Jump to content

ET series


Corp Of  Discovery
Followers 17

Recommended Posts

Proactive is always better than reactive.

Nearly every guideline we have was reactive. If we were to be proactive, not a single cache would be hidden with a notarized document testifying that the appropriate permission was granted and the property owner indemnifies Geocaching.com of any damages as a result of the cache being placed on their property. Essentially we wouldn't have much of a game. Instead we have guidelines that cachers are suppose to determine and obtain whatever permission is adequate, that caches can't deface public or private property, and that cache owners should think carefully about how their containers and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. Even when cacher hiders do their best to meet the guidelines there are cases when unforeseen action by cache hunters or an overly zealous member of the public causes concerns so the cache must be moved or archived. The reactive approach has worked very successfully in allowing Groundspeak and local geocaching groups to develop new guidelines when needed that address the particular concerns of property owners and local authorities. My guess in that local geocaching groups in Nevada will be working with authorities to determine the ultimate fate of the ET trail. It sounds like some local authorities in the area like the extra traffic the power trail brings, while others don't know what to make of it and are being reactive in deciding to remove the cache before understanding what is happening. It very well may be that a few irresponsible cachers will have ruined it for the rest by ignoring that there are other users of the highway. If there are truly reports of cachers stopping dangerously or driving off highway where they shouldn't, then archival may be the only way to satisfy the authorities that this behavior will not continue. Those who seem to want a rule to end power trails, seem to feel that these trails attract an irresponsible crowd. It should be pointed out that in the past, there have been problems with isolated caches in remote areas causing problems because some irresponsible cacher left matches or alcohol in the cache, or where archeological or natural assets near the cache site were disturbed and the land manager blamed the existence of the cache for this.

Link to comment

"Play the game the way you want to" is the mantra. Yet the numbers hounds have continually screwed up our sport. Whether it's the cachers who rip up flower beds in their haste to find the cache and move on to the next, or those who seek these power trails.

 

I'm sure people who have done this series have had fun. Would their fun have been lessened all that much had there been a cache every two miles? Would they have not have experienced the same fun sans the extra smileys? Perhaps they might have actually have had time in between caches to look up from their GPS units and actually appreciate the area. Then again, people would not have been booking plane tickets if only a few hundred smileys were involved. Numbers is the name of the game.

 

I'm sure ATVers have fun too. They also tear up the land in their pursuit of their fun. This makes them unwelcome in many areas. For years we've been trying to sell geocaching as a low impact sport, which it usually is. But here we've see "effusive" logs from "fun seekers" who gush over the possibility of seeing our damage visible from space.

 

Way to go guys. Keep it up. Let's place more of these things so you can crank up your numbers, and d@mn the torpedoes.

 

I am not trying to start anything but your statement is kind of one sided. What is wrong with cachers that enjoy long cache runs and try to get as many as they can? I enjoy doing both. I like long hard to get to caches but I also enjoy getting numbers too so does that make me a numbers hound? Everyone plays this game different and the way I play is no better than the way another cacher plays his or her game.

 

I will be going to Nevada in a little over two weeks with the plan of doing the E.T. Highway on my first day there then spending 4 days doing long hikes in the desert and red rock canyon. Then following up my last day in California doing the power trail, Rt66 series. So which am I? A number hound or a quailty cacher that week? To tell you the truth, I don't care which. I will be out doing what I enjoy.

Link to comment

This series of discussions about the ET Highway series has prompted me to comment to the forum for my first time. I keep reading about how "some cachers" are just ruining it for the rest of us. Well, I don't buy it. It is a phrase that people are just too ready to trot out in a situation like this. "Someone" is always trying to ruin something. I see some people who complain that some people are going into the desert, and that is what is causing the problem. Others complain it that some people are parking in the roadway and are ruining it. What the heck do you want? You either park on the highway or in the desert out there. There isn't much "in between". Maybe we should all hover out there like a UFO??!? And now I read the non-number people weighing in that it is the number cachers that are "ruining" everything.

Come on people. It is not parking in the road, parking on the shoulder, or just wanting to go and do the trail that is ruining everything. The fact is that nothing has been ruined. The cows "ruin" the desert more that all the cachers that have ever visited this series. And I have yet to see anyone do more than speculate that any cacher has caused an accident (I did see a cow sized dent in the front of a semi-truck the day I was leaving, though, and a pile of rotting hamburger about 30 yards away in the desert. I doubt any cacher was driving it).

My guess is that some semi-official government employee has made it his mission to "do something" out there before someone or something gets hurt. I am always amazed at how many people get a bug to "do something" when "doing something" is neither wanted or needed. Change happens, they don't like it, so some people try to use "safety" or some other feel-good word to apply to the situation when what they really want is for everything to go back like they remember it.

Please, quit trying to blame somebody! If you guys haven't been out there, quit making stuff up in your head. No one is out there ruining anything. The people who think someone is, are causing more problems (in these forums) than the caching that has been happening out there. It is beautiful country, but it is not pristine territory that was safe and untouched until the cachers arrived. It is open range with lots cattle, plus signs of many cattle trucks having cut across the desert for many, many years. Nothing any cacher has done, or even 500 cachers have done will leave any permanent scar on this land. If you don't believe me, go on out there and look. The locals will love to have you stop by.

 

Well said. Most of these people may of never been to the Nevada desert before. I have been out there for 6 years straight. I am no expert in the desert but as I see it, it is hard to hurt sand and rock. Don't start with the plants cause they will tear you up before you can ever put a dent in them. ;)

Link to comment

Proactive is always better than reactive.

Nearly every guideline we have was reactive. If we were to be proactive, not a single cache would be hidden with a notarized document testifying that the appropriate permission was granted and the property owner indemnifies Geocaching.com of any damages as a result of the cache being placed on their property. Essentially we wouldn't have much of a game. Instead we have guidelines that cachers are suppose to determine and obtain whatever permission is adequate, that caches can't deface public or private property, and that cache owners should think carefully about how their containers and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. Even when cacher hiders do their best to meet the guidelines there are cases when unforeseen action by cache hunters or an overly zealous member of the public causes concerns so the cache must be moved or archived. The reactive approach has worked very successfully in allowing Groundspeak and local geocaching groups to develop new guidelines when needed that address the particular concerns of property owners and local authorities. My guess in that local geocaching groups in Nevada will be working with authorities to determine the ultimate fate of the ET trail. It sounds like some local authorities in the area like the extra traffic the power trail brings, while others don't know what to make of it and are being reactive in deciding to remove the cache before understanding what is happening. It very well may be that a few irresponsible cachers will have ruined it for the rest by ignoring that there are other users of the highway. If there are truly reports of cachers stopping dangerously or driving off highway where they shouldn't, then archival may be the only way to satisfy the authorities that this behavior will not continue. Those who seem to want a rule to end power trails, seem to feel that these trails attract an irresponsible crowd. It should be pointed out that in the past, there have been problems with isolated caches in remote areas causing problems because some irresponsible cacher left matches or alcohol in the cache, or where archeological or natural assets near the cache site were disturbed and the land manager blamed the existence of the cache for this.

