Maintenance Visits & Logs

[Maple Leaf]

Just wondering what other people do....

.... when I visit one of my own caches for a routine check up, I log an 'owner maintenance' visit - therefore putting a green cross in the log - as I feel it is important that other cachers know the cache box (and clues if multi) have been checked (especially if there haven't been any recent finds and they have to put in a bit of time and effort to find the cache)

It was only yesterday that I read somewhere that this is also a way of removing a 'needs maintenance' blue cross. (as I have never had one of these logs on my caches :) I wasn't aware of this).

So now I am wondering, should I be using the 'owner maintenance' log or just 'write a note'..... or maybe other people don't write anything.

[Just Roger]

Like you I tend to post a Maintenance Log each time I visit one of my caches, especially the ones that get less finders. I think it shows that the owner is taking an interest and that the cache is still there. Personally I have reservations about going to look for a cache that hasn't had any logs at all for a long period as it may well be an abortive trip.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I post a Note if it's just a routine visit, but if I'm checking after DNFs I may post a Maintenance Log, if I remember, that is - when I began caching there were no MLs. I've had a blue cross, and yes, a ML does remove it.

[FollowMeChaps]

Just Roger - what he said.

[Bear and Ragged]

Don't think it matters, Note or Maintenance Log.
However, the green cross is more obvious, and I would certainly use it if previous logs mention any problems like log full, cache damp etc. even if a Needs Maintenance isn't posted.

[gazooks]

I post a Note if it's just a routine visit, but if I'm checking after DNFs I may post a Maintenance Log.

Ditto :cool:

[markandlynn]

We always post them as performed maintainance. It can give seekers a good idea of how seriously you take cache mainatainance if there is an issue.

[Happy Humphrey]

I always use "owner maintenance" too if I actually had a proper check of the cache. It just gives a little more information at a glance and doesn't cost anything.
Some cache owners also regularly check off all the entries in the log book against the web logs, but I feel that's it's over the top to be so fussy.

[pklong]

I rarely bother logging the visit unless a problem has previously been logged and not even then 100% the time.

Philip

[Happy Humphrey]

One problem with that is you can't see when you last visited.

As I have quite a few hides, I can't always remember which caches I checked on which days: sometimes it's useful to know exactly when you had a look at a particular cache. It can save you a journey.

For instance, some people wait a couple of weeks before logging their DNF - if it was the day before your visit you can discount the possibility that the DNF was due to the cache being muggled.

Another point is that I might not bother looking for a cache that hasn't been found in a few weeks, if it's a bit of an effort to get to. It may have disappeared and I'll have wasted my time. But if there's at least a note from the owner every once in a while, there's some reassurance that the cache is worth a go.