Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
bbozzell42020

No Geocache

Recommended Posts

My fiance and I decided to go out and try to find a geocache, we went to the location that one was supposedly at and searched for over an hour and much to our disappointment, we found nothing. Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do we know it won't happen again if we decide to look for another one? It was very disappointing.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

It will happen again at some point - sorry. I have logged 265 'did-not-finds' (DNFs)

If you are new - start by looking for caches with a low 'D' rating, and a larger size, and check the recent activity to see if it has been found recently.  You can also read past logs and look through images to get some hints.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Don't feel bad...apparently I'm a lot worse at this hobby than lee737 at 346.  A lot were multiple tries...   :D

 

You don't say what you're using, but try larger hides (small & regular) and 1.5  Difficulty/Terrain or less until you get the hang of it.  :)

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, bbozzell42020 said:

My fiance and I decided to go out and try to find a geocache, we went to the location that one was supposedly at and searched for over an hour and much to our disappointment, we found nothing. Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do we know it won't happen again if we decide to look for another one? It was very disappointing.

Is it a traditional cache? What size? Any hint on the page?  

I've logged 311 DNFs. Unless you have exceptional skills and a lot of luck, you will have many more experienced of not finding a cache.

If you tell us which cache, we may be able to provide some insight. We don't want to spoil the find, but more information will help.

I know of several people whose first attempt was a puzzle cache, spending an hour looking for something that's not there.

Share this post


Link to post

A common recommendation for beginners is to stick with small small.gif size, regular regular.gif size, and large large.gif size caches. Until you're more experienced, avoid micro micro.gif size caches, some of which are smaller than most beginners can imagine (sometimes called "nanos"). Save those for later, after you have some experience.

 

Also, stick with caches that have a difficulty rating of no more than 2 stars stars2.gif. Save the more difficult ones for later. You may also want to choose caches with easy terrain ratings. (The difficulty rating tells you how hard it is to find the cache once you get there. The terrain rating tells you how hard it is to get there.) And it is often best to start with traditional 2.gif caches, which will be at the published coordinates. Multi-caches 3.gif or mystery/puzzle caches 8.gif or other cache types can require more work just to figure out where the container is located.

 

Under ideal conditions, a consumer GPSr will be accurate to about 3m (10ft). That applies both to your device, and to the cache owner’s device, so you may find the container 5-6m (16-20ft) from ground zero under ideal conditions. Under less than ideal conditions, both GPSr readings can be much less accurate. Once you get within that distance of ground zero, put your device away and look around for places where a container could be hidden.

 

Where would you hide something? Do you notice anything unusual? Is anything too new, too old, too organized (e.g., UPS: an Unnatural Pile of Sticks/Stones), too symmetrical, not quite the right color or shape, etc.? Don’t look only on the ground; the cache may be knee-level, waist-level, eye-level, or overhead. How might the container be secured in place? With magnets? With a hook? With string? With fishing line? With something else? Does anything move when you touch it? (Be careful when touching things though.)

 

Go ahead and read the cache's additional hints (if provided), and read the past logs and look at any photos in the cache's image gallery. They may help you understand what you're looking for, and how/where it may be hidden. It may also help to look at some of the cache containers available online. For example, check out the cache containers sold by Groundspeak. Also, take a look at the Pictures - Cool Cache Containers (CCC's) thread in the forums, and check out some geocaching videos on YouTube.
 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, bbozzell42020 said:

My fiance and I decided to go out and try to find a geocache, we went to the location that one was supposedly at and searched for over an hour and much to our disappointment, we found nothing. Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do we know it won't happen again if we decide to look for another one? It was very disappointing.

 

Which cache was it?

 

My first DNF was this cache container.  Yeah, an extra huge mortar box. :unsure:

 

7d423c0b-b7d3-45b8-901e-dabeef865dcf.jpg

 

 

But I found the first cache I attempted.  Hadn't even tried to find anything using a GPS before.  So I worked on it for an hour in the forest, figuring out which screen to use, where I might look, and what I'm looking for.