 

You like to think of yourself as the local historian, so that may be true, I don't know for sure. If it is, then that is very bad business sense, and I hope it is not entirely true.

Link to comment
Anyone who does a series is a "Numbers cacher" and must be shunned.

 

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that anyone who would replace a cache just so they can claim a find should be shunned, power trail or otherwise. If you want to argue that these mega trails are legitimate geocaches (and they are), then when a cache in the series goes missing, that cache should be disabled until fixed by the owner or archived when it is not.

 

And no matter what your argument is, if it's true that cachers are replacing containers removed by highway crews on the orders of their superiors, that's appalling on a whole new level. I can't believe someone would rationally think "Oh, the highway department removed those caches? Give me as many as you have in stock and I'll go replace them".

Link to comment

These trails are popular and the logs show that the teams who attempt them have a great time and come away with unique memories.

 

I strongly suspect that the enjoyment these people have comes not from opening and closing 1000+ film canisters, but from the adventure of being out with friends doing something they enjoy.

 

Would they have as much fun with caches every 2 miles? 5 Miles? 10 miles? I think they would.

 

I have taken three multi-state cache runs (4 states, 4 states and 5 states respectively) with friends, and we enjoyed ourselves on each trip. We found approximiately 50 caches on each run. We saw some great locations and ate some great food (mmm...BBQ!). We even hosted an event in Omaha where we met some really great people. The journey was the thing, not the increase in smiley counts. Our basic rule was "One Cache per state, and good food whenever we could find it".

 

So I find it funny that people are planning trips to do the ET trail, and are now upset that they may not be able to do it. OK, change of plans. Visit some of the great National Parks out that way (Bryce Canyon is 4.5 hours away from Vegas, and Zion is only 3 hours away), still enjoy your friends' company, and bring back just as many great memories and photographs.

 

You just won't be bringing back 1000 smileys.

Link to comment

For those who don't visit the cache pages.

This is what the side of the road looks like:

61c9f370-aeea-46ed-bd6f-b77d5c8d8546.jpg

 

Another shot of the side of the road:

 

d5ff9f70-1b1e-4e9a-9c4d-f17043c7450c.jpg

 

One of the views:

 

0ada7e83-404b-490c-ade6-b7c087866e67.jpg

 

The start:

 

1bfc5d3c-9f28-4e62-9f8c-67f85f4f59d2.jpg

 

Rush Hour Traffic:

 

5cd09dfe-983f-4992-8f55-864c020222ed.jpg

 

Wildlife:

 

4cf258e9-bb5d-4ac8-a170-ecc52926c204.jpg

 

 

The end:

 

1af605a3-a398-4ed4-80d1-9042790bc63a.jpg

 

Sunrise:

 

b83a194e-77f9-4050-b1eb-c3404cc5a04a.jpg

 

Open Range:

 

e708141a-35f5-4ef0-99f5-eead3477295d.jpg

 

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

These trails are popular and the logs show that the teams who attempt them have a great time and come away with unique memories.

 

I strongly suspect that the enjoyment these people have comes not from opening and closing 1000+ film canisters, but from the adventure of being out with friends doing something they enjoy.

 

Would they have as much fun with caches every 2 miles? 5 Miles? 10 miles? I think they would.

 

I have taken three multi-state cache runs (4 states, 4 states and 5 states respectively) with friends, and we enjoyed ourselves on each trip. We found approximiately 50 caches on each run. We saw some great locations and ate some great food (mmm...BBQ!). We even hosted an event in Omaha where we met some really great people. The journey was the thing, not the increase in smiley counts. Our basic rule was "One Cache per state, and good food whenever we could find it".

 

So I find it funny that people are planning trips to do the ET trail, and are now upset that they may not be able to do it. OK, change of plans. Visit some of the great National Parks out that way (Bryce Canyon is 4.5 hours away from Vegas, and Zion is only 3 hours away), still enjoy your friends' company, and bring back just as many great memories and photographs.

 

You just won't be bringing back 1000 smileys.

 

Are you saying you would not be upset if you planned a trip around doing something and then you was told that you must now choose something else. I hope you never buy tickets to see the Rolling Stones then get there and have to watch the Flock of Seagulls instead. I mean, it is still a band but not the band you planned on seeing. ;)

Link to comment
I'm sure people who have done this series have had fun. Would their fun have been lessened all that much had there been a cache every two miles? Would they have not have experienced the same fun sans the extra smileys? Perhaps they might have actually have had time in between caches to look up from their GPS units and actually appreciate the area. Then again, people would not have been booking plane tickets if only a few hundred smileys were involved. Numbers is the name of the game.

 

This was exactly what I was thinking.

 

A cache every couple of miles would still provide a fun experience out with your friends plus it would remove the "anything goes" mentality that seems to take over on power trails.

 

I guess numbers just don't mean that much too me.

Link to comment

For those who don't visit the cache pages.

This is what the side of the road looks like:

61c9f370-aeea-46ed-bd6f-b77d5c8d8546.jpg

 

Another shot of the side of the road:

 

d5ff9f70-1b1e-4e9a-9c4d-f17043c7450c.jpg

 

One of the views:

 

0ada7e83-404b-490c-ade6-b7c087866e67.jpg

 

The start:

 

1bfc5d3c-9f28-4e62-9f8c-67f85f4f59d2.jpg

 

Rush Hour Traffic:

 

5cd09dfe-983f-4992-8f55-864c020222ed.jpg

 

Wildlife:

 

4cf258e9-bb5d-4ac8-a170-ecc52926c204.jpg

 

 

The end:

 

1af605a3-a398-4ed4-80d1-9042790bc63a.jpg

 

Sunrise:

 

b83a194e-77f9-4050-b1eb-c3404cc5a04a.jpg

 

Open Range:

 

e708141a-35f5-4ef0-99f5-eead3477295d.jpg

 

I can't believe they spray painted their caching name on that rock. :laughing: I hope you know that I am joking. Great picture posts to show that there is plenty of room to pull off the road and that most of it is long open roads. I am sure it is a bit different in the hills but that is where common sense should step in. Like it is said, I you can't do it, just drive away. Don't ruin the fun for others.

