The Newest World Record

[+Hynr]

Do you have to post online?

For the fun of it: No. For claiming a record: Yes

Does betting taint the record?

Not yet.

Are you disqualified if you run over a cow or experience a time warp after being abducted?

No.

Using a time machine to repeatedly come back into the same 24 hour period is also not yet disallowed.

The list could go on.

The list is finite. The friends that you respect know what the answers are. If it is against the rules and you are claiming a record, then you need to anticipate that those you respect would not respect your claim. Beyond that, it does not really matter as it is "just a game". But some folks are spending a lot of their personal funds playing this game and it does seem to matter to them.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

True. Kids like that are usually in a special class with a lot of supervision.

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

True. Kids like that are usually in a special class with a lot of supervision.

 

I thought it was funny as heck, really. Until I got to the "I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid" part.

[+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.

 

 

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.

 

True. Kids like that are usually in a special class with a lot of supervision.

I don't know if I was the kid that got beat up a lot, but I can tell from this thread who were the kids that were the bullies.

[+gpsblake]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

[+ventura_kids]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

 

Hey....it's the forums ! We are supposed to discuss things, and ask questions.

 

I for one LOVE to see all the records that geocachers make up and achieve.

So keep posting them.

 

I'm not interested at all in the rest of the gobble-de-gook.

[+Sagefox]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

 

Hey....it's the forums ! We are supposed to discuss things, and ask questions.

 

I for one LOVE to see all the records that geocachers make up and achieve.

So keep posting them.

 

I'm not interested at all in the rest of the gobble-de-gook.

 

Same here. Keep those adventure stories coming.

[+Ecylram]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

I've got a better idea...

 

Let the people who enjoy power trails talk about them. And the people who don't like power trails ignore those who do enjoy them. No need to censor one subgroup of geocaching fans because another group doesn't like that type of caching.

 

The sport is big enough to support a variety of interests.

[+Castle Mischief]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

I've got a better idea...

 

Let the people who enjoy power trails talk about them. And the people who don't like power trails ignore those who do enjoy them. No need to censor one subgroup of geocaching fans because another group doesn't like that type of caching.

 

The sport is big enough to support a variety of interests.

 

Gpsblake was addressing world records. You're addressing power trails.

 

The source of angst in this thread is the method by which some people are choosing to log "finds" on a power trail. I'm not the first person to point this out in this thread. People that don't want this discussed are the ones that are attempting to censor, not those that have been critical of the method.

[+JohnnyVegas]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

I've got a better idea...

 

Let the people who enjoy power trails talk about them. And the people who don't like power trails ignore those who do enjoy them. No need to censor one subgroup of geocaching fans because another group doesn't like that type of caching.

 

The sport is big enough to support a variety of interests.

kEcylram, how many times is some one going to have repeat that the issue is not power trails, the issue is cachers that move logs and that do not participate in the searchs for the caches they claim to have found.

people keep trying to make this a thread about power trial which it is not.

Edited November 15, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+Ecylram]

I've got a better idea...

 

Let the people who enjoy power trails talk about them. And the people who don't like power trails ignore those who do enjoy them. No need to censor one subgroup of geocaching fans because another group doesn't like that type of caching.

 

The sport is big enough to support a variety of interests.

 

Gpsblake was addressing world records. You're addressing power trails.

 

The source of angst in this thread is the method by which some people are choosing to log "finds" on a power trail. I'm not the first person to point this out in this thread. People that don't want this discussed are the ones that are attempting to censor, not those that have been critical of the method.

Fair enough. That was a sloppy response on my part. Substitute "world records" for "power trails" in my response.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Ecylram

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The problem as I see it aren't the caches, but the threads of people beating their chest claiming to set a new world record. Just get rid of any WORLD RECORD thread and this problem is solved. The only reason for someone posting a WORLD RECORD is to draw attention to themselves.

 

People who want to do a 1,000 in a day still can, and have a ton of fun.

I've got a better idea...

 

Let the people who enjoy power trails talk about them. And the people who don't like power trails ignore those who do enjoy them. No need to censor one subgroup of geocaching fans because another group doesn't like that type of caching.

 

The sport is big enough to support a variety of interests.

kEcylram, how many times is some one going to have repeat that the issue is not power trails, the issue is cachers that move logs and that do not participate in the searchs for the caches they claim to have found.

people keep trying to make this a thread about power trial which it is not.

 

I'm going to have to disagree. The methods used both for hiding and finding the caches are a direct result of the fact that it's a power trail. Any sort of record breaking attempt, whether it's acknowledged as a world or not, is going to require 100's of caches placed at a minimum distance apart that are easily found and easy to access. The methods under scrutiny, which could be used for every day geocache, just don't happen very often. It's the mere existence of the power trail that has motivated some geocachers to employ some of the methods under question.

[+tozainamboku]

It's the mere existence of the power trail that has motivated some geocachers to employ some of the methods under question.

