person for emails/issues and to make edits to the cache listing page/ update coordinates etc as necessary.

In principle I agree with you - but there are certain parts of the world where "ownerless" caches are the norm, and the current active caching community keeps these active.

 

It would be pointless to archive these caches and get new ones going.

 

......

 

If you agree in principle - why do something to promote and further the problem?

 

The point of archive old and hide new is that the new cache would have a real owner - somebody that could respond to issues that were not always apparent on the existing non-editable listing page.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

 

If you agree in principle - why do something to promote and further the problem?

 

The point of archive old and hide new is that the new cache would have a real owner - somebody that could respond to issues that were not always apparent on the existing non-editable listing page.

 

How does documenting an already common practice promote and further the problem? People are already doing this - all I am suggesting is that it would be helpful to have a way to parse the logs automatically to find out when they've done such things and what they've done.

 

Currently what you have to do is read *every* log - this causes problems to be missed, even by CO's who are paying attention. Someone with a lot of caches gets lots of "Found it!" emails - I think it is a lot to expect that they will never miss a maintenance note by a finder that is embedded in the epic story of the find.

 

Real example:

Cache is attatched to a metal structure via a magnet amongst some statuary. The glue holding the magnet breaks, leaving the cache no longer attached. So a finder moves the cache about 6 feet to another perfectly reasonable hiding place. They note this at the end of their "found it" log. The finder bloviates about the statuary at the site - which actually is pretty cool. The CO totally misses that they moved the cache. The hint on the cache page is wrong and misleading now, but otherwise the cache is just fine. So I come along, find the cache, and notice that the hint is friggin' useless, and complain to the CO about it. (Stuff like this makes me ANGRY - note my avatar, I have issues...) We go back over the logs and notice where the change happened. If the person who moved the cache (what other choice did they have?) had filed NOM, and described what they had done, it would've alerted the CO. (BTW, in this case NM would've been OK too - except really all that needed to happen was the owner needed to alter the hint.)

 

In this particular instance, the CO wasn't going to get to the cache very quickly because they'd been called out of state on business for a couple of months. Should such a cache get a NA log? C'mon...

 

Real example:

Bison capsule behind a tanning salon. The log strip is extremely full. Nobody logs "NM" because, well hell, I don't understand why. But they don't. I notice this, and flag it with needs maintenance. I'm passing by the same spot later in the week, realize the CO hasn't gotten there yet (I always email the CO in these situations), and so I replace the log because I have one with me this time. Unfortunately, I have no way to cancel the "NM" log - even though the cache no longer needs any maintenance. I'm sure the CO would've eventually replaced the log - they are active, I exchanged emails with them. I saved them a trip because I was already there.

 

Real example:

Cache in a park. The CO is long absent, although when I go looking for the cache I have no way to know this. I look for the cache - I don't find it. No surprise, this is muggle-city. So I start reading the logs, and about two years ago, I realize someone did not find the cache, and threw one down in a completely different hiding spot. While I don't approve of this as a use for NOM, if such a log had existed, and they'd filed it, it would've saved me some time reading a bunch of otherwise useless logs. (At that point, I'm looking over the D1 cache to see if I just missed something, or it's missing and I need to file "NM" or "NA"). A record of non-owner changes to the cache would've been helpful. There are many caches where this type of thing happens continually - I don't agree that it should, by the way, but it does, and if you are trying to find the cache and especially if you are trying to decide if something "NM" or "NA", a history of just what has been going on with the cache from other finders would be super helpful. (This cache I'm 99% sure needs a "NA" at this point - it would've saved me some time to not have to read all those logs to decide that though.)

 

Real example:

I find some throwdowns on a power trail. This is amazing, because the actual caches (I presume anyway) were in plain sight, visible 30' away. I note the duplicates in my logs. The reviewer picks up on this, and has the hider shut down an entire section of the PT, and do a maintenace run on each and every cache, to remove the throw-down duplicates. OK, you have a lot of caches, you should expect to do maintenance. I got no problem with that.

 

But wait - the story gets better - some other kind soul ALSO apparently observes the throw downs, and removes them. So the CO goes out, does maintenance, and doesn't find any duplicates - a big waste of time for them that could've perhaps been avoided had whatever kind soul who removed the throw-downs noted this in a "NOM" log. (In retrospect, I wish I'd looked at the log book dates, and tossed the cache with the NEWEST first log entry - I deferred to the CO, and I fear created quite a bit of work for them.)

