Jump to content

Record attempts - bad for geocaching?


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

You're obviously not interested in discussions around this topic so I get the feeling you've probably got some other agenda.

 

I spoke in another thread about discussions being good for the forum but this last few days has seen some very antagonistic posts that don't reflect well on anyone involved. I have a feeling this thread is already heading down that road :)

Link to comment

You're obviously not interested in discussions around this topic so I get the feeling you've probably got some other agenda.

 

I spoke in another thread about discussions being good for the forum but this last few days has seen some very antagonistic posts that don't reflect well on anyone involved. I have a feeling this thread is already heading down that road :)

I'm interested if people think record runs are good or bad. Simple enough question. What's your opinion?

Link to comment

But the allegation was specific to record runs where time is of the essence. Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC.

To be honest I don’t care/know if the caching trips where people find huge numbers of caches are record attempts or not. What I said was that “after such visits” (read after someone has opted to get 456* caches in a day be it a record attempt or not). I may have made the mistake of bringing it up in the wrong thread but there you go.

 

I’m sure many people will have come across the cache with the poorly replaced lid/ill fitting leaves/contents strewn about or whatever. I have and this sometimes occurs after “prolific cachers” (not necessarily record seekers and not necessarily recently) were last there. We don’t really need specific examples to encourage irritation/popcorn/shingles.

 

Thanks for bringing it up, though: it’ll be interesting to get people’s views if you want them. :)

 

I think record attempts aren't bad for geocaching: bad geocaching is though.

 

*To anyone who has got 456 caches in a day. Yes: I mean YOU.

 

edited 'cso I can't spel

oops, re-edited 'cos I can after all.

Edited by jerryo
Link to comment

TBH I think this is a general issue and not just limited to Record runs.

 

I've seen people on both this forum and the Irish one complaining about badly rehidden/moved caches.

But the allegation was specific to record runs where time is of the essence. Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC.

 

Perhaps it's that some caches are just badly hidden to start with and are therefore far more prone to muggling whether during record attempts or not.

 

I dare say that replacing a cache in a hurry *could* be a factor, but then surely we've all been guilty of that at some point. Have you never had to replace a cache quicker than you would have liked when a muggle has appeared unexpectedly from round a corner and proceeded to just hang around?

 

Caches get muggled all the time, it's a fact of the game sadly, but it's crazy to start blaming it all on record attempts or people finding high numbers in a day.

Link to comment

I do have some experience of caching runs both as a participant (64 caches in 4 hours) and as a cache owner (54 caches in a 5 miles radius)

 

As an owner I certainly think that there can be times when cache-bashers don't take as much care as they should. A proportion of my 54 caches had the container tied into position with 20 pound fishing line. The idea was that the container stayed where is was, the finder unscrewed the lid and pulled the log sheet out leaving the container behind. Even though the line took some strength to break in fairly quick time most of the containers were yanked off the poles that they were attached to probably because it was the quickest way to get to the log sheet. I can't say for sure that is what happened, but I always thought it was a fair bet.

 

My next series will use nylon cable ties to hold the container in place. Anyone carry snips in their cache hunting kits?

 

For the record. I have my reservations about cache records but bad relocation of containers isn't one of them.

 

a.

Edited by SlytherinAlex
Link to comment

On the record I was part of at no point were we rushed enough to put a cache back poorly. In fact at one point a cache came parted from its magnet and we made sure it was fixed properly before we moved on.

 

People don't loose the ability to know their responsibilities as a cacher just because they are attempting a record.

 

Isn't it all just a bit of fun??

 

TMM-Sarah

Link to comment

 

But the allegation was specific to record runs where time is of the essence. Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC.

 

Actually the allegation was nothing to do with record runs, but a personal dig by someone after their cache went missing, which was in full view in the first place, and which was replaced as found.

Link to comment

 

But the allegation was specific to record runs where time is of the essence. Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC.

 

Actually the allegation was nothing to do with record runs, but a personal dig by someone after their cache went missing, which was in full view in the first place, and which was replaced as found.

Oh here we go. If you’d care to read SlytherinAlex’s last post:

As an owner I certainly think that there can be times when cache-bashers don't take as much care as they should.

This suggests to me that he’d maybe visited his owned cache(s) after such a cache-bash and drawn his conclusions from the fact that the “bashers” were the last to visit? Which is about as specific as I was and as I meant to be.

 

Edit: I'm not responding to any comments on the other thread as it went off topic and that was my fault.

Edited by jerryo
Link to comment

TBH I think this is a general issue and not just limited to Record runs....

 

Agreed. A record run should include replacing the cache as found as part of the requirments for any recognized record. That said, there is nothing special about a record run. A lot of finders with all the time in the world, seem to forget where they found the cache in the time it takes them to sign the log. Then they can't read the clues about where the cache was located. Clues like sticks, a shape in the dirt, matching the cache etc. So they have to move it.

