Report DNFs to the reviewer or HQ

[+barefootjeff]

I just stumbled across this in the revamped Help Centre on page "3.4 What should I do if I discover that a geocache has gone missing?" ...

 

As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache page has an unusual number of "Didn't find it" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area. Please be sure to visit the actual location yourself before contacting us or your reviewer.

 

What is an "unusual number" of DNFs? Compared to what? What if the cache is meant to be hard to find, is just well camouflaged or in a hiding spot that doesn't catch the eye? Or if it's in a spot where there are often muggles lingering? Or any of the other multitude of reasons for logging a DNF that don't have anything to do with the cache being missing?

 

And if a cache does have such an unusual number of DNFs that action is needed, surely the first action should be a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email. Why immediately involve a reviewer or HQ just because of a few DNFs?

 

Call me paranoid, but this seems to be another push on the bandwagon that DNFs must imply there's something wrong with the cache.

[+L0ne.R]

Why not log an NM? Is that something that's not available on the app?

[+noncentric]

Just read the article in the OP's link. Seems like it could use an edit. It says to let a reviewer know or contact us, but doesn't give any clear direction of how to find a reviewer or link to the contact us page. That's confusing.

 

But even worse, IMO, is that it ignores the NM log option. I'd much prefer if the article said to flag the cache as needing maintenance, and then said how to do it (using "Report a Problem" in the app, or Log Visit on the website).

 

It's also odd that it says "Please be sure to visit the actual location yourself before contacting us or your reviewer." in the very last sentence - as if it was just an after-thought to mention it.

 

And finally, it says not to leave another container because it can confuse other searchers and upset the CO. And it links "upset the cache owner" to the article about throwdowns. Why put the link there? Why not put the throwdown link on "extra container" - and why not put the word "throwdown" in the article?

 

Why not log an NM? Is that something that's not available on the app?

NM's are available in the official app.

[+cerberus1]

I agree, we were taught that if we log a DNF, to find there's many DNFs, a NM might be the next option, not "contact HQ" ...

[+geocat_]

Contacting HQ??? Seriously??? I would not even contact the reviewer much less HQ if a cache has "too many" DNFs. "Too many" might be two or three if it's a LPC or GR hide. On the other hand, I have seen caches with dozens of DNFs in a row because they are very difficult hides. To even suggest that someone needs to report this to a reviewer or HQ is confusing and completely unnecessary, especially for beginners. Seems like every time there is something that has been going along just fine, they have to mess with it. If it ain't broke...

[+Tatanka49]

The biggest group on DNF's and NM/NA appears to come from all the newbie cachers who are only just discovering the GC app. Most of my NM's or GC Health reports show a string of DNF's by people with less than 25 caches found. If I get a couple of DNF's from experienced cachers I worry. Turning it into a reviewer seems like overkill. (although I will send a NA if the CO has not been on line for a year or more.)

[+Touchstone]

I just stumbled across this in the revamped Help Centre on page "3.4 What should I do if I discover that a geocache has gone missing?" ...

 

As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache page has an unusual number of "Didn't find it" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area. Please be sure to visit the actual location yourself before contacting us or your reviewer.

 

What is an "unusual number" of DNFs? Compared to what? What if the cache is meant to be hard to find, is just well camouflaged or in a hiding spot that doesn't catch the eye? Or if it's in a spot where there are often muggles lingering? Or any of the other multitude of reasons for logging a DNF that don't have anything to do with the cache being missing?

 

And if a cache does have such an unusual number of DNFs that action is needed, surely the first action should be a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email. Why immediately involve a reviewer or HQ just because of a few DNFs?

 

Call me paranoid, but this seems to be another push on the bandwagon that DNFs must imply there's something wrong with the cache.

I think you're overthinking it a bit. The heading of that section has the following preamble:

 

Learn all the basics you need to get started geocaching.

 

So the way I read it, is if you can't find a cache, log a DNF. Don't replace it, and don't ignore it are the messages I'm reading in the article. It might be that Groundspeak feels that posting an NM or NA log type is going a bit beyond what is considered "basic".