To some extent. There have been record runs before that didn't use power trails but where controversial logging methods were usede. TheAlabamaRambler can attest to this. The new type of power trail where all the hides are in identical containers and all or most are hidden in a similar way, does allow for new logging methods that wouldn't work if you are looking for different variety caches, hidden in different sort of containers by different cache hiders. The grab and replace method only works because these are identical containers hidden by one cache owner who has given permisssion for the technique to be used.

 

I would venture to say that it would not matter what logging method is used, someone would object. Just the fact that the trail exists is enough for some people to say any record claime is meaningless. There seem to people who will spend whatever effort it takes to find something to object to and make it stick. If it wasn't grab and replace, it would have been that not everyone got out of the car, or that they used stickers, or that they drove over the speed limit, anything to delegitimize the idea of power caching. It seems to me that people have done this trail, logged caches using a method the cache owner was okay with and that doesn't effect the enjoyment of those do the trail after them, and had fun. If you don't want to power cache then don't bother. Now I will say that NYPaddleCacher and a few others have expressed other concerns about power caching other than what is a legitimate find. There are concerns over cachers doing damage to environment (driving the alien head section for example) or that land managers might find more objectionable (hammering PVC pipe into the ground), that might be worth discussing. But all the effort to delegitimize a logging techinique that the cache owner approves of is silly.

[Clan Riffster]

But all the effort to delegitimize a logging techinique that the cache owner approves of is silly.

A cache owner cannot give permission to a cache seeker to turn their cache into a traveling cache. Traveling caches are a violation of the guidelines, as has been pointed out numerous times. If I go to a particular ground zero, and I find a container with a logbook, stash note and swag, I have (probably) found that cache. Not some other cache. That specific one. If I then move that cache 529', and plop down a similar container in its place, I have moved that cache. Seems pretty simple to me. At least one reviewer, (a person selected by Groundspeak because of their intimate knowledge of the game), agrees that doing so turns all of those into traveling caches.

 

Continuing to defend the bad behavior of your friends, simply because they are your friends, is what is silly. Your desperate attempt to delegitimize the concerns of those who love this game and want to see it continue makes you sound like a politician. I keep waiting to see what card you'll play next. The sour grapes card didn't work out so well for you. Perhaps you should try another?

[+Rainbow Spirit]

How can you set a 'record' if you don't follow the rules/guidelines? Crazy..What they did was not geocaching, perhaps they need to start a new game of their own.

[+JohnnyVegas]

If you don't want to power cache then don't bother. Now I will say that NYPaddleCacher and a few others have expressed other concerns about power caching other than what is a legitimate find. There are concerns over cachers doing damage to environment (driving the alien head section for example) or that land managers might find more objectionable (hammering PVC pipe into the ground), that might be worth discussing. But all the effort to delegitimize a logging techinique that the cache owner approves of is silly.

This is not a power trail or power caching issue. But some people posting in this thread want to paint it with a power trail brush.

THe issue is cacher that are to lazy to get off their fat hind ends to look for a cache, cachers that move a cache to another location, cachers that let other cachers sign or stamp there name on a log because they are to lazy to do it.

 

Of course some will say that these so called cachers are just finding fast way to log finds. This is a lot of BS. THeir only concern is bring up their numbers count by any means they can come up with.

 

THere was mention that a few hundred of the caches along the power trail in question are illegal placments, but there is another thread that was set up regarding this issue.

[+Tequila]

This found log, states they replaced a number of containers.

 

Are they truly missing?

 

Where is the CO while this is going on? Are they still involved in geocaching? Why are they not maintaining their caches? I noticed that they have not addressed a number of bot-generated NM logs.

[+Ecylram]

THe issue is cacher that are to lazy to get off their fat hind ends to look for a cache, cachers that move a cache to another location, cachers that let other cachers sign or stamp there name on a log because they are to lazy to do it.

Before I start, let me state that I've never done a power trail, never gone on a record run, and I've hand signed every log.

 

To me, this comment is offensive. I don't like it when cachers are called names such as 'fat' and 'lazy'.

 

Speedcaching, power caching, or whatever you want to call it is not the same as your parents geocaching. Some tactics are controversial and should be discussed. But one thing these cachers aren't is lazy and they are probably less fat than the geocaching population as a whole.

 

It is not easy to crawl in and out of a car 1200 times over the course of 24 hours while going through the Nevada desert. It takes a lot of planning, effort, and sweat to pull a marathon session like that off.

 

If you disagree with the activity, fine. But calling them names is just wrong, IMO.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering...

[Andronicus]

here is my opinion:

But what are the rules? Even if you say that cache exchange is not proper

Cache exchange is not valid

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?

No

If not, can one team member sleep?

No; that takes the "Team" aspect a littel too far.

Does everyone have to sign the log or can a sticker be slapped on wherever it may or may not fit?

Team stickers are OK as long as it is in the log book, and sufficient care was taken to not cover other peoples logs.

Can you sticker the container?

