|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Feb 23, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -9
Hello All: I'll use this thread to keep you posted on broader reviewing activities in Alaska. One of a reviewer's roles requires checking up on caches that have had the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set for more than a couple of months. There are currently more than 400 caches in Alaska with the "Needs Maintenance" attribute showing on the cache page. This attribute appears when a cacher writes a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page. The attribute can only be cleared by the cache owner writing an "Owner Maintenance" log to the cache page. Cache Owners can help by routinely checking their cache pages for the attribute as sometimes the "Needs Maintenance" log e-mail gets lost in the shuffle. The attribute looks like this: Another reviewer duty includes performing a regular sweep of long disabled caches needing attention. These are caches that were "Temporarily Disabled" by the cache owner or the reviewer several months earlier and there has not been recent activity. For these caches, the reviewer will post a note requesting an update on the cache status and a maintenance plan. If there is not a response from the cache owner, the cache will more than likely be archived thirty days later. A cache owner response at the very least should be a note to the cache page stating their plans and at best will result in a reenabled cache. There are approximately sixty caches in Alaska with this status. Finally, there are caches that show signs of possible problems such as a string of DNFs that indicate the cache may be missing. There are about forty caches in Alaska that meet this criterion. The reviewer will write a Reviewer Note to the cache page asking the cache owner to check on the cache and verify all is, indeed, well via a note to the cache page. If the cache owner does not respond within about thirty days, the cache may be archived. Archival is a certainty if the cache owner has not logged onto the geocaching.com website in the past ninety days. Any caches archived via this process may be reactivated via a Reviewer Note to the page by the cache owner. The archived cache will then be reviewed for compliance with the current guidelines including proximity to any new caches that may have been published while the cache was archived. All totaled, there are more than 500 caches in Alaska requiring some sort of Cache Owner action, ranging from simply clearing the "Needs Maintenance" attritute to replacing a missing container. Please bear with me as I work through the list. As of last night, I was about 60% done and hope to finish the effort by the end of this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Feb 23, 2011 13:37:43 GMT -9
I've run into a couple CO's who had no idea about how to clear the Needs Maintenance attribute. There are 2 easy ways.
1- Post an Owner Maintenance log to the cache stating that the cache was checked, repaired, and in good order.
OR
2- Go into the Edit Attributes for the cache, which is available only to the CO. You can go down to the Needs Maintenance attribute and clear it.
;D
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Feb 23, 2011 14:14:24 GMT -9
I've run into a couple CO's who had no idea about how to clear the Needs Maintenance attribute. There are 2 easy ways. 1- Post an Owner Maintenance log to the cache stating that the cache was checked, repaired, and in good order. OR 2- Go into the Edit Attributes for the cache, which is available only to the CO. You can go down to the Needs Maintenance attribute and clear it. ;D I prefer Option 1 because other cachers can see that the owner visited the cache whereas with Option 2, the attribute simply disappears with no explanation and that part of the cache's history is lost.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Feb 23, 2011 16:57:00 GMT -9
I should elab on option 2 as being for those cases where the maintenance was done and the CO posted a Note (or made no post at all) instead of an OM log and the cache has good finds since the maint was done. There are a number of caches I've run into that have the NM attribute active from a cacher's NM log that occurred many months prior. In those cases, a new OM log doesn't do anything "historically" as the cache just needs the NM attribute cleared "administratively".
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Feb 24, 2011 13:34:48 GMT -9
I that case, the cache owner could edit their "Note" to make it an "Owner Maintenance," or they can still enter an "Owner Maintenance" log with the approximate date of the maintenance visit. Either way, it shows the cache owner is not an absentee owner and one can tell from glancing at the log icons at the top of the log section how much of what kind of activity has occured.
An administrative fix via turning off the attribute on the edit attributes page may technically work, but it doesn't do anything to tell the viewer whether the cache owner is taking care of their cache.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on May 5, 2011 19:55:09 GMT -9
A question for our Greatland Reviewer...
There are still a number of caches out there with NM tags as well as a listings of long-lost trackables. The owners don't seem to be very involved in the sport, but the caches are still getting plenty of hits through the summer caching season.