 

I'm assuming that an "unusual number of DNF's is something more than 2, otherwise they would have used the phrase, "a couple", or "a few". I don't have a problem with asking the cache owner to check in from time to time to reassure people that the cache is still in play. The difficulty of the cache is really irrelevant in this context.

[+noncentric]

I think you're overthinking it a bit. The heading of that section has the following preamble:

 

Learn all the basics you need to get started geocaching.

 

So the way I read it, is if you can't find a cache, log a DNF. Don't replace it, and don't ignore it are the messages I'm reading in the article. It might be that Groundspeak feels that posting an NM or NA log type is going a bit beyond what is considered "basic".

 

I'm assuming that an "unusual number of DNF's is something more than 2, otherwise they would have used the phrase, "a couple", or "a few". I don't have a problem with asking the cache owner to check in from time to time to reassure people that the cache is still in play. The difficulty of the cache is really irrelevant in this context.

The 'preamble' you mentioned is all the way out at the 'Find a Cache' section, and it seems pretty obscure at that point in the tree.

 

Now that you mention it though, I'm noticing that the title of the article "3.4. What should I do if I discover that a geocache has gone missing?" doesn't seem good either. It's talking about a cache that is 'missing', rather than a cache that can't be found. It seems to be associating a cacher's inability to find a cache with a presumption that the cache is therefore missing. I'd prefer a title like "What should I do if I can't find a cache?" or something else that doesn't equate 'DNF' and 'missing'.

[+dprovan]

What is an "unusual number" of DNFs? Compared to what? What if the cache is meant to be hard to find, is just well camouflaged or in a hiding spot that doesn't catch the eye? Or if it's in a spot where there are often muggles lingering? Or any of the other multitude of reasons for logging a DNF that don't have anything to do with the cache being missing?

OK, so this is the easy question: if the seeker has to ask, he should let someone that knows what the usual number is make the determination.

 

But that's one tiny part that's OK about that page. Astonishing that the title is "What should I do if I discover that a geocache has gone missing?" That's something someone with no experience at all with geocaching would ask. There's no way someone can know that a geocache is missing. It just dumb for GS to base the entire page on the premise that not finding a geocache is equivalent to the geocache being missing.

 

And, of course, it's just a huge step backwards to then ignore NM/NA. Does GS want to get rid of NMs and NAs? With all the complaints from GS about reviewers being overloaded, shouldn't they be encouraging people to work it out without getting reviewers or GS involved? But I suppose if you're going to start by making newbies think they can't possibly miss a cache that's there, then you better discourage them from posting the bogus NMs and NAs they're sure to post in their unfounded confidence.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Cascade Reviewer
Removed modified potty language

[+MartyBartfast]

I just stumbled across this in the revamped Help Centre on page "3.4 What should I do if I discover that a geocache has gone missing?" ...

 

 

Pretty much agree with what everyone above said. At the bottom of that Help Centre page there's a couple of links "This page was Helpful | Not Helpful" I clicked the Not Helpful link and although there's nowhere to say WHY it's not helpful, I live in hope that TPTB might review those pages with negative responses, so get clicking

[+Mudfrog]

We get statements from Groundspeak saying changes are sometimes made to make things less confusing for newer cachers. Then we get stuff like this that make things even more confusing. I wouldn't think reviewers would be all that keen on this either.

[+eigengott]

Writing this as a player.

 

if a cache does have such an unusual number of DNFs that action is needed, surely the first action should be a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email.

 

Owners already got mail about their cache. One for every DNF log. So why bother contacting/alerting an already unresponsive owner?

 

I'd rather log a Needs Archive if there's already a string of DNF logs. The owner get's a mail about this as well and can temporarily disable the listing and do a cache maintenance then. If the owner does nothing, a reviewer will disable and wait a while for the maintenance to be done before really archiving the listing.

[+barefootjeff]

Writing this as a player.

 

if a cache does have such an unusual number of DNFs that action is needed, surely the first action should be a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email.

