The Newest World Record

[+JohnnyVegas]

 

Wow...It's a good thing this isn't the case.

The fact that all of the cache containers are identical is irrelevant. Plus you moved the logs.

This is a very good point, not everyone is going to have the time to find all the caches in the series so some point someons log will be moved to a cache that they never found and the cache that they find will no state that they found the cache.

 

I give more respect to cachers of years ago that would really have to work to find 100 caches in a day.

What we see now is a bunch of lame records that took little or no skill.

 

Maybe we should have a new catagory for these type of hide or non hides which is what they are. We could call them Lame'Os instead of Micros.

[+tozainamboku]

While it's true that these caches were put out with the intention for people to log loads of them, it should be noted that each cache still stands on it's own. A cacher is under no obligation to log loads of these at a time. Such a casual cacher should have the expectation that his log will not wander around from cache to cache. If this cacher was to go out and find a cache today, his signature should not be in the logbook until he writes it in there today.

 

^This.

 

I often find a single cache in a series or trail, but never go back for the others. The idea that my log might get moved to another cache location is ridiculous and appalling.

 

If you're not putting the caches back as you found them, you're being a jerk.

On several occasions I've found a cache when a cache owner reused an old container and left the original log book in the cache. Sometimes they don't even bother putting a new a log sheet. Imagine my consternation when I got to the cache and found my name already in the logbook. Being the good puritan that I am I promptly berated myself for not having logged the find online since I had already signed the log.

 

I'm just not seeing the problem. Yes, there are many situations where I would want the cache logs and container to not be moved. When I find an old ammo can hide on hike I like to read the logs from old finders. I would want to know whether ithe log I am reading was for this cache or some other on. Maybe if I am looking for a FTF, I want to make sure that I can see all the names that logged before me and not have worry that I only see some. And, if there is a questionable online log, a cache owner may want to know the original log book and cache are what the finder claims to have found. I simply think that a power trail like this is a special situation where the reasons for keeping the same log/container with the same cache location are not there. If a cache owner is OK with the practice of shifting caches then I don't see why other people should have a problem.

 

As far as the guideline against moving caches - the guideline is the cache permanance guideline. It says that caches whose goal is to move most likely will not be published because geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. In this case, a geocacher will find a cache at each location. It may be a different log/container than the last cacher found, but this happens all the time with cache maintenance. I also believe there have been "moving caches" published where the cache owner specifies a cache can be moved to any of a number of specific locations. So long as it is demonstrated that all the locations are allowed by the guidelines and that there is the option to use a GPS as an integral part of the hunt, such caches can be approved. There is no guideline that specifically prohibits shifting of caches with the owner's permission.

[+narcissa]

On several occasions I've found a cache when a cache owner reused an old container and left the original log book in the cache.

 

I can't fathom why somebody wouldn't at least mark the point where the old logbook ends and the new logbook begins. I would certainly be confused if I went looking for a newly placed cache and found an old container and an old logbook with my name already in it, and I would check with the owner before writing a found it log.

[+myotis]

What's next, drive out to the ET collect all the containers, sign them in your hotel room that night then toss them out the window as you drive by the next day? Woohoo, world record!

 

Why would not that be as legit as what these cheaters did? How can we encourage someone to do this to the trail and take them home to sign and come back in a couple of months to toss them out the window?

 

Even if the claim (I won't take cheaters word for anything) the CO gave permision, did they get the permision of the people who signed the logs before them?

 

As a cache owner could I tell people they can log my cache every time they "find" it in GoogleEarth?

 

Some people claim steriod world homerun records don't hurt more than steriod user and the sport. When people will stoop this low to act like having lame numbers makes them a great cacher, they encourage others to think nothing but numbers mattter and the higher your numbers the better a cacher you are. Locally we have a cacher that appears to have logged 140 caches he did not find. But I am sure some will say stooping to moving caches to claim finds does not encourage other to cheat to get thier numbers up.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

What's next, drive out to the ET collect all the containers, sign them in your hotel room that night then toss them out the window as you drive by the next day? Woohoo, world record!

 

To add to the absurdity...

