-CJ-

No Actually, I'm here in this thread to learn more about the traditions of the game and listen to different opinions. Thank you for your lessons

DNF = did not find, and find means there was some search for the cache before that. I cannot log DNF if I didn't search. Once I planned to find a series of 7 geocaches along a pathway near Liffey, they were in my 'geocaching schedule' for that afternoon. I could say that my hunt started early that morning. I enjoyed walking in Phoenix Park so much that it was late when I got to the mentioned series of Liffey caches. I managed to find only one of the series. Spent much time desperately looking for another one but failed (so DNF). When I approached the next cache I realized it was too dark to search for a little container. So I abandoned the idea and just enjoyed my stroll along Liffey, passing all cache locations by. I even walked to a couple of GZs (since they were a step from the path). I didn't log the caches of these series as DNF because I didn't search for them except for the first two. Were my actions anything wrong or unusual?

I own a geocache that is a chess puzzle. Has been published at the national website for years. No one (as far as I remember) completed it in one day. Not published at geocaching.com yet. (Need to go there and check all stages, it's not easy because of the terrain).

I try very hard to put only facts in my DNF logs, not conclusions. The fact is I couldn't find it. And I agree with that. (I wonder why people like this point so much? This must be a painful problem in geocaching) Have you ever thought that there was a chance that container could be stolen? Never? I think that situations may be different.

Then we're lucky in our region. A couple of DNFs? I'm surprised that there are reviewers that used to hurry so much. The idea that DNF is not a synonym to a missing container is so basic that it seems any reviwer should understand it. Especially if we take into account that some people log DNFs without actually searching for containers.

As I tried to explain, this was just misunderstanding. Of course I didn't mean they were synonyms.

I subscribe to this too.

My words were that if I looked for some cache for a reasonable time period and found nothing, taking into account my experience, the difficulty of the cache and other circumstances, I can say that the cache is probably missing. (Sorry if my English was not good enough). I don't say the cache is missing or must be missing. This is my explanation of the blue smiley; other may have their own versions, for instance, as it was said, some people believe that their hunt starts when they leave their homes. As we can see from this thread already it's not that simple. I don't expect everybody following my way of thinking but since the original question was "To DNF or not DNF" and described some very specific situation I would answer that in my opinion it wasn't a DNF case because the cache hunter didn't do any search for the container and even didn't get to the GZ.

The statement is not "the container is missing" but "with my experience and after reasonable search I can state that the container might be missing".

I used to leave a DNF message when I spent enough resources to make a reasonable conclusion that the cache could not be found by me in that circumstances or could be lost at all. For example, I approach a D=1.5 cache at night, walk to the GZ, look at the description carefully, see that the hint is "ivy". I can imagine the cache is pretty easy at daylight since the tiny contaner could be seen by a sharp eye. However at night it will take me much more efforts with that thorny bushes until I catch the little box with my fingers and these efforts won't be much fun. So, after few seconds of thinking, after I overviewed the area I simply give up and go away. A note, I think. I was at the GZ but I didn't search actually. I cannot say neither that I really made an attempt on this cache nor that the cache was gone. However I felt I needed to share my experience with others because the cache had an attribute "Recommended at night" and I would argue with that. I never thought that my hunt began when I left my house. Perhaps it is because I'm more and old school hiker than an old school cacher

We don't use such containers for caches.

I also think like that.

Was close to be seriously wounded once inside an abandoned military construction deep in woods. Passed my headlamp to another member of the team and almost immediately fell into a gap in darkness. Luckily, my backpack prevented me from falling another 5 meters to concrete basement so I managed to get out. Since then I've used headlamps for every member of my team in such conditions as a must. Every time I hear about someone's being injured during his/her hiking route I feel it's about the lack of experience. One guy broke his leg when hunting for one of my remote caches. Together with his mates he was trying to pull out a 4x4 Jeep with another heavy vehicle from the bog when the metal hawser snapped. One of the worst cases I remember was when one of newbies went to woods to hunt a geocache in winter. (It was in Russia, mind that). For some unknown reason he started late so he had little time to walk deep in the forest (where the cache was hidden) and return to civilization before darkness. He wasn't skiing. He also lacked gas stove, matches, headlamp, food, hot tea/coffee and enough warm clothing, as well as a good map and compass. And he was also pretty new to this sport and to hiking at all. The poor guy managed to get to the cache but then decided to walk further and cross the forest and reach the remote village where there was a good road. This wasn't a brilliant idea. After a while he understood this and turned back but it was too late - already dark and he was too exhausted to continue walking through deep snow. Luckily, he still had a mobile phone with him and managed to call other cachers. So, a resque team arrived asap and got him out of there. In my experience this was a classic example of how a person could do almost everything to get buried while geocaching. Nevertheless, I found it very difficult sometimes even to persuade people to wear good boots while going to the country. You meet them at a railway station, ready to go, wearing nice new light Gore-tex trainers with wide smiles on their faces when seeing your heavy knee-boots and a waterproof coat. Few years after that I got a call from people whom I didn't know; they apparently were at one of my geocaches. Again, it was winter and dark already. There were three of them. They lacked gas stove, matches, headlamps... so on. Lord, it was exactly the same situation. They even had the very same intention to "just walk a bit through this forest and get to that village we've heard about". I managed to organize a rescue attempt with the help of my friend who lived in the town nearby and a couple of hiking gurus who knew that very forest well. Luckily, the rescue team managed to find these poor guys in the snowy forest before any of them was seriously frostbitten.