If I, or any other concerned cacher, personally checked on some of these caches, can you (as the reviewer) clear the NM status and move the TBs to missing based on a personal report from a non-owning cacher? This is, of course, for a cache that has gone for quite some time without any action by the listed owner.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on May 6, 2011 8:47:50 GMT -9
A question for our Greatland Reviewer... There are still a number of caches out there with NM tags as well as a listings of long-lost trackables. The owners don't seem to be very involved in the sport, but the caches are still getting plenty of hits through the summer caching season. If I, or any other concerned cacher, personally checked on some of these caches, can you (as the reviewer) clear the NM status and move the TBs to missing based on a personal report from a non-owning cacher? This is, of course, for a cache that has gone for quite some time without any action by the listed owner. I posted a Reviewer note on most, if not all, caches that had the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set as of February 5, 2011, with instruction on how the "Needs Maintenance" attribute could be cleared with the intent of cache owners sprucing up their caches for the upcoming "high season." It is up to the cache owner to maintain their cache and cache page. The attribute on the cache pages serves as a flag for other cachers that the cache may or may not be maintained by an active cacher. Exceptions to that approach will be taken for caches listed in the "Community Maintained" thread.A cacher may post a note to a cache and say something like "checked on the cache, all is well, Needs Maintenance attribute can be cleared" as a nudge to the cache owner and a signal to the community that the cache is actually all right. A cacher may also change out a log book, dry out a container, replace a container, etc., as a service to the general community. If one really likes a cache that is not maintained and wishes to assume ownership and maintenance, one may contact the cache owner with an adoption request. The cache owner may initiate the adoption request via this link.For missing travel bugs and geocoins, a note can be written to the traveler's page (one doesn't need the tracking number to write a note), informing the traveler's owner that it is not the cache. The traveler's owner can then "Mark Item As Missing" if they so choose or not, because they may have other information about the traveler (e.g. the previous finder picked up the traveler and moved it to another cache without recording the number, is mailing the traveler to the cache owner at the owner's request and didn't log it out of the cache, or any number of other things). Travelers that are still showing in the inventory of caches that get archived receive an auto-generated note that marks them as missing.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Oct 22, 2011 13:32:51 GMT -9
A question for our Greatland Reviewer... <snip> If I, or any other concerned cacher, personally checked on some of these caches, can you (as the reviewer) clear the NM status and move the TBs to missing based on a personal report from a non-owning cacher? This is, of course, for a cache that has gone for quite some time without any action by the listed owner. I just realized I didn't directly answer SSO JOAT's question. It's Groundspeak policy that Groundspeak is a listing service and the cache and the cache page are the accountability of the cache owner as long as Groundspeak's Terms of Use and Guidelines are adhered to. As such, Groundspeak prefers that its volunteer Reviewers do not change a cache page without approval from the cache owner. If the cache owner has gone absent and the cache develops some real problems, a "Needs Archived" log can be written to the cache page which will bring the cache to the Reviewer's attention for subsequent action.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Oct 22, 2011 13:41:25 GMT -9
I completed an Autumn clean-up of caches suffering from a long string of DNFs or were disabled during much of the summer. At the end of August, I wrote a Reviewer Note to the troubled cache pages requesting a maintenance status or resolution of the issue within thirty days. I subsequently circled back about forty-five days later and archived the caches for which there had been no cache owner response. Caches that had a Cache Owner note on them in response to my original note but had not been fixed up received a reminder nudge. I'll check those caches again in about a month.
All told, this effort required following up on more than 140 caches all across Alaska and should result in relatively "clean" pocket queries going into the winter caching season.
Shortly, I'll make another pass at the hundreds of caches out there with outstanding "Needs Maintenance" attributes set. Caches where that is the only "problem" will not get archived, but they will receive a friendly Reviewer Note with instructions on how to clear the attribute.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Dec 31, 2011 0:02:48 GMT -9
I spent a good chunk of the past three days trying to clean things up for the New Year.
I archived caches that have been disabled for an extended period of time and the cache owner had not responded to prior Reviewer Notes requesting a status update. Most owners of these caches have not logged onto the geocaching .com site for several months in in several cases, for years.
I posted Reviewer Notes on temporarily on about sixty temporarily disabled caches that had been that way since my September sweep. I requested a cache owner response within 30 days so cachers know if the caches will eventually be reenabled. If there is no response to the Reviewer Note by the time of my next sweep, those caches will be archived.
I posted Reviewer Notes to several dozen caches with strings of DNFs requesting a cache owner response. I will not take further action on these caches until my next maintenance sweep at which time I will archive the caches whose owners have not visited the geocaching.com website during that time.
I posted reviewer notes on about 350 caches statewide that have the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set with instructions to the cache owner on how to clear the attribute with an "Owner Maintenance" log. In many cases. the cache has been fixed up by the owner or a Good Samaritan cacher, but the owner did not subsequently clear the attribute. I will not take further action on any of these caches unless they decay to the point of no longer being viable.
