Found a cache, but Couldn't retrieve it

December 3, 2014

I found a cache recently - brilliantly "hidden" though actually in full view, but couldn't get at it to retrieve and open it, so couldn't sign the log. I logged my visit as a "Did Not Find," mentioning that I'd seen it but couldn't retrieve it, and saying that I would be back with suitable equipment. But I see that others who have also spotted the cache and couldn't reach it, have logged it as a find. Which is the right thing to do?

H

Edited December 3, 2014 by Hellfire1917

10.1k · December 4, 2014

The other cachers lied. You did the right thing.

13.7k · December 4, 2014

I found a cache recently - brilliantly "hidden" though actually in full view, but couldn't get at it to retrieve and open it, so couldn't sign the log. I logged my visit as a "Did Not Find," mentioning that I'd seen it but couldn't retrieve it, and saying that I would be back with suitable equipment. But I see that others who have also spotted the cache and couldn't reach it, have logged it as a find. Which is the right thing to do?

H

Write note or DNF. I'd write a note.

Spotting the cache, but not signing the log isn't a "Found It".

7.5k · December 4, 2014

What was the terrain rating?

2.6k · December 4, 2014

If a cache was placed with the intent that the log be easily retrieved but something happens that it can't be, log it found.....I've seen several of these...one was a bison put in a hole in a tree but the tree grew around it....log it found and a NM.

If a cache was hidden high in a tree or a secret device used to remove the log than I would log a DNF because I didn't sign a log meant to be difficult to get to.

Again, anytime you find a container you can log a find.....signing the log allows your find to stand should the CO decide to delete your log.

7.5k · December 4, 2014

Yep, it's a DNF. Lots of people don't understand that.

15.3k · December 4, 2014

I've posted a Note for a "difficult to retrieve" cache before, when I knew I didn't have the proper equipment but was nearby and visited to do reconnaissance to verify that the equipment I had in mind would be adequate. A DNF didn't really seem appropriate, and a Find was right out. So a Note is what I went with.

1.4k · December 4, 2014

You could contact the CO and explain what happened. I had this happen on one of my caches just the other day. He said he found it and explained the container but said for whatever reason he couldn't get it out. He was from Germany and wouldn't be back ever. I told him to log it as a find. Maybe if it was one meant to be hard to extract I would have thought differently but there shouldn't be a problem with it so it was really a find. I will check it to see what is up.

2.7k · December 4, 2014

It wasn't that long ago when the Groundspeak Newsletter and Blog touted the "Rules of Geocaching" as....Find the cache, SIGN THE LOG, log your experience on line. The OP did the right thing. Kudos!

December 4, 2014

Thanks for your replies, all. It was Difficulty 3/Terrain 2. The difficulty in retrieving the cache was that it was too high off the ground, in a busy spot. To be honest, I think I could have got it if I had found a stick or maybe swung my bag up at it. The real problem would have been putting it back, as the clever full-view placement meant it had to go back in exactly the correct spot. Anywhere else and it would have been too visible for safety. This is why I decided to leave it alone. I now know what tool I need to replace it.

I logged it as a DNF and then began to wonder whether it would have been better to write a note. But although I can edit my log entry, I couldn't see a way of changing the log category.

Anyway, I'm glad my decisions meet with your approval!

H

1.1k · December 4, 2014

Many geocaches with a higher difficulty rating are meant to be more difficult to retrieve. It wouldn't be the first time I went back home to grab my little two-step folding ladder. Hmmmmm, maybe I should keep it in my trunk, lol.

7.5k · December 4, 2014

Thanks for your replies, all. It was Difficulty 3/Terrain 2. The difficulty in retrieving the cache was that it was too high off the ground, in a busy spot. To be honest, I think I could have got it if I had found a stick or maybe swung my bag up at it. The real problem would have been putting it back, as the clever full-view placement meant it had to go back in exactly the correct spot. Anywhere else and it would have been too visible for safety. This is why I decided to leave it alone. I now know what tool I need to replace it.

I logged it as a DNF and then began to wonder whether it would have been better to write a note. But although I can edit my log entry, I couldn't see a way of changing the log category.

Anyway, I'm glad my decisions meet with your approval!