Sure, as long as it is for esthetics, but is not your log. Logs must be in the log book. On the log book? Undesided.

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

Don't ask Don't tell. If you admit to speeding, it will invalidate your claim

Is off road driving allowed?

Only if it is not prohibited by law.

Does your claim have to be verified?

No, but must be submited to peer review here on the forums.

Is there an asterisk for using performing enhancing drugs?

Illigal PID will invalidate your claim. Caffeen etc are OK.

Does betting taint the record?

Yes. If you are betting, you will have to take a third party neutral wittness with you.

 

My addition would be that future claims should be accompanied by a track log.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Andronicus

[+Sticks & SkaryShari]

Went and did this run back in September. It was so much fun. Wasn't set on trying to break any records but I can see how you could on this series. Congrats everyone.

 

Sticks & SkaryShari

[MisterEFQ]

How can you set a 'record' if you don't follow the rules/guidelines? Crazy..What they did was not geocaching, perhaps they need to start a new game of their own.

 

Who are you refering to? Unless I missed it in this long thread....they followed the rules.

[+geodarts]

A cache owner cannot give permission to a cache seeker to turn their cache into a traveling cache. Traveling caches are a violation of the guidelines, as has been pointed out numerous times. If I go to a particular ground zero, and I find a container with a logbook, stash note and swag, I have (probably) found that cache. Not some other cache. That specific one.

 

These are not "traveling caches" as the term is applied in the guidelines. At some point Groundspeak stopped listing caches that were taken to new, unlisted locations. These are taken to different locations and different coordinates are posted about where they can be found. There is a marked difference between this this traveling cache (which would be no longer permitted) and the ET series.

 

The issue is really about what constitutes a "cache." A traditional cache is defined as consisting of "a container and a logbook." In the ET series, the owner has apparently allowed some people to exchange containers at the specified coordinates -- to find the cache and replace an identical container in the same place and in the same way that it was hidden. The cache listing remains the same. It has a container and log book. Stash notes and swag are not relevant to them. Under these circumstances, can an owner authorize another party to exchange a container and still have it be the same cache listing? In standard situations, the specific cache container is replaced for numerous reasons, often having to do with maintenance. It does not mean that the listing is no longer valid or that the cache somehow traveled. Arguably, a traditional "geocache" does not require that specific container be kept in place, but is defined by having a container and a log at the listed coordinates as published online..

 

The difference, of course, is that in this case the old logs and the old container have been exchanged. The log that was signed at cache 783 is now at cache 784. As a practical matter, this will not affect anyone who is doing this particular series. As a philosophic matter, would it be better if the owner authorized a person to take out the old logs, put in pre-signed new ones, and leave the specific container in place? In that situation, the container would not move and cache 784 would still have its "own" log. Is a boundary crossed if they put in a new log but exchanged the specific container? In all likelihood, either method would still be debated here.

 

As far as I can tell, the only thing in the "rules" that might apply is that Groundspeak advises new cachers that they should "sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." Taken literally, anybody who does not actually sign the logbook should not claim a find. But interpret that as you like, there have been endless debates about it and the only conclusion I can draw is that people do things differently. It is just a game and I hope it stays that way.

 

Part of the problem is that the guidelines were not written with a series of repetitive caches in mind so they have to fit a situation they were not designed to address. Whenever you do that, the discussions are endless until the standards are clarified. Perhaps Groundspeak should establish or clarifiy guidelines pertaining to this kind of series.

 

The other problem is that people are concerned about claims of a world record. As one person noted in response to one of my earlier posts, there may be different standards for personal caching than there are for a "record." But claim what you want and recognize whatever claims you want. Humboldt Flier's record is the only one done on the ET trail that has my vote (apart from my own, of course).

 

I personally would not use the cache-exchange method even with the owner's approval. I would not claim a record based upon it. But if somebody goes out to the middle of the desert and uses this method with the owner's blessing, it is not going to upset me. I do not feel violated if my signature for ET 123 was moved to ET 124. And I recognize that even that method takes perseverance and mind-numbing endurance.

 

So I would not call them fat, lazy, or talk about giving them the finger or whether somebody who defends that method might have gotten beaten up as a kid, as some have been prone to do. Its an interesting philosophic issue, but it is not worth that kind of emotional response.

Edited November 16, 2010 by mulvaney

[+tozainamboku]

But all the effort to delegitimize a logging techinique that the cache owner approves of is silly.

A cache owner cannot give permission to a cache seeker to turn their cache into a traveling cache. Traveling caches are a violation of the guidelines, as has been pointed out numerous times. If I go to a particular ground zero, and I find a container with a logbook, stash note and swag, I have (probably) found that cache. Not some other cache. That specific one. If I then move that cache 529', and plop down a similar container in its place, I have moved that cache. Seems pretty simple to me. At least one reviewer, (a person selected by Groundspeak because of their intimate knowledge of the game), agrees that doing so turns all of those into traveling caches.