No one should feel "singled out" by these actions. Heck, I caught a Ladybug Kids cache that had the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on it since last summer.
Let's all resolve to be responsible cache owners in 2012 and stay on top of maintenance issues as they appear.
|
|
|
Post by violapreacher on Jan 3, 2012 11:00:15 GMT -9
As Alaska reviewers, I have a question and possibly a request. I have hidden a cache while on a trip to Alaska with the hope of sharing it with a cacher that could maintain it. Looking for a co-sponsor for GC2Z52Z "Welcome To My World" Would love some advice.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 3, 2012 11:28:38 GMT -9
Alaska is nearly 16 times larger than Tennessee. What part of Alaska is this cache hidden in? (e.g. closest city or town)
Note that we can't see the cache behind your posted GC# until it gets published.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 3, 2012 21:35:16 GMT -9
The provided coordinates appear to be in the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge near the confluence of the Kanuti and Koyukuk Rivers. A cache cannot be published in a National Wildlife Refuge without express permission of the land manager.
However, a Google Search on the hint that refers to Mekiana Drive, places the cache in Anaktuvuk Pass at N68° 08'. Anaktuvuk Pass is off the road system and I am not aware of any cachers who live in the area or (in)frequently visit the area. Your best bet may be to try to engage someone from the guide service you most likely used who would be willing to take on care and feeding of the cache. However, someone reading this post might surprise us all and volunteer to take it on. Ilikebuttermilk visits a lot of the bush communities, but seems to frequent western coastal without forays into the Interior or North Slope. You might try dropping him a note to see if your cache location is on his itinerary.
I personally would love to visit Anaktuvuk Pass and use it as a jumping off point for Gates of the Arctic or an epic float trip, but that isn't in my future for several more years.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Apr 28, 2012 6:49:06 GMT -9
I performed a statewide Spring cleaning for geocaches.
I archived caches that have been disabled for an extended period of time and the cache owner had not responded to prior Reviewer Notes requesting a status update. Most owners of these caches have not logged onto the geocaching.com site for several months in in several cases, for years. Archivals are not permanent! A Cache Owner may e-mail Greatland Reviewer through his profile with the GC number for the cache and request unarchival if all is well with the cache. The unarchiving process requires re-review of the cache against the current guidelines.
I posted Reviewer Notes on about ninety-five caches that have been temporarily disabled for more than a month. The purpose of the Reviewer Note is to remind the Cache Owner that their cache is not ready to be found even though prime caching season is nearly upon us.
I posted Reviewer Notes to several dozen caches with strings of at least three DNFs requesting a cache owner response. The purpose of the Reviewer Note is to remind the Cache Owner that their cache may not ready to be found even though prime caching season is nearly upon us.
I posted reviewer notes on about 350 caches statewide that have the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set with instructions to the cache owner on how to clear the attribute with an "Owner Maintenance" log. In many cases. the cache has been fixed up by the owner or a Good Samaritan cacher, but the owner did not subsequently clear the attribute. I will not take further action on any of these caches unless they decay to the point of no longer being viable.
No one should feel "singled out" by these actions. I caught two Ladybug Kids caches that had the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on them since early winter.
Let's all resolve to be responsible cache owners in 2012 and stay on top of maintenance issues as they appear.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Apr 28, 2012 20:08:46 GMT -9
I got notices of some of these caches that where spring cleaned and I appreciate it. I had a few notices from the reviewer on a cache or two, and it helped to keep them in mind to repair them. One in Seward took some time to get fixed but the reminders helped me to get the repair done before tourist season. It's up and running now, and even better than before. Thanks Greatland Reviewer. Who's the brown noser here
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Apr 29, 2012 8:11:22 GMT -9
I agree this was something that need address and dealt with. I think a clean up of dead caches is important.
Although, I've noticed a few caches that got archived had new caches placed there on the very next day from archiving. I think this is to quick. In one case it sounded like the archived cache container was removed from GZ, so the new cache container could be placed.
I don't think a bunch of DNF's from cachers with low number of finds dictate a cache being missing and in need of archiving. And if it is there, why is it being removed, more experienced cachers can confirm it's still there.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Apr 29, 2012 8:23:22 GMT -9
I think more help from local, active expierenced cachers, when something is wrong with an older cache could also help with this.