 

Hypothetical example:

I find an ammo box in a remote area. There's no way the CO is going to visit this more than once or twice a year, if that. The cache is in good shape, but the pen is dead. I replace it. Wouldn't it be nice if I had a way to ALERT the CO that I'd replaced the pen in the cache, instead of embedding it in my long and verbose "found it" log? Is it reasonable to expect the CO to make a trip out to a very remote site just to replace the pen? Is it reasonable to expect this to happen quickly?

 

It's arguable (and what I actually typically do in these situations) that one could just file a "note" type log. Not that many people do this, and a note doesn't really get your attention to inform you that "like it or not - one of the finders of your cache has changed something from the way you left things when you set it out." If you were the CO, and I monkeyed with your cache, wouldn't you WANT TO KNOW that I'd done this?

 

I'm not arguing one way or another whether or not it's a good idea for finders to perform simple, routine maintenance tasks. I've simply observed that people are routinely doing this, and that it is a common enough practice that someone at GS wrote a newsletter article about it. It just seems practical to me to better document the reality of the situation.

 

For people who don't agree with this - please explain to me how hiding this type of maintenance in other logs (especially in a "found it" log), or not documenting it at all improves this situation?

 

One last reason I'd like to see something like this is that if I find a cache in bad shape, beyond repair, with a long string of "NOM" logs, and with no owner maintenance logs, and the owner hasn't logged on in a while, I'd feel no qualms about immediately filing a "NA" log, and would hope the reviewer could use the evidence of "everyone else BUT the owner is maintaining this" to archive the cache. (For what it's worth, I file plenty of "NM" and "NA" logs...) This is honestly my primary motivation for requesting this! Before I file a "NA" log, I like to know as best I can what the history is behind the cache. And this is tedious to work out now.

 

I realize people think that this perpetuates caches that should be archived - I'd assert this happens already plenty now, but I'd argue that it does precisely the opposite, because right now, it is typically impossible to tell what is going on with a cache without VERY careful reading of each log. So all you can do currently is file a "NA", hope this is the right thing to do, and then wait for some arbitrary and random period while the reviewer does whatever they do. And it tends to be a long and arbitrary period, because nobody can really tell what's going on. So they wait some amount of time, and if no activity from the CO, *poof*. That is fine, but people are hesitant to file NA because it is so hard to tell what is really going on, and because they fear making a mistake and offending someone. (i.e. the cache was really there, it's fine, you're an idiot, and I, the CO, hate you now.)

 

I realize that this proposal won't work if people don't use it - but in that case we are no worse off than we are today. And I think there is a decent chance people would be more likely to note things they've done on behalf of the owner - many do it now in other forms of logs. Also, there is no imperative on the owner to do anything with this log, unlike "NM" or "NA".

 

Further, I really believe that by dealing with this issue (non owner maintenance) as a community, we could reach some type of consensus about what is acceptable finder maintenance (replace a pen or a log, apply a bit of cammo tape, etc.) vs. conduct that is not acceptable (throw-downs - boo!) But just pretending this stuff doesn't happen is NOT going to solve the problem.

[+The A-Team]

Currently what you have to do is read *every* log - this causes problems to be missed, even by CO's who are paying attention. Someone with a lot of caches gets lots of "Found it!" emails - I think it is a lot to expect that they will never miss a maintenance note by a finder that is embedded in the epic story of the find.

Cachers who hide a lot of caches must be willing and able to maintain all those caches. That's what they agreed to do when they submitted the caches. If they can't handle reading all those emails, they shouldn't have that many hides.

 

Real example:

Cache is attatched to a metal structure via a magnet amongst some statuary. The glue holding the magnet breaks, leaving the cache no longer attached. So a finder moves the cache about 6 feet to another perfectly reasonable hiding place. They note this at the end of their "found it" log.

...

(BTW, in this case NM would've been OK too - except really all that needed to happen was the owner needed to alter the hint.)

 

In this particular instance, the CO wasn't going to get to the cache very quickly because they'd been called out of state on business for a couple of months. Should such a cache get a NA log? C'mon...