H

Interesting. So the intent of the cache owner is that the finder needs to bring a device to get the cache - footstool, ladder, another person to hoist you up there i.e. it can't be done by the average person standing with their feet on the ground. My understanding, based on the Clayjar rating system is if the intent is to use a tool to get at the cache then the terrain is a 4 or 5, because it requires specialized equipment. Difficulty is actually a 1 or 2 since the cache is in plain sight.

Edited December 4, 2014 by L0ne.R

1.1k · December 4, 2014

Interesting. So the intent of the cache owner is that the finder needs to bring a device to get the cache - footstool, ladder, another person to hoist you up there i.e. it can't be done by the average person standing with their feet on the ground. My understanding, based on the Clayjar rating system is if the intent is to use a tool to get at the cache then the terrain is a 4 or 5, because it requires specialized equipment. Difficulty is actually a 1 or 2 since the cache is in plain sight.

It should be done, but the reviewers tend to leave the full freedom of D/T rating to the owners. So the cache on the top of the tree could be D1/T1 because you can do it on the wheelchair using firefighter's lift.

December 4, 2014

So the intent of the cache owner is that the finder needs to bring a device to get the cache - footstool, ladder, another person to hoist you up there i.e. it can't be done by the average person standing with their feet on the ground.

That's a precise summary of the accessibility of this cache.

H

Edited December 4, 2014 by Hellfire1917

7.5k · December 4, 2014

Thanks for your replies, all. It was Difficulty 3/Terrain 2. The difficulty in retrieving the cache was that it was too high off the ground, in a busy spot. To be honest, I think I could have got it if I had found a stick or maybe swung my bag up at it. The real problem would have been putting it back, as the clever full-view placement meant it had to go back in exactly the correct spot. Anywhere else and it would have been too visible for safety. This is why I decided to leave it alone. I now know what tool I need to replace it.

Sounds like you made a good decision. But just to be clear: putting the cache back isn't a different problem, it's part and parcel with the problem of retrieval. It isn't really a legitimate retrieval if you can restore it to its original spot. Definitely a good call not to try a retrieval that would only work one way.

I logged it as a DNF and then began to wonder whether it would have been better to write a note. But although I can edit my log entry, I couldn't see a way of changing the log category.

Yeah, there's a logic to logging it as a note, but I consider it a DNF because I consider retrieving part of finding. DNF does not stand for "Did Not See". You DNF a way to retrieve it.

Interesting. So the intent of the cache owner is that the finder needs to bring a device to get the cache - footstool, ladder, another person to hoist you up there i.e. it can't be done by the average person standing with their feet on the ground. My understanding, based on the Clayjar rating system is if the intent is to use a tool to get at the cache then the terrain is a 4 or 5, because it requires specialized equipment. Difficulty is actually a 1 or 2 since the cache is in plain sight.

I agree this seems underrated. Unless there's some trick the OP didn't recognize, this seems like a clear case for T5 because of the tool requirement.

December 4, 2014

I found a cache recently - brilliantly "hidden" though actually in full view, but couldn't get at it to retrieve and open it, so couldn't sign the log. I logged my visit as a "Did Not Find," mentioning that I'd seen it but couldn't retrieve it, and saying that I would be back with suitable equipment. But I see that others who have also spotted the cache and couldn't reach it, have logged it as a find. Which is the right thing to do?

H

Kudos to you for not logging a false find.

December 4, 2014

I would have written a note explaining the situation. Technically it's not a DNF since you did find it but yet it's not a find since you didn't sign the log.

9.2k · December 4, 2014

It's not a Found It.

Me?

If it was a local-ish one, or one I can get back to/will be back again, post a Note.

Not likely to be back, DNF.

Why?

DNF goes on the DNF list, that I might have a go for another time, but may never get the chance!

3.4k · December 4, 2014

Many geocaches with a higher difficulty rating are meant to be more difficult to retrieve. It wouldn't be the first time I went back home to grab my little two-step folding ladder. Hmmmmm, maybe I should keep it in my trunk, lol.

Yup, I have a two-step folding ladder and a reacher-grabber that both stay in my car for this very purpose. Still have a problem when I'm out on my bicycle or on a longish hike, though. But it's kinda tough to be inconspicuous when carrying the ladder around in high-traffic areas.

2.7k · December 5, 2014

Thanks for your replies, all. It was Difficulty 3/Terrain 2. The difficulty in retrieving the cache was that it was too high off the ground, in a busy spot. To be honest, I think I could have got it if I had found a stick or maybe swung my bag up at it. The real problem would have been putting it back, as the clever full-view placement meant it had to go back in exactly the correct spot. Anywhere else and it would have been too visible for safety. This is why I decided to leave it alone. I now know what tool I need to replace it.

