Did I "Find It?"

[+dprovan]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

Funny how you make a comment in one thread about how nice cachers usually are...then make snide comments like that in here.

I don't understand what you consider snide about my remark. It's just a fact that it's easier to not log the find rather than trying to carefully craft the find log to avoid saying what really happened.

 

Not if the cache is half way around the world.

It's not around the world: it's "2km down the road". But since you bring it up, in the case where you cannot return to the cache again, it's even easier since you don't have to log a find at all.

[+J Grouchy]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

Funny how you make a comment in one thread about how nice cachers usually are...then make snide comments like that in here.

I don't understand what you consider snide about my remark. It's just a fact that it's easier to not log the find rather than trying to carefully craft the find log to avoid saying what really happened.

 

Not if the cache is half way around the world.

It's not around the world: it's "2km down the road". But since you bring it up, in the case where you cannot return to the cache again, it's even easier since you don't have to log a find at all.

 

"Carefully craft"? That's getting a bit ridiculous...

I don't generally say whether I did or didn't sign the log sheet in my online logs. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I can't recall ever having to "carefully craft" a story around whether a pen hit paper during my time at GZ.

[+redsox_mark]

I will give my personal view for this specific and for the general case.

 

For this specific case: I would log a DNF. I've had a similar situation many times, where I tried but I physically could not get to the cache. The cache was intended to involve a climb, and if I can't do it, that's a DNF for me.*

 

In the general case: I am not one who is strict on the logbook MUST be signed in all cases. I think it is OK to go by the "spirit" of the intent (so long as the CO agrees).

 

An example, I once logged a find on a cache which was next to a wasp's nest. The cache was easy to reach, I could reach it, but not without disturbing the nest. I took a photo, the CO confirmed that was his cache, and said I could log it as a find. To me I did find it; the wasps were not something the CO intended. Likewise I could have logged a DNF, but I felt "found it" described my experience the most accurately. It all depends if you see the signing as the main thing, or as a just part of finding.

 

I'm not convinced by the argument "if you didn't sign the log, how do you know it was the cache". In my wasp example, the CO confirmed it was his cache. Ok, someone could have taken the cache and hid an identical container that wasn't the cache at the same spot, but that is unlikely. Whilst also unlikely, I've found a cache and signed the log, only to discover later it wasn't the cache I looking for. Someone had hidden a cache within a few feet of the (puzzle) cache I was looking for - not published (they obviously didn't know the puzzle cache was there). You only know for sure you've found the right cache if the GC code is on the box or the log, and I find more often than not this is not the case.

 

Having said that, 99.96% of the time I've logged "found it" I signed the log.

 

*However - as another poster said - I too have claimed finds on caches where a monkey friend retrieves the logbook and I sign in before the logbook is returned (which is lame I admit.)

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm not as much of a stickler for "name on the log or else" policy as most are. Maybe because I've found too many moldy or ruined logsheets in my time.

 

That said, caches were there is an added challenge like a puzzle box or tree climb I do believe require a higher degree of expectation. I have seen caches from the ground, but DNF because I can't figure out how to get up the tree without help or a ladder.

 

If someone logged a tree climber cache of mine with a DNF that was very nicely written about coming within a few feet of the cache before falling out of the tree and getting hurt then I might privately message them to allow a Find out of sympathy. It would depend on the cache placement, the tree, the DT rating, their attitude, and how I felt that day. Logging a Find assuming that such an experience "deserves" a Find or chewing me out for placing a dangerous cache would not garner sympathy from me.

[+igator210]

This is where the DNF designation is a bit of a misnomer.

 

Did the OP "find" the cache? Technically yes.

 

Did the OP fulfill the intent of opening up the container and signing the log? No. (Notice I said intent. I've found plenty of logs that are unsignable, but I did physically touched the log with all intent to sign it)

 

In this situation I write a note. Something like "I saw the cache, its there, I just couldn't reach it".

 

Personally, I use the DNF option to denote that I gave it my best ability to find the container and didn't spot anything.

[+J Grouchy]

This is where the DNF designation is a bit of a misnomer.

 

Did the OP "find" the cache? Technically yes.

 

Did the OP fulfill the intent of opening up the container and signing the log? No. (Notice I said intent. I've found plenty of logs that are unsignable, but I did physically touched the log with all intent to sign it)

 

In this situation I write a note. Something like "I saw the cache, its there, I just couldn't reach it".

