Help
I am having a bit of trouble determining the proper way to log a cache once I find it. To date, I have located 15 caches, about 6 of those have needed some sort of maintenance. In 3 cases, I entered a "Found It" log and then Emailed the owner about the problem (this method can be a bit time consuming). For the remaining caches, I decided to enter a "Found it" log and a "Needs Maintenance" log for each cache, respectively. The reason for both is as follows:
"Found it" - An entry describing my experiences in locating the cache, and (possibly) a brief note at the end about the need for maintenance. This log also allows me to bring up all of my located/found caches on the gc.com website by requesting a listing of those 'found'.
"Needs Maintenance (NM)" - This log describes in detail the problems found with the cache. I am assuming that the owner is notified directly about the NM entry (which should help the owner if he/she manages a lot of caches). Also, the detail here should help the owner since he/she will know in advance what "needs fixing" and can bring the needed items to "repair" the cache.
QUESTIONS:
1. Is this the way most other geocachers report/log caches that need maintenance, or is doing two logs on a single cache considered redundant? That is, if I only do a NM log, it should be obvious that I "Found it", right? Otherwise, how else would I know that maintenance is needed for a particular cache?
2. The only "rub" here (see #1) is that gc.com will not include in a requested listing of "Found it" caches those logs entered as NM. So based on that, I assume the NM log is considered (by gc.com) a separate entity, totally different from documenting the fact that one has actually found a cache?
If someone could give me some feed-back on this topic, I's appreciate it. Maybe the solution would be for gc.com to have another log entry title/subject such as, "Found it - Maintenance Needed".
Thanks for the help.
Page 1 of 1
Logging a Cache "Found It" verses "Needs Maintenance"
#2
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:52 PM
Waegn, on 04 May 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:
..snip..
QUESTIONS:
1. Is this the way most other geocachers report/log caches that need maintenance, or is doing two logs on a single cache considered redundant? That is, if I only do a NM log, it should be obvious that I "Found it", right? Otherwise, how else would I know that maintenance is needed for a particular cache?
2. The only "rub" here (see #1) is that gc.com will not include in a requested listing of "Found it" caches those logs entered as NM. So based on that, I assume the NM log is considered (by gc.com) a separate entity, totally different from documenting the fact that one has actually found a cache?
If someone could give me some feed-back on this topic, I's appreciate it. Maybe the solution would be for gc.com to have another log entry title/subject such as, "Found it - Maintenance Needed".
Thanks for the help.
QUESTIONS:
1. Is this the way most other geocachers report/log caches that need maintenance, or is doing two logs on a single cache considered redundant? That is, if I only do a NM log, it should be obvious that I "Found it", right? Otherwise, how else would I know that maintenance is needed for a particular cache?
2. The only "rub" here (see #1) is that gc.com will not include in a requested listing of "Found it" caches those logs entered as NM. So based on that, I assume the NM log is considered (by gc.com) a separate entity, totally different from documenting the fact that one has actually found a cache?
If someone could give me some feed-back on this topic, I's appreciate it. Maybe the solution would be for gc.com to have another log entry title/subject such as, "Found it - Maintenance Needed".
Thanks for the help.
Nope, a Smiley "Found It" and a NM is exactly the right way to go.
A "Combined" one would be a bad idea IMO. A CO, especially one with lots of caches, would be more likely to pick up on a NM log.
#3
Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:02 PM
You did that correctly. There should be two separate logs. The "needs maintenance" log also gives a cache the NM attribute (the white plus sign on red) so that other cachers are aware of it. In a perfect world, the CO will post an owner maintenance log when he fixes the cache and remove the attribute from the listing.
It also helps if you, as a cacher, also carry some items to help with maintenance. By no means are you required to do so, but it's neighborly to throw in a new log if the other is wet or in pieces and perhaps replace the baggie and remove trash. Generally this is the limit of cache help; it's generally agreed that a whole container shouldn't be replaced. There are debates that this leads to lazy cache owners, so it's up to you whether a little help is all that's needed so that you don't need to post a NM log or if you leave it up to the CO. Obviously cracked, chewed, or otherwise damaged containers need a NM log.
BTW, I've discovered that about 30-40% of the caches I find need at least a little assistance, and I'm of the opinion that since I'm right there, I might as well help if I have the materials on me.
