Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

New Cache Type: Numbers Run Trail?

Recommended Posts

I fail to see how a bunch of p&g micros in a power trail are 'contaminating' p&g micros elsewhere.
And yet, it happens: http://coord.info/GC2KRVZ
Still not seeing it.
I'm sorry about that. I thought it would a more obvious example.

 

The Yer-Mo series is a numbers run trail. Admittedly, it's a relatively short numbers run trail (dozens of caches rather than hundreds of caches), but it's still a numbers run trail. People seem to enjoy the chocolate ice cream.

 

At one point, the owner discovered that some people had been shuffling his caches without permission. That's the dirt ice cream that he didn't want mixed into his chocolate ice cream. He disabled the series, visited his cache locations to clean up the mess, edited his cache pages to include an admonition not to shuffle his caches or leave throw-down caches, and reenabled the series. He also seems to have cleaned up the logs, leaving only the short logs reenabling the caches and the warnings on the cache pages.

 

Maybe you hold caches like this in such contempt that you still don't see this as a problem. But I think it's a problem. The owner of the Yer-Mo series thinks it's a problem. I don't care whether GS bans the three cache monte, or whether GS gives the three cache monte its own sandbox where normal caches won't be affected by it. But it isn't fair to expect cache owners who object to the three cache monte to just clean up the mess when their caches are vandalized this way.

Share this post


Link to post
I fail to see how a bunch of p&g micros in a power trail are 'contaminating' p&g micros elsewhere.
And yet, it happens: http://coord.info/GC2KRVZ
Still not seeing it.
I'm sorry about that. I thought it would a more obvious example.

 

The Yer-Mo series is a numbers run trail. Admittedly, it's a relatively short numbers run trail (dozens of caches rather than hundreds of caches), but it's still a numbers run trail. People seem to enjoy the chocolate ice cream.

 

At one point, the owner discovered that some people had been shuffling his caches without permission. That's the dirt ice cream that he didn't want mixed into his chocolate ice cream. He disabled the series, visited his cache locations to clean up the mess, edited his cache pages to include an admonition not to shuffle his caches or leave throw-down caches, and reenabled the series. He also seems to have cleaned up the logs, leaving only the short logs reenabling the caches and the warnings on the cache pages.

 

Maybe you hold caches like this in such contempt that you still don't see this as a problem. But I think it's a problem. The owner of the Yer-Mo series thinks it's a problem. I don't care whether GS bans the three cache monte, or whether GS gives the three cache monte its own sandbox where normal caches won't be affected by it. But it isn't fair to expect cache owners who object to the three cache monte to just clean up the mess when their caches are vandalized this way.

What are you going for with the bolded bit? Am I a person who hates all cache trails or am I someone who hates it when cache owners do needed maintenance?

 

The cache owner in your example was merely doing appropriate cache maintenance. I see it as no different than if Cache Owner A deletes a log if the logbook wasn't signed. The mere fact that Cache Owner B wouldn't delete such a log doesn't mean that Cache Owner A's cache has become somehow 'contaminated' and that some additional action beyond deleting the offending log and perhaps adding a note to the cache page is in order.

Share this post


Link to post
The cache owner in your example was merely doing appropriate cache maintenance.

 

Having to tell people not to shuffle your containers around is appropriate cache maintenance? Really? You do realize that the only reason why cachers are doing that in the first place is because it somehow became accepted practice along power trails. If that had never happened, then the CO wouldn't now have to tell people not to move the containers around.

Share this post


Link to post

The cache owner in your example was merely doing appropriate cache maintenance. I see it as no different than if Cache Owner A deletes a log if the logbook wasn't signed. The mere fact that Cache Owner B wouldn't delete such a log doesn't mean that Cache Owner A's cache has become somehow 'contaminated' and that some additional action beyond deleting the offending log and perhaps adding a note to the cache page is in order.

The main problem is that is was impossible for the Cache Owner A to know which person or group was responsible for swapping his cache. The Yer-mo Trail is adjacent to the Route 66 trail so it appears that cachers who are swapping Route 66 caches simply continued this when they got to the Yer-mo caches - despite the fact that not only was there a different owner but the containers were different as well.

