Proposed Rules

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I didn't want to drag either of the other current threads off topic so I thought I'd start this one. Please keep it civil.

 

My proposal:

 

1: A team may consist of any number of cachers.

 

2: The team must stay together at all times during the record attempt. No cacher may move further than .05 miles from any other member of the team. If a cacher drops out for any reason or moves outside the .05 mile limit they may not rejoin the team. A team may not make a chain of members to bypass this rule- the team should generally stay together.

 

3:Team members may not have previously found any of the caches that will be considered as part of the record attempt.

 

4:Any type of cache from any listing site, except as mentioned in 3 above, can be found as part of the record attempt.

 

5:At least one outside observer for every 4 team members must accompany the team. The observer shall be independent and will be the judge if any questions arise.

 

6:NO outside persons, including drivers, food runners, phoning for hints etc. may help the team during the record attempt. The only exeption to this may be when something comes up such as when a webcam picture may need to be taken. The outside observer will adjudicate any questions regarding this.

 

7:The record attempt shall cover one 24 hour period starting at a time & place of the teams choosing and end exactly 24 hours after. The observer will be the official time keeper.

 

8:For physical caches all caches must be found, signed on the log (stickers and/or stamps are acceptable substitutes for this) and then replaced as found. All other types of caches must be logged as the cache type dictates. In all cases any additional requirements put forth by a caches owner must be done in order to claim that cache for the purposes of the record. Previous solving of puzzles is allowed as long as only team members were involved in solving them.

 

9:All applicable laws must be followed. That includes speeding, trespassing, hours of operation (such as for parks) and so forth.

 

Comments? Suggestions?

[+Mopar]

I didn't want to drag either of the other current threads off topic so I thought I'd start this one. Please keep it civil.

 

My proposal:

 

1: A team may consist of any number of cachers.

 

2: The team must stay together at all times during the record attempt. No cacher may move further than .05 miles from any other member of the team. If a cacher drops out for any reason or moves outside the .05 mile limit they may not rejoin the team. A team may not make a chain of members to bypass this rule- the team should generally stay together.

 

3:Team members may not have previously found any of the caches that will be considered as part of the record attempt.

 

4:Any type of cache from any listing site, except as mentioned in 3 above, can be found as part of the record attempt.

 

5:At least one outside observer for every 4 team members must accompany the team. The observer shall be independent and will be the judge if any questions arise.

 

6:NO outside persons, including drivers, food runners, phoning for hints etc. may help the team during the record attempt. The only exeption to this may be when something comes up such as when a webcam picture may need to be taken. The outside observer will adjudicate any questions regarding this.

 

7:The record attempt shall cover one 24 hour period starting at a time & place of the teams choosing and end exactly 24 hours after. The observer will be the official time keeper.

 

8:For physical caches all caches must be found, signed on the log (stickers and/or stamps are acceptable substitutes for this) and then replaced as found. All other types of caches must be logged as the cache type dictates. In all cases any additional requirements put forth by a caches owner must be done in order to claim that cache for the purposes of the record. Previous solving of puzzles is allowed as long as only team members were involved in solving them.

 

9:All applicable laws must be followed. That includes speeding, trespassing, hours of operation (such as for parks) and so forth.

 

Comments? Suggestions?

 

I'm not generally a numbers person, but I think it sounds pretty reasonable.

[+JakeBond]

It sounds fine. No problems with the rules.

 

I think this post begs the question tho, about the NEED for rules. And judges? really?

 

Im sorry, but this isnt an olympic sport were talking about here. its a fun games for dads and kids to do on weekends.

 

I understand the issues that people have with DRR's 312 day. And my feelings on the matter are mixed. The vandalism of the cache containers that they visited is an issue, tho some cache owners might think that the graffitti actully valuates the cache and maybe they like having their cache container be part of the record.

 

whatever tho. There are no officials in this game. there are no policemen. Just go have fun! And try not to interfere with other people's right to do the same! geez...

[+Teach2Learn]

Comments? Suggestions?

 

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.

[+CO Admin]

Not to throw water on this but who decides who gets to make the rules. Remember the cachers Creed? Perhaps you should start by figuring out who is going to decide the rules?

[+Cornerstone4]

One potential issue would be allowing finds that are listed on other sites.

 

If one of those other listing sites starts their own rules for record attempts, then there may end up being conflicts in the future.

 

We can make these rules for a Geocaching Record Attempt, and then only allow caches listed on www.geocacaching.com.

[+Teach2Learn]

Not to throw water on this but who decides who gets to make the rules. Remember the cachers Creed? Perhaps you should start by figuring out who is going to decide the rules?

 

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.

[+Mopar]

One potential issue would be allowing finds that are listed on other sites.

