The Newest World Record

[Andronicus]

I know a couple of cachers who did most of the ET caches and they told me that they witnessed this when they made their trip. Another group of cachers passed them along the way and guess what happened? They came to their next unfound cache and found their names already in the log.

 

The way i see it, the physical logs are now pretty much worthless since they've been removed from the cache they were originally placed in.

.

What those loosers do is irrelevent. This thread is about what LegoBoyjj and co. did.

 

LegoBoyjj: Could you clarify your logging meathod. Where there any deviations from the generaly accepted meathods? I suspect not, but would like a clarification for all the doubters.

[knowschad]

All of you haters crack me up. Why does anyone care what these power cachers do on a desolate road in the middle of freaking nowhere? Geocaching is a huge sport with tons of different facets. If they want to create a power trail and then run it over and over again, let them. It isn't hurting anyone.

 

What it really boils down to is some people must really want to have the most caches in a day or the highest numbers or some such nonsense. I have over 1500 caches. I will never be at the top and I don't care. I cache for my own personal reasons and I enjoy it.

 

That is the beauty of Geocaching that so many of you are forgetting. Do your own thing. I hate urban light pole skirts and urban bush hides. However, people clearly like to plant them. I simply skip them. That is all you have to do. I don't get all butthurt and say they aren't Geocaching. If one of you wanted to set the world's record for most light pole skirt and bush caches in a day, that is your thing. I don't care.

 

I currently hold the world record for most Geocaches found in the Carrizo Plain while armed with an AR15 and a Glock 27. I even took pictures to prove it.

 

Who cares? Get on you with you lives and unless you live in the middle of this power cache trail and these caches are murking up your local caching, move on. Oh wait, no one lives out there! Who cares?

 

Congrats on your new record. My next goal is to find this cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8f-12a4617bff2b

 

Your goal might be to find this cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f1-f4d9b1295947

 

I want to bicycle to a hundred caches in a day. Maybe I will set the first record to find the entire ET series by bicylce by myself.

 

To each their own. Just go out and enjoy our sport.

You should consider using that same attitude when reading the forums.

[+roziecakes]

I watched the video that showed the alien trail being done and the one thing that jumped out at me was the fact that there were no caches being found. Containers, yes, but NO caches!

 

From the GC homepage "The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches". None of the containers were "hidden" so they fail to meet the definition of what a cache is.

 

For a real speed record on finding 'containers' have someone do a large 'multi-cache'. They can place the containers close together, since the 528' rule would not apply to the stages of the multi cache.

 

You folks earned the world record for picking up the most containers in that time period, but not for 'finding' any caches in that power trail along the alien highway.

 

Well done for getting that many containers.

 

John

 

PS: That wasn't caching, that was "containering".

 

Actually, having done about half of the ET power trail, yes the caches actually are hidden, and some better than some park and grabs that I've seen in my day. They are easy hides yes, such as under a rock in front of a mile marker, or under a pile of rocks in the desert; but honestly, most of the hides we found in the desert (not on the trail) were behind rocks in a bush. There just aren't that many places to hide caches out there in that kind of terrain.

 

As my husband says, the hides on the ET trail were "right on par with any guardrail hide." So I'm sorry, unless you've actually been there and seen the containers, who are you to judge the quality of the hides?

[+JohnnyVegas]

I watched the video that showed the alien trail being done and the one thing that jumped out at me was the fact that there were no caches being found. Containers, yes, but NO caches!

 

From the GC homepage "The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches". None of the containers were "hidden" so they fail to meet the definition of what a cache is.

I suspect that you are using a definition of 'hidden' that varies from the standard for geocaching. Many perfectly acceptable geocaches are in plain view.

While a cache may be in plain view as some that I have found are. They have at least been camoed so that they looked like other ojects in the area of the cache, Rocks, tree limbs pine cones and dog turds to name a few. A film canister in the open without any camo is not hidden.

From Merriam Websters Collegiate dictionary eleventh edition

[+roziecakes]

Maybe it's changed now, but none of the containers were out in the open when we did the power trail...

