Signing Container Rather Than Logbook

9.1k · May 27, 2006

The revised rules contemplate signing the container if and only if the logbook cannot be retrieved. I can imagine a very narrow set of circumstances where this rule might be applicable, such as where the container is frozen in place. (How's the weather in TX this week?) We already have one documented example where a cache owner deleted the DRR group's finds, and posted a picture of the unsigned log, which he apparently was able to retrieve without difficulty. And Nittany Dave reports being able to sign other logs, but not seeing the DRR signature in the log but rather on the container.

Other cache owners who find their containers signed, but with no malfunction or condition preventing the log from being signed, may wish to consider whether any action is warranted.

In my own record run of 240 caches, a mere ten per hour, we managed to sign 219 logs in ink (no stickers) and properly replaced each cache. (We also logged one webcam and 20 virtuals.) There were no reports of muggling, or any complaints from cache owners. I wouldn't have it any other way, and never gave any thought to special rules.

Edited May 27, 2006 by The Leprechauns

May 27, 2006

Hello from Dallas!

My name is geoPirat (from Germany) and I have been a member of this years record run team in Dallas / FW.

.........<snip>.......

Looking forward to meet some of you at GW4, I am open for your questions and criticism.

Why should we have to meet you? It could be rather time consuming. Just tell me where you park, and I'll put my initials in sharpie on your windshield.

It would show up much better on the paint!

May 27, 2006

Yes, cache containers were signed by team members during the run if they were not camouflaged and if there was no harm to stealth factor if the cache.

How can they decide on other cache owners' caches that there is no harm to stealth factor of the cache? IMHO that is ONLY the call of the cache owner.

2k · May 27, 2006

There are no records. So far it seems each record holder team has made up their own requirements for what counts.

How can there be a record if only one team participated?

This last team just seems completely bogus. I don't like the post putting the blame on the community that they didn't tell them using a sharpie was wrong. Duh!

1.5k · May 27, 2006

nevermind...

Edited May 27, 2006 by DocDiTTo

5.7k · May 27, 2006

Hello from Dallas!

My name is geoPirat (from Germany) and I have been a member of this years record run team in Dallas / FW.

I have read this thread and would like to comment on a few points . . .

The final rules for the record run have been posted on the TXA Forums, see here http://www.txga.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3370

In this thread, an older version of the rules has been posted some times, but we have posted the final layout in the Forums of the local Geocachers organization of the Dallas / FW area so the owners could read it (TXGA).

Many of the owners of caches planned for the recrun have been posted before the run, informing them of the run, the date, sometimes asking for maintainance or advice of how to drive / park best to a cache location. The list of caches of the run was available BEFORE THE RUN via a public link in the GW4 Forums http://www.geowoodstock4.com/ .

We had posted the rules asking for comments / help / criticism, given a time-line of a week (I remember) for this. We had NO feedback at all BEFORE the run.

On the preparation of the run, we made the cache list available to everyone and shared all information BEFORE the run so others could go for the run on their own, if not in a 24 hour record manner than in parts to have fun and find some caches - a thing new to record runs to my knowledge. Things have been posted in the Forums of GW4-site and TXGA, the recrun is even mentioned on the GC.COM GW4-cache page. What other ways of gathering interest and feedback could we have used?

The upset about signing cache containers after the run is over may be understandbale, but I would have wished for MORE input and feedback to our posts BEFORE the run so rules / guidelines could have been adjusted to the wishes of THE LOCAL CACHE OWNERS and / or the whole caching community.

The lack of interest in this run BEFORE we went for it - even the local cachers did not post in the threads in their local forum - was surprising for me, as I was used to sharing fun and caching with the locals before, around and after Geowoodstock events.

BTW, how many local cache owners (that have caches being hitten on the recrun) are posting here?

Finally the answer to the question - have cache containers been signed on the outside?

Yes, cache containers were signed by team members during the run if they were not camouflaged and if there was no harm to stealth factor if the cache.

Leaving a physical proof of 'we have been there' was very important to us to make our run revisable.

If feeling of record-run CACHE OWNERS were hurt - I do deeply beg your understanding and ask you to read the posts we made and to check the available information before the run started.

It was not and will never be my intent or the intent of my team to make cache owners feel bad because of things we have done to their cache.

But as the owner of around 80 caches (that have more than 2000 logs on them) I want to state that I have no problems at all if my cache containers are signed as long as stealth is not harmed.

Numbers of record runs are very difficult to compare because of Team size, local support, cache density in different areas, cache maintainance quality by the owners and so on. This record is menat to be a fun thing (maybe a bit crazy).

We took the record from ourselves (I was member of last years record holder Team of 263 caches in Jacksonville), there is no prize to win.

In Dallas/FW we could find 312 caches, left physical proof of being there when the cache was in the hand of a team member.

Looking forward to meet some of you at GW4, I am open for your questions and criticism.

