[wheres_aldo]

This has probably been discussed before but I can't find anything on the subject.

I am surprised to find that logging a cache w/ 'Needs Repair' for such reasons as wet log or an animal has chewed off the side of the cache does not credit me with a find. Should I log it twice, once with a Found It and again with a needs repair?

This post has been edited by wheres_aldo: 22 April 2012 - 05:59 PM

[Gitchee-Gummee]

wheres_aldo, on 22 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

This has probably been discussed before but I can't find anything on the subject.

I am surprised to find that logging a cache w/ 'Needs Repair' for such reasons as wet log or an animal has chewed off the side of the cache does not credit me with a find. Should I log it twice, once with a Found It and again with a needs repair?

A 'Needs Maintenance' log and a 'Found It' log are necessarily two separate log types. If you want both, you must log both.

There are occasions where one re-visits a cache (for any number of reasons). Should you find it needs maintenance and log such -- you would then have 'Found It' twice.
That is why they are separate and distinct logs.

[StarBrand]

Somebody once suggested a check box in the NM log that (if checked) would also log a found on the same cache. Might be a good idea. Meanwhile - you need 2 logs.

[Max and 99]

Some people may want the Found It log to be a nice narrative of their adventure, but a NM log needs just some basic information for the cache owner.

[WRASTRO]

As the previous posters have noted the two log types are not associated. There are many reasons why someone might post a "Needs Maintenance" log on a cache but there really should only be one reason why someone posts a "found it" log.

[ncfinn]

Needs Maintenance-log also goes to the Reviewer, right?

It is also flagged so that others notice there might be a problem with it.

[The A-Team]

ncfinn, on 23 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Needs Maintenance-log also goes to the Reviewer, right?

No, reviewers are not alerted by NM logs. The "Needs archive" log does alert the reviewers.

[DannyCaffeine]

If you found it in poor shape, you still found it so you get to log it. Just be sure to do both "needs maintenance" and "found it" logs.

If you didn't find it and you think it was missing or destroyed (Like the place where it should have been is now demolished or you found just the lid to the cache then post a "did not find" and a "Needs maintenance" log.

[Gitchee-Gummee]

DannyCaffeine, on 24 April 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

If you didn't find it and you think it was missing or destroyed

Posting a 'NM' because you think a cache is missing is (IMO) not the thing to do. You should post a 'DNF' and note in that log that you think it may be missing.

Actually finding pieces of an apparent cache is a different story.

[StarBrand]

Gitchee-Gummee, on 24 April 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

DannyCaffeine, on 24 April 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

If you didn't find it and you think it was missing or destroyed

Posting a 'NM' because you think a cache is missing is (IMO) not the thing to do. You should post a 'DNF' and note in that log that you think it may be missing.
....

Fully agreed - please do not post an NM log just because you could not find it.

[J the Goat]

Gitchee-Gummee, on 24 April 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

DannyCaffeine, on 24 April 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

If you didn't find it and you think it was missing or destroyed

Posting a 'NM' because you think a cache is missing is (IMO) not the thing to do. You should post a 'DNF' and note in that log that you think it may be missing.

Actually finding pieces of an apparent cache is a different story.

If you read the rest of that post, it makes more sense. If there's construction or a signigicant obvious change to GZ, a quick search if possible is fine, but there's nothing wrong with a NM log just to let the CO know that something may have changed with their GZ.