 

If one of those other listing sites starts their own rules for record attempts, then there may end up being conflicts in the future.

 

We can make these rules for a Geocaching Record Attempt, and then only allow caches listed on www.geocacaching.com.

While I generally don't have a problem with the existence of other cache listing sites, this brings up an interesting point.

Other sites (including some that may not even exist yet) have different standards for cache placement.

By allowing multiple listing services you could run into issues. What if another site listed 4 caches within 20ft of a GC.com cache. What if that was done to 100 GC caches. A team of 5 could easily rack up 500 logs in no time flat.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Mopar

[+norsehawk]

I would prefer in the future to have one hard and fast set of rules for future record attempts, if it spells out clearly what is involved and sets ground rules for the attempt, we won't have problems like with this current one. I would much prefer Groundspeak or geocaching community to make one set of rules instead of allowing the group who wants to make up the attempt to make thier own rules.

 

Things like, everyone scattering to go grab 10 caches in different directions and each of those finds counting as 1 for the team. or a cache owner making a ton of lamppost hides and then leading thier little logger to each lamppost to log a find for the team. vandalizing the cache instead of taking the few seconds to open it and sign the provided log.

 

You make one set of rules, people gotta follow them to make the attempt, if not, we have many more DRR situations coming up as each tries to push the envelope just a bit farther to get another find.

Edited May 28, 2006 by norsehawk

[+Mopar]

Not to throw water on this but who decides who gets to make the rules. Remember the cachers Creed? Perhaps you should start by figuring out who is going to decide the rules?

 

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.

I might have missed it in the OP, but I didn't see anything about Groundspeak setting the rules for record attempts. That's not likely to happen, given their historical stance on competitive caching.

It looks to me as peer-defined standards; what most cachers would find acceptable. Groundspeak doesn't have any real rules for finding caches. For the most part the way we play the game after a cache is listed is set by our peers. This is just an extension of that.

[ImpalaBob]

The way I read it .... it was a record for the most caches FOUND in a 24 hour period. That seems different from most caches LOGGED in a 24 hour period. I think I need more clarification??? ImpalaBob

[+Corp Of Discovery]

One potential issue would be allowing finds that are listed on other sites.

 

If one of those other listing sites starts their own rules for record attempts, then there may end up being conflicts in the future.

 

We can make these rules for a Geocaching Record Attempt, and then only allow caches listed on www.geocacaching.com.

While I generally don't have a problem with the existence of other cache listing sites, this brings up an interesting point.

Other sites (including some that may not even exist yet) have different standards for cache placement.

By allowing multiple listing services you could run into issues. What if another site listed 4 caches within 20ft of a GC.com cache. What if that was done to 100 GC caches. A team of 5 could easily rack up 500 logs in no time flat.

 

Those questions were in the back of my mind too. I came down to allowing all sites to be included in that hopefully there would not be too much overlapping between sites. It could be changed to only GC.com (or any single site) caches fairly easily in any case. That may indeed be the best solution.

 

I would hope that these rules would not be limited to only 1 caching site. For them to mean any thing they should be site blind so to speak and be able to be used in any record attempt.

 

Edited to add: This is how #4 could be changed: 4:Any type of cache from a single listing site, except as mentioned in 3 above, can be found as part of the record attempt.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I didn't want to drag either of the other current threads off topic so I thought I'd start this one. Please keep it civil.

 

My proposal:

 

1: A team may consist of any number of cachers.

 

2: The team must stay together at all times during the record attempt. No cacher may move further than .05 miles from any other member of the team. If a cacher drops out for any reason or moves outside the .05 mile limit they may not rejoin the team. A team may not make a chain of members to bypass this rule- the team should generally stay together.

 

3:Team members may not have previously found any of the caches that will be considered as part of the record attempt.

 

4:Any type of cache from any listing site, except as mentioned in 3 above, can be found as part of the record attempt.

 

5:At least one outside observer for every 4 team members must accompany the team. The observer shall be independent and will be the judge if any questions arise.

 

6:NO outside persons, including drivers, food runners, phoning for hints etc. may help the team during the record attempt. The only exeption to this may be when something comes up such as when a webcam picture may need to be taken. The outside observer will adjudicate any questions regarding this.

 

7:The record attempt shall cover one 24 hour period starting at a time & place of the teams choosing and end exactly 24 hours after. The observer will be the official time keeper.

 

8:For physical caches all caches must be found, signed on the log (stickers and/or stamps are acceptable substitutes for this) and then replaced as found. All other types of caches must be logged as the cache type dictates. In all cases any additional requirements put forth by a caches owner must be done in order to claim that cache for the purposes of the record. Previous solving of puzzles is allowed as long as only team members were involved in solving them.

 

9:All applicable laws must be followed. That includes speeding, trespassing, hours of operation (such as for parks) and so forth.