 

Over in the Feedback forums one of the accepted proposals, with a note from the lackeys that a solution is being investigated, is a reinstatement of some form of virtual caches. If that happens will someone place a virtual every 528' from New York to San Francisco on Interstate 80. Given that the speed limited 65MPH for long stretches a new world record well over 5000 caches in a 24 hours period could be set.

[+Castle Mischief]

...but this happens all the time with cache maintenance.

 

Show me one cache that is being replaced as matter of normal maintenance with the same frequency as these caches are being logged as found.

 

While you're at it, find me a moving cache that's been published in the last year.

[+Castle Mischief]

To add to the absurdity...

 

Over in the Feedback forums one of the accepted proposals, with a note from the lackeys that a solution is being investigated, is a reinstatement of some form of virtual caches. If that happens will someone place a virtual every 528' from New York to San Francisco on Interstate 80. Given that the speed limited 65MPH for long stretches a new world record well over 5000 caches in a 24 hours period could be set.

 

I can't imagine that it will get that bad. I would hope that the proof required on any hypothetical new virts would be so that you couldn't do this at some point in the future.

[+geodarts]

Why would not that be as legit as what these cheaters did? How can we encourage someone to do this to the trail and take them home to sign and come back in a couple of months to toss them out the window?

 

Although I think the cache exchange method has little to do with how most of us experience geocaching, some perspective is needed. As far as I know people are not taking a container and tossing it out the window. There is one location. The container might move but they are not moving caches as that term has been used in the past.

 

And if you do a limited part of the ET trail as I have done, you will not be confused because you might see your name on a log book. The logs are rather haphazard, with scrawls or stickers wherever there might or might not be room. I would have a hard time finding a name even if I looked. And at this point if you go to the ET trail you probably know what you are getting into.

 

But I tend to agree with Johnny that a repetitive caching trail such as the ET should have its own category if it is to be published by Groundspeak. People seem to compare it with traditional caching, get stirred up by claims of some kind of record, and try to fit it into slots where it does not belong. Give it its own category, make it easier for people to avoid if they do not like it, and let repetitive cachers argue among themselves about which of the claims are valid.

Edited November 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+BelKen]

edited to remove link

Edited November 10, 2010 by BelKen

[+geodarts]

With the previous link removed there is no need for the reply. Carry on!

Edited November 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+mtn-man]

Two observations...

 

One, if people are moving the caches down the line, what is the deal with cache #1? So you put your own new container down to start this practice? That is unacceptable.

 

Two, someone already said when they were at one location there were two containers. Isn't that a problem? Someone being hopelessly lazy? You tell me.

 

I give more respect to cachers of years ago that would really have to work to find 100 caches in a day.

Yep, me too. They were geocachers. Not sure what to call this moving the caches practice, but it isn't geocaching in my book.

[+briansnat]

 

I give more respect to cachers of years ago that would really have to work to find 100 caches in a day.

Yep, me too. They were geocachers. Not sure what to call this moving the caches practice, but it isn't geocaching in my book.

 

A "record" like this, achieved the way it was, is not impressive at all. Kind of sad in fact. Now THIS is impressive.

[GOF and Bacall]

Why not just prep 1000 film cans and toss 'em out the window every 528' ?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Now THIS is impressive.

 

+1

[+roziecakes]

This thread should be broken into "why I hate Power Caching" and "LegoBoyjj's record breaking cache day". Why is it that everytime someone comes to report a great feat, it imediatly devolves into "I saw someone doing bla bla bla.." That kind of talk belongs in the "why I hate Power Caching" thread, not here.

 

I must have missed it-who reported a "great feat"? This thread is about a lame feat. And it was not record breaking.

 

Okay, I'm getting irritated. Maybe the mods can chime in. Why are people allowed to be rude when it has to do with power trails? Really? I'm getting so tired of this. We're allowed to disagree.

 

For example, NYPaddleCacher is not in favor of power trails, and that's fine. He comes in here and discusses everything in a mature, friendly and intelligent manner, and although I don't always agree with him. I'm happy to read his posts; but posts like this one are just rude and don't add anything to the conversation.

 

This is just really getting out of hand. I've given my opinion, and I've tried to do it nicely, but this is just ridiculous. Can a mod please step in?