Look, I don't know you. I don't think that I want to know you. I'm quite certain that the majority of the owners of the caches which you defaced don't know you either. I get the feling that you earnestly believe that because you posted something in a forum and/or sent an email or in some manner think that you adaqately communicated your plans to deface their caches AND that because they did not indicate to you directly that they did not want you deface their caches. That somehow this gives you implicit permission to just go ahead and deface them, this is just plain pompous, arrogant and on the face of it WRONG. People do not have to visit their regional forum threads or any other thread unless they choose to. The belief that people must take actions that are formulated by you for your own benefit and 'feel good' or that they then must accept the result of your unauthorized behavior, is in my opinion sick beyond belief. I mean, do you people think that you were on some self-ordained mission from God? Some people, sheesh! :huh: :huh:

3.1k · May 27, 2006

From the rules on the Texas Geocaching Forum:

First posted in the (locked) forum for the record run on 1st of Feb., we have worked the rules over - here they are:

3. ) During the run, no new members can join the team. Team members may quit the record run (e.g. feeling sick, after injuries etc.), they may join later. For a count, the cache does not have to be found / signed by 'every' Team member. One member of the team finds a cache and writes the team sig in the logbook or on the container if the logbook can't be retrieved - you have a count. The Team may even split up at some time of the run as long as they use only ONE vehicle for the whole team (e.g. in a park etc.).

How many cantainers were signed on the outside with DRR.....where the logs unable to be retrieved from all of them? We know of at least on of BiT's caches that did not follow this guideline, he was able to get the log.

5.) Only caches listed on Groundspeak's GC.COM with a physical proof of finding them count (signed logbook / canister with Team Name etc.). So it's no virtuals, no webcams etc. if they don't have a logbook. Events YES with a logbook to sign (you get the idea) and so on.

This rule clearly states that logbooks are necessary to count for this record run....so it implys that the teams would be signing the logbook.

8. ) The route of the caches may (and should wisely) be chosen by each team and does NOT have to be the same for every team. The "normal" accepted guidelines to find / log a cache apply (human sense), e.g. a cache you have already found (logged at GC.COM) can't be found again if the cache has not been moved, you can't find a cache placed by you if it has not been moved by someone else etc. But if another Team member finds the cache, it is a count for the Team.

The normal accepted guidelines are that cachers who find a cache sign the logbook.

I do not think this cache run should hold up. The team members should do the right thing and apologize to the cache owners of the vandalized caches. Sad day in geocaching...if you ask me.

May 27, 2006

Hello from Dallas!

The final rules for the record run have been posted on the TXA Forums, see here http://www.txga.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3370

In this thread, an older version of the rules has been posted some times, but we have posted the final layout in the Forums of the local Geocachers organization of the Dallas / FW area so the owners could read it (TXGA).

We had posted the rules asking for comments / help / criticism, given a time-line of a week (I remember) for this. We had NO feedback at all BEFORE the run.

This is a weak defense. The DRR team used extremely poor logic:

--Geocaching.com (not GW4 or the TXGA) makes the guidelines for caching unless they wish to create a separate caching site and listing service.

--Cache owners abide by those guidelines and may create additional requirements for logging their caches, but unless otherwise stated by the owner (usually when the container is the logbook), a find requires the signing of a logbook.

--It is not the cache owners' responsibility to go the GW4 site, read the revised guidelines for your record run, and abide by them. IMO, that's like my students revising the school's rules, sending teachers e-mails about them, and then cutting class or pulling a prank by saying we were informed.

--Thus, if you wish to create a record cache run for the geocaching.com, this isn't it because you didn't follow the rules.

--Thank you for your apology to the owners, but I think the best thing to do would be to withdraw your claim as record-holders. It would restore calm to the gc community. I would have loved to be in Texas this weekend, but I still have classes to teach--I need to follow the rules, you know.

1.5k · May 27, 2006

Look, I don't know you. I don't think that I want to know you. I'm quite certain that the majority of the owners of the caches which you defaced don't know you either. I get the feling that you earnestly believe that because you posted something in a forum and/or sent an email or in some manner think that you adaqately communicated your plans to deface their caches AND that because they did not indicate to you directly that they did not want you deface their caches. That somehow this gives you implicit permission to just go ahead and deface them, this is just plain pompous, arrogant and on the face of it WRONG. People do not have to visit their regional forum threads or any other thread unless they choose to. The belief that people must take actions that are formulated by you for your own benefit and 'feel good' or that they then must accept the result of your unauthorized behavior, is in my opinion sick beyond belief. I mean, do you people think that you were on some self-ordained mission from God? Some people, sheesh!

What it boils down to is that the previous records, such as the one set by Lep's team, are hard to break if you play by the same rules. So rather than follow the same rules and work a little harder and a little faster, they changed the rules to suit themselves. What record can't be broken by changing the rules?