The finder that discovered the problem should be logging a NM. If there's a problem, we need to report it to the owner and let them decide whether they want to fix the cache or just change the hint. Their cache, their decision. If the owner isn't able to get to it right away, they can still update the cache page to reflect the temporary situation.

 

Real example:

Bison capsule behind a tanning salon. The log strip is extremely full. Nobody logs "NM" because, well hell, I don't understand why. But they don't. I notice this, and flag it with needs maintenance. I'm passing by the same spot later in the week, realize the CO hasn't gotten there yet (I always email the CO in these situations), and so I replace the log because I have one with me this time. Unfortunately, I have no way to cancel the "NM" log - even though the cache no longer needs any maintenance. I'm sure the CO would've eventually replaced the log - they are active, I exchanged emails with them. I saved them a trip because I was already there.

That's fine. Log a note mentioning that you've replaced the log for them. Since you say they're active, they can then clear the NM flag.

 

Real example:

Cache in a park. The CO is long absent, although when I go looking for the cache I have no way to know this. I look for the cache - I don't find it. No surprise, this is muggle-city. So I start reading the logs, and about two years ago, I realize someone did not find the cache, and threw one down in a completely different hiding spot.

...

The biggest problem with this cache wasn't the non-owner maintenance through the years, it was that initial throwdown. Better education of the NM and NA logs and more encouragement of their use would likely have prevented the end result.

 

Real example:

I find some throwdowns on a power trail. This is amazing, because the actual caches (I presume anyway) were in plain sight, visible 30' away. I note the duplicates in my logs. The reviewer picks up on this, and has the hider shut down an entire section of the PT, and do a maintenace run on each and every cache, to remove the throw-down duplicates. OK, you have a lot of caches, you should expect to do maintenance. I got no problem with that.

 

But wait - the story gets better - some other kind soul ALSO apparently observes the throw downs, and removes them.

The moral of this story is: don't remove any containers. If you think there may be duplicates/throwdowns, alert the owner with a note or a direct message, and allow them to fix the caches the way they see fit. It isn't up to us to determine which container is the original and which is the throwdown. Note that an NM could also work here, but is probably overkill.

 

Hypothetical example:

I find an ammo box in a remote area. There's no way the CO is going to visit this more than once or twice a year, if that. The cache is in good shape, but the pen is dead. I replace it. Wouldn't it be nice if I had a way to ALERT the CO that I'd replaced the pen in the cache, instead of embedding it in my long and verbose "found it" log? Is it reasonable to expect the CO to make a trip out to a very remote site just to replace the pen? Is it reasonable to expect this to happen quickly?

To be honest, if that was my cache, I wouldn't really care if the pen was dead. Most cachers know to bring their own anyway (especially with the proliferation of micros these days). Thus, if you replace the pen, I still don't really care. Thanks for doing it, though. I certainly wouldn't be making a maintenance run just to swap out the pen in my cache, so there isn't any reason why I need to be notified of your fix at all.

 

It's arguable (and what I actually typically do in these situations) that one could just file a "note" type log. Not that many people do this...

If they aren't posting a note, what makes you think they'd post a NOM?

 

For people who don't agree with this - please explain to me how hiding this type of maintenance in other logs (especially in a "found it" log), or not documenting it at all improves this situation?

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your idea. It does have some merit. I just don't think it's necessary given the tools we have today. I don't see the information as being "hidden" in the logs. If, as an owner, you aren't reading all the logs, then of course you're probably going to miss information.

 

I think an excellent newsletter topic would be the responsible use of the NM and NA logs, and examples of where they could (and should) be used. If these were used as intended, and much more frequently than they are now, a lot of maintenance-related issues would be cleared up.

 

The contents of this post are simply my opinion. Some of it may seem harsh, but I only intended to explain my view on the idea. Don't get me wrong, if such a feature were to be implemented, I'd use it. I just don't see it as being necessary.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm kind of torn on this.

 

On the one hand:

-non-owner maintenance occurs. I would say sometimes this is a good thing (adding a new logsheet) and sometimes this is a bad thing (replacing a missing container unless doing so per CO's request/permission), but this new log type would be a recognition of reality

-a NOM log would help clear NM attributes on caches that have long since been fixed, but the attribute has not been cleared (either via owner absence or owner ignorance).