I can't speak for the reviewer who feels moving the cache is in violation of the cache permanance guideline. As I read that guideline it seems to not apply to the situation. At the end of the run all the posted locations have caches for the next cacher to find. Nobody has deprived someone else of finding a cache when they go looking for it. The purpose of the permance guideline is that geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. When traveling caches are moved to a new location, cachers may still have the old coordinates listed and will find nothing at that location. In addition, the cache may be placed in a new location that would not meet the placement guidelines. Neither of these things are happening in this case. I have heard of examples of moving cache that still get approved. These involve the cache being moved betwee one of several pre-approved locations and may also involve some kind of container be left at the unused locations to indicate that you must keep looking. If these are allowed, what is wrong with shuffling identical caches on a power trail? In addition, I've already given a number of examples where cachers move or replace caches and/or logs in order to help out the cache owner. I wouldn't want to have to start interpreting the cache permance guideline as forbidding any one from changing caches to help out a cache owner.

 

Continuing to defend the bad behavior of your friends, simply because they are your friends, is what is silly. Your desperate attempt to delegitimize the concerns of those who love this game and want to see it continue makes you sound like a politician. I keep waiting to see what card you'll play next. The sour grapes card didn't work out so well for you. Perhaps you should try another?

My friends did tell me about this technique before they went on the trip where they made this video. I expressed some concerns about. But I considered their position and eventually decided that so long as the cache owner said it was OK, that there was nothing wrong with it. I now support this method - but only in cases where the caches are identical and the cache owner approves - regardless as to whether I personally know the people using it. However, I do resent it when people make assumptions about the motivations of people they don't know and characterize their behavior has bad. They knew full well that what they were doing would be controversial, but also understood that it would not effect other geocachers or go against the cache owners wishes. I do not believe there is a guideline being broken or that anyone suffers due to the practice. I certainly agree that normally it is not a good idea to move someone else's cache. But there are some reasons to do so. I can appreciate that "spending less time per find" is not something that most people would feel is a good reason. However, I prefer to avoid a subjective judgment about whether a reason is good or not and instead focus on the objective criteria I would use to decide not to move a cache. I would not move a cache if it would be detrimental to the enjoyment of subsequent geocachers or if I thought the cache owner would not approve of the move.

 

THe issue is cacher that are to lazy to get off their fat hind ends to look for a cache, cachers that move a cache to another location, cachers that let other cachers sign or stamp there name on a log because they are to lazy to do it.

As far as I can tell, they found all the caches. True, they took the container they found and moved it, but they left a replacement in the same location for the next cachers to find.

 

Team caching may involve different members of the team doing different roles. Not everyone in the team needs to find the cache. One reason I wasn't invited by the group in the video was because I personally won't log a find unless I see where the cache was hidden (though it looks like I would have been able to do this sitting in the car for these caches). Others have a personal rule that they hold the cache or they personally sign the log. Worrying about whether team members' personal rules for logging a find are the same as yours is something I will never understand. What difference does it make if everyone on team posts a find or if only those that actually physically wrote (or stamped) the logbook post a find? This is the puritan idea that the find log is somehow sacroscant and posting one without meeting the puritan's rule is evil. Geocaching is about having fun. The guidelines are that cache owners determine if a find log is acceptable or not (with some exceptions that Groundspeak has made that I don't necessarily agree with).

Of course some will say that these so called cachers are just finding fast way to log finds. This is a lot of BS. THeir only concern is bring up their numbers count by any means they can come up with.

This is simply a method used by power cachers to spend less time at each cache. If cachers are trying to find the most caches in a 24 hour period, it seems obvious they will look for ways to spend less time at each cache. If some cachers are motivated by the find count, what difference it that to you? Why do people sound so bitter that someone wants to spend a 24 hour period finding identical caches in the desert? I don't see people complaining the Clan Riffster like to be nipple deep in aligator infested swamps when looking for caches. Each person should be allowed to have their own motivation for geocaching and not have to meet JohnnyVegas's criteria for fun.

THere was mention that a few hundred of the caches along the power trail in question are illegal placments, but there is another thread that was set up regarding this issue.

It will be up to the reviewers to determine if the hiding technique violates the guideline. Without seeing the hides, I don't have an opinion. I do understand the concerns of those who want a broad interpretion of the "no bury" guideline as well as the concerns of those who prefer a narrow interpretation.

[+Don_J]

 

So I would not call them fat, lazy, or talk about giving them the finger or whether somebody who defends that method might have gotten beaten up as a kid, as some have been prone to do. Its an interesting philosophic issue, but it is not worth that kind of emotional response.

 

My concern is that if this language were to be used in any other thread, the user would receive a warning, maybe even a time out. Apparently forum rules don't apply when the subject is the ET Power Trail. The above is only a small sample of the many rude and disparaging comments made by a few throughout this thread.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

So I would not call them fat, lazy, or talk about giving them the finger or whether somebody who defends that method might have gotten beaten up as a kid, as some have been prone to do. Its an interesting philosophic issue, but it is not worth that kind of emotional response.

