The Newest World Record

[+DarkZen]

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.

Team C rides a bike 100 miles faster than anyone has before and calls it a running record.

[+myotis]

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 a few posts ago I said I would not have a problem with you calling yourselves the worlds most lame cachers as a result of your run. But after reading this, I would say that would be an insult to lame cachers. Your set the record for being the biggests cheaters and cache thieves, SHAME ON YOU!

Edited November 10, 2010 by myotis

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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)

Unless someone is just 'anti' for the sake of it of course it's a record.

 

It's just not one which can be compared to other ways of doing a cache run.

[+Castle Mischief]

It's just not one which can be compared to other ways of doing a cache run.

 

Some would contend that it ain't caching and therefore, ain't a cache run.

[+humboldt flier]

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

 

A - Bloody - Men

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

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

 

A - Bloody - Men

 

It is on topic. When someone post a claim for a "new world record" then they made it fair game to dispute their claim.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm sorry, who was it that was posting off-topic in virtually every thread in existance about some record being broken not that long ago...?

[+JohnnyVegas]

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.

This is more crap. that is like saying each pro sports team should make up their own rules for playing a game

[+Castle Mischief]

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.

This is more crap. that is like saying each pro sports team should make up their own rules for playing a game

 

Hang on, for the purposes of "establishing a record" this would make sense. He's not addressing the issue of "does tossing common sense and the guidelines out the window invalidate a record."

 

TAR is using the term "guidelines" in the general sense, not in the Groundspeak sense.

[+Ecylram]

Why...are some people so worked up about something they feel is insignificant?

 

Legoboyjj, Ventura Kids, & myotis can claim any record they want and it's up to each individual reading the whether they accept the record or not. We're talking "unofficial records" here.

 

Whether you like it or not, it is quite a feat to cache for 24 hours and hit over 1000 finds. My hats off to those individuals.

 

If someone wants to set an unofficial record for most caches on a bike in a day or most caches while walking...more power to them.

 

Or FTF's, caches placed, caches found, etc...more power to them. It does nobody any good to rain on their parade. No need to /censored/ in their Cheerios.

[+Ecylram]

This is more crap. that is like saying each pro sports team should make up their own rules for playing a game

If they're scrimmaging with themselves...they can play by any rules they wish, and do (can't hit the quarterback or anyone in a red jersey for example). If they're playing another team, the two teams need to agree.

[Clan Riffster]

Why...are some people so worked up about something they feel is insignificant?

Picking up someone else's cache, carrying it 528', and plopping it down is, in no way, insignificant.

If I found some mook moving my caches hundreds of feet I'd probably sock 'em in the snoot.

The creators of this blight on the geocaching landscape seem to be OK with such deviant practices.

How about the creators of the alien head series? Presumably all their caches have been moved as well.

Would they say that such a moronic approach to this game was "insignificant"?

[+Ecylram]

Why...are some people so worked up about something they feel is insignificant?

Picking up someone else's cache, carrying it 528', and plopping it down is, in no way, insignificant.

If I found some mook moving my caches hundreds of feet I'd probably sock 'em in the snoot.

The creators of this blight on the geocaching landscape seem to be OK with such deviant practices.

How about the creators of the alien head series? Presumably all their caches have been moved as well.

Would they say that such a moronic approach to this game was "insignificant"?

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this. If the cacher's are following the CO's wishes then why criticize the cachers and not the CO? (Who isn't here to defend themselves, btw.)

 

For the record, or shouldn't I use that term, my personal preference would be that the caches remain in the same spot. However, it seems there is no prohibition in the guidelines from CO's encouraging the swapping of caches as long as there is a valid cache at the GZ when the next cacher comes along.

[+narcissa]

 

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

 

Cache owners have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of their hides, and they do not get to set any rules they like. If the cache owner is condoning this practice, these geocaches should be archived. NOW.

[+sbell111]

Why...are some people so worked up about something they feel is insignificant?

 

Legoboyjj, Ventura Kids, & myotis can claim any record they want and it's up to each individual reading the whether they accept the record or not. We're talking "unofficial records" here.

 

Whether you like it or not, it is quite a feat to cache for 24 hours and hit over 1000 finds. My hats off to those individuals.

 

If someone wants to set an unofficial record for most caches on a bike in a day or most caches while walking...more power to them.

