Owner Maintenance

[+nextlogicalstep]

This seems kind of trivial, but:

 

Should I log every time I visit a cache I own to check on it? If so, is it better to log it using "Owner Maintenance" or "Write Note"? Does it make any difference, other than if someone has logged the cache as "Needs Maintenance"?

[+TriciaG]

There are no hard and fast rules.

 

IMHO, it depends. If you're checking on it quite often (once every 2 weeks, say), then I'd say no - log an OM every couple months at the very most. If you're checking on it once every 6 months, I'd say yes, log an OM.

 

It doesn't make a difference, except that if you make them OM logs, people can see at a glance that you are doing maintenance or checking on it. Write Note logs might just be a comment from the CO; it's hard to tell unless the logs are all read.

 

IMHO, of course.

[+niraD]

I might post a Note to my own cache if I was accompanying some other geocachers when they found it. But otherwise, if there is a story to tell, I'd probably post an Owner Maintenance log.

 

As far as how often you should post a log, I think some common sense is in order. Is there a story to tell? As an extreme example, consider a front-yard cache that the CO passes at least twice a day. Can you imagine what would happen if the CO posted two OM logs a day? Or even one OM log a day? It would be hard to find any of the logs posted by finders.

[+cerberus1]

Never used to write an OM each time, usually just a Write Note when someone mentions something in their log (we don't wait for NMs if someone says something's up...).

Would log an OM for a NM though.

 

But now that we read of DNFs and such triggering things at HQ, I have logged an OM just for checking (no maintenance required).

[+barefootjeff]

I've generally only logged an OM if I've actually done something to the cache while visiting it, otherwise if I checked and everything was fine and dandy I didn't log anything, as many of my hides get few finds and I don't want my logs filling up people's PQs and GPX downloads. But as cerberus1 said, nowadays I wonder if I should be logging an OM every time, since DNFs and even just a long time between finds will impact on a cache's health score and logging OMs is the only thing a CO can do to remedy this.

[+justintim1999]

I typically post a OML every time I visit one of my caches. If nothing else it lets cachers and reviewers know that I'm active and maintaining my hides.

[+lee737]

We do too. If we visit one of ours, we would log an OM. As above, an exception would be if we had not long already done so.

[+Team Microdot]

If we call at one of our caches and check it out we log routinely an Owner Maintenance as we consider it useful information to us and to anyone who may want to know that the cache is there, in good shape and findable.

[+narcissa]

There's no harm in posting an OM log.

[+redsox_mark]

I might post a Note to my own cache if I was accompanying some other geocachers when they found it. But otherwise, if there is a story to tell, I'd probably post an Owner Maintenance log.

 

As far as how often you should post a log, I think some common sense is in order. Is there a story to tell? As an extreme example, consider a front-yard cache that the CO passes at least twice a day. Can you imagine what would happen if the CO posted two OM logs a day? Or even one OM log a day? It would be hard to find any of the logs posted by finders.

 

This. There is no harm in an OM log, and for infrequent visits (e.g. a few months) to mine I will log one. But if you look at it every day... then not so much.

[+bflentje]

I typically post a OML every time I visit one of my caches. If nothing else it lets cachers and reviewers know that I'm active and maintaining my hides.

 

Yep, me too.

 

If you'd log a note why wouldn't you just log an OM? That way others know instinctively that the CO wrote the log if they hadn't seen the CO's name above.

[+barefootjeff]

There's no harm in posting an OM log.

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic.

[+narcissa]

There's no harm in posting an OM log.

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic.

 

There's no harm in posting an OM log, except in some exceedingly rare scenarios that needn't be listed in exhaustive detail.

[+edexter]

No real difference how you mention that you checked on the cache, basic idea is to let folks know it's been tended to. Most caches have nothing indicating any maintenance has been done.

[+WearyTraveler]

There's no harm in posting an OM log.

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic.

Good point.