I know I have adopted one cache that I now maintaine for the original owner, and there are 5-6 more that are in my neighbor hood that I found before but I often go by and check on. I also have fixed the hide and put in new containers for for a few more.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Apr 29, 2012 8:24:27 GMT -9
Had I found the container for a recently archived cache, I would have logged a "found it" and let the cache owner know the cache was all right through a note sent to his profile. However, after talking to one of the people involved this morning, he had significant additional information about the cache that gave all involved good reason to believe the cache was essentially abandoned.
Things appear to be working themselves out and we have a new Cheechako Member in GeocacheAlaska!
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Apr 29, 2012 8:29:34 GMT -9
Had I found the container for a recently archived cache, I would have logged a "found it" and let the cache owner know the cache was all right through a note sent to his profile. Good point. This would have let the Cache Owner know s/he could request that the cache be unarchived. Note, however, that in most if not all cases, the caches that were archived during the recent Spring cleaning all had a Reviewer Note placed on them in December 2011, suggesting follow-up. Greatland Reviewer will always give a cache owner at least a month to respond to an (apparent) issue. In this round, cachers had four months. Some cachers replied during that time that they would check on their cache after the snow melted in April/May. For those caches, Greatland Reviewer wrote a reminder that the snow had melted, but took no further action. I can't emphasize enough the importance of good communication between the Reviewer, the Cache Owner, and the Caching Community via the Reviewer Notes, Notes, Owner Maintenance, Needs Maintenance, and Did Not Find logs.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Apr 29, 2012 8:32:48 GMT -9
I think more help from local, active expierenced cachers, when something is wrong with an older cache could also help with this. Yes, caching community life support for troubled caches can extend the life of a cache. There are hundreds of caches in Alaska that have been abandoned by their owners (some of whom have not visited the site in years), and they keep perking right along. It's only those caches that develop issued identified by "Needs Maintenace," a string of DNF logs, or "Needs Archived" that get "special" Reviewer attention.
|
|
FlightRiskAK
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 66
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by FlightRiskAK on May 1, 2012 22:57:47 GMT -9
I know this thread deals primarily with Geocaching.com but I think it is important to note that there are several other cache listing sites. A geocache that is archived on geocaching.com might still be active on another site so it is worth noting. Also, geocaches do not "legally" need to be listed anywhere so to speak. I think this might be worth thinking about when removing an archived cache and replacing it with one's own cache. I've been pondering this issue a lot lately...
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on May 2, 2012 20:20:47 GMT -9
Good point. I know of one "disgruntled" cacher who claimed they were going to archive their GC listings after listing them on OC and then only use the OC from that point forward. So it is not only possible, but actually a very real issue to have caches out there that are not listed on GC.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on May 3, 2012 6:31:52 GMT -9
What is OC ?
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on May 4, 2012 0:20:57 GMT -9
Garmin's own "OpenCaching" website.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on May 4, 2012 8:15:40 GMT -9
Thank you SSO. I checked it out, and i don't like it one bit
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Feb 23, 2013 16:58:32 GMT -9
Mike, can you confirm/clarify the part about NM/disabled checks? Is that something asked of you by Groundspeak, or is that the preference of some reviewers and not others? I have heard conflicting information when it comes to the "duties" asked of reviewers. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Feb 23, 2013 19:49:55 GMT -9
Mike, can you confirm/clarify the part about NM/disabled checks? Is that something asked of you by Groundspeak, or is that the preference of some reviewers and not others? I have heard conflicting information when it comes to the "duties" asked of reviewers. Thanks! "Needs Maintenance" (NM) is intended by Groundspeak to be a means for cachers to let Cache Owners know there is an issue without getting the Reviewer involved. For a couple of years, twice each year, I wrote Reviewer Note on caches that appeared to be all right, but still had the NM attribute set. After seeing fewer than ten percent or so of the caches with the NM attribute get resolved by the Cache Owner, I will NOT be checking on caches with the NM attribute as regularly. There are currently 409 caches in Alaska with the NM attribute and it takes too much time to visit each cache page, assess the cache condition based on cache logs, and write a reviewer note for that low of a response rate, especially since Groundspeak does not expect the "service" of its Volunteer Reviewers. Groundspeak does expect Reviewers to check caches that have been Temporarily Disabled by the Cache Owner. I typically check the Temporarily Disabled list twice a year, once at break-up to encourage cachers to take care of their caches as caching weather is upon us, and once in the fall to encourage cachers to take care of their caches before winter arrives. The quickest way to get a Reviewer's attention is to write a "Needs Archived" (NA) log on a cache page when a cache clearly has issues with an illegal placement or has issues and the Cache Owner has been unresponsive to NM logs or other notifications and/or hasn't logged onto the geocacheing.com site for an extended period of time. NA logs go straight to the Reviewer and I'll typically give the Cache Owner a week or two to respond before I take action.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Mar 2, 2013 9:05:59 GMT -9