 

Or FTF's, caches placed, caches found, etc...more power to them. It does nobody any good to rain on their parade. No need to /censored/ in their Cheerios.

There is a few problems with this practice.

 

First, moving caches are in violation of the guidelines. If the cache owners are suggesting or even condoning this practice, then the caches should be archived.

 

Second, celebrating 'records' that are attained using this type of practice cheapens previous records made the 'normal' way.

 

Third, the celebration of records that are attained using these 'questionable' practices make it difficult or impossible for a group of cachers who wish to do a record run to know what the 'clean' record is.

[Clan Riffster]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

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

[+Ecylram]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

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

I don't know.

[+legoboyjj]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

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

 

We did not move these caches.

[+tozainamboku]

This all reminds of the puritan angst over the website that was promoting an icon for the owner to use if they were okay with leaving a replacement if their cache was damaged or missing. This is a simple fun game. The idea there was that most people prefer to find something than to get a DNF. Cache owners were happy to allow people to help maintain their caches and this site provided a way for them to give permission. But the puritans were up in arms. Throw down a cache to claim a find after spening only 5 minutes per degree of difficulty? How dare the cache owner allow this. Look at the how the next finder will have their fun spoiled because they found something other than the original cache or, horrors, they find two caches. The same arguments are appearing here. The cache owner says shuffling is OK and then puritans are certain that there is no longer a legitimate find because you aren't finding the container that the owner placed here but instead a replacement - or worse - a container that was moved from someplace else.

 

Come on people - these are identical containers. When they get shuffled, the only difference the next cacher see is a log that might not have the names of all the previous finders (or one that has the names of the finders of the cache in the old place but not all of whom have found a cache in the new place). Really, how many people who are doing a power trail are going to worry about this. Yes, I understand when I find an ammo can at the end of long hike that has been there for years, I like to look through the logs and see who signed (and what they wrote). I can even see that on a difficult hide you might want to see who was there before you. But these are 1000+ park and grabs on a power trail. Nobody who is doing this trail is going to give a dadgum what names are on each log sheet.

 

Personally, I think that it has always been part of the challenge of doing record runs to figure out ways to log the caches faster. TheAlabamaRambler can tell you about this. Sometimes people will find some logging practices unacceptable. The will express their opinion in the forums and will not accept the claim to a record. That doesn't mean that other people won't have a different opinion. As far as the rules go - its up to the cache owner to decide when to accept a Found log. It sounds that for the ET trail, at least, the cache owner is comfortable with the shuffle technique.

[+narcissa]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

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

 

We did not move these caches.

 

Why not?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

On one of the "previous records" lists I've seen there was one cache that did the E.T. Trail solo and claims to have found 700+ caches. A solo cacher can't really shuffle caches (at least driving and signing the log between caches would be problematic), leapfrog, and must find and sign every log without any assistance from others. Of all the claimed records that posted this one is the only one that really stands out for me.

[+legoboyjj]

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

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

 

We did not move these caches.

 

Why not?

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

[+DarkZen]

Why...are some people so worked up about something they feel is insignificant?

Picking up someone else's cache, carrying it 528', and plopping it down is, in no way, insignificant.

If I found some mook moving my caches hundreds of feet I'd probably sock 'em in the snoot.

The creators of this blight on the geocaching landscape seem to be OK with such deviant practices.

How about the creators of the alien head series? Presumably all their caches have been moved as well.

Would they say that such a moronic approach to this game was "insignificant"?

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

The owner does not have that authority. Traveling caches are prohibited by Groundspeak.

[+Ecylram]

The owner does not have that authority. Traveling caches are prohibited by Groundspeak.

It's not a traveling cache. It's replacing an existing cache container and log with another one (albeit used).

 

The difference is....the coordinates keep changing with a traveling cache. In this case, a log and container remain at the GZ for a cacher to sign.

 

//Obligatory reminder that I also would prefer the cache containers to remain at the existing location.//

[Clan Riffster]

Come on people - these are identical containers.

Is that the standard by which atrocious behavior is now measured? I can move any cache I want, so long as I move it to a spot which had a similar container? If I just went to your ammo can hides and mixed 'em up, so the paper logs no longer resemble the actual finds, you'd be OK with that? After all, they are identical containers, right? Sorry Toz, but this time I can't support you. Even if you bury what you are saying under a ton of text, and interject a handful of ice cream icons, that won't make the behavior acceptable.

