Jump to content

ET series


Corp Of  Discovery
Followers 17

Recommended Posts

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.

You misunderstand. This isn't about numbers caching or powertrails. It's about certain cachers giving geocaching a bad name in the eyes of NDOT. Even though cachers are putting money into the economy out there, they are practicing bad behavior of "numbers at all costs" and therefore hurting the image of geocaching. When geocaching is banned in one area, land managers near there will find out about it. Rather than learn what geocaching is, they might move to ban it because they don't want the same thing to happen and they have that fear of the unknown. That snowball effect may or may not happen, but don't add fuel to the fire by replacing caches removed by the road crews until the cache owner or Groundspeak address the issue with the appropriate entity.

Link to comment

You misunderstand. This isn't about numbers caching or powertrails. It's about certain cachers giving geocaching a bad name in the eyes of NDOT. Even though cachers are putting money into the economy out there, they are practicing bad behavior of "numbers at all costs" and therefore hurting the image of geocaching. When geocaching is banned in one area, land managers near there will find out about it. Rather than learn what geocaching is, they might move to ban it because they don't want the same thing to happen and they have that fear of the unknown. That snowball effect may or may not happen, but don't add fuel to the fire by replacing caches removed by the road crews until the cache owner or Groundspeak address the issue with the appropriate entity.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood.

 

Right now, NDOT has not issued any proclamation. All we've got right now is that SOME locations may be problematic and may need to be moved or disabled. The CO is contacting NDOT and trying to work things out. At this point, there is no official ban by NDOT.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment
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.
Two thoughts:

  1. Is it not self evident that someone who goes after a series of 1000 caches likes to find lots of caches?
  2. Why does it matter if people who find these caches like to find lots of caches?

Link to comment

Figured that since quoting 'found it' logs seems to be rather popular I'd chime in with one that show the extent people will go to to do the series:

 

Cacher X found [Traditional Cache] E.T. 001

 

This was one amazing series! Thank you so much for putting all the effort into placing these caches - we found the coordinates for each of them to be totally spot on which alone is the testament to how much effort Clay must have put in placing these caches.

 

Our team was 6 state X cachers (redacted). We started at 12:26AM and finished 18 hours later at ET945 when our will, muscles, and supply or replacement caches was running out. We replaced 300 or so missing caches thanks to a whole bucket full of containers left at the Lil AleInn (cool place, excellent food.) Not sure we replaced any until the Nye county line, then a few, then some other cachers ahead of us replaced a 100 plus, then our stock kicked in. About 2/3 of the way before the turn the caches were again in their original locations until Highway 6.

 

Our strategy was one person jumping (me mostly), one driver, one navigator, two people opening+stamping+resealing logs, and one person grabbing the unmarked cache from the jumper and handing them a stamped one for the next cache (and making sure the jumper stayed hydrated!) The way we did it was the jumper already had a stamped cache in hand when they did the find, they grabbed the unsigned cache, replaced it with the signed one they started with, and recovered/whatever the cache. Then back in the car we did a switch of the unsigned for a previously signed cache. Another key was having the jumper say 'SET!' when they were ready to go - made tearing off for the next cache safer.

 

We could have easily finished the series but we did the alien head too. And unlike many before us we followed the rules and walked the circuit. The cachers after us were setting up to walk it as we finished but we didn't meet up at that time as they started north and we finished south.

 

We did meet up with the cachers we saw at ET 1021 on the next day. They had done the series in three days and noticed starting on day 2 that they found caches with their stamp already on it - including cache ET 1021. They though aliens really were there! Of course that was us...we started with a 100+ stockpile of prestamped caches and some of their ones from the first hundred were not picked to be the one the jumper replaced until after we had passed them on our 1-day run.

 

Again, we want to really thank you for setting this trail up - it was certainly one of the most challenging 'extreme' things I've ever done but I'm proud to be able to say I've had a 1000+ find caching day!

 

That isn't second hand, rumor or supposition- that's exactly what the log says, other than identifiers being removed.