[+deercreekth]

I heard that the Commissioner's office is considering adding an asterisk to any record in the Geocaching Recordbook that is suspected of using PEDs(Performance Enhancing Drops) to attain said records. It is unknown at this time how having an asterisk might affect future consideration for admission to the Geocaching Hall of Fame.

[+sbell111]

I watched the video that showed the alien trail being done and the one thing that jumped out at me was the fact that there were no caches being found. Containers, yes, but NO caches!

 

From the GC homepage "The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches". None of the containers were "hidden" so they fail to meet the definition of what a cache is.

I suspect that you are using a definition of 'hidden' that varies from the standard for geocaching. Many perfectly acceptable geocaches are in plain view.

While a cache may be in plain view as some that I have found are. They have at least been camoed so that they looked like other ojects in the area of the cache, Rocks, tree limbs pine cones and dog turds to name a few. A film canister in the open without any camo is not hidden.

From Merriam Websters Collegiate dictionary eleventh edition

My Great Caesar's Ghost cache is in plain view of anyone who makes it to ground zero. Lots and lots of perfectly vaid caches are.

 

Who has that pic of the huge homemade ammo box that is used as a cache?

[Skippermark]

Perhaps these record runs need to be video taped with a running timer.

There's a video of one group's adventure, but it only shows them finding 2 caches. It looks like it took about 28 seconds to take off from one cache, sticker the log, stop and hide the next cache and then get back into the vehicle and take off.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Skippermark

[+OienLabs]

What is finding a cache?

 

Find the cache, sign the log and then put back the cache as you found it?

Does the log signing and the putting back have to be at the same day?

 

I have not read anything about that.

 

Find the caches. Spend a few days signing the logs properly.

And then another few days to put back the caches where you found them.

 

And finally path your own back for being clever.

[+dfx]

There's a video of one group's adventure, but it only shows them finding 2 caches. It looks like it took about 28 seconds to take off from one cache, sticker the log, stop and hide the next cache and then get back into the vehicle and take off.

but that's with swapping the containers, which is lame. i would assume that the few extra seconds that opening the container and smacking the sticker in could be made up by stepping on the gas a bit more though.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

All of you haters crack me up. Why does anyone care what these power cachers do on a desolate road in the middle of freaking nowhere? Geocaching is a huge sport with tons of different facets. If they want to create a power trail and then run it over and over again, let them. It isn't hurting anyone.

 

Why the name calling? The "world record" and power trails in general debate is often contentious but most people manage to discuss the issue with resorting to name calling. Hate is a pretty strong word. What I've seen are quite a few people that may be critical of how some geocachers are doing power trails, but nothing close to expressing hate for those geocachers nor power trails in general.

 

In regards to the rest of the paragraph above. The Trail of the Gods power trail didn't last a month before the cache owners were asked to remove most of the caches by the BLM. There has been some speculation about the exact reason for archiving most of the trail but the CO wrote in the archive logs that :

 

'Regretfully, we had to agree to archive these caches due to the "increased traffic and undue attention to the area".'

 

There were reports from more than one source that there were "people hitting the trail to set records (personal or otherwise) were driving right up to the caches and their vehicles were making a royal mess of the areas around the caches.". The same thing has been happening on the E.T. power trail despite the fact that, at least for a portion of it, the CO explicitly asked that seekers not drive in one of the sections.

 

For the ToTG there was also speculation that adequate permission was never obtained (most of the caches were on/near power line towers).

 

You can claim that "It isn't hurting anyone" as much as you want but as there has been a substantial amount of evidence that environmental damage has occurred, and that many of those seeking caches on power trails disregard many of the acceptable practices for both hiding and seeking caches, I remain unconvinced that it's not hurting anyone.