 

In this game we already have two sets of standards by which most of us play: The guidelines and common mores.

 

Our basic values often come from the guidelines, but sometimes they exceed them. Being an apologist for those folks who blatantly ignore both the guidelines and the societal values associated with this activity is enabling further bad behavior. In this case, the folks who are shuffling the caches, and the owners who are allowing it are violating both the guidelines and the spirit of the game.

 

I'm envisioning a future email conversation:

 

PowerTrailSeeker: "Whoo Hoo!! I found the first cache in the Alien Head series. Drove right to it, as I was in a hurry"

 

Cache Owner: "Hi PowerTrailSeeker, I saw your find log on my cache, but I didn't see your signature in the logbook. Wazzup wit dat?"

 

PowerTrailSeeker: "Oh... Uh... I took your cache and moved it to ET 406. The cache I left at your site was ET 405."

 

Cache Owner: "Why would you move my cache?"

 

PowerTrailSeeker: "Dude! We were in a hurry!"

 

Cache Owner: "Well, shouldn't your signature be in the cache you dropped off at my location?"

 

PowerTrailSeeker: "It was, but since three other groups have done the ET power trail, there's no telling where your cache went. It's somewhere along the trail."

 

Cache Owner: "And this is acceptable because.....?"

 

PowerTrailSeeker: "Dude! Lighten up! It was the same kind of container! Just ask Toz. He said it was OK"

[+Castle Mischief]

...puritan... ...puritans... ...puritans...

 

Dude. Stop it.

[+DarkZen]

The owner does not have that authority. Traveling caches are prohibited by Groundspeak.

It's not a traveling cache. It's replacing an existing cache container and log with another one (albeit used).

 

The difference is....the coordinates keep changing with a traveling cache. In this case, a log and container remain at the GZ for a cacher to sign.

It's a matter of semantics I guess. Suppose I were to place a cache at the start of a powertrail that was a bottle preform that I had painted red and I called that cache 'Red Preform'. After a few runs the actual coordinates for that cache container would be miles away. Anyone using my hints would be baffled. My cache would have indeed traveled. Moving cache containers is wrong, imho.

[+legoboyjj]

The owner does not have that authority. Traveling caches are prohibited by Groundspeak.

It's not a traveling cache. It's replacing an existing cache container and log with another one (albeit used).

 

The difference is....the coordinates keep changing with a traveling cache. In this case, a log and container remain at the GZ for a cacher to sign.

It's a matter of semantics I guess. Suppose I were to place a cache at the start of a powertrail that was a bottle preform that I had painted red and I called that cache 'Red Preform'. After a few runs the actual coordinates for that cache container would be miles away. Anyone using my hints would be baffled. My cache would have indeed traveled. Moving cache containers is wrong, imho.

 

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

[+keehotee]

This all reminds of the puritan angst over the website that was promoting an icon for the owner to use....

 

You keep saying Puritan like you think it's a bad thing. Don't you realise to the rest of the World it just means Quaker Oats and IBM?

[+sbell111]

This all reminds of the puritan angst over the website that was promoting an icon for the owner to use if they were okay with leaving a replacement if their cache was damaged or missing.

The difference between that example and this issue is that accepting or even asking for help in maintaining a cache is not in violation of the guidelines. Suggesting or condoning the moving of your cache is in violation. Edited November 10, 2010 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

It's not a traveling cache.

I would argue that it is most certainly a moving cache. If I set an ammo can out in the woods, and I name it "Holy Carp!", that ammo can is the cache. Assume for argument sake that I have another ammo can named "Wazzup!" in the same patch of woods. If some mook comes along later and swaps Holy Carp! for Wazzup! then both caches have been moved. The container offers a degree of permanence to the cache, storing a record of every one who has been there. That record is invalidated once the cans get shuffled. Just because a cache owner doesn't give a hoot about the guidelines is no reason for us to follow suit. As I recall, one of the reasons that the TOTG power trail got shut down was the owners didn't give a hoot about guidelines, and as such, failed to get permission for the hides. There were apologists defending them, too.

 

If someone ignores a guideline because they feel it is unjust, and they want to make some kind of civil statement or protest, more power to them. I don't think their cache will last on the site very long, if they are somehow able to get it published, but I wouldn't want to take away their right to protest. But to ignore a guideline simply because following the rules inhibits expediency is foul.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe you can come on down and DOUBLE your find count!