Link to comment

I'm curious. Did all the original caches on the trail have clear and unambiguous stash notes explaining what they were and how to contact someone if there was a problem? If they did, did people who brought replacements with presigned logs include such a stash note? Would the anyone know how to contact the cache owner or Groundspeak if they wanted to? Plenty of cachers can't spell geocaching. Maybe the authorities think the best way to stop this is to remove the containers. Replacing them seems to me to be a mistake until someone (cache owner or Groundspeak) actually contacts the people who removed the caches and the land managers involved.

Edited by Team Taran
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.

You misunderstand. This isn't about numbers caching or powertrails. It's about certain cachers giving geocaching a bad name in the eyes of NDOT. Even though cachers are putting money into the economy out there, they are practicing bad behavior of "numbers at all costs" and therefore hurting the image of geocaching. When geocaching is banned in one area, land managers near there will find out about it. Rather than learn what geocaching is, they might move to ban it because they don't want the same thing to happen and they have that fear of the unknown. That snowball effect may or may not happen, but don't add fuel to the fire by replacing caches removed by the road crews until the cache owner or Groundspeak address the issue with the appropriate entity.

Other than speculation in this thread I have not seen or read anything to indicate that NDOT as an entity is having a problem with this trail. The only issues I have read about with LEO's is that one group was cautioned to have all four wheels to the right of the fog line when stopped. When the series first started there were comments about Curtis, a low level dump truck driver, being upset that people were driving on *his* highway. Curtis has in the past taken swipes at the trail, and it could well be this is his latest swipe at the trail. The CO is working with authorities to sort out the issues. I look forward to a peaceful settlement. As for the "accidents" and near misses, this is open range land. I know from experience that cows really don't look both ways before they cross the road. They also seem to like laying on this nice warm black ground at night.

Link to comment

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.

 

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.

 

There is a difference between replacing a missing cache here or there and replacing 75-100 of them (until the film cans run out) after a road crew purposefully removed them -- and before the CO was able to contact local officials and work out a plan that meets their concerns. One is graciously accepting help. The other is irresponsible.

Link to comment

Figured that since quoting 'found it' logs seems to be rather popular I'd chime in with one that show the extent people will go to to do the series:

 

Cacher X found [Traditional Cache] E.T. 001

 

This was one amazing series! Thank you so much for putting all the effort into placing these caches - we found the coordinates for each of them to be totally spot on which alone is the testament to how much effort Clay must have put in placing these caches.

 

Our team was 6 state X cachers (redacted). We started at 12:26AM and finished 18 hours later at ET945 when our will, muscles, and supply or replacement caches was running out. We replaced 300 or so missing caches thanks to a whole bucket full of containers left at the Lil AleInn (cool place, excellent food.) Not sure we replaced any until the Nye county line, then a few, then some other cachers ahead of us replaced a 100 plus, then our stock kicked in. About 2/3 of the way before the turn the caches were again in their original locations until Highway 6.

 

Our strategy was one person jumping (me mostly), one driver, one navigator, two people opening+stamping+resealing logs, and one person grabbing the unmarked cache from the jumper and handing them a stamped one for the next cache (and making sure the jumper stayed hydrated!) The way we did it was the jumper already had a stamped cache in hand when they did the find, they grabbed the unsigned cache, replaced it with the signed one they started with, and recovered/whatever the cache. Then back in the car we did a switch of the unsigned for a previously signed cache. Another key was having the jumper say 'SET!' when they were ready to go - made tearing off for the next cache safer.

 

We could have easily finished the series but we did the alien head too. And unlike many before us we followed the rules and walked the circuit. The cachers after us were setting up to walk it as we finished but we didn't meet up at that time as they started north and we finished south.

 

We did meet up with the cachers we saw at ET 1021 on the next day. They had done the series in three days and noticed starting on day 2 that they found caches with their stamp already on it - including cache ET 1021. They though aliens really were there! Of course that was us...we started with a 100+ stockpile of prestamped caches and some of their ones from the first hundred were not picked to be the one the jumper replaced until after we had passed them on our 1-day run.

 

Again, we want to really thank you for setting this trail up - it was certainly one of the most challenging 'extreme' things I've ever done but I'm proud to be able to say I've had a 1000+ find caching day!

 

That isn't second hand, rumor or supposition- that's exactly what the log says, other than identifiers being removed.