 

However, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if I, or any other forum participant, thinks the existence of power trails is detrimental the the environment, negatively impacts how those that choose not to do power trails play the game, or my cause lasting harm to the game in general. If land managers become convince that geocaching is an activity that is causing problems they're not going to allow geocaching on the property they manage. We've already seen that with the BLM in the U.S. The BLM administers 264 million acres of land and has thus far has allowed geocaching on the property it managers. However, the last policy document that I could find was written 2005 and although the Trail of the Gods debacle didn't change things, another incident might and there could potentially be 264 million acres that are currently available for geocaching that could be made unavailable forever.

[+myotis]

Driver stays in car. then driver should not get credit for the find, driver did not look for the cache

All the people in the group get out and look for the cache, those that do not look do not get credit for the find.

I don't know if I agree or disagree, I'll have to give it some thought. I do know that speed caching will always draw criticism as everyone has a different definition of what tactics should/shouldn't be allowed.

 

Playing devil's advocate...

 

With regular geocaching, it's common for several individuals to cache as a group and when one finds the cache they to take credit for the find. (Some groups wait until everybody has found it.) Sometimes it's found before everybody even makes it to the GZ. This draws very little controversy.

 

With regular geocaching, it's common for a team to sign for the team. I see it all the time in logs around here. They use one sticker or stamp instead of several. This seems to be a generally accepted practice.

 

For a speed caching team, the driver is an integral part of the find. As they are needed to identify each GZ and pull as close to it as possible.

 

Therefore...

 

It seems reasonable that speed cachers include the driver who is only a few feet away and was integral to getting them to the find.

 

While I have no problem logging group finds, the issue is it fair to call this a "world record." Now if they want to identify themselves as the world's lamest caching group, I would not have problem with that title.

 

What about someone having a tag line like, "I found 1157 caches in ONE day without cheating."? Is it honorable or honest to say "I" instead of "we"?

 

Myotis

World Record Holder most finds in a day-I made 3,500 "finds" in an hour without cheating by finding the same cache over and over!

[+Ecylram]

Myotis

World Record Holder most finds in a day-I made 3,500 "finds" in an hour without cheating by finding the same cache over and over!

Must have been a BIIIGGG log to hold all those signatures.

[+jomouse]

Interesting thread. I am always amazed at the passion folks exhibit for all of this.

 

So I have been trying to figure out what I think. I suppose I would consider doing a power trail if the opportunity presented itself, but not to set a record or anything. Cheers to those who do want to do that, but hopefully there is not environmental damage being done as some have suggested. And I don't think swapping caches should be allowed - it just doesn't feel like geocaching to me. I am ok with the team stamps as long as everyone was present and ok for driver to stay in the car. The world record thing seems a bit silly, since they aren't verified, but whatever.... Yep, that's what I think......

[+niraD]

From the GC homepage "The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches". None of the containers were "hidden" so they fail to meet the definition of what a cache is.

I've found geocaches that were less hidden than the ones shown in

. There is also the technique of hiding something by leaving it in plain sight somewhere that no one would find it unless they knew where to look. That would seem an appropriate definition of "hide" for a lot of 1-star difficulty geocaches, and not just the Alien Highway numbers run trail.

 

I have no problem calling the containers of the Alien Highway numbers run trail geocaches. And I don't have a problem with hundreds of easy geocaches spaced every 528ft in the Nevada desert, as long as they comply with the guidelines. For example, unlike the TOTG numbers run trail, the Alien Highway numbers run trail appears to have adequate permission.

 

My concern is with calling what they're doing "geocaching" when they're shuffling the containers the way the video shows. IMHO, one of the most basic rules of the game is "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

 

I don't have a problem with different ways to sign the log (e.g., team stamps, team stickers, three letter team names) as long as the log is signed. But in a previous numbers run thread, the consensus seemed to be that signing the container instead of the log was inappropriate, and I agree with that consensus.

 

But if you aren't returning each geocache in the numbers run trail to its original location, then I don't think what you are doing is geocaching. Without permission, shuffling the containers could be considered a form of vandalism. If the cache owner(s) approve, then it isn't vandalism, and I don't have a problem with it unless you claim that what you're doing is geocaching.