 

My concern is that if this language were to be used in any other thread, the user would receive a warning, maybe even a time out. Apparently forum rules don't apply when the subject is the ET Power Trail. The above is only a small sample of the many rude and disparaging comments made by a few throughout this thread.

 

To be fair, the namecalling has come both sides. I've seen plenty of posts directed at those that are critical of power trails called "haters", "whiners", and other things.

[Clan Riffster]

At the end of the run all the posted locations have caches for the next cacher to find.

Apparently not. According to the log posted by Saxony, on ET-873, they spit out several replacement caches. They didn't specify how many caches they DNFd, other than saying "a bunch". While I'm not inclined to check every cache listing, I would be willing to bet that Saxony posted finds on every one that they replaced. Naturally, this is an entirely different debate, and is probably not a violation of the guidelines, but it is still behavior which has been soundly frowned upon here in the forums, under the adage "You can't find it if you already know where it is".

 

While this game is ever evolving, some changes should not be embraced. Five years ago, logging a find on a cache you DNFd was all but unheard of around here. Spitting out a throw down was similarly condemned. Yet now, both behaviors seem perfectly acceptable, at least in Nevada. Is it Puritan to look at the negative changes taking place and question the impact that such permissive attitudes might have on the future of this game? I'm not convinced that an "Anything Goes" mentality is going to benefit us in the long run.

[+geodarts]

 

So I would not call them fat, lazy, or talk about giving them the finger or whether somebody who defends that method might have gotten beaten up as a kid, as some have been prone to do. Its an interesting philosophic issue, but it is not worth that kind of emotional response.

 

My concern is that if this language were to be used in any other thread, the user would receive a warning, maybe even a time out. Apparently forum rules don't apply when the subject is the ET Power Trail. The above is only a small sample of the many rude and disparaging comments made by a few throughout this thread.

 

To be fair, the namecalling has come both sides. I've seen plenty of posts directed at those that are critical of power trails called "haters", "whiners", and other things.

 

So to be fair I would not call those who express specific concerns about cache exchange any of these things. At the very least, the practice goes beyond traditional geocaching, pushes the envelope in ways that it might not be needed to be pushed, and goes beyond many people's comfort level.

 

I guess I am somewhat in the middle of the debate. But its too bad that the people who have cached in this way seem to have taken themselves out of this discussion. For that matter it would have been nice if the cache owner's had been on the forum and participated -- at least to confirm that the method was encouraged and permitted. People's reactions cannot have been unexpected.

Edited November 16, 2010 by mulvaney

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

This is simply a method used by power cachers to spend less time at each cache. If cachers are trying to find the most caches in a 24 hour period, it seems obvious they will look for ways to spend less time at each cache. If some cachers are motivated by the find count, what difference it that to you? Why do people sound so bitter that someone wants to spend a 24 hour period finding identical caches in the desert? I don't see people complaining the Clan Riffster like to be nipple deep in aligator infested swamps when looking for caches. Each person should be allowed to have their own motivation for geocaching and not have to meet JohnnyVegas's criteria for fun.

 

So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what methods geocachers use to hide/seek geocaches as long as their having fun? You and many others seem to be missing an important point when using something like Clan Riffsters preference for caches in nipple deep, alligator infested swamps. If CR prefers to do that kind of geocaching it has no impact whatsoever on how anyone else prefers to play the game. The same can't be said for some of the methods being employed to "spend less time at each cache".

 

 

It will be up to the reviewers to determine if the hiding technique violates the guideline. Without seeing the hides, I don't have an opinion. I do understand the concerns of those who want a broad interpretion of the "no bury" guideline as well as the concerns of those who prefer a narrow interpretation.

 

I understand those concerns as well. Those that want a narrow interpretation of the guideline want to be able to add a notch to the find/hide count and are not concerned what the impact on the game as a whole might come from placing an object in the ground managed by some other authority. Those that want a broad interpretation are concerned about the longevity of the game, about avoiding practices that gives geocaching a bad name, and about reinforcing the perception among land managers that geocaching is about buried treasure.

 

It's only a matter of time before a worker for the Nevada department of transportation discovers one of the pvc pipes placed in the ground next to one of the mile marker signs. Are they going to be able to tell whether it was pushed into the ground, or a hole was dug with a pointy-object to place it in the ground? Are they going to care? No, they probably won't. Most likely they'll rip them out of the ground and do one of two things with them. They'll either toss them in a land fill or they'll bring them to the attention higher up on the chain of command (which ends up with the governor). Perhaps when that person discovers they're geocaches, and maybe because they're only previous knowledge of geocaching came from a newspaper story about an object that "looked like a pipe bomb" but turned out to be a geocache they'll think, "enough is enough" and lobby to have an ordinance enacted which prohibits the placement of a geocache anywhere on a Nevada state roadway.

Edited November 16, 2010 by NYPaddleCacher

[Skippermark]

Can everyone stop with the name calling and stick to the topic, which is discussing 24 hour caching runs and world records. Thank you.

