No Tresspassing - No Find Or Note?

[HamsterMom & Hamsters of War]

We went to find a cache last night for the purpose of trading out a TB we needed to send on its way. When we got there we found that the cache was not accessable. The cache is located in a park in the process of being developed. There was orange fencing across the access point and No Tresspassing signs posted.

 

My question is - do I have to log this as a No Find or should I just post a note? I am sure the cache is still there - it was logged as found just 6 days ago. I am not sure if the fencing is a recent addition or if the previous finders have been ignoring the signs - We were not willing to break the law to get to the cache.

 

Thanks for any advice!

Beth

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You can post it as either, really. Just explain in your log that the park was closed for maintenance when you got there and you couldn't search for the cache. You might suggest to the owner that he temporarily disables the cache until the park reopens.

[+carleenp]

You will find that most people do not view it as a find unless you actually go to the cache, open it, and sign the log. I also agree with that view. You didn't actually find the cache.

 

What I would do is post a did not find. That will alert the cache owner that there is a problem with the cache. That will also show up for users who use programs to filter their pocket queries. Many will filter out caches with recent DNF logs. A note won't help those people who want to filter out caches with DNFs so that they can avoid looking for them.

Edited May 7, 2004 by carleenp

[+Mastifflover]

I would post a note because you didn't actually search for the cache you could not get in the area.

[+TeamJiffy]

I think a "Not Found" is better. Here's why...

 

A lot of software (GSAK, Watcher) will summarize the last four or five Finds/Not-Founds in a list of caches. That way, you may think twice about visiting a place with many not founds since the last find. A "Note" doesn't give that same sense of alert.

 

A reason I have heard to use Note instead of "Not Found" is if you have a personal view that a "Not Found" is somehow a blemish on your Geocaching record, and therefore you think in this case that you don't deserve the knock on your reputation since you couldn't even try searching for the cache. I really don't care anymore about what people think of my "record" so I'd log it as "Not Found" and leave it as that.

 

If Geocaching.com let you bring up a list of your "Not Found" caches and then you used that to remind yourself of caches you want to try again, I could see my opinion changing...

 

The only time I don't log "Not Found" is when I don't even make the attempt for whatever reason. For example, when 300 feet from the cache, I get a phone call from work saying "All Heck is breaking loose! You need to come back in!" and then I turn around and head to the car. I don't have anything useful to say about the cache, so why bother logging anything?

 

In your case, you have something useful to say... the cache cannot be reached. Hilight it with the "Not Found".

 

-Jif

Edited May 7, 2004 by TeamJiffy

[+carleenp]

The only time I don't log "Not Found" is when I don't even make the attempt for whatever reason. For example, when 300 feet from the cache, I get a phone call from work saying "All Heck is breaking loose! You need to come back in!" and then I turn around and head to the car. I don't have anything useful to say about the cache, so why bother logging anything?

 

This is what I do too. I figure that if I'm confident the cache is there and there are no issues to get it, a note won't scare away others who filter out DNFs. If I search, even if only briefly, I post a DNF. Either way, I explain the situation in the log.

 

There is nothing wrong with a DNF log. I have had some great fun on some DNF hunts!

[HamsterMom & Hamsters of War]

Thanks for all the advice! I went ahead and opted for posting a note. We do have a perfect record for finds and decided to keep the record clean! I have added it to my watch list so if access becomes available, we will be able to run down and find it!

 

Beth

[+SixDogTeam]

Good choice. Posting a DNF would be WRONG. It's simple--How can it be a DNF if you didn't look for it? Should I log DNF's for the thousands of caches I haven't looked for?

[CoyoteRed]

But the rub here is there is a problem with the cache.

 

Trying to keep your record "clean" is like saying you've never made a mistake and that's just flat out disingenuous. We don't have a problem with DNFs, our list is full of purple faces.