There was a new record set this week. It was the world record for the most caches defaced in 24 hours. That's it. I can see the fun of going with friends on a speed run, but what's the fun in changing the rules to make it easy, as well as change the basic principles of geocaching by signing containers rather than logs? That's not fun, that's just trying to make a name for yourself in whatever way possible. (Well I guess they DID succeed in doing that, but not in they way they'd hoped )

May 27, 2006

I had some people log finds on my caches because they were trying to do a personal best last weekend. They logged each find with the same generic message that gave me no true indication that they did in fact visit the cache. I had read on the forums earlier that week about armchair cachers who never go any further than their computer to log a find. I thought I had been hit by one of these armchair cachers and I was ready to go and check the log books just to see if they actually had been to the cache. One of the other participants who went on the cache hunt did say something in his log about one of my caches so that I was pretty sure they had been there- thus saving me a trip to check. The point is the log books are there to verify the find.

Seems to me reporting a cache involves being on the honor system. I'm not the cache police.

May 27, 2006

All I can say is that if another cacher "tagged up" on my cache container with a sharpie (the same way gangs do on bathroom walls), I'd delete the find, repaint the cache and report them to Groundspeak.

This type of behavior is simply unacceptable.

May 27, 2006

When I first read about this "record" I found it very hard to believe. Apparently geocaching is very different in Texas than it is here in New England as around here it would be impossible to visit anywhere near 300 caches in a 24 hour period. There are some basic points to the "game" that we all understand, and the need to sign the log to claim a find is one of them. Using shortcuts to try and claim a record makes the record bogus.

2.7k · May 27, 2006

From the 8 members of DRR, the only response we have heard in this thread is from geoPirat. I have posted two critical comments in two different threads about this incident. I would like to hear from the rest of the team members. Did each and every member have previous knowledge (either clearly communicated or implicitly) that signing Cache containers was going to be their standard method of operation?

I assume that under normal circumstances each and every one of the 8 would be someone we would be happy to have as a Caching partner. They just got caught up in the excitement of COMPETITION. Competition always brings out the best and the worst in people.

The reaction to their actions has been made quite clear to them. They used very poor judgement. Then they blame us for not finding and commenting on their obscurely posted rules in advance. What they need to do is accept responsibility for their actions. An apology from all 8 members and renouncing any claim on a record would be a good first step to regaining the respect of the Geocaching community.

One additional note about their final rules. I find this one nearly as disturbing as defacing containers. They even removed any reference to .5 mile separation. A Geocaching team stays together!

The Team may even split up at some time of the run as long as they use only ONE vehicle for the whole team (e.g. in a park etc.).

There will be more record attempts in the future. I think a lesson has been learned here. If you want to set a record you can take pride in afterwards, don't fudge the "rules".

2.3k · May 27, 2006

The final rules for the record run have been posted on the TXA Forums, see here http://www.txga.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3370

This forum requires registration in order to view it. The GW4 forums are open forums, and the Groundspeak forums are open to anyone with an account at GC.com. If a "world record" is being claimed, it would be helpful if the "rules" made up by the record claimants were available for the world to see. Had they been posted in a forum that I followed, I would have had input. I may, however, have missed the subtle wording about signing the "canister." Hopefully the final version of the rules disclosed in bold capital letters: WE WILL SIGN THE OUTSIDE OF THE CACHE CONTAINER under the circumstances described above.

Could someone please post those rules here?

I agree. Being that part of the rules state that only GC.com caches are acceptable these forums should have been the proper place to discuss them. That also brings up another tangent- there are other listing sites, could a record which excludes ALL available caches (including ones from other sites, virts, webcams etc.) truly represent the whole caching world? The rules as posted make it more of a 'GC.com physical cache 24 hour record' than anything else.

From the rules on the Texas Geocaching Forum:

First posted in the (locked) forum for the record run on 1st of Feb., we have worked the rules over - here they are:

1. ) A team (no matter how many people, no matter if local though it's going to be hard for locals to claim a record if they have found caches on the route before - or virgin to the area; the bigger the team the slower they will be . . .)

2. ) has to cache along their route, trying to find as many caches as possible in the given 24 hours time frame. The team may use only ONE vehicle at the same time as their means of transportation, although the whole team may change vehicles as often as they want. Team members can walk / drive / bike to caches.

3. ) During the run, no new members can join the team. Team members may quit the record run (e.g. feeling sick, after injuries etc.), they may join later. For a count, the cache does not have to be found / signed by 'every' Team member. One member of the team finds a cache and writes the team sig in the logbook or on the container if the logbook can't be retrieved - you have a count. The Team may even split up at some time of the run as long as they use only ONE vehicle for the whole team (e.g. in a park etc.).

4. ) All equipment is allowed (GPSRs, Laptops, GPS repeaters, all phones, PMRs, Flashlights, Tools, Pens and everything else you can think of).

5.) Only caches listed on Groundspeak's GC.COM with a physical proof of finding them count (signed logbook / canister with Team Name etc.). So it's no virtuals, no webcams etc. if they don't have a logbook. Events YES with a logbook to sign (you get the idea) and so on.

6. ) Cache run is in a 24 hour period (that does not say in one calendar day). The Team may continue caching after the 24 hours are over, but caches found after the time limit do not count for the record.