 

Comments? Suggestions?

I am not a numbers-oriented cacher, nor am I into power caching, but this proposal from you looks like a good and sane start. Thanks! By the way, I miss your old avatar image! That was great!

[+BlueDeuce]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[+DocDiTTo]

I think perhaps the whole idea of an independent judge is a little much. Let's face it, we're not going to get into the Guiness book of records here. I think a list of rules for record runs is reasonable, but I still think we can police ourselves without having to go all judicial.

 

The "staying together" rule would be a little tough to measure though, especially during such a fast run. 0.5 miles isn't too far, but is hard to measure. Maybe stating that all members of the group must hunt for the same cache simultaneously, not multiple caches at the same time. Distance isn't as much of a factor then, but the meaning is the same.

 

As far as "there are no rules", etc well I think we develop a list of rules right here, then people may choose to use them or not. When they post their "world record run" topic they can mention whether they've followed the rules, or whether they've used some modified version.

 

I think it's a good idea, and this was a great thread to start.

[+Renegade Knight]

To have a record you have to have a record keeper. The person or enterprise who will put the time in to make sure that the rules are followed.

 

That keeper has to be accepted by the larger group. Then they also are the ones to make the rules.

 

When it comes to enforcing the rules it changes things. For example if they speed by .05mph some records rules lawer is going to cry foul. So proof of not breaking any rules may be simpliefied by not getting a ticket or arrested.

 

Overall I think it's a good start. I'd add that each find must be verified. No log, no find. You just need that record keeper...

 

Some of the early record attempts had outside drivers who knew the area and the route. Of course any record keeper that was willing to certify earlier record atempts would be insane so wheover did the job would be starting at zero.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I think perhaps the whole idea of an independent judge is a little much. Let's face it, we're not going to get into the Guiness book of records here. I think a list of rules for record runs is reasonable, but I still think we can police ourselves without having to go all judicial.

 

The "staying together" rule would be a little tough to measure though, especially during such a fast run. 0.5 miles isn't too far, but is hard to measure. Maybe stating that all members of the group must hunt for the same cache simultaneously, not multiple caches at the same time. Distance isn't as much of a factor then, but the meaning is the same.

 

As far as "there are no rules", etc well I think we develop a list of rules right here, then people may choose to use them or not. When they post their "world record run" topic they can mention whether they've followed the rules, or whether they've used some modified version.

 

I think it's a good idea, and this was a great thread to start.

 

Something like this?:

 

2: The team must stay together at all times during the record attempt. They must hunt each cache together, no splitting up and searching for different caches at the same time is allowed. If a cacher drops out for any reason or otherwise leaves the team they may not rejoin it later.

 

Edit: FTFT (fixed the freaking typo....hehe).

Edited May 28, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+New England n00b]

I can guess Groundspeak won't put a list like this together, in part because of the multiple listing site issue, but more importantly, because they would then be held responsible for 'enforcing' it, which I doubt they have the time, resources or inclination to do.

 

So, the geocaching community would have to do this, as you have started, CoD. In order for a group to claim they have a record, they would need, in my opinion, to make teh announcement like this

 

Geocaching Record, 200 caches in 24 hours by Ruleset CoD V1.0:

(rules relisted)

(participants listed)

 

or

Geocaching Record, 3000 caches in 30 days by Ruleset MonthMadness v3.0:

(rules relisted)

(participants listed)

 

With teh latest situation, noone really knows what REALLY went into the effort, or whether the finds were legitimate. Already there are those who doubt the PREVIOUS record claim of that group.

 

This way, if someone were to establish such 'standard' Rulesets, the community hearing about it could compare apples to apples, so to speak, and know what kind of accomplishment had been achieved.

 

The question is, who is gonna set up and enforce these standards, as well as certify the records?

 

Not me. I'm gonna go out, cache right, CITO and enjoy my visit with nature. And maybe kick vandi-cachers in the shins, if I see any.

 

It's a good start CoD. Thanks for thinking of a solution.

[+Teach2Learn]

 

2: The team must stay together at all times during the record attempt. They must hunt each cache together, no spitting up and searching for different caches at the same time is allowed. If a cacher drops out for any reason or otherwise leaves the team they may not rejoin it later.

 

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.

[+IV_Warrior]

I think #6 is a bit much. I believe most of the record runs have included a driver. Why change that now?

[+DocDiTTo]

I think #6 is a bit much. I believe most of the record runs have included a driver. Why change that now?

 

Let's assume the driver is a local and already has hit most of the caches. Wouldn't that be an unfair advantage for the team? How about if the driver told the team where some of the caches were? Or where every cache was? If the driver was unfamiliar with the caches, there could be no extra help. Granted, the team might get lost too, but that's where the route planning prep comes in... and that's an important part of any record run.