 

By all rights, if you knew you simply can't access the cache without crossing a No Tresspassing sign, then you could have offered up the even stronger SBA. This would have been a stronger alert to the cache owner that he might want to go check on his cache and possibly retrieve it before it gets "cleaned up." I know I would have appreciated a head's up before one of mine was taken by a clean up crew. Plus, in the SBA you can mention that the cache really should be taken offline, not archived, until the park is reopened.

 

Not everyone pays that close attention of notes logged on their caches, but an SBA is certainly more likely to get their attention.

[CoyoteRed]

Should I log DNF's for the thousands of caches I haven't looked for?

Certainly, if there is something about the cache that prevented you from hunting it.

 

No, I'm not talking about it being too far from you, too hard for you, or myriad of others reason, but something that would prevent any cacher from safely and legally hunting this cache.

 

Another way to look at it is, would an approver knowingly allow you to list a cache that is behind No Trespassing signs? Not hardly. The log deserves something stronger than a note.

Edited May 7, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Geo Leo]

Good choice. Posting a DNF would be WRONG. It's simple--How can it be a DNF if you didn't look for it? Should I log DNF's for the thousands of caches I haven't looked for?

I agree. I only post DNF's when I actually search for the cache in the spot where it is supposed to be and am unable to find it. In this case I would definitely just post a note. The cache owner will still be notified of the note, and hopefully change the cache to temporarily unavailable. This will take care of the issue of waving others off further moreso than a DNF in my opinion.

[+carleenp]

Good choice. Posting a DNF would be WRONG. It's simple--How can it be a DNF if you didn't look for it? Should I log DNF's for the thousands of caches I haven't looked for?

 

I agree. I only post DNF's when I actually search for the cache in the spot where it is supposed to be and am unable to find it. In this case I would definitely just post a note. The cache owner will still be notified of the note, and hopefully change the cache to temporarily unavailable. This will take care of the issue of waving others off further moreso than a DNF in my opinion.

But it won't help paperless cachers who are filtering caches by DNF notes to avoid the annoyance of seeking an inaccessible cache. I like CR's point about a should be archived log as an alternative. That would help in case the owner of the cache is no longer active. Although I would log a DNF and then later a should be archived if I noticed that the owner didn't do anything.

Edited May 7, 2004 by carleenp

[+The Leprechauns]

I log a DNF nearly any time that I hit "Go To" for a geocache waypoint, but I do not sign the logbook -- for whatever reason. Clearly in this case, I would log a DNF at a minimum.

 

Many people are shy about logging a "Should Be Archived." I've only done this three times in two years. One was because of new "no trespassing" signs appearing along a path adjacent to a public park. I got a bit upset when the owner of this cache dismissed the warnings by some friends of mine, responsible geocachers with 250 finds, who reported the problem. The owner said they must have approached from the wrong direction, and I knew that they hadn't. I went to the site on my way to some other nearby caches and took pictures of the new signs. An admin promptly archived the cache in response to my SBA request.

 

Perhaps the concept of a new log type for "needs owner attention" or "needs maintenance" would help in these circumstances, as has been discussed in other threads.

[+flask]

well, i'm not against dnf's. i have plenty. i use them for when i have made any reasonable search attempt. sometimes this means that i have looked for the park but not found it.

 

sometimes if i have simply run out of time and intend to resume my search soon, i'll post a note. "out of time" is not the same as "out of ideas". if i decide to search all the holoow logs in a given area and i'm going to get to half today and half tomorrow, i'll leave a note. if i complete my log search and i'm still clueless, i DNF. if i don't go back to finish, it's DNF.

 

i'm also not against helping people who use watcher and GSAK, but neither do i feel obligated to change my log type in order to help them sort things.

 

if the park is closed, i'm likely to email the owner and suggest a temporary disablement. i am not likely to log DNF on something i didn't really look for.

 

the obverse of this sort of thing is that i know a cacher who logs DNF's for things like "we were driving by and thought of maybe looking for this but we didn't have our headlamps, so we didn't look". i don't need people to log stuff like this on my caches!

 

and when i download large amounts of caches, i always scan the recent logs visually just to see if there are any issues of which i should be aware.