Sounds like you made a good decision. But just to be clear: putting the cache back isn't a different problem, it's part and parcel with the problem of retrieval. It isn't really a legitimate retrieval if you can restore it to its original spot. Definitely a good call not to try a retrieval that would only work one way.

I logged it as a DNF and then began to wonder whether it would have been better to write a note. But although I can edit my log entry, I couldn't see a way of changing the log category.

Yeah, there's a logic to logging it as a note, but I consider it a DNF because I consider retrieving part of finding. DNF does not stand for "Did Not See". You DNF a way to retrieve it.

Interesting. So the intent of the cache owner is that the finder needs to bring a device to get the cache - footstool, ladder, another person to hoist you up there i.e. it can't be done by the average person standing with their feet on the ground. My understanding, based on the Clayjar rating system is if the intent is to use a tool to get at the cache then the terrain is a 4 or 5, because it requires specialized equipment. Difficulty is actually a 1 or 2 since the cache is in plain sight.

I agree this seems underrated. Unless there's some trick the OP didn't recognize, this seems like a clear case for T5 because of the tool requirement.

Need a grabber to reach a cache does not make it a T5 any more than needing tweezers to remove a nano log makes one a D5. Sounds like this one is rated about right.

2.4k · December 5, 2014

If I can't sign the log, for whatever reason, I log a DNF or note. No signy, no smiley for me...even if I can see the cache.

7.5k · December 5, 2014

Thanks for your replies, all. It was Difficulty 3/Terrain 2. The difficulty in retrieving the cache was that it was too high off the ground, in a busy spot. To be honest, I think I could have got it if I had found a stick or maybe swung my bag up at it. The real problem would have been putting it back, as the clever full-view placement meant it had to go back in exactly the correct spot. Anywhere else and it would have been too visible for safety. This is why I decided to leave it alone. I now know what tool I need to replace it.

Sounds like you made a good decision. But just to be clear: putting the cache back isn't a different problem, it's part and parcel with the problem of retrieval. It isn't really a legitimate retrieval if you can restore it to its original spot. Definitely a good call not to try a retrieval that would only work one way.

I logged it as a DNF and then began to wonder whether it would have been better to write a note. But although I can edit my log entry, I couldn't see a way of changing the log category.

Yeah, there's a logic to logging it as a note, but I consider it a DNF because I consider retrieving part of finding. DNF does not stand for "Did Not See". You DNF a way to retrieve it.

Interesting. So the intent of the cache owner is that the finder needs to bring a device to get the cache - footstool, ladder, another person to hoist you up there i.e. it can't be done by the average person standing with their feet on the ground. My understanding, based on the Clayjar rating system is if the intent is to use a tool to get at the cache then the terrain is a 4 or 5, because it requires specialized equipment. Difficulty is actually a 1 or 2 since the cache is in plain sight.

I agree this seems underrated. Unless there's some trick the OP didn't recognize, this seems like a clear case for T5 because of the tool requirement.

Need a grabber to reach a cache does not make it a T5 any more than needing tweezers to remove a nano log makes one a D5. Sounds like this one is rated about right.

The Clayjar system is the rating system used by Groundspeak. It gives everyone a more even playing field when determining whether a cache is something they can reasonably expect to get, given their physical limitations. The height of the average adult woman in the U.S. is 5'4" (I'm using women as the standard, since there are a lot of women who geocache, and should be a dominating factor when considering the height of the cache and whether a tool or climbing will be needed). It wouldn't it hurt to rate the cache at least a 4. Certainly would be beneficial to most female geocachers. If the cache in question was rated properly the OP could have skipped this cache and not wasted time and money to find it was out of reach.

1.4k · December 5, 2014

OH OK I didn't realize it was a harder one to get to. Then you did right with the DNF or note for sure. I was thinking it was one that was supposed to be easy and you couldn't get it out for another reason.

15.3k · December 5, 2014

I agree this seems underrated. Unless there's some trick the OP didn't recognize, this seems like a clear case for T5 because of the tool requirement.

I suppose it might depend on how "specialized" the CO thinks the necessary skills/equipment are.