 

Owners already got mail about their cache. One for every DNF log. So why bother contacting/alerting an already unresponsive owner?

 

I'd rather log a Needs Archive if there's already a string of DNF logs. The owner get's a mail about this as well and can temporarily disable the listing and do a cache maintenance then. If the owner does nothing, a reviewer will disable and wait a while for the maintenance to be done before really archiving the listing.

Most DNFs have nothing to do with a cache problem. There's nothing the CO can do to prevent muggles getting in the way, a sudden downpour, a seeker simply looking in the wrong place or any other reason someone might have for not finding it. Some caches can just be tricky to find, intentionally or otherwise, particularly for newcomers. Across my 27 hides there've been a total of 40 DNFs logged and none of them have been due to a cache problem. Even my Earthcache got one! Why should they be disabled or archived? A DNF does NOT mean the cache is missing, even a string of them doesn't mean that.

 

The reviewer here won't entertain an NA unless there's at least one outstanding NM since the last find and a decent history of logs giving strong evidence of a problematic cache. A DNF or three or five could mean anything.

[+J Grouchy]

Writing this as a player.

 

if a cache does have such an unusual number of DNFs that action is needed, surely the first action should be a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email.

 

Owners already got mail about their cache. One for every DNF log. So why bother contacting/alerting an already unresponsive owner?

 

I'd rather log a Needs Archive if there's already a string of DNF logs. The owner get's a mail about this as well and can temporarily disable the listing and do a cache maintenance then. If the owner does nothing, a reviewer will disable and wait a while for the maintenance to be done before really archiving the listing.

 

A "Needs archived" log is a disproportionate response. At most it should be a "Needs Maintenance"...but only if it is a lower difficulty cache. NM should always come before NA in these situations...the latter can then maybe come after a period of inaction based on the former.

[+eigengott]

Most DNFs have nothing to do with a cache problem.

 

I agree.

 

But we are talking here about a string of DNFs or as the Help Center article calls it: an unusual number of DNFs. And that most of the time means /a/ there's an issue with the cache and /b/ the owner shirks maintenance on the cache. Yes, sometimes maintenance just means getting out there and see if the cache is still there and in good shape. No, usually not after a single DNF (depends a lot of what the DNF log says).

 

I can see why some prefer the Needs Maintenance or a private mail, as it might be perceived as more polite. But it's pretty useless on a non-responsive owner.

[+J Grouchy]

I can see why some prefer the Needs Maintenance or a private mail, as it might be perceived as more polite. But it's pretty useless on a non-responsive owner.

 

Useless or not, it's more appropriate in just about any circumstances. Don't be so quick to ask for archival or you'll gain a pretty negative reputation. Why would you be so quick to try shutting down caches? What's your hurry just because they have a few DNFs?

[+eigengott]

Again, we are talking about a string of DNFs. These usually develop over the course of many weeks or months. So there's nothing "quick" involved here.

Edited April 24, 2017 by eigengott

[+jellis]

Are we talking about a string of DNFs on one cache or multiple caches?

 

I usually do DNF first, NM next unless you are sure the cache is in trouble like coordinates off (under .1), obviously missing, damaged, or CO isn't responding to others DNFs

 

NA if cache is on private property, coords are beyond .1, or CO is no longer seems to be active and not responding. Usually when a only a reviewer can intervene.

[+dprovan]

Owners already got mail about their cache. One for every DNF log. So why bother contacting/alerting an already unresponsive owner?

A seeker looks at information available, possibly including evidence at GZ, and concludes that there really is a problem. The NM log is how the seeker conveys that conclusion to the owner. For whatever reason, the owner has ignored the DNFs, so the NM sets a flag that requires a reaction.

 

But we are talking here about a string of DNFs or as the Help Center article calls it: an unusual number of DNFs.

A lot of seekers posted DNFs without concluding there was a need for maintenance. We can't say why they didn't, but the delay does not change the fact that the next step is formally alerting the owner and the system with an NM log.