Link to comment

"A shameful black eye on the face of the entire game"...Really?

That's how I read it.

The claim made by the store clerk, about the highway workers removing caches is either true, or false.

We really won't know which until the dust settles. Heck, we might not even know then.

One thing I did gather from the quoted log section was that the cacher believed it was true.

They stocked up on 75 - 100 film cans, and ran out fairly quick.

 

For arguments sake, let's pretend the claim was entirely false. A complete fabrication, invented by the clerk to sell film cans.

What the clerk just learned is that some cachers don't really care if caches are wanted at a particular spot.

They don't care that the county just spent tax dollars removing them.

The only thing that cacher cared about was replacing missing film cans so they could get smileys.

Not exactly a positive image.

 

Now, for arguments sake, let's pretend the claim was entirely true.

What the clerk just learned is that some cachers don't really care if caches are wanted at a particular spot.

They don't care that the county just spent tax dollars removing them.

The only thing that cacher cared about was replacing missing film cans so they could get smileys.

Not exactly a positive image.

 

If I stop at a convenience store near a park entrance, and the clerk tells me, "Seminole County went in and removed all the caches from the park because they were causing problems", one thing I can assure you of is that I would not replace any of them. To my way of thinking, that would be a red flag issue that needs to be resolved between the cache owners and Seminole County. That belief is much stronger than any need for increasing my smiley count. Replacing caches that you believe were removed by the order of some official entity is reprehensible behavior.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Are you saying you would not be upset if you planned a trip around doing something and then you was told that you must now choose something else. I hope you never buy tickets to see the Rolling Stones then get there and have to watch the Flock of Seagulls instead. I mean, it is still a band but not the band you planned on seeing. ;)

 

What I find funny is that whole trips are being planned not around a caching adventure, but around finding 1000 caches. Yet people claim it's all about the fun and adventure and the challenge. If the ET Trail goes away, I am sure those folks with plans already made can come up with a new plan that will bring them fun, adventure and a challenge.

 

So, if the goal is to have fun, then it shouldn't matter where these groups go...they will have fun wherever they wind up, and there's no issue. But I suspect people are making these plans more for the 1000 smileys.

 

And yes, I have had vacation plans get changed for things beyond my control. But guess what, I still enjoyed myself.

Link to comment

I'm not likely to be attempting this series, but interested in all the fuss I checked how busy this road is.

From the New York Times

(http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/travel/escapes/13extraterrestrial.html?ex=1334116800&en=166686097a86d459&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

 

According to the Nevada Department of Transportation, an average of about 200 cars drive some portion of the Extraterrestrial Highway every day, making it one of the states least traveled routes.

 

On my midday drive up the highway in February, I saw only six other vehicles.

 

Surely the "safety issues" highlighted are suffering from a massive loss of perspective? I'm used to a highway having 200 cars a MINUTE! The quote seems to fit with several reports from cachers.

Also, the caches seem to have had only about 600 visitors; quite a few for a cache less than a year old but that's not a lot when you consider almost any popular viewpoint or tourist site.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I find it very disturbing that someone would replace the caches removed by the DOT. What a great way to foster a spirit of cooperation with local authorities. <_<

 

That's not necessarily the case. We've got a cacher (1) reporting that their employee (2) heard from a road crew person (3) that Nye County (4) was going to remove the caches on this STATE highway. We're the fourth or fifth participant in this game of Telephone. We've actually seen no official communication from any government authority that the caches are banned.

 

I suggest we reserve judgement until all the facts are in.

 

I do agree with this totally. However, I might point out that there were probably about 30 power trail advocates using the cache page as a forum lamenting the "probable" loss of the power trail, who were all speculating using this information as well.

 

I see the reviewer or TPTB appear to have deleted all these notes now.

Link to comment

I'm not likely to be attempting this series, but interested in all the fuss I checked how busy this road is.

From the New York Times

(http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/travel/escapes/13extraterrestrial.html?ex=1334116800&en=166686097a86d459&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

 

According to the Nevada Department of Transportation, an average of about 200 cars drive some portion of the Extraterrestrial Highway every day, making it one of the state’s least traveled routes.

 

On my midday drive up the highway in February, I saw only six other vehicles.

 

Surely the "safety issues" highlighted are suffering from a massive loss of perspective? I'm used to a highway having 200 cars a MINUTE! The quote seems to fit with several reports from cachers.

Also, the caches seem to have had only about 600 visitors; quite a few for a cache less than a year old but that's not a lot when you consider almost any popular viewpoint or tourist site.

Also, consider that many (most?) of these finds were made by teams of geocachers. That further reduces the number of geocaching vehicles parked on teh side of this 'dangerous' highway.
Link to comment

The money that might come in from the relatively small number of cachers from out of state to do the trail is nothing compared to say, oh, Las Vegas. It also means nothing if someone gets killed and the state gets some bad PR. I can see why the state/county is concerned.

How much money do you think that gamblers in Las Vegas bring to this area? Something tells me that teh owner of a local diner probably appreciates our power cachers more than some random blowing his money in the city.

 

I understand the concerns of NDOT in Nye County, but I don't blame this on power trails. I blame it on the stupidity of a certain number of our members. These are the same people that would walk through a flower bed when the cache is clearly on the other side and it will only add five seconds to walk around.

 

I also happen to disagree with this statement. What is a power power trail? According to Geolex, "Power Trail – A path with a large number of easy traditional caches placed every 1/10th of a mile. Like a Cache Machine, it's another way for people to easily increase their Find count. As such, it is looked down upon by some." Most of the people that visit these are trying to do them as fast as they can and in doing them at a very fast pace can cause some to lose focus on their driving, parking, and common sense.

Just because a group of caches are placed to allow for quick and easy finds doesn't absolve finders from responsibility.
Link to comment

I'm sure people who have done this series have had fun. Would their fun have been lessened all that much had there been a cache every two miles? Would they have not have experienced the same fun sans the extra smileys?