7. ) External support en route with food / drinks / medicine / repairs / peplacement of or additional equipment / batteries etc. is allowed. External physical (!) support from non-team-members to find / sign a cache is forbidden.

8. ) The route of the caches may (and should wisely) be chosen by each team and does NOT have to be the same for every team. The "normal" accepted guidelines to find / log a cache apply (human sense), e.g. a cache you have already found (logged at GC.COM) can't be found again if the cache has not been moved, you can't find a cache placed by you if it has not been moved by someone else etc. But if another Team member finds the cache, it is a count for the Team.

Use common sense. Travel with caution, do not get hurt. Have as much fun as possible. I shortend the rules to make things simpler. If you have any comments or ideas for the rules, please post them here as a reply til friday, the 12th of may, because the coming weekend is the last chance to reflect rule changes in the planning of the route.

Maybe it's just me, but as a cache owner I would have never inferred from those rules that you were going to sign the cache container and not the log.

In fact, rule number 5 implies that the logbook will be signed...at least it does to me.

Bret

Thanks Bret.

Rule number 5 does state that a log is vital to a cache in order for it to qualify for this attempt- why then does it not also follow that it must be signed? Seems simple enough.

Rules 2 & 3 disturb me even more. They could be perceived in such a way that you could have each member of the team go off in search of a cache, find it, sign it and then the team would get credit even tho only 1 team member was anywhere near the cache. The earlier version said they could not be seperated by more than .5 miles, even that would not preclude abuse. The rules should have been made to state that all team members must stay together at all times, period. Anything else would not do, IMO.

I've seen some posts in this thread verge on being personal attacks. Let's keep it civil. I do think the teams making these attempts (from what I've seen there may be more than 1 team trying for a record this weekend) were doing so with good intentions. I don't think they intentionally want to upset everyone. I do think that it could have been planned and executed a bit better tho.

May 27, 2006

Plenty of opinions around here, so what's one more, eh?

DDR....

You guys didn't set a new world record. What you did is called cheating. You pulled a Tonya Harding and have lost the respect of the entire geocaching community.

Give it up pal, it's over.

1.5k · May 27, 2006

I hadn't caught the part about splitting up being changed in the new version of the rules. According to this set of rules, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to charter a bus, fill it with 48 people, each armed with a magic marker. We could then drop people off all over town, allow them to tag whatever caches they can find by writing an X on the cache container itself, then we'd meet back at the bus and move on to the next town. At the end of the day, all 48 people log a find on every cache that was tagged with an X in whatever towns the bus has been to.

The sad part is, the only difference between my example and the real "Dallas Record Run" is that my vehicle is bigger. But I've still followed all the "rules".

Edited May 27, 2006 by DocDiTTo

7.3k · May 27, 2006

The really sad thing about all this is that from now on, anyone who attempts to make record runs like this will immediately be looked at more critically. What this group did was hurt any future honest attempts, and create an atmosphere of mistrust.

4.2k · May 27, 2006

Had this image for a while and never knew where to use it before.

5.3k · May 27, 2006

Here are some pearls of wisdom from others in recent related threads...

I don't see what the big deal is. People play this game however they want. If numbers are all that matter to you, log [however you want]. If you're all about the ethics and the "real" numbers, log as such. I've gone caching with many folks, and I've seen how different people play the game...At the end of the day, numbers are pointless. But the memories you take with you? Priceless.

Don't you think the value you are placing on your own interpretation of how Geocaching should be is a little over-inflated?

But really, who cares if people pull this crap. We all know they're only cheating themselves. The only thing it does is pad their stats, and who cares about that anyway. I mean, if it's about the hunt, not the smiley, who cares about cheating number Hos.

Why do you or anybody else care how many caches I find? This hobby/sport whatever you want to call it is for MY fun. If there was some ultimate end million dollar prize for the most caches found, then maybe it would matter, but there isn't. People have fun in different ways and if you had spent an entire day and put countless miles on your feet looking for caches you would not log them??
Nobody was hurt by logging these finds, it was a good day of family fun, socializing with new friends. What is wrong with that? Please explain.

Smilies are monopoly money guys. It's not legal tender. There is not going to be a big tally at the end and the one with the most smilies wins a prize. So who cares if someone grabs an extra one now and then? They're free. Take all you want.

this is just a game, play it the way you want to and let everyone else play their way.

It's not about the numbers. It's about having fun and possibly spending some quality time with friends and family.

I've cached from coast to coast and every area where there is a large, active group of geocachers, they have their own style. I've enjoyed each on its own merit without needing to look down on those who view the sport differently than my home group.

It's weird. If these guys had just claimed finds for just getting near the cache, that would have been just fine with everybody. But sign the outside of the container, and now it's Federal offense.

Seriously, folks, with pocket caches and retirement caches and hundreds of finds for one event and bonus smileys and finds claimed for not finding the cache all considered just fine by many cachers, I can see how this group thought that what they were doing was just fine. In fact, they thought were being really tough on themselves for requiring that the container be signed and cachers be within 1/2 mile of each other!

Now do you understand why all those things are bad for the sport/hobby/whatever?