 

On the other hand:

-this would seem to encourage non-owner maintenance and thus encourage lazy COs

-this would seem to encourage cache replacements when the CO is gone from the game. "I saw this ammo can had 3 DNFs in a row and the owner hasn't logged on in a year so I left a lock-n-lock." That shouldn't happen and shouldn't be encouraged.

 

I'm leaning toward the "more negatives than positive" conclusion at this point.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I'm kind of torn on this.

 

On the other hand:

-this would seem to encourage non-owner maintenance and thus encourage lazy COs

-this would seem to encourage cache replacements when the CO is gone from the game. "I saw this ammo can had 3 DNFs in a row and the owner hasn't logged on in a year so I left a lock-n-lock." That shouldn't happen and shouldn't be encouraged.

 

I'm leaning toward the "more negatives than positive" conclusion at this point.

 

Both of those things happen all the time now. How could this possibly be any worse than it already is? How does a different type of log encourage people to behave differently than what they are already doing? They frequently log this stuff - they just embed it in other logs so it's hard to find and figure out what in the heck the history is.

[+StarBrand]

I'm kind of torn on this.

 

On the other hand:

-this would seem to encourage non-owner maintenance and thus encourage lazy COs

-this would seem to encourage cache replacements when the CO is gone from the game. "I saw this ammo can had 3 DNFs in a row and the owner hasn't logged on in a year so I left a lock-n-lock." That shouldn't happen and shouldn't be encouraged.

 

I'm leaning toward the "more negatives than positive" conclusion at this point.

 

Both of those things happen all the time now. How could this possibly be any worse than it already is? How does a different type of log encourage people to behave differently than what they are already doing? They frequently log this stuff - they just embed it in other logs so it's hard to find and figure out what in the heck the history is.

 

I guess (speaking only for myself) that we as a community should be discouraging these things that "happen all the time now" rather than building tools to encourage the practice(s).

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Real example:

Cache in a park. The CO is long absent, although when I go looking for the cache I have no way to know this. I look for the cache - I don't find it. No surprise, this is muggle-city. So I start reading the logs, and about two years ago, I realize someone did not find the cache, and threw one down in a completely different hiding spot.

...

The biggest problem with this cache wasn't the non-owner maintenance through the years, it was that initial throwdown. Better education of the NM and NA logs and more encouragement of their use would likely have prevented the end result.

 

There were some NM logs along the way, it didn't help. I've finally filed a NM log. I'm not sure if I should file a NA log or not. I don't think the cache is there, but I'm not certain, because I wasn't lookin' for the darn throwdown. I won't really feel good logging "NA" until I go back and search for this again. I don't especially want to do that because it's 30 miles away, the probability I'll have a happy outcome is LOW, and while the location was OK, it was just OK, and I don't really have a reason to return.

 

So I would've appreciated a log that brought my attention to the throwdown, instead of having to wade through many, many found it logs to discover:

put a temporary cache where the old one was. It's a cammo pill bottle with a log and pen. ...

 

I am quite certain the person who did the throwdown did it to help maintain things, assuming the CO would come right things in short order. The CO didn't, likely because they are gone, and so we are left with needing some detective work to figure out what happened here. (I have talked to the person who did the throwdown - they may have been wrong to do this, but I am convinced their motives were pure.) If there had been an NOM log, I'd have found this more readily.

 

This is one of the reasons I believe people are reluctant to file NA - aside from annoying some CO's, it is hard to tell if the cache is really missing, or you just really missed finding it. It certainly gives me pause.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your idea. It does have some merit. I just don't think it's necessary given the tools we have today. I don't see the information as being "hidden" in the logs. If, as an owner, you aren't reading all the logs, then of course you're probably going to miss information.

 

I respect your opinion and appreciate the polite discussion from you and several others, like StarBrand. I did not post this thinking "oh boy, they will LOVE this!"

 

I think an excellent newsletter topic would be the responsible use of the NM and NA logs, and examples of where they could (and should) be used. If these were used as intended, and much more frequently than they are now, a lot of maintenance-related issues would be cleared up.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this because much of the problem is that people simply quit the game and leave stuff in the field, or don't maintain what they have out there. The NM system doesn't work very well because it presumes an active owner, and that just doesn't happen in many cases. It is difficult to decide when to NM and when to NA - so many people simply don't bother. And the fact is, there are cache owners who react negatively to "DNF" logs, much less NM or NA. As a finder, I've noticed near zero value in NM, at least so far.