That was a long post. What do you believe that it proves? That some power cachers have funny log habits? That throwdown caches exist?
Link to comment

This my first response to any of the powertrail threads. My opinions are my own, and they are quite simple:

What that group did might be a game, but it's not geocaching.

Because it is such a gross distortion of geocaching, it is detrimental to the image of the game.

I predict TPTB will do something to regulate this practice before the end of the year.

Link to comment

I think I'm gonna take a single container, put a log with my name in it and then drive down the highway. That way, I've visited each cache location and each of them had a container with my name on its log (the one in my hand). Easy peasy 1000 smilies!

Link to comment

This my first response to any of the powertrail threads. My opinions are my own, and they are quite simple:

What that group did might be a game, but it's not geocaching.

Because it is such a gross distortion of geocaching, it is detrimental to the image of the game. I predict TPTB will do something to regulate this practice before the end of the year.

Which group exactly are you referring to? In what way did they damage the image of geocaching?
Link to comment

I think I'm gonna take a single container, put a log with my name in it and then drive down the highway. That way, I've visited each cache location and each of them had a container with my name on its log (the one in my hand). Easy peasy 1000 smilies!

1) You haven't visited the cache locations, you've merely driven down a nearby road.

2) What does that have to do with this thread?

Link to comment

I think I'm gonna take a single container, put a log with my name in it and then drive down the highway. That way, I've visited each cache location and each of them had a container with my name on its log (the one in my hand). Easy peasy 1000 smilies!

 

Why stop there. Drive by every cache in the world and log 1.3 million. smile.gif

Link to comment
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.
Two thoughts:

  1. Is it not self evident that someone who goes after a series of 1000 caches likes to find lots of caches?
  2. Why does it matter if people who find these caches like to find lots of caches?

 

1. Yes, it is evident that someone who goes after a series of 1000 caches likes to find a lot of cache. I was just trying to quantify a predisposition to finding a lot of caches, in light of the numerous posts by those that claim they're going after a series of 1000 caches for the camraderie and wildlife viewing opportunities.

 

2. I was not passing judgment someone that enjoys finding a lot of caches. On the other hand, if someone with 10,000+ finds in only a few years of geocaching tells me that they are not in it for the numbers I'm going to take their claim with a grain of salt.

Link to comment

I think I'm gonna take a single container, put a log with my name in it and then drive down the highway. That way, I've visited each cache location and each of them had a container with my name on its log (the one in my hand). Easy peasy 1000 smilies!

1) You haven't visited the cache locations, you've merely driven down a nearby road.

How's that any different that what most people have done? In the log that's quoted in your post #109 only 1 of the 6 people visited the cache locations, the other 5 stayed in the vehicle.

Link to comment
... Surely, only the most naive person would believe this series is not about the numbers.
I'm of the belief that this trail is about the numbers and that the beautiful scenery is a bonus. So what?

 

Although, I'm sure it will be a big stretch for you. It is not a very big stretch for others to feel that the purely speed/numbers cachers are much less likely to be posistive impact geocachers. I feel they will be more likely to have a negative impact on the area, be it environmentally, incidents or goodwill.

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.

 

Another bit of personal information

We spent about 8 1/2 hours on the ET trail last year, we had a total of 6 or 7 vehicles pass us while we were doing the first 300 caches 3 of them were other cachers. There is plenty of room to pull off the road even in the hills there is room

to pull off the side of the road.

Link to comment

This my first response to any of the powertrail threads. My opinions are my own, and they are quite simple:

What that group did might be a game, but it's not geocaching.

Because it is such a gross distortion of geocaching, it is detrimental to the image of the game. I predict TPTB will do something to regulate this practice before the end of the year.

Which group exactly are you referring to? In what way did they damage the image of geocaching?

I was referring to the group whose log was quoted in the response directly above mine. Just two of the activities that *I* believe damage the image of geocaching: leaving different containers than the one originally placed, and taking the original one with you. Replacing at least 300 caches that had been removed. Oh, that's three things.

I acknowledge that your "image of geocaching" may be different than mine. I'm betting that mine is closer to Groundspeak's than yours is, and that they will do something to restore that image in the coming months.