 

And that most of the time means /a/ there's an issue with the cache and /b/ the owner shirks maintenance on the cache. Yes, sometimes maintenance just means getting out there and see if the cache is still there and in good shape. No, usually not after a single DNF (depends a lot of what the DNF log says).

 

I can see why some prefer the Needs Maintenance or a private mail, as it might be perceived as more polite. But it's pretty useless on a non-responsive owner.

It's not always wrong to post an NA in this situation, but an NA implies a certainty that can rarely be claimed without displaying a certain level of arrogance. Following the normal course of posting an NM allows for a multitude of other possibilities that might have caused the owner to not notice the problem. It goes beyond being more polite: the out of the blue NA without compelling evidence is downright rude.

 

But beyond the technical details, the most important reason for posting an NM first is that it keeps your attitude straight: your first priority should be to get the cache fixed, not to get rid of it. When you act like the more important thing is to get the cache eliminated, people will wonder if you don't have some other motives unrelated to a healthy caching flora.

 

If you're caching in an area where no one posts NMs, then that's a problem, but I claim the solution is to show people that they should post NMs by posting NMs, not giving up on NMs and recommending always jumping directly to NAs.

[+L0ne.R]

I can see why some prefer the Needs Maintenance or a private mail, as it might be perceived as more polite. But it's pretty useless on a non-responsive owner.

 

Useless or not, it's more appropriate in just about any circumstances. Don't be so quick to ask for archival or you'll gain a pretty negative reputation. Why would you be so quick to try shutting down caches? What's your hurry just because they have a few DNFs?

 

It's an abandoned and likely missing cache. What's being saved?

[+thebruce0]

How exactly does one "discover" that a cache has gone missing?

 

Per comments above, a DNF should always begin from the premise merely that one cannot find a cache. Discoverying - confirming - it is missing means the owner has already been contacted and confirmed. Is that the point at which the instructions on the page apply? ...clearly not. If so, what should "I" do if I discover a cache a missing? Absolutely nothing - it's the CO's responsibility (who by then would already know, since they would have confirmed that it is in fact missing).

 

I definitely agree at least the title of the page should change. It's misleading if not confusing the process.

[+dprovan]

It's an abandoned and likely missing cache. What's being saved?

How do you know it's abandoned or missing? The hypothetical only says that there's an unspecified number of DNFs. That's the point: the page encourages the seeker to jump to unwarranted conclusions, starting right away with the very first sentence being based on the idea that not finding the cache means the cache is missing.

 

Confusing what one thinks with what one knows leads to bad NMs and NAs. I would think the guidelines would be the last place someone would be able to pick up that habit.

[+L0ne.R]

It's an abandoned and likely missing cache. What's being saved?

How do you know it's abandoned or missing?

 

I take a number of factors in to consideration. Depending on the D-rating and history of the cache, plus the history of the CO, a string of DNFs with no response from the CO could likely mean abandoned.

 

Anyway, if someone went straight to a NA, it's still not a big deal. The owner (who hasn't been responsive up to this point in our scenario) may be alerted/agitated enough to respond. If not, if the owner has abandoned the game, then the reviewer can decide whether the NA is warranted. S/he could ask the NAer to post an NM instead, then follow-up with an NA later. I don't see the point of putting the archival process off where it's fairly clear that the cache listing is abandoned, but the reviewer makes the final call.

 

The way the guidelines are going, NM/NAs will only be used by those of us who remember there is an NM/NA option, or those who care to dig deeper to discover that there is an NM/NA option. The rest will email headquarters (if they bother going that extra step--and headquarters will likely ignore the reports).

 

It's like the guideline writers have been outsourced to people who don't geocache or work for Groundspeak. Does Groundspeak even care anymore?

[+Manville Possum]

It's like the guideline writers have been outsourced to people who don't geocache or work for Groundspeak. Does Groundspeak even care anymore?

 

I have long suspected the Elbonians. I believe Garmin was the first to use them when they launched their version of OpenCaching. Didn't work out so well either did it?

[+thebruce0]

It's an abandoned and likely missing cache. What's being saved?