 

[edit: fix typo]

Edited November 9, 2010 by niraD

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I watched the video that showed the alien trail being done and the one thing that jumped out at me was the fact that there were no caches being found. Containers, yes, but NO caches!

 

From the GC homepage "The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches". None of the containers were "hidden" so they fail to meet the definition of what a cache is.

 

For a real speed record on finding 'containers' have someone do a large 'multi-cache'. They can place the containers close together, since the 528' rule would not apply to the stages of the multi cache.

 

You folks earned the world record for picking up the most containers in that time period, but not for 'finding' any caches in that power trail along the alien highway.

 

Well done for getting that many containers.

 

John

 

PS: That wasn't caching, that was "containering".

 

Actually, having done about half of the ET power trail, yes the caches actually are hidden, and some better than some park and grabs that I've seen in my day. They are easy hides yes, such as under a rock in front of a mile marker, or under a pile of rocks in the desert; but honestly, most of the hides we found in the desert (not on the trail) were behind rocks in a bush. There just aren't that many places to hide caches out there in that kind of terrain.

 

As my husband says, the hides on the ET trail were "right on par with any guardrail hide." So I'm sorry, unless you've actually been there and seen the containers, who are you to judge the quality of the hides?

 

I watched the video that was linked to showing a van full of people doing the power trail and the caches they showed being "Found" were not hidden. There was no camo on the containers, and it appeared as though no attempt was made to "hide" them. Just place them at the bottom of the sign and go.

 

I've hidden enough caches to know a good hide by the responses we get from those that find them. What was shown in the video is what I would call a lame joke.

 

If people want to do those runs, that is fine with me, but to claim they "Found" that many caches is also a joke. Is that what's called "drive-by caching"? From the video it appears that they could have retrieved the container without even leaving the vehicle.

 

John

[+JohnnyVegas]

There's a video of one group's adventure, but it only shows them finding 2 caches. It looks like it took about 28 seconds to take off from one cache, sticker the log, stop and hide the next cache and then get back into the vehicle and take off.

but that's with swapping the containers, which is lame. i would assume that the few extra seconds that opening the container and smacking the sticker in could be made up by stepping on the gas a bit more though.

After watching the video and the way the one cache was replace with another one then adding the the caches are not hidden this so called world record is a bunch of crap. This took no skill and only one of the 5 or six people got out to look for the cache, it is all crap.

[Andronicus]

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

[+M 5]

While a lot of threads on here get off topic, this thread is about a "power trail" generated record. So, its been mostly on topic especially compared to most. (as I get off topic and and respond to the off topic post)

[+SwineFlew]

Guys, please keep it on the topic. If you hate power caching, start another thread about it. Its getting old fast.

[+Scubasonic]

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

 

Yep it doesn't take long for anything posted on this forum to implode this is why I have chosen to take it off my watch list we just wanted to share our experience but I'm outta here.

 

Scubasonic

[+myotis]

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

 

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

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This thread should be broken into "why I hate Power Caching" and "LegoBoyjj's record breaking cache day". Why is it that everytime someone comes to report a great feat, it imediatly devolves into "I saw someone doing bla bla bla.."

 

Perhaps for the same reason that whenever someone is critical of a certain aspect of geocaching, whether it's micro caches, LPCs, the use of stamps in logs, or power trails, rather than logically refute the criticism, they're accused of hating a certain aspect of the game.

[+BelKen]

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

 

Yep it doesn't take long for anything posted on this forum to implode this is why I have chosen to take it off my watch list we just wanted to share our experience but I'm outta here.

 

Scubasonic

 

The world is a pretty big place. The title of the thread says Newest World Record. Yet in the body of the text it says ET trail record breaking run.

 

If the silly claim of world record was left off these threads then maybe they may not cause as much angst. I enjoy reading about people doing amazing things. The mechanics behind doing the power trail are interesting. Not my cup of tea though.