 

Just because someone else doesn't consider it an accomplishment, some people do. It's subjective. People who need to rip on the accomplishments of others, whether or not they agree that it's an accomplishment or not really have problems.

 

I'm done with this thread now >

[+Alkhalikoi]

To me, this sort of geocaching strikes me as about as exciting as legal document review. I do want to go out there and do the alien head - and I might grab a cache every few miles to mark my trail to and from there - but 1,000 times in a row of anything strikes me as painful.

 

Anyway, glad y'all had fun. But not quite my deal.

[+Ecylram]

Okay, I'm getting irritated. Maybe the mods can chime in. Why are people allowed to be rude when it has to do with power trails? Really? I'm getting so tired of this. We're allowed to

+100

 

Can we keep this calm please?

[+humboldt flier]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

Did the owner of the Alien Head caches also authorize this?

 

The Head Alien series and the E.T. Trail are owned by the same folks.

 

The abomination of driving the Head Alien Series may be the most flagrant deviation from an expressed admonition.

 

A number of time shaving techniques have caused me angst. And indeed some stick in my craw.

 

As other posters have suggested, the planning, execution and ability to grind it out for twenty four hours is mind boggling and in my humble opinion worthy of a tip of the hat. What happened between point A & point B is indeed fodder for further discussion. >>> somewhere else <<<

 

All of the other " stuff " needs some sorting out and some codification of guidelines / rules perhaps should be addressed. >>> somewhere else <<<

Edited November 11, 2010 by humboldt flier

[+mtn-man]

Okay, I'm getting irritated. Maybe the mods can chime in. Why are people allowed to be rude when it has to do with power trails? Really? I'm getting so tired of this. We're allowed to

+100

 

Can we keep this calm please?

 

It would be nice if you both read every post in the topic, including mine at the bottom of page 4.

Getting a little to heated folks. Page 5 needs to look better than page 4 please.

Have a nice day.

 

Edited to add that I don't see this being as much about the power trail, but about the logging methods applied to establish some sort of "record". The validity of the power trail is not in question. The logging practice is.

Edited November 11, 2010 by mtn-man

[+Taoiseach]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

Did the owner of the Alien Head caches also authorize this?

 

We did not move these caches.

 

Why not?

These are a different series of caches(pretty obvious). Maybe you can come on down and DOUBLE your find count!

 

Good lord! Why would we want to do that? Numbers don't give you status, and if we're going to travel such a great distance to cache, hours of repetitive nonsense is not what we would be looking for. Doing one of these power trails would probably just make us angry.

 

Maybe we'll go down there on a mission to see if permission was obtained to hide all of these caches...

 

[+myotis]

This thread should be broken into "why I hate Power Caching" and "LegoBoyjj's record breaking cache day". Why is it that everytime someone comes to report a great feat, it imediatly devolves into "I saw someone doing bla bla bla.." That kind of talk belongs in the "why I hate Power Caching" thread, not here.

 

I must have missed it-who reported a "great feat"? This thread is about a lame feat. And it was not record breaking.

 

Okay, I'm getting irritated. Maybe the mods can chime in. Why are people allowed to be rude when it has to do with power trails? Really? I'm getting so tired of this. We're allowed to disagree.

 

For example, NYPaddleCacher is not in favor of power trails, and that's fine. He comes in here and discusses everything in a mature, friendly and intelligent manner, and although I don't always agree with him. I'm happy to read his posts; but posts like this one are just rude and don't add anything to the conversation.

 

This is just really getting out of hand. I've given my opinion, and I've tried to do it nicely, but this is just ridiculous. Can a mod please step in?

 

Just because someone else doesn't consider it an accomplishment, some people do. It's subjective. People who need to rip on the accomplishments of others, whether or not they agree that it's an accomplishment or not really have problems.

 

I'm done with this thread now >

 

You could have a point if the OP had started the thread claiming they found the lamest way possible to do the ET trail instead of self proclaiming themselves the "world record" holder. They cheated and used deplorable methods. It seems to me it is rude and disrespectful to real geocachers to self proclaim themselves world record holders in a the way they did the powerrun. I guess you want us all to bow down to the streriod users and say how great their accomplishments were instead of booing them for cheating.