2.2k · May 27, 2006

Without going through and quoting all of the above text again, I agree with the sentiments of the majority here.

As a cache owner, it is not my responsibility to search other websites, or, even these forums, to find out how you intend to use my cache for a record run.

By listing my cache on this website, I assume anyone logging my cache will be following normal geocaching guidelines, and if they don't, I reserve the right to delete their find.

Just because I didn't see your note in another forum saying you intend to sign the outside of my container, and therefore I didn't respond to it, does not mean I gave my consent by default! (Did that make sense?)

Rather than post a set of record run guidelines at each event that an attempt will be made, why don't we make our own.

What if Lep posts the rules they set for themselves, and we can start there? Then, we will all be working off the same guidelines.

As far as the DRR goes, congratulations on holding the Texas Geocaching site record run.

3.9k · May 27, 2006

Without going through and quoting all of the above text again, I agree with the sentiments of the majority here.

As a cache owner, it is not my responsibility to search other websites, or, even these forums, to find out how you intend to use my cache for a record run.

By listing my cache on this website, I assume anyone logging my cache will be following normal geocaching guidelines, and if they don't, I reserve the right to delete their find.

Just because I didn't see your note in another forum saying you intend to sign the outside of my container, and therefore I didn't respond to it, does not mean I gave my consent by default! (Did that make sense?)

Rather than post a set of record run guidelines at each event that an attempt will be made, why don't we make our own.

What if Lep posts the rules they set for themselves, and we can start there? Then, we will all be working off the same guidelines.

As far as the DRR goes, congratulations on holding the Texas Geocaching site record run.

Cornerstone, I feel that you make some excellent points that needed to be stated, and I thank you for doing that! The assumption that somehow the cache owners consented "by default" to allowing the members of the DRR team to do something that is totally beyond the pale of traditional behavior and norms in the geo community is simply, to me, a very arrogant and illogical (and futile) last-ditch defensive posture. Oh, and such a lame defense is also insulting.

Further, I feel that while the members of Team DRR may have had a lot of fun on their odyssey, the fact also remains that they set their own rather very unique rules for the contest, and due to the uniqueness and arbitrariness of the rules and their behavior during the hunt, well, it is my feeling that the ONLY record which they set is one in their own minds.

However, having said all the above, I would like to also comment that I feel that some folks have reacted a bit over-harshly against the Team DRR people. I would definitely agree that they made several mistakes in their behavior, and I certainly would not cache in the way that they did, nor would I recommend any of those behaviors to others. However, there have been some posters here who have very strongly castigated these people. My own point of view is that the team and its members made some mistakes, and among other things, their so-called "record" turns out to be a figment of their imaginations. For a real record to have been set, I would personally expect that all of the team members be present (not simply within 0.5 miles) at the cache, and that the log must be signed with the team name and date. However, I would like to repeat my earlier note that some cache containers/hides can easily handle a few "log entries" made on the exterior with a black indelible marker, particularly if the log entry is as brief as the cryptic "DRR"; I know that some of our containers (most of our small and regular containers, for example) would not be unduly harmed by a few such "log entries". So, I personally feel that some people got a bit over-excited about this behavior. On the other hand, it may well be true that camouflage on some containers was compromised by the markings -- in those cases, I must agree that such behavior was extremely unwise and childish. In any case, barring extreme emergencies or unusual circumstances, I do not feel that a scribbled "DRR" on a cache container should really constitute a find.

Lastly, in closing, I thank Fizzymagic for reminding us that we should not really be so surprised at what happened in Texas, since there are so many ways in which find counts have already been eroded by many in our hobby and sport, where folks (including some of my geo-friends) regularly claim finds for retirement caches, pocket caches, "owner permission to log a find because we think the container was missing", "I gave myself permission to log a find cause I found the spot but not the container", and, last but not least, hundreds of finds for one event. . .

May 27, 2006

To me...this whole "signing the container" thing is vandelism, and that is a crime. Yes, we place these on public property...but sometimes I place my vehicle on public property...and that doesn't give you the right to slash my tires, bust my windows...or even to write on it! Point is, regardless of where these containers are placed, they are still PRIVATE property...and in my eyes...you broke the law.

3.2k · May 27, 2006

The really sad thing about all this is that from now on, anyone who attempts to make record runs like this will immediately be looked at more critically. What this group did was hurt any future honest attempts, and create an atmosphere of mistrust.

The other sad thing is that the next newbie who finds one of those DRR-vandalized caches is likely to assume that signing the outside of the container with a Sharpie marker is just as acceptable as using a pen in the logbook. Now that it's been done the first time it's more likely to happen again. Next think you know all the area ammo cans will begin to look like some seventh-grader's broken-leg cast.

3.2k · May 27, 2006

It's weird. If these guys had just claimed finds for just getting near the cache, that would have been just fine with everybody. But sign the outside of the container, and now it's Federal offense.

Why is that weird to you, Fizzy? Cheating yourself is one thing. Vandalizing another cacher's game piece is an entirely different matter.