 

People don't like to report problems. Maybe they will be more likely to report "I helped this cache!". I am willing to bet that if the count of logs where you filed NOM were kept, you'd see a lot of this. I'd expect that would be a poor idea, just given what has already been observed about cacher behavior. So I don't think such a statistic should be accumulated.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mr.Benchmark

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I guess (speaking only for myself) that we as a community should be discouraging these things that "happen all the time now" rather than building tools to encourage the practice(s).

 

Respectfully:

1. Explain, please, how asking people to document what they actually do is encouraging them to do one thing or another. Isn't it easier to do nothing?

2. What would you suggest that is, in practice, any different from doing nothing at all - because that seems to be how this is going now?

 

Incidently, I am all for better discussion and more education about the correct ways to handle various situations one finds out in the field - that can only help matters. In an ideal world, none of this crap would happen. We do not live in an ideal world.

[+The A-Team]

I am quite certain the person who did the throwdown did it to help maintain things, assuming the CO would come right things in short order. The CO didn't, likely because they are gone, and so we are left with needing some detective work to figure out what happened here. (I have talked to the person who did the throwdown - they may have been wrong to do this, but I am convinced their motives were pure.) If there had been an NOM log, I'd have found this more readily.

 

This is one of the reasons I believe people are reluctant to file NA - aside from annoying some CO's, it is hard to tell if the cache is really missing, or you just really missed finding it. It certainly gives me pause.

This is exactly the type of situation where an NM should have been filed, rather than the throwdown. If you can't find it, log a DNF. If many people have DNFed it, and it isn't one of the high-difficulty needle-in-a-haystack type caches, or if it's very clearly missing, log an NM. If the CO doesn't respond to the NM, log a NA. I think what several of us are trying to get at is that rather than trying to make bad behaviour easier to find in the logs, we should be trying to discourage this bad behaviour in the first place (no matter how well-intentioned).

 

I think an excellent newsletter topic would be the responsible use of the NM and NA logs, and examples of where they could (and should) be used. If these were used as intended, and much more frequently than they are now, a lot of maintenance-related issues would be cleared up.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this because much of the problem is that people simply quit the game and leave stuff in the field, or don't maintain what they have out there. The NM system doesn't work very well because it presumes an active owner, and that just doesn't happen in many cases. It is difficult to decide when to NM and when to NA - so many people simply don't bother. And the fact is, there are cache owners who react negatively to "DNF" logs, much less NM or NA. As a finder, I've noticed near zero value in NM, at least so far.

The NM does presume an active owner. Therefore, if an NM is logged, and there is no response, an NA should be logged based on an inactive owner. I don't know of many owners that would react negatively to a NM, unless the logger words it poorly. The point of it is to alert the owner to possible issues with the cache. I very much appreciate it when cachers let me know there's a problem with one of my caches.

If it gets to the point that a cacher logs an NA on a cache owned by an active owner, then that owner is most likely delinquent in their maintenance duties, and such a log usually gives them a kick (or the subsequent reviewer note ). If an NM or NA gets logged on a cache owned by an inactive cacher, there's noone to react negatively, and it alerts the reviewers to a problem cache. I can point you to many caches in my area where the progression of logs from DNF to NM to NA has worked and a problem cache has been archived, then later replaced with a new, better, actively-maintained cache. If no one ever logs an NM or NA on these caches, nothing will ever get fixed with them.

 

I still think education of the appropriate circumstances to log NM and NA would go a long way. As part of this, it should be made clear that the wording of these logs is very important. The NM is there to alert the owner to problems, not to harrass, insult, or otherwise chastise them. If you word it correctly, and the owner is active, the NM works very well. If the owner isn't active, it's the first step in getting an unmaintained cache archived and freeing up the spot.

[+StarBrand]

I guess (speaking only for myself) that we as a community should be discouraging these things that "happen all the time now" rather than building tools to encourage the practice(s).

 

Respectfully:

1. Explain, please, how asking people to document what they actually do is encouraging them to do one thing or another. Isn't it easier to do nothing?

Giving them a tool to document maintenance and clear nm's of an ownerless cache is legitimization of a poor practice. It will surely become the excuse and justification for keeping ownerless caches alive. It is already easily documented for any owner that cares in 'find' logs and 'note' logs. I don't buy the excuse of owners not really reading the logs. If the owner cares at all, then the owner can clear the nm flag. If not, the cache needs to go.