 

I think having a team that's completely unfamiliar with the caches to be hit would even the board. Now, I can see arguments for having a local driver too, in order to speed up the process, take the best routes, etc. It's something that should probably be discussed. If the goal of the rules is to keep everyone on a level playing field the driver should be part of the team, not someone already familiar with the caches.

[+CO Admin]

To be clear. I was not offering Groundspeak nor suggesting they get involved. My point was before you have rules you need a governing body that people will accept the rules from. My opinion is you have the cart before the horse.

 

First create a group that is "authorized" by the community and recognized as having the powers to make the rules. Then make your rules.

 

I would not expect Groundspeak to be involved. I do not speak for Groundspeak so nothing I have said can be construed as coming from them.

[+DocDiTTo]

Good point COadmin. sept1c_tank also made a good point in a private message to me, which I don't think he'll mind if I share:

 

Doc,

 

You want to level the playing field by not allowing a local driver. Then how do you prevent a team of cachers from coming to the proposed area several days beforehand and scouting out the actual placements of most or all of the caches (but not logging them) before the actual record attempt?

 

Actually, I think the whole idea of world record geocachers is a bit silly, and without one sanctioning body to regulate and enforce, the whole record concept is moot.

 

Pretty much the same message as COAdmin. An enforcing body, while contrary to the standard method of logging cache finds, would almost need to be a requirement. Otherwise we just have the Honor System to go on. Maybe that's enough. Maybe not.

[+Team Neos]

I agree with CO Admin about needing authority to make and enforce rules, and with all the little voices that say perhpas the whole idea is a bit much...but....Let's assume that these rules were being written...

 

I can see no reason NOT to allow food runners for teams. Marathon runners have drink stops along the way, people swimming the English Channel have food supplied to them, etc. Twenty four hours is a very long time to go without decent food. People would be tempted to skip meal stops to squeeze in a few more caches. I don't see any reason to risk the health of the participants, especially since every team would have the same opportunity for delivery of drinks, snacks, and meals.

 

(My apologies to my local pal, who claims to do his best marathon caching on moonpies, snickers, and rootbear)

[+The Leprechauns]

I find it interesting that there is a need for rules. My rulebook when setting a 24 hour record was simple: follow common sense caching ethics. I punched in the waypoints, got out of the car for each cache, and my name's written in ink on the logsheets. It wasn't a whole lot different than any other cache run, there was just a heck of a lot more caches. But perhaps common sense is becoming less common.

 

My team's achievement would be disqualified under the rules proposed in the OP, because we were assisted by a local driver and navigator who stayed in the car for the most part and did not help us find the caches. I don't care. It was a personal best, and a lot of fun at the time.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I find it interesting that there is a need for rules. My rulebook when setting a 24 hour record was simple: follow common sense caching ethics. I punched in the waypoints, got out of the car for each cache, and my name's written in ink on the logsheets. It wasn't a whole lot different than any other cache run, there was just a heck of a lot more caches. But perhaps common sense is becoming less common.

 

My team's achievement would be disqualified under the rules proposed in the OP, because we were assisted by a local driver and navigator who stayed in the car for the most part and did not help us find the caches. I don't care. It was a personal best, and a lot of fun at the time.

 

I did not and do not mean for the proposed rules to lessen any previous record. They were done- as you say, using common sense caching ethics. In a perfect world there would be no need for rules or laws. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world. With the controversy over the most recent record attempt it might be best to lay the ground rules for any subsequent attempts. Indeed, if anything comes of this at all in may be in a drastically different form. That will be for the caching community to decide. My OP was just intended to be a starting point.

[+Ambrosia]

I find it interesting that there is a need for rules. My rulebook when setting a 24 hour record was simple: follow common sense caching ethics. I punched in the waypoints, got out of the car for each cache, and my name's written in ink on the logsheets. It wasn't a whole lot different than any other cache run, there was just a heck of a lot more caches. But perhaps common sense is becoming less common.

 

My team's achievement would be disqualified under the rules proposed in the OP, because we were assisted by a local driver and navigator who stayed in the car for the most part and did not help us find the caches. I don't care. It was a personal best, and a lot of fun at the time.

 

I did not and do not mean for the proposed rules to lessen any previous record. They were done- as you say, using common sense caching ethics. In a perfect world there would be no need for rules or laws. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world. With the controversy over the most recent record attempt it might be best to lay the ground rules for any subsequent attempts. Indeed, if anything comes of this at all in may be in a drastically different form. That will be for the caching community to decide. My OP was just intended to be a starting point.

Well, I agree with Lep. I think that the common sense rules for general geocaching apply to these records. If people don't have the common sense to be able to do this, they should not be making these runs.