How do you know it's abandoned or missing?

 

I take a number of factors in to consideration. Depending on the D-rating and history of the cache, plus the history of the CO, a string of DNFs with no response from the CO could likely mean abandoned.

know != likely

 

I think the point is jumping from possibly missing to certainly missing. No one can make that leap without owner verification.

[+barefootjeff]

Again, we are talking about a string of DNFs. These usually develop over the course of many weeks or months. So there's nothing "quick" involved here.

I can immediately think of two local examples of caches that often get strings of DNFs over many weeks or months, yet aren't missing or abandoned. One is very well camoed at a lookout that gets lots of muggles, particularly in school holidays and at weekends. Each time I've looked for it (three or four times now and still counting) I've thought it must be missing, but no, a few weeks later someone will find it. I'm sure I will too, eventually, if I can get there at a time when the muggles don't keep interrupting my searching and as long as someone doesn't think it should be summarily archived because of those strings of DNFs. The CO is still active and every year or so will log an OM saying it's still there, come get me.

 

The other one is a remote cache that takes the best part of a day to drive out there, hike down into the deep gully and return. Because GPS reception in the gully is pretty poor, the CO provided a helper photo on the cache page, but being a traditional many people don't read the description and don't take the photo. No mobile reception anywhere around there either so you can't just go online and look. At the time I went searching it hadn't been found for over a year and had had several DNFs, but I suspected from the DNFs that none of them had taken the photo with them and sure enough, with the aid of said photo, it was a quick find for me and the cache was in mint condition. A year later it had 7 DNFs in a row until again someone took the photo with them and made the find. Its CO is still active and is not a maintenance-shirker, but it's a long way to go and check each time someone DNFs it, particularly when it's obvious they haven't followed the instructions.

 

Some of my own hides occasionally get strings of DNFs, usually around school holidays when we get lots of visitors and newbies. One gives some people a lot of grief, yet it's in what I think is the obvious hiding place, but they overthink it and end up kicking themselves when they finally twig on their second or third attempt. They're close to home so I do check on them every few months, but usually won't bother logging an OM unless there's been some concern expressed.

[+dprovan]

It's an abandoned and likely missing cache. What's being saved?

How do you know it's abandoned or missing?

I take a number of factors in to consideration.

I'm discussing the guideline page. There are literally no other factors to take into consideration there.

 

It's like the guideline writers have been outsourced to people who don't geocache or work for Groundspeak. Does Groundspeak even care anymore?

Yes, I get exactly the same feeling about this page. The critical distinction between not finding a cache and the cache being missing is Geocaching 101. I can't imagine anyone but a rank amateur writing an entire guideline page that treats them as identical.

[+narcissa]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

[+eigengott]

caches that often get strings of DNFs over many weeks or months, yet aren't missing or abandoned.

 

These are off-topic, as we are talking about caches with an unusal number of DNFs. As others already pointed out, there are factors like difficulty which play a role in determining the likelihood that a cache is abandoned. The help center article doesn't tell you to switch off your brains.

[+dprovan]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

[+barefootjeff]

caches that often get strings of DNFs over many weeks or months, yet aren't missing or abandoned.

 

These are off-topic, as we are talking about caches with an unusal number of DNFs. As others already pointed out, there are factors like difficulty which play a role in determining the likelihood that a cache is abandoned. The help center article doesn't tell you to switch off your brains.

Unusual compared to what? Past history of the cache? Not very reliable on a remote cache that might only get a handful of attempts a year, or in regions where the population and experience of cachers changes over time. Other caches with similar D rating? Again not a good guide of DNF likelihood, especially for multis and puzzles where other factors come into the D rating.

 

Maybe with an LPC it's obvious whether it's there or missing, but that thinking can't be generalised to all those other caches where there are many potential hiding places near GZ, cunning camo or even a high likelihood of just not seeing the obvious. On these, DNFs usually don't mean the cache is missing, they just mean the searcher didn't find it. No need to contact the reviewer or HQ, even if there's an "unusual" number of them.