[+tozainamboku]

Two observations...

 

One, if people are moving the caches down the line, what is the deal with cache #1? So you put your own new container down to start this practice? That is unacceptable.

 

Two, someone already said when they were at one location there were two containers. Isn't that a problem? Someone being hopelessly lazy? You tell me.

One. I will from time to time replace a container with a cracked or missing lid with a similar one I have in my cache bag as a courtesy to the cache owner and subsequent cachers. I might from time to time replace a full log in a micro that I don't own with a clean log and remove the old log. I fail to see why this is fundamentally different that someone who replaces the first cache in the ET trail and shuffles the remainder down the line.

 

Two. I agree leaving a throw down just because you didn't find a cache may lead to there being more that one container. Sometimes this even happens when a cache owner can't find his own cache when doing maintenance. So far I haven't seen any claim of a record run that involved taking credit for a replacement left for a missing cache. If you are doing the shuffle, and you don't find a cache I assume you take the container to the next cache and use it there. Of course someone might be leaving it to replace the possibly missing cache and counting it as a find. Some cache owners are comfortable with this practice particularly if the cache is meant to be an easy stop and grab.

[+niraD]

As other posters have suggested, the planning, execution and ability to grind it out for twenty four hours is mind boggling and in my humble opinion worthy of a tip of the hat. What happened between point A & point B is indeed fodder for further discussion. >>> somewhere else <<<

I disagree.

 

The topic of this thread is the numbers run on 11/5/2010 that is claimed to be "The Newest World Record". Yes, discussions of the planning, execution, endurance, etc. required for that numbers run are on topic. Acknowledging the accomplishment of that numbers run is also on topic. But discussion of the techniques used during that numbers run, and discussion about whether those techniques affect the validity of that numbers run as the a geocaching record are also on topic.

[+Ecylram]

Okay, I'm getting irritated. Maybe the mods can chime in. Why are people allowed to be rude when it has to do with power trails? Really? I'm getting so tired of this. We're allowed to

+100

 

Can we keep this calm please?

 

It would be nice if you both read every post in the topic, including mine at the bottom of page 4.

Getting a little to heated folks. Page 5 needs to look better than page 4 please.

Have a nice day.

 

Edited to add that I don't see this being as much about the power trail, but about the logging methods applied to establish some sort of "record". The validity of the power trail is not in question. The logging practice is.

If I wasn't clear, I apologize. I'm very much in agreement with you. Whatever the subject, I'd like for this discussion to be calm.

[+narcissa]

Does this all mean that every person who does this hideous trail gets to claim FTF on the first cache?

[+dfx]

Does this all mean that every person who does this hideous trail gets to claim FTF on the first cache?

no, because you don't FTF the caches you hid yourself.

[+tozainamboku]

Does this all mean that every person who does this hideous trail gets to claim FTF on the first cache?

I don't know. Does everyone who leaves a replacement log in a cache because the log was full or wet get to claim FTF?

[+humboldt flier]

Log Date: 11/6/2010

Well, what can you say about this series that has not been said - it is an experience unlike none other - some of it good - some of it a bit painful - requires intense concentration to keep up your speed

 

Flew in from TN on Friday night Nov 5th - goal one was a solo complete of all 1,021 caches - did that - took 24 hours covering parts of two days - second goal was how many I could do in a day - starting at 2:34 AM - I did about 640 caches by 6 PM when I stopped for darkness - had to get the rest the next day

 

course was more than just park n grab x 1000 - much more intense at times - never really knew what to expect next

 

enjoyed a stop and stay with the good folks in Rachel - which included being unable to find my room in the dark and sleeping in the car - morale of story - check out where your room is before you leave

 

learned that it is really, really, really dark in the desert out here - hard to see anything except stars - made night caching tough for me

 

did not see many cachers but was passed by team SWACC like I was standing still mid morning on Saturday - ran into them coming back from Tonopah as I was still around 700 - they did all of them in a day - very nice job

 

I have to give a thank you to my local Nashville caching buddies who texted me with comments such as how's it going and the ever motivational "cache faster"

 

It was interesting to see how you invent new tricks to make yourself go faster - by the end I was getting at least 55 to 60 an hour - hard to imagine that caching speed but it can be done

 

Enough rambling - thanks for the very memorable course - it is unforgettable in many ways - started this at #4000 for ET 001 and passed 5000 by the end of the course - wow - very excited to have made it through this mental and physical gauntlet - tftc

[+humboldt flier]

Previous post was a copy and paste of a cacher from the southeastern part of the U.S.ofA.