 

I can live with people doing their thing. Its just the claim of some World record that gets my back up. Leave that out and let us all read about the ET power trail record, or the blink method record etc

[Clan Riffster]

Guys, please keep it on the topic.

Other than you, has anyone gone off topic? If I read the opening post correctly, this thread is about someone claiming to have set a new world record on a power trail in Nevada. With that broad of an opening, any comments relating to world records, (pro or con), power trails, (pro or con), Nevada, (pro or con) and/or comments on the methods employed during the run, (pro or con), would be right on topic. Simply disagreeing with the methods employed and/or the accolades granted does not make a statement off topic.

 

For your future reference, here is an example of an off topic post:

 

OP = "I hate film cans"

OT = "Ice cream!"

[Andronicus]

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

 

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

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Guys, please keep it on the topic.

Other than you, has anyone gone off topic? If I read the opening post correctly, this thread is about someone claiming to have set a new world record on a power trail in Nevada. With that broad of an opening, any comments relating to world records, (pro or con), power trails, (pro or con), Nevada, (pro or con) and/or comments on the methods employed during the run, (pro or con), would be right on topic. Simply disagreeing with the methods employed and/or the accolades granted does not make a statement off topic.

 

For your future reference, here is an example of an off topic post:

 

OP = "I hate film cans"

OT = "Ice cream!"

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

[+niraD]

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

Fair point.

 

legoboyjj, based on what you wrote earlier in the thread, it appears that you may have been using the cache shuffling technique shown in the

. Were you actually moving each cache from its location to the location for the next cache? Or moving the log from one cache to the container for the next cache?

 

Or were you following the fundamental geocaching practice of returning each log to its original container, and returning each container to its original location?

[Andronicus]

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

Fair point.

 

legoboyjj, based on what you wrote earlier in the thread, it appears that you may have been using the cache shuffling technique shown in the

. Were you actually moving each cache from its location to the location for the next cache? Or moving the log from one cache to the container for the next cache?

 

Or were you following the fundamental geocaching practice of returning each log to its original container, and returning each container to its original location?

Exelent question! I would be interested to know that as well.

[+JohnnyVegas]

If the cache owner does not want to step in and tell these so called record holders to stop moving the caches may the entire series should be archived by Groundspeak. After all, new traveling caches have not been allowed for several years.

[+legoboyjj]

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

Fair point.

 

legoboyjj, based on what you wrote earlier in the thread, it appears that you may have been using the cache shuffling technique shown in the

. Were you actually moving each cache from its location to the location for the next cache? Or moving the log from one cache to the container for the next cache?

 

Or were you following the fundamental geocaching practice of returning each log to its original container, and returning each container to its original location?

Yes the alien caches were moved down the line. We had a great time going as fast as we could go on this trail just as many others have. Would I do it the same way again? Yes.

It does seem that most of the posters here don't get out much so I guess I can't judge you.

[+tozainamboku]

Guys, please keep it on the topic.

Other than you, has anyone gone off topic? If I read the opening post correctly, this thread is about someone claiming to have set a new world record on a power trail in Nevada. With that broad of an opening, any comments relating to world records, (pro or con), power trails, (pro or con), Nevada, (pro or con) and/or comments on the methods employed during the run, (pro or con), would be right on topic. Simply disagreeing with the methods employed and/or the accolades granted does not make a statement off topic.

 

For your future reference, here is an example of an off topic post:

 

OP = "I hate film cans"

OT = "Ice cream!"

Perhaps you don't recall the origin of the Signal eating ice cream icon

 

It began in a "I hate micros" thread. After the 17th page or so, the forum regulars started posting about what their favorite flavor ice cream was. I suspect that they were trying to get a moderator to lock the thread by going off-topic. But it was too late. Someone had to point out that like flavors of ice cream it's a matter of personal preference as to what size cache one might enjoy. "Ice Cream" and have become short hand for saying that something is a matter of personal preference. Clearly some people hate micros, but they often don't acknowledge that other people do like them. Some people seem to have a similar visceral reaction to power trails and "world records" and don't accept that for many this is just another way to have fun while geocaching. It's clearly not for everyone.