[+ventura_kids]

Thank you!!!!

 

I was sooo tired at the end of the 24 hour run (which took 30 hours), that I was spraying myself in the face with a water bottle to stay awake.

[+geodarts]

I was sooo tired at the end of the 24 hour run (which took 30 hours), that I was spraying myself in the face with a water bottle to stay awake.

 

I am glad you did not fall asleep (or the driver did not fall asleep) and run into a cow. I am curious if you consider the cache exchange method to be one of the "creative modifications of the generally acceptable rules" as mentioned in your tag.

Edited November 16, 2010 by mulvaney

[+ventura_kids]

I personally don't agree with the method that is being tagged as the "Travelling Method" of cheating geocaching.

and... I don't care what the guidelines say........nor will I argue about them.

so.........

 

Let's add a couple of new topics to the conversation................

- It's a social event -

When you are part of a team, and the team is having fun, and the team wants to cheat.........then.......you should start a massive fight in the car, and refuse to play the game their way.

Obviously, unless you are gonna win a car, or get shot,..........it doesn't REALLY matter.

 

I have been emailing those who have made the awesome Alien highway run.

Everyone - had fun. Everyone will remember this event for the rest of their lives as a 'significant event'.

Most- of the participants did some type of travelling or moving of SOME caches.

Some- used a method I will call "Leapfrogging".... Multiple cars found alternating caches.

Few- committed to the Puritan method, of Finding each cache, and logging a team name, and putting it back.

NONE- had the entire team sign the logsheet individually.

 

While I agree with the Puritan method, I have personally witnessed others leapfrogging past us as we cached.

 

It's not a big thing........to me.

[Andronicus]

I personally don't agree with the method that is being tagged as the "Travelling Method" of cheating geocaching.

and... I don't care what the guidelines say........nor will I argue about them.

so.........

 

Let's add a couple of new topics to the conversation................

- It's a social event -

When you are part of a team, and the team is having fun, and the team wants to cheat.........then.......you should start a massive fight in the car, and refuse to play the game their way.

Obviously, unless you are gonna win a car, or get shot,..........it doesn't REALLY matter.

 

I have been emailing those who have made the awesome Alien highway run.

Everyone - had fun. Everyone will remember this event for the rest of their lives as a 'significant event'.

Most- of the participants did some type of travelling or moving of SOME caches.

Some- used a method I will call "Leapfrogging".... Multiple cars found alternating caches.

Few- committed to the Puritan method, of Finding each cache, and logging a team name, and putting it back.

NONE- had the entire team sign the logsheet individually.

 

While I agree with the Puritan method, I have personally witnessed others leapfrogging past us as we cached.

 

It's not a big thing........to me.

Exelent post! I vote for VK and co. as the world record holders!

[+ventura_kids]

There is no such thing as a World Record........... oh no.....we've gone full circle.

 

[+tozainamboku]

 

This is simply a method used by power cachers to spend less time at each cache. If cachers are trying to find the most caches in a 24 hour period, it seems obvious they will look for ways to spend less time at each cache. If some cachers are motivated by the find count, what difference it that to you? Why do people sound so bitter that someone wants to spend a 24 hour period finding identical caches in the desert? I don't see people complaining the Clan Riffster like to be nipple deep in aligator infested swamps when looking for caches. Each person should be allowed to have their own motivation for geocaching and not have to meet JohnnyVegas's criteria for fun.

 

So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what methods geocachers use to hide/seek geocaches as long as their having fun? You and many others seem to be missing an important point when using something like Clan Riffsters preference for caches in nipple deep, alligator infested swamps. If CR prefers to do that kind of geocaching it has no impact whatsoever on how anyone else prefers to play the game. The same can't be said for some of the methods being employed to "spend less time at each cache".

I still fail to see how someone else who is going to this power trail is affected by the caches being shuffled and even more so how someone who doesn't power cache is effect. Granted that someone who personally doesn't want ot do this will be handicapped if the try to set a "world record", but they they can claim the record for most caches without shifting.

 

Even when there is a throw down cache because someone didn't find one, I can't see the effect. These are all supposed to be easy cache. It's not like some will find the throw down and miss the clever hide they should have been looking for. More like than not, the cache owner will be happy someone is replacing a missing cache. And in the event there are two caches to find, it isn't going to matter to finder or the cache owner which one got found. I've mention in another thread that I have fun when I'm able to find two containers in one place because someone threw down an unnecessary replacement. (Of course this is discussion if the grab and replace method invalidates a record and not about whether it is OK to claim a find for leaving a throw down when you couldn't find the cache.)

It will be up to the reviewers to determine if the hiding technique violates the guideline. Without seeing the hides, I don't have an opinion. I do understand the concerns of those who want a broad interpretion of the "no bury" guideline as well as the concerns of those who prefer a narrow interpretation.