The answer to that question is almost certainly "no". A good many of them would not have had the fun because they would never had travelled there in the first place. I know quite a few cachers that have made the trip out there from Minnesota. I am quite confident that they would not have spent the gas or airline/car rental money that they did if it had not been for the lure of 1000 smileys. Apprently the logic is to divide the cost of the trip by the number of caches. And I have to admit that I use a similar logic, but on a much smaller scale.
Link to comment

I'm not likely to be attempting this series, but interested in all the fuss I checked how busy this road is.

From the New York Times

(http://travel.nytime...serland&emc=rss)

 

According to the Nevada Department of Transportation, an average of about 200 cars drive some portion of the Extraterrestrial Highway every day, making it one of the state’s least traveled routes.

 

On my midday drive up the highway in February, I saw only six other vehicles.

 

Surely the "safety issues" highlighted are suffering from a massive loss of perspective? I'm used to a highway having 200 cars a MINUTE! The quote seems to fit with several reports from cachers.

Also, the caches seem to have had only about 600 visitors; quite a few for a cache less than a year old but that's not a lot when you consider almost any popular viewpoint or tourist site.

 

The first cache in the series is found twice a day, or about one or two cars of geocachers a day traveling one of the most desolate roads in the country. The ground is rock and sand and the area is used for grazing cattle.

 

becee44d-80d6-4b89-9fb7-72844b7cff64.jpg

 

Of course it's only about the numbers, right?

 

2e54f07a-32ec-4e56-931f-ae914a192c0f.jpg

 

Link to comment

Are you saying you would not be upset if you planned a trip around doing something and then you was told that you must now choose something else. I hope you never buy tickets to see the Rolling Stones then get there and have to watch the Flock of Seagulls instead. I mean, it is still a band but not the band you planned on seeing. ;)

 

What I find funny is that whole trips are being planned not around a caching adventure, but around finding 1000 caches. Yet people claim it's all about the fun and adventure and the challenge. If the ET Trail goes away, I am sure those folks with plans already made can come up with a new plan that will bring them fun, adventure and a challenge.

Those people had a geocaching adventure. Just because it wasn't your kind of fun, doesn't mean they didn't have a a good time.
So, if the goal is to have fun, then it shouldn't matter where these groups go...they will have fun wherever they wind up, and there's no issue.
Clearly, this is not the case, since the power trail is part of their fun and there are not power trails like this one available wherever a person might end up.

But I suspect people are making these plans more for the 1000 smileys.

I'm sure that some are. So what?

And yes, I have had vacation plans get changed for things beyond my control. But guess what, I still enjoyed myself.

I have no clue what your past vacations have to do with this thread, but good for you to be able to make alternate plans. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I'm not likely to be attempting this series, but interested in all the fuss I checked how busy this road is.

From the New York Times

(http://travel.nytime...serland&emc=rss)

 

According to the Nevada Department of Transportation, an average of about 200 cars drive some portion of the Extraterrestrial Highway every day, making it one of the state’s least traveled routes.

 

On my midday drive up the highway in February, I saw only six other vehicles.

 

Surely the "safety issues" highlighted are suffering from a massive loss of perspective? I'm used to a highway having 200 cars a MINUTE! The quote seems to fit with several reports from cachers.

Also, the caches seem to have had only about 600 visitors; quite a few for a cache less than a year old but that's not a lot when you consider almost any popular viewpoint or tourist site.

 

The first cache in the series is found twice a day, or about one or two cars of geocachers a day traveling one of the most desolate roads in the country. The ground is rock and sand and the area is used for grazing cattle.

 

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/becee44d-80d6-4b89-9fb7-72844b7cff64.jpg

 

Of course it's only about the numbers, right?

 

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/2e54f07a-32ec-4e56-931f-ae914a192c0f.jpg

 

Now explain how the other 999 are not about the numbers.

Link to comment

This should not be about the merits of repetitive caching or the ET trail. If people want to grab film cans instead of going to the Valley of Fire or standing at the Toroweap overlook that is their business.

 

We have been told to let the dust settle and not rush to judgment. That is good advice. Yet, while the dust is settling people apparently feel compelled to throw down new film canisters where they think they belong. That is what I find disturbing.

 

When park workers in my area removed caches, we did not feel entitled to throw down other containers to show we had a right to cache where we wanted. The caches were archived or disabled until things could be worked out. That would happen in almost any other kind of situation. So again, shouldn't the affected caches be disabled until the CO can resolve things and do owner maintenance?

 

It seems like a simple situation to me.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

Maybe this will help some better understand why so many enjoy doing the E.T. series. Here are excerpts from some of the logs for the first two months:

 

Our experience was awesome, truck camper, jeep, lots of gas and food on the run and lets not forget about a little sleep and I mean very little and the great friends we had along for the adventure...

 

People enjoyed the wildlife...

 

We saw herds of antelope, cows, many cows – watch out for the cows, gopher snakes, horny toads, tons of lighting fast lizards, heard the coyotes calling in their rabbit stew, mean and nasty badgers just feet from caches, and wild mustangs.

 

Wonderful memories...

 

This is one geocaching adventure that I will never forget.

Beautiful landscape...

 

Although we didn't actually see any aliens, we did see some awesome wildlife aswell as some crazy landscape out here.

 

It isn't easy...

 

It was a test of endurance, mostly mentally, and to see how much exhaustion I could endure. Did it all by myself and don't regret a minute of it.... Highlights were the little lizards, 2 of which I rescued from becoming road kill, and being buzzed by a fighter jet 150ft above the car

 

Dreamland...

 

We all pretty much ditched our other responsibilities to come have a blast up here in Nevada, and because of this, this became a classified caching run to Area 51. We took a direct flight to the camouflaged asphalt at Cheshire Airstrip and got to work immediately. It really was Dreamland here.

"Memory books" get a few mentions...

 

Love it! Love it! Love it!! I have to chalk this up as another unbelievably fun caching adventure for my memory book!
Link to comment

Had to break this into two posts...

 

Overall-amazing cache trip with a great group of cachers. Thanks for all the work that you put into this series. It will go into my memory books for sure.

 

New experiences...

 

We had a blast! We stayed at the Little A'LE'INN and that was an experience in itself. We loved hearing the stories of the beleivers and had a good time just hanging out there. We hope to make it back in the spring to finish the run. Thank you so much...you rock!