 

Personally, I use the DNF option to denote that I gave it my best ability to find the container and didn't spot anything.

 

I agree with all of this. Just yesterday I was unable to search for a cache due to the presence of muggles. I posted a note, where others in here might say it's a DNF. For some, merely intending to look for a cache is enough to put it in the Found/DNF binary. I'd be willing to bet most people would either not log anything or would post a note. Same goes for SEEING the cache but being unable to retrieve it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In the future, might as well not say anything about not signing the paper in your online log. Just asking for trouble from those people who really DO make an issue out of it.

It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen.

Funny how you make a comment in one thread about how nice cachers usually are...then make snide comments like that in here.

I don't understand what you consider snide about my remark. It's just a fact that it's easier to not log the find rather than trying to carefully craft the find log to avoid saying what really happened.

 

Not if the cache is half way around the world.

It's not around the world: it's "2km down the road". But since you bring it up, in the case where you cannot return to the cache again, it's even easier since you don't have to log a find at all.

 

Your response was not carefully crafted.

 

My comment was in response to the the statement that "It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen."

 

It's not easy to return to a cache that is thousands of miles away. It would be easier if the CO just allowed a found it log in the case that someone "found the cache" but due to the lack of a working pen couldn't write their handle and date on a log sheet.

 

 

[+on4bam]

It's not easy to return to a cache that is thousands of miles away. It would be easier if the CO just allowed a found it log in the case that someone "found the cache" but due to the lack of a working pen couldn't write their handle and date on a log sheet.

 

What would be a reasonable distance to allow a found if you didn't sign the log? What's so important about that one smiley that you just have to have it "because you were there" but failed to bring a working pen?

Why not be prepared and have a few pens/pencils with you?

[+J Grouchy]

It's not easy to return to a cache that is thousands of miles away. It would be easier if the CO just allowed a found it log in the case that someone "found the cache" but due to the lack of a working pen couldn't write their handle and date on a log sheet.

 

What would be a reasonable distance to allow a found if you didn't sign the log? What's so important about that one smiley that you just have to have it "because you were there" but failed to bring a working pen?

Why not be prepared and have a few pens/pencils with you?

 

You're right, we should also bring two different types of shoes (boots, waders), various jackets, coveralls, ladders, climbing gear and a kayak. You know...to be prepared.

 

Cripes...life happens. Pens break or run out of ink. Sometimes they even fall out of your pocket while on a hike through the woods. It's unreasonable to expect people to always be prepared for every possibility.

[+on4bam]

You're right, we should also bring two different types of shoes (boots, waders), various jackets, coveralls, ladders, climbing gear and a kayak. You know...to be prepared.

 

Cripes...life happens. Pens break or run out of ink. Sometimes they even fall out of your pocket while on a hike through the woods. It's unreasonable to expect people to always be prepared for every possibility.

 

Geocaching has one major requirement, signing the log, that's what you should prepare for. With a weight of just grams, carrying an extra pen is no burden. Making drama to bring extra shoes, jackets.. is just ridiculous as those are not "mission critical" and not needed for the majority of caches, a pen is.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's not easy to return to a cache that is thousands of miles away. It would be easier if the CO just allowed a found it log in the case that someone "found the cache" but due to the lack of a working pen couldn't write their handle and date on a log sheet.

 

What would be a reasonable distance to allow a found if you didn't sign the log?

 

 

I don't think that can be defined with a specific value. I"m just suggesting that it's not the end of the world if a CO allows someone to keep a found it log when life happens and for someone reason the physical log isn't signed. While signing the physical log is an important aspect of the the game I just don't think may cache owners place caches to see how many signatures they can get on a log book. I suspect most place caches to provide the experience of navigating to a specific place where they can find a container.

 

 

What's so important about that one smiley that you just have to have it "because you were there" but failed to bring a working pen?

 

 

What's so important about putting a pen on paper that a CO would deny someone from recording the experience of traveling to a location and finding the container?

 

 

[+on4bam]

It's not easy to return to a cache that is thousands of miles away. It would be easier if the CO just allowed a found it log in the case that someone "found the cache" but due to the lack of a working pen couldn't write their handle and date on a log sheet.