 

Familiarization helps.  See niraD's post above, and you could also Start Here:)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Don't feel bad...apparently I'm a lot worse at this hobby than lee737 at 346.  A lot were multiple tries...   :D

 

You don't say what you're using, but try larger hides (small & regular) and 1.5  Difficulty/Terrain or less until you get the hang of it.  :)

 

Wow!  Something must be wrong with me!  I'm at 965 DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Wow!  Something must be wrong with me!  I'm at 965 DNFs.

Maybe we should be comparing on a DNF/Find ratio! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Maybe we should be comparing on a DNF/Find ratio! :)

 

 

I have 125 DNFs from 1012 finds, so about one in eight.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, bbozzell42020 said:

My fiance and I decided to go out and try to find a geocache, we went to the location that one was supposedly at and searched for over an hour and much to our disappointment, we found nothing. Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do we know it won't happen again if we decide to look for another one? It was very disappointing.

I remember a whole bunch of experienced geocachers, including me,  unable to find an ammo can in a section off the road that only had about 15' of woods.  My daughter found it seconds after getting out of the car. Even experienced geocachers can be stumped by what should be an easy hide. Don't give up yet!

Share this post


Link to post

Dumb question - how do you know how many DNF's you have?  (Besides manually counting on the map)  If I log a DNF, then log a Find at a later date, does it still count as a DNF?  I don't change my DNF logs to Finds, I log a separate Find log on the day I Find it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Dumb question - how do you know how many DNF's you have?  (Besides manually counting on the map)  If I log a DNF, then log a Find at a later date, does it still count as a DNF?  I don't change my DNF logs to Finds, I log a separate Find log on the day I Find it.

 

Go into your dashboard, view your logs and filter by log type:

 

image.png.fe2d5515bf1593f543b6307fc51e5c7a.png

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Dumb question - how do you know how many DNF's you have?  (Besides manually counting on the map)  If I log a DNF, then log a Find at a later date, does it still count as a DNF?  I don't change my DNF logs to Finds, I log a separate Find log on the day I Find it.

 

Count is shown when you filter logs by log type:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1&lt=3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

If I log a DNF, then log a Find at a later date, does it still count as a DNF?  I don't change my DNF logs to Finds, I log a separate Find log on the day I Find it.

 

Yes, it still counts, as do multiple DNFs on a single cache. I'd never change a DNF log to a find as the DNF is part of my caching history, as well as providing amusement for the CO and other finders. The only time I change a log type is when I make a mistake with the logging, usually due to the dadgum default log types.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
8 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Dumb question - how do you know how many DNF's you have?  

 

Go into your dashboard, view your logs and filter by log type:

 

Got it.  That was easy...LOL.  I have 109 DNF's on 1607 Finds, and it does include those I have relogged as a Find later on.  About 6%, but it should be higher, I wasn't logging DNF's in the early days of my geocaching; now I do so I have an accurate record of my visits to that cache!!

 

And to the OP - DNF's are part of the experience.  It happens to all of us.  Some days are better than others!

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I have 125 DNFs from 1012 finds, so about one in eight.

 

965 DNFs  8190 finds one in eleven

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

  I don't change my DNF logs to Finds, I log a separate Find log on the day I Find it.

 

We don't either, figuring that's part of the caches (and our) history.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I remember a whole bunch of experienced geocachers, including me,  unable to find an ammo can in a section off the road that only had about 15' of woods.  My daughter found it seconds after getting out of the car. Even experienced geocachers can be stumped by what should be an easy hide. Don't give up yet!

I've been known to trip over a regular-size geocache that was sitting out in the open. To make it worse, I was leading a group of relatively new geocachers, we were playing "huckle buckle beanstalk" style, and I was the only person in the group who hadn't spotted the cache yet.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

I've been known to trip over a regular-size geocache that was sitting out in the open. To make it worse, I was leading a group of relatively new geocachers, we were playing "huckle buckle beanstalk" style, and I was the only person in the group who hadn't spotted the cache yet.