 

Long distance family trips...

 

My dad (theotherguy4) and I flew the whole way from Pennsylvania to Nevada to do this series. It was well worth it because we had a blast.

 

Easy?...

 

What a great run! Thanks to all who placed this gold mine, it is an awesome challenge. I am pretty sore from getting in and out of the car so much, kneeling at a cache, bending down, even my finger got sore (cut up) from pulling so many logs out! But it was worth it. Saw lots of stuff out there- rabbits, rocks, rusty stuff, even over a thousand Raven stickers, but no aliens. Oh well. It was also pretty cool to see cachers out there from somewhere farther away than us- a family from Pennsylvania made the journey for this run. Cool. Thanks for the caches and fun.

 

Blood, sweat, tears..fun. Would do it again:

 

The adventure was absolutely fun, but grabbing the caches was more a combination of concentration, endurance and a little blood, sweat and tears!! But we all love a challenge and, even though numbers have never really been my thing, I must say that given the right circumstances and a team like D FASTR 6, I'd probably do something like this again.

 

Not his thing, but still had a blast...

 

I'm not a huge fan of repetitive caching for the numbers, but I had a blast caching the ET highway with my friends.

 

The word 'challenge' is used a lot in these logs...

 

This is totally a cool challenge!!! What an amazing under taking to set this up, thank you. After the 20th time of getting startled by the "guard" lizard assigned to each cache we (the lizards and I) came to the understanding I was just there to sign the log and move on...All and all we had a great time, and yes we are crazy. We came across a lot of muggles, or should we call them "moo-ggles" roaming the plains, plus a couple of coyotes and yes a whole lot of lizards.

 

Yes, plenty of people come and enjoy the scenery. Oh, and it isn't all film canisters...

 

Seeing the sun rise in the desert was something special. We continued caching and made it to the infamous diner, but it was too early to stop for lunch. The desert road stretched out before and behind us; it was truly impressive just how far--and clearly--you could see... The most difficult hide was rock-based, our favorite were the reflectors, and the most fun were the PVC ones.
Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

Had to break this into two posts...

 

Overall-amazing cache trip with a great group of cachers. Thanks for all the work that you put into this series. It will go into my memory books for sure.

 

New experiences...

 

We had a blast! We stayed at the Little A'LE'INN and that was an experience in itself. We loved hearing the stories of the beleivers and had a good time just hanging out there. We hope to make it back in the spring to finish the run. Thank you so much...you rock!

 

Long distance family trips...

 

My dad (theotherguy4) and I flew the whole way from Pennsylvania to Nevada to do this series. It was well worth it because we had a blast.

 

Easy?...

 

What a great run! Thanks to all who placed this gold mine, it is an awesome challenge. I am pretty sore from getting in and out of the car so much, kneeling at a cache, bending down, even my finger got sore (cut up) from pulling so many logs out! But it was worth it. Saw lots of stuff out there- rabbits, rocks, rusty stuff, even over a thousand Raven stickers, but no aliens. Oh well. It was also pretty cool to see cachers out there from somewhere farther away than us- a family from Pennsylvania made the journey for this run. Cool. Thanks for the caches and fun.

 

Blood, sweat, tears..fun. Would do it again:

 

The adventure was absolutely fun, but grabbing the caches was more a combination of concentration, endurance and a little blood, sweat and tears!! But we all love a challenge and, even though numbers have never really been my thing, I must say that given the right circumstances and a team like D FASTR 6, I'd probably do something like this again.

 

Not his thing, but still had a blast...

 

I'm not a huge fan of repetitive caching for the numbers, but I had a blast caching the ET highway with my friends.

 

The word 'challenge' is used a lot in these logs...

 

This is totally a cool challenge!!! What an amazing under taking to set this up, thank you. After the 20th time of getting startled by the "guard" lizard assigned to each cache we (the lizards and I) came to the understanding I was just there to sign the log and move on...All and all we had a great time, and yes we are crazy. We came across a lot of muggles, or should we call them "moo-ggles" roaming the plains, plus a couple of coyotes and yes a whole lot of lizards.

 

Yes, plenty of people come and enjoy the scenery. Oh, and it isn't all film canisters...

 

Seeing the sun rise in the desert was something special. We continued caching and made it to the infamous diner, but it was too early to stop for lunch. The desert road stretched out before and behind us; it was truly impressive just how far--and clearly--you could see... The most difficult hide was rock-based, our favorite were the reflectors, and the most fun were the PVC ones.

 

Not sure what that has to do with anything, lots of things are fun to a group of people that aren't necessarily good. This is about safety, goodwill and regulations/restrictions that may result from a series like this. I have always said that if an area can support a power trail, then fine. Not my thing, but go for it. This was just one of the areas that I though MAY possibly be able to support it, but there is some evidence that this may not be the case. We'll see. I still think Groundspeak should be forward thinking and try to head off this kind of issue, but they are either unwilling to for some other reason, don't think it's an issue or are going to be reactive.

Link to comment

Not sure what that has to do with anything, lots of things are fun to a group of people that aren't necessarily good. This is about safety, goodwill and regulations/restrictions that may result from a series like this. I have always said that if an area can support a power trail, then fine. Not my thing, but go for it. This was just one of the areas that I though MAY possibly be able to support it, but there is some evidence that this may not be the case. We'll see. I still think Groundspeak should be forward thinking and try to head off this kind of issue, but they are either unwilling to for some other reason, don't think it's an issue or are going to be reactive.

 

The problem is so much that's being repeated is nothing but rumors and third-hand stories. The CO's are monitoring what's going and this is what they posted a couple of days ago...

 

First of all, thanks to all for the concerned posts, it is a true testament of the popularity of this trail.

We have been in contact with our local reviewer and Groundspeak on the concerns with NDOT. HOWEVER, we have not had any contact with NDOT.

We are currently planning on getting a resolution that makes all parties happy. Until we have spoken to all parties, we are not really going to comment on what the plans are with the trail…no one knows.

From what we have received from Groundspeak, they would like us to put some extra warnings on the cache pages, it seems what we saw of the NDOT email…they are not looking to take the whole trail down, but would like some changes…whether that be moving some or all caches, or some added warnings on the caches pages. We will not know until we have talked to them.