 

What would be a reasonable distance to allow a found if you didn't sign the log?

 

 

I don't think that can be defined with a specific value. I"m just suggesting that it's not the end of the world if a CO allows someone to keep a found it log when life happens and for someone reason the physical log isn't signed. While signing the physical log is an important aspect of the the game I just don't think may cache owners place caches to see how many signatures they can get on a log book. I suspect most place caches to provide the experience of navigating to a specific place where they can find a container.

 

 

So nothing matters anymore?

---------

1. Find cache

2. Write name in log

3. Put cache back

4. Log online

---------

 

Since "2" proves "1" and according to you that's not necessary we could just go with "4". The result is even more threads about "found it, didn't find", "armchair logging", "fake logger", "spam logs"... well, you also read them all...

It's just one small thing to do to claim a find.

 

What's so important about putting a pen on paper that a CO would deny someone from recording the experience of traveling to a location and finding the container?

 

Since I was a many locations where there are caches I might just log them? I WAS there, I just didn't put a pen to paper. No need to log DNFs anymore

Edited May 13, 2016 by on4bam

[+J Grouchy]

You're right, we should also bring two different types of shoes (boots, waders), various jackets, coveralls, ladders, climbing gear and a kayak. You know...to be prepared.

 

Cripes...life happens. Pens break or run out of ink. Sometimes they even fall out of your pocket while on a hike through the woods. It's unreasonable to expect people to always be prepared for every possibility.

 

Geocaching has one major requirement, signing the log, that's what you should prepare for. With a weight of just grams, carrying an extra pen is no burden. Making drama to bring extra shoes, jackets.. is just ridiculous as those are not "mission critical" and not needed for the majority of caches, a pen is.

 

I carry a pen with me when I go geocaching. If at some point along the way it gets lost or I discover it doesn't properly write, I don't get bent out of shape and I don't stress about having to record a DNF. This is exactly the sort of weird obsessiveness that shows up here in the forums. The vast majority of cachers out there don't worry about these issues. That same majority is well aware of the need to sign the log sheet. Any reasonable person would recognize when an effort was made and let it stand.

[+Team_Vod]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

[+dprovan]

My comment was in response to the the statement that "It's even easier not to log a find until you come back with a working pen."

And the comment you've quoted here was talking about the cache 2km down the road.

[+narcissa]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

 

If you don't feel safe, you certainly aren't obligated to retrieve the cache, but you shouldn't log it either. Why would a cacher pursue high terrain caches alone if doing so makes them feel unsafe? Some caches are supposed to be difficult to retrieve. That's what the terrain rating is for.

[+dprovan]

You're right, we should also bring two different types of shoes (boots, waders), various jackets, coveralls, ladders, climbing gear and a kayak. You know...to be prepared.

 

Cripes...life happens. Pens break or run out of ink. Sometimes they even fall out of your pocket while on a hike through the woods. It's unreasonable to expect people to always be prepared for every possibility.

I'm losing track of which side of the question you're arguing. No one expects people to always be prepared, they only expect people to take responsibility themselves when they aren't prepared instead of insisting on being given an exception. It's as silly to demand grace because you forgot your pen as it is to demand grace because you didn't bring a kayak.

 

I"m just suggesting that it's not the end of the world if a CO allows someone to keep a found it log when life happens and for someone reason the physical log isn't signed.

I'm not sure who's suggesting it's the end of the world if a CO allows someone to keep a found it log without a signature. I don't care at all what the CO allows. My point is that the CO shouldn't be expected to grant such exception. The same reasoning explains why I don't usually accept them if offered. But at the same time, I would argue against any claim that the COs aren't allowed to or shouldn't grant exceptions if they want to, and I think it's fine if seekers decide to accept them.

[+Team_Vod]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

 

If you don't feel safe, you certainly aren't obligated to retrieve the cache, but you shouldn't log it either. Why would a cacher pursue high terrain caches alone if doing so makes them feel unsafe? Some caches are supposed to be difficult to retrieve. That's what the terrain rating is for.

 

True but I have found, even though I am still brand new at this, is the terrain rating only gives a general idea and not a real accurate account of the terrain. I have also had some which seemed to be inaccurate and should have a different rating.

