Needs maintenance OR needs archived?

[+the alston's]

I came across a geocache in a Texas State Park today that was no longer accessible because the trail the cache was hidden on was closed indefinitely for repairs. The park rangers said we weren't allowed to go on the trail and they weren't sure when it would be repaired, so we weren't able to get to the cache. I logged the cache as a needs maintenance, posted a pic of the trail closed sign and explained in the log what was going on. The owner rudely informed me in a cache log (not via email or PM) that " Holy Jesus! just because the trail needed maintenance didn't mean the cache needed maintenance!"

 

This cache obviously needs to be moved and rather than post it as a "need archived", (According to GC.com under when to use a "need archived" it is totally acceptable when the cache is in an area that is off limits or questionable) I thought logging it as "needs maintenance" would give the CO a chance to move it rather than have it flagged for archiving. What would have been the log I should've used?

Edited June 24, 2016 by the alston's

[+not2b]

I came across a geocache in a Texas State Park today that was no longer accessible because the trail the cache was hidden on was closed indefinitely for repairs. The park rangers said we weren't allowed to go on the trail and they weren't sure when it would be repaired, so we weren't able to get to the cache. I logged the cache as a needs maintenance, posted a pic of the trail closed sign and explained in the log what was going on. The owner rudely informed me in a cache log (not via email or PM) that " Holy Jeaus! just because the trail needed maintenance didn't mean the cache needed maintenance!"

 

This cache obviously needs to be moved and rather than post it as a "need archived", I figured the "needs maintenance" would give the CO a chance to move it. What would have been the log I should've used?

 

It's common in cases like this for the CO to disable the cache until the trail reopens, rather than archive it. Disabling lets seekers know not to go looking for it, but allows the cache to be re-enabled later on. "Needs archived" would only be appropriate if the trail is being permanently closed.

 

In this case, "needs maintenance" isn't right either: the CO was right that the cache does not need maintenance. I think the proper log is just a Note, mentioning the trail closure and suggesting that the CO disable it until the trial reopens. If he/she doesn't do this, then at least the note is present so other cachers might see it.

[+NanCycle]

I came across a geocache in a Texas State Park today that was no longer accessible because the trail the cache was hidden on was closed indefinitely for repairs. The park rangers said we weren't allowed to go on the trail and they weren't sure when it would be repaired, so we weren't able to get to the cache. I logged the cache as a needs maintenance, posted a pic of the trail closed sign and explained in the log what was going on. The owner rudely informed me in a cache log (not via email or PM) that " Holy Jeaus! just because the trail needed maintenance didn't mean the cache needed maintenance!"

 

This cache obviously needs to be moved and rather than post it as a "need archived", I figured the "needs maintenance" would give the CO a chance to move it. What would have been the log I should've used?

 

Since there isn't an option for "Needs Temporarily Disabled" I think the NM was a good choice. I don't think a simple "Note" would have been sufficient. Don't let the rude CO get to you.

[+L0ne.R]

You were absolutely in the right. As a finder I would appreciate it because it flags the cache. I filter out caches with active NMs. Thank you for doing the right thing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't think the CO was rude. He pointed out that you were wrong in posting that it needed maintenance. Which was rather insulting of you. But it should be disabled until the trail reopens. I had four caches in parks that were closed for rebuilding for quite a while. I disabled them. They didn't need maintenance. One park reopened after six months. Reactivated the cache. One took nine months. One was closed for three years, so I archived it and hid another. The other I archived after the hiding place was destroyed. And yes, the reviewer asked me every couple of months to check on them and leave a note.

[+Manville Possum]

Post a needs archived to let the local reviewer know that the cache is temporary unavailable and let them sort it out.

Other geocachers need to be aware the cache is unavailable at this time.

[+niraD]

Temporarily disabling a cache that is currently inaccessible due to trail closure, construction, or anything else is a form of maintenance. Maintenance applies both to the cache itself, and to the listing.

 

I think a NM log was perfectly appropriate. I've used NM a few times when GZ was right in the middle of a construction zone or other off-limits location.

 

Of course, this assumes that the trail closure made the cache location inaccessible, which is probably the case if the park has any sort of "stay on the trails" policy.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't think the CO was rude. He pointed out that you were wrong in posting that it needed maintenance. Which was rather insulting of you.

 

Completely disagree.