If you don't want to clog up the logs, just change the date on the OM every time you check the cache. That way the OM will only show the most recent and leave 4 found / dnf logs for the PQ...

[+lee737]

There's no harm in posting an OM log.

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic.

Good point.

If you don't want to clog up the logs, just change the date on the OM every time you check the cache. That way the OM will only show the most recent and leave 4 found / dnf logs for the PQ...

 

I've also just edited/added to the last OM log if the cache hasn't been found since the last OM.

[+The A-Team]

No real difference how you mention that you checked on the cache, basic idea is to let folks know it's been tended to. Most caches have nothing indicating any maintenance has been done.

A note is certainly better than nothing, but there is definitely a difference between an OM and a note. The biggest difference is that computer software/algorithms can detect the maintenance aspect from the OM log, but not from the note. Using the OM instead of a note can help with the automated cache health score, reviewer tools, and algorithms used by prospective finders. As far as such tools are concerned, a note is effectively meaningless.

[+bflentje]

There's no harm in posting an OM log.

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ.

 

This is in the "not my problem" category. Besides, it never happened.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I typically post a OML every time I visit one of my caches. If nothing else it lets cachers and reviewers know that I'm active and maintaining my hides.

 

This!

 

Why not?

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would only log OM if I performed some kind of maintenance, or if the cache had not been found in awhile. But I don't usually visit my caches unless something prompts me to check on them.

[+WearyTraveler]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

[+CAVinoGal]

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

Not everyone, I know, but I'm new to geocaching, and I DO read the descriptions. I'm also putting some effort into descriptions of the caches I plan to hide ... and there are clues to the cache in the description, so it might be wise to read, and learn. I know there are some who won't, but they will just miss out on what I am trying to accomplish by taking them to the hide and teaching about our local area.

(And this is getting off topic...so that's all I'm going to say for now!)

Edited June 25, 2017 by CAVinoGal

[+cerberus1]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

Agreed.

We don't know of anyone who's been in this hobby more than a year or so who reads descriptions of a traditional, unless it's D/T are higher than 3.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

Agreed.

We don't know of anyone who's been in this hobby more than a year or so who reads descriptions of a traditional, unless it's D/T are higher than 3.

 

I guess this is a bit OT, but we must be the odd couple.

We read every description before we search for a cache, traditional or not.

Sometimes there is some valuable info to help find it.

Somehow, not reading the cache page is sort of disrespecting the effort the CO put into hiding it, and to me is in the same realm of just writing TFTC instead of some sort of decent log.

 

Edit: speeling

Edited June 25, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

[+Harry Dolphin]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

Agreed.

We don't know of anyone who's been in this hobby more than a year or so who reads descriptions of a traditional, unless it's D/T are higher than 3.

 

I guess this is a bot OT, but we must be the odd couple.

We read every description before we search for a cache, traditional or not.

Sometimes there is some valuable info to help find it.

Somehow, not reading the cache page is sort of disrespecting the effort the CO put into hiding it, and to me is in the same realm of just writing TFTC instead of some sort of decent log.

 

Thirteen years in a few weeks, and I do still read the cache page! Well, except for those boring power trails that have the same cache page for all 138 hides.

[+cerberus1]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

Agreed.

We don't know of anyone who's been in this hobby more than a year or so who reads descriptions of a traditional, unless it's D/T are higher than 3.

 

I guess this is a bot OT, but we must be the odd couple.

We read every description before we search for a cache, traditional or not.

Sometimes there is some valuable info to help find it.

Somehow, not reading the cache page is sort of disrespecting the effort the CO put into hiding it, and to me is in the same realm of just writing TFTC instead of some sort of decent log.

 

Thirteen years in a few weeks, and I do still read the cache page! Well, except for those boring power trails that have the same cache page for all 138 hides.

Now we know of one.

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

Thirteen years in a few weeks, and I do still read the cache page! Well, except for those boring power trails that have the same cache page for all 138 hides.

 

Well, yeah ....