[+eigengott]

Unusual compared to what?

 

The same criteria you use for a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email.

[+narcissa]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

 

Yeah, NM is a flag that you add to a log now. There's "Cache may be missing," "Cache should be archived," and "Other." So it's not even really obvious to an inexperienced cacher that reporting damage or adverse conditions is an option or a good practice. And it's totally absurd to put "Cache may be missing" right there as an option. I don't understand why they would do something like that.

[+barefootjeff]

Unusual compared to what?

 

The same criteria you use for a heads-up to the CO through an NM or email.

Sending a message or email to the CO asking "Was I looking in the right place?" (and often getting the response, "Yes, I can see the cache in your photo") or, if there's enough compelling evidence to stick my neck out, logging an NM asking the CO to please take a look, is a big step down from reporting the cache to a reviewer or HQ. Elsewhere in the Help Centre it says that NAs should be used "super rarely" (Page 4.2 What log type should I use?), yet here it's saying to do the equivalent of an NA (or more, go direct to HQ) on the basis of just some undefined "unusual" number of DNFs. Consistency?

[Pup Patrol]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

 

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

 

Could you provide a link to this blog article?

 

I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance

 

I didn't notice any difference to the cache page.

 

Are we talking about logging on the app?

 

 

B.

[+thebruce0]

The new logging page can most easily be found via composing field notes

[+narcissa]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

 

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

 

Could you provide a link to this blog article?

 

I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance

 

I didn't notice any difference to the cache page.

 

Are we talking about logging on the app?

 

 

B.

 

No, I don't use the app. I log from field notes. I guess I can't do that anymore.

[+hal-an-tow]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

 

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

 

Could you provide a link to this blog article?

 

I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance

 

I didn't notice any difference to the cache page.

 

Are we talking about logging on the app?

 

 

B.

The blog can be found when you click 'community' and get the drop down menu, it's the item below 'discussion forums'.

 

This new exciting development* appears to be concerned with smartphone users juggling field notes to the website, so of little interest to GPS using dinosaurs like me, except as it will impact logs I get on my owned caches.

There is a link in the blog to a thread here

 

* I was being sarcastic, just in case any literal minded argument seekers didn't notice. Again.

Edited April 25, 2017 by hal-an-tow

[+narcissa]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

 

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

 

Could you provide a link to this blog article?

 

I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance

 

I didn't notice any difference to the cache page.

 

Are we talking about logging on the app?

 

 

B.

The blog can be found when you click 'community' and get the drop down menu, it's the item below 'discussion forums'.

 

This new exciting development* appears to be concerned with smartphone users juggling field notes to the website, so of little interest to GPS using dinosaurs like me, except as it will impact logs I get on my owned caches.

There is a link in the blog to a thread here

 

* I was being sarcastic, just in case any literal minded argument seekers didn't notice. Again.

 

I'm a GPS dinosaur and my field notes come from my Garmin Oregon. This has been a reliable way for me to log without missing any caches for several years. I'll have to go back to using a notebook or something now.

[+hal-an-tow]

oops, accidental carbon copy post.

Deleted

Edited April 25, 2017 by hal-an-tow

[+hal-an-tow]

I'm a GPS dinosaur and my field notes come from my Garmin Oregon. This has been a reliable way for me to log without missing any caches for several years. I'll have to go back to using a notebook or something now.

I don't make field notes, but I do use the gsak 'publish logs' facility with my garmin's cache visits file which records pushes of the found it/didn't find it button with date/time info . I make my notes verbally into an MP3 recorder so have not tried, but I think it is possible to transfer garmin field notes to gsak and include them in logs at the computer keyboard too, this may be helpful.

 

I love GSAK, it efficiently does everything I want, all I use GS for is the acquisition of PQs.

[+narcissa]

I'm a GPS dinosaur and my field notes come from my Garmin Oregon. This has been a reliable way for me to log without missing any caches for several years. I'll have to go back to using a notebook or something now.