Thank you all for your patience, I know a lot of you have money invested in trips to come out to visit. We hope to try and get in contact with the necessary people this week and get some answers and make whatever changes we need to make to keep this trail alive. We will post more when we know more, but we are not going to be like the media and speculate on stuff when we don’t have all the facts. Until then, we would just like to add this…

 

Sounds like the CO's are being responsible and trying to do the right thing. Let's give them some time to work things out.

Link to comment

Sounds like the CO's are being responsible and trying to do the right thing. Let's give them some time to work things out.

 

That is all well and good. And I wish them luck. But if over a hundred caches are taken by officials (or even by misguided highway crews) then the usual response is to disable the placements until things can be worked out with local officials. Then, the owners are the generally the ones who do any needed maintenance to replace the missing containers since they can determine how they want the caches to be placed. That would be the right thing to do.

 

I have not checked this morning, but when I last looked, this has not happened. People have posted logs about replacing caches on their own until they ran out of film cans. As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping the affected caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

Giving the CO time to work things out does not mean time to throw down a hundred or so containers on your own or keeping caches active that have been removed. It means letting the situation be until the COs have at least talked with the appropriate officials and resolved matters with all concerned.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

They aren't condoning it. They have been in contact with Groundspeak and they are contacting the local authorities. They've said they are willing to move or disable caches that are a problem. This was all done within a couple of days of the posting notifying there was an issue.

Link to comment

As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

They aren't condoning it. They have been in contact with Groundspeak and they are contacting the local authorities. They've said they are willing to move or disable caches that are a problem. This was all done within a couple of days of the posting notifying there was an issue.

 

Of course they are condoning it by failing to disable caches that have been removed until they can resolve the ones that are a problem and letting people log finds indicating that they have thrown down a hundred caches or so.

Link to comment

As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

They aren't condoning it. They have been in contact with Groundspeak and they are contacting the local authorities. They've said they are willing to move or disable caches that are a problem. This was all done within a couple of days of the posting notifying there was an issue.

 

The power trail mentality in general condons it. That IS what is done on a power trail. CO's don't generally maintain them. They should have disabled them already. Also, someone already posted earlier, that if the warning on the cache page was on a potential new cache listing, there is a good chance it woulnd't have gotten published.

Link to comment

Maybe this will help some better understand why so many enjoy doing the E.T. series. Here are excerpts from some of the logs for the first two months:

 

Our experience was awesome, truck camper, jeep, lots of gas and food on the run and lets not forget about a little sleep and I mean very little and the great friends we had along for the adventure...

 

People enjoyed the wildlife...

 

We saw herds of antelope, cows, many cows – watch out for the cows, gopher snakes, horny toads, tons of lighting fast lizards, heard the coyotes calling in their rabbit stew, mean and nasty badgers just feet from caches, and wild mustangs.

 

Wonderful memories...

 

This is one geocaching adventure that I will never forget.

Beautiful landscape...

 

Although we didn't actually see any aliens, we did see some awesome wildlife aswell as some crazy landscape out here.

 

It isn't easy...

 

It was a test of endurance, mostly mentally, and to see how much exhaustion I could endure. Did it all by myself and don't regret a minute of it.... Highlights were the little lizards, 2 of which I rescued from becoming road kill, and being buzzed by a fighter jet 150ft above the car

 

Dreamland...

 

We all pretty much ditched our other responsibilities to come have a blast up here in Nevada, and because of this, this became a classified caching run to Area 51. We took a direct flight to the camouflaged asphalt at Cheshire Airstrip and got to work immediately. It really was Dreamland here.

"Memory books" get a few mentions...

 

Love it! Love it! Love it!! I have to chalk this up as another unbelievably fun caching adventure for my memory book!

 

There is not one single bolded phrase there that could not apply equally (and probably greater) to a more traditional style hike through the desert cache.

Link to comment

There is not one single bolded phrase there that could not apply equally (and probably greater) to a more traditional style hike through the desert cache.

 

I believe you're missing the point. The reality of those doing the E.T. series is quite different from the armchair critics perception. The hundreds of logs and photographs paint a very different picture from what some believe about doing the E.T. series.

Link to comment

As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

They aren't condoning it. They have been in contact with Groundspeak and they are contacting the local authorities. They've said they are willing to move or disable caches that are a problem. This was all done within a couple of days of the posting notifying there was an issue.

 

Of course they are condoning it by failing to disable caches that have been removed until they can resolve the ones that are a problem and letting people log finds indicating that they have thrown down a hundred caches or so.

Disabling a cache prevents logging a cache? Wow, things you learn by reading the forums.

Link to comment

As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

They aren't condoning it. They have been in contact with Groundspeak and they are contacting the local authorities. They've said they are willing to move or disable caches that are a problem. This was all done within a couple of days of the posting notifying there was an issue.

 

Of course they are condoning it by failing to disable caches that have been removed until they can resolve the ones that are a problem and letting people log finds indicating that they have thrown down a hundred caches or so.

Disabling a cache prevents logging a cache? Wow, things you learn by reading the forums.

If someone logs a cache after you disabled it, you are in your rights to delete the find. You should also be able to delete find it logs of people that throw down caches. Keep reading the forums for more gems of wisdom.

Link to comment
If someone logs a cache after you disabled it, you are in your rights to delete the find.

 

Why? If I found the cache and signed the log, I get my smiley. Disabled or not makes no difference. It's even valid for archived caches.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
If someone logs a cache after you disabled it, you are in your rights to delete the find.

 

Why? If I found the cache and signed the log, I get my smiley. Disabled or not makes no difference. It's even valid for archived caches.

 

Because it is disabled for a reason. If I disable a cache until I can get a situation resolved and you go to the area, possibly aggravating the situation, I should be able to delete your find as a deterent to do it in the future.

Link to comment
If someone logs a cache after you disabled it, you are in your rights to delete the find.

 

Why? If I found the cache and signed the log, I get my smiley. Disabled or not makes no difference. It's even valid for archived caches.

 

But if the cache has been disabled because it has been removed by either local officals or misguided highway crews, what is there to find? The only way to "find" something is to throw down another container, or in this case, a hundred containers or so. If someone did that to caches that I had disabled because the containers are not there, and did not obtain my express permission to replace the caches, I would remove their logs immediately because there was nothing for them to find.