[+narcissa]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

 

If you don't feel safe, you certainly aren't obligated to retrieve the cache, but you shouldn't log it either. Why would a cacher pursue high terrain caches alone if doing so makes them feel unsafe? Some caches are supposed to be difficult to retrieve. That's what the terrain rating is for.

 

True but I have found, even though I am still brand new at this, is the terrain rating only gives a general idea and not a real accurate account of the terrain. I have also had some which seemed to be inaccurate and should have a different rating.

 

The rating system is subjective and sometimes conditions change.

 

One of very first thing that happens when you sign up for this site is a warning that geocaching is at your own risk.

 

Let me save you 15 pages of forum arguing by telling you right now: this notion you should be allowed to claim a find because you feel you shouldn't have to climb a tree, scale a cliff, reach into a hole, swim to an island, or hike through a swamp? This isn't going to fly.

 

If you are risk adverse, stick to low terrain and accept that you won't always get to log the find.

[+Ambrosia]

The reason that people need to sign the physical logbook is to prove that they were there. It's a simple, consistent, method that the owner can use to verify a find. If someone finds a cache but doesn't have a pen, they can do something else to prove their find - like taking a picture or describing the find to the CO.

 

Obviously, it's up to the owner to accept that or not - but people shouldn't be getting so uptight about "no signature, no find, it's the RULE". The bottom line is that the cacher found the cache. Remember the spirit of the guideline, which is proof for the owner.

[+Pond Bird]

Did you take a photo of the the cache to prove you found it? If the owner has no evidence you actually found the cache then he/she will most likely delete your log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's not easy to return to a cache that is thousands of miles away. It would be easier if the CO just allowed a found it log in the case that someone "found the cache" but due to the lack of a working pen couldn't write their handle and date on a log sheet.

 

What would be a reasonable distance to allow a found if you didn't sign the log?

 

 

I don't think that can be defined with a specific value. I"m just suggesting that it's not the end of the world if a CO allows someone to keep a found it log when life happens and for someone reason the physical log isn't signed. While signing the physical log is an important aspect of the the game I just don't think may cache owners place caches to see how many signatures they can get on a log book. I suspect most place caches to provide the experience of navigating to a specific place where they can find a container.

 

 

So nothing matters anymore?

---------

1. Find cache

2. Write name in log

3. Put cache back

4. Log online

---------

 

Since "2" proves "1" and according to you that's not necessary we could just go with "4". The result is even more threads about "found it, didn't find", "armchair logging", "fake logger", "spam logs"... well, you also read them all...

It's just one small thing to do to claim a find.

 

 

It's a long way from the end of the world to nothing matters.

 

I also see a major difference between armchair logging, fake logging, spam logging and a scenario where one navigated to the cache, found the container, would have signed the log except they discovered that their pen didn't work, had lost it while on the way to the cache, or the mush they found in the cache was unsignable, then replaced the cache. In the latter scenario they did everything that a CO would have likely intended for them to do when they placed the cache. Those that are arm chair logging, fake logging, and spam logging aren't even attempting to 1. Find the cache, 2. write their name in the log, or 3. replace the cache.

 

 

What's so important about putting a pen on paper that a CO would deny someone from recording the experience of traveling to a location and finding the container?

 

Since I was a many locations where there are caches I might just log them? I WAS there, I just didn't put a pen to paper. No need to log DNFs anymore

 

I never claimed that one only needed to be in a location where there as a cache to log them. There is still the matter of finding the container and replacing it where it was hidden.

 

All this emphasis on "if you name is on the long sheet you can post a found it log" also leads to abuse in scenarios such as standing at the base of a tree while someone else climbs the tree, locates the container, signs for the person at the base of the tree (or is waiting in a car....or in another vehicle used by a "team member")...then replaces the container.

 

 

 

[+noncentric]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

 

If you don't feel safe, you certainly aren't obligated to retrieve the cache, but you shouldn't log it either. Why would a cacher pursue high terrain caches alone if doing so makes them feel unsafe? Some caches are supposed to be difficult to retrieve. That's what the terrain rating is for.

 

True but I have found, even though I am still brand new at this, is the terrain rating only gives a general idea and not a real accurate account of the terrain. I have also had some which seemed to be inaccurate and should have a different rating.

