Teach2Learn

The forums belong to all cachers who follow the forum guidelines as a place for "public discussion of questions of common interest" (definition courtesy of Webster's). Some may complain... Some may disagree... Some may tease... ...But only a "handful" (quoting Stephanie) are mean-spirited. I may not always agree with you, AR, and I do believe you're sincerely trying to improve the situation, but I hope you'll try to not view disagreement as criticism, at least hurtful criticism. When you focus on that, others may see your view only as an agenda of trying to change the guidelines by using the convenient (for any opinion) "silent majority" to speak up when they agree with you. I look forward to seeing you at the Midwest Geobash if you're going and I get the opportunity to attend. If I do, I promise not to even mention the DRR, just enjoy the cachin' stories.

A duplicate thread also now appears on the gecoaching.com website forum. Time for the moderator to merge the two.

I don't understand what you mean... Could you clarify? I noticed the same thing for local caches. From your "My Account" page, when you click on "new cache listings" for your state, the normal list is displayed, but the newest hides share the same name "Unapproved Cache." However, when you click on the, the cache page appears with the name and the revewer's "published" green sign as a log. Interesting to note that the statement wasn't "Unreviewed Cache" since the reviewers go by the title "approvers" now. My guess is that it's just a temporary glitch.

Okay, I read Jeremy's previous linked reply. Yes, he said he's not going to do anything about it, However, he also stated... "I don't think that it is the "right thing to do™" but as long as the functionality of the site is not overly abused I'm not going to play nanny to a group of adults." Yep, the bold emphasis is mine, but saying it's "not the right thing to do" doesn't sound like approval at all. Of course, I can see why he wouldn't want to play nanny. I choose not to worry about it too much when there are thousands of listed caches for me to find with logs to sign and great cachers to meet, including RichardMoore and others (and hopefully you too, Mushtang) who disagree with me. Edited for typo

Do you feel logging event caches and/or pocket caches is a correct thing to do? No Do you feel the record set at Geowoodstock should stand as legit? No Do you feel that the record found caches in a 24 hour period should allow the finder to set their own rules? No However, unless TPTB limit cache pages ot single find logs (perhaps using another tab/icon for temporary event and pocket caches), I don't see the situation changing. Perhaps they don't see temporary event caches as a problem and wish to leave it up to individual cachers. Jeremy's already stated his disapproval concerning pocket caches.

From the guidelines applying to all cache types for placing caches... "Caches placed in connection with an event must be placed with the intention of leaving them in place after the event, temporary caches are not accepted." If they can't be listed as caches, I don't see how they can be found as caches in the traditional sense. I have to concur with C of D--if they are just temporary event caches, they aren't regular finds on this site, but they can still be fun. That's why I support the OP's proposal. Would this or something similar serve as a compromise? It would still allow you to log temp/event caches as a different kind of find.

Here's the basic info on Metro Parks Geocaching Adventure 2006 for the Detroit area. It looks like it would be fun to do in conjunction with the Midwest Geobash in July. Two of the parks are in Oakland County where the MG is being held.

Yes, post your attended log. You don't post multiple found it notes for multi caches, right? Temp event caches are just part of the event. You can't attend an event multiple times. ...In order to log an "attend" on an event, you just have to show up. If there are temporary caches placed for the event you can search for them or not, it's your choice. Let's say you and I go to an event. I walk in, chat with some folks, get something to eat and leave. You walk in, chat with some folks, go out and find the six caches that were placed for the event, get something to eat and leave. But we each just get one "smilie". Sounds to me a lot like you deserve more, since you spent more time and effort. I've only attended a few events, but hope to attend more, maybe even the Midwest Geobash this July. At two events, temp caches were placed. In my first year of caching, I logged those as finds on the event page because that seemed to be what everyone did. However, I always felt weird about it, knowing that they were just placed there for the event. Yes, I stayed longer than others and the caches required some hiking at one event, but they didn't become permanent. After reading more about temp/pocket caches on the site and forums, I've gone back to edit those logs to notes instead of finds. It wasn't a thrill to see my number of finds drop, but those are just for fun and I felt like changing them to notes was more in keeping with the guidelines of cache placement. I'm only expressing my personal thoughts, not telling others they should do likewise. As this relates to the topic, I would support the "single log per cache" feature. The exceptions for adopted caches could be covered by changing the waypoint code and making those new caches if moved. It would certainly address the debate over temp/pocket caches and hopefully make it a non-issue. Everybody logs an event once. If permanent caches are nearby, hunt, find, and log them as usual. If it's just temps, you can still smile while you're hunting even without the smiley online. Edited: to directly respond to OP

Oh my...I didn't realize it was your game...I thought geocaching.com was a listing service and they set the guidelines to make caching the best it could be for everyone, not just those who want to play "any way" they want because that could be dangerous. These are forums for the caching community. I am sincerely glad you had a great time at GW4 and I think Snoogans has some good questions that could be addressed without the extreme emotions.

