cache maintenance

[RedShoesGirl]

in the olden days, if i am remembering correctly, one of the guidelines was the person should live within a reasonable distance in order to maintain a cache. i think it was something like 100? miles. 50 miles? caches placed while on vacation were not encouraged. just because you were 200 miles from home and think you have a great spot for a cache, the guidelines said that's a no-no. at least how i remember the old guidelines. also this was before film canister "smalls". before number trails.

 

heck, i remember the first skirt lifter i found with a film canister thinking how very cool and unique a hide. and there was tiny bit of room to exchange maybe a quarter or a tiny ball .

 

but i digress.

 

so when did it become ok to place a cache so far away the CO can't get to it in a reasonable amount of time in order to fix problems; replace container, remove garbage etc. it seems more and more cache maintenance is expected from the finder. it would also seem to be a problem if one placed a cache while far from home that for some reason or another wasn't approved. does the CO go back and remove the cache they placed on vacation 500 miles from home or does it become geotrash?

 

it seems cachers are part of the problem. instead of reporting a trashed cache as needing maintenance or even NA, cachers are replacing containers, filling them with new swag and taking home the garbage. if those caches were simply removed, wouldn't there be more room for new caches?

 

shouldn't reviewers be actively denying a cache that says "placed while we were on our fabulous vacation."

 

just some wandering thoughts this morning.

 

lara

[+Gustav129]

I agree, and it leads to more "geotrash" out there in the CO doesn't do maintenance.

[+doug_hollyNKC]

In my opinion, yes the cache should be denied if it says we placed while on vacation, or we live here 6 months out of the year or so on.

 

Unless on the cache page, they clearly state that "RedShoesGirl" that live just a couple of miles away assures me she will do maintenance while we are away. Basically if they have someone guaranteeing maintenance, then ok, but if not, then denied.

Edited December 19, 2012 by doug_hollyNKC

[Pup Patrol]

Current Guidelines:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Last Updated: November 13, 2012

 

2. Geocache Maintenance

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak.

 

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer. The note will auto-delete on publication.

 

 

B.

[RedShoesGirl]

Current Guidelines:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Last Updated: November 13, 2012

 

2. Geocache Maintenance

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak.

 

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer. The note will auto-delete on publication.

 

 

B.

 

good guidelines, but as we have seen with other guidelines, they are not necessarily followed by reviewers.

 

so how to fix the issues or is it simply too late to follow the guidelines.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Reviewers are not the "issue" here...it is the follow-up between the placer and care-taker. I think what Pup Patrol was stating is the the guidelines allow for those placed further from home if the placer can show the reviewer it will be taken care of...the failure in that case is that of the placer in either lying to the reviewer about care-taker...and/or the placer not following up with care-taker when there is an issue with the cache.

Edited December 19, 2012 by ArcherDragoon

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Current Guidelines:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Last Updated: November 13, 2012

 

2. Geocache Maintenance

 

...

 

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer. The note will auto-delete on publication.

 

B.

 

This last paragraph is one of the clearest, easiest to understand, section of the guidelines we have, and the fact that this issue comes up so often is a pretty indication that people have *not* read and understood the guidelines before submitting a cache listing.

 

Note that the guideline doesn't indicate a specific distance (50 or 100 miles) from ones home coordinates but rather uses the phrase "in your usual caching area and not while traveling". When first started my usual caching area was primarily within 10 miles of home, but after a fairly short time I was spending much more time caching 20-30 miles from from (because that's where the caches I had not yet found were located). For someone living in a cache sparse area the usual caching area might easily have a 100 mile radius.

[+fuzziebear3]

I don't think this guideline has changed in the time I have been playing (since 2008). I know when I was new and excited, it seemed like a fun idea to place a cache at a vacation location, but I also knew that it was against the guidelines due to maintenance considerations. So I would just have to find a cache on vacation that was placed and maintained by a local.

 

Are you seeing an area where vacation caches are getting dropped and allowed?

