Dnf Cos It Aint There

[+aisledog]

Twice now I have posted DNFs or 'suggest archiving' on caches which were later confirmed to have gone missing. It seems to me that, having got there, walked, searched and notified the owners that their caches are missing. a 'find' would be a fair reward.... not that I'm a numbers man you understand What's the official ruling?

Sorry if I've overlooked a previous relevant thread.

 

Aisledog

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'd leave it as a DNF unless you found an identifiable part of the cache. Hopefully the owner will have reinstated the cache since then and you'll get another chance to log the find.

 

If there are remnants of the cache, and the owner is unable or reluctant to visit, a kindly visiting geocacher may start the cache going again.

 

See Millionaire's Cache which I found trashed but identifiable, and now appears to be viable again without the owner visiting.

 

I'm not sure why holiday caches aren't allowed when this has worked so well.

 

HH

[+minstrelcat]

From discussions that have taken place before on this subject, the consensus seems to be - if you didn't find it you can't claim a find!

 

Lisa

[+Team Maddie UK]

I have seen a similar question posed in other (american) forums and their response was that if any part of the "muggled" cache had been found (such as the log book or the container) they received the find. However, this is one of the unfortunate aspects of our pursuit that occasionally happens, and as Forest Gump says "!"£$% happens" and there isn't anything we can do about it. It would be up to the individual cache owners as to whether or not to give you the find as a sort of thanks, similar to what the Greeks did to the Brazilian marathon runner, who was sadly accosted in this years Olympics. Would he have gotten the Gold? Sadly we will never know.

Martin & Lynn (Maddie has gone to bed)

[+The White Family]

S&G.Davison went for our multicache (GCJ5W0) the other day, to find that the box had disappeared.

 

They mailed us the final co-ords and photos to show exactly where the box had been. On the strength of these we felt it only right that they should change their log to a Found.

 

So it depends on circumstances, I guess.

[+Pharisee]

If it ain't there... you can't sign the log book..... so you don't get to log it as found.

 

Tough... live with it !!!

[+webscouter.]

I don't log a find unless I sign a log. I also don't log two finds on caches that allow it, because I only logged one.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

How's this: Would you say that you picked up ice cream from the store if all you found was the empty shelf it was sitting on?

 

I didn't think so. If you did not find the cache, regardless of whether it was there or not, then you should post a DNF.

A find is only for when you actually found the cache, retrieved it, signed the logbook, and replaced it.

[AJK]

DNF, plain and simple - you were not looking for a location, you were looking for a cache. A DNF also alerts future finders of the possibility that the cache is missing.

[+G Force]

I agree with the previous posts if you do not find it does not count as a find. There were two that I had logged as DNF even though I was in the right place and there was a subsequent DNF only for me to go back to the same spot and find it.

[+Lassitude]

This has come up in the past. The consenus was no and I think it still is. You are only kidding yourself if you log this as a find. Be honest with yourself, if you did not think it was a dodgy thing to do you would not be asking.

 

I have failed to find caches in Norway, Sweden and Germany whilst on holiday. It's dadgum frustrating but there is nothing that can be done.

 

Chris

[+Belplasca]

A find is only for when you actually found the cache, retrieved it, signed the logbook, and replaced it.

So, does that mean it's impossible to log a virtual cache?

 

Bob Aldridge

Edited September 1, 2004 by Belplasca

[SlytherinAlex]

A find is only for when you actually found the cache, retrieved it, signed the logbook, and replaced it.

What if you find the cache but the logbook is missing?

[+S&G.Davison]

thanks to The White Family for letting us log the final cache of an 8 part multi as a find based on the co-ords and a photo - and we have promosed to revisit once it's back in action. This is the 2nd time an owner has allowed us to do this - the first was one in the US where we again sent a photo of the exact location where the cache had been. The owner checked to confirm the cache was indeed missing and then offered it to us as a find. If the cache has been confirmed as trashed, and the "finder" can show they were looking in the correct place I guess it's upto the owner to (dis)allow as they feel fit.

 

Sue & G

[+aisledog]

It seems then that, for the majority, a 'find' requires that you found the cache and signed the log. If either the cache or the logbook within it are missing, no 'find' can be claimed. This is only semantics unless you happen to be playing the numbers game and expect another notch on your gun as a reward for your expedition.

 

Clearly, however, this approach is not universal and there are quoted instances where finds have been posted when the cache is actually missing (albeit with the owners' consent).

 

I may be wrong, but I also think that there are instances where visitors do not sign the cache log but do write up the web log when they get home. A case in point was a cache I did recently. The log page had been filled up with, as far as I could see, the last entry being July 2004, whereas I know that web logs have been recorded for visits after that time.

 

When you visit the store for icecream and the shelf is bare, you're doing the owner a favour by telling him to go sort his shelf out. He might tell you to call back next time you're in the area but the truth is you dont have your icecream!

 

I know...s**t happens.

 

Aisledog

[SlytherinAlex]

When you visit the store for icecream and the shelf is bare, you're doing the owner a favour by telling him to go sort his shelf out. He might tell you to call back next time you're in the area but the truth is you dont have your icecream!

 

I know...s**t happens.

 

Aisledog

And the bottom line is that it's just a game.

 

Don't let anyone else's "rules" or interpretations sway you. Do whatever you are personally comfortable with. Your logs, numbers and stats are no one's business but your own.

 

YMMV

[+rutson]

Too right Alex.

 

OTOH I think that if you find the cache an d the log book is missing, that should go down as a find, seems only fair.

[+sTeamTraen]

How about a new category of find: "First to log DNF on missing cache". That would encourage people to log DNFs, without breaking the spirit of "Cache Find = Log Signed".

[+S&G.Davison]

S&G.Davison went for our multicache (GCJ5W0) the other day, to find that the box had disappeared.

 

They mailed us the final co-ords and photos to show exactly where the box had been. On the strength of these we felt it only right that they should change their log to a Found.

 

So it depends on circumstances, I guess.

We did indeed post it as a find after the White Family said we could

 

However we went back today and did a "FTF" on the new cache

 

So we just changed last weeks to a Note and added a find today