 

I am proud that Lep was able to make his record with a clear conscience. As everyone else is perfectly able to do this as well, there is no need for more rules.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I find it interesting that there is a need for rules. My rulebook when setting a 24 hour record was simple: follow common sense caching ethics. I punched in the waypoints, got out of the car for each cache, and my name's written in ink on the logsheets. It wasn't a whole lot different than any other cache run, there was just a heck of a lot more caches. But perhaps common sense is becoming less common.

 

My team's achievement would be disqualified under the rules proposed in the OP, because we were assisted by a local driver and navigator who stayed in the car for the most part and did not help us find the caches. I don't care. It was a personal best, and a lot of fun at the time.

 

I did not and do not mean for the proposed rules to lessen any previous record. They were done- as you say, using common sense caching ethics. In a perfect world there would be no need for rules or laws. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world. With the controversy over the most recent record attempt it might be best to lay the ground rules for any subsequent attempts. Indeed, if anything comes of this at all in may be in a drastically different form. That will be for the caching community to decide. My OP was just intended to be a starting point.

Well, I agree with Lep. I think that the common sense rules for general geocaching apply to these records. If people don't have the common sense to be able to do this, they should not be making these runs.

 

I am proud that Lep was able to make his record with a clear conscience. As everyone else is perfectly able to do this as well, there is no need for more rules.

 

Evidently everyone else isn't able to do that as well, as shown by the most recent record attempt. CarleenP and Lep should both be proud of the record they set. I think they did it the right way. That does not mean that everyone else has or will.

[+DocDiTTo]

I must admit, if I were in Lep's shoes and legitimately set a record, I'd be a bit miffed that some group came in afterward, changed some of the more important rules, then claimed to have "beaten" my record. The only reason it's such a stinker this year is because of the container signing thing. But really, were the "rules" last year much different?

 

They seem like 2 vastly different records to me. If a team could sign multiple caches simultaneously, that would certainly give them an unfair advantage over Lep's record.

 

These newer attempts keep changing the rules to allow more finds. But when the rules change, there's a different record being set, not an old record being broken. The idea of this thread was (I think) to develop one set of rules under which you could choose to play. If you obeyed them, you'd have a chance at setting a record (or breaking an old record) not contstantly creating a new one.

 

Enforcement of the rules is probably not possible, but it would create a standard to meet. Of course it's optional, not one is going to point a gun to your head and say "OBEY THESE RULES", so stating that "we don't need more rules" is pointless. You would only abide by them if you choose to. There's nothing wrong with optional rules.

[+JakeBond]

I think perhaps the whole idea of an independent judge is a little much. Let's face it, we're not going to get into the Guiness book of records here. I think a list of rules for record runs is reasonable, but I still think we can police ourselves without having to go all judicial.

 

The "staying together" rule would be a little tough to measure though, especially during such a fast run. 0.5 miles isn't too far, but is hard to measure. Maybe stating that all members of the group must hunt for the same cache simultaneously, not multiple caches at the same time. Distance isn't as much of a factor then, but the meaning is the same.

 

As far as "there are no rules", etc well I think we develop a list of rules right here, then people may choose to use them or not. When they post their "world record run" topic they can mention whether they've followed the rules, or whether they've used some modified version.

 

I think it's a good idea, and this was a great thread to start.

 

This is exactly what I think. If guidelines are to be set, they should be something brought forth from the community, not TPTB. And who ever likes, can follow or not follow them, without being fearful of having their logs deleted.

 

I say, if I want to log a cache that I didnt visit, who really cares. I'm only lying to myself.

[+The Jester]

Couldn't the observer be the driver?

[CoyoteRed]

One potential issue would be allowing finds that are listed on other sites.

 

If one of those other listing sites starts their own rules for record attempts, then there may end up being conflicts in the future.

 

We can make these rules for a Geocaching Record Attempt, and then only allow caches listed on www.geocacaching.com.

While I generally don't have a problem with the existence of other cache listing sites, this brings up an interesting point.

Other sites (including some that may not even exist yet) have different standards for cache placement.

By allowing multiple listing services you could run into issues. What if another site listed 4 caches within 20ft of a GC.com cache. What if that was done to 100 GC caches. A team of 5 could easily rack up 500 logs in no time flat.

 

My response to this is "so what?" A cache is a cache no mater where it is listed.

 

If the event we're all talking about is a "24 Hour Geocaching Record" then it should be just that. It should include any and all permanently listed geocaches regardless of listing site. The reasoning being that it would be as if anyone at any time simply went out caching and found a whole lot of caches in a 24 hour period--no events set up with a high concentration of temporary caches to facilitate breaking the record. We don't restrict folks from caching to any one site. We shouldn't restrict a record attempt to any one site.