[+Ambrosia]

It's hard to judge a cache that looks like a vacation cache, because geocachers don't know what went on behind the scenes between the cache owner and the reviewer. The cache owner may visit the area frequently, they may be willing to take a special trip when there are issues with the cache, or they may have a local maintainer.

 

I think that it's best if this is stated on the cache page, so that the local cachers feel a bit better about the situation, but this doesn't always happen, for whatever reason.

[+NeverSummer]

Come to Alaska. I'll show you lots of vacation caches, and even more caches that are placed by people who live more than 5 hours away and rarely make the trip to maintain their caches. Lots of soggy logs, rusted containers, and missing caches that sit for a long time.

 

Our current Reviewer took over for Reviewers who were publishing caches while sitting in their living rooms in the lower 48, thousands of miles away. It's taking a lot to go back through the caches as they are found to "train" people to report caches that need maintenance, and even post the dreaded Needs Archived log.

 

All of that said, I do remember being told by my Reviewer when I lived in Oregon that I couldn't post a cache that was on the coast when I lived in Portland. "Too far to maintain properly" I was told. When I moved to Minnesota, I didn't hear much of that, and there is a prolific cache hider in that State who places caches everywhere, has a "maintenance plan", but the caches are often in need to some attention.

 

Now, anther situation has presented itself to my attention where a young cacher who needs rides from parents has essentially placed vacation caches. I can say that I notice some substantial variation in the translation of the guidelines between Reviewers, and extremely varied interpretations by cache owners.

[+Ambrosia]

Come to Alaska. I'll show you lots of vacation caches, and even more caches that are placed by people who live more than 5 hours away and rarely make the trip to maintain their caches. Lots of soggy logs, rusted containers, and missing caches that sit for a long time.

 

Our current Reviewer took over for Reviewers who were publishing caches while sitting in their living rooms in the lower 48, thousands of miles away. It's taking a lot to go back through the caches as they are found to "train" people to report caches that need maintenance, and even post the dreaded Needs Archived log.

 

All of that said, I do remember being told by my Reviewer when I lived in Oregon that I couldn't post a cache that was on the coast when I lived in Portland. "Too far to maintain properly" I was told. When I moved to Minnesota, I didn't hear much of that, and there is a prolific cache hider in that State who places caches everywhere, has a "maintenance plan", but the caches are often in need to some attention.

 

Now, anther situation has presented itself to my attention where a young cacher who needs rides from parents has essentially placed vacation caches. I can say that I notice some substantial variation in the translation of the guidelines between Reviewers, and extremely varied interpretations by cache owners.

Since there is no cut and dry formula for what a "vacation cache" is, then a lot of it is up to the interpretation of the reviewer. Groundspeak strives to close the gaps in those interpretations, but in reality, there are a lot of reviewers around the world, and humans are humans. We try to do our best.

[+Gustav129]

I think I was told that you had to have finds in the area to be considered to be able to hide in an area.

[+NeverSummer]

Come to Alaska. I'll show you lots of vacation caches, and even more caches that are placed by people who live more than 5 hours away and rarely make the trip to maintain their caches. Lots of soggy logs, rusted containers, and missing caches that sit for a long time.

 

Our current Reviewer took over for Reviewers who were publishing caches while sitting in their living rooms in the lower 48, thousands of miles away. It's taking a lot to go back through the caches as they are found to "train" people to report caches that need maintenance, and even post the dreaded Needs Archived log.

 

All of that said, I do remember being told by my Reviewer when I lived in Oregon that I couldn't post a cache that was on the coast when I lived in Portland. "Too far to maintain properly" I was told. When I moved to Minnesota, I didn't hear much of that, and there is a prolific cache hider in that State who places caches everywhere, has a "maintenance plan", but the caches are often in need to some attention.

 

Now, anther situation has presented itself to my attention where a young cacher who needs rides from parents has essentially placed vacation caches. I can say that I notice some substantial variation in the translation of the guidelines between Reviewers, and extremely varied interpretations by cache owners.