[+SeventhSon]

I log a DNF nearly any time that I hit "Go To" for a geocache waypoint, but I do not sign the logbook -- for whatever reason. Clearly in this case, I would log a DNF at a minimum.

DNF .. Hit the "Go To" and the engine blew in my cache mobile.

 

DNF .. Hit the "Go To" but some bozo ran a red light and wrecked my cache mobile.

 

DNF .. Hit the "Go To" but my pager went off and I had to rush off to surgery.

 

So anyone filtering out caches because of DNF's will not look for this one even tho it hasn't actually been searched yet.

 

7

[+Runaround]

This one is easy. Log a DNF and then log an archive note.

 

People get to hung up on DNF's and maintaining a "pefect record". Why?? No one is keeping track. Do the cache owner and your fellow cachers a favor and use the DNF.

[+Runaround]

I log a DNF nearly any time that I hit "Go To" for a geocache waypoint, but I do not sign the logbook -- for whatever reason.  Clearly in this case, I would log a DNF at a minimum.

DNF .. Hit the "Go To" and the engine blew in my cache mobile.

 

DNF .. Hit the "Go To" but some bozo ran a red light and wrecked my cache mobile.

 

DNF .. Hit the "Go To" but my pager went off and I had to rush off to surgery.

 

So anyone filtering out caches because of DNF's will not look for this one even tho it hasn't actually been searched yet.

 

7

He said "nearly any time". I think you ID'd the exceptions.

[CoyoteRed]

You know, when you interact people or listen to people you tend to analyze what they say. Sometimes you don't agree with them, sometimes you do. You also automatically tally their opinions as good ones and bad ones. You also tally how serious and how thoughtful the opinions are. So after a while you know who can give good answers, who can't, and sort the rest in the middle. There will be people whose answers and opinions you will eventual just skip over because it's just a waste of effort to move your eyeballs over the drivel on your screen.

 

...then there are those whose answers and opinons you will really listen to. Theirs are the answers and opinions that you will pretty much take as gospel. While you may still analyze and process the opinions of these individuals, they will always carry more weight. When your opinion and theirs don't mesh you tend to rethink your own opinion to see if it is still valid given the arguments presented. Heck, this individual's opinon may change your own.

 

In essence, when they talk, you listen.

 

Lep (The Leprechauns) is one such individual for me. I've never met the man in person, only here on the forums, in the chatroom, and a couple of emails. I might not agree with everything he says, but he is certianly one of the very few who I give the greatest of stock in what he says.

 

I must admit that I can't argue with his test of logging a DNF. While it doesn't exactly mesh with my own, "She Who Must be Obeyed" has a test similar to Lep's and, thusly, that's how we log. Basically the test is "if there is something about an attempted physcial hunt that prevented us from having cache in hand and open, it's a DNF." Mine is more "if there is a problem with an attempted physical hunt that prevented us from having cache in hand and open, it's a DNF." It's a subtle but important difference.

[+bons]

Good choice. Posting a DNF would be WRONG. It's simple--How can it be a DNF if you didn't look for it? Should I log DNF's for the thousands of caches I haven't looked for?

But I did look for it. I simply didn't look where the co-ordinates say because the description indicates the cache isn't there.

 

Last week I went to look for a cache and standing at the edge of the farmer's field the cache pointed clear out in the field to where a tractor was moving. So wondering if I made a mistake I drove a round the field and sure enough, my GPS indicated the same area.

 

I logged a DNF because there was no way the cache could be at those co-ordinates. (turns out it was .1 minute to the south. Simple typo on the owner's part.)

 

The week before I was doing a multi. There was a gravel area for parking that matched the description but the gravel area had a big No Tresspassing sign there. In fact, both entrances to the property had No Trespaassing signs there.

 

Same thing. Every indication said that the cache could not or should not be in the indicated location. And I had made a reasonable effort to find the cache without tresspassing.

 

That's a DNF in my book.