 

The idea that in the circumstances described a needs maintenance log is some form of insult to the cache owner is completely ridiculous.

 

The CO overreacted and an appropriate response would have been to thank you for the information and to temporarily disable the cache and post occasional updates as long as it remained disabled.

[+Manville Possum]

I don't think the CO was rude. He pointed out that you were wrong in posting that it needed maintenance. Which was rather insulting of you.

 

Completely disagree.

 

The idea that in the circumstances described a needs maintenance log is some form of insult to the cache owner is completely ridiculous.

 

The CO overreacted and an appropriate response would have been to thank you for the information and to temporarily disable the cache and post occasional updates as long as it remained disabled.

 

I agree with you. The reason I suggested in my previous post to post a NA to alert the reviewer is because the CO is slacking on temp disabling the listing and keeping geocachers posted on the cache.

[+the alston's]

I don't think the CO was rude. He pointed out that you were wrong in posting that it needed maintenance. Which was rather insulting of you. But it should be disabled until the trail reopens. I had four caches in parks that were closed for rebuilding for quite a while. I disabled them. They didn't need maintenance. One park reopened after six months. Reactivated the cache. One took nine months. One was closed for three years, so I archived it and hid another. The other I archived after the hiding place was destroyed. And yes, the reviewer asked me every couple of months to check on them and leave a note.

I don't see how posting a NM is considered insulting. I was simply trying to inform the owner that they need to either move it, or temporarily disable it because fellow cachers will be wasting their time on this cache because it's located in a place that you will not be allowed to go. To me, any "work" done on the cache regardless of if its replacing a ruined log or moving to a place where you are allowed to hunt it up is maintenance.

[+TriciaG]

I agree with you - it's not an insult, and it was appropriate. But he probably won't be allowed to go in and move the cache; a temporary disable is probably the best bet.

 

If the CO hasn't temporarily disabled the cache listing, so that you don't antagonize him further with an NA log, you might want to message the reviewer for that area and let him/her know privately what's going on. They can see any deleted logs, so they can investigate a bit. Then they can disable the cache if they feel it's appropriate.

[+ConsHaltonCache]

I don't think the CO was rude. He pointed out that you were wrong in posting that it needed maintenance. Which was rather insulting of you.

 

Completely disagree.

 

The idea that in the circumstances described a needs maintenance log is some form of insult to the cache owner is completely ridiculous.

 

The CO overreacted and an appropriate response would have been to thank you for the information and to temporarily disable the cache and post occasional updates as long as it remained disabled.

 

I agree with you. The reason I suggested in my previous post to post a NA to alert the reviewer is because the CO is slacking on temp disabling the listing and keeping geocachers posted on the cache.

 

Dido.

 

The cache owner was rude. There is no need for swearing at all, and the reaction was prity extreme for a simple NM. It may have been more considerate to message the cache owner privately about the situation first but based on the extreme response to a simple NM I am not sure the owners response would be any different to a PM and a NM is nice to alert the other cachers that there may be an issue at the site if the owner is slow to disable. As an owner I would be happy with either form of contact to let me know there was an issue. Certainly no reason to take a NM personally. Its an easy attribute to clear once the issue is resolved.

 

If the cache was still active but the trail maintenance prevents access then a Needs Maintenance was perfectly acceptable. The cache page needs action from the cache owner. Needs Maintenance is to inform the cache owner that they need to take action of some sort, either physical or to the listing. In this case the maintenance was not to the physical cache but to the listing. No need for an owner to get upset about being given this information. If the cache owner refuses to disable the cache while it is inaccessible then I would likely to post a Needs Archive after a month or so in order to alert the reviewers of the situation. Edit: TriciaG's solution is better, alert the reviewer privately is a good solution if the owner takes no action. Its inappropriate to leave the cache active if there is no hope of accessing the area or if one is trespassing to access it....

Edited June 24, 2016 by ConsHaltonCache

[+lee737]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

 

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre!

[+lee737]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

 

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre!

 

Part of the cache is its listing on the site. If the cache can't be accessed then there is a problem that needs addressing, ie maintenance is needed - NM is a perfectly legitimate way to inform the CO of this. The advantage of a NM log is that it immediately informs other cachers as well, in case the CO is a bit slow.

[+L0ne.R]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

 

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre!