[+lee737]

I must admit I often don't read them (thoroughly), and have had DNFs or prolonged searches because of it.... although reading past logs is generally more helpful.....

[+WearyTraveler]

Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition"

 

That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.

 

If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description?

 

Agreed.

We don't know of anyone who's been in this hobby more than a year or so who reads descriptions of a traditional, unless it's D/T are higher than 3.

I actually read the descriptions - only been in the game a few years though...

 

True - some cachers rarely read the descriptions - just dl the coords and go for it.

 

However, many do so after logging a dnf. And many (?) cachers looking at recent logs might skip a cache if there's a recent dnf. So noting that it was there (certified by a CO check) on a certain date might help them choose to search for that one.

 

Either way - the gist of the OP was about how to note that he, as CO, was checking. Updating the description alleviates log clog...

[+colleda]

If I check and everthing is AOK I log WN.

If I actually do something to it I'll log OM.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

I use OM in either case. Checking on a cache is a part of its maintenance, IMHO.

[+Pond Bird]

If you're checking on the cache and replacing logbook, drying it out, etc. Then thats owner maintenance and you can post an OM log to show that you visited the cache and confirm it is findable. If you just did a walk by on the trail, or dropped off a travelbug and there was isn't a red wrench shown for your cache listing, a note would be fine.

[+edexter]

In the guidelines version of the game, once a cache is placed, it is periodically checked on. If the CO wants to let people know it has been, he/she posts an OM note. In the "real world" version of the game, once a cache is placed it is unlikely to be ever checked by the CO. And, aside from reading through every log and note on the cache page, the only way you can tell if a cache has been checked is by spotting the little green wrench that means the CO wrote a maintenance log and reading that. While you can make some generalizations about cache maintenance, this is really about CO's and their maintenance habits. In general there are three "types" of owners: 1, Set it and forget it: Something more than half of all caches that are archived never have any maintenance and are archived by the reviewer typically following a string of dnfs, an NM log and an NA log without any response from the CO. 2, Responsive COs: About a quarter of all caches are repaired by the CO after a few dnfs or an NM log and these folks typically post an OM log, and may disable the cache in the meantime. 3, Lazy COs: The remaining caches are repaired only after being disabled by the reviewer, again typically following a string of dnfs, NM and NA logs. You can learn the habits of your local CO's pretty easily on GSAK which allows you to download caches, sort by CO and shows the results of the most recent four logs and which caches are disabled at a glance. After a while, it's evident who does regular maintenance and who doesn't. (There are also the "busy COs" who are "too busy with the more important things in life" to respond to a NM log...) It's still hard to determine the story when you cache beyond your usual range, but statistically speaking, if a cache has a string of dnfs and a NM log posted, there's a better than 75% chance there is a problem with it. And if you actually read the logs you will most often find a series of notes indicating problems with the cache long before the first NM is logged. COs who want to be helpful periodically check on their caches and post OM logs to let folks know the cache has been checked. Folks who place more than 50 caches (or fewer multies with that many stages total) can be sure that at any moment one or two of them need attention and should plan on periodic maintenance runs. Log your OM visits so folks can tell you are fixing things as needed.

[+dprovan]

This seems kind of trivial, but:

 

Should I log every time I visit a cache I own to check on it? If so, is it better to log it using "Owner Maintenance" or "Write Note"? Does it make any difference, other than if someone has logged the cache as "Needs Maintenance"?

I always log an OM. That way, it's immediately clear that the log came from me. I don't have that many caches, and I visit them each about once a year, so I log almost every visit as an OM even when there have been no other logs since my last visit a year ago.

 

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic.

First of all, I claim that even in this case where there's a string of OMs, they're still all more important than any other log they'll knock out of the list. This might be more open to question for other log types, but your claim here is that something important in someone else's log is going to get scrolled out of the PQ, so I humbly submit that you, as the owner, should move that information somewhere where it won't get lost no matter who posts what logs.