 

I do want to address NYPaddleCacher's comment that

whenever someone is critical of a certain aspect of geocaching, whether it's micro caches, LPCs, the use of stamps in logs, or power trails, rather than logically refute the criticism, they're accused of hating a certain aspect of the game.

It is true that sometimes a person will enumerate issues they perceive with these caches beyond a personal dislike. Often the "Ice Cream" argument is given without paying attention to these issues. There is need to be more aware that people have legitimate concerns about the impacts of power trails or of micros hidden in sensitive areas and not just respond with . If there are real issues then they need to be discussed and possibly changes need to be made to the guidelines to address them.

 

I will say I am concerned of the reports of geocachers who have decided on driving the alien head portion, especially when the cache owner has asked people to leave the car behind for this section. I don't believe that it is power trails or even world record attempts that is causing this disregard for the cache owner's request, but more likely it is just simple laziness or the attitude that if someone else did it then it's OK to do. Rather than attacking a type of cache that many people seem to enjoy, I see it more as educating cache owners to consider what foolish people might do when searching for a cache and encourage the placing of caches in areas that can withstand the extra traffic.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

I was watching the video of you guys

doing the trail of the gods. You averaged about 1minutes 10seconds per cache, and it was on dirt roads. ET Hwy record seems possible after watching that. Although I not quite a fan of the off-road driving at one of those caches (just after 4:40). I'm absolutely fine with PT's, as long as the people aren't just driving right up to the cache.

 

Cool video BTW. Those roads seemed really confusing ..meandering in and out. Also funny to see the "replacement"(5:00).

 

 

I'm felling like ice cream now!

 

[+niraD]

So, does anyone remember what the real* geocaching numbers run record was?

 

* real: no cache shuffling, log shuffling, leapfrogging, or similar "tricks" allowed; each cache is found, signed, and replaced where found by one or more team members, and the team stays together for the whole numbers run

[+narcissa]

If the cache owner does not want to step in and tell these so called record holders to stop moving the caches may the entire series should be archived by Groundspeak. After all, new traveling caches have not been allowed for several years.

 

+10000

[+DarkZen]

This thread should be broken into "why I hate Power Caching" and "LegoBoyjj's record breaking cache day".

Except he wasn't geocaching. Serious question, how would you feel if I came to your town, found one of your caches and rather than replacing it just carried it with me to the next cache and left it there?

 

I have no desire to do a power trail - it seems boring but I could care less if others do it and have fun with it. But if you are going to claim a geocaching record you should at the least stick to the rules of the game.

[+narcissa]

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

Fair point.

 

legoboyjj, based on what you wrote earlier in the thread, it appears that you may have been using the cache shuffling technique shown in the

. Were you actually moving each cache from its location to the location for the next cache? Or moving the log from one cache to the container for the next cache?

 

Or were you following the fundamental geocaching practice of returning each log to its original container, and returning each container to its original location?

Yes the alien caches were moved down the line. We had a great time going as fast as we could go on this trail just as many others have. Would I do it the same way again? Yes.

It does seem that most of the posters here don't get out much so I guess I can't judge you.

 

This is a game that relies on consideration for others. Refusing to replace a cache as you found it is blatantly inconsiderate. If all geocachers behaved in this appalling manner, the game would fall apart at the seams. Your behaviour puts you right on par with the other cache vandals and cache thieves who intentionally interfere with geocaches.

 

It is time for Groundspeak to acknowledge that they are condoning this inconsiderate, destructive behaviour by allowing this power trail nonsense to go on.

[+Sagefox]

I heard that the Commissioner's office is considering adding an asterisk to any record in the Geocaching Recordbook that is suspected of using PEDs(Performance Enhancing Drops) to attain said records. It is unknown at this time how having an asterisk might affect future consideration for admission to the Geocaching Hall of Fame.

 

I like this post best.