[+briansnat]

I'd log a DNF for something like this. My standard is similar to Leps, where if I turn my GPS on and hit Go To and don't come up with the cache its a DNF. That being said, I don't have a quarrel with anybody whose standard is different, as long as they log something (other than a find).

 

I do have a quarrel with people who don't log DNF's at all because they think it's a mark of shame, or as one geocacher said, he didn't "like seeing frownie faces on my page". I can't begin to count the times when I've seen a log that said something like "Found it on my 4th try. This has been a tough one for me" and there are no previous DNF's for that person. Lets hear about those DNF's. I'm sure there is an interesting and maybe funny story.

Edited May 9, 2004 by briansnat

[Dave Lucas]

So I guess I'm evil...

 

I've been looking for "A world Apart" in Kingston, since it was first placed. Other folk have said "oooo easy" and "simple and pretty" etc etc etc. Everyone and their two year old was finding it. I simply could not.

 

I did not fill the log with DNF.. I'm not sure why really... since it was a 1/2 (too easy to find, but not wheel chair accessable), I just did not want to fill someones log with evidence of my stupidy.

 

I mean I looked for this thing about 50 times... once a week more or less since it was laid. No joy. Until today (wheeeeeee). After a while it would just get stupid.

 

So I guess that's my excuse for not logging in attemps 35 onwards. Why did I not log the first few?

 

I guess I'm evil.

 

But you're right - I should have logged them. And will in the future... it's only a game, but the game has rules :-)

[HamsterMom & Hamsters of War]

This morning when I got up to check on the e-mail there was a message in the box. Goldfinder has archived the cache based on my note on the cache page. The cachers in this area seem to be good about paying attention to what goes on with their caches and I am pleased with the outcome. I still have the cache on my watch list so I can get it as soon as it comes available!

 

Interesting to see so many thoughts on the issue - I have to say all sides make very good points!

[Find Now, Log Later?]

I've seen many instances like this or where a cache is otherwise unavailable where a cacher (usually an ubercacher) will claim a find, after requesting permission from the cache owner, of course.

Edited May 8, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Cache Viking]

I would post a note. If I am not permitted to get to the cache coordinates to look then I never had a chance to look and find or not. Note it would be for me.

[+briansnat]

I've seen many instances like this or where a cache is otherwise unavailable where a cacher (usually an ubercacher) will claim a find, after requesting permission from the cache owner, of course.

 

Now why would anyone do something like this?

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Now why would anyone do something like this?

It's happened in our area many times, so I'm surprised you would even need to ask. "It's all about the numbers." Why, I've heard that some people get the DTs if they haven't logged a "smiley" in the past few hours.

[+briansnat]

It's happened in our area many times, so I'm surprised you would even need to ask. "It's all about the numbers." Why, I've heard that some people get the DTs if they haven't logged a "smiley" in the past few hours.

 

I was being facetious. I do know of at least one 4 figure cache finder who does this, but I don' think its rampant.

[CoyoteRed]

...and thusly the reason "numbers don't matter" to the rest of us who still believe in decorum and fairplay.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

I was being facetious.

Me too.

[janx]

I should think that the minimum rule-of-thumb for logging a DNF would be:

If the reason I couldn't find the cache might affect another cacher then I should log a DNF.

 

That rule above pretty much covers it.

 

Your car dies on the way? No impact to another cacher's hunt (excluding your friends in the same vehicle). No need to post anything.

 

No Trespassing sign between you and the cache? If that's the only way in, then you were stopped, and so might another cacher. DNF

 

Got to the right spot, but couldn't fing the cache? DNF. The cache may be gone, may be the wrong coords, or might even be better hid than expected. The owner and other cachers would benefit from seeing your DNF.

 

Took you 35 tries to find the cache, though everyone else did? DNF the first time, after that, only post when you've found it.

 

The DNF system is the mechanism to communicate problems with a cache to the owner, and to other cachers. It's almost a duty to post a DNF if there's a problem finding the cache. You have to use some sense. Who would benefit from reading the DNF?

