Jump to content

Questions to COs


LizzyRN

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I would like to know what is the correct way to address something. I identified a cache that I would like to attempt when I was the area attending a conference. It's about 4 hours from my home. This cache hadn't been found, or DNF'd, in 6 years. I sent a message to the CO who replied a few days later with "I don't know. I don't geocache anymore. The cache should get (sic) there."

 

After this conversation, someone left a DNF.

 

Should this be marked as NA?

 

Edited to add: This CO hasn't logged a find since 11/2012.

 

Thanks,

LizzyRN

Edited by LizzyRN
Link to comment

Well this question is quite the grenade about to go off sort.

 

Of course you don't ask for this cache to be NA.

 

Look, I've NA'd many local caches that I never actually visited. I only do this after (1) being familiar with the hiders style (2) know they don't care about their hides any more and (3) the hide has been out there for years and several people have looked for the janky cache and didn't find it.

 

One should not NA a cache that is 4 hours away where you don't know anything about the environment or the hider. Leave it to those who live in that area, who know the general situation of the area, to deal with.

 

With the more cache sweeping that goes on now a day in some areas, that one DNF + several years of not being found, might be enough to get it included on a reviewer's radar anyway.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

As an outsider, one possibility is just forget about it a leave it to the locals. That would be the first possibility I'd consider.

 

At the same time, you did notice it, your analysis does suggest it might be in trouble, so that might mean there's enough to post an NM. I don't know if you did that already, but it would make sense to post an NM at the same time you contacted the CO.

 

From your conversation with the CO, it seems unlikely an NM will change anything, but if you posted the first NM, then I'd say it's time to move on. Let someone offer a second opinion by posting an NA.

 

So after dragging my feet about answering the question, I'll go on to say that I wouldn't fault you for posting an NA. But -- no insult intended -- I tend to think that if you have to ask, you probably should just leave it to someone with more experience just in case there's some unusual factor that makes an NA inappropriate. An NA doesn't always have to be posted as soon as possible.

 

OK, so I said all that while being completely in the dark about the cache, so it would apply to any situation. Now I'll go on to say that if this is something like a film can under a lamp post cover in a parking lot that should have been found fifty times in the last 6 months, then you're dealing with an area that doesn't post NAs for the most obvious of cases, and if that's your impression, you can post the NA without thinking twice.

Link to comment

Of course you don't ask for this cache to be NA.

 

 

Why not? NA just means the reviewer will look into the situation and determine the next step. It doesn't mean the cache will get archived. It might...but only if the owner fails to act. Since this cache owner has already demonstrated some bad owner etiquette (not retrieving their caches when they quit geocaching) and giving some non-committal "it should still be there" answer, posting an NA is an appropriate action.

 

Saying to leave it up to the local geocaching community is technically "correct" and should be the way things are handled, but too often, the community just lets sleeping dogs lie. Around here, the only time I've seen the "community" band together and start getting missing caches archived is when they covet the locations for their own caches. Or some CO becomes known as a problem child and all the troops rally to get those caches archived. Most of the time, though, as long as the cache isn't taking up valuable real estate or the CO didn't make some most wanted list, neglected caches can hang on for years until someone from outside the community comes in and posts an NA.

 

If a cache owner said to me "I don't know, I don't cache anymore...it should still be there", I'd read that as them saying "the cache might still be there...but I don't really care if it is or isn't". Other cachers are not finding it, the owner doesn't care anymore...yes, it's time for an NA.

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I would like to know what is the correct way to address something. I identified a cache that I would like to attempt when I was the area attending a conference. It's about 4 hours from my home. This cache hadn't been found, or DNF'd, in 6 years. I sent a message to the CO who replied a few days later with "I don't know. I don't geocache anymore. The cache should get (sic) there."

 

After this conversation, someone left a DNF.

 

Should this be marked as NA?

 

Edited to add: This CO hasn't logged a find since 11/2012.

 

Thanks,

LizzyRN

I generally don't post NA log types on Listings that I haven't personally searched for.

Link to comment

Based on a single DNF (and no other details), I wouldn't post a NM log, let alone a NA log.

 

First, if there really is some indication of a problem, then the person posting the DNF should also post a NM log.

 

Second, not all DNFs are equal. Some people log a DNF in situations where they never even reached GZ. For example, some people might log a DNF because they started navigating towards the cache, but took the wrong trail late in the day, and didn't have time to backtrack and take the correct trail. There is no indication of any problem with the cache in such a DNF log.

 

But if the single DNF log does indicate a problem of some sort, then you could post a NM log. Or you could send email to the person who posted the DNF log and encourage them to post a NM log.

Link to comment
As an outsider, one possibility is just forget about it a leave it to the locals. That would be the first possibility I'd consider.

+1

 

We've noticed a few times at events, that folks would ignore a couple.

Later find it's because that couple were meddlers from outta the area, known for drama/creating issues

 

If we ever NA a cache, we've been there. :)

Link to comment
As an outsider, one possibility is just forget about it a leave it to the locals. That would be the first possibility I'd consider.

+1

 

We've noticed a few times at events, that folks would ignore a couple.

Later find it's because that couple were meddlers from outta the area, known for drama/creating issues

 

If we ever NA a cache, we've been there. :)

Yes, best procedure.

 

Of course, the OP could post a note commenting on the research. That may give an actual searcher at GZ additional reason to post NM or NA when they visit.