Sorry, but you cannot dictate who is allowed to respond to your public forum thread. So please quit doing that. It only distracts from the substantive point of your thread. As others like Keystone are responding... Although I respect Snoogans, these are forums under the heading "general geocaching discussions." Those not in attendance can still have insight and maintain the right to their opinions even if you choose to believe otherwise. Couldn't an e-mail have taken care of it? Otherwise, it may appear (even if it;s not the case) that you just want those attending GW to agree with your view and post that viewpoint to form a contingent against Groundspeak's decision. However, I do also agree with Snoogans point/9-key's response concerning a need to remind cachers (even non-forumites if possible) of guidelines concerning pockets/temps before mega-events.

Markwell will probably know the answer if you wish to contact him. Stunod, Corps of Discovery, or a check on the GONIL (Geocaches of Northern Illinois) website may help as well. There are certainly several walking caches near Navy Pier (including a neat reflection virtual). And since it's Chicago, don't forget to try the deep-dish pizza at Geno's East or Giordanos to replenish your caching energy.

I'm truly sorry you felt so personally attacked. Although some posters may have chosen that path, most didn't. Yes, I still think you could have made things so much better for the caching community by retracting your claim of any record (official or not) without retracting your right to have fun. In my mind, basic caching guidelines (sign the log, stay together) were followed by Lep and carleenp on their earlier run--it's really that simple and I think you'll soon realize that cachers (even those on these forums) still appreciate your caching ability and contributions. Perhaps most just don't approve of the mistake made by the team, not just by one person; they fear others will follow that pattern without a team apology/retraction for that erro, not for having fun and being great cachers.

Let's the brown-nosing begin! Just be careful what you wish for... Before individual cachers keep stating their favorites, I think JoGPS's comments concerning the need to work thru organizations should be emphasized in communicating with JoGPS and the previous host (now Texas) of which 9-Key serves as a representative. The criteria for hosting such an event is mind-boggling (space, cache variety and density, related events/lectures, merchandise, etc.).

Filled it in for you, I wish I was a cacher when GW was so close to me in Nashville, or Louisville, either one was WAY closer than Texas. Still not right. GW1 was Louisville and GW2 was Nashville. The next location will be selected by the prior hosts. Thanks, Keystone, for getting it right. GW1: Louisville, KY in June 2003 --About 80 cachers in attendance, including top cache finders at that time: BruceS, Lil' Otter, Show Me The Cache, CCCooperAgency,Southpaw, JoGPS, RobertLipe. The cache City Slickers: Geo-woodstock I (GCP7C8) is a replacement cache honoring the original event. The photos show the humble but happy beginnings of Geowoodstock.

So if the pieces of a chess set were broken and you could no longer tell what piece was what, there is no harm done? The containers were marked, not broken, save the drama... True, but if you read much of this thread or related posts (like carleenp's last one), you'll see that many of the complaints haven't been about the numbers. I believe a majority of cachers would say "go for it and have fun" to obtain the record. I also think that was the DRR's genuine intention, not to offend anyone. However, some of those DRR-marked caches belong to owners who now feel the need to repaint/fix/replace them in order for them to remain active caches. Some cache maintenance is always necessary, but this shouldn't be needed and wouldn't be if the DRR had simply followed the "sign the log" basic caching principle. And then they'd be receiving more congratulations than criticism.

Oops...double post

No, it didn't. Not one bit. The world-famous 'Dallas Record Run' took place a whole week before GeoWoodstock4. All of us had a great time at GW4 and many didn't even hear anything about the run. Most of the details came out during the time we were at the Event and many didn't even have internet access to read about the controversy. GW4 was a great time! I agree with Team 360 I was there without the net for 7 days I had no clue what was going on with the record run until Thursday. I did find lots and lots of caches maked DRR and I thought DRR was the person who placed the cache! Oh no...I'm being quoted apart from the rest of my previous post's context. The rest of that same post also said that I sincerely hoped GW4 was a great time for all and that the committee's work was appreciated. With the responses, I'm glad to see that was true. I do think that some may still associate the DRR with GW4 due to the timing, area, and possible info for the run on the GW4 and TXGA forums(?), though I realize that's not fair to those who worked so hard on the big event and had nothing to do with the record attempt. Thanks for the clarification. In spite of the strong response to what occurred, I think the result may have a positive long-term effect on future attempts and can simply have been a case of rushed judgment with no ill intentions, just caching fever.

