# DNF when not arriving at GZ?

Followers 6

## Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

You were at GZ so it's clearly a DNF

Define "at GZ"? Let's say in this case we could get within 30' of the cache before the construction fencing prevented us from getting any closer. Now imagine that construction fence blocked access to the path itself. How far down the path would the cache have to be before you would log a note instead of a DNF? To me, it's a DNF because I was going to the cache and couldn't get there because of the construction. Being "at GZ" isn't the consideration, it's whether I was going for the cache and what stopped me. In the case of construction blocking the way, because a reasonable approach to GZ that was disabled, I'd tend to call it a DNF.

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Define "at GZ"? Let's say in this case we could get within 30' of the cache before the construction fencing prevented us from getting any closer. Now imagine that construction fence blocked access to the path itself. How far down the path would the cache have to be before you would log a note instead of a DNF? To me, it's a DNF because I was going to the cache and couldn't get there because of the construction. Being "at GZ" isn't the consideration, it's whether I was going for the cache and what stopped me. In the case of construction blocking the way, because a reasonable approach to GZ that was disabled, I'd tend to call it a DNF.

I disagree with you, being at GZ is the consideration and the whole purpose of this topic before calling a DNF.

If I see GZ through a fence and it's disturbed = DNF and NM

If the fence is 1 km away and Don't see GZ = Write Note.

I've now been informed by a previous finder that the cache's coordinates are about 15 metres off and it's actually just outside the construction area. I'll still stand by my DNF and NM, though, the DNF because it's a report of my unsuccessful attempt to find the cache and I reckon it still needs checking by the owner even if just to confirm that the construction workers haven't disturbed it and to correct the coordinates. But they haven't responded to the NM logged 3 months ago about a soggy log so I'm not holding out much hope. Maybe my two logs will be enough to wake up the CHS.

17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I've now been informed by a previous finder that the cache's coordinates are about 15 metres off and it's actually just outside the construction area. I'll still stand by my DNF and NM, though, the DNF because it's a report of my unsuccessful attempt to find the cache and I reckon it still needs checking by the owner even if just to confirm that the construction workers haven't disturbed it and to correct the coordinates. But they haven't responded to the NM logged 3 months ago about a soggy log so I'm not holding out much hope. Maybe my two logs will be enough to wake up the CHS.

Also if the coordinates are 15 metres off and you didn't know this, that's another reason for your DNF. Maybe if you conform this, add a NM to get the coordinates corrected.

38 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Also if the coordinates are 15 metres off and you didn't know this, that's another reason for your DNF. Maybe if you conform this, add a NM to get the coordinates corrected.

I don't think I care enough about that cache to bother. It's about 35km from home and I only attempted it because I was going right past on the way to another cache (which I did find). I've done my bit, I gave an honest account of my attempt at finding it so someone else can have the honours of logging an NA (or not).

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I really don't understand why a situation like this can't be a DNF and has to be relegated to a WN, just because I couldn't reach GZ to do a thorough search. I was trying to find the cache but couldn't so to me that's a DNF.

In such situations, I've posted NM logs.

4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I disagree with you, being at GZ is the consideration and the whole purpose of this topic before calling a DNF.

If I see GZ through a fence and it's disturbed = DNF and NM

If the fence is 1 km away and Don't see GZ = Write Note.

So your answer is, 'If you can see GZ, then you're "at GZ"'?

IF construction was at gz blocking my access to the cache location, even if I could "see" the cache location, I'd likely write a note. The blockage was an unintended and (hopefully) temporal incident. Now if I couldn't see where gz should be due to construction, I'm not sure if I'd put a note or DNF. Maybe it would depend on how close to the coordinates I believed I was.

I don't like putting DNFs for temporary hindrances. To me it just feels like a note is more informative and relevant.

But, as always, that's just how I tend to do things.

Remember only the Find log really has an objective definition - name in the logbook. DNF/Note, it can be quite subjective. As a later finder, I have a kind of rough 'expectation' of what the log type might mean, but in either case, reading the log is always much more informative than the type of log. So, I wouldn't see it as a big deal if in the above situation it were a Note or a DNF.