5.9k · May 27, 2006

Seriously, folks, with pocket caches and retirement caches and hundreds of finds for one event and bonus smileys and finds claimed for not finding the cache all considered just fine by many cachers, I can see how this group thought that what they were doing was just fine. In fact, they thought were being really tough on themselves for requiring that the container be signed and cachers be within 1/2 mile of each other!

Now do you understand why all those things are bad for the sport/hobby/whatever?

It's a cheater's bonanza at the GW4! As before, people came from all over, this year many temp archived their caches and brought them along. WOOT!

7.3k · May 27, 2006

I would seriously have an issue with someone writing on the outside of my cache, no matter what. That's just not the correct nor respectful way to cache.

May 27, 2006

I've been very interested in this record run as I live in the DFW area and I am a cacher that appreciates numbers. And I'd like to thank geopirat for the post explaining "their" side. However...

To me, that post is a cop out. You can't blame the locals for not reading the forums and not providing input before the run. More importantly, a cache isn't a find without a logbook signed (unless a virtual.) Heck, I tried to place a cache without a logbook and just a code in it (to email me for a find) and was told that the rules had changed and every cache now must have a logbook. So if every cache must have a logbook, shouldn't a found cache have a signed logbook?

1.2k · May 27, 2006

The record has been broken, folks.

On 5-27-06, I personally found 712 caches in a 24 hour period, and signed the log on every single one.

Well...

I signed the same log 712 times for one cache, in 24 minutes.

Well...

I copied and pasted my signature onto a paper log for one of my own archived caches.

Whoohoo! I "win"!!

That counts, doesn't it? Long live the "record"!!

3k · May 27, 2006

There are three different questions being discussed in this topic:

1) Is it ok to sign the outside of a container without the owner's permission?

2) Does signing the outside of a container rather than signing the log inside constitute a Find?

3) Was there a new record set for the most caches found in a 24 hour period?

My answers:

1) No.

2) No.

3) There might have been some kind of a record set, but it wasn't for most caches found in a 24 hour period.

2.4k · May 27, 2006

I hadn't caught the part about splitting up being changed in the new version of the rules. According to this set of rules, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to charter a bus, fill it with 48 people, each armed with a magic marker. We could then drop people off all over town, allow them to tag whatever caches they can find by writing an X on the cache container itself, then we'd meet back at the bus and move on to the next town. At the end of the day, all 48 people log a find on every cache that was tagged with an X in whatever towns the bus has been to.

The sad part is, the only difference between my example and the real "Dallas Record Run" is that my vehicle is bigger. But I've still followed all the "rules".

Doc, sounds about right. But, instead of meet back at the bus, have the bus drop a cacher off at a cluster of caches. When the bus is empty, swing back and start picking cachers up and dropping them off at another cluster. With a team of 50 people, we should easily be able to bump the 24 hour record into 4 digit territory.

So, what is the REAL record for 24 hours? Set by a team that actually signed the logbooks, replaced the caches as intended and stayed together.

7.3k · May 27, 2006

I hadn't caught the part about splitting up being changed in the new version of the rules. According to this set of rules, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to charter a bus, fill it with 48 people, each armed with a magic marker. We could then drop people off all over town, allow them to tag whatever caches they can find by writing an X on the cache container itself, then we'd meet back at the bus and move on to the next town. At the end of the day, all 48 people log a find on every cache that was tagged with an X in whatever towns the bus has been to.

The sad part is, the only difference between my example and the real "Dallas Record Run" is that my vehicle is bigger. But I've still followed all the "rules".

Doc, sounds about right. But, instead of meet back at the bus, have the bus drop a cacher off at a cluster of caches. When the bus is empty, swing back and start picking cachers up and dropping them off at another cluster. With a team of 50 people, we should easily be able to bump the 24 hour record into 4 digit territory.

So, what is the REAL record for 24 hours? Set by a team that actually signed the logbooks, replaced the caches as intended and stayed together.

Well, some of the people on this same team held the last record. Is that record now in doubt?

Edited May 27, 2006 by Ambrosia

2.6k · May 27, 2006

Goodness me! This must be the closest thing to unanimity I've ever seen in these here forums. After all this, I don't have the heart to pile on.

Mmm. Yeah. Must be going soft.

7.3k · May 27, 2006

Goodness me! This must be the closest thing to unanimity I've ever seen in these here forums. After all this, I don't have the heart to pile on.

Mmm. Yeah. Must be going soft.

I'm shocked. Whatever shall we do?

1.7k · May 27, 2006

Well, some of the people on this same team held the last record. Is that record now in doubt?

Honestly, I would have reason to doubt it. The only one who posted here from that team did not see anything wrong with how they set the record today, so I would wonder about their previous record.

7.3k · May 27, 2006

Well, some of the people on this same team held the last record. Is that record now in doubt?

Honestly, I would have reason to doubt it. The only one who posted here from that team did not see anything wrong with how they set the record today, so I would wonder about their previous record.

My thoughts exactly.