Why would Narcissa want their find count to be made meaningless?

[+tozainamboku]

PowerTrailSeeker: "Dude! Lighten up! It was the same kind of container! Just ask Toz. He said it was OK"

I said it was ok if the cache owner was OK with it.

 

The problem is that it generally isn't OK to swap containers from a cache at location A with one at location B. You've just changed the experience for the next cacher. In the ton of long text that I wrote, I gave specific example of when you would want the container and its associated log to stay in place. The difference here is a series of identical caches in a power trail. They were put out for people to try to find large numbers of caches as a personal goal or accomplishment. In going for these accomplishments, people are bound to look for ways to minimize the time per cache. The idea of shifting the containers as you go was suggested and the cache owner had no problem with it. I don't quite understand why anyone else would have a problem with it.

[+geodarts]

Maybe you can come on down and DOUBLE your find count!

 

Although Narcissa can speak for herself, I am not sure why a find count should be an important factor for this discussion. Last Saturday, I spent 10 hours finding 4 geocaches in the middle of the most brutal wilderness "hike" I have ever done. Yes, I could have grabbed 500-1000 caches along the ET trail - or spent the day getting 100 park and grabs in lamp posts to increase the find count -- but would that have made my opinion any more valid?

 

As a personal matter, if you visit the ET trail and do not take time to swing by the Valley of Fire for the earthcaches, you are selling yourself short. If you go to the ET trail and do not take the time for a long talk to the owner of the Inn, you are missing something. For that matter, if you choose to spend a day on the ET trail but do not take the slightly longer swing to One Giant Step at the Toroweap overlook, you are missing the experience of a lifetime. I would take any of these experiences over a find count and you may have other priorities, which is fine. But what does it matter on a forum?

 

However, with that said, I do not consider that exchanging containers from one location to the other to create a moving cache. You claim to have the owner's blessing. You signed a log and returned a container to the original location. The logs are just a sheet of disorganized and often illegible signatures and stickers, slapped on wherever they would fit, in as little of time as possible, that no one will ever look at. I don't care where my signatures on some of those sheets end up.

 

For most of the containers I signed, I spent 18-35 seconds signing the logs and getting back to the car. Its not like any signature provided an "aha" moment, a transcendental experience, or something that will ever be seen again. If you moved the container, it did not diminish my limited number of finds in any way.

 

The ET trail was created for Repetitive Caching and Repetitive Caching is what you did, as you define it. Under these conditions, it is irrelevant to me what you did to claim a find.

 

Did I do that along the ET trail? No. Do I think its a particularly good practice? No. But as I have said before, claim whatever repetitive caching record you want or claim them all as first to finds. It makes no difference. When and if the World Council imposes standards, verification, and drug tests, that might be another matter.

Edited November 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Ecylram]

...puritan... ...puritans... ...puritans...

 

Dude. Stop it.

Imagine the pickle I'm in....

 

I'm called a 'puritan' on one issue, but he & I aren't on opposite sides this time (I think. I kinda glaze over when I see 'puritan').

 

So AM I a 'puritan' or am I a 'non-puritan' or perhaps 'part-time puritan'??? 'Semi-puritan? I'm dazed and confused on this.

 

I need to know what club I'm in so I know who the cool guys are.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Ecylram

[+sbell111]

PowerTrailSeeker: "Dude! Lighten up! It was the same kind of container! Just ask Toz. He said it was OK"

I said it was ok if the cache owner was OK with it.

 

The problem is that it generally isn't OK to swap containers from a cache at location A with one at location B. You've just changed the experience for the next cacher. In the ton of long text that I wrote, I gave specific example of when you would want the container and its associated log to stay in place. The difference here is a series of identical caches in a power trail. They were put out for people to try to find large numbers of caches as a personal goal or accomplishment. In going for these accomplishments, people are bound to look for ways to minimize the time per cache. The idea of shifting the containers as you go was suggested and the cache owner had no problem with it. I don't quite understand why anyone else would have a problem with it.

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

[+sbell111]

...puritan... ...puritans... ...puritans...

 

Dude. Stop it.

Imagine the pickle I'm in....

 

I'm called a 'puritan' on one issue, but he & I aren't on opposite sides this time (I think. I kinda glaze over when I see 'puritan').