 

Now, if you want to call it "The Groundspeak 24 Hour Geocaching Record" then restricting it to geocaching.com cache would be appropriate.

 

I think my point is if it's going to be called a record for the community then it should include all of the community.

[CoyoteRed]

I think #6 is a bit much. I believe most of the record runs have included a driver. Why change that now?

 

Well, actually, the addition of a local driver was an issue before. Some of us that it was unfair. While previous attempts proved the local drivers wasn't much of an issue, the latest attempt proved the teams will be pushing the envelope both in speed and the accepted rules.

 

There's nothing wrong with a team member being designated as a driver, but he should be held to the same standards as the rest of the team.

[CoyoteRed]

Proposed change:

 

3:Team members may not have previously found, or scouted, any of the caches that will be considered as part of the record attempt.

 

In other words, no "pre-finding" caches.

[CoyoteRed]

While it is a good start, there's a lot more to do.

 

There's no mention of following proper decorum. Without such, a team could set the record while leaving every single cache out in the open and not taking the time to return it to its proper hiding spot--something a judge should check.

 

Speaking of judges, I do agree that it's a bit much. As been mentioned before, who's the sanctioning body to appoint a judge? What's the rules the judge needs to follow? Does the judge ride with them or follow behind? Can a judge hold up the team? This would probably mean there might be the need of a judging group in order to leapfrog each other in order to keep up with the team and not slow them down. Heck, this judging group could be just a bunch of observers some of whom come along later to check the finds.

 

A real record would be one where the team makes trades and documents each in the logbook and online. While this isn't like the "real world" of caching it does adhere to the spirit of geocaching.

/

[CoyoteRed]

I can see no reason NOT to allow food runners for teams. Marathon runners have drink stops along the way, people swimming the English Channel have food supplied to them, etc. Twenty four hours is a very long time to go without decent food. People would be tempted to skip meal stops to squeeze in a few more caches. I don't see any reason to risk the health of the participants, especially since every team would have the same opportunity for delivery of drinks, snacks, and meals.

 

Very good argument for allowing a support staff.

 

However, it could go the other way in that the team needs as much preparation in sustenance and breaks as it does in routing caches.

 

Upon reflection, I could go either way on this as I see the argument for both have it merits.

 

In your above examples the athletes do have a support staff. But look at, say, the Cannonball runners. One team, in order to not have to ever stop to refuel used a van which carried all of the fuel needed to complete the run--something like 5 55 gallon drums. ( I forget how well they did as this was a long time ago. It's not even called the Cannonball Run any more. )

 

Personally, I don't think living off sports drinks and power bars for 24 hours is going to hurt anyone, but like I said, I could go either way on this.

[+Ambrosia]

I find it interesting that there is a need for rules. My rulebook when setting a 24 hour record was simple: follow common sense caching ethics. I punched in the waypoints, got out of the car for each cache, and my name's written in ink on the logsheets. It wasn't a whole lot different than any other cache run, there was just a heck of a lot more caches. But perhaps common sense is becoming less common.

 

My team's achievement would be disqualified under the rules proposed in the OP, because we were assisted by a local driver and navigator who stayed in the car for the most part and did not help us find the caches. I don't care. It was a personal best, and a lot of fun at the time.

 

I did not and do not mean for the proposed rules to lessen any previous record. They were done- as you say, using common sense caching ethics. In a perfect world there would be no need for rules or laws. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world. With the controversy over the most recent record attempt it might be best to lay the ground rules for any subsequent attempts. Indeed, if anything comes of this at all in may be in a drastically different form. That will be for the caching community to decide. My OP was just intended to be a starting point.

Well, I agree with Lep. I think that the common sense rules for general geocaching apply to these records. If people don't have the common sense to be able to do this, they should not be making these runs.

 

I am proud that Lep was able to make his record with a clear conscience. As everyone else is perfectly able to do this as well, there is no need for more rules.

 

Evidently everyone else isn't able to do that as well, as shown by the most recent record attempt. CarleenP and Lep should both be proud of the record they set. I think they did it the right way. That does not mean that everyone else has or will.

That's what I am trying to say. If others don't do it the right way, they should not do it. And if they do it, then we as a geocaching community should just ignore them.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

There's no mention of following proper decorum. Without such, a team could set the record while leaving every single cache out in the open and not taking the time to return it to its proper hiding spot--something a judge should check.

 

It's in there:

 

8:For physical caches all caches must be found, signed on the log (stickers and/or stamps are acceptable substitutes for this) and then replaced as found. All other types of caches must be logged as the cache type dictates. In all cases any additional requirements put forth by a caches owner must be done in order to claim that cache for the purposes of the record. Previous solving of puzzles is allowed as long as only team members were involved in solving them.