 

So, yes, the COs are condoning throw downs after caches were removed by not disabling the affected caches until the matter can be resolved with the local officials and proper maintenance can be done by them.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
But if the cache has been disabled because it has been removed, what is there to find? The only way to "find" something is to throw down another container, or in this case, a hundred containers or so. If someone did that to caches that I had disabled because they are not there, and did not obtain my express permission to replace the cache, I would remove their log immediately because there is nothing for them to find. So, yes, the COs are condoning throw downs by not disabling the caches that were removed until the matter can be resolved with the local officials and proper maintenance can be done by them.

 

Well yeah, They've been condoning throwdowns ever since the series was published. Hardly any "serious"(?) powercaching team out there went without a supply of replacement containers. That's nothing new and pretty much the whole point of such a powertrail, heck with the old TOTG they even let some people log all the caches after they had been archived. If they hadn't been ok with all that, they never would've published the trail in the first place (because they can't properly maintain them anyway).

Link to comment

"Play the game the way you want to" is the mantra. Yet the numbers hounds have continually screwed up our sport. Whether it's the cachers who rip up flower beds in their haste to find the cache and move on to the next, or those who seek these power trails.

 

I'm sure people who have done this series have had fun. Would their fun have been lessened all that much had there been a cache every two miles? Would they have not have experienced the same fun sans the extra smileys? Perhaps they might have actually have had time in between caches to look up from their GPS units and actually appreciate the area. Then again, people would not have been booking plane tickets if only a few hundred smileys were involved. Numbers is the name of the game.

 

I'm sure ATVers have fun too. They also tear up the land in their pursuit of their fun. This makes them unwelcome in many areas. For years we've been trying to sell geocaching as a low impact sport, which it usually is. But here we've see "effusive" logs from "fun seekers" who gush over the possibility of seeing our damage visible from space.

 

Way to go guys. Keep it up. Let's place more of these things so you can crank up your numbers, and d@mn the torpedoes.

+1

Link to comment
If someone logs a cache after you disabled it, you are in your rights to delete the find.

 

Why? If I found the cache and signed the log, I get my smiley. Disabled or not makes no difference. It's even valid for archived caches.

 

Because it is disabled for a reason. If I disable a cache until I can get a situation resolved and you go to the area, possibly aggravating the situation, I should be able to delete your find as a deterent to do it in the future.

So if you disable a cache because it is under 10 feet of snow, but I snow shoe up to it, dig it out and log it your going to delete my find? Interesting.

 

You also seem to have a major problem with sarcasm.

Link to comment

The power trail mentality in general condons it. That IS what is done on a power trail.

I don't have a problem with power trails, and I think I'd enjoy the challenge. But I do wonder, sometimes, about the limits people will go to on these trails. If you're going to log a find for a throwdown cache, then is it that much of a stretch to throwdown and immediately remove a cache along the section where the road crew has removed caches? If it really is just about the numbers, that would allow cachers to complete the entire trail without undoing the road crew work.

 

(And, no, I'm not seriously suggesting people should do this.)

Link to comment
If someone logs a cache after you disabled it, you are in your rights to delete the find.

 

Why? If I found the cache and signed the log, I get my smiley. Disabled or not makes no difference. It's even valid for archived caches.

 

Because it is disabled for a reason. If I disable a cache until I can get a situation resolved and you go to the area, possibly aggravating the situation, I should be able to delete your find as a deterent to do it in the future.

So if you disable a cache because it is under 10 feet of snow, but I snow shoe up to it, dig it out and log it your going to delete my find? Interesting.

 

You also seem to have a major problem with sarcasm.

It is also interesting that you think that I said I would delete ANY find on a disabled cache.

Link to comment

Once again we all forget that this is a cache listing site. Their caches was oked and listed so what is the big deal here? Oh that's right, we are fighting cause some people enjoy doing powertrails and the others don't. Or is it because people replace the caches when they come up missing. If it was me, I would thank someone for helping me replace a 1.5/1.5 cache that blew away, before the roadcrew picked them up.

 

Sometimes I think people argue here just to argue.

 

Now back to you slowly going off topic, topic.

 

See you at the end of the month E.T. Highway cause I love powertrails. ;)

Link to comment

I truly hope the series doesn't get suddenly yanked as it would negatively affect many cachers.

But at the same time would benefit geocaching as a whole.

 

I don't agree. If we start killing all the elements of geocaching that bother one purist or another, there won't be much left. There are those who feel the 4x4 caching destroys the wilderness, that caches can't be 'dangerous', that micro's wreck the game, that camo'd containers invite bomb squads, that caches off a trail should not be allowed, that caches shouldn't be within .5 mile of each other, that ammo boxes are too military, that film canisters are too lame, and nanos are the scourge of the Earth.

 

I'm not going to play God and say other styles of caching are heretical. I'll let them have their fun and, hopefully, they let me have my fun.

Link to comment

As long as the COs condone this kind of behavior by keeping caches active, then are they being totally responsible?

 

They aren't condoning it. They have been in contact with Groundspeak and they are contacting the local authorities. They've said they are willing to move or disable caches that are a problem. This was all done within a couple of days of the posting notifying there was an issue.

 

The power trail mentality in general condons it. That IS what is done on a power trail. CO's don't generally maintain them. They should have disabled them already. Also, someone already posted earlier, that if the warning on the cache page was on a potential new cache listing, there is a good chance it woulnd't have gotten published.

 

I was just doing some statistics collecting and every cache on the ET trail that I looked at now has the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set.

 

When looking at some of the logs in the past it appeared to me that a very large number of the find logs were from geocachers which had very high find counts. I did a cut-n-paste of the logs on a couple of ET caches and also for a cache which has a large number of finds and is considered a "destination" cache (Mingo). I wrote a little program which parsed out the number of finds of the person logging the cache and averaged the most recent 100 logs.

 

For Mingo, the average number of finds per geocacher for the most recent 100 logs came out to 1587.

 

For E.T. 001, the average number of finds per geocacher for the most recent 100 logs came out to 4507.

 

Then I ran the same program on the *first* 100 logs for E.T. 421 (just picking one at random). The average number of finds per geocacher for the first 100 finders was 9432. To put that number into perspective, in the state of New York, there are only 4 geocachers with more than 9400 finds.

 

I'm sure that I could sample a lot more caches but what these numbers suggest to me is that despite all the handwaving about "it's about the camraderie" and "we did it for the challenge", those that are logging caches on the E.T. trail are predisposed to numbers caching, by a fairly significant margin. I found the difference between the first 100 logs and 100 most recent logs interesting as well. It suggested to me that those *most* predisposed to caching for the numbers hit the trail early on and now those with a lower average find count are hitting it.