20 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

You were at GZ so it's clearly a DNF

If you are 2km away from GZ then you're clearly NOT at GZ. GZ is being at the coordinates. If you're 2km away, how do you know where GZ actually is? A DNF should only be logged if you were at GZ and couldn't find it. You cannot search for the cache when you are 2km away, so it's not a DNF.

53 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't like putting DNFs for temporary hindrances.

This strikes me as an odd way to look at it. An absolutely normal DNF is a "temporary hindrance" in the sense that something prevented me from discovering where the cache was even though I should have been able to find it. I don't normally know what that something is, but when I do know, like when it's a construction fence, the only difference, the way I see it, is that I can name the temporary hindrance.

Anyway, my main point was that for me, at least, some kind of physical measure of distance is only one part of it, so that's why I was wondering what was meant by "at GZ". I'm almost sure to file a DNF if I'm at GZ, and it almost doesn't matter if I actually execute any kind of search. But being not at GZ doesn't rule out a DNF for me, it just makes it less likely depending on what other factors are involved. As it happens, blocked by construction is something that makes me more likely to post a DNF because in those cases I tend to view my DNF as "I didn't find it....and the next seeker might not be able to find it for the same reason."

16 minutes ago, nottins said:

If you are 2km away from GZ then you're clearly NOT at GZ. GZ is being at the coordinates. If you're 2km away, how do you know where GZ actually is? A DNF should only be logged if you were at GZ and couldn't find it. You cannot search for the cache when you are 2km away, so it's not a DNF.

Hum not sure if you are quoting the wrong reply because I said something very similar to you :

19 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

If I see GZ through a fence and it's disturbed = DNF and NM

If the fence is 1 km away and Don't see GZ = Write Note.

The one you quote me was about barefootjeff picture with an excavator above GZ that he can clearly see from the fence 10 meters away.

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

This strikes me as an odd way to look at it. An absolutely normal DNF is a "temporary hindrance" in the sense that something prevented me from discovering where the cache was even though I should have been able to find it. I don't normally know what that something is, but when I do know, like when it's a construction fence, the only difference, the way I see it, is that I can name the temporary hindrance.

Anyway, my main point was that for me, at least, some kind of physical measure of distance is only one part of it, so that's why I was wondering what was meant by "at GZ". I'm almost sure to file a DNF if I'm at GZ, and it almost doesn't matter if I actually execute any kind of search. But being not at GZ doesn't rule out a DNF for me, it just makes it less likely depending on what other factors are involved. As it happens, blocked by construction is something that makes me more likely to post a DNF because in those cases I tend to view my DNF as "I didn't find it....and the next seeker might not be able to find it for the same reason."

A Write note would make the exact same job and not trigger the CHS.

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

IF construction was at gz blocking my access to the cache location, even if I could "see" the cache location, I'd likely write a note. The blockage was an unintended and (hopefully) temporal incident. Now if I couldn't see where gz should be due to construction, I'm not sure if I'd put a note or DNF. Maybe it would depend on how close to the coordinates I believed I was.

For me, it depends on the nature of the construction. If the whole site is under significant construction, then the CO needs to disable the cache for the duration of construction, and probably needs to replace (or archive) the cache once the construction is complete. IMHO, that deserves a Needs Maintenance log. I've encountered that situation a few times.

On the other hand, if the construction is relatively minor short-term work (e.g., painting a parking lot) that will be finished by tomorrow or the next day, then that might be worth a Did Not Search (DNS, logged as a Note) if there's a story to tell.

49 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

A Write note would make the exact same job and not trigger the CHS.

Not really, a WN doesn't put a blue frowny on the map as a reminder to go back again better prepared, nor does it put the log in a category of unsuccessful finds. If I look through my list of WN logs, they're mostly about TB drops, return visits to previously found caches when out caching with friends and progress reports on extended multis that I'd been working through.

The reason the CHS was created was because too many people were reluctant to log NMs and NAs so it tries to infer those by counting DNFs. If enough people log WN instead of DNF when they can't find the cache to avoid triggering the CHS, eventually the CHS will start giving negative scores to WN logs and then what?