[+Velvet]

 

<snip> its a fun games for dads and kids to do on weekends. <snip>

 

 

Don't forget us step-moms!!! (Oh, and moms, wives, girlfriends, and of course single women caching alone or together!) I know we're under-represented in the community at large, but geeeez, lol...

 

 

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic.....If record runs without rules create major controversy (and I'm on the fence as to whether current controversy counts as "major" until more people on-the-spot get their say after GW4 is over), then rules for future attempts are advisable. I'm ok with:

 

1) Find the cache

2) Sign the logbook

3) Re-hide the cache

4) Repeat

 

It's kind of turning into a Numbers vs. Experience world out there...some cache for Numbers, other for the Experiences. It seems to me that it could become a problem for Experience cachers to set rules for Numbers cachers to follow (beyond the Basic 4 I mean) because we are essentially playing two different games anymore. I think the rules as you've laid them out make sense, but it will be hard to come to consensus between the two groups.

[heckle]

If we all ned official rules for record runs, why not have a multi included in the mix as a requirement.

[+The Leprechauns]

If we all ned official rules for record runs, why not have a multi included in the mix as a requirement.

I checked, and I found 10 multicaches as part of my own run of 240 caches in 24 hours. 8 of them were painfully simple offset caches.... go to a street corner and look in the correct direction to spot a road sign with a cache velcro'd on it. The other two were on the list 'cuz they were cool. I recall some simple word puzzle caches, too. They took extra time, but they were fun. We stopped and took pictures at one of them.

 

I did not need any special rules to govern all this. If the cache was on the route and not too time consuming, we stopped and found it, and signed the log with a pen. It was no different than the 14-cache run I made on Saturday with my daughter, except I repeated it a bunch of times for a whole 24 hours.

[+Hoppingcrow]

Maybe I'm missing the point. Isn't geocaching about finding caches and logging them and having fun doing it?

 

If folks are going to have numbers runs and team caching events, why don't they keep private records to satisfy their cravings? I believe that even in a pair of cachers, be it two friends or a couple, only one is likely to actually FIND the cache. Some telltale movement of their body may clue their partner into where it is hidden, drawing the second person's eyes to the spot. Who 'found' the cache? That person and that person alone should log it unless they both yelled, "Got it!" at the same time.

 

I've cached with someone else, and I claimed a find for a cache they actually spotted. That 'find' feels dirty to me.

 

Sorry, but I'm a purist.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Hoppingcrow

[+sbell111]

As much as I find the most recent record run to be rather icky, I don't think that it requires us to create cumbersome rules. Obviously, teams should follow common sense. If they do not, they will suffer a severe frowning from other geocachers, much as was done in this instance.

 

I doubt that Lep feels cheated because DRR didn't play by the same ethical standards as he did on his run.

Edited May 31, 2006 by sbell111

[+wimseyguy]

Thanks for starting this thread COD. I'll agree with almost everything you have posted, but wonder about the need for independent observers. If there is ever an official sanctioning body then perhaps it could come to that, but now caching is more like weekend golf with your buds than tournament play.

• If a team wishes to have a dedicated driver and navigator they may (I don't think this wise or safe for a 24 hour period though). This support staff can be local.
  
• If the search team goes farther than .05 from the vehicle while the driver stays with it that's OK in my book, as long as they do not split up to actually find any additional caches. Not every team member will leave the vehicle to find each and every cache; this is a logical extension of that fact.
  
• I'm on the fence about the real need for support vehicles/staff. Let's face it-any record run is going to be in an urban area with plenty of convenience stores that will double as fuel stops. And plenty of fast food joints have caches in the parking lot, so there would be no reason to leave the caching route for food. If a team really thinks they need this they can have it.
  
• Confirmation emails for virts must be sent during the 24 hour period, but there is no need to wait for owner response to log the find, even if that silly requirement is on the cache page.
  
• A corolllary to #3-No finding of caches owned by team members.
  

BTW I've been on a few numbers runs, and it is a lot of fun. Sometimes the fun doesn't always come from the actual finding of the caches.

[+TeamRJMK]

(note: it is highly doubtful that I would ever try to complete for this record)

 

Here's my 2 cents on the situation-

 

I think it is generally accepted that numbers runs are fun.

 

I think that having "bragging rights" is pretty cool and is perfectly acceptable.

 

I think that having "comparable" records runs is valuable & would make the bragging rights more meaningful.

 

I suspect that Groundspeak has no desire to "regulate" records runs.

 

Right now, a team finding 300 caches following "Lep's" rules would not receive any bragging rights because they didn't find as many as the DRR team. Valid arguments could be made that they SHOULD receive bragging rights because they beat the previous attempts using those rules.

 

So, I think that it makes sense for people (like CoD) to propose run rules and create a standard to use for the run. I think it makes sense for other people to propose their version of the run rules & create a standard they would like to see. These standards can be different.