 

Most revealing I thought

[+mtn-man]

Two observations...

 

One, if people are moving the caches down the line, what is the deal with cache #1? So you put your own new container down to start this practice? That is unacceptable.

One. I will from time to time replace a container with a cracked or missing lid with a similar one I have in my cache bag as a courtesy to the cache owner and subsequent cachers. I might from time to time replace a full log in a micro that I don't own with a clean log and remove the old log. I fail to see why this is fundamentally different that someone who replaces the first cache in the ET trail and shuffles the remainder down the line.

No way does what you say relate to what is happening. You are talking apples and hockey pucks, not even apples and oranges. It is as unrelated as you can get. The first cache isn't cracked or missing a lid. The cache isn't missing a log. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first cache container or log at all. Period. You have removed the container and replaced it with a new one simply because you cannot spend the additional 60 seconds it takes to open it, remove the log, sign it and replace it while remaining at the original location. You are doing it in the car so you can keep moving. To do this, you have to remove a perfectly good container from its perfectly good hiding spot. If it was cracked or the log was damaged, you would replace it right there, not moving this broken or damaged container to a new location. They are moving a perfectly fine container. Your argument is indeed fundamentally baseless. Apples and hockey pucks.

 

To take this a step further, what about the last cache you find? Do you take it, the perfectly fine container and the perfectly fine log, and throw them away?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I just received a PM from a friend in southern Arizona who is known for not logging his caches on-line, only signing the logbooks. He informed me that he logged "a total of 1809 geocaches...I did the Alien Head, the ET Highway and several hundred other caches, by MYSELF, all within a 24-hour period.".

 

Does that make him the real world record holder? Should it really matter to anyone except him?

 

I don't believe that he would lie to me about such a feat.

 

John

[+narcissa]

Does this all mean that every person who does this hideous trail gets to claim FTF on the first cache?

no, because you don't FTF the caches you hid yourself.

 

I guess you get to FTF the SECOND cache then.

[+narcissa]

Does this all mean that every person who does this hideous trail gets to claim FTF on the first cache?

I don't know. Does everyone who leaves a replacement log in a cache because the log was full or wet get to claim FTF?

 

What a thought-provoking comment, Rainman!

[+geodarts]

Does this all mean that every person who does this hideous trail gets to claim FTF on the first cache?

 

You can FTF anything you want. Just like you can claim any record. It amounts to the same thing.

[+narcissa]

I think we should all just post armchair found logs on these caches since there's no way to verify the logs anyway.

 

The world record goes to the geocacher who can log them the fastest.

Edited November 11, 2010 by narcissa

[+geodarts]

I think we should all just post armchair found logs on these caches since there's no way to verify the logs anyway.

 

The world record goes to the geocacher who can log them the fastest.

 

Given the situation I am surprised that the "Greetings from Fairfax" people or the bots haven't been active out that way. But then again I have not checked.

Edited November 11, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Klondike Mike]

I think we should all just post armchair found logs on these caches since there's no way to verify the logs anyway.

 

The world record goes to the geocacher who can log them the fastest.

 

I'm convince that you could go out there and find every 5th or so cache and log them all as found and

a ) no one would question you

b ) no one would care

 

This wholesale throwdown/ moving cache concept sanctioned by the co will assure him of zero cache maintenace issues. There was a post about a grader clearing out a section of this trail. How was maintenance delt with? Were the next cachers through tossing out throw downs or did someone actuially go out there and replace them?

[+Don_J]

I just received a PM from a friend in southern Arizona who is known for not logging his caches on-line, only signing the logbooks. He informed me that he logged "a total of 1809 geocaches...I did the Alien Head, the ET Highway and several hundred other caches, by MYSELF, all within a 24-hour period.".