 

But even if you don't buy that, it's the other OM logs that are the problem, not the new one you're adding which reports your recent visit. So if you're really worried about this, I recommend adding the OM log and deleting the oldest OM that comes after the most recent log by someone else. That's the OM that's obsolete and no longer interesting, not the one that says you visited the cache and found that all is well as of yesterday.

[+noncentric]

In the guidelines version of the game, once a cache is placed, it is periodically checked on. If the CO wants to let people know it has been, he/she posts an OM note. In the "real world" version of the game, once a cache is placed it is unlikely to be ever checked by the CO. And, aside from reading through every log and note on the cache page, the only way you can tell if a cache has been checked is by spotting the little green wrench that means the CO wrote a maintenance log and reading that. While you can make some generalizations about cache maintenance, this is really about CO's and their maintenance habits. In general there are three "types" of owners: 1, Set it and forget it: Something more than half of all caches that are archived never have any maintenance and are archived by the reviewer typically following a string of dnfs, an NM log and an NA log without any response from the CO. 2, Responsive COs: About a quarter of all caches are repaired by the CO after a few dnfs or an NM log and these folks typically post an OM log, and may disable the cache in the meantime. 3, Lazy COs: The remaining caches are repaired only after being disabled by the reviewer, again typically following a string of dnfs, NM and NA logs. You can learn the habits of your local CO's pretty easily on GSAK which allows you to download caches, sort by CO and shows the results of the most recent four logs and which caches are disabled at a glance. After a while, it's evident who does regular maintenance and who doesn't. (There are also the "busy COs" who are "too busy with the more important things in life" to respond to a NM log...) It's still hard to determine the story when you cache beyond your usual range, but statistically speaking, if a cache has a string of dnfs and a NM log posted, there's a better than 75% chance there is a problem with it. And if you actually read the logs you will most often find a series of notes indicating problems with the cache long before the first NM is logged. COs who want to be helpful periodically check on their caches and post OM logs to let folks know the cache has been checked. Folks who place more than 50 caches (or fewer multies with that many stages total) can be sure that at any moment one or two of them need attention and should plan on periodic maintenance runs. Log your OM visits so folks can tell you are fixing things as needed.

Where are these stats coming from?

[+barefootjeff]

Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic.

First of all, I claim that even in this case where there's a string of OMs, they're still all more important than any other log they'll knock out of the list. This might be more open to question for other log types, but your claim here is that something important in someone else's log is going to get scrolled out of the PQ, so I humbly submit that you, as the owner, should move that information somewhere where it won't get lost no matter who posts what logs.

 

But even if you don't buy that, it's the other OM logs that are the problem, not the new one you're adding which reports your recent visit. So if you're really worried about this, I recommend adding the OM log and deleting the oldest OM that comes after the most recent log by someone else. That's the OM that's obsolete and no longer interesting, not the one that says you visited the cache and found that all is well as of yesterday.

All my hides are in bushland, some quite remote, so most of the found (or DNF) logs are several paragraphs long describing the seekers' trials, tribulations and joys in their journey. I think that'd be a lot more helpful to someone trying to work out their own best way to reach the cache than a string of OMs from me saying routine visit, everything's good. For caches like these, giving away too much information in the description spoils the adventure - a T4 cache is meant to be tough - and everyone will have their own take on how best to get there. Likewise, such caches, which around here are typically well-made and hidden high and dry under rock ledges, rarely have problems or go missing, so a string of OMs saying everything's good actually conveys very little useful information.

Edited July 10, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+edexter]

noncentric asked "Where are these stats coming from?". I track the nearest couple of thousand caches to me, over time, and have documented the results. I maintain a number of "A List" caches and notice what happens to them. I track my many dnfs to see if the cache was present or not, if not if it is ever replaced.

You are informed of the fate of any cache you "watch", so collecting the data is straightforward but tedious.