[+keehotee]

Perhaps it's now time for someone to go for the World Record NM log run - after all, it seems as though every cache on the trail has now been moved over 1/10th mile from it's original co-ords.....

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Caution!!! Puritan viewpoint ahead!!!

That cracked me up. I haven't seen that term used in days.

 

I wonder if there would be any interest to establish UNOFFICIAL speed caching guidelines to cut down on the disagreements as to what is a legitimate tactic.

Most older teams published the guidelines for their run in various threads in these forums.

 

I've never figured out the search feature of this site nor how to get accurate Google searches here but if you have some time to waste I'm sure you can find them.

 

These runs are only a 'record' if the audience agrees with the methods and chooses to recognize the results. Accepting that someone beat a previous record requires that the latter run follow essentially the same rules as did the former. Those teams which hunted 'normal' caches can't be compared to the current record attempts using a series set up especially for speed run purposes, and especially can't be compared to this silliness of moving the cache.

 

Sure, today's teams on speed trails run up numbers which make previous 'records' look puny, but it's not fair to compare them - they are done completely differently.

 

There should be a separate category for doing it old-school and another for these speed trails, as the mechanics and experience are in few ways related. The last 'record' I recall hearing was 480 for a 'normal' cache record run, where 'normal' means that the team selects caches from the general population, not placed along a power trail intended for a speed run, but selected from a cache-dense area where the key to the run is careful cache selection and optimized routing.

 

There's nothing wrong with the speed trails, just don't compare the numbers to the old-school runs.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

Fair point.

 

legoboyjj, based on what you wrote earlier in the thread, it appears that you may have been using the cache shuffling technique shown in the

. Were you actually moving each cache from its location to the location for the next cache? Or moving the log from one cache to the container for the next cache?

 

Or were you following the fundamental geocaching practice of returning each log to its original container, and returning each container to its original location?

Yes the alien caches were moved down the line. We had a great time going as fast as we could go on this trail just as many others have. Would I do it the same way again? Yes.

It does seem that most of the posters here don't get out much so I guess I can't judge you.

As far as getting out much I get out plenty, But I also do not go out wearing blinders and I can see crap when it is in front of me. I am not one of the spinless followers of cachers lame cachers.

Moving caches in order to claim a world record is a crap record. Lets add in that the cache are not even hidden, that is more crap. These so called record run are nothing but a pile of BS phoney records.

Edited November 10, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...These so called record run are nothing but a pile of BS phoney records.

Well, not exactly... they are only worthless when different methodologies are used.

 

Team A runs 100 miles at the local high-school running track faster than anyone has before.

Team B runs 100 miles on undeveloped trails through a National Forest faster than anyone has before.

 

They both ran 100 miles, they both set a record for the specific terrain and method used, but you certainly wouldn't compare the two.

 

The same applies here.

[+TomToad]

Maybe someone could post a NA on all the 1057 caches (or however many there were)

SomeCacherPT0 Posted a Needs Archived

 

Cache is missing. Found throw down cache instead.

[GOF and Bacall]

...These so called record run are nothing but a pile of BS phoney records.

Well, not exactly... they are only worthless when different methodologies are used.

 

Team A runs 100 miles at the local high-school running track faster than anyone has before.

Team B runs 100 miles on undeveloped trails through a National Forest faster than anyone has before.

 

They both ran 100 miles, they both set a record for the specific terrain and method used, but you certainly wouldn't compare the two.

 

The same applies here.

 

Some of the things being done to set these so called records is more akin to using the coyote's rocket skates to set the running record at the local HS track.

[+EvilTree]

I heard that the Commissioner's office is considering adding an asterisk to any record in the Geocaching Recordbook that is suspected of using PEDs(Performance Enhancing Drops) to attain said records. It is unknown at this time how having an asterisk might affect future consideration for admission to the Geocaching Hall of Fame.

 

LOL

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

An attempt was made some time ago to come up with a set of commonly-supported and understood community guidelines for record runs so that everyone would know how an attempt was made.

 

Given Groundspeak's (much appreciated!) lack of desire in making geocaching competitive we geocachers will have to solve this issue by common consensus.