Link to comment

This my first response to any of the powertrail threads. My opinions are my own, and they are quite simple:

What that group did might be a game, but it's not geocaching.

Because it is such a gross distortion of geocaching, it is detrimental to the image of the game. I predict TPTB will do something to regulate this practice before the end of the year.

Which group exactly are you referring to? In what way did they damage the image of geocaching?

I was referring to the group whose log was quoted in the response directly above mine. Just two of the activities that *I* believe damage the image of geocaching: leaving different containers than the one originally placed, and taking the original one with you. Replacing at least 300 caches that had been removed. Oh, that's three things.

I acknowledge that your "image of geocaching" may be different than mine. I'm betting that mine is closer to Groundspeak's than yours is, and that they will do something to restore that image in the coming months.

 

Here's the thing...

 

There is no ruling or guideline that prohibits the finders from performing cache maintenance. It's a common and accepted practice. Should the practice be banned? Perhaps, though I'd probably be against such a ban as it seems to do more good than harm. Either way, it's an allowed practice right now.

 

You might want to start a new thread and pose that specific question.

Link to comment

This my first response to any of the powertrail threads. My opinions are my own, and they are quite simple:

What that group did might be a game, but it's not geocaching.

Because it is such a gross distortion of geocaching, it is detrimental to the image of the game. I predict TPTB will do something to regulate this practice before the end of the year.

Which group exactly are you referring to? In what way did they damage the image of geocaching?

I was referring to the group whose log was quoted in the response directly above mine. Just two of the activities that *I* believe damage the image of geocaching: leaving different containers than the one originally placed, and taking the original one with you. Replacing at least 300 caches that had been removed. Oh, that's three things.

I acknowledge that your "image of geocaching" may be different than mine. I'm betting that mine is closer to Groundspeak's than yours is, and that they will do something to restore that image in the coming months.

 

Here's the thing...

 

There is no ruling or guideline that prohibits the finders from performing cache maintenance. It's a common and accepted practice. Should the practice be banned? Perhaps, though I'd probably be against such a ban as it seems to do more good than harm. Either way, it's an allowed practice right now.

 

You might want to start a new thread and pose that specific question.

Cache maintenance is not the same as replacing any number of caches that have been removed by a land manager, even if that land manager was not acting with the appropriate authorization.

 

IMHO, you should never replace a missing cache that you had not already found. How else would you know exactly where it was supposed to be?

Link to comment

Cache maintenance is not the same as replacing any number of caches that have been removed by a land manager, even if that land manager was not acting with the appropriate authorization.

 

IMHO, you should never replace a missing cache that you had not already found. How else would you know exactly where it was supposed to be?

 

I'm not defending the action of that one cacher. Reading the log I don't see any evidence that they knew the caches had been removed by NDOT. But, as I said, I'm not defending what that group did.

 

As for your question, I can speak for what happens in the Denver area. There is a group of at least five cachers that have an agreement to replace each others caches that are missing. They also welcome the replacement of caches and/or logs from others as well. It's usually pretty obvious where the cache was located because a rock or pile of rocks are used to keep the containers from blowing away. When you find a small, artificial pile of rocks with the imprint of the canister in the dirt it's a pretty safe bet. For questionable situations they have each other's phone numbers and confirm the location.

 

I can confirm that even without a power trail I have found GZ's with two containers. Usually what happens is one is blown away but is found by someone walking to the GZ. They then place the second container next to the first. I can also confirm that CO's have replaced their own caches only to have the original show up.

Link to comment

This my first response to any of the powertrail threads. My opinions are my own, and they are quite simple:

What that group did might be a game, but it's not geocaching.

Because it is such a gross distortion of geocaching, it is detrimental to the image of the game. I predict TPTB will do something to regulate this practice before the end of the year.

Which group exactly are you referring to? In what way did they damage the image of geocaching?

I was referring to the group whose log was quoted in the response directly above mine. Just two of the activities that *I* believe damage the image of geocaching: leaving different containers than the one originally placed, and taking the original one with you. Replacing at least 300 caches that had been removed. Oh, that's three things.