 

Part of the cache is its listing on the site. If the cache can't be accessed then there is a problem that needs addressing, ie maintenance is needed - NM is a perfectly legitimate way to inform the CO of this. The advantage of a NM log is that it immediately informs other cachers as well, in case the CO is a bit slow.

 

And believe or not, there are cache owners who value the NM. We want people to use it. It's a good alerting tool.

[+NanCycle]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

 

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre!

 

I disagree that this is an entirely different problem. As there is no log type that refers to maintaining the cache listing versus maintaining the cache itself, I still think that the NM was completely appropriate. Especially as the text of the log explained what the problem was. I've seen numerous NM logs posted when it was the coordinates that needed corrective action.

[+lee737]

 

And believe or not, there are cache owners who value the NM. We want people to use it. It's a good alerting tool.

 

Precisely. Some COs seem to take it as a personal insult, much like you have just said their baby is ugly or something?

No cache was ever archived just because someone posted an NM (so long as the cache had a diligent CO attached to it).....

[+narcissa]

Needs Maintenance was the correct log. Since the cache owner seems intent on disregarding the express wishes of the land manager, it would now be appropriate to use Needs Archived to get a reviewer involved.

[+Manville Possum]

Needs Maintenance was the correct log. Since the cache owner seems intent on disregarding the express wishes of the land manager, it would now be appropriate to use Needs Archived to get a reviewer involved.

 

You are so correct.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

 

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre!

 

Perhaps instead of nitpicking to death what the term Needs Maintenance actually means and becoming offended at some phantom insult, the CO (or you) could just take the NM for what it is: a log to alert you to an issue with the cache. It doesn't have to just be the actual container that needs maintenance. What I found utterly bizarre is that a CO would flip out over a simple NM log.

[+NanCycle]

 

What I found utterly bizarre is that a CO would flip out over a simple NM log.

 

This is far from being the first time that has happened.

[+Team Microdot]

Yep, you were correct. The cache itself may not have needed maintenance, but the cache listing did.

 

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre!

 

The cache includes the listing - the information made available to those seeking the cache.

 

The cache includes its availability status - enabled or disabled.

 

The CO's response amounts to outrage at being informed of circumstances which render the cache unfindable and being asked to flick a switch to reflect that.

 

And I can't decide which is more bizarre - the CO's response or your attempted mis-education of someone seeking guidance.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I came across a geocache in a Texas State Park today that was no longer accessible because the trail the cache was hidden on was closed indefinitely for repairs. The park rangers said we weren't allowed to go on the trail and they weren't sure when it would be repaired, so we weren't able to get to the cache. I logged the cache as a needs maintenance, posted a pic of the trail closed sign and explained in the log what was going on. The owner rudely informed me in a cache log (not via email or PM) that " Holy Jeaus! just because the trail needed maintenance didn't mean the cache needed maintenance!"

 

This cache obviously needs to be moved and rather than post it as a "need archived", I figured the "needs maintenance" would give the CO a chance to move it. What would have been the log I should've used?

 

Since there isn't an option for "Needs Temporarily Disabled" I think the NM was a good choice. I don't think a simple "Note" would have been sufficient. Don't let the rude CO get to you.

 

The way I see it, "Mainenance" just doesn't apply to the physical container, but also to the cache listing. In this case, the cache listing needs maintenance, which at the very least means changing the status to Disabled.

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

NM = the CO needs to do something about this cache

 

NA = the Reviewer needs to do something about this cache

 

CO needs to take a chill pill and disable the cache.

[+The A-Team]

The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not.

The OP did not report that the cache container needs maintenance. They very matter-of-factly stated that there was an issue with access, along with proof. You can look at the cache listing and the logs yourself if you don't believe them; it's easy to find the cache listing in question given the information in this discussion.

 

I find the CO's and Harry Dolphin's reactions so absurd that I just can't wrap my head around it. Both reactions come off as, "How dare you pass along useful information to me about my cache!?", which is simply mind-boggling.

 

@the alston's: You absolutely did exactly the right thing by using the Needs Maintenance log type and providing a photo of the sign. Ignore those who feel passing along this information is somehow insulting and know that you have lots of people who support your actions. From the CO's subsequent response on the cache listing, it seems apparent that they have no desire to do anything about their cache, so it's definitely time to involve a reviewer either by logging a Needs Archive log or contacting a reviewer directly.