 

I was standing on one of the 50-Cal kind one time.  My cache partner and I were running out of places to look and while pondering where it could be, he said, "Now I see it.  You're standing right on it".  One of them ground-level ones, perfectly fit into a rectangular hole.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I was standing on one of the 50-Cal kind one time.  My cache partner and I were running out of places to look and while pondering where it could be, he said, "Now I see it.  You're standing right on it".  One of them ground-level ones, perfectly fit into a rectangular hole.

 

I once put my backpack down on top of the cache before spending the next hour searching in ever-widening circles.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh my gosh, all these stories are hilarious. Kunarion's story reminded me of a stop in TN at a museum that was closed. I went to take photos of a nearby  sculpture while my husband went to grab an ammo can behind an A/C unit. I kept looking over at him, wondering what was taking so long. I finally made my way over and asked for an update. "There is no ammo can here. I've looked all around the A/C. "  

ME: " I can see it, and you literally just put your hand on it as you told me  that you looked everywhere!"

" THAT'S the cache??? "

LOL. Yep. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, niraD said:

I've been known to trip over a regular-size geocache

5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I was standing on one of the 50-Cal kind one time. 

 

When I get a bit ticked because I walked a while and now can't find something bigger than a shoe box, I stop, grab a smoke and kick back.

 - Darn if most times as soon as I clear a bug-free place to sit and  rest my feet, I look over at nothing really ... and there it is.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, bbozzell42020 said:

My fiance and I decided to go out and try to find a geocache, we went to the location that one was supposedly at and searched for over an hour and much to our disappointment, we found nothing. Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do we know it won't happen again if we decide to look for another one? It was very disappointing.

See? Don't give up! If you tell us your general location we can suggest some easier finds.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I once put my backpack down on top of the cache before spending the next hour searching in ever-widening circles.

Yeah, I've done that a bunch of times. Sometimes I drop my backpack, sometimes I park my bicycle, sometimes I leave something else at GZ. After getting tired of expanding my search radius and getting ready to log a DNF, I find the cache right next to whatever I left at GZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, lee737 said:

Maybe we should be comparing on a DNF/Find ratio! :)

 

DNFs 493 or 1 in 7.

I log all my DNFs

Edited by colleda

Share this post


Link to post

I have logged 1054 DNFs. But I am good at logging DNFs 😜😊, even when with other people and it seems they are incapable of doing this😒...

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm at 634 DNFs and a 1 to 11 ratio.  I can't count the times I've done what niraD has done.  It's my most common occurrence on finds I've struggled on.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2019 at 8:58 AM, bbozzell42020 said:

found nothing.  Has anyone else had this problem?

 

As of today, 1,048 times and counting.  :grin:  Sometimes it wasn't there, and sometimes I just couldn't find it.

 

It helps to set a limit.  But sometimes my impatience gets the better of me and I quit too early.  Just this weekend, I had already bagged the hunt and stopped looking.  I was all set to log a "did not find," and then my wife found the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

even when with other people and it seems they are incapable of doing this

Adding to this :ph34r:...I have been known where others that were with me haven't logged DNFs - some people appear to be allergic to logging DNFs :rolleyes:, listed the names in my log of those who I was caching with and then written that none of us could find it. Can be seen then, the non-DNF loggers. I want to add, that there is nothing rude about how I word the log..."I had a lovely day, accompanied by......, but sadly none of us could find this cache." sort of thing.

 

I believe that logging DNFs is a service to the CO, because it assists them to know how hard this is and set the D rating accordingly, and also to let them know there might be a problem. If one person can't find the cache, that's only one person, but if it's several people that begins to appear (at least for a low rated D cache) there might be a problem. It also demonstrates to the CO that some people just can't be bothered (as too cowardly to...what will people think) to log DNFs and that perhaps long times without a log, might mean there have been lots of not logged DNFs, because none of those were brave enough to log the first DNF. It's amazing how after the first DNF there will suddenly shortly after, be a whole string of them. I found one such cache with no logs for six months. I looked at past logging rates for this cache going back over the years and calculated based on that there were up to 20 not logged DNFs during that six months. I logged a DNF and joked to myself that I bet there would soon be another. Yes, ;), three days later another DNF appeared.