Just a newbie tip: If you are searching for a cache and see that the terrain in front of you seems much more difficult than the terrain rating of the cache, then consider that there might be another way to approach the cache or that the coords/GPS device are 'a bit off'.

 

For example, if I'm on a trail looking for a cache rated T-2.0 and my GPSr is pointing me towards a large tree, then I'm going to assume the cache is somewhere near the base of the tree, not 20 feet up in the branches. It's also happened often that we'll bushwhack our way to GZ, then realize when we got there that there was a trail on the other side that required no bushwhacking at all.

[+boothie103]

As I suffer from congenital ducks disease, backside far too close to the ground and suffer nose bleeds whenever I climb on a chair to change a light globe, if I can see it, directly or in the inspection mirror I use for those higher than me places where I figure the cache is, I always log a DNF but add that I will come back when I have a height advantage. That advantage may be a low folding step or the height of someone taller who always gets the recognition of the retrieve. As far as anything else that requires climbing gear or risking a broken limb, goes on the ignore list.

[+Pond Bird]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

 

If you don't feel safe, you certainly aren't obligated to retrieve the cache, but you shouldn't log it either. Why would a cacher pursue high terrain caches alone if doing so makes them feel unsafe? Some caches are supposed to be difficult to retrieve. That's what the terrain rating is for.

 

True but I have found, even though I am still brand new at this, is the terrain rating only gives a general idea and not a real accurate account of the terrain. I have also had some which seemed to be inaccurate and should have a different rating.

Just a newbie tip: If you are searching for a cache and see that the terrain in front of you seems much more difficult than the terrain rating of the cache, then consider that there might be another way to approach the cache or that the coords/GPS device are 'a bit off'.

 

For example, if I'm on a trail looking for a cache rated T-2.0 and my GPSr is pointing me towards a large tree, then I'm going to assume the cache is somewhere near the base of the tree, not 20 feet up in the branches. It's also happened often that we'll bushwhack our way to GZ, then realize when we got there that there was a trail on the other side that required no bushwhacking at all.

 

i was hearing about a new cache and the coords must be off since the rating is 1.5/1.5 and she was on a hill and didn't find a cache at the more flat level.

[+noncentric]

I posted something similar but instead of asking if I found it I asked if it is OK to not sign the log as I did not have an ink pen on me at the time. I was told by many I need to go back and sign it. Some even came across as scolding me like I am a child for not signing it but indicating I found it through the geocache app anyway.

 

My opinion is if the cache is in a location where you risk life or limb to access and sign it and if doing so would cause injury or death I would say do not sign it. Especially if you are miles away from the nearest person and by yourself. To me no cache is worth my life or personal safety.

 

With that said perhaps contact the cache owner and advise them the fallen tree used to access the cache is not strong enough or safe to use or climb on. Perhaps at one time it was. Perhaps the cache was placed when the fallen tree had recently come down but over time it has decayed to the point of no longer being safe.

 

If you don't feel safe, you certainly aren't obligated to retrieve the cache, but you shouldn't log it either. Why would a cacher pursue high terrain caches alone if doing so makes them feel unsafe? Some caches are supposed to be difficult to retrieve. That's what the terrain rating is for.

 

True but I have found, even though I am still brand new at this, is the terrain rating only gives a general idea and not a real accurate account of the terrain. I have also had some which seemed to be inaccurate and should have a different rating.

Just a newbie tip: If you are searching for a cache and see that the terrain in front of you seems much more difficult than the terrain rating of the cache, then consider that there might be another way to approach the cache or that the coords/GPS device are 'a bit off'.

 

For example, if I'm on a trail looking for a cache rated T-2.0 and my GPSr is pointing me towards a large tree, then I'm going to assume the cache is somewhere near the base of the tree, not 20 feet up in the branches. It's also happened often that we'll bushwhack our way to GZ, then realize when we got there that there was a trail on the other side that required no bushwhacking at all.

i was hearing about a new cache and the coords must be off since the rating is 1.5/1.5 and she was on a hill and didn't find a cache at the more flat level.

It's quite possible the coords could be off. If the CO is new, then it wouldn't be surprising. Once found, it would be good for the finders to comment about ratings (D or T) that seem 'off', regardless of the CO's experience level. I've seen several cases where a cache's rating was changed after the first few finders provided feedback.