I don't make field notes, but I do use the gsak 'publish logs' facility with my garmin's cache visits file which records pushes of the found it/didn't find it button with date/time info . I make my notes verbally into an MP3 recorder so have not tried, but I think it is possible to transfer garmin field notes to gsak and include them in logs at the computer keyboard too, this may be helpful.

 

I love GSAK, it efficiently does everything I want, all I use GS for is the acquisition of PQs.

 

I'm not interested in using third-party websites or software for basic funtionality.

[+J Grouchy]

I don't really understand the point of field notes. I'm sure there's a use for them, but I have never found it...

[+thebruce0]

I don't really understand the point of field notes. I'm sure there's a use for them, but I have never found it...

 

In my app, I create cache notes while mobile (found/dnf/attended/NM/enable/etc), and jot in that note/log anything that stands out so I can remember to write about it later. I then upload those logs to Field Notes in a bulk upload. Then on my desktop I can compose them manually on a keyboard instead of taptaptap on the phone. Very convenient. That's just my story. It serves a good purpose and use for many, many people.

[+kunarion]

I don't really understand the point of field notes. I'm sure there's a use for them, but I have never found it...

In the field, I type a shorthand version of each log. At the PC, I can enter logs in the exact order I found them, especially important when also logging TBs in/out of those caches. Assuming I don't forget to enter a field note , I have all logs available without even opening my paper notebook.

 

That's for a Garmin GPSr. With a connected smartphone, I could send logs immediately. But I'd probably still use the App's version of field notes, because I hate typing on a smartphone.

[+dprovan]

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs.

Could you provide a link to this blog article?

A new logging experience is coming to Geocaching.com

 

I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance

 

I didn't notice any difference to the cache page.

 

Are we talking about logging on the app?

"The new logging page for creating a new log will be available soon. You will still have the option of returning to the old logging page when creating a new log, but encourage you to try out the new page and provide any feedback."

 

Until I read it carefully, I was also thinking all this was only going to apply to the app and the associated field notes editing, but this paragraph in the blog makes it clear that it's more "simplification" they are going to put in the webpage in order to make sure the web interface is as bad as the app's.

[+hzoi]

I don't really understand the point of field notes. I'm sure there's a use for them, but I have never found it...

I use field notes all the time...on a scratch piece of paper. So I see the use for them, but I don't use the electronic version.

[+narcissa]

In the field, I type a shorthand version of each log. At the PC, I can enter logs in the exact order I found them, especially important when also logging TBs in/out of those caches. Assuming I don't forget to enter a field note , I have all logs available without even opening my paper notebook.

 

That's for a Garmin GPSr. With a connected smartphone, I could send logs immediately. But I'd probably still use the App's version of field notes, because I hate typing on a smartphone.

 

I don't even write notes in the GPS, I just mark caches as found, or DNF, and then the field notes feature lets me log them in order without ever missing one. In the past, when I used a notebook to keep track, I would sometimes forget the notebook and write finds down somewhere else and they would get misplaced, or sometimes I would just skip one from my notebook. When I started using field notes to log, I had been marking caches as "found" in my GPS for a long time already. The first time I uploaded them I reconciled my finds with my field notes and discovered several caches I hadn't logged for one reason or another.

 

Now, the only time I miss logging a cache, it's because it's a one-off I spontaneously decided to find with my phone. Two out of three times, I utterly fail at finding a cache with my phone because I can't figure out how to get it to point to the cache and I give up, so really it's only once or twice a year that this comes up and I'm usually fairly reliable at remembering to log those, eventually. But probably not always.

[+cerberus1]

I don't really understand the point of field notes. I'm sure there's a use for them, but I have never found it...

We don't log until home, so I suppose it's similar to our leaving notes of things along the way/our day out in a small notebook.

We've included the time found on caches (since our second) in all logs, and I guess that fits in that field note thing too.

 

Just another means of taking notes is all...

[+narcissa]

Anyway, the material point isn't the usefulness of field notes, it's that I can't write proper logs now that NM and NA have been removed and replaced with this "cache may be missing" nonsense.