 

The records run announcement and results would reference the rules version being used & would stand separately. Bragging rights would occur for each standard. We could have the "single person" record holder, the "purists" record, the "DRR-style" record.... That way people could go after the record that matched their style & everyone would be very clear about what the numbers really mean. The community could choose which records rules to embrace and applaud.

 

(Note, this was not intended to address the "defacement" issue - that should be addressed separately.)

J

[+sbell111]

I don't have a problem with someone leaving the group and returning, as long as they do not log he caches they missed as finds.

 

In the same vein, I don't care if teams split up, as long as individual members don't log caches as finds unless they were there.

 

I don't have a problem with a local driver, even if he has found some of the caches. Heck, I don't even care if he occasionally gives hints.

 

BTW, although I don't partake of them, phone-a-friends are OK in my book, just as they are OK if you are not on a numbers run.

[+Stunod]

I don't have a problem with someone leaving the group and returning, as long as they do not log he caches they missed as finds.

 

I think the intent of the "rule" was to make sure that nobody leaves and takes a nap/eat etc.. Imagine going for 6 hours and then having 1/2 the group go take a nap and then return to let the other half go sleep.

[+The Leprechauns]

As much as I find the most recent record run to be rather icky, I don't think that it requires us to create cumbersome rules. Obviously, teams should follow common sense. If they do not, they will suffer a severe frowning from other geocachers, much as was done in this instance.

 

I doubt that Lep feels cheated because DRR didn't play by the same ethical standards as he did on his run.

I don't think "cheated" is the right word, but I am a bit troubled that the clouding of common-sense rules has triggered a renewed debate that inexorably draws into question my own group's accomplishment nearly two years ago, as well as record runs made by other groups. The mere fact that I am here reviewing the ground rules I followed is pretty sad. Gosh, so we had a local driver and navigator. That is fairly common. I hosted a group last month who came into Pittsburgh to meet up for a fun evening of night caching, and drove them around to a bunch of caches that I had hidden or previously found. We had a great time, and I enjoyed watching my friends struggle to find some of the caches -- that is more fun than telling them where the cache is hidden. Having our host JoGPS drive around Nashville was, to me, the same thing on a much bigger scale. And gee whiz, we found and replaced caches in a hurry, possibly compromising the integrity of the hide. Yet not a single cache was reported missing prior to being found by other geocachers after our logs. And so on and so forth for all the other questions.

 

I think it's perfectly understandable that someone reading the "rules" for the Dallas Record Run might reasonably question the legitimacy of prior record runs. "Well, if they cut corners X and Y, I wonder what the other record holders did." It is a bit hard to believe, if you've never done it. In the past I've always been happy to respond to questions, and to spell out what we did and how we did it. I fully expected that the record would be closely scrutinized, and that is why I insisted on things like using a pen instead of a sticker.

 

Over this past week, I have not been so happy about explaining my own record run here in the forums and in response to private messages. More so, sad. I do, however, appreciate the words of support from those who recognize that the attempt was made to set that record as ethically as possible. And that ought to be the only rules we need. Sadly, that appears to be inadequate.

[dunderhead]

You guys better get all this settled if it's gonna be an Olympic Event.

[+sbell111]

I don't have a problem with someone leaving the group and returning, as long as they do not log he caches they missed as finds.

 

I think the intent of the "rule" was to make sure that nobody leaves and takes a nap/eat etc.. Imagine going for 6 hours and then having 1/2 the group go take a nap and then return to let the other half go sleep.

I was just reminded of this thread while I was reading a different, but related, thread.

 

My thinking of this relates to the 'teamness' of it. Let me explain. If you ask me what my one-day record is, I'm going to tell you how many caches I logged on-line for a single day. If you want to check it out, you'll go into my profile and pull up my finds. It doesn't matter if I found them with I found them alone or if Mopar, Lep, and Criminal were with me when I found them. I found them, also. (Let's stay away from whether I actually found the box in its spot. Most agree that I can log it even if I didn't spy it first.)

 

Now, let's say that I met up with Mopar, Lep and Criminal after they had started. They found five caches before I caught up with them. That doesn't affect my find count as long as I don't try to log any finds for which I was not present. That evening, it gets dark, so that sissy Lep has to go home. Mopar, Criminal and myself continue caching until I get a rumbly in my tumbly and hit Hooters. Mopar and Criminal find ten more. It doesn't matter if the group was the same all day, as long as we only log the finds we were present for. In fact, in my example, Lep might have started the evening before and quit when his 24 hours were up, leaving him more finds in a 24-hour period then the rest of us.

 

I think when we toss the team issue into the 'rules' we are needlessly obfuscating the issues.

Edited June 1, 2006 by sbell111