I sincerely hope everyone had a fantastic time attending GW4, where the numbers weren't just about finds, but about meeting others, sharing ideas, etc. Unfortunately, the "record run" has tainted the event. E-mailing owners about signing or adhering stickers to the outside of cache containers does not equal permission from the owners, though I'm hopeful some consented in advance. Please know that your hard work on GW4 is still appreciated in spite of the problem.

I'm not concerned about their numbers and I don't believe they intentionally hurt others. However, I also don't believe that is the issue for most posting in this or related threads. I am concerned when they... ...sign (or deface, even unintentionally) cache containers unless the owner indicates permission. ...revise the basic caching guideline of signing available logs. ...use the logic of saying they informed owners of their plans beforehand by posting it on a website. Informing someone does not equal receiving permission. Some owners of affected caches have already posted their unhappiness. Many cachers work hard to create camo for their containers. The DRR team's actions could affect the caching community, especially if the above practices spread, not limited to just "record" runs.

Welcome to the area. This bookmark list of Deermark's Toughest Hides by the renowned 6K cacher Deermark may assist you, especially for south central Indiana. That is, if you don't mind a hike or two. Check out his other lists as well. Geode Hunters' "Holy Grail" series receives rave reviews: Holy Grail (Final): GCMWWH. You'll also find a lot of creativity if you ever come to Louisville just two hours south. Although we have our share of urban micros, we also have the local expertise of Show Me the Cache, Lumberjack Tom, and Jeepstaff. L/j Tom's latest hide, his Song of the Sing (GCW707) series with a 4/4 rating rivals his best, a physical and mental challenge. I just finished it. For me, it took about 6.8 miles of up and down hiking in close to 90-degree heat yesterday and today, but it was a lot of fun even if I should have been able to complete it in one day and only four to five miles. A little further south in Elizabethtown, Turtle3863 provides some regional history and some tough Turtle Treks, including Turtle Trek 2: Tortoise and the Hare (GCE9BB). KY Hiker does his part with EggZactly (GCTPJV) and the unique Making the Connection (GCHNF5). Of course, don't forget about the infamous Journal cache in neighboring Illinois, a 5/5 adventure, or the APE cache for its historical significance. Inky-Geo, one of the local caching organizations, may help you find even more in addition to the good advice in this forum. Editing to add Bean Blossom Gang's Bookmark Lists of Indiana trail hikes with caches and scenic views.

I'm sincerely sorry to read your comments, Alabama Rambler. Your team's reasoning has already been addressed throughout this thread. It's still poor logic to create your own rules that don't include the basic caching guideline of signing the log. To inform the owners you might sign containers is more like advance warning of graffiti than advance notice of finding and is truly disheartening. Of course, exceptions may exist with owners' permission, but that doesn't appear to be the case on most of these "finds." This is no way to achieve a record cache run. As you can see in this thread and related ones, although cachers may differ concerning the significance of the matter, almost every cacher posting does appear to have a problem with it. I suspect the GW4 attendees will too if and when they discover the signing of the containers instead of available logs. Please retract your claim to the record. It's not worth the harm it's causing. I am glad your team had fun, but it should begin and end there, not with an illegitimate claim. Listen to Lep and others who are providing "legitimate" points. This is an ethical issue, not a silly debate ove micro spew. Truly a sad day for caching...

Yes, "spitting up" might require the addition of an assigned caretaker to wipe off faces and affected clothing items unless the recordkeeper or independent judge performed double duty. Sorry, couldn't resist.

obviously the fact they are planning on making and selling a geocoin out of this Uh-oh, the coin is bound to make a bad situation worse. I have a feeling they may not find many buyers outside of GW4, but maybe others won't ever know about the container signing saga.

Good point, CO Admin... However, if Groundspeak/gc.com doesn't set the guidelines for record runs, then the local organizations will just do their own thing as we can clearly see by the latest attempt. Unfortunately, if they relax the gc guidelines for finds (e.g. signing the container instead of the log), then the "record" at best is only an event or local organization achievement. That's why I appreciate C of D's proposal for such attempts.

Great job, C of D! These rules meet current gc.com guidelines and furthermore, they address potential problems with record-run attempts. Although I like them all, I think #2, #5, and #8 would have resolved the latest controversy. #2: No more than .05 mi separation means everyone's searching for the same cache at the same time #5: Including an outside, independent (hopefully impartial) observer is key to making the record run accomplishment official in the eyes of the caching community instead of just an event's members or a state's caching organization. #8: Um, yeah, signing the logbook instead of just its container...who wouldn't realize this obvious adherence to the already established guidelines? I doubt I'll ever go on a record run, but I enjoy hearing about those who go for it, as long as they do it right.