Edited by barefootjeff
48 minutes ago, nottins said:

If you are 2km away from GZ then you're clearly NOT at GZ. GZ is being at the coordinates. If you're 2km away, how do you know where GZ actually is? A DNF should only be logged if you were at GZ and couldn't find it. You cannot search for the cache when you are 2km away, so it's not a DNF.

That's probably true for the great majority of caches, where getting to GZ is fairly trivial and the main challenge the cache presents is in the searching once there. But this thread began with discussion about a T4.5 cache and those are a different beast. For many of those, the challenge the cache presents is getting to GZ and, once there, there's often no searching at all required because the cache is in plain sight or there's really only one place it could be. For those sorts of caches, the searching is finding a route to GZ against all the terrain obstacles the CO has put in your way, and that starts when I leave my car and venture into the trackless wilds and ends when I reach GZ. And yes, on those I often know exactly where GZ is before I get there, either from a photo the CO has provided on the cache page or just from the description and hint (in the back of the cave on the eastern side of the summit, perhaps). Those caches are all about the journey, not the destination, and for me at least, failing to complete the journey because I was defeated by it warrants a DNF because it was a failed attempt at finding the cache. DNFs on caches like those rarely mean they're missing, rather they just mean it's a tough place to get to.

This is a DNF I had earlier this year on one of my T4 caches:

He's a fairly experienced cacher, so experienced in fact that on his other account he's a reviewer, so he ought to know when it's appropriate to log a DNF. Yes he did reach GZ, well at least he found the cave, but by his own admission he didn't make much of a search of it as, had he gone far enough in and turned to his right, he would have seen the cache looking back at him.

No camo rock or suspicious pile of sticks covering it, it's just sitting there in plain sight for anyone who gets themselves all the way to where it's hidden and doesn't have their attempt interrupted by scaly critters.

Fittingly, I suppose, that particular cache is a challenge cache and one of the qualifying requirements is to find a prescribed number of caches with the Dangerous Animals attribute.

• 1
• 2
33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No camo rock or suspicious pile of sticks covering it, it's just sitting there in plain sight for anyone who gets themselves all the way to where it's hidden and doesn't have their attempt interrupted by scaly critters.

I must say I expected to come across a death adder in there Jeff.....

• 1
• 1
9 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

A Write note would make the exact same job and not trigger the CHS.

The CHS is definitely not a part of my consideration.

• 2
• 2
7 hours ago, dprovan said:

The CHS is definitely not a part of my consideration.

+1

If it's my cache and the "Cache Health Score" posts a warning that I better go check that cache, I go check it.  That's what I do, I'm a cache owner.  I check it a lot, regardless.

But a sudden list of DNFs means something changed.  Go check.  Sure it could be that you got a bunch of newbs in a row.  But usually upon not finding it, everyone posts instead a list of "Found Its" with "I think it's gone" logs (because the App defaults to Found It).  It's very rare that a DNF results in a Note log.  Nobody does that.  But suppose people made "Note" logs unless "I thoroughly searched at exactly the right spot because otherwise it's not a DNF", and now there's a sudden list of Notes designed to not trigger the CHS.  That means something changed.  Go check.

Edited by kunarion
On 11/25/2021 at 3:53 PM, dprovan said:

This strikes me as an odd way to look at it. An absolutely normal DNF is a "temporary hindrance" in the sense that something prevented me from discovering where the cache was even though I should have been able to find it. I don't normally know what that something is, but when I do know, like when it's a construction fence, the only difference, the way I see it, is that I can name the temporary hindrance.

And clearly I'm referring to hindrances such as construction fences (if you get the spirit of my comments). In most cases I wouldn't post a DNF if I couldn't reach gz because of a temporary fence.  If I reached gz but couldn't find the cache because of temporary snow cover, I'd log a DNF.

It comes back to my point earlier; I make the judgment case by case. I don't really have universal "rules" for what log to write, which is why I use words like 'generally', 'most times', 'likely'.  It's a judgment call.

On 11/25/2021 at 4:33 PM, niraD said:

For me, it depends on the nature of the construction. If the whole site is under significant construction, then the CO needs to disable the cache for the duration of construction, and probably needs to replace (or archive) the cache once the construction is complete. IMHO, that deserves a Needs Maintenance log. I've encountered that situation a few times.

