Multi-part benchmarks - what's a find? (poll)

[+Black Dog Trackers]

In the Geocaching website, for a multi-marker (multi-disk) PID:

[+brdad]

With my limited knowledge of the process, I'd say:

 

Any reference marker to the main marker is placed in order to locate the main marker, much like a clue would lead a cacher to a cache. You can't get credit for a cache just because you found a tree mentioned in a clue. However, it would be worthy of a note.

 

The only exception to this I could see is if you found all the reference markers AND could somehow prove within a reasonable doubt that the main marker was no longer there.

 

Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.

[+rogbarn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brdad:

The only exception to this I could see is if you found all the reference markers AND could somehow prove within a reasonable doubt that the main marker was no longer there.

---

 

Actually, in this case, you have a very definate "Not Found" or possibly even "destroyed". Of course, destroyed is a NGS term not in geocaching vocabulary. Just because you found the location doesn't mean you "found" the object you are looking for. Same thing applies to steeples, crosses, domes, etc that are no longer there. I've seen logs on geocaching where they are classified as found. That's the kind of thing we need to be careful of if we are going to report to the NGS. off>

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RogBarn:

off>

---

 

Haven't you ever "found something missing"?

 

That statement basically states what I was getting at, and, while I don't see that as a big problem when restricted to the geocaching site, I can now see where it could definately be a problem outside that realm, creating confusion for any intervention between them.

 

Has any "destroyed" option been proposed? Sounds like it'd be a good idea.

 

Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RogBarn:

off>

---

 

Haven't you ever "found something missing"?

 

That statement basically states what I was getting at, and, while I don't see that as a big problem when restricted to the geocaching site, I can now see where it could definately be a problem outside that realm, creating confusion for any intervention between them.

 

Has any "destroyed" option been proposed? Sounds like it'd be a good idea.

 

Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

If the main marker is destroyed/gone then no one is going to find it.

 

If we go with the idea that it's only a "find" if the main marker is found, then that PID will never be able to be listed as found even if all the reference marks and az mark are found.

[+OzzieSan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

If the main marker is destroyed/gone then no one is going to find it.

 

If we go with the idea that it's only a "find" if the main marker is found, then that PID will never be able to be listed as found even if all the reference marks and az mark are found.

---

 

That is correct, if the mark is gone the PID can not be found because, well it's gone. It's not really an idea but more a reality. How can it be a "find" if you don't find the "main marker"?

[+OzzieSan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brdad:

 

Has any "destroyed" option been proposed? Sounds like it'd be a good idea.

 

---

 

I dont think that is an option we need or want on this site. Reporting a mark destroyed is serious business. The following is taken from the NGS site.

 

quote:

---

Note: For destroyed marks do one of the following:

1) If you found the actual marker separated from its setting, you may report the point as destroyed. To do so please send the report on the destroyed mark as an email to ... In addition, please submit proof of the mark's destruction via actual disk, rubbing, photo or digital picture (preferred) to Deb Brown.

2) If you did not find the actual marker, then you should enter notes concerning evidence of its possible destruction as text records and select "Not recovered, not found" as the condition of mark.

---

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:

I dont think that is an option we need or want on this site. Reporting a mark destroyed is serious business. The following is taken from the NGS site.

 

quote:

---

Note: For destroyed marks do one of the following:

1) If you found the actual marker separated from its setting, you may report the point as destroyed. To do so please send the report on the destroyed mark as an email to ... In addition, please submit proof of the mark's destruction via actual disk, rubbing, photo or digital picture (preferred) to Deb Brown.

2) If you did not find the actual marker, then you should enter notes concerning evidence of its possible destruction as text records and select "Not recovered, not found" as the condition of mark.

---

---

 

Ya, I took the statement as "You better be darn sure it's missing" as well... and even they want you to post a note as a not found without total proof!

 

Maybe there should be a "I'd bet $20 it is missing" option. If it was ever found by someone else, the $20 would go to geocaching.com!

 

Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.

[+gnbrotz]

In my opinion the mark specifically linked to the PID is what must be found. Often the reference or azimuth marks will have their OWN identifier and can be logged seperately. If I'm looking for the station mark, then it's reference/azimuth marks don't count as a find. Conversely, if I'm recovering an azimuth mark, locating it's station mark doesn't count.

 

I also don't believe it's necessary to locate all of the reference marks AND the station mark to claim the station mark. 1 PID --> 1 mark to find --> 1 'found it' logged on the site. That being said, I do plan to attempt recovery of all related station marks if I can, but I won't require them of myself in order to log the station as 'found'.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

[+OzzieSan]

"I'd bet $20 it is missing" There have been several I would have bet on.

 

And I would like to second what Greg said.