May 27, 2006

Several of my easiest caches were used in the DRR and I was pretty excited about it until reading this thread. Not signing the log is just lame. The follow up post with the excuses is lamer.

1.7k · May 27, 2006

It's a cheater's bonanza at the GW4! As before, people came from all over, this year many temp archived their caches and brought them along. WOOT!

Seriously?

Now Im glad we didnt go to the caching event.

6.4k · May 27, 2006

DRR can consider those caches finds if they want to. That's the way they wanted to play the game, so be it. No different then those that log an event 100 times for non GC caches. No different then a find logged for finding the right place but no cache.

On the same level, cache owners have the final say in what does or doesn't count as a find.

It looks like the VAST majority of cachers so far do not consider marking the outside of the cache as a matter of practice a find. I would hope to see an equal percentage of cache owners vote with the delete button, but since most people are afraid of confrontation I doubt that will happen.

Then we have the revelation that according to their logging standards it's entirely possible that each member of the team never even SAW 7/8ths of the claimed caches (since their rules allowed them to split up).

Between those 2 things the record claim is tainted worse then a Barry Bonds home run. No matter how strongly the claim is made, no matter how many logs are not deleted, I suspect most cachers will not accept this as a valid record run once informed of the details.

7.3k · May 27, 2006

DRR can consider those caches finds if they want to. That's the way they wanted to play the game, so be it. No different then those that log an event 100 times for non GC caches. No different then a find logged for finding the right place but no cache.

On the same level, cache owners have the final say in what does or doesn't count as a find.

It looks like the VAST majority of cachers so far do not consider marking the outside of the cache as a matter of practice a find. I would hope to see an equal percentage of cache owners vote with the delete button, but since most people are afraid of confrontation I doubt that will happen.

Then we have the revelation that according to their logging standards it's entirely possible that each member of the team never even SAW 7/8ths of the claimed caches (since their rules allowed them to split up).

Between those 2 things the record claim is tainted worse then a Barry Bonds home run. No matter how strongly the claim is made, no matter how many logs are not deleted, I suspect most cachers will not accept this as a valid record run once informed of the details.

Not to mention the fact that the majority of the cache owners won't even know about this debate, to have the choice to delete the finds, because they never come into the forums.

1.5k · May 27, 2006

Not to mention the fact that the majority of the cache owners won't even know about this debate, to have the choice to delete the finds, because they never come into the forums.

Well I don't know about Texas, but around here word gets passed around the local scene pretty quick. I posted links in the Texas GW4 and "Record Run" forums back to this thread. I imagine a few locals will catch wind of it and that's all that'll be needed.

It's one thing for cachers to log finds however they want to affect their own stats. While I don't agree with all the numbers padding tactics I see used, there's not much to be done since there aren't guidelines for what's acceptable and what's not, in most cases.

But there are guidelines about signing logs in caches. And if you're going to announce you're the new "world record holder" (whatever that means) you darn well better follow what few guidelines there are when it comes to logging your finds.

As far as whether the last record is legit, I guess it would depend on how they got their numbers and logged their finds.

May 27, 2006

From the rules on the Texas Geocaching Forum:

First posted in the (locked) forum for the record run on 1st of Feb., we have worked the rules over - here they are:

3. ) During the run, no new members can join the team. Team members may quit the record run (e.g. feeling sick, after injuries etc.), they may join later. For a count, the cache does not have to be found / signed by 'every' Team member. One member of the team finds a cache and writes the team sig in the logbook or on the container if the logbook can't be retrieved - you have a count. The Team may even split up at some time of the run as long as they use only ONE vehicle for the whole team (e.g. in a park etc.).

Maybe it's just me, but as a cache owner I would have never inferred from those rules that you were going to sign the cache container and not the log.

In fact, rule number 5 implies that the logbook will be signed...at least it does to me.

Bret

In fact, rule number 5 implies that the logbook will be signed...at least it does to me.

Bret

As well as rule 3 which includes
writes the team sig in the logbook or on the container if the logbook can't be retrieved.
It doesn't says "sign the container if you don't want to take time to retrieved the logbook"

I agree with the above poster. WHAT, other than your lack of respect for a cache owner, and your own egos in "setting a record" prevented you from retrieving the log book? What rendered them in the category of "can't be retrieved"?

5.7k · May 27, 2006

I hadn't caught the part about splitting up being changed in the new version of the rules. According to this set of rules, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to charter a bus, fill it with 48 people, each armed with a magic marker. We could then drop people off all over town, allow them to tag whatever caches they can find by writing an X on the cache container itself, then we'd meet back at the bus and move on to the next town. At the end of the day, all 48 people log a find on every cache that was tagged with an X in whatever towns the bus has been to.

The sad part is, the only difference between my example and the real "Dallas Record Run" is that my vehicle is bigger. But I've still followed all the "rules".

Doc, sounds about right. But, instead of meet back at the bus, have the bus drop a cacher off at a cluster of caches. When the bus is empty, swing back and start picking cachers up and dropping them off at another cluster. With a team of 50 people, we should easily be able to bump the 24 hour record into 4 digit territory.