On the other hand, if the construction is relatively minor short-term work (e.g., painting a parking lot) that will be finished by tomorrow or the next day, then that might be worth a Did Not Search (DNS, logged as a Note) if there's a story to tell.

Agreed.

If it's on a tree and there's a small fence around it, I might reach and still find it.

If it's on a tree and I can't safely get to it because it's fenced off (or say the park is fenced off), I'd likely log a Note.

There's not much chance a construction fence would cause me to log a DNF.

If it's winter, I'd more likely log a DNF if I feel like snow hindered me from finding the cache, especially if I think I'd have found it otherwise.

If there's so much snow that I don't think I made a 'decent' enough search for the cache, I'd likely log a Note.

Did Not Search / Did Not Attempt - both of those fall under a Note category for me.

And I'll just also add - the CHS doesn't affect my logging decisions either. For me, DNF or Note is really just a balance of whether I think I should have or would have found it, or that I gave it a good search, or encountered any potentially unintentional temporary hindrances to reach an area (aka, whether I feel I gave it a good/relevant search at gz).

• 1
• 1

This could get pretty humorous. Pick random caches the other side of the planet and ask your self if you found it today. No, I did not find it - DNF. Someone could DNF entire continents.
I can kinda why Groundspeak no longer allows DNF challenges. There are grandfathered challenges with DNFs, though ironically I DNFed this one: GC18AQA

To clarify, I am not advocating mass DNFing caches someone didn't attend GZ for, also not trying to offend anyone. You enjoy the game your way.

4 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

This could get pretty humorous. Pick random caches the other side of the planet and ask your self if you found it today. No, I did not find it - DNF. Someone could DNF entire continents.

There's been a suggestion that if one posts a DNF on a cache that one Did Not Find,  that to be consistent one must therefore immediately make "DNF" logs on every cache in the world.  But usually on my caches, it's almost the opposite.  People "Did Not Find", so they hunt several more times, then log a Found It when they Found It, or at most PM me for a hint after several attempts.  No logs occur until then, not NM, not DNF, DNS, Note, or nuthin.  So I wonder about threads that dive into which log is suitable upon a Did Not Find, when No Log At All seems to be the norm.

But I see a lot of logs where they Did Not Find or sign, that have a "Found" icon.

Edited by kunarion

For me, another consideration on DNF versus WN when there is an obstruction is what is mentioned in prior logs. I went after a cache once, it was in an area closed due to fire fighting training. The CO had noted that in a prior log. When I got to the parking area, there was no mention of any trail closures. The closure was about a kilometer down the trail, The cache was only 80 meters further down the trail. I chose a WN, rather than a DNF primarily because I was confirming an already noted condition. If it was not already noted in the logs, I would have done DNF.

1 minute ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

The closure was about a kilometer down the trail, The cache was only 80 meters further down the trail. I chose a WN, rather than a DNF primarily because I was confirming an already noted condition. If it was not already noted in the logs, I would have done DNF.

Why do you go if it's clearly not findable?

21 minutes ago, kunarion said:

People "Did Not Find", so they hunt several more times, then log a Found It when they Found It, or at most PM me for a hint after several attempts.  No logs occur until then, not NM, not DNF, DNS, Note, or nuthin.

I have seen logs such as, "Found on my sixth attempt," with no DNF. On some caches I have made several DNFs, and likely will continue making them each visit until I find it.

On several occasions I have offered hints to those who log DNFs on my caches. I won't give extra assistance if they don't log DNFs on their failed attempts. I find it rude to refuse to log DNFs, but then be presumptuous to ask for help.

Edited by Goldenwattle
• 3
• 1
15 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Why do you go if it's clearly not findable?

Primarily, optimism. The cache was a fair distance from home (500km), and the cache was part of a GeoTour I was trying to complete. The situation in the area was fluid, and the CO's note was a week old.

11 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Primarily, optimism. The cache was a fair distance from home (500km), and the cache was part of a GeoTour I was trying to complete. The situation in the area was fluid, and the CO's note was a week old.

Makes sense.  I usually go "just to see what made this one so hard to find all of a sudden".