2. What would you suggest that is, in practice, any different from doing nothing at all - because that seems to be how this is going now?

I suggest making use of the already existing NM logs and NA logs along with education of cachers. Caches need active owners not community support. Make use of the tools that exist. Not create new ones that will aid in keeping alive ownerless caches. Let 'em go.

 

Incidently, I am all for better discussion and more education about the correct ways to handle various situations one finds out in the field - that can only help matters. In an ideal world, none of this crap would happen. We do not live in an ideal world.

We can still strive for the ideal world rather than give into what has happened and accept it.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Giving them a tool to document maintenance and clear nm's of an ownerless cache is legitimization of a poor practice. It will surely become the excuse and justification for keeping ownerless caches alive. It is already easily documented for any owner that cares in 'find' logs and 'note' logs. I don't buy the excuse of owners not really reading the logs. If the owner cares at all, then the owner can clear the nm flag. If not, the cache needs to go.

 

I never suggested that this should clear the NM log. Someone else did that. I think that part is debatable.

 

It is already easily documented for any owner that cares in 'find' logs and 'note' logs. I don't buy the excuse of owners not really reading the logs.

 

1. People get busy and miss stuff. Maybe they shouldn't - but they do.

2. If I am trying to decide whether or not a cache that may or may not be ownerless that I didn't find is really missing and NA, I don't want to read every single log to try to figure out what people have been doing with the cache.

 

Sure, the owner may not have a great excuse for not knowing what is going on with their cache. But what about people who are trying to clean up a cache that is apparently gone? I believe this could be helpful in that situation.

 

As for minor stuff, like replacing log sheets and the like, apparently GS endorses this, so why not document it? YOU may not like it - but apparently they think it's perfectly fine. I see no point in trying to contradict them - as best I've ever been able to tell, they simply do what they do.

 

So if that's really how they think things should be - they should support the concept. If not, well, perhaps they didn't really say what they meant and should rethink that and say what they really meant?

 

I suggest making use of the already existing NM logs and NA logs along with education of cachers. Caches need active owners not community support.

 

We seem to be moving to community support though - at least to some degree, and absolutely not one thing you've proposed seems as though it will be effective in reversing that.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mr.Benchmark

[+The A-Team]

As for minor stuff, like replacing log sheets and the like, apparently GS endorses this, so why not document it? YOU may not like it - but apparently they think it's perfectly fine. I see no point in trying to contradict them - as best I've ever been able to tell, they simply do what they do.

 

So if that's really how they think things should be - they should support the concept. If not, well, perhaps they didn't really say what they meant and should rethink that and say what they really meant?

This is the part I addressed in an earlier post. I don't take a comment in the newsletter as official Groundspeak policy. If they add a section to the Help Center on maintaining the caches of others, then I'll accept it as policy. Right now, I take it as a statement made by someone at Groundspeak that wasn't careful with what they were saying. The previous newsletter stating smart phones shouldn't be used for hiding is a case in point. Whoever is writing these newsletter articles needs to be a lot more careful with what they say and how they say it.

 

Actually, I just did a search in the Help Center, and here's the article on Caches That Need Maintenance. Finders are advised to log a NM and nothing more, so to me NOM doesn't appear to be officially endorsed at all.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

This is the part I addressed in an earlier post. I don't take a comment in the newsletter as official Groundspeak policy. If they add a section to the Help Center on maintaining the caches of others, then I'll accept it as policy. Right now, I take it as a statement made by someone at Groundspeak that wasn't careful with what they were saying.

 

Alright, I overstated things a bit - the mindset of lightweight finder maintenance is common enough that even whoever writes those articles finds some merit in it.

 

The point is that the guidelines don't appear to correlate well with what people are actually doing in many cases. The idea that it's OK and helpful to do this type of maintenance is a pretty common mindset, it seems to me. Do you disagree with either of those statements? If you have a specific and concrete suggestion for how to change that, please make it.