So, what is the REAL record for 24 hours? Set by a team that actually signed the logbooks, replaced the caches as intended and stayed together.

Well, some of the people on this same team held the last record. Is that record now in doubt?

Well that depends. Did they follow The Rules?

3.9k · May 27, 2006

What is a bit sad about this matter is that, until now, both the annual GeoWoodstock event and the entire reputation of the quality and caliber of geocaching in Texas (along with the reputation of the Texas Geocaching Association, aka TXGA) have enjoyed a very good and solid reputation in the geo community, at least from my long-distance perspective here on the East Coast. Now that these facts have come about the "record" and the attempt at the record, it appears to me likely that this small storm may well damage the reputation of GeoWoodstock events and of the quality of geocaching in Texas, and also possibly tarnish the reputation of the Texas Geocaching Association, since they published the bizarre "rules" of the contest without challenge and without question. That is a shame, because my sole experience of geocaching in Texas, since my trip to Houston a few months ago, was wonderful, and I would hate to see the Texas geo scene become stigmatized by this strange episode. Even here on the East Coast, I am already starting to see and hear lots of snide jokes about both GeoWoodstock and about geocaching in Texas in the aftermath of the storm. . .

I kinda wonder if GeoWoodstock 4 organizers and TXGA administrators will find it advisable to take public steps to distance themselves from the whole Team DRR "record" matter, or perhaps to publicly rebuke them for their actions. On the other hand, as I noted before, this may turn out to be only a tiny blip on the radar screen, since, after all, we do live in a geo world where such things as retirement cache options, pocket caches, multiple event finds, and "cache not-found-but-logging-find-anyway" have become the status quo.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

3.9k · May 27, 2006

By the way, in light of all these recent revelations. . .

I have decided to enter the contest for "Most Finds in 24 Hours". I have hired a skydiving plane to go aloft tomorrow (Sunday) for ten hours, and to skywrite my geo signature and the date in the skies above Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and West Virginia. Under rules which I have published for my "Most Finds in 24 Hours" contest, which allow claiming a find for a cache if we skywrite our sig in the skies within 200 miles above the cache container, this means that our team will end up with over 5,900 finds within a 24 hour period, and we will have set a world record.

I wish to thank you all for your support in this venture and for your accolades at our record-setting accomplishment, and, most of all, I wish to thank you for your implicit consent to our rules for the contest, since these rules have allowed us to set this wonderful record! Thank you to all!

May 27, 2006

Who cares.

It's something I'm never going to do.

I know that my current record is 38 caches in one day. They want tyo claim what the did- let 'em.

2.7k · May 27, 2006

Who cares.

It's something I'm never going to do.

I know that my current record is 38 caches in one day. They want tyo claim what the did- let 'em.

I think most people are not so much concerned with teh numbers as they are the fact that the team vandalized caches by writing ON them. That is something to care about.

3k · May 27, 2006

<snip> ... at least from my long-distance perspective here on the East Coast ...

<snip> Even here on the West Coast, I am already starting to see and hear ...

Your assessment of the situation carries extra weight in my book because of your ability to be on both coasts at the same time.

Edited May 27, 2006 by cache_test_dummies

2.7k · May 27, 2006

<snip> ... at least from my long-distance perspective here on the East Coast ...

<snip> Even here on the West Coast, I am already starting to see and hear ...

Your assessment of the situation carries extra weight in my book because or your ability to be on both coasts at the same time.

No, Vinny and his wife share the same account - she just has a rather impressive restraining order against him. Something about loony Vinny or something.

6.4k · May 27, 2006

<snip> ... at least from my long-distance perspective here on the East Coast ...

<snip> Even here on the West Coast, I am already starting to see and hear ...

Your assessment of the situation carries extra weight in my book because or your ability to be on both coasts at the same time.

That will make it just that much easier to break the record. Half the team hires a skywriter on the east coast, the other half hires one on the west coast.

1.5k · May 27, 2006

What is a bit sad about this matter is that, until now, both the annual GeoWoodstock event and the entire reputation of the quality and caliber of geocaching in Texas (along with the reputation of the Texas Geocaching Organization, aka TXGO) have enjoyed a very good and solid reputation in the geo community, at least from my long-distance perspective here on the East Coast. Now that these facts have come about the "record" and the attempt at the record, it appears to me likely that this small storm may well damage the reputation of GeoWoodstock events and of the quality of geocaching in Texas, and also possibly tarnish the reputation of the Texas Geocaching Organization, since they published the bizarre "rules" of the contest without challenge and without question.

I'm not sure that the actions of 8 or 9 people have any bearing on the event or the hosts of the event. Looking at the Texas geocaching forums, they're not very active at all. I'd be willing to bet very few people even read the post, let alone analysed the rules in detail.

The Texas locals who posted in this thread weren't very happy about the situation either. I don't think they accepted it, I think they simply didn't know about it until after it was done. Many probably still don't know.

Signing Container Rather Than Logbook

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

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