Link to comment

I'm a big advocate for not logging a NA on a cache i've never visited. But, GC.com guidelines do require that a cache owner do maintenance as needed. In this case, the CO himself said he doesn't cache anymore. But, the cache could actually be in place, negating the need for maintenance at this time. But again, we now know it's not going to get any cache maintenance from its owner in any case. But again, and so on,,,,

 

Kinda gets confusing thinking about it but (boy i like that word :P ), i'd say it's better to leave things alone if you haven't actually been to ground zero to search for the cache.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

Of course you don't ask for this cache to be NA.

 

 

Why not? NA just means the reviewer will look into the situation and determine the next step. It doesn't mean the cache will get archived. It might...but only if the owner fails to act. Since this cache owner has already demonstrated some bad owner etiquette (not retrieving their caches when they quit geocaching) and giving some non-committal "it should still be there" answer, posting an NA is an appropriate action.

 

Saying to leave it up to the local geocaching community is technically "correct" and should be the way things are handled, but too often, the community just lets sleeping dogs lie. Around here, the only time I've seen the "community" band together and start getting missing caches archived is when they covet the locations for their own caches. Or some CO becomes known as a problem child and all the troops rally to get those caches archived. Most of the time, though, as long as the cache isn't taking up valuable real estate or the CO didn't make some most wanted list, neglected caches can hang on for years until someone from outside the community comes in and posts an NA.

 

If a cache owner said to me "I don't know, I don't cache anymore...it should still be there", I'd read that as them saying "the cache might still be there...but I don't really care if it is or isn't". Other cachers are not finding it, the owner doesn't care anymore...yes, it's time for an NA.

Sure, that is all fine and dandy and doesn't sound all that different from what I posted. I just don't agree with one DNF being equal to "other cachers are not finding it"..

 

I could care less if this cache gets archived. I am just curious why someone 4 hours away would be asking this question. My only guess is that they want to find this lonely cache but want to verify that it is there before they invest a day into it. If the owner said they don't geocache any more than posting an NM isn't going to change anything for the OP, so what exactly is their goal with this cache?

 

Link to comment

Let me clarify, I meant NM, not NA.

 

You could always still try and find it..... You might pull off a little ripper of a find :)

If it is a long/arduous hike and you don't want to, given the absent CO (and I wouldn't blame you) - post the NM, then in a month or two, if it isn't checked, then post a NA. These orphan caches tie up too much space that good, active COs could use.

Link to comment

My personal answer would depend on several factors:

-- The experience level of the cacher that posted the DNF.

-- The text of the DNF log (as niraD mentioned, did they even reach GZ to execute a search).

-- The location of the cache, urban/rural/etc.

 

I'm in the OP's state and I'll say that I've found several lonely caches (have gone unfound for quite a while) and some of those had previous DNF logs.

Link to comment
Let me clarify, I meant NM, not NA.

Curious, what did the prior DNF say in their log?

If it didn't say anything other than DNF, what makes you think it needs maintenance?

 

We have a cache that sat untouched for over three years, to find the container and contents in the same condition as last replaced. :)

Link to comment

Upon further review of the actual cache, I personally wouldn't post an NM unless I had actually searched for it first.

 

-- More than 1 previous finder noted that their GPSr was bouncy in that area.

-- More than 1 previous finder found the cache after having previously searched and not found it (only 1 of those cachers actually logged a DNF on their 1st search).

-- Additionally, it sounds like a very cool location. I'd go to GZ just to see the scenery and potentially find a 'lonely cache'. I wouldn't be too upset if I ended up with a DNF, and would then post an NM.

 

The CO of this particular cache has some good hides around the state, especially hiking caches, not just LPC's or GRC's. Many of their caches are still active and in find shape, even though the CO hasn't been out to visit them recently.

Link to comment

Let me clarify, I meant NM, not NA.

To clarify my answer, I probably wouldn't post anything on the Listing page, because my online observations don't hold much relevance to the actual cache experience.

 

On rare occasions, I might try contacting the cache owner, but a lack of response doesn't mean much to me, nor would it change my decision. I mostly make a judgement based on the log entries from cachers that appear to have made an honest to goodness search for the cache, and not some backseat driver opinion on its whereabouts.

Link to comment

To clarify my answer, I probably wouldn't post anything on the Listing page, because my online observations don't hold much relevance to the actual cache experience.

I agree with your point, but sometimes a cache's log tell enough of a story that it's obvious I will get no additional information at GZ. If an expert geocacher has already filed a NM describing an extensive search with no success, me doing an identical search would be pointless.

Link to comment

Thanks for the input. I'm up for the hike, for sure. It's been found previously by adults, kids, newbies and veteran cachers, etc. Last find 2010. The 2015 DNF posted a note recently that he contacted the CO in an attempt to adopt the cache, with no reply. Next time that I'm in the area, I'll give it a shot, weather permitting....then I'll take it off the list.

 

Again, thanks. As a newbie, I appreciate all the different viewpoints and discussion.

Link to comment

Upon further review of the actual cache, I personally wouldn't post an NM unless I had actually searched for it first.

 

-- More than 1 previous finder noted that their GPSr was bouncy in that area.

-- More than 1 previous finder found the cache after having previously searched and not found it (only 1 of those cachers actually logged a DNF on their 1st search).

-- Additionally, it sounds like a very cool location. I'd go to GZ just to see the scenery and potentially find a 'lonely cache'. I wouldn't be too upset if I ended up with a DNF, and would then post an NM.

 

The CO of this particular cache has some good hides around the state, especially hiking caches, not just LPC's or GRC's. Many of their caches are still active and in find shape, even though the CO hasn't been out to visit them recently.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...