 

I understand those concerns as well. Those that want a narrow interpretation of the guideline want to be able to add a notch to the find/hide count and are not concerned what the impact on the game as a whole might come from placing an object in the ground managed by some other authority. Those that want a broad interpretation are concerned about the longevity of the game, about avoiding practices that gives geocaching a bad name, and about reinforcing the perception among land managers that geocaching is about buried treasure.

 

It's only a matter of time before a worker for the Nevada department of transportation discovers one of the pvc pipes placed in the ground next to one of the mile marker signs. Are they going to be able to tell whether it was pushed into the ground, or a hole was dug with a pointy-object to place it in the ground? Are they going to care? No, they probably won't. Most likely they'll rip them out of the ground and do one of two things with them. They'll either toss them in a land fill or they'll bring them to the attention higher up on the chain of command (which ends up with the governor). Perhaps when that person discovers they're geocaches, and maybe because they're only previous knowledge of geocaching came from a newspaper story about an object that "looked like a pipe bomb" but turned out to be a geocache they'll think, "enough is enough" and lobby to have an ordinance enacted which prohibits the placement of a geocache anywhere on a Nevada state roadway.

People have found caches hidden in various styles and have enjoyed them. The idea of a narrow interpretation is to not limit creativity in cache hiding unnecessarily. Now it could be argued that pushing a pipe in the ground to provide a hiding place for a cache is not particularly creative, especially if you do it 100 times. However, a narrow interpretation is not there to allow people to "add a notch to the find/hide count" Clearly most of the caches on the ET trail are hidden using methods that don't involve pushing anything into the ground, so it should be clear that if your only goal was to "add a notch" it could be done without these caches. You may be right that if someone from the highway department finds hundreds of PVC pipe pushed in the ground like this they could get pissed off and lobby to have all geocaches banned. But I don't think it is likely. People, like the owner of the Little Aleinn, will remember the extra business the trail brought to the area and point out that supporting the game might be a better thing for Nevada to do than ban it. If the Geoaching.com guidelines need to be tighten up a bit because of this, so be it. But let's realize that the intent here was to deal with a perception that geocaching was some sort of buried treasure hunt and geocachers were going to show up at the local park a dig up the flower beds. My guess is that a few PVC pipes out in the desert some distance off the highway won't even get noticed. Hundreds of them might make a mystery to rival UFO sightings or crop circles (more business for the Little Aleinn).

[+cakmakli]

Rain or Shine, Zsteve, Scubasonic & Legoboyjj

ET Highway Record Run

11/5/2010

1270 Finds

 

Hour 1: 24

Hour 2: 33

Hour 3: 30

Hour 4: 20

Hour 5: 32

Hour 6: 31

Hour 7: 0

Hour 8: 0

Hour 9: 4

Hour 10: 103

Hour 11: 96

Hour 12: 122

Hour 13: 68

Hour 14: 67

Hour 15: 110

Hour 16: 54 w/ break - let breaks cool down

Hour 17: 98

Hour 18:103

Hour 19: 111

Hour 20: 91

Hour 21: 66

Hour 22: 7

Hour 23: 0

Hour 24: 0

Total = 1270

 

21hours 45minutes caching and driving

 

ET Run & Alien Head plus 20 others in 11hours 45minutes

 

We started in Cedar City, Utah and ended the day in Tonopah, Nevada.

 

We could not have done this without the fifth member of our team Legoboy's 4 Runner. We had to take a short break at one point and slow

down a couple of times to allow the breaks to cool off as they were not doing the job.

 

This was a great area to visit with awesome landscapes and views.

 

We really appreciate all the cache hiders for all the work that went into placing these caches.

 

Can't wait for the next big power trail to come out.

 

-legoboyjj

 

Meh

[+humboldt flier]

As you set out for Ithaca

ask that your journey be long,

full of adventure, full of discovery.

Laistrygonians, Cyclops,

angry Poseidon – don’t be afraid of them:

you’ ll never find things like that on your way

as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,

as long as a rare excitement

stirs your spirit and your body.

Laistrygonians, Cyclops,

wild Poseidon – you won’t encounter them

unless you bring them along inside your soul,

unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

 

Ask that your road is a long one.

May there be many summer mornings when,

with what pleasure, what joy,

you enter harbours you’re seeing for the first time;

may you stop at Phoenician trading stations

to buy fine things,

mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,

sensual perfume of every kind -

as many sensual perfumes as you can;

and may you visit many Egyptian cities

to learn and go on learning from their scholars.

 

Keep Ithaca always in your mind.

Arriving there is what you’re destined for.

But don’t hurry the journey at all.

Better if it lasts for years,

so you’re old by the time you reach the island,

wealthy with all you’ve gained on the way,

not expecting Ithaca to make you rich.

 

Ithaca gave you the marvelous journey.

Without her you wouldn’t have set out.

She has nothing left to give you now.

 

And if you find her poor, Ithaca won’t have fooled you.

Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,

you’ll have understood by then this is the meaning of Ithaca.