[+dprovan]

All my hides are in bushland, some quite remote, so most of the found (or DNF) logs are several paragraphs long describing the seekers' trials, tribulations and joys in their journey. I think that'd be a lot more helpful to someone trying to work out their own best way to reach the cache than a string of OMs from me saying routine visit, everything's good. For caches like these, giving away too much information in the description spoils the adventure - a T4 cache is meant to be tough - and everyone will have their own take on how best to get there. Likewise, such caches, which around here are typically well-made and hidden high and dry under rock ledges, rarely have problems or go missing, so a string of OMs saying everything's good actually conveys very little useful information.

I don't mean to argue with you since, of course, you know about your caches and I don't. But I find it really hard to believe anyone would be studying up on visiting your caches using a PQ. I'd expect them to be looking at the cache description itself with all the logs available.

 

But even having said that, I claim that for the caches you're describing, it would still be way more important to me to know that the CO visited the cache two weeks ago than to read about someone's experience 2 years ago. The experience 2 years ago will be interesting, of course, and might even be relevant, but I'd be crazy to depend on the accuracy of what someone found out in the bush two years ago.

 

Now if you don't want people to know you visited the cache recently because the certainty isn't something you want seekers to have, then feel free not to long an OM, but I don't think that justification has anything to do with multiple OMs pushing other logs out of the PQ. If you're worried about too many OMs in a row, then for the caches you describe, deleting old OMs seems like the correct approach, or just changing the date if you're really just going to say "everything's good" instead of giving any interesting details about your trip that you consider so important when other people describe their trip.

[+noncentric]

noncentric asked "Where are these stats coming from?". I track the nearest couple of thousand caches to me, over time, and have documented the results. I maintain a number of "A List" caches and notice what happens to them. I track my many dnfs to see if the cache was present or not, if not if it is ever replaced.

You are informed of the fate of any cache you "watch", so collecting the data is straightforward but tedious.

Thanks for the answer. Good to know that those numbers apply to your caching area, but doesn't necessarily represent all caching areas. I'm sure some other areas are similar, but some might be better/worse and not have the same stats that you detailed.

[+barefootjeff]

All my hides are in bushland, some quite remote, so most of the found (or DNF) logs are several paragraphs long describing the seekers' trials, tribulations and joys in their journey. I think that'd be a lot more helpful to someone trying to work out their own best way to reach the cache than a string of OMs from me saying routine visit, everything's good. For caches like these, giving away too much information in the description spoils the adventure - a T4 cache is meant to be tough - and everyone will have their own take on how best to get there. Likewise, such caches, which around here are typically well-made and hidden high and dry under rock ledges, rarely have problems or go missing, so a string of OMs saying everything's good actually conveys very little useful information.

I don't mean to argue with you since, of course, you know about your caches and I don't. But I find it really hard to believe anyone would be studying up on visiting your caches using a PQ. I'd expect them to be looking at the cache description itself with all the logs available.

 

But even having said that, I claim that for the caches you're describing, it would still be way more important to me to know that the CO visited the cache two weeks ago than to read about someone's experience 2 years ago. The experience 2 years ago will be interesting, of course, and might even be relevant, but I'd be crazy to depend on the accuracy of what someone found out in the bush two years ago.

 

Now if you don't want people to know you visited the cache recently because the certainty isn't something you want seekers to have, then feel free not to long an OM, but I don't think that justification has anything to do with multiple OMs pushing other logs out of the PQ. If you're worried about too many OMs in a row, then for the caches you describe, deleting old OMs seems like the correct approach, or just changing the date if you're really just going to say "everything's good" instead of giving any interesting details about your trip that you consider so important when other people describe their trip.

Many a time I've found myself out in the field scratching my head and scrolling down through the short list of logs I get on the Garmin, looking for a little nudge that'll set me on the straight and narrow. Rocks, creeks and tracks don't move much, even if those logs are a couple of years old. At those times, OM logs saying routine check, everything's good aren't much help. Isolated bush caches rarely go missing.