 

Being proud of your DNFs is a good thing. It shows you are not afraid to log them and are thoughtful to the cache CO.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, hzoi said:

sometimes my impatience gets the better of me and I quit too early. 

Nothing wrong with that, especially with low rated caches. It shouldn't take ages to find a low rated cache. If I can't find a 1.5D cache in a few minutes and I have other caches to find or places to see, I have been known to log a DNF and move on, writing I spent more time than should be necessary for a 1.5D. If it's a 1D I might even consider logging a NM. A true 1D should have no DNFs. I think the last NM I posted on a so called 1D, was a micro hidden in bushland.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I am good at logging DNFs 😜😊, even when with other people and it seems they are incapable of doing this😒...

 

When I'm with a group, typically only one of us will log the DNF - hubby usually leaves it to me, and in a group, we agree on who will log the DNF.  Three or four DNF's from the same group on the same day seem to be ... overkill, in my mind.  When reading previous logs on a cache I'm seeking, 3 DNF's from 3 folks on the same day caching as a group, I count as ONE DNF.  3 DNF's, on separate days, carry more weight with me.  But that's me - and as a CO, I'd rather have one DNF from a group than 3 or 4 individual DNF's, especially if they were all searching together.  YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

When I'm with a group, typically only one of us will log the DNF - hubby usually leaves it to me, and in a group, we agree on who will log the DNF.  Three or four DNF's from the same group on the same day seem to be ... overkill, in my mind.  When reading previous logs on a cache I'm seeking, 3 DNF's from 3 folks on the same day caching as a group, I count as ONE DNF.  3 DNF's, on separate days, carry more weight with me.  But that's me - and as a CO, I'd rather have one DNF from a group than 3 or 4 individual DNF's, especially if they were all searching together.  YMMV

If I hadn't logged that DNF, no one would have.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

A true 1D should have no DNFs.

 

Nup, I'm quite capable of being the one and only person to log a DNF on a D1 - it's happened before and is sure to happen again.

 

There are also many other reasons that could lead to a DNF other than just cache concealment. I've had DNFs logged on my hides due to failing light, approaching storms, swarms of mosquitoes at GZ, "no time to do a proper search as the ferry's about to leave", "the terrain was too tough for me", etc. On urban hides, "a muggle sitting right at GZ" is a common reason for DNFs. None of these relate to the difficulty rating of a cache. I've also logged DNFs on caches that were in plain sight (clearly a D1) but which required climbing beyond my ability; some of those I've come back for a second successful attempt with a ladder.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If I hadn't logged that DNF, no one would have.

In that case, that's the right thing to do.  With a group, we usually agree on who logs the DNF.  With hubby and me, I know it will be me!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Nup, I'm quite capable of being the one and only person to log a DNF on a D1 - it's happened before and is sure to happen again.

 

There are also many other reasons that could lead to a DNF other than just cache concealment. I've had DNFs logged on my hides due to failing light, approaching storms, swarms of mosquitoes at GZ, "no time to do a proper search as the ferry's about to leave", "the terrain was too tough for me", etc. On urban hides, "a muggle sitting right at GZ" is a common reason for DNFs. None of these relate to the difficulty rating of a cache. I've also logged DNFs on caches that were in plain sight (clearly a D1) but which required climbing beyond my ability; some of those I've come back for a second successful attempt with a ladder.

Naturally common sense has to be used here. DNFs on a D1 when the cache was missing shouldn't be counted. Same with some of the examples you gave, some I would write a note for, rather than a DNF; such as "a muggle sitting right at GZ". But when a D1 has several DNFs from people who have had good searches, even if others find the cache in between the DNFs, the D1 still deserves a DNF if you can't find it, as obviously it's rated incorrectly.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Spelling
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Naturally common sense has to be used here. DNFs on a D1 when the cache was missing shouldn't be counted. Same with some of the examples you gave, some I would write a note for, rather than a DNF; such as "a muggle sitting right at GZ". But when a D1 has several DNFs from people who have had good searches, even if others find the cache in between the DNFs, the D1 still deserves a DNF if you can't find it, as obviously it's rated incorrectly.