Link to comment

If in fact some bureaucrat in the NDOT has determined that the caches should not be place here, the proper thing would be to inform geoaching.com and have the caches be archived. Of course, he can also have his crews remove the containers from the highway, but without asking for the caches to be moved or archived, these caches will remain listed on geocaching.com. The cache owner hasn't been asked to disable the listing, and cachers haven't been told not look for the caches. The cache owner is certainly allowed to graciously accept the help of other cachers to maintain the caches on the trail, including the replacement of caches that go missing.

 

One could argue that cache owner knows that the caches are being removed by a bona fide governmental agency, and should assume therefore that there is an issue with the caches being place where they are. Similarly, other cachers might know this as well (because they see the notes written on the cache page or a local store clerk tells them). Perhaps that should be enough for them to think twice about replacing missing caches, maybe even to skip searching on that part of the trail.

 

It seems however that the cache owner does not yet know that NDOT has asked for the caches to be removed, or at least has not been told by NDOT the reasons for this or what recourse they have to correct the problems that may have been caused by the caches. Other governmental agencies have weighed in that they had not been informed by NDOT as to the status of the caches.

 

It seems to me that those people who don't like the idea of power trails have hypothosized so long that these trails will cause nothing but trouble for geoachers that any little issue is blown way out of proportion and becomes both an "I told you so" opportunity as well as another chance to cast the owners and finders of these series as irresponsible. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to find out the reasons some NDOT bureaucrat wants the caches removed and, then if there is a real problem to remove those caches. If necessary guidelines can be adopted to prevent this particular situation in the future - for example, requiring explicit permission from the agency that maintains the roads where a cache is placed, limiting power trail series to roads that are not state highways, or asking hiders to make sure roadside caches are placed where cachers can safely pull over and stop.

Link to comment

Then I ran the same program on the *first* 100 logs for E.T. 421 (just picking one at random). The average number of finds per geocacher for the first 100 finders was 9432. To put that number into perspective, in the state of New York, there are only 4 geocachers with more than 9400 finds.

 

I'm sure that I could sample a lot more caches but what these numbers suggest to me is that despite all the handwaving about "it's about the camraderie" and "we did it for the challenge", those that are logging caches on the E.T. trail are predisposed to numbers caching, by a fairly significant margin. I found the difference between the first 100 logs and 100 most recent logs interesting as well. It suggested to me that those *most* predisposed to caching for the numbers hit the trail early on and now those with a lower average find count are hitting it.

 

Not too surprising, really, as cachers will tend to gravitate to the types of caches they enjoy the most.

 

It is surprising there are so few 9400+ cachers in New York. I would never have guessed only four of the 1800 cachers at that level live in New York. We've got 10 in our state with 1/3rd or 1/4th population the population of New York.

 

EDITING TO ADD:

I'm one of those who isn't bother by those who find enjoyment in grabbing lots of caches. Just as I'm not bothered by those who focus on high-terrain and/or high difficulty caches. Different strokes for different folks. In our state, the prolific finders TEND to also be the prolific hiders...which I appreciate.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

If in fact some bureaucrat in the NDOT has determined that the caches should not be place here, the proper thing would be to inform geoaching.com and have the caches be archived. Of course, he can also have his crews remove the containers from the highway, but without asking for the caches to be moved or archived, these caches will remain listed on geocaching.com. The cache owner hasn't been asked to disable the listing, and cachers haven't been told not look for the caches. The cache owner is certainly allowed to graciously accept the help of other cachers to maintain the caches on the trail, including the replacement of caches that go missing.

 

One could argue that cache owner knows that the caches are being removed by a bona fide governmental agency, and should assume therefore that there is an issue with the caches being place where they are. Similarly, other cachers might know this as well (because they see the notes written on the cache page or a local store clerk tells them). Perhaps that should be enough for them to think twice about replacing missing caches, maybe even to skip searching on that part of the trail.

 

It seems however that the cache owner does not yet know that NDOT has asked for the caches to be removed, or at least has not been told by NDOT the reasons for this or what recourse they have to correct the problems that may have been caused by the caches. Other governmental agencies have weighed in that they had not been informed by NDOT as to the status of the caches.

 

It seems to me that those people who don't like the idea of power trails have hypothosized so long that these trails will cause nothing but trouble for geoachers that any little issue is blown way out of proportion and becomes both an "I told you so" opportunity as well as another chance to cast the owners and finders of these series as irresponsible. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to find out the reasons some NDOT bureaucrat wants the caches removed and, then if there is a real problem to remove those caches. If necessary guidelines can be adopted to prevent this particular situation in the future - for example, requiring explicit permission from the agency that maintains the roads where a cache is placed, limiting power trail series to roads that are not state highways, or asking hiders to make sure roadside caches are placed where cachers can safely pull over and stop.

 

FWIW, I'm glad the CO is contacting NDOT to see what the story really is and is willing to work with whatever he's told by them (and other agencies).

Link to comment
Of course it's only about the numbers, right?

Correct. It is only about the numbers. Whether caching just for numbers is good, bad or otherwise is a debate best saved for another thread.

Back when there were less than 100 caches along the length of the ET Hgwy, it was rare to see hordes of people buying plane tickets and flying across the globe just to find them. This seems a lot more common now. What has changed? Certainly not the view. The same cows, tumbleweeds, beautiful landscapes, gorgeous sunsets and cheesy diners that are there now were there prior to this series being created, yet folks didn't have the interest level we see today, spending gobs of $$$ and planning vacations around them. Nor did we see the kind of rabid defense for what used to be universally considered really bad behavior, to include claiming finds without actually being at ground zero, (leapfrog caching), and throw down caching. Heck, the defenders are even supporting folks who seemingly believed that a government entity was removing caches from an area under their control, and went out and replaced at least 75 of them. I'd be willing to wager that, if the folks replacing those allegedly pulled caches had run out of replacements before they ran out of pulled caches, they still claimed finds on the missing ones. Surely, only the most naive person would believe this series is not about the numbers.

 

...so what is the big deal here?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you haven't read this thread. If you had, you would know what the big deal is.

 

See you at the end of the month E.T. Highway cause I love powertrails. ;)

Be sure and bring a bunch of film cans. <_<

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 17
×
×
  • Create New...