 

My usual practice is to log an OM if I've actually done something to the cache or the listing, even if it's just something trivial like replacing a pencil, or if it's been going on a year since anyone else visited the cache. If anything in the landscape has changed that might affect access to the cache, I'll amend the description as well as mentioning it in the OM. But if the last log was a recent find, say in the last few months, adding an OM saying nothing's wrong seems a bit like the town crier ringing his bell and yelling it's 2 AM and all is well.

 

That said, I appreciate it's a different situation for urban hides where muggled caches are a much greater possibility and reassuring regular OMs are no doubt helpful.

Edited July 10, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+dprovan]

That said, I appreciate it's a different situation for urban hides where muggled caches are a much greater possibility and reassuring regular OMs are no doubt helpful.

OK, thanks for the conversation. I understand your points. I happen to feel the opposite: the longer the trek to GZ, the more I'd appreciate knowing that the CO recently confirmed that the cache is in place. As you say, urban hides are muggled all the time, so the CO of an urban hide telling me he visited last week means almost nothing. Besides, I'm not investing much to go look for an urban cache even if it is missing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

That said, I appreciate it's a different situation for urban hides where muggled caches are a much greater possibility and reassuring regular OMs are no doubt helpful.

OK, thanks for the conversation. I understand your points. I happen to feel the opposite: the longer the trek to GZ, the more I'd appreciate knowing that the CO recently confirmed that the cache is in place. As you say, urban hides are muggled all the time, so the CO of an urban hide telling me he visited last week means almost nothing. Besides, I'm not investing much to go look for an urban cache even if it is missing.

 

No thanks. Then I'd be spending all my time checking on my caches. I have a number of hiking caches. (That's what geocaching used to be about.) I do not check on them very often. My first hide I checked on after nine years, but only because I was hiding new caches in the area. It is in good condition.

I've been doing a fair bit of 'lonely cache' hunting recently. Two not found in over four years. Five not found in over three years. Off in the woods. Most in excellent condition. One not found in 2.5 years. Four finds. Four favorites. Container is cracked. CO will do owner maintenance.

That's my style of geocahing!

[+dprovan]

No thanks. Then I'd be spending all my time checking on my caches. I have a number of hiking caches. (That's what geocaching used to be about.) I do not check on them very often. My first hide I checked on after nine years, but only because I was hiding new caches in the area. It is in good condition.

Yes, I agree completely. Sorry for the confusion. We were talking about if the CO went to a cache that no one visited since the previous OM, whether he should post another OM. I used the time frame of "last week" because it makes the case obvious, but the same logic applies when we're comparing the value of an OM that's a year old vs. a found log that's 3 years old.

 

By no means was I saying COs of back country should visit them all the time just for me. I was only saying that when they do visit them, news about that visit is way more important, in my way of thinking, than anything older in the log. Indeed, it's precisely because COs don't typically need to visit their distant caches very often that I value so highly the news that they did visit them and confirmed them in good working order.

[+edexter]

concentric wrote "Thanks for the answer. Good to know that those numbers apply to your caching area, but doesn't necessarily represent all caching areas. I'm sure some other areas are similar, but some might be better/worse and not have the same stats that you detailed."

Yes, exactly. You can easily see if your area is any different in a few minutes. Pick any cache "at random", open the cache page and click on "nearest caches" and a list of 20 caches will appear. Scroll down and click on the caches with "red wrenches" (there will be a couple), open the first one, review the logs beginning with the NM log and note the result. First, did the CO respond to the NM log in any way? Second, does the problem noted persist? (broken caches can't fix themselves, but folks sometimes replace wet logs). Repeat this until you have data for 20 caches. By now you will have noticed two things: 1, Almost every page has at least one "red wrench" 2, On average there are two per page, or roughly 10% which means at any given moment about 10% of all caches have an open NM log that the CO has not responded to.