 

Filing a NM and then a few weeks later a NA is more effort than many are willing to perform. I can imagine that someone who's tried this, and then gets a snarky reply from the CO that everything is fine is unmotivated to do this again. The process for going from DNF -> NM -> NA is particularly difficult, if you really are diligent about following up on a cache you didn't find in the first place, and it is not a fast process. I am unsurprised that people are unwilling to go through this effort. It's easier just to change out a log sheet... (Or just throwdown a cache in the case of a missing cache - again I DO NOT approve of that behavior, but I can understand why someone would find it expedient. And they get a smiley.)

 

BTW, my argument isn't whether or not this type of maintenance is good or bad. I don't care. It is happening, and it happens a LOT. (If you disagree with this - I'm all ears.) I am simply suggesting that we document what really happens. I'm completely fine with alternative suggestions that stop people from doing this, eliminating the need for this type of log. I haven't heard much so far other than "gee, this is an icky practice, I'd prefer to pretend it didn't happen."

[+Lieblweb]

Finders are advised to log a NM and nothing more, so to me NOM doesn't appear to be officially endorsed at all.

 

Thank God!! I have nothing against doing maintenance for others.... I do it, everyone does it. But its a courtesy that's performed on a voluntary basis.

 

We need more responsible CO's who will take care of their caches - and we wouldn't be having this topic of discussion.....

[+The A-Team]

The process for going from DNF -> NM -> NA is particularly difficult, if you really are diligent about following up on a cache you didn't find in the first place, and it is not a fast process. I am unsurprised that people are unwilling to go through this effort.

In fact, the majority of times that I've seen this progression of logs, they are not all from the same cacher. Most of the time several cachers will log DNFs and NMs, and either one of those or a completely different cacher will log the NA. Having them come from different cachers also tells the reviewer that it isn't just a single cacher with a vendetta.

 

BTW, my argument isn't whether or not this type of maintenance is good or bad. I don't care. It is happening, and it happens a LOT. (If you disagree with this - I'm all ears.

To be honest, I don't see it very much at all in my area. Maybe the cachers around here are just better at maintaining their own caches, or maybe the NOM is more of a regional thing that varies. I couldn't tell you why I don't see it here. I do know that the DNF-NM-NA works here, but again maybe it doesn't work as well in other areas. If I had to base everything off my observations in my area, though, NOM would be very occasional and effectively a non-issue.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The process for going from DNF -> NM -> NA is particularly difficult, if you really are diligent about following up on a cache you didn't find in the first place, and it is not a fast process. I am unsurprised that people are unwilling to go through this effort.

In fact, the majority of times that I've seen this progression of logs, they are not all from the same cacher. Most of the time several cachers will log DNFs and NMs, and either one of those or a completely different cacher will log the NA. Having them come from different cachers also tells the reviewer that it isn't just a single cacher with a vendetta.

 

BTW, my argument isn't whether or not this type of maintenance is good or bad. I don't care. It is happening, and it happens a LOT. (If you disagree with this - I'm all ears.

To be honest, I don't see it very much at all in my area. Maybe the cachers around here are just better at maintaining their own caches, or maybe the NOM is more of a regional thing that varies. I couldn't tell you why I don't see it here. I do know that the DNF-NM-NA works here, but again maybe it doesn't work as well in other areas. If I had to base everything off my observations in my area, though, NOM would be very occasional and effectively a non-issue.

 

Perhaps cachers in British Columbia are just better!

 

I would imagine the current system may well work better in some places than others - particularly in areas where there are many cachers. The area where I cache is sparsely populated in terms of both caches and cachers. I've noticed that while a parade of DNF's will happen sometimes - there will be caches that just aren't very active because they are remote, or others where after a couple of DNF's, all traffic to them magically stops. Perhaps everyone in the area has found them, so there simply are no more logs to report? I suspect in some cases some simply don't report DNFs, but there is no way to know, really. For whatever reason, the process seems broken.

 

A second factor is that the nearest major urban area is 60 miles away. There are some smaller towns closer in (30-40 miles) and some tiny ones within 5-10 miles. There are lots of awesome parks and places where caches can be hidden - but many times nobody is close to these caches and some of the more interesting areas are not trivial to reach, so maintenance is problematical, even if the CO is active. (One I visited recently was 15-20 miles off of paved roads. Right now it probably isn't reachable, as one of the only roads leading to it is behaving much like a creek bed...)

[+thebruce0]

Ok, returning for another brief input... (hah! brief)

 

Coming back to what I said earlier, the purpose for this extra step is for informing followup cachers that maintenance has been performed, but not by the owner.