Since there is no cut and dry formula for what a "vacation cache" is, then a lot of it is up to the interpretation of the reviewer. Groundspeak strives to close the gaps in those interpretations, but in reality, there are a lot of reviewers around the world, and humans are humans. We try to do our best.

Thin skin syndrome is clearly related to presence of anything Reviewer-related on the forums!

 

I never said good or bad, and you never asked me for details. All I said is that I've personally seen many different interpretations of the guidelines by Reviewers and cache owners.

 

That said, it seems like this would be an easy enough thing to tighten up if need be. It used to be tight, as far as my personal experience showed me.

 

Good or bad, the Reviewers that used to publish caches here in Alaska didn't live here, and didn't have the tools now available for mapping and knowledge of land laws that are really screwy here in Alaska. That's all. Being far separated from the area you are Reviewing is a disadvantage, no?

Edited December 20, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+Ambrosia]

Come to Alaska. I'll show you lots of vacation caches, and even more caches that are placed by people who live more than 5 hours away and rarely make the trip to maintain their caches. Lots of soggy logs, rusted containers, and missing caches that sit for a long time.

 

Our current Reviewer took over for Reviewers who were publishing caches while sitting in their living rooms in the lower 48, thousands of miles away. It's taking a lot to go back through the caches as they are found to "train" people to report caches that need maintenance, and even post the dreaded Needs Archived log.

 

All of that said, I do remember being told by my Reviewer when I lived in Oregon that I couldn't post a cache that was on the coast when I lived in Portland. "Too far to maintain properly" I was told. When I moved to Minnesota, I didn't hear much of that, and there is a prolific cache hider in that State who places caches everywhere, has a "maintenance plan", but the caches are often in need to some attention.

 

Now, anther situation has presented itself to my attention where a young cacher who needs rides from parents has essentially placed vacation caches. I can say that I notice some substantial variation in the translation of the guidelines between Reviewers, and extremely varied interpretations by cache owners.

Since there is no cut and dry formula for what a "vacation cache" is, then a lot of it is up to the interpretation of the reviewer. Groundspeak strives to close the gaps in those interpretations, but in reality, there are a lot of reviewers around the world, and humans are humans. We try to do our best.

Thin skin syndrome is clearly related to presence of anything Reviewer-related on the forums!

 

I never said good or bad, and you never asked me for details. All I said is that I've personally seen many different interpretations of the guidelines by Reviewers and cache owners.

 

That said, it seems like this would be an easy enough thing to tighten up if need be. It used to be tight, as far as my personal experience showed me.

 

I hope that I didn't sound testy or thin skinned, I thought that I was only giving a helpful explanation.

 

Good or bad, the Reviewers that used to publish caches here in Alaska didn't live here, and didn't have the tools now available for mapping and knowledge of land laws that are really screwy here in Alaska. That's all. Being far separated from the area you are Reviewing is a disadvantage, no?

The answer is not so easy as it appears to be on the surface. Yes, in some ways, reviewing near where you live has it's advantages, but probably only really within a 50 mile radius (I just made that number up, randomly). After that, it's really long distance for anyone. A lot of reviewers in the U.S. are reviewing for part/whole/multiple states. When you're doing something from a computer from miles away, anyone should be able to have pretty much the same resources at their fingertips.

[Keystone]

Let's get away from NeverSummer's tangent about where reviewers live, and back on the topic of how reviewers interpret the "cache maintenance" guideline. Those posters, including NeverSummer, who perceive that it's easier to publish a cache far from home are perceptive. Groundspeak asked the reviewers to accept any plausible maintenance plan offered by the cache owner. So, if you hide a cache while on vacation in Pittsburgh, I will question it, but all you need to do is say that you were visiting your Aunt Edna who lives near the cache and has agreed to take care of it. Aunt Edna doesn't exist, of course, but I cannot make a judgment about that. So, I'm obligated to publish the cache. Surprise, surprise - the cache is archived four months later when the owner says "I can't get back there any time soon." If that hider returns to Pittsburgh six months after that and hides another vacation cache, well then and only then can I say "no" to using Aunt Edna as a maintenance plan.

