I'm considering....

[+thehoomer]

MrsB says

 

 

:laughing: , One can always rely on Mrs B for a humour injection. Thanks :laughing: .

[+redsox_mark]

I think it is fine and would be appreciated by some, and especially in some circumstances.

 

While I do not routinely do this as a finder, I have done it a couple of times, and one of them was this week. I was in Cambridge (150 miles from home). Before I left I solved this really excellent puzzle, with a view to finding the cache when in Cambridge.

 

When I got there, I found only the magnets which had been attached to the box. As I had been in previous correspondence with the owner (who had said "It should be easy to find: if you have problems, drop me a line"), I didn't log anything at first, but sent him a mail describing the location and the magnets. Within an hour he emailed me back confirming it was missing, and offering that I could log it as a find.

 

I did so. Even though I understand that I did not find the cache and sign the physical log. Why?

 

1. The puzzle itself was the main challenge with this cache. The owner even provided a clear spoiler photo on the geochecker page. I did solve the puzzle, and visited GZ, and found some remains of the cache.

 

2. I was leaving Cambridge that day. (The owner replaced it the next day when I was already home).

 

3. I wanted to give it a favourite point. It was a fantastic puzzle; and no matter what the box looks like I would give it a FP.

 

Now I understand some of you will say "but you didn't find it". The only way it makes any sense if one can accept a less literal interpretation of "found it"... i.e. which log best (in MY view) matches my overall experience? As the puzzle (and traveling to GZ) was most of the challenge (in MY view), I felt it was the most appropriate log. I don't expect others to agree with my view. But I don't believe I am the only cacher in the world who on some occasion would appreciate an offer like the OP is proposing.

 

A local cache which I could easily go back and find once replaced? I would log a DNF.

 

Another example which happened to me last week, which shows the range of "grey area" which can exist. It was a multi cache. I found the cache, but could not sign the log as designed. The log was on laminated sheets, and there was supposed to be a permanent marker pen in the cache. The pen was missing. I tried to sign with my ordinary pen but it would not work. So I added a piece of paper and signed that. Now, this example is closer to "found it" then the Cambridge one. My only point is some will argue "found it" means "found the cache and signed the log as provided by the owner" - and with that definition I should have logged DNF. But I logged a Find.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I've been offered to convert a previous DNF after the CO has confirmed it missing - I took them up on the offer.

That seems a bit puzzling - it infers that you didn't find the cache at all. Isn't that a DNF? Particularly considering your comment:

It's not about the numbers to me, but it is about my journey - many caches I won't get to go back but I still want a journal of where we've been and I use geocaching.com to keep that.

 

Just to balance it out, here's some things I will log a DNF for: Neither logbook nor container found

I'm even more confused.

I also regard my cache logs as a journal, but if I don't find a cache then I log that I haven't found it and that's all part of the journal. So none of the above seems to make any sense. Perhaps it's clear but I'm just being slow!

 

As an example, I can look at my cache logs from Wednesday and see that I attempted a cache series consisting of 24 caches. At a glance I can see that I had finds on numbers 1,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,22 and 23. DNF on 5,13,15,17,19,20,and 21 (the others I'd already found on a previous visit, except 24 which I couldn't attempt). 13,15 and 17 are now disabled as the CO suspects they have disappeared. Would you be inclined to log those as "finds" in some way? If so, it would seem bizarre: I never found them, and whether they were there to be found or not is irrelevant. At the moment my DNFs are useful to me as a record, and to others for obvious reasons.

 

I hope by my post I didn't infer that I never log DNF's or I do this all the time. Quite the contrary - your example provided is a bit of straw man. I have plenty of DNF's logged, some were quite annoying and painful to log but I logged them anyway and if you want to see a good example of how much effort we're prepared to put into a DNF here:

 

http://www.geocachin...cf-6f9fbf66e788

 

So with that out of the way. I see I some very legalistic approaches to this hobby in this thread and if that's how you get your kicks then fine, but I'm not interested in losing sleep over the hobby, judging others or starting wars. That's why I took to avoiding these forums and only occasionally interject now.

 

As a husband and wife team, we're not in a race with anyone but ourselves. Stats are only important for us and we're not even attempting to compare to other cachers. We choose to cache the same way we do life, which is to say sometimes we bend the rules, sometimes we ignore them, but we have grace towards others that do the same.

 

With regards to the particular example you inquired about, I was thinking of a puzzle cache at the time we had solved, but on getting to GZ there place had been torn up by a car accident and barriers had been put up. The CO let us change the DNF and disabled the cache. No harm done to any other cachers and it meant I didn't have to return later.

 

Seriously some people need to switch to decaff... (not you in particular HH, but some in this thread).

[+Happy Humphrey]

Before I left I solved this really excellent puzzle, with a view to finding the cache when in Cambridge.

(A note to TheHoomer - this is a little off topic so no need to reply!).

 

Ironically, I was in Cambridge last month and attempted a FTF on that very same cache (too late by a couple of hours!). All I can say is that it was nice of the cache owner to offer you a find, and if it had been me I would have thanked him and politely declined (despite the long journey).

 

Another point for those who enjoy the finer points of etiquette; I hadn't actually solved the puzzle at the time of the find. If the puzzle is basically all you need to do and the cache is pretty much irrelevant then perhaps I shouldn't have logged it as a Find, even though I did find it. Of course, I did log it as a Find, because I found the cache. It's nice that this game is so straightforward, unlike so many things in real life.

 

The same morning I went on to another puzzle cache a short walk away (University Library) and found the spot using the hint, but no cache. You couldn't mistake it really as the hint is very specific, but in case the CO found it useful to check I took a few photos of the cache site. Did I think about posting a "Find"? Of course not - why would I? Incidentally, I wonder why "Farmers son" thinks it useful to post a NA on a cache that he's not visited?

[+redsox_mark]

Ironically, I was in Cambridge last month and attempted a FTF on that very same cache (too late by a couple of hours!). All I can say is that it was nice of the cache owner to offer you a find, and if it had been me I would have thanked him and politely declined (despite the long journey).

 

Yes, that is a coincidence.

 

And I understand you (and many others)would have handled it differently.

[+Lord_Blackadder]

Incidentally, I wonder why "Farmers son" thinks it useful to post a NA on a cache that he's not visited?

 

Indeed... and apparently has created that account just to log that "Needs Archived" (No finds at all). Weird.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Incidentally, I wonder why "Farmers son" thinks it useful to post a NA on a cache that he's not visited?

 

Indeed... and apparently has created that account just to log that "Needs Archived" (No finds at all). Weird.

...and this one...of mine.