 

Does that make him the real world record holder? Should it really matter to anyone except him?

 

I don't believe that he would lie to me about such a feat.

 

John

 

Someone finally gets it, and it only took 231 post.

[Clan Riffster]

then toss them out the window as you drive by the next day?

5 words: Film Can Size 'Tater Gun

 

There is no guideline that specifically prohibits shifting of caches with the owner's permission.

Remember the pocket cache issue of days gone by? BillyBob would take his cache from its hiding spot, carry it to an event, then let other folks sign it and claim finds? Since they were mostly done with the owners consent, why is that practice frowned upon? Could it be that owner consent only goes so far? As to the guidelines, traveling caches violate the cache permanence guideline:

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published

Pick an ET Trail cache at random. Let's use # 374, just because that number sounds so nice rolling off the tongue. ET 374 is no longer where the owner left it. True, there is a film can there, but it's not the one the owner left. Throw down caches have been frowned upon since I started playing this game. Multiplying one bad behavior, (throw down caching) 1000+ times does not magically grant it acceptable behavior status. Heck, judging by the posts I've seen from the guys doing the run, the whole thing starts with a throw down that the seeker provides. If that doesn't rate a "Yikes!" I don't know what does.

 

I will from time to time replace a container with a cracked or missing lid with a similar one. I fail to see why this is fundamentally different that someone who replaces the first cache in the ET trail and shuffles the remainder down the line.

Seriously? In the first case, you are saving the cache owner a maintenance trip. In the second case you are intentionally moving a cache that has no maintenance issues, simply to expedite the log signing process. Those two seem pretty darn different to me. How replacing a damp log can possibly be equated with moving another person's cache 528' is beyond me.

[+GeoGeeBee]

From the cache maintenance guidelines:

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

How is the owner supposed to verify that an online log is not bogus if he can't go to the cache, open the container, and examine the physical log? If I log cache #5 online, and the cache owner suspects I wasn't really there, is he going to go examine the logs in all of the containers on the trail to see if I signed one of them?

 

If cachers are moving the containers, with the owners approval, then this group of caches cannot meet this section of the guidelines.

 

NA.

[Mr.Yuck]

You know what would be really cool? If they not only shuffled containers down the line, and also didn't open them, and wrote "DRR" on the outside with a sharpie marker. Ok, you have to have been around for a few years, but many will get that one.

 

The video only shows 2 cache finds (for lack of a better term ) But it looks like they were actually multi-shuffling, and the guys in the back seat weren't even done with the first film can before they got to the next one, and she had yet another one ready to shuffle there. Also, an observation that this whole thing is even lamer than I thought, with film cans just sitting out in the open at the base of sign posts.

 

Nonsense, I say. VK is the world record holder. Close the thread.

[+humboldt flier]

There was a post about a grader clearing out a section of this trail. How was maintenance delt with? Were the next cachers through tossing out throw downs or did someone actuially go out there and replace them?

 

Caches have been replaced, initially with baggies, courtesy of a cacher, with the baggies being supplied by the good folks at the Lil A Le Inn in Rachel. Following cachers have contributed to the ongoing maintenance. Some containers have been supplied by the proprietor of the Alamo Motel in Alamo, Nevada.

 

There are folks who are assisting with maintenance and integrity of this trail. ( Purpose is obviously to enable others to attempt a run at whatever may be driving them to tackle this trail. ) The ongoing maintenance is indeed rather unique ... never requested by the cache owners, however, I believe the cache owner may be most appreciative.

 

( That to me speaks to the uniqueness of this trail and the general goodwill of folks who are lured to it.}

 

>>> As an aside, if one feels that they are going to each roadside marker to find a cache barely hidden, they will be sadly disappointed and will only glean 14% of the total caches along this route. Further, the complacency in assuming 528 feet between caches will have one pinching themselves for an additional reality check.

Edited November 11, 2010 by humboldt flier

[+John in Valley Forge]

If you pick up cache #1 and drop a new one in its place, then place cache #1 at the site of cache #2, taking cache #2 to the site of cache #3 and .....<snipped for brevety>....and carry cache #999 to the site of cache #1000 (or whatever the final cache is), what happens to cache container #1000?

[jholly]

I think we should all just post armchair found logs on these caches since there's no way to verify the logs anyway.

 

The world record goes to the geocacher who can log them the fastest.

That would be our resident bot.

[+humboldt flier]

For me my RECORD RUN was more of a Bucket List Check Off.

 

MY RECORD, BY THE WAY STILL STANDS >>>> The longest time to complete the trail <<<<

 

I went to experience something that was in my estimation, intriguing.

 

I went with friends ... we shared a unique experience in a rather interesting place and met some veeeeeery interesting folks shared some spectacular hospitality with the locals at The Lil A Le Inn and on a return visit met some great folks at The Windmill Ridge.

 

I am old and slow ... the end of my personal trail is in sight ...

 

I spent some wonderful times along a a trail that I has assumed a special place in my heart and I spent that time with wonderful friends and enjoyed the hospitality of people who call the Rachel Region their home.

 

MY RECORD STILL STANDS ** The longest time to complete the trail **.

[Mr.Yuck]

For me my RECORD RUN was more of a Bucket List Check Off.

 

MY RECORD, BY THE WAY STILL STANDS >>>> The longest time to complete the trail <<<<

 

I went to experience something that was in my estimation, intriguing.

 

I went with friends ... we shared a unique experience in a rather interesting place and met some veeeeeery interesting folks shared some spectacular hospitality with the locals at The Lil A Le Inn and on a return visit met some great folks at The Windmill Ridge.

 

I am old and slow ... the end of my personal trail is in sight ...

 

I spent some wonderful times along a a trail that I has assumed a special place in my heart and I spent that time with wonderful friends and enjoyed the hospitality of people who call the Rachel Region their home.

 

MY RECORD STILL STANDS ** The longest time to complete the trail **.

 

No offense, big guy, but we're not talking about you here.

[+mtn-man]

If you pick up cache #1 and drop a new one in its place, then place cache #1 at the site of cache #2, taking cache #2 to the site of cache #3 and .....<snipped for brevety>....and carry cache #999 to the site of cache #1000 (or whatever the final cache is), what happens to cache container #1000?

That's a great question worth repeating!

 

[+humboldt flier]

For me my RECORD RUN was more of a Bucket List Check Off.

 

MY RECORD, BY THE WAY STILL STANDS >>>> The longest time to complete the trail <<<<

 

I went to experience something that was in my estimation, intriguing.

 

I went with friends ... we shared a unique experience in a rather interesting place and met some veeeeeery interesting folks shared some spectacular hospitality with the locals at The Lil A Le Inn and on a return visit met some great folks at The Windmill Ridge.

 

I am old and slow ... the end of my personal trail is in sight ...

 

I spent some wonderful times along a a trail that I has assumed a special place in my heart and I spent that time with wonderful friends and enjoyed the hospitality of people who call the Rachel Region their home.

 

MY RECORD STILL STANDS ** The longest time to complete the trail **.

 

No offense, big guy, but we're not talking about you here.

[+humboldt flier]

For me my RECORD RUN was more of a Bucket List Check Off.

 

MY RECORD, BY THE WAY STILL STANDS >>>> The longest time to complete the trail <<<<

 

I went to experience something that was in my estimation, intriguing.

 

I went with friends ... we shared a unique experience in a rather interesting place and met some veeeeeery interesting folks shared some spectacular hospitality with the locals at The Lil A Le Inn and on a return visit met some great folks at The Windmill Ridge.

 

I am old and slow ... the end of my personal trail is in sight ...

 

I spent some wonderful times along a a trail that I has assumed a special place in my heart and I spent that time with wonderful friends and enjoyed the hospitality of people who call the Rachel Region their home.

 

MY RECORD STILL STANDS ** The longest time to complete the trail **.

 

No offense, big guy, but we're not talking about you here.

 

That is understood:

 

However, as intimated a number of posts back by a moderator, comments about various finding and logging techniques probably belong elsewhere. Certainly in a trail related section.

[+narcissa]

 

There are folks who are assisting with maintenance and integrity of this trail.

 

How can integrity be maintained when it didn't exist to begin with?