 

In addition, reviewers can no longer require cache owners to disclose details of their maintenance plan publicly on the cache listing. Telling the reviewer privately is sufficient. Any distant cache that I publish will have a hidden reviewer note, telling me about Aunt Edna or whatever other maintenance plan is in effect. So, to the public, it looks like a vacation cache was published without question. In reality, I did have that dialogue with the cache owner first.

 

Based on Groundspeak's guidance in recent years, I would not expect to see any higher restrictions around this issue.

[+NeverSummer]

Let's get away from NeverSummer's tangent about where reviewers live, and back on the topic of how reviewers interpret the "cache maintenance" guideline. Those posters, including NeverSummer, who perceive that it's easier to publish a cache far from home are perceptive. Groundspeak asked the reviewers to accept any plausible maintenance plan offered by the cache owner. So, if you hide a cache while on vacation in Pittsburgh, I will question it, but all you need to do is say that you were visiting your Aunt Edna who lives near the cache and has agreed to take care of it. Aunt Edna doesn't exist, of course, but I cannot make a judgment about that. So, I'm obligated to publish the cache. Surprise, surprise - the cache is archived four months later when the owner says "I can't get back there any time soon." If that hider returns to Pittsburgh six months after that and hides another vacation cache, well then and only then can I say "no" to using Aunt Edna as a maintenance plan.

 

In addition, reviewers can no longer require cache owners to disclose details of their maintenance plan publicly on the cache listing. Telling the reviewer privately is sufficient. Any distant cache that I publish will have a hidden reviewer note, telling me about Aunt Edna or whatever other maintenance plan is in effect. So, to the public, it looks like a vacation cache was published without question. In reality, I did have that dialogue with the cache owner first.

 

Based on Groundspeak's guidance in recent years, I would not expect to see any higher restrictions around this issue.

Very interesting. Thanks for the behind-the-scenes viewing.

 

(By the way, I wasn't trying to go OT, I was clarifying my on-topic first comment.)

 

So, as for maintenance plans, how are Reviewers instructed to handle caches like you describe above with "Aunt Edna"? Some Reviewers will disable caches that have a string of unresolved NM, or DNFs, others wait until a NA log, or on the extreme even then don't post anything.

 

What this thread, and others is showing me is that communication is key. When someone doesn't make something clear about maintenance plans, Reviwer/owner conversations, etc, it looks bad on the outside. That lack of communication sometimes leads to all of the angst about posting a NM or NA log, even when a cache deserves it. Why was the decision made to not make maintenance plans visible to all?

[Keystone]

So, as for maintenance plans, how are Reviewers instructed to handle caches like you describe above with "Aunt Edna"? Some Reviewers will disable caches that have a string of unresolved NM, or DNFs, others wait until a NA log, or on the extreme even then don't post anything.

Reviewers are only obligated (i.e., asked by Groundspeak) to respond to "Needs Archived" logs. If a volunteer reviewer voluntarily volunteers additional volunteer time to monitor caches with unresolved "Needs Maintenance" logs or strings of DNF logs, that extra effort is... wait for it.. VOLUNTARY. I do maybe two or three "sweeps" each year to look for caches that should have attracted a "Needs Archived" log, but haven't. Some reviewers do more, some do less. And it's all good.

 

What this thread, and others is showing me is that communication is key. When someone doesn't make something clear about maintenance plans, Reviwer/owner conversations, etc, it looks bad on the outside. That lack of communication sometimes leads to all of the angst about posting a NM or NA log, even when a cache deserves it. Why was the decision made to not make maintenance plans visible to all?

You'd have to ask Groundspeak that. It wasn't my decision. I changed my reviewing practices to comply with Groundspeak's instructions.