 

Read some history on guideline development here.

 

Record attempts which vary in substantial ways should have their own set of guidelines.

 

Each team should make their own policies for their run based on these guidelines and should publish their run policies for all to see. Since we geocachers decide what we accept as a record then we must understand how a record run was or will be done in order to compare apples to apples.

[Andronicus]

I think that it is fair to say that implying the OP is a lame cheate-rish cacher because you heard that there are lame cheater-ish people on the ET trail is rude, uncalled for, and off opic. If you want to ask how the OP signed the logs, that would be on topic. It would then be on topic to critisise his meathod. All this "he said", "I saw", "Bob heared" stuff is realy anoying, and off topic.

Fair point.

 

legoboyjj, based on what you wrote earlier in the thread, it appears that you may have been using the cache shuffling technique shown in the

. Were you actually moving each cache from its location to the location for the next cache? Or moving the log from one cache to the container for the next cache?

 

Or were you following the fundamental geocaching practice of returning each log to its original container, and returning each container to its original location?

Yes the alien caches were moved down the line. We had a great time going as fast as we could go on this trail just as many others have. Would I do it the same way again? Yes.

It does seem that most of the posters here don't get out much so I guess I can't judge you.

Well I have to respect anyone who can do that much caching in one day. However, I tend to think that the "moved down the line" technique crosses the line and would not be considered (what is it VenturaKids always says) "generaly accepted meathods". I would have to put an * on that record.

[+sbell111]

If the cache owner does not want to step in and tell these so called record holders to stop moving the caches may the entire series should be archived by Groundspeak. After all, new traveling caches have not been allowed for several years.

Agreed. While I have no problem at all with the concept of power trails, if the owner of a cache (any cache) is suggesting that finders move the cache to a new location, then that cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

Perhaps you don't recall the origin of the Signal eating ice cream icon

 

It began in a "I hate micros" thread. After the 17th page or so, the forum regulars started posting about what their favorite flavor ice cream was. I suspect that they were trying to get a moderator to lock the thread by going off-topic. But it was too late. Someone had to point out that like flavors of ice cream it's a matter of personal preference as to what size cache one might enjoy. "Ice Cream" and have become short hand for saying that something is a matter of personal preference. Clearly some people hate micros, but they often don't acknowledge that other people do like them. Some people seem to have a similar visceral reaction to power trails and "world records" and don't accept that for many this is just another way to have fun while geocaching. It's clearly not for everyone.

JanniCash created the smiley in response to my 'plea' on page 7 of this thread.

[+Castle Mischief]

If the cache owner does not want to step in and tell these so called record holders to stop moving the caches may the entire series should be archived by Groundspeak. After all, new traveling caches have not been allowed for several years.

Agreed. While I have no problem at all with the concept of power trails, if the owner of a cache (any cache) is suggesting that finders move the cache to a new location, then that cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Also agreed. This isn't geocaching, it's a vehicle relay race and the containers are being used as batons, not geocaches.

[+sbell111]

So, does anyone remember what the real* geocaching numbers run record was?

 

* real: no cache shuffling, log shuffling, leapfrogging, or similar "tricks" allowed; each cache is found, signed, and replaced where found by one or more team members, and the team stays together for the whole numbers run

Who knows? Based on Lep's post, we may have to go all the way back to around two hundred caches.

[+ventura_kids]

I'm always impressed with any group that can have a successful 24+ hours of caching.

Many, many things can, and do, go wrong with that type of plan.

These are some typical issues..... Cars break, geocachers get sick, gps breaks, and even weather can stop a great run.

I still say congratulations to all the groups that make the effort to "try" that Alien run.

 

PS - It looks like there is a tally sheet on E.T. 001 - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5a-27c3ce5e9905

 

This power run may not be accepted by some geocachers.....but it looks like over a thousand geocachers have made the journey out there.....and it looks like the majority of them will have great memories of their journeys.... (and perhaps psychological scars)