 

Janx

[+Geo Ho]

I have no problem with posting a DNF if I've looked for a cache and can't find it but if I don't get the opportunity to actually look for the cache or get close enough to look for the cache then I would post a note.

 

That's my opinion . . . take it or leave it.

 

Happy caching and stuff!

[+LukeH]

I have only 10 or so finds so some people may write off my ideas but I seriously disagree with the common notion that you need 50 or so finds before you are 'worthy'. I feel I'm just as good as someone with 1000 finds, I simply have 2 orders of magnitude less free time on my hands. So here's my take on it.

 

I will post a DNF only if I got to the coordinates but was unable to find what I was looking for. I respectfully disagree with the idea of 'press goto and you're committed' because then your DNF can mislead other people. If you got called back to the office, or a storm rolled in and you aborted the mission still a mile from the cache, it would be wrong and misleading to post a DNF. As others have said DNF's are useful for when there may be a problem with the cache or its coordinates; if you never get near enough to try, post a note or post nothing at all.

[+Runaround]

I'd be curious to get opinions on this log.

 

I don't want to bias the votes. Just let me know if you agree or disagree.

[+briansnat]

Took you 35 tries to find the cache, though everyone else did? DNF the first time, after that, only post when you've found it.

 

Why? I'd think each attempt deserves a log.

 

I'd be curious to get opinions on this log.

 

I don't want to bias the votes. Just let me know if you agree or disagree.

 

If the same thing happened to me I'd certainly post a DNF. I went to look for the cache and didn't find it. If there was a choice that said "got near the cache but there were a bunch of nogoodnick teenage types hanging out nearby, so I called off the hunt" then I'd choose that. But unfortunately that isn't one of the choices, so I'd log a DNF.

Edited May 10, 2004 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

I'd be curious to get opinions on this log.

 

I don't want to bias the votes. Just let me know if you agree or disagree.

DNF.

 

It was attempted, but not found. While the final effort was not attempted, it was because of something with the hunt. The reason the final as not attempted was to protect the cache.

[+Pobre Rico]

Note

[+Confucius' Cat]

My general rule on posting DNF is "only if I got to the coords and couldn't find it after a reasonable search” or "there is some physical, legal, or ethical barrier preventing access".

 

That being said, I just logged a DNF for a cache I didn't get within 1/2 mile of, which to the best of my knowledge is not insurmountable nor illegal and probably is still there and accessible by the hider's directions. (It is also still VIRGIN)

 

I logged the DNF because I thought the story of WHY I aborted the mission is interesting.

 

I believe that logs are about chronicling the interesting endeavours and experiences of the sport.

 

Sorry if that messes up somebody's "filter".

 

Then again, on the selfish side- if the DNF causes someone else NOT to seek it, I will have a better chance of getting the FTF later. <KIDDING!>

 

The "filter" thing was unknown to me before reading this thread, so the "selfish" thing did not cross my mind. I think I'll leave the log anyway- for the reason stated above.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'd be curious to get opinions on this log.

 

I don't want to bias the votes. Just let me know if you agree or disagree.

Note. No actual looking for the cache took place. A DNF isn't out of bounds though.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I'd be curious to get opinions on this log.

 

I don't want to bias the votes. Just let me know if you agree or disagree.

DNF

 

I understand why you don't want to give away the cache, but the "nogoodnick" part caught my eye.

 

Why are people so afraid of teenagers?

 

Ruddy, grubby, grablsnabbin YUTES!

[+cachew nut]

Post a note, send the owner an email to alert him that the cache needs his attention.

 

The owner should then temporarily disable the cache until the fence is taken down.

[sclisanor]

I am Sissy, CR's partner in Sissy-n-CR. I am also usually an ignorer and occasionally a lurker of the GC forums, thus my (very) late reply to this thread.

 

CR and I share the duties of on-line logging, but I probably do the lion's share (lioness?) because I enjoy it. CR generally only logs if I am too tired or being lazy or I have bribed him with dinner.