 

The problem I have is that calling Cache Owner B's caches "dirt" because he allows cache swapping isn't going to stop an irresponsible finder from continuing to swap when the get to a cache that is not labeled "dirt". In fact, making a special cache designation for caches that allow swapping is only likely to encourage more swapping and probably more cachers who might inadvertantly swap a cache that was adjacent to or in the middle of a power trail.

 

On the other hand, I believe that Groundspeak making a rule that you must replace cache as found in order to log a find is both unenforceable and a bad idea. There are situations when moving a cache or replacing a cache is the responsible thing to do and helps both the cache owner and subsequent cache finders. So perhaps all we have is another example that power trails encourage irresponsible behavior by cachers who run them with the goal of setting a speed record.

 

Instead of calling caches you don't like dirt, perhaps it's time to find ways to discourage bad behavior. From what I am seeing, many people are enjoying finding power trail caches and run them at a sensible pace; not only obeying local laws but also following general geocaching practices for logging them. While I have felt that cache swapping is something that can be done with cache owner approval, it may be time to get owners of these power trails to stop allowing the practice and to declare any "records" claimed by those using it are invalid. The people who don't like power trails are claiming "I told you so" every time they find an example of bad geocacher behavior. It is really time for the people who like power trails to start acting in a way that shows they are not just magnets for irresponsible geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
The cache owner in your example was merely doing appropriate cache maintenance.

 

Having to tell people not to shuffle your containers around is appropriate cache maintenance? Really?

Of course. Lots of instructions are given to finders by cache owners:

 

Don't try to find this one after dark.

Watch out for killer piranhas.

Please make sure to close the container properly.

Sign the log or I'll delete your log.

You do realize that the only reason why cachers are doing that in the first place is because it somehow became accepted practice along power trails.

Not according to the example given. The example was of a power trail owner who did not agree with the practice.
If that had never happened, then the CO wouldn't now have to tell people not to move the containers around.
If cache owners never accepted find logs without the logbook being signed, they wouldn't need to tell people to sign the logbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of calling caches you don't like dirt, perhaps it's time to find ways to discourage bad behavior. From what I am seeing, many people are enjoying finding power trail caches and run them at a sensible pace; not only obeying local laws but also following general geocaching practices for logging them. While I have felt that cache swapping is something that can be done with cache owner approval, it may be time to get owners of these power trails to stop allowing the practice and to declare any "records" claimed by those using it are invalid. The people who don't like power trails are claiming "I told you so" every time they find an example of bad geocacher behavior. It is really time for the people who like power trails to start acting in a way that shows they are not just magnets for irresponsible geocaching.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of calling caches you don't like dirt, perhaps it's time to find ways to discourage bad behavior. From what I am seeing, many people are enjoying finding power trail caches and run them at a sensible pace; not only obeying local laws but also following general geocaching practices for logging them. While I have felt that cache swapping is something that can be done with cache owner approval, it may be time to get owners of these power trails to stop allowing the practice and to declare any "records" claimed by those using it are invalid. The people who don't like power trails are claiming "I told you so" every time they find an example of bad geocacher behavior. It is really time for the people who like power trails to start acting in a way that shows they are not just magnets for irresponsible geocaching.

agreed

I also agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course. Lots of instructions are given to finders by cache owners:

 

Don't try to find this one after dark.

Watch out for killer piranhas.

Please make sure to close the container properly.

Sign the log or I'll delete your log.

None of that has anything to do with cache maintenance. Listing maintenance maybe if you talk about making necessary changes, but putting a big fricken note stating the obvious isn't a necessary change. Or rather, it shouldn't be.

 

You do realize that the only reason why cachers are doing that in the first place is because it somehow became accepted practice along power trails.

Not according to the example given. The example was of a power trail owner who did not agree with the practice.

Huh? Yeah, so? That doesn't change the fact that many powertrailers now think it's ok to swap containers around on powertrails, even if the CO doesn't want that. That's exactly the point. Before the mega powertrails were born, hardly anyone would have ever considered swapping containers around.

 

If cache owners never accepted find logs without the logbook being signed, they wouldn't need to tell people to sign the logbook.

Actually, most of the time they don't need to do that, because not signing the logbook never became accepted practice. A few individuals may not sign the logbook, but that doesn't mean it's accepted practice. In any case, that analogy doesn't hold up anyway, because not signing the log has no impact on the CO or on any other cachers.