It also helps if you, as a cacher, also carry some items to help with maintenance. By no means are you required to do so, but it's neighborly to throw in a new log if the other is wet or in pieces and perhaps replace the baggie and remove trash. Generally this is the limit of cache help; it's generally agreed that a whole container shouldn't be replaced. There are debates that this leads to lazy cache owners, so it's up to you whether a little help is all that's needed so that you don't need to post a NM log or if you leave it up to the CO. Obviously cracked, chewed, or otherwise damaged containers need a NM log.
BTW, I've discovered that about 30-40% of the caches I find need at least a little assistance, and I'm of the opinion that since I'm right there, I might as well help if I have the materials on me.
#4
Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:08 PM
Waegn, on 04 May 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:
1. Is this the way most other geocachers report/log caches that need maintenance, or is doing two logs on a single cache considered redundant? That is, if I only do a NM log, it should be obvious that I "Found it", right? Otherwise, how else would I know that maintenance is needed for a particular cache?
You did everything exactly right. It's actually a shame more people don't do what you did. Some cachers won't even mention if a cache needs maintenance.
As far as a NM implying that you've found it, that's not necessarily true. A cacher may log a NM if a cache appears to be missing. The cache isn't there, so maintenance is certainly needed! Also, if someone is revisiting a cache they've previously found (like going along with a new finder), they may want to mention that it needs maintenance, but there's no need for another "Found it" to be registered.
#5
Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:29 PM
Waegn, on 04 May 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:
1. Is this the way most other geocachers report/log caches that need maintenance, or is doing two logs on a single cache considered redundant? That is, if I only do a NM log, it should be obvious that I "Found it", right? Otherwise, how else would I know that maintenance is needed for a particular cache?
I do it the way you've been doing it -- Found It followed by Needs Maintenance.
If I make a return visit to a cache (say to drop off a TB) and I discover the cache needs maintenance that would be an example of a situation where I wouldn't want to log a Found It and a NM in the same log.
Another example: A Difficulty 1 cache that has had 150 straights Finds on it and then suddenly there are four or five DNFs. The cache no longer appears where the hint says it should be. That would be a situation where I might want to log a DNF and then a NM.
#6
Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:05 PM
My thanks to 'Huntleigh', 'ByronForestPreserve', 'The A-Team', and 'DanOCan' for your very helpful replies on this topic. The NM verses "Found it" logs has presented a dilemma for me since I joined gc.com and started logging my caches about 3 months ago. It's great to know that I have been following the correct procedure, and to finally get this quandary resolved. 
I also appreciated the insights on why a "Combined" log entry would not work, and how one might need to only do a NM log on for those situations where the cache is missing, or has been previously found. On the subject of helping with cache maintenance, I generally do carry a few items to help with maintaining caches when/as needed, but will try to expand on that aspect of my Geocaching in the future.
Regarding those that do not complete a NM log when one is needed; I think this is really a disservice to other geocachers, and a disservice to promoting the game/activity of geocaching. I know I find it a bit disappointing when, after finding a cache after a long search, it is (e.g.) water-logged and the signup sheet is too wet to use, and/or the SWAG is either floating in water, or has a mildew/moldy smell. Those people who found the cache at an earlier date, and ignored the responsibility of doing a NM log, are not giving the CO a chance to correct the situation. Also, other geocachers, perhaps "newbies", or perhaps a family on an outing with young kids, will locate this cache at a future date and leave the site with the impression that the geocaching game is a farce, caches are nothing more than hidden trash containers, and the time spent finding a cache is not worth it. The end result of these negative experiences is that the geocacher loses interest and drops out of what could, otherwise, have been a very interesting and rewarding activity.
I also appreciated the insights on why a "Combined" log entry would not work, and how one might need to only do a NM log on for those situations where the cache is missing, or has been previously found. On the subject of helping with cache maintenance, I generally do carry a few items to help with maintaining caches when/as needed, but will try to expand on that aspect of my Geocaching in the future.
Regarding those that do not complete a NM log when one is needed; I think this is really a disservice to other geocachers, and a disservice to promoting the game/activity of geocaching. I know I find it a bit disappointing when, after finding a cache after a long search, it is (e.g.) water-logged and the signup sheet is too wet to use, and/or the SWAG is either floating in water, or has a mildew/moldy smell. Those people who found the cache at an earlier date, and ignored the responsibility of doing a NM log, are not giving the CO a chance to correct the situation. Also, other geocachers, perhaps "newbies", or perhaps a family on an outing with young kids, will locate this cache at a future date and leave the site with the impression that the geocaching game is a farce, caches are nothing more than hidden trash containers, and the time spent finding a cache is not worth it. The end result of these negative experiences is that the geocacher loses interest and drops out of what could, otherwise, have been a very interesting and rewarding activity.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1