[+NeverSummer]

[

Reviewers are only obligated (i.e., asked by Groundspeak) to respond to "Needs Archived" logs. If a volunteer reviewer voluntarily volunteers additional volunteer time to monitor caches with unresolved "Needs Maintenance" logs or strings of DNF logs, that extra effort is... wait for it.. VOLUNTARY. I do maybe two or three "sweeps" each year to look for caches that should have attracted a "Needs Archived" log, but haven't. Some reviewers do more, some do less. And it's all good.

Careful, you're making it sound like volunteering to voluntarily give volunteer time is a burden if asked to do more than is asked by Groundspeak. There's all of those threads out there with people asking to become Volunteer Reviewers based on the perception that you don't like your job, or that you're "not doing enough".

 

So, when it comes to cache maintenance, it is only on the shoulders of the cache owner to maintain the cache. That much is clear. But, when a cache can't be maintained, we are asked to community "police" the cache with NM logs and DNFs. As other threads and experiences in the field have shown, those NM or DNF logs are "scary" to some to post for a multitude of reasons.

 

Add to that, cache owners are not going to be obligated to perform maintenance per the guidelines by anyone but themselves. No other geocacher out there is going to be able to sway an owner to make the 5+ hour drive to check on a possibly missing cache, or replace an unsignable logbook. So, we then see "found it, but didn't find it" logs, and angst vented here in the forums or in logs on the cache pages. Then with pressure building, we might see NA logs that upset an active cache owner who just can't make it out to the cache right away.

 

Perhaps there is a maintenance plan/agreement that the owner and Reviewer have established. On the outside, if it isn't clearly communicated to others, this might seem like favoritism if a cache has multiple DNFs in a row, unresolved NM logs, or unaddressed NA logs.

 

All of this to say, communication is key. And, as lay-geocachers, it is helpful to have some authority assist when a cache needs attention, as our communication via DNF or NM logs can go unaddressed. This issue is only compounded by a perception of no maintenance plan for a "vacation cache".

[+Ambrosia]

Yes, communication is key. If there are multiple dnf's and needs maintenance notes, it's best for the cache owner to post a note and let people know what's going on. I think that would help in a lot of situations. Otherwise, people don't know what's going on, or if the co is even listening.

[+Happy Humphrey]

You really can't define a Vacation Cache simply by distance from home.

 

A couple of examples. According to my stats, 40% of my cache finds are over 100 miles from home. I know a geocacher who lives in Colorado and has a sea-going boat at home, which he tows to Florida and back several times a year; I don't know if he has any caches there but he could certainly maintain them if so.

 

Some areas have hardly any local geocachers, and personally I find that it's great when you visit (say) a Greek island and there are a couple of caches. Even if they are grubby ones with tatty log books, maintained mostly by visitors. Parts of France have lots of locally-maintained geocaches, but when I first cached in the area there were only a handful: generally placed by Brits. But that started getting locals interested and helped develop the game into a popular local pastime.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

[Keystone]

Thank you for those good examples, Happy Humphrey.

 

Any reviewer can judge a solid maintenance plan by studying the hider's record of cache finds. The Florida reviewers are, as you might expect, especially experienced on this issue. They can tell the difference between someone who visits every few months throughout the year vs. someone who makes a one-time trip to Disney World.

 

The reviewers who cover parts of the world without many geocaches (China, Russia, India, etc.) are also very skilled on this issue. As you noted from your example about France, some leeway is allowed when "seeding" a cache-sparse area. Alaska used to be like that, many years ago.

 

Some other good examples include geocachers who are long-haul truck drivers who follow regular routes, commercial pilots, and regular business travelers. I live in Pittsburgh, but I could easily meet the maintenance test for placing a cache in two North Carolina cities. It's a seven-hour drive to where my daughter attends college, and a nine-hour drive to one of my company's operations centers, for which I have an oversight function. But, I have around 100 finds in North Carolina and can easily arrange for my daughter or a co-worker to attend to urgent maintenance needs between my visits. I could not meet the maintenance test for a cache placement in Charleston, West Virginia, just a two hour drive from my home. I've only cached there once in the past ten years.

 

There is no single, numerical test that fits every situation.