 

These same folks probably swap spouses and never notice.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I broached a similar issue Here, although it was not about running for records. This was because one of my caches had been muggled and if it had been replace properly it would have been fine.

 

The annoying bit now is that after sorting it out it took 4 finds before it was basically out in the open again.. not good.

 

I do think that those on record runs tend to leave the cache without the propper attention required. Also I can honestly say I have always left a cache as I found it, or, if it looked like it hadn't been rehidden properly I do the honours.

:)

Link to comment

As a cache owner who's caches have often been used in record runs, I can safely say none of mine have been left in a state by record runners... they HAVE, however, been left in full view, and with the log book sticking out etc by new cachers who have a lack of experience.

 

Surely "prolific" cachers (as Jerryo refers to them) knows how to replace a cache!!?

Edited by HazelS
Link to comment

Surely "prolific" cachers (as Jerryo refers to them) knows how to replace a cache!!?

You would think that wouldn't you but I know of at least one prolific Irish cacher that I've heard a number of cachers complaining about in relation to the lack of ability in replacing caches properly. He also consistently swaps out for TBs and has done it on a number of mine despite the fact I have instructions on the pages asking finders not to do so.

 

My theory is he doesn't usually read the full cache page, he's a lone cacher and doesn't frequent the forums so isn't aware that his behaviour is annoying people.

Link to comment

He also consistently swaps out for TBs and has done it on a number of mine despite the fact I have instructions on the pages asking finders not to do so.

 

My theory is he doesn't usually read the full cache page, he's a lone cacher and doesn't frequent the forums so isn't aware that his behaviour is annoying people.

 

What is ... consistently swaps out for TBs? Just so that I make sure I don't do this! :)

Link to comment

Taking swaps from the cache and leaving a TB in their place.

 

Problem is a TB isn't a swap so when someone comes and takes the TB the cache is depleted. Over time you can end up with an empty cache if lots of people do this.

 

TBH I don't mind if newbies do this but it annoys when people that should know better do it. Now we really are OT :)

Link to comment

Taking swaps from the cache and leaving a TB in their place.

 

Problem is a TB isn't a swap so when someone comes and takes the TB the cache is depleted. Over time you can end up with an empty cache if lots of people do this.

 

TBH I don't mind if newbies do this but it annoys when people that should know better do it. Now we really are OT :)

 

Thanks... now I understand what you meant.

Link to comment

As a cache owner who's caches have often been used in record runs, I can safely say none of mine have been left in a state by record runners... they HAVE, however, been left in full view, and with the log book sticking out etc by new cachers who have a lack of experience.

 

Surely "prolific" cachers (as Jerryo refers to them) knows how to replace a cache!!?

 

Sorry bonny lass but I don't agree..

 

Since I sorted out my cache it has been found 8 times.. the comment from finder no 6 is "Walked to the cache and found that surprising easily - due to the high level of camouflage used!!!NOT! ". Prior to that no 1 had 1869 finds .. No 2 had 204 finds.. No 3 had 44 finds and No 5 had 83 finds. I could accept if they were all newbies but they aint.. and it isnt until No 6 finds it that I know it isnt hidden as it was.

 

Now I dont know who left it partially hidden but there is really no reason for this. If I, as a cache setter, hides a cache then it should be common curtisy to replace it as it was found.. whether in a cache run or not.

 

Moss T

Link to comment

Bear in mind that sometimes wee beasties can uncover caches. My only ever muggled cache (crosses fingers very quickly whilst touching wood) was doubtlessly muggled by a squirrel or something similar. It kept appearing uncovered despite being packed tightly into it's hidey hole, then one day... it was gone. :laughing:

Link to comment

Bear in mind that sometimes wee beasties can uncover caches. My only ever muggled cache (crosses fingers very quickly whilst touching wood) was doubtlessly muggled by a squirrel or something similar. It kept appearing uncovered despite being packed tightly into it's hidey hole, then one day... it was gone. :laughing:

It's a valid point but Moss's cache is "wee beasty" proof!

Link to comment

I doubt that many cachers can honestly answer the question in the OP. As far as I can remember my caches have only ever once been found on a record run. It was later found by others without comment so I gues it was left in good order, but I didn't check! How many record runs are there in the overall scheme of things? Not many. Then how many of the cache owners checked their cache that was used on the run right before and right after the run? Then, even if you did this and (aha!) found that it had been put back incorrectly you need to discount that frequency against the normal frequency of this happening and to do that you need a statistically meaningful number of times your caches have been used on record runs.. etc, etc.

 

There may be odd anectdotal evidence one way or the other but with my scientific hat on that's not the basis of a proven case.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...