 

NM logs (and by extension, NA logs) should not change. Regardless of who maintained it last, if the cache is in disrepair, cachers should log the NM log. Nothing should change.

 

IF a system like that being discussed is put into place, I think it should in a form something like this:

* When posting a log (note or find), if the cache's NM flag is up, include an option (much like attaching additional coordinates to a log) to state that you performed some maintenance on the cache yourself.

* This will not clear the NM flag on the cache. But it can informed cachers that even though the cache Needs Maintenance, a cacher has ensured that it is findable and available. This implies that the owner has not verified the maintenance themselves, however someone else has made sure it's available.

* How one chooses to treat that property of a cache is up to them. The cache is still flagged as NM, so if you don't want to trust non-owner maintenance, you don't have to. If you don't care, but you like to know that, for example, a cache with a string of DNFs followed by a Note by someone who fixed it up for people because the owner is out of town is reportedly good to go, you can include those in your search.

 

IMO, this listing feature does have its benefits, and it doesn't discourage anything good, nor encourage any owner laziness that any owner wouldn't already demonstrate (such as misleading removal of NM flags).

NM flags and process to NA and archival wouldn't change. But cachers would have the option to inform other cachers that they 'fixed up' a cache for the time being. The CO would still not be off the hook.

 

All of this:

If you can't find it, log a DNF. If many people have DNFed it, and it isn't one of the high-difficulty needle-in-a-haystack type caches, or if it's very clearly missing, log an NM. If the CO doesn't respond to the NM, log a NA. I think what several of us are trying to get at is that rather than trying to make bad behaviour easier to find in the logs, we should be trying to discourage this bad behaviour in the first place (no matter how well-intentioned).

...

The NM does presume an active owner. Therefore, if an NM is logged, and there is no response, an NA should be logged based on an inactive owner. I don't know of many owners that would react negatively to a NM, unless the logger words it poorly. The point of it is to alert the owner to possible issues with the cache.

...

I can point you to many caches in my area where the progression of logs from DNF to NM to NA has worked and a problem cache has been archived, then later replaced with a new, better, actively-maintained cache. If no one ever logs an NM or NA on these caches, nothing will ever get fixed with them.

...

The NM is there to alert the owner to problems, not to harrass, insult, or otherwise chastise them. If you word it correctly, and the owner is active, the NM works very well. If the owner isn't active, it's the first step in getting an unmaintained cache archived and freeing up the spot.

Yes. Very yes.

 

I'm perfectly fine with the system as it's set up.

But I can see the benefit of building a small layer on the bottom, below all that, precisely because of the "throwdown" mentality and the angst it causes. Allowing a member to flag the cache as maintained by a non-owner means "throwdowns" could be filtered out of searches, if people still choose to include caches with the NM flag. It also lets curious cachers doing a live search know that a cache that needs maintenance may still be findable. (and once the owner does verify and log the owner maintenance, the NM flag is removed, along with any non-owner maintenance properties)

 

But again, the key point is that the current DNF->NM->NA log process should not change, and people should still be educated about their proper- rather, most effective use. No CO laziness or false representation should be encouraged, but knowing that cachers do and will continue to fix up caches out of the kindness of their heart, why not allow that action to be known in a way that benefits following cachers?

 

(just saying; I have zero quarrel if nothing changes this is a good discussion topic!)

Edited April 12, 2012 by thebruce0

[+Mr.Benchmark]

 

But again, the key point is that the current DNF->NM->NA log process should not change, and people should still be educated about their proper- rather, most effective use. No CO laziness or false representation should be encouraged, but knowing that cachers do and will continue to fix up caches out of the kindness of their heart, why not allow that action to be known in a way that benefits following cachers?

 

Thanks, this is exactly what I had in mind, and precisely the motivation for it.

 

The problem with using regular old notes, or an addendum to a FI log us that you can't automatically search these in gsak, or with other tools.

 

I don't propose to change the existing dnf->nm->na cycle at all. Ironically, despite all the arguments, one of my motivations for this idea was trying to parse logs on caches where I thought filing NM or NA was appropriate!

 

Some caches live a long time. Some have uneventful lives, some end up with lots of little tweaks from finders. I'm simply proposing we give people an explicit way to note this that stands out from other types of logs.