[+Castle Mischief]

So this is the poetry thread now?

 

I thought it was the "only post opinions that aren't disparaging to anything goes caching for the purposes of racking up numbers" thread.

[+humboldt flier]

Kind of speaks to our searchings and the way we as individuals play the game.

 

There are, however, far deeper meanings.

[Mr.Yuck]

When you are part of a team, and the team is having fun, and the team wants to cheat.........then.......you should start a massive fight in the car, and refuse to play the game their way.

 

Are you saying there could have possibly been Puritan hostages, who wanted to get out of the vehicle and sign and return every cache, but were subjected to the traveling cache method against their will?

 

While I agree with the Puritan method, I have personally witnessed others leapfrogging past us as we cached.

 

It's not a big thing........to me.

 

Then take that "I found 1157 caches in 24 hours without cheating" out of your sig line, and just make it say "I found 1157 caches in 24 hours".

 

Oh, and there once was a man from Nantucket......

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Kind of speaks to our searchings and the way we as individuals play the game.

 

There are, however, far deeper meanings.

 

If you look at a map of Ithaca, New York you'll find a small hamlet just east of the city called Varna. If you don't leave Ithaca you'll always be "near Varna".

[+G & C]

This thread has really put a damper on my plans for the next couple of weeks...

 

I was really looking forward to hitting the ET Highway up in a couple of weeks here. Watching that video that EMC of Northridge has on their website really killed it for me. No matter the method with which they or anyone else chooses to do it with, I can't see anything fun at all about caches that are so easy to find that you literally do not have to leave the car to get them. I'm gonna go ahead and skip this. I'll take a single cache that has some substance to it over a thousand that have nothing to them.

[+G & C]

Also, I'd just like to add:

 

Threads like these, arguments like these, and creative logging techniques that may or may not "bend" the rules for ones self serving agenda are just a couple of more reasons why these power trails will probably be falling by the wayside before long.

[Andronicus]

This thread has really put a damper on my plans for the next couple of weeks...

 

I was really looking forward to hitting the ET Highway up in a couple of weeks here. Watching that video that EMC of Northridge has on their website really killed it for me. No matter the method with which they or anyone else chooses to do it with, I can't see anything fun at all about caches that are so easy to find that you literally do not have to leave the car to get them. I'm gonna go ahead and skip this. I'll take a single cache that has some substance to it over a thousand that have nothing to them.

I once found a micro that was litteraly a drive up. I didn't open my door or take off my seat belt. Someone should setup a power trail like that!

 

I can still see the appeal of the speed caching. The callange is not in the find, but in the asembly line like persision. That said, I aggree with you in that I would still rather spend a weekend backpacking to some mountain top cache.

[+ventura_kids]

Once.... we did a group speed caching trip in Palm Desert. It was about 10 vehicles, all attempting to drive really close to a desert hide, grab it, sign it, and jump back in the vehicle to head for the next one.

We tried to do 6 caches in a row.....on opposite sides of a wide street.....with no traffic on it (dead end in the desert).

The toughest part was attempting to get your vehicle out of the giant pile of geo-mobiles that were in a giant clump surrounding the cache.

We had tons of fun.

 

So.... don't make it so serious. Bring a camera and take some alien pics. Bring some fun friends..... and if you are the grumpy one in the group.... leave yourself at home.

[+geodarts]

So.... don't make it so serious. Bring a camera and take some alien pics. Bring some fun friends..... and if you are the grumpy one in the group.... leave yourself at home.

 

[vagabond]

This thread has really put a damper on my plans for the next couple of weeks...

 

I was really looking forward to hitting the ET Highway up in a couple of weeks here. Watching that video that EMC of Northridge has on their website really killed it for me. No matter the method with which they or anyone else chooses to do it with, I can't see anything fun at all about caches that are so easy to find that you literally do not have to leave the car to get them. I'm gonna go ahead and skip this. I'll take a single cache that has some substance to it over a thousand that have nothing to them.

 

there are other caches out there you don't have to do the et trail

Edited November 18, 2010 by vagabond

[+geodarts]

there are other caches out there you don't have to do the et trail

 

This thread on ET Fun might be a good place to discuss it. I said everything that I could say over there.

Edited November 18, 2010 by mulvaney

[+gpsblake]

Also, I'd just like to add:

 

Threads like these, arguments like these, and creative logging techniques that may or may not "bend" the rules for ones self serving agenda are just a couple of more reasons why these power trails will probably be falling by the wayside before long.

 

They won't go away. The owner of Groundspeak not only approves of them, but recognizes the "world records" on his personal blog. And his opinion is really the only one that really matters, isn't it?

[+JesandTodd]

 

They won't go away. The owner of Groundspeak not only approves of them, but recognizes the "world records" on his personal blog. And his opinion is really the only one that really matters, isn't it?

 

Yep, I saw this on Facebook today...this type of behavior (endorsing cheating in order to achieve some kind of 'record') was supported and celebrated...