 

There's a cache that immediately comes to mind. It was a puzzle cache so its D rating is related to the puzzle, but had it been a traditional it surely would have been a D1 as there was only one place where it could have been hidden. Its had 249 finds and just one DNF, my one. I went there and tried to find the cache, tried very hard, but it was up a steep incline and I just couldn't get a good enough grip in bare feet and kept sliding back down. I know there are some who'll say that wasn't a proper DNF, but why? I was there trying to find the cache but didn't succeed. Why is that any less a DNF than one where the camo fooled me?

 

Likewise for muggles at GZ. A DNF puts a blue face on the map to tell me I need to go back and try again, but a WN doesn't. Maybe we need a new log type (The Cache Defeated Me?) that puts the blue frowny on the map but doesn't infer that there's a problem with the cache or its rating.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There's a cache that immediately comes to mind. It was a puzzle cache so its D rating is related to the puzzle, but had it been a traditional it surely would have been a D1 as there was only one place where it could have been hidden. Its had 249 finds and just one DNF, my one. I went there and tried to find the cache, tried very hard, but it was up a steep incline and I just couldn't get a good enough grip in bare feet and kept sliding back down. I know there are some who'll say that wasn't a proper DNF, but why? I was there trying to find the cache but didn't succeed. Why is that any less a DNF than one where the camo fooled me?

 

Likewise for muggles at GZ. A DNF puts a blue face on the map to tell me I need to go back and try again, but a WN doesn't. Maybe we need a new log type (The Cache Defeated Me?) that puts the blue frowny on the map but doesn't infer that there's a problem with the cache or its rating.

But that wasn't the difficulty that stopped you; that was the terrain. If you couldn't physically get to the cache, you should say that in your log; that way not finding the cache won't reflect on the D.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

But that wasn't the difficulty that stopped you; that was the terrain. If you couldn't physically get to the cache, you should say that in your log; that way not finding the cache won't reflect on the D.

 

Exactly, but I don't see why being defeated by the terrain should disqualify me from logging my failure as a DNF. Why does that have to be relegated to being just a WN? And more to the point, where is this documented in the Help Centre?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

A true 1D should have no DNFs.

 

I disagree with this.  If you're taking it to that extreme, then that means that a true 5D should have no finds.  In my mind, a true 1D should have a roughly 95% (or higher but not 100%) find rate while the opposite should hold true for the 5D cache.  I've DNFed enough 1D caches in my time, only to see the next finder, with less finds and less experience say, "Easy find".  Sometimes I just miss them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2019 at 6:14 PM, lee737 said:

Maybe we should be comparing on a DNF/Find ratio! :)

 

I few years ago someone asked others to report their DNF/Find ratio.  I aggregated the results (it was only 15 or so responses though) and it came out to an average of around 10% DNFs to Finds.  Not a scientific survey but I suspect the number is probably pretty accurate.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

I disagree with this.  If you're taking it to that extreme, then that means that a true 5D should have no finds.  In my mind, a true 1D should have a roughly 95% (or higher but not 100%) find rate while the opposite should hold true for the 5D cache.  I've DNFed enough 1D caches in my time, only to see the next finder, with less finds and less experience say, "Easy find".  Sometimes I just miss them.

I have seen many 1Ds with no DNFs. Also 1.5Ds with no DNFs. (Not counting the DNFs when the cache has gone missing...muggled, taken by animal, etc) So it's possible to have them correctly rated. I like the definition for a 1D as, 'In full view and/or obvious.'