But FWIW, I've seen elevated caches go either way, depending on how the CO expected the cache to be retrieved. If the CO expects seekers to climb, then the terrain is increased (up to T5 if "specialized" skills/equipment are required). If the CO expects seekers to stay safe at ground level, but to figure out some other way to retrieve/replace the cache, then the difficulty is increased (up to D5 if "specialized" skills/equipment are required).

7.5k · December 5, 2014

Need a grabber to reach a cache does not make it a T5 any more than needing tweezers to remove a nano log makes one a D5. Sounds like this one is rated about right.

Are you saying a grabber is a standard tool we all carry around with us? 'Cuz it's not.

3.3k · December 6, 2014

Need a grabber to reach a cache does not make it a T5 any more than needing tweezers to remove a nano log makes one a D5. Sounds like this one is rated about right.

Are you saying a grabber is a standard tool we all carry around with us? 'Cuz it's not.

4.5 or less, maybe? Because these two should not both be 5.0:

(1) 8-ft.-high cache gotten with grabber; &

(2) cache 85' up on vertical rock face reached by technical rope climb.

1.1k · December 6, 2014

Need a grabber to reach a cache does not make it a T5 any more than needing tweezers to remove a nano log makes one a D5. Sounds like this one is rated about right.

Are you saying a grabber is a standard tool we all carry around with us? 'Cuz it's not.

I say it is a standard tool as opposed to specialized. Whether we all carry one around...I doubt it. Now this is a picture of shark after descending from 60+ feet in a tree. See the light harness, pro-grade carabiners and rope? That's specialized.

2.7k · December 6, 2014

I consider a grabber a standard tool of the trade, nothing specialized about it - and available at most anywhere. I have used a grabber probably 10 times more often than tweezers when caching.

15.3k · December 6, 2014

4.5 or less, maybe? Because these two should not both be 5.0:

(1) 8-ft.-high cache gotten with grabber; &

(2) cache 85' up on vertical rock face reached by technical rope climb.

How about a 20-foot-high cache gotten with a grabber?

This gets back to the fact that anything that requires specialized skills/equipment pegs the rating system at a 5, so there is no way to distinguish between (for example) a 5-day white-water wilderness canoe trip and a 15-minute paddle across a calm lake.

7.5k · December 6, 2014

I consider a grabber a standard tool of the trade, nothing specialized about it - and available at most anywhere.

There's nothing specialized about boats, either, and they're also available most anywhere.

I agree that T5 isn't appropriate, I'm just not sure how the guidelines can be read to support a lower rating.

I have used a grabber probably 10 times more often than tweezers when caching.

I don't have a grabber, but I use tweezers every other time I go out. You probably don't look for micros.

3.3k · December 8, 2014

If a cache was placed with the intent that the log be easily retrieved but something happens that it can't be, log it found.....I've seen several of these...one was a bison put in a hole in a tree but the tree grew around it....log it found and a NM.

If a cache was hidden high in a tree or a secret device used to remove the log than I would log a DNF because I didn't sign a log meant to be difficult to get to.

Again, anytime you find a container you can log a find.....signing the log allows your find to stand should the CO decide to delete your log.

Such a reasonable answer. I guess with Puritan Month over, that sort of thing is allowed.

+1

14k · December 15, 2014

Anyway, I'm glad my decisions meet with your approval!

H

More importantly, it meets with yours.

A few years ago I located a cache container about 25 miles from home that was in a stone wall. I previous finder had replaced it such that I could just barely touch the container. As soon as I did, it was pushed further into the rock wall. I could have dismantled the stone wall in order retrieve the container, but instead left it where it was and posted a DNF and a Needs Maintenance log. Some people might have posted a Found It, and there are probably other that would have "approved" doing so, but If couldn't even touch the log sheet I wouldn't feel right posting a found it.

3.3k · December 16, 2014

I consider a grabber a standard tool of the trade, nothing specialized about it - and available at most anywhere.

There's nothing specialized about boats, either, and they're also available most anywhere.

I agree that T5 isn't appropriate, I'm just not sure how the guidelines can be read to support a lower rating.

I have used a grabber probably 10 times more often than tweezers when caching.

I don't have a grabber, but I use tweezers every other time I go out. You probably don't look for micros.

What is "specialized equipment"? Isn't this another conundrum inside an enigma wrapped in a mystery?! We can't escape drawing lines, can we?!

Found a cache, but Couldn't retrieve it

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation