The Newest World Record

[Skippermark]

One end of the PVC pipe was cut a 45 degree angle to make it like a big hypodermic needle.

 

I'm not going to mince words with you. No holes were dug and nothing was buried.

 

bury: "embed deeply, concealing something under the ground"

 

Obviously the part this is not visible and under the ground is...buried.

[+Ecylram]

Starting new topic on 'buried'.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Ecylram

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

can we expect to see a lot of archive logs coming up soonish now?

Perhaps more than you would expect, if that war gets started, including the many sprinkler head, pipe and related pushed-in-the-ground caches I have found in the territories of several Reviewers.

 

This would be a major shift in the definition of 'buried' affecting many good caches around the world.

[+Castle Mischief]

can we expect to see a lot of archive logs coming up soonish now?

Perhaps more than you would expect, if that war gets started, including the many sprinkler head, pipe and related pushed-in-the-ground caches I have found in the territories of several Reviewers.

 

Of those that exist, I wonder how many disclosed the exact hiding method?

[+ventura_kids]

I found 1157 caches in ONE day without cheating. Tell me again....why do you hate me?

Hey, ventura_kids... Is this a confirmation that you did not shuffle the containers/logs during your 1157-find numbers run? If so, then you may still have the geocaching record.

 

Aha!!! This will serve as confirmation that a REAL WORLD RECORD DOES EXIST !!!!

[+Castle Mischief]

I found 1157 caches in ONE day without cheating. Tell me again....why do you hate me?

Hey, ventura_kids... Is this a confirmation that you did not shuffle the containers/logs during your 1157-find numbers run? If so, then you may still have the geocaching record.

 

Aha!!! This will serve as confirmation that a REAL WORLD RECORD DOES EXIST !!!!

 

Here you go:

 

[+sbell111]

I found 1157 caches in ONE day without cheating. Tell me again....why do you hate me?

Hey, ventura_kids... Is this a confirmation that you did not shuffle the containers/logs during your 1157-find numbers run? If so, then you may still have the geocaching record.

 

Aha!!! This will serve as confirmation that a REAL WORLD RECORD DOES EXIST !!!!

Ummm, did you intentionally not answer the question?

[+ventura_kids]

I found 1157 caches in ONE day without cheating. Tell me again....why do you hate me?

Hey, ventura_kids... Is this a confirmation that you did not shuffle the containers/logs during your 1157-find numbers run? If so, then you may still have the geocaching record.

 

Aha!!! This will serve as confirmation that a REAL WORLD RECORD DOES EXIST !!!!

Ummm, did you intentionally not answer the question?

 

Yes.

 

I'm attempting to stay on topic. This thread is about the "newest" world record.

[+sbell111]

I found 1157 caches in ONE day without cheating. Tell me again....why do you hate me?

Hey, ventura_kids... Is this a confirmation that you did not shuffle the containers/logs during your 1157-find numbers run? If so, then you may still have the geocaching record.

 

Aha!!! This will serve as confirmation that a REAL WORLD RECORD DOES EXIST !!!!

Ummm, did you intentionally not answer the question?

 

Yes.

 

I'm attempting to stay on topic. This thread is about the "newest" world record.

Another very interesting response.

[Clan Riffster]

This thread is about the "newest" world record.

But, if the current claim is judged as bogus due to shady techniques, then your run would be the "newest".

Ergo, comments and questions about your run would be on topic.

Just sayin'...

[+geodarts]

I'm attempting to stay on topic. This thread is about the "newest" world record.

 

Or about the newest "world record."

[Mr.Yuck]

can we expect to see a lot of archive logs coming up soonish now?

 

It's certainly possible. I don't know, fake sprinkler head caches are almost non-existent where I come from in the Northeast, but wouldn't this PVC pipe cut on a 45% angle be pretty much the same thing? Or the matchstick container pushed into the ground in a grassy field? I've actually found one of them, and know of a few others that exist.

[+ventura_kids]

All the alien caches are on top of the ground.....with a flat rock on them.

[+JohnnyVegas]

From the guidlines for placing a cache for those that are to lazy to look them up. In the eyes of ground speak you can not you cannot stick anything in the ground. If any af the caches required sticking pvc pipe or anything else in the ground they should be archived, but then there those cachers that think they have some divine right to do as they wish, an then we have cacher that look upon these cachers as some kind of cache god. When in reality they should be looked on as nothing more than spoiled brats.

 

Off-Limit (Physical) Caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

 

Caches on land managed by an agency that prohibits geocaches, such as the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges).

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites or cemeteries).

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

[+myotis]

I thought of a way to make money off of these number hounds!!!!

 

A business could be set up called Yellow Jeep Catchers. First they would go and place a sticker on each cahe that says Team Yellow Jeep. After all the logs are signed, numbers hounds would pay them to drive them down the power trail. Since the logs will already be signed, there is no need to waste time shuffling caches. So they could speed down the trail with the guides pointing out the caches with a lazer pointer. Then they could log as a find each one they see while speeding down the power trail. In thier log they would point out they were part of Team Yellow Jeep. I bet the power trail could be done in an hour with this method!

[+ChileHead]

Does anybody really care about so called world records when nobody plays by the same rules, and many resort to pretty bogus practices in order to obtain a record in their own mind?

 

The entire series sounds like it should be archived based on the hiding method anyway.

[+humboldt flier]

Being worked on as we speak.

 

Will incorporate the new technology similar to the Garmin Chirp triggered by a laser pointer which then up-links to a satellite with subsequent down-link to a super computer deep within the alien cave structure in Pancake Ridge / Echo Canyon Complex. Thence cross-linked to a mother computer inside the gate at Area 51 for terrestrial confirmation and subsequent, nearly simultaneous, logging on the Groundspeak site in Seattle.

 

In a Ferrari Testarosa the time from East to West on the Trail is expected to be 1.482 hours

 

A normally aspirated mid performance twin engined aircraft should be able to complete in ~.47 hours.

 

A kerosene burner ~ .005 hours.

 

Aurora not authorized for fear of frying the link at Groundspeak. The Alien Complex can cover it as can the complex within the gate.

Edited November 13, 2010 by humboldt flier

[+JohnnyVegas]

Does anybody really care about so called world records when nobody plays by the same rules, and many resort to pretty bogus practices in order to obtain a record in their own mind?

 

The entire series sounds like it should be archived based on the hiding method anyway.

I agree 100%, ARCHIVE the entire series. that mightl set an example for other cachers who think they have some special privlages when searching for and placing caches.

Edited November 13, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+Sagefox]

Does anybody really care about so called world records when nobody plays by the same rules, and many resort to pretty bogus practices in order to obtain a record in their own mind?

 

Yes. I do.

 

I like to read about these adventures. The folks in the video were upfront about how they did it and maybe the other teams used the same method. We can all make our own internal adjustment as to what constitutes an apple/apple record.

 

To get stuck on the term "world record" is to miss the point. If people didn't get stuck on this term and just read about the adventure this topic probably would not have crossed two pages.

 

Someone dinged the frisbeer/rjjones run seemingly asking how that could be fun. Climbing Mt Rainier (which I did) would not be described as fun. It is a challenge and a great adventure. Folks are running the power trails for the challenge and adventure. I like that.

[+fizzymagic]

Does anybody really care about so called world records when nobody plays by the same rules, and many resort to pretty bogus practices in order to obtain a record in their own mind?

 

I care. I care deeply. I am very concerned for the health of the various teams that have done these record runs. I'm afraid they may get repetitive-stress injuries from patting themselves on the back so much.

[+humboldt flier]

Does anybody really care about so called world records when nobody plays by the same rules, and many resort to pretty bogus practices in order to obtain a record in their own mind?

 

I care. I care deeply. I am very concerned for the health of the various teams that have done these record runs. I'm afraid they may get repetitive-stress injuries from patting themselves on the back so much.

 

Don't know about the back patting.

 

However, I developed RMI in the right thumb part way through the trail from toggling the GPSr and further exacerbated the situation during the logging process. PITY PARTY PLEASE !!!!!!!!!

 

BTW: My record still stands ... longest time from start to finish.

 

Really ticked at the governing body because I've not been notified about my induction into " The Hall "

 

LOL, LOL

[+JohnnyVegas]

I find interesting that they are willing to post a video that shows how the got's get my number mentality broung the worst in some people. Or maybe in just brings there lack of class to the surface.

 

If I ever one of them out on a cache run I maight wind up with a center finger sprain.

[+Tequila]

 

 

BTW: My record still stands ... longest time from start to finish.

 

 

I plan to go for the record of "longest time to start........"

[+tozainamboku]

I find interesting that they are willing to post a video that shows how the got's get my number mentality broung the worst in some people. Or maybe in just brings there lack of class to the surface.

 

If I ever one of them out on a cache run I maight wind up with a center finger sprain.

Or you could find it interesting that people doing these runs are finding clever ways to speed up the logging process which though they might disturb some people are still within the letter of the guidelines so long as the cache owner is okay with it.

 

Now I realize that some people feel that a cache container and the log inside it are sacrosanct and that if someone other then the cache owner were to replace a container or take one and use it in a different location it would somehow nullify the cache experience for the subsequent finders. I've had geocachers replace containers on my caches without asking me because they felt the original container was damaged to the point it needed replacement (and in one case because they couldn't close the container with all the swag that had been added over time). I suppose that if I were a puritan I should have deleted these people's logs and marched right out to remove the alien container and replace it with one of my choosing. But instead I choose to thank the cacher for being helpful.

 

BTW, I often cache with the six people in the video. (The only reason they didn't ask me to go with them was because they thought I might object to the cache shuffling technique) So be careful who point your finger at if you run into any of them.

[+M 5]

Anyone who thinks that doing maintanence on a container and shufflng containers is the same thing is just a little silly. Everyone is trying to overthink things. It's very simple, just follow the RULES, and yes I said rules, and cache on. Quit trying to find every grey area possible and twist the game. If you don't agree with the guidelines, (or want to over analyze them) then make your own game and play it somewhere else.

[Clan Riffster]

...still within the letter of the guidelines so long as the cache owner is okay with it.

It's at that point where we hit "Fail". Many seasoned cachers, as well as at least one Groundspeak Reviewer, has opined that this cache shuffling is a clear violation of the guidelines, as noted in many, many posts. The pocket cache debacle showed all of us that being a cache owner does not grant someone the right to allow seekers to violate the guidelines. I get that these folks are your friends. I'm OK with that. However, being friends with Toz is also not a guarantee that a person can violate the guidelines at will. Defending bad behavior, simply because it was perpetrated by your friends simply enables continued bad behavior. While I'm fairly ambiguous about the series itself, (not my cup of tea, but if it's what you like, "Meh"), and I can't say I care one way or the other about folks wanting to set records and/or personal goals using this series, (another "Meh" moment), as a player in this worldwide game I cannot condone such outlandish behavior. It sets a precedent that casts a pall upon all of us.

[+deercreekth]

Does anybody really care about so called world records when nobody plays by the same rules, and many resort to pretty bogus practices in order to obtain a record in their own mind?

 

I care. I care deeply. I am very concerned for the health of the various teams that have done these record runs. I'm afraid they may get repetitive-stress injuries from patting themselves on the back so much.

 

Don't know about the back patting.

 

However, I developed RMI in the right thumb part way through the trail from toggling the GPSr and further exacerbated the situation during the logging process. PITY PARTY PLEASE !!!!!!!!!

 

BTW: My record still stands ... longest time from start to finish.

 

Really ticked at the governing body because I've not been notified about my induction into " The Hall "

 

LOL, LOL

 

I believe Hall of Fame ballots are sent to GWAA(Geocaching Writers Association of America) members who have been members for at least 10 years. In order to be considered, a Geocacher must have completed 10 years of geocaching and been retired from the sport for 5 years. An exception can be made to the 5 year rule in the event of death, but the 10 years of service time rule would still apply. With that said, the first HOF class could potentially be in the year 2015.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I find interesting that they are willing to post a video that shows how the got's get my number mentality broung the worst in some people. Or maybe in just brings there lack of class to the surface.

 

If I ever one of them out on a cache run I maight wind up with a center finger sprain.

Or you could find it interesting that people doing these runs are finding clever ways to speed up the logging process which though they might disturb some people are still within the letter of the guidelines so long as the cache owner is okay with it.

 

Now I realize that some people feel that a cache container and the log inside it are sacrosanct and that if someone other then the cache owner were to replace a container or take one and use it in a different location it would somehow nullify the cache experience for the subsequent finders. I've had geocachers replace containers on my caches without asking me because they felt the original container was damaged to the point it needed replacement (and in one case because they couldn't close the container with all the swag that had been added over time). I suppose that if I were a puritan I should have deleted these people's logs and marched right out to remove the alien container and replace it with one of my choosing. But instead I choose to thank the cacher for being helpful.

 

BTW, I often cache with the six people in the video. (The only reason they didn't ask me to go with them was because they thought I might object to the cache shuffling technique) So be careful who point your finger at if you run into any of them.

They are moving the logs which is a pile of carp, Only one person get out to look-pile if carp two. These are cachers with no integrity that are just spoiled brats. BTW I have met one maybe two of them in the past. Oh and what are they going to do if I ever show them my finger if I see them. They will do nothing

[+humboldt flier]

Daaaaang,

[+tozainamboku]

I don't see anywhere in the guidelines where it says a cache owner must delete the finds if a cache moved his cache without permission. I have seen many case were a cacher has replaced a cache that is damaged. I have seen many cases where a cacher has taken a cache because there were muggles around and rehiding would compromise the cache. And while I don't like the idea of throw downs when you can't find a cache, I have found caches that were not the original container that a cache owner has left, and unless the cache owner has indicate that he is doesn't want to accept find from people who logged the replacement, I have no problem logging my find.

 

People may say there is a fundamental difference between shifting caches to speed up logging on a power trail and replacing a damaged caches or moving one whose hiding spot has been compromised. But there is no guideline that says you can't post a find if you took the original cache and left a replacement - because that would mean that you couldn't help out another cacher. It's up to the cache owner to decide if you are helping out or hindering. It seems unlikely that cache owner would be forced to deny a find if they feel the practice okay. It ir even more unlikely that Groundspeak would deny the finds.

 

The shifting technique does seem to rub some people the wrong way (even some who normally are willing to allow a liberal interpretation of the guidelines). Certainly the normal action is to sign the log and put the cache back as you found it. So even if a cache owner accepts this method some people will feel that it shouldn't count. Funny though that it's okay to do the same thing if you are helping out with maintenance.

 

I don't think this objection has anything to do the guidelines. I has to do with some silliness of wanting to put down people who go out on the power trails to have have fun and to try find as many caches as possible. There are some people who seem to be horrified that there is even such a thing as a power trail and for whom the the idea of finding hundreds of caches in one day is totally alien. They can't seem to fathom some people have fun doing this - or they accept that some people are having fun, but have various concerns that if these trails become common, the kinds of caching they enjoy will disappear. The silliness shows up when they mock the accomplishments of those who post here saying "I set the real record by blinking 3500 times" or "I just rode past the caches and counted the mileposts as I passed".

 

Guidelines or not, I think there is an understanding of what it means to find a cache. Alright, the puritans believe that you not only have find the cache but you must sign the log in order to claim a find online, but I contend that they shouldn't really care if other cachers log finds that a puritan wouldn't so long as it is with the permission of the cache owner. This is not a competition. Which is why I just smile when I see the words "world record". The "world record" is simply a number that geocachers use to set a personal goal. And if they come up with a clever way to make signing the logs go faster to achieve their goal they are likely to be proud to share it no matter what some people in the forums think. If some team wants to set their record without using a controversial logging method they are free to claim that they beat the record for caches found without shifting. My guess there will be many records as Geocachers will find new ways to define a challenge and have fun meeting the challenge. It's pretty silly, and a little sad, that people spend so much energy finding ways to invalidate somebody's fun.

[Mr.Yuck]

I find interesting that they are willing to post a video that shows how the got's get my number mentality broung the worst in some people. Or maybe in just brings there lack of class to the surface.

 

If I ever one of them out on a cache run I maight wind up with a center finger sprain.

Or you could find it interesting that people doing these runs are finding clever ways to speed up the logging process which though they might disturb some people are still within the letter of the guidelines so long as the cache owner is okay with it.

 

Now I realize that some people feel that a cache container and the log inside it are sacrosanct and that if someone other then the cache owner were to replace a container or take one and use it in a different location it would somehow nullify the cache experience for the subsequent finders. I've had geocachers replace containers on my caches without asking me because they felt the original container was damaged to the point it needed replacement (and in one case because they couldn't close the container with all the swag that had been added over time). I suppose that if I were a puritan I should have deleted these people's logs and marched right out to remove the alien container and replace it with one of my choosing. But instead I choose to thank the cacher for being helpful.

 

BTW, I often cache with the six people in the video. (The only reason they didn't ask me to go with them was because they thought I might object to the cache shuffling technique) So be careful who point your finger at if you run into any of them.

They are moving the logs which is a pile of carp, Only one person get out to look-pile if carp two. These are cachers with no integrity that are just spoiled brats. BTW I have met one maybe two of them in the past. Oh and what are they going to do if I ever show them my finger if I see them. They will do nothing

 

Well, I wouldn't exactly give them the 1 finger salute or anything.

 

I did graze over the last post above mine, and I'll state it again (as many others have) for reference, see pocket caches and armchair virtuals Cache owners can not just go to town with a free-for-all, as long as it's "OK with them". This should be obvious.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+geodarts]

People are trying to fit repetitive caching into a particular framework, but it is more complex.

 

These are not moving caches as has been commonly defined. The location of the cache listing does not change. A container can be found at the coordinates listed on the cache page, presumably hidden as the owner intended.

 

The caches being exchanged are not throw downs as the term had commonly been used.

 

On the other hand, the cachers who do this are not performing maintenance or doing something that can be equated with a single cache by a single cacher.

 

Part of what raised people's ire is the method used to claim a record. Would we be discussing this if it were simply between the cachers and the CO? But there is no "world's record." If this discussion shows anything it is that there are no standards or verification commonly associated with various records. It is simply what somebody claims - just as I claim the world's record for the repetetive cache-letterbox-at least five earthcache Triad.

 

If you do not like a particular claim, invent one of your own, even in darts there are two world champions. I like the Yellow Jeep award discussed above. But if you do not like any such claims, take it for what it is worth

 

So much of it relates to the importance of a log. A cache has a log, but does the physical logsheet define a particular cache? Ideally it is a record of the cache, but often is not under any circumstance. Many cache owners, including myself, do not use the log for any particular purpose - I throw them out when they are full. Many logs cannot be read due to moisture. The logs on the ET trail are haphazard to say the least, even if they are not moved. But I do not feel compromised by this or violated if my signature for cache 105 got moved to 106.

 

However, I have raised my eyebrows when I have seen certain repetitive cachers slap a sticker on to a single cache in the same haphazard manner that they did on the trail.

 

The discussion about whether cache-exchange is a viable technique for repetitive caches is a fairly limited consideration. It should not be taken beyond that. I think its dubious in any context. But it is only a game that has no winners or losers. The act should not be taken out of the context of repetitive caching and this particular series of repetitive caches. This is one reason why repetitive cache series belong in a separate category if they are listed as part of this game.

Edited November 14, 2010 by mulvaney

[+tozainamboku]

I did graze over the last post above mine, and I'll state it again (as many others have) pocket caches and armchair virtuals Cache owners can not just go to town with a free-for-all, as long as it's "OK with them". This should be obvious.

First of all, I personally think Groundspeak's decisions on pocket caches and armchair virtuals were unnecessary and ill conceived. But obviously there are some practices that stick in Jeremy's craw and perhaps this has led to them being banned. Maybe Groundspeak will be posting in the forums soon that cache shifting is not allowed. Until then, there is no guideline that prevents a cache owner from allowing these finds. Much as I did when these other dictums were issued, I will object in the forum thread and then move on. This is Grounspeak's website and they can make the rules no matter how stupid I think these rule are. I have generally appreciated that they mostly leave these things up to individuals. Cache owners and cache finders are for the most part free to arrive at any understanding of a find they would like. It has worked out well as no body is actually logging finds online for blinking or counting mileposts. Bots and serial bogus loggers get a substantial number of their logs deleted. On the other hand the game isn't bogged down with technicalities when a log book gets wet.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Maybe Groundspeak will be posting in the forums soon that cache shifting is not allowed.

 

Um, some reviewers/moderators have been postiong. They represent grounspeak so Groundspeak has spoken on the subject.

Edited November 14, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+briansnat]

Maybe Groundspeak will be posting in the forums soon that cache shifting is not allowed.

 

Um, some reviewers/moderators have been postiong. They represent grounspeak so Groundspeak has spoken on the subject.

 

Reviewers and moderators are providing their personal opinions and are not acting as a representative of Groundspeak with regards to stating policy. The only time they are acting as a representative of Groundspeak is when moderators are performing their moderation duties.

[+ChileHead]

I'm thinking that we could optimize the whole process for this series. Why not get 1000+ film canisters, pre-sign them all, then drive up to each cache and just drop it on top of the other one. That would save the whole nasty process of actually grabbing the cache, opening it, and signing it on the way to the next one. That's just wasted time.

[+mtn-man]

Maybe Groundspeak will be posting in the forums soon that cache shifting is not allowed.

 

Um, some reviewers/moderators have been postiong. They represent grounspeak so Groundspeak has spoken on the subject.

 

Reviewers and moderators are providing their personal opinions and are not acting as a representative of Groundspeak with regards to stating policy. The only time they are acting as a representative of Groundspeak is when moderators are performing their moderation duties.

briansnat is correct. I can, however, write to Groundspeak and voice my disgust and point out guideline violations. I have been involved in an event in Savannah all weekend, but I will be getting home soon enough.

[Mr.Yuck]

I did graze over the last post above mine, and I'll state it again (as many others have) pocket caches and armchair virtuals Cache owners can not just go to town with a free-for-all, as long as it's "OK with them". This should be obvious.

First of all, I personally think Groundspeak's decisions on pocket caches and armchair virtuals were unnecessary and ill conceived. But obviously there are some practices that stick in Jeremy's craw and perhaps this has led to them being banned. Maybe Groundspeak will be posting in the forums soon that cache shifting is not allowed. Until then, there is no guideline that prevents a cache owner from allowing these finds. Much as I did when these other dictums were issued, I will object in the forum thread and then move on. This is Grounspeak's website and they can make the rules no matter how stupid I think these rule are. I have generally appreciated that they mostly leave these things up to individuals. Cache owners and cache finders are for the most part free to arrive at any understanding of a find they would like. It has worked out well as no body is actually logging finds online for blinking or counting mileposts. Bots and serial bogus loggers get a substantial number of their logs deleted. On the other hand the game isn't bogged down with technicalities when a log book gets wet.

 

Ok, that's a good explanation Mr. T. I knew you supported armchair logging, but I didn't know you were ok with Pocket Caches. Man, you're right about Jeremy's craw; I remember there was a large pocket cache incident, and it was back when Jeremy interacted in the forums all the time. It got his craw alright, and he referred to them as "Pocket Lint".

 

The only time I saw him act faster is when a couple of guys figured out they could imbed animated Gif's in bookmark lists, and put little dancing characters on their FTF bookmarks on the cache page.

[Mr.Yuck]

Maybe Groundspeak will be posting in the forums soon that cache shifting is not allowed.

 

Um, some reviewers/moderators have been postiong. They represent grounspeak so Groundspeak has spoken on the subject.

 

Reviewers and moderators are providing their personal opinions and are not acting as a representative of Groundspeak with regards to stating policy. The only time they are acting as a representative of Groundspeak is when moderators are performing their moderation duties.

briansnat is correct. I can, however, write to Groundspeak and voice my disgust and point out guideline violations. I have been involved in an event in Savannah all weekend, but I will be getting home soon enough.

 

I agree as well. It should be noted however, that mtn-man is expressing some rather strong personal opinions here. And he's been around for a long, long time. He's not exactly like the 4th reviewer for the State of Michigan, appointed in July 2010 or something.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I agree with the goundspeak stance on pocket caches and armchair virtuals. Pocket caches are just pocket trash and armcahir virtuals are a sign of a lazy cachers.

Edited November 14, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[Clan Riffster]

I don't see anywhere in the guidelines where it says a cache owner must delete the finds if a cache moved his cache without permission.

True. Had anyone made such a claim, your post might have had a point.

 

People may say there is a fundamental difference between shifting caches to speed up logging on a power trail and replacing a damaged caches.

People are saying that because it's true. There is a huge difference between the two activities.

Trying to claim they are essentially the same thing is to promote an obvious fiction, just to defend a bad practice.

 

But there is no guideline that says you can't post a find if you took the original cache and left a replacement

Once again, a possibly accurate, but meaningless point.

The issue here is not one related to logging.

 

Funny though that it's okay to do the same thing if you are helping out with maintenance.

I didn't realize the guideline prohibition against moving caches had such an exception.

 

I don't think this objection has anything to do the guidelines.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Not surprising, as so far all your energy has gone toward defending a deplorable activity.

Had you been listening to the objections against said activity, you would know your claim was false.

 

It's pretty silly, and a little sad, that people spend so much energy finding ways to invalidate somebody's fun.

I think it's pretty silly that folks violate the guidelines in record numbers, and others rise to their defense.

Bad behavior is bad behavior. Defending it only leads to more bad behavior.

[+narcissa]

I don't see anywhere in the guidelines where it says a cache owner must delete the finds if a cache moved his cache without permission.

True. Had anyone made such a claim, your post might have had a point.

 

People may say there is a fundamental difference between shifting caches to speed up logging on a power trail and replacing a damaged caches.

People are saying that because it's true. There is a huge difference between the two activities.

Trying to claim they are essentially the same thing is to promote an obvious fiction, just to defend a bad practice.

 

But there is no guideline that says you can't post a find if you took the original cache and left a replacement

Once again, a possibly accurate, but meaningless point.

The issue here is not one related to logging.

 

Funny though that it's okay to do the same thing if you are helping out with maintenance.

I didn't realize the guideline prohibition against moving caches had such an exception.

 

I don't think this objection has anything to do the guidelines.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Not surprising, as so far all your energy has gone toward defending a deplorable activity.

Had you been listening to the objections against said activity, you would know your claim was false.

 

It's pretty silly, and a little sad, that people spend so much energy finding ways to invalidate somebody's fun.

I think it's pretty silly that folks violate the guidelines in record numbers, and others rise to their defense.

Bad behavior is bad behavior. Defending it only leads to more bad behavior.

 

IAWTP

[+Sagefox]

 

I don't think this objection has anything to do the guidelines. It has to do with some silliness of wanting to put down people who go out on the power trails to have have fun and to try find as many caches as possible. There are some people who seem to be horrified that there is even such a thing as a power trail and for whom the the idea of finding hundreds of caches in one day is totally alien.

 

I'm with you here. (With the exception of a reviewer who is very tuned into guidelines and who's opinions I respect - tough job that reviewing business.)

 

First of all, I personally think Groundspeak's decisions on pocket caches and armchair virtuals were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

Boy, I'm sure not with you on this one. I have a real hard time understanding how people think these practices are o.k.

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, I personally think Groundspeak's decisions on pocket caches and armchair virtuals were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

Boy, I'm sure not with you on this one. I have a real hard time understanding how people think these practices are o.k.

I don't think I said either of these practice were OK. I just said that I felt Grounspeak's actions were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

If I recall, I felt that armchair logging of virtuals was not geocaching but instead was another game that was played as overlay using geocaching game pieces and the online logs. It was pretty clear who was logging from their armchair. The fact that these people people were doing so, should not have any effect on people who want to find a virtual cache by geocaching. Unfortunately, the policy adopted by Groundspeak has resulted in me be unable to log a virtual cache I actually visited in order to find the verification answer to. The cache was archived and locked before I got around to looking and once I did I could no longer log it online.

 

Similarly, I found the idea of claiming a find for signing a log someone brought to an event silly. But again it didn't matter to me that other people wanted to play this game that had nothing to do with geocaching. I even understood what might have been the most egregious pocket cache sin and what probably resulted in the ban - when a log from a cache in Iraq was brought to and event and people were invited to log the cache. I thought that perhaps the people doing this were trying to give an opportunity for cachers at the event to connect with the men and women in the armed forces by logging the cache.

 

The interesting thing is that I'm not convinced that the shuffle method on a power trail is not geocaching and is not a legitimate method for finding and logging caches as long as the cache owner allows it. Unlike couch potato logs and pocket caches, the people using this method are finding each cache they count. Not only that but when they are finished they have signed the log in every cache that is now in place on the power trail. They may have messed up the record of people who cached before, especially those who did not find every cache on the trail. But I don't see the log sheet as the ultimate record of who found a cache. There are just too many situations where log sheets are lost or damaged so as to be unreadable. It is up to the cache owner to decide whether to accept a find. By now my stance should be well known, you don't have to sign the cache log to post a find online if the cache owner accepts it. In that respect, if the cache owner accepts the find logs from a team that uses the shuffle method, it seems that this is a legitimate method for signing logs.

[+M 5]

First of all, I personally think Groundspeak's decisions on pocket caches and armchair virtuals were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

Boy, I'm sure not with you on this one. I have a real hard time understanding how people think these practices are o.k.

I don't think I said either of these practice were OK. I just said that I felt Grounspeak's actions were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

If I recall, I felt that armchair logging of virtuals was not geocaching but instead was another game that was played as overlay using geocaching game pieces and the online logs. It was pretty clear who was logging from their armchair. The fact that these people people were doing so, should not have any effect on people who want to find a virtual cache by geocaching. Unfortunately, the policy adopted by Groundspeak has resulted in me be unable to log a virtual cache I actually visited in order to find the verification answer to. The cache was archived and locked before I got around to looking and once I did I could no longer log it online.

 

Similarly, I found the idea of claiming a find for signing a log someone brought to an event silly. But again it didn't matter to me that other people wanted to play this game that had nothing to do with geocaching. I even understood what might have been the most egregious pocket cache sin and what probably resulted in the ban - when a log from a cache in Iraq was brought to and event and people were invited to log the cache. I thought that perhaps the people doing this were trying to give an opportunity for cachers at the event to connect with the men and women in the armed forces by logging the cache.

 

The interesting thing is that I'm not convinced that the shuffle method on a power trail is not geocaching and is not a legitimate method for finding and logging caches as long as the cache owner allows it. Unlike couch potato logs and pocket caches, the people using this method are finding each cache they count. Not only that but when they are finished they have signed the log in every cache that is now in place on the power trail. They may have messed up the record of people who cached before, especially those who did not find every cache on the trail. But I don't see the log sheet as the ultimate record of who found a cache. There are just too many situations where log sheets are lost or damaged so as to be unreadable. It is up to the cache owner to decide whether to accept a find. By now my stance should be well known, you don't have to sign the cache log to post a find online if the cache owner accepts it. In that respect, if the cache owner accepts the find logs from a team that uses the shuffle method, it seems that this is a legitimate method for signing logs.

 

 

You would be annoying to play board games with. I can picture it now.

When I jump one of your pieces.

 

Scene:

tozainamboku: Not a bad move, but It never actually says in the rules what constitutes your move being over. Four moves ago I wasn't really done yet. If you would just agree to put them all back in place I will continue my move.

M 5: Are you serious?

tozainamboku: If everyone agrees, then this is an acceptable way to play checkers

M 5: No it's not you dolt. You lose!!! go get me a beer and then leave and don't come back.

 

Awesome scene over:

 

I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid.

[+Hynr]

Those who are moving caches, even if authorized by the cache owner, are playing a different game. It is not geocaching because geocaching does not allow moving caches. Cache owners who suggest that moving the object they hid is a normal part of the activity, actually did not hide Traditional caches. Multi caches also do not allow movement of the stages, so it is also not that cache type. At best it would be a puzzle cache with umpteen stages; so the entire series would all count as 1 find if that were the case. So while these are currently posted as traditional caches, they can certainly be part of the game for any geocacher but for those claiming a record of number of finds, it cannot count unless the finder treated each as a legitimate cache type.

 

I note that legoboyjj did not claim that it was a “Geocaching” record, just a “Newest World Record”. Instead of geocaching, it is something else: “speedcaching”,”Powercaching”, “containering”, “picking-up-litter”, etc. Awesome feat indeed.

 

I am mildly interested in what the geocaching record is, and that seems to have become clouded a bit by this thread. So given that doing it by moving caches is not geocaching, what is the record for most number of found geocaches in a one day? I saw a list of the progression of records as they were broken; can someone post a list where each find count has those "Finds" subtracted where the geocaching rules were not followed? I personally think it is fine for folks to play the game any way they want, but for claiming a record, you have to follow every rule to the letter.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Hynr

[+humboldt flier]

First of all, I personally think Groundspeak's decisions on pocket caches and armchair virtuals were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

Boy, I'm sure not with you on this one. I have a real hard time understanding how people think these practices are o.k.

I don't think I said either of these practice were OK. I just said that I felt Grounspeak's actions were unnecessary and ill conceived.

 

If I recall, I felt that armchair logging of virtuals was not geocaching but instead was another game that was played as overlay using geocaching game pieces and the online logs. It was pretty clear who was logging from their armchair. The fact that these people people were doing so, should not have any effect on people who want to find a virtual cache by geocaching. Unfortunately, the policy adopted by Groundspeak has resulted in me be unable to log a virtual cache I actually visited in order to find the verification answer to. The cache was archived and locked before I got around to looking and once I did I could no longer log it online.

 

Similarly, I found the idea of claiming a find for signing a log someone brought to an event silly. But again it didn't matter to me that other people wanted to play this game that had nothing to do with geocaching. I even understood what might have been the most egregious pocket cache sin and what probably resulted in the ban - when a log from a cache in Iraq was brought to and event and people were invited to log the cache. I thought that perhaps the people doing this were trying to give an opportunity for cachers at the event to connect with the men and women in the armed forces by logging the cache.

 

The interesting thing is that I'm not convinced that the shuffle method on a power trail is not geocaching and is not a legitimate method for finding and logging caches as long as the cache owner allows it. Unlike couch potato logs and pocket caches, the people using this method are finding each cache they count. Not only that but when they are finished they have signed the log in every cache that is now in place on the power trail. They may have messed up the record of people who cached before, especially those who did not find every cache on the trail. But I don't see the log sheet as the ultimate record of who found a cache. There are just too many situations where log sheets are lost or damaged so as to be unreadable. It is up to the cache owner to decide whether to accept a find. By now my stance should be well known, you don't have to sign the cache log to post a find online if the cache owner accepts it. In that respect, if the cache owner accepts the find logs from a team that uses the shuffle method, it seems that this is a legitimate method for signing logs.

 

 

You would be annoying to play board games with. I can picture it now.

When I jump one of your pieces.

 

Scene:

tozainamboku: Not a bad move, but It never actually says in the rules what constitutes your move being over. Four moves ago I wasn't really done yet. If you would just agree to put them all back in place I will continue my move.

M 5: Are you serious?

tozainamboku: If everyone agrees, then this is an acceptable way to play checkers

M 5: No it's not you dolt. You lose!!! go get me a beer and then leave and don't come back.

 

Awesome scene over:

 

I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid.

 

I think that is an over reach.

[+geodarts]

I personally think it is fine for folks to play the game any way they want, but for claiming a record, you have to follow every rule to the letter.

 

But what are the rules? Even if you say that cache exchange is not proper there are still a wide range of methods. Does every member have to get out of the car at each cache - a fairly useless activity for many of the ET caches? If not, can one team member sleep? Does everyone have to sign the log or can a sticker be slapped on wherever it may or may not fit? Can you sticker the container? Do you have to obey the speed limit and park legally? Is off road driving allowed? Does your claim have to be verified? Is there an asterisk for using performing enhancing drugs? Should you get tested for the same? Are you allowed to leave a replacement cache after a 20 minute search of the highway marker? Do you have to post online? Does betting taint the record? Are you disqualified if you run over a cow or experience a time warp after being abducted? The list could go on.

 

In the end a claim of a world record is just like an other claim for an unverifiable activity. Accept it if you want. Ignore it if you want. Assert a different claim if you want. The end result is the same. My record still stands and who knows, one of these days I might decide to beat Humboldt Flier's record.

Edited November 15, 2010 by mulvaney

[+humboldt flier]

I personally think it is fine for folks to play the game any way they want, but for claiming a record, you have to follow every rule to the letter.

 

My record still stands and who knows, one of these days I might decide to beat Humboldt Flier's record.

 

I would be honored to share the podium with Mulvaney ... the handing over of my Last Place Trophy would be an honor. Further, it would relieve me of the burden.

 

Indeed, it is a burden and lonely at the top ... BUT WAIT, I am at the bottom.

 

Alas fair cachers, I will shoulder this burden a bit longer

 

Geo Huggggggzzzzzzzzz to all from last place.

[+Hynr]

But what are the rules?

If you are unsure of what geocaching is, then study the links on this page:

http://www.geocaching.com/resources/default.aspx

specifially Cache Listing Requirements: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Even if you say that cache exchange is not proper there are still a wide range of methods.

Just to be clear, what I say is my opinion. Believe it or not.

The above resources would lead to the following answers:

Does every member have to get out of the car at each cache - a fairly useless activity for many of the ET caches?

No. Nothing in the rules says that you have to get out of a car, off a horse, etc.

If not, can one team member sleep?

Sleeping while geocaching is not forbidden. But you have to sign the log. If you can do it while sleeping, and can remember it to log it on line, then you are good. Otherwise: "Yes" if you are just geocaching with a fun bunch and run out of energy; "No" if you are claiming a record.

Can you sticker the container?

Yes, if that gets your message into the log then that is OK.

Do you have to obey the speed limit and park legally?

Yes, no law violation is condoned.

Does your claim have to be verified?

This is left up to the cache owner. The geocacher needs to be prepared to have the log deleted if her/his signature is missing from the log. This is a reason why moving the cache to another cache location is clearly going to harm other geocachers.

Is there an asterisk for using performing enhancing drugs? Should you get tested for the same?

Not for plain-old-geocaching. But for claiming a record, I would suggest that someday in the future, doing so might have the same results as in Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc. Ditto for gambling on it...

Are you allowed to leave a replacement cache after a 20 minute search of the highway marker?

No. That is not allowed if you are going for a record. Even in regular geocaching you should be very cautions before you get so arrogant that you assume the cache is missing just because you cannot find it.