Another "back of the envelop" look if you use GSAK to track your finds is to sort for archived caches and open 20 of them at random and record who archived the cache (CO or Reviewer) and why. If it is the reviewer note the reason (typically it is for not responding to an NA log) and for the CO it is typically the cache was stolen or damaged and they decided not to replace it. Maybe 10% of the time a CO archives and removes an active cache with no maintenance issues, but the rest of the time it's because they decide not to maintain it. More accurate stats require a more tedious approach but this quick and dirty approach makes it clear that Owner Maintenance, or lack thereof, is a big deal.

So for those folks who do plan to maintain their hiking caches, record your Owner Maintenance, please. It helps us to know it was there and in good shape in the recent past.

[+J Grouchy]

All my hides are in bushland, some quite remote, so most of the found (or DNF) logs are several paragraphs long describing the seekers' trials, tribulations and joys in their journey. I think that'd be a lot more helpful to someone trying to work out their own best way to reach the cache than a string of OMs from me saying routine visit, everything's good. For caches like these, giving away too much information in the description spoils the adventure - a T4 cache is meant to be tough - and everyone will have their own take on how best to get there. Likewise, such caches, which around here are typically well-made and hidden high and dry under rock ledges, rarely have problems or go missing, so a string of OMs saying everything's good actually conveys very little useful information.

I don't mean to argue with you since, of course, you know about your caches and I don't. But I find it really hard to believe anyone would be studying up on visiting your caches using a PQ. I'd expect them to be looking at the cache description itself with all the logs available.

 

But even having said that, I claim that for the caches you're describing, it would still be way more important to me to know that the CO visited the cache two weeks ago than to read about someone's experience 2 years ago. The experience 2 years ago will be interesting, of course, and might even be relevant, but I'd be crazy to depend on the accuracy of what someone found out in the bush two years ago.

 

Now if you don't want people to know you visited the cache recently because the certainty isn't something you want seekers to have, then feel free not to long an OM, but I don't think that justification has anything to do with multiple OMs pushing other logs out of the PQ. If you're worried about too many OMs in a row, then for the caches you describe, deleting old OMs seems like the correct approach, or just changing the date if you're really just going to say "everything's good" instead of giving any interesting details about your trip that you consider so important when other people describe their trip.

Many a time I've found myself out in the field scratching my head and scrolling down through the short list of logs I get on the Garmin, looking for a little nudge that'll set me on the straight and narrow. Rocks, creeks and tracks don't move much, even if those logs are a couple of years old. At those times, OM logs saying routine check, everything's good aren't much help. Isolated bush caches rarely go missing.

 

My usual practice is to log an OM if I've actually done something to the cache or the listing, even if it's just something trivial like replacing a pencil, or if it's been going on a year since anyone else visited the cache. If anything in the landscape has changed that might affect access to the cache, I'll amend the description as well as mentioning it in the OM. But if the last log was a recent find, say in the last few months, adding an OM saying nothing's wrong seems a bit like the town crier ringing his bell and yelling it's 2 AM and all is well.

 

That said, I appreciate it's a different situation for urban hides where muggled caches are a much greater possibility and reassuring regular OMs are no doubt helpful.

 

OMs are crucial if there is a NM log. Even if you didn't have to do anything, getting rid of the NM wrench is important.

Otherwise, OM logs are really only necessary if you actually DO maintenance. If not, a Note is sufficient.

[+dprovan]

OMs are crucial if there is a NM log. Even if you didn't have to do anything, getting rid of the NM wrench is important.

Otherwise, OM logs are really only necessary if you actually DO maintenance. If not, a Note is sufficient.

When I'm looking at a log, I'll typically ignore a note. An OM tells me it's the CO talking, so I sit up and listen. So I ask: why not file an OM? I fail to see the advantage of filing a note to report that you checked on your cache and it didn't need anything.

[+*GeoPunx*]

On 7/11/2017 at 10:59 AM, dprovan said:

When I'm looking at a log, I'll typically ignore a note. An OM tells me it's the CO talking, so I sit up and listen.

^^this is my opinion as well.