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I find it rude to refuse to log DNFs, but then be presumptuous to ask for help.

Me too.  Often it appears to be someone very new, trying out The App, without any clue what they're doing.  Yet that same App has a nice text primer on Geocaching, 3 decent videos built-in, and a link to 17 more videos.

It's almost like many new cachers don't understand that there are ordinary people like themselves in the Geocaching community watching cache logs, and an informative log is a great way to help everyone keep things running smoothly.  I guess some don't intend to invest the time learning about the game.  When I started, I first read what "the rules" are.  This ain't no Pokey Man.  Ok, when I started, my first couple of logs were all "TFTC"... but I edited them when I had a better grasp of what cachers would like in logs.

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I find it rude to refuse to log DNFs, but then be presumptuous to ask for help.

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

Often it appears to be someone very new, trying out The App, without any clue what they're doing.

The only ones that ever did that to us was long time premium members.

We just figured they were arrogant, thinking they've cached long enough that if they couldn't find it, it probably wasn't there.

- But never logged a NM either...

They all knew enough to PAF the other 2/3rds instead of me though, so they knew what kind of "hint" I'd give 'em.

I got this DNF on one of my multis yesterday:

The cache isn't in the cave, with the hint saying "Rock hollow next door to the cave", so I'm not sure where they were searching for 20 minutes before encountering the spider. I suppose I should drop by and check on it next time I'm in the area in case the spider has eaten the cache.

On 11/30/2021 at 7:57 AM, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

For me, another consideration on DNF versus WN when there is an obstruction is what is mentioned in prior logs. I went after a cache once, it was in an area closed due to fire fighting training. The CO had noted that in a prior log. When I got to the parking area, there was no mention of any trail closures. The closure was about a kilometer down the trail, The cache was only 80 meters further down the trail. I chose a WN, rather than a DNF primarily because I was confirming an already noted condition. If it was not already noted in the logs, I would have done DNF.

That seems reasonable. I have no problem seeing your point. As it happens, I'd do the exact opposite: *because* there was a CO note about the area being closed, I'd tend to file a DNF confirming I didn't find it for exactly the reasons the CO said I wouldn't be able to find it. And I'd likely have fun giving myself, the CO, or both a bad time depending on which of us had more to do with why I went there even though I should have known I couldn't get to GZ.

Although to me, the note from the CO is kinda a bad example. If, instead of a note from the CO, several seekers have noted the problem that prevents anyone from getting to GZ, whether in DNFs or Notes, I'd be more likely to just not bother to say anything unless I had something to add, and if I did say something, it would more likely be a Note.

36 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That seems reasonable. I have no problem seeing your point. As it happens, I'd do the exact opposite: *because* there was a CO note about the area being closed, I'd tend to file a DNF confirming I didn't find it for exactly the reasons the CO said I wouldn't be able to find it. And I'd likely have fun giving myself, the CO, or both a bad time depending on which of us had more to do with why I went there even though I should have known I couldn't get to GZ.

Although to me, the note from the CO is kinda a bad example. If, instead of a note from the CO, several seekers have noted the problem that prevents anyone from getting to GZ, whether in DNFs or Notes, I'd be more likely to just not bother to say anything unless I had something to add, and if I did say something, it would more likely be a Note.

If the CO knew the area is closed he/she/it should have disabled it instead

• 2
• 1
10 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

If the CO knew the area is closed he/she/it should have disabled it instead

Well, we don't know that the cache wasn't disabled. "The CO had noted that in a prior log," was the description, so the "prior log" could have been a disable.

Anyway, maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether the CO thought the trail would only be closed for a couple days. In that case, I'm fine with the CO posting a note warning anyone heading that way in the next few days instead of disabling it and possibly having it disabled way longer than the trail was closed. We're big boys and girls. It won't kill us to be disappointed because we didn't notice the logs saying the trail is closed. So I don't mind the CO erring on the side of keeping the cache in play for whenever the trail is open.

The cache was disabled. My bad implying that the CO logged a WN.

On 12/1/2021 at 11:29 AM, Lynx Humble said:

If the CO knew the area is closed he/she/it should have disabled it instead

## 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.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.