I don't mind long cut-and-paste logs if they make you happier

I think we repeat what have already been said. "TFTC" is the worst log as you see it (as a CO). OK. To me it's neither good or bad, just nothing. Whatever is my role, a CO or a cache hunter, it's still nothing. You can get something useful/interesting from a paragraph of cut-and-pasted text which has no relation to the cache. Good for you. To me it's still nothing. The longer text takes more time to read. "If you leave 20 cut-and-paste logs which have no relation to the specific caches you visited, would you mind if I ask you to make them shorter?" This is my questions to cut-and-paste logs authors.

In this example I especially like this place: "One of many..."

So do I. In my first years of geocaching (much earlier then I joined this website/community) I was among those who believed that we could improve the game by maintaining other's geocaches in any situation. The other side of the problem was however that COs didn't actually take any responsibility for their hides. After 10 years the result was that many caches were left muggled and abandoned and there have been endless talks about their maintenance. We still have cachers who are happy to to maintenance for abandoned caches. I know one of these activists in person. He used to travel a lot and maintained many caches on his routes. I personally stopped doing this for COs that don't care about their own hides. At the other hand, I used to do maintenance for active COs who take care of their caches and are easy to communicate. Yesterday I replaced one such geocache in Moscow, it was stolen for the second time so I had to walk a little and find some other (better) hiding place and spent some time working on a container specially for this place... but I know it was worth doing because I've been in contact with this cache's CO and he was quite a responsible and friendly guy.

Again, as I see this thread going, it's not about "long cut-and-paste logs are better then TFTCs" but "TFTCs are worst logs at all so everything else is better". For some number (many?) COs "TFTC" means something like "this cache was awful and I don't have any good words for it". So, it's pretty simple and straightforward explanation and the discussion may be over at this point. Harry Dolphin just gave a good example of a long variant of TFTC.

We've published not so many events around here so such complaints/demands are not much common. However I was in the same situation when one guy posted a NA message for the event that he believed must be archived. (Of course, he didn't attend it himself). I followed his advice and archived the event next day (why not? it really was time to archive it). However I know this guy to be a cache cop. He's always posted messages like "difficulty is not 1.5 but 1 here" or "coordinates should be corrected, they're 10 meters off", or "reformat your text so it's friendly to my Garmin device", etc. Sometimes his notes were useful and sometimes they were boring. I think it's mostly not about the period for events to stay unarchived at the site but about people of this sort. Whatever you do he/she will find something to oppose to or complain about. Last time the mentioned guy rushed to post "this puzzle requires geocheckers" at one of my newly published (and pretty simple) puzzles; the posting appeared within one day since the cache appeared at the website and the guy didn't even make an attempt to find it

Many different reasons. Thank you all for sharing your experience with me. From what I heard I think the most valuable even for small events is probably a logbook as a way of keeping of records of all previous events. I think I'm among those who used to organize events on a regular basis so I will probably think about such logbook. Yesterday we also hold a Geocaching in Space Event here in Moscow. No logbook was introduced however. For bigger events (like the annual CITO event we used to hold nearby Moscow) the logbook would be even a better idea. We had to make records of attendees, both for reasons of safety and accounting (we collect a small fee to cover our CITO expenses). I think it will not be a problem to turn this into a logbook.

So, he knows that the cache was archived and that most probably the cache has gone. Nevertheless he visits the location and searches for the container. Right? First, it's good practice for me as a CO to include a message describing my plans for the hide and its current status. Second, there is a cache hunter who cares about geolitter. Let's say I didn't add that message to my listing. What I say is that this fact doesn't mean that the cache hunter becomes the owner of the cache and is allowed to move the container. It means the lack of information. This problem can be solved by calling the CO. If the cache owner doesn't respond it's also not good but does not automatically mean that he lost his ownership. It's just an example. Throwdowning may be explained by the same approach: "Because the thinks". He's not the cache owner to do maintenance, to move or place a container. He did not contact the CO for additional information. However he thinks that the cache was not in its place - so he places a trowdown. I agree. I also agree with the idea that geolitterig is bad. (Well, I've organized all CITO events in my area for years ). The very first message in this thread says that the caches were archived recently. Were they not only archived but also abandoned? I wonder what is so difficult in contacting COs of what you think may be a geolitter?

In one of threads I read At one of my last events (that I organized) a couple of people approached me with a question if I had a logbook to sign. I said no (I actually prepared an event page at the site, a tour in the city and three puzzle caches in the area but didn't think about any special logbook). What is your advice whether I should prepare such logbooks for my events or not? In what situations do you believe they are valuable? If you have seen such logbooks at events earlier in your geocaching life would you please describe how it was organized at whole? Was is just a common logbook where people wrote their nicknames and left it to the person who hold the event? Or was a special "event" cache (with a container) placed to keep this logbook? If it was a large event were there people who didn't sign the logbook (e.g. didn't pay enough attention)?

I liked this explanation.

I agree, this thread was not intended to discuss power trails logs.

So, in simple words, being not an owner of an archived geocache I still can retrieve it if I believe it's litter. Based on my own knowledge and understanding, whatever the geocaching guidelines say. Logical conclusion would be that I can improve the cache by myself if I believe it's not properly maintained according to the information that I have. Thus, throwdowns are OK. A good guy just places a new container after a series of DNFs. He uses the information he has and his geocaching experience/knowledge. No calls to the CO. No intention to return to the place again. If someone emails the throwdowner that he wasn't right he will go and retrieve his new hide.