Share this post


Link to post
The cache owner in your example was merely doing appropriate cache maintenance.
Yes and no.

 

Yes, because cleaning up after your caches have been vandalized is appropriate cache maintenance.

 

No, because having geocachers vandalize your caches in the name of increasing their numbers run find rate is IMHO completely inappropriate.

 

I see it as no different than if Cache Owner A deletes a log if the logbook wasn't signed.
I see a big difference. Those who post bogus logs generally don't visit the cache sites and vandalize the caches. It isn't just about the online logs. It's about what is being done to the caches in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
On the other hand, I believe that Groundspeak making a rule that you must replace cache as found in order to log a find is both unenforceable and a bad idea. There are situations when moving a cache or replacing a cache is the responsible thing to do and helps both the cache owner and subsequent cache finders.
Are there any situations where it would be responsible to remove one container and replace it with a throw-down, and then remove the next container and replace it with the first? Other than the three cache monte, I can't think of any. And I certainly can't think of any other situations where geocachers would plan to do something like that.

 

Instead of calling caches you don't like dirt, perhaps it's time to find ways to discourage bad behavior. From what I am seeing, many people are enjoying finding power trail caches and run them at a sensible pace; not only obeying local laws but also following general geocaching practices for logging them. While I have felt that cache swapping is something that can be done with cache owner approval, it may be time to get owners of these power trails to stop allowing the practice and to declare any "records" claimed by those using it are invalid. The people who don't like power trails are claiming "I told you so" every time they find an example of bad geocacher behavior. It is really time for the people who like power trails to start acting in a way that shows they are not just magnets for irresponsible geocaching.
As I've said before, I really don't care whether GS bans the three cache monte, or gives the three cache monte its own sandbox so other caches are safe from vandalism. But IMHO, expecting cache owners to clean up the mess after their caches have been vandalized as part of someone's numbers run is the wrong "solution".

Share this post


Link to post

Surely it is time for powers that be to resolve the contradiction that an activity which they insist is non competitive continues to maintain an individual score for each participant, time to bin the find count perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post

Surely it is time for powers that be to resolve the contradiction that an activity which they insist is non competitive continues to maintain an individual score for each participant, time to bin the find count perhaps.

 

I agree. If it's not about the numbers, suppress those numbers. But there will be cachers who insist they need to see a finder's numbers so they can judge their comments, dnfs, etc. Categories of publicly displayed numbers may appease those who need to determine the validity of a cacher by their numbers:

 

:( under 10

:) 10-100

:D 100-1000

:lol: over 1000

Edited by Lone R

Share this post


Link to post
As I've said before, I really don't care whether GS bans the three cache monte, or gives the three cache monte its own sandbox so other caches are safe from vandalism. But IMHO, expecting cache owners to clean up the mess after their caches have been vandalized as part of someone's numbers run is the wrong "solution".
I see no other option. Most everyone, including TPTB, can state clearly that three cache monte is unexceptable, but if cachers still do it, the only people who can affect the situation are individual cache owners. I'm at a loss to come up with an answer for what even a cache owner can do about this beyond adding verbiage to the cache page, however.
Surely it is time for powers that be to resolve the contradiction that an activity which they insist is non competitive continues to maintain an individual score for each participant, time to bin the find count perhaps.
Perhaps not.

Share this post


Link to post

Surely it is time for powers that be to resolve the contradiction that an activity which they insist is non competitive continues to maintain an individual score for each participant, time to bin the find count perhaps.

 

I agree. If it's not about the numbers, suppress those numbers. But there will be cachers who insist they need to see a finder's numbers so they can judge their comments, dnfs, etc. Categories of publicly displayed numbers may appease those who need to determine the validity of a cacher by their numbers:

 

:( under 10

:) 10-100

:D 100-1000

:lol: over 1000

But what will you do about the people who use a GSAK macro or a cache statistics website to create their own profiles?

Share this post


Link to post

Like cemetery caches, cache trails have the capaity to attract unwanted attention from the outside world due to the selfish activities of a small number of cachers who can't see beyond their find count. Their activities are an absolute gift to politicians looking for a bandwagon to jump on. The acceptance of the power trails could turn out to be the biggest mistake made by TPTB in recent times.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×