 

So AM I a 'puritan' or am I a 'non-puritan' or perhaps 'part-time puritan'??? 'Semi-puritan? I'm dazed and confused on this.

 

I need to know what club I'm in so I know who the cool guys are.

Imagine how I feel.

[+Ecylram]

I would argue that it is most certainly a moving cache. If I set an ammo can out in the woods, and I name it "Holy Carp!", that ammo can is the cache.

If the container is replaced due to muggling or damage, wouldn't it still be the same cache? I mean, that is done all the time. The only difference is the reason. Either way, a cache & log remain at the GZ for other cachers to sign as they whiz by.

 

//Obligatory...I don't like the practice myself, just think it's not disallowed under the guidelines.//

[+sbell111]

I would argue that it is most certainly a moving cache. If I set an ammo can out in the woods, and I name it "Holy Carp!", that ammo can is the cache.

If the container is replaced due to muggling or damage, wouldn't it still be the same cache? I mean, that is done all the time. The only difference is the reason. Either way, a cache & log remain at the GZ for other cachers to sign as they whiz by.

 

//Obligatory...I don't like the practice myself, just think it's not disallowed under the guidelines.//

These caches aren't being replaced. They are being moved to the next cache's location.

 

The container and log are still in play, but are not in the original spot. They have been moved.

[+DarkZen]

 

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

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

[+narcissa]

 

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

 

So it's okay to vandalize one set of caches, but not another? Why the distinction? Moving cache logs around is a pretty nasty thing to do to the cachers who went before you, and to the cachers who go after you.

 

I've been caching for more than five years and I only recently reached 1500 finds. Caching for the numbers isn't my thing. I'd rather spend a day doing one really interesting multi-cache than a bunch of repetitive traditionals.

[+Ecylram]

So it's okay to vandalize one set of caches, but not another? Why the distinction? Moving cache logs around is a pretty nasty thing to do to the cachers who went before you, and to the cachers who go after you.

It's not vandalizing if you're following the owner's wishes/rules/guidelines. In the cases where the CO authorized the practice, it's not vandalizing.

 

If the owner didn't authorize it, I'm on your side.

[+narcissa]

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

 

^This.

 

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

 

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

[+JohnnyVegas]

The owner does not have that authority. Traveling caches are prohibited by Groundspeak.

It's not a traveling cache. It's replacing an existing cache container and log with another one (albeit used).

 

The difference is....the coordinates keep changing with a traveling cache. In this case, a log and container remain at the GZ for a cacher to sign.

 

//Obligatory reminder that I also would prefer the cache containers to remain at the existing location.//

No your are moving the container to another location, that is moving the container that was assigned the coordionates in questionhs. You can drass up any way you like, but you ARE moving the cache and the so called world record is nothing but carp.

[+JohnnyVegas]

If I had the time I would start post SBA on all the caches in the series

[+niraD]

Why...are some people so worked up about something they feel is insignificant?

Who's getting worked up? I simply observed that one of the most basic rules of geocaching is "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location", and therefore that those who shuffle the containers on the ET numbers run trail are not geocaching. What they're doing may be fun, may involve geocaches, and may be done with the permission/encouragement of the geocache owner(s). However, it is not geocaching.

 

Apparently, the cache owner has authorized this.

I've read that elsewhere in the thread, but can anyone verify that it is true?

[+geodarts]

So it's okay to vandalize one set of caches, but not another? Why the distinction? Moving cache logs around is a pretty nasty thing to do to the cachers who went before you, and to the cachers who go after you.

 

The equation with vandalism is a little heavy here, since vandalism generally (and in Nevada) involves damage, defacement, or destruction of property without the consent of the owner. It appears there is consent.

 

Personally, as I said earlier, I do not feel violated if the log in a container on the ET trail with my signature was moved as long as the location where a container is found remain the same and the container is identical. Particularly given the general state of the logs there, there is little that I consider sacred about a piece of paper in identical containers along the entire stretch. It's just a game.

 

But if you choose to do repetitive caching and claim a repetitive record, I suppose people will start to look at the methods you use to make that claim. And it is hardly surprising that this particular method seems a bit dubious. Perhaps it should be called "container exchanging" rather than geocaching. But claim what you like.

Edited November 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+mtn-man]

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

[+Castle Mischief]

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

[+Ecylram]

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

Once change to your plan, use that motorcycle sidecar that was pictured in an earlier posting to lay down the caches while going 60mph.