 

That being said, like ChurchCamp Dave, I also knew (and still know) nothing about filtering caches. CR does all of our PQ's and other geeky stuff.

 

We log DNFs for any cache that we attempt and do not find. I like to share my adventures with the rest of the community. The only place that I know of that all of our purple faces show up at once is on our cache page. We are the only ones who see this page. Everyone else can look at our stat page and only sees the ones we have found.

 

Right now we have 33 purple faces. Our last one was for almost the exact reason as stated in the beginning of this thread. (See this) In case the link doesn't work it was for brown-ferry-cache.

 

My absolute (so far) favorite adventure also involves a DNF. See this on Nov. 16, 2003 and Dec. 25, 2003.

 

Personally, I try to save posting a note for occasions like this. Oct. 24, 2003 and others.

 

This is something I feel pretty strongly about, which is why I am posting. If I disobeyed any posting etiquette laws, please be gentle!

[+PandyBat]

I'd be curious to get opinions on this log.

 

I don't want to bias the votes. Just let me know if you agree or disagree.

Note

 

He didn't have a fair chance at getting to the cache because of the muggle teenagers. Had he gone for it, he would have given away the location of the cache to them.

Also, posting a DNF for this tells the GSAK, EasyGPS, etc users that the cache is mostly likely not there when in fact it is, he just couldn't get to it at the moment.

[+BadAndy]

I personally don't like the "needs archived" button that much. I'd post a note and email the cache owner.

 

I have a cache that the approach takes you alongside posted private property, you don't need to trespass to get the cache, in fact it's a more direct route if you stay on public land. I had a number of finders turn back without even looking because the signs scared them off. They posted notes about the signs and emailed me. I even got an email from my approver worried that he had approved a cache on private property. I disabled the cache and revisited the location to see what the deal was. Everything was fine. I added a note to the cache page with a picture of the forest service boundary marker to ease the minds of future visitors and re-enabled the cache.

 

Had one of those visitors hit the "needs archived" button, I have no doubt it would have been in a heartbeat.

 

I think it's much better to try emailing the owner before you take charge of their cache and have it archived.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Had one of those visitors hit the "needs archived" button, I have no doubt it would have been in a heartbeat.

Not really. The approvers are very fair. They would ask the owner and if the owner assured them that there is a way to the cache that does not involve law-breaking, the cache would remain.

 

Been there, done that, twice so far.

 

It is when the owners don't respond or the trespass is obvious that the cache gets archived for trespassing reasons.

 

There are also many other reasons to hit the needs archived button. Hitting the "button" doesn't archive the cache, it just alerts admin that there might be a problem.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

.

.

.

I do have a quarrel with people who don't log DNF's at all because they think it's a mark of shame, or as one geocacher said, he didn't "like seeing frownie faces on my page". I can't begin to count the times when I've seen a log that said something like "Found it on my 4th try. This has been a tough one for me" and there are no previous DNF's for that person. Lets hear about those DNF's. I'm sure there is an interesting and maybe funny story.

I don't like seeing Frowny Faces on my page. However that does not stop me from logging DNF's. I've logged well over 50 of them, and I'm sure there will be more.

 

However often I will start looking for a cache and not complete it in one visit. I won't always log a DNF (although usually I will), as I am not done looking yet....

[Find Now, Log Later?]

But it won't help paperless cachers who are filtering caches by DNF notes to avoid the annoyance of seeking an inaccessible cache. I like CR's point about a should be archived log as an alternative. That would help in case the owner of the cache is no longer active. Although I would log a DNF and then later a should be archived if I noticed that the owner didn't do anything.

Is it now everyone's responsibility to make geocaching as effortless as possible for one particular type of cacher?

 

If the public access is forbidden, then a NOTE stating that the cache needs to be TEMPORARILY DISABLED is probably most correct, because the closure precluded the cacher from beginning his/her search. From personal experience, I know that such closures may last anywhere from a day to many months, so the SBA option seems a bit draconian, unless the standard MO is for approvers to TEMPORARILY DISABLE the cache until a final determination can be made.