[quote "Needs Maintenance" (NM) is intended by Groundspeak to be a means for cachers to let Cache Owners know there is an issue without getting the Reviewer involved. For a couple of years, twice each year, I wrote Reviewer Note on caches that appeared to be all right, but still had the NM attribute set. After seeing fewer than ten percent or so of the caches with the NM attribute get resolved by the Cache Owner, I will NOT be checking on caches with the NM attribute as regularly. There are currently 409 caches in Alaska with the NM attribute and it takes too much time to visit each cache page, assess the cache condition based on cache logs, and write a reviewer note for that low of a response rate, especially since Groundspeak does not expect the "service" of its Volunteer Reviewers. Groundspeak does expect Reviewers to check caches that have been Temporarily Disabled by the Cache Owner. I typically check the Temporarily Disabled list twice a year, once at break-up to encourage cachers to take care of their caches as caching weather is upon us, and once in the fall to encourage cachers to take care of their caches before winter arrives. The quickest way to get a Reviewer's attention is to write a "Needs Archived" (NA) log on a cache page when a cache clearly has issues with an illegal placement or has issues and the Cache Owner has been unresponsive to NM logs or other notifications and/or hasn't logged onto the geocacheing.com site for an extended period of time. NA logs go straight to the Reviewer and I'll typically give the Cache Owner a week or two to respond before I take action. Excellent post, thank you. It's always nice to get clarification on things like this so that we might not take your extra efforts for granted! I've always appreciated when Reviewers take the time to voluntarily add to their volunteer duties and check in on NM or disabled caches. That said, THANK YOU for having done this for as long as you have. It is a very nice service indeed!
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Apr 28, 2013 8:18:15 GMT -9
I just completed Spring cleaning on all 5000+ Alaskan geocaches to help get things ship shape for when cachers who hibernate during the winter come back out into the daylight and the tourist cachers arrive. This process involved reviewing the status of more than 450 caches that have been disabled for more than a couple of months, had a Reviewer Note posted on October 2012 due to any number of issues, or had three or more consecutive DNFs after a consistent string of finds. Caches that received a Reviewer Note in October 2012 to which the Cache Owner had not responded and still appeared to have issues were archived. This resulted in 89 cache archivals. Cache Owners who still have an interest in maintaining an archived cache may request to have their cache unarchived by contacting me through my Reviewer Profile (the link is in the archival note). As of this morning, I've received and have honored three requests to unarchive caches. Caches that have been disabled since October 2012 and have not previously received a Reviewer Note received a Reviewer Note requesting the Cache Owner to fix the cache problem and reenable the cache or archive the cache. Caches with a string of DNFs following a consistent find history received a different Reviewer Note requesting the Cache Owner to verify the cache is still viable before a cacher writes a "Needs Archived" log to the cache page. Later this Spring or Summer, I will review these caches and archive those caches that have ongoing problems with no Cache Owner engagement. Cache Owner engagement can be demonstrated with a Note log written to the cache page indicating intent to maintain the cache or an Owner Maintenance log reporting that the issue(s) have been resolved. There are currently more than 400 caches in Alaska that have the "Needs Maintenance" attribute due to a cacher writing a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page. The Needs Maintenance log is intended to be a means for cachers to communicate cache issues to the Cache Owner without Reviewer involvement. Many of the caches with the red wrench (see last week's Geocaching.com Weekly Update e-mail for more information or the attached documents) or white cross attribute are in fine shape and just need the attribute removed. This may be done by writing an "Owner Maintenance" log to the cache page. In the past, I have tried to coach cachers by writing Reviewer Notes to cache pages with the Needs Maintenance attribute with instructions on how to remove the attribute (visit the cache page, click on "log your visit" and select "Owner Maintenance" log), but very few cachers followed up by taking the necessary steps. I may over time try another round of Reviewer Notes, but it's very time consuming for a low Cache Owner response rate.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on May 5, 2013 8:50:26 GMT -9
From time to time, I get a question about why I published a cache page with spelling mistakes or why I won't administratively remove a "Needs Maintenance" attribute from a cache page when all is well with a cache.
It's Groundspeak's policy that cache page content belongs to the Cache Owner, so Reviewers are instructed not to edit cache pages unless directed by the Cache Owner (e.g. change coordinates more than 0.1 mile/528 feet). That's why cache pages with the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set despite the cache being all right, html problems, and spelling mistakes live on with their issues.
|
|