GC64K6J This is one of my caches. A 1.5D (likely I could have made it 1D), as it's 'obvious' where the cache is hidden; under the only pile of rocks in an open space, and it's a good sized small sized cache, not a micro as well. 191 finds and only 1 DNF; that when the cache was muggled and missing. Never a DNF when the cache was not missing. Under your definition I should have had about ten DNFs. If it had that many it wouldn't be a 1.5D, and I would raise its D to 2 or more.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2019 at 7:58 AM, bbozzell42020 said:

My fiance and I decided to go out and try to find a geocache, we went to the location that one was supposedly at and searched for over an hour and much to our disappointment, we found nothing. Has anyone else had this problem? If so how do we know it won't happen again if we decide to look for another one? It was very disappointing.

That thread title should really have the word 'Find ' on the end of it ...

 

There is, of course, a chance the cache has gone, but there is also a chance it was there and you just couldn't see it.  It was your first search, and it's difficult to  spot something when you  just have no idea what you are looking for, I mean, how do you recognise something you've never seen before ?! Plenty of  good advice on this thread already about the sort of  caches to target as a beginner, I'll just  add something that works for me:

Go to look for a cache in an area you would enjoy going to even if there was no cache there to search for. That way, if you come home with a DNF, you will still have had a pleasant time.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have seen many 1Ds with no DNFs. Also 1.5Ds with no DNFs. (Not counting the DNFs when the cache has gone missing...muggled, taken by animal, etc) So it's possible to have them correctly rated. I like the definition for a 1D as, 'In full view and/or obvious.'

GC64K6J This is one of my caches. A 1.5D (likely I could have made it 1D), as it's 'obvious' where the cache is hidden; under the only pile of rocks in an open space, and it's a good sized small sized cache, not a micro as well. 191 finds and only 1 DNF; that when the cache was muggled and missing. Never a DNF when the cache was not missing. Under your definition I should have had about ten DNFs. If it had that many it wouldn't be a 1.5D, and I would raise its D to 2 or more.

 

I said "a roughly 95% (or higher but not 100%)" DNF rate.  I didn't say just 5%.  As noted in a post above, the average rate of DNF to find is roughly around 1 in 10.  A 5% rate is 1 out of 20.  I have no problem with a 1D being that or lower.  I have seen many 1Ds with some DNFs and also 1.5Ds with DNFs (not counting the DNFs when the cache has gone missing).  That doesn't mean they're incorrectly rated; it just means that sometimes, people miss them.  Some of the 1Ds I DNFed, I went back, found them, and swore I looked there but didn't find it on my first visit.  I still disagree that a 1D means a 100% find rate.  95-99 out of 100 is still a very high rate of finds.  This cache, GC1A878, is an 11 year active 1/1 with 4 DNFs.  Somehow I missed it. I haven't been back but I'm sure it's rated appropriately as it pertains to the D rating.  I'm one of 4 that missed it, in 11 years.  It's got a 98.5% find rate so according to you it's not a 1D cache?

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have seen many 1Ds with no DNFs. Also 1.5Ds with no DNFs. (Not counting the DNFs when the cache has gone missing...muggled, taken by animal, etc) So it's possible to have them correctly rated. I like the definition for a 1D as, 'In full view and/or obvious.'

GC64K6J This is one of my caches. A 1.5D (likely I could have made it 1D), as it's 'obvious' where the cache is hidden; under the only pile of rocks in an open space, and it's a good sized small sized cache, not a micro as well. 191 finds and only 1 DNF; that when the cache was muggled and missing. Never a DNF when the cache was not missing. Under your definition I should have had about ten DNFs. If it had that many it wouldn't be a 1.5D, and I would raise its D to 2 or more.

 

There are other factors that come into the D rating beyond the deviousness of the camo, factors that won't necessarily lead to DNFs. Puzzles are one, of course (I have a D4 puzzle that has no DNFs because people don't DNF a puzzle they can't solve), challenge caches are another where the D rating is supposed to reflect the difficulty of the challenge, multis with a higher D-rating because of the number of waypoints, but even for a traditional, a high D rating could mean there's a trick to getting at the logbook once you've found the cache and most people will persevere once they get to that point rather than log a DNF. And as I said earlier, there are many factors beyond the deviousness of the camo that can result in people logging DNFs. A cache's terrain is as much an obstacle to someone finding the cache as its difficulty, so a higher T-rated cache should expect to get DNFs from those who've been defeated by the terrain. Then there are all those outside influences beyond the COs control that can lead to DNFs. I've seen tidal access caches DNFed because the searcher misread the tide chart (my EC got one of those), and caches that are close to watercourses (or in them, as one of mine is) can get DNFs immediately after heavy rain when the water is too high. I'm sure there are even cases of people who've DNFed a cache because they didn't have a pen to sign the logbook.

 

So I really don't think the correlation between DNF-to-find ratio and D rating is all that strong, especially when you go beyond P&G-style urban hides.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

So I really don't think the correlation between DNF-to-find ratio and D rating is all that strong, especially when you go beyond P&G-style urban hides.

Okay, maybe I should have said 1D caches that have low T ratings too. I didn't consider T in my comment, but naturally this counts, and I wasn't counting puzzle caches in the comments, as no puzzle cache I have ever seen would be rated (or should be rated) 1.5D or less. The example cache I gave also has low T rating. It's possible that someone in a wheelchair might be able to get to it, but it's not rated 1T because once to the hide, someone in a wheelchair might have difficulty reaching it under the smaller boulder. (Which I wish that some people in rating their caches 1T would 'get', that it's not just a matter of a wheelchair bound person being able to get their chair to GZ, but then they must be able to reach the cache. Example: rating a cache 1T because there is a wheelchair path to the cache, but not then taking into account that the cache is then hidden under the board-walk where a person in a wheelchair can't reach it. Next one of those cruelly marked caches I come upon will get a NM from me, and if the rating is not corrected a NA. That is so nasty to do that to someone who has mobility issues.)

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Okay, maybe I should have said 1D caches that have low T ratings too. I didn't consider T in my comment, but naturally this counts, and I wasn't counting puzzle caches in the comments, as no puzzle cache I have ever seen would be rated (or should be rated) 1.5D or less.

 

Interesting, as a quick search for mystery caches in a 50km radius of home gives 40 D1.5 and 5 D1, some of which were placed by highly experienced and well-respected cachers. A lot of these are simple field puzzles (count things or read numerals off a sign), some are really easy puzzles (like an easy Sudoku or crossword), one of the D1 puzzles is a What Three Words one, where the phrase what three words is in bold and there's even a link to the What Three Words website in the description, another is just a line of Morse code to decode.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Interesting, as a quick search for mystery caches in a 50km radius of home gives 40 D1.5 and 5 D1, some of which were placed by highly experienced and well-respected cachers. A lot of these are simple field puzzles (count things or read numerals off a sign), some are really easy puzzles (like an easy Sudoku or crossword), one of the D1 puzzles is a What Three Words one, where the phrase what three words is in bold and there's even a link to the What Three Words website in the description, another is just a line of Morse code to decode.

Even so, I would rate these about D1.5, as there is still extra effort needed to find this cache, that a traditional doesn't have.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

A lot of these are simple field puzzles (count things or read numerals off a sign),

FWIW, I'm used to seeing things like this listed as multi-caches, not as mystery/puzzle caches. It actually surprised me when I did some geocaching on a business trip to Massachusetts and caches like that were consistently listed as mystery/puzzle caches.

Edited by niraD
attribution

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Even so, I would rate these about D1.5, as there is still extra effort needed to find this cache, that a traditional doesn't have.

 

The Help Centre page for D/T ratings says a D1 should be "Easy to find or solve within a few minutes", while a D1.5 is "Easy to find or solve within 10-15 minutes". The line of Morse, most of which are digits (the only letters are S and E), I'm sure most cachers could solve in under 10 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, I'm used to seeing things like this listed as multi-caches, not as mystery/puzzle caches. It actually surprised me when I did some geocaching on a business trip to Massachusetts and caches like that were consistently listed as mystery/puzzle caches.

"35 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

A lot of these are simple field puzzles (count things or read numerals off a sign)"

🙂That wasn't my comment.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...