I acknowledge that your "image of geocaching" may be different than mine. I'm betting that mine is closer to Groundspeak's than yours is, and that they will do something to restore that image in the coming months.

 

Here's the thing...

 

There is no ruling or guideline that prohibits the finders from performing cache maintenance. It's a common and accepted practice. Should the practice be banned? Perhaps, though I'd probably be against such a ban as it seems to do more good than harm. Either way, it's an allowed practice right now.

 

You might want to start a new thread and pose that specific question.

 

Maintenance is one thing. "Throw down" caches are not a widely accepted practice.

Link to comment

Maintenance is one thing. "Throw down" caches are not a widely accepted practice.

 

I'm not picking a fight when I ask this, I'm genuinely curious...What is your definition of a "throw down" vs the maintenance replacement of a cache by a finder?

A finder may replace a broken container or a wet logsheet. That works in every situation where the cache can be found - even if in pieces. A finder can not replace a missing cache since he doesn't know what the cache owner desires. Who knows, the CO may be waiting to archive the cache the next time it goes missing. Replacing it then wouldn't be doing him a favor.

Link to comment

Maintenance is one thing. "Throw down" caches are not a widely accepted practice.

 

I'm not picking a fight when I ask this, I'm genuinely curious...What is your definition of a "throw down" vs the maintenance replacement of a cache by a finder?

A finder may replace a broken container or a wet logsheet. That works in every situation where the cache can be found - even if in pieces. A finder can not replace a missing cache since he doesn't know what the cache owner desires. Who knows, the CO may be waiting to archive the cache the next time it goes missing. Replacing it then wouldn't be doing him a favor.

 

And because he didn't find it, he doesn't know where the original cache was.

 

I said it's not a widely accepted practice, but I was not completely correct. It does seem to be a fairly common practice among "power cachers". It is usually accompanied by their claiming a "find" on their own container.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

Here's the thing...

 

There is no ruling or guideline that prohibits the finders from performing cache maintenance. It's a common and accepted practice. Should the practice be banned? Perhaps, though I'd probably be against such a ban as it seems to do more good than harm. Either way, it's an allowed practice right now.

Allowed, yes. But do a search of this forum for the terms "throwdown cache" and "angel cache" and see what the prevailing forum attitudes were when those subjects have been raised in the past.

 

To pretend that any of this is "cache maintenance" is disingenuous, at best. If a bucket of 75-100 replacement caches is necessary, then perhaps the caches should have been hidden better. That would be the though process in the case of "normal" caches. If someone came here and started a thread complaining that their cache kept going missing, what would we tell them? That perhaps it wasn't the best hide in the first place and that they might be best to reconsider the placement .

Link to comment

Maintenance is one thing. "Throw down" caches are not a widely accepted practice.

 

I'm not picking a fight when I ask this, I'm genuinely curious...What is your definition of a "throw down" vs the maintenance replacement of a cache by a finder?

A finder may replace a broken container or a wet logsheet. That works in every situation where the cache can be found - even if in pieces. A finder can not replace a missing cache since he doesn't know what the cache owner desires. Who knows, the CO may be waiting to archive the cache the next time it goes missing. Replacing it then wouldn't be doing him a favor.

 

And because he didn't find it, he doesn't know where the original cache was.

 

I said it's not a widely accepted practice, but I was not completely correct. It does seem to be a fairly common practice among "power cachers". It is usually accompanied by their claiming a "find" on their own container.

 

I have had this happen to a few of my caches where individuals couldn't find my cache and stated in their log that they replaced it for me. I went out on one and found theirs hanging right next to my cache. I appreciate the help but if you have not found the cache in the past, nor are you with someone else that had found it, nor have you contacted me to confirm it's location, it is not considered cache maintenance if you replace my cache. It is throwing down a cache to give you a smiley so you don't have to come back out to the area to find something you couldn't find the first, second, or whatever time.

 

edited for grammar

Edited by ao318
Link to comment

IMHO, you should never replace a missing cache that you had not already found. How else would you know exactly where it was supposed to be?

I once replaced a missing cache that I had not already found. From the surroundings at GZ and the hint, it was obvious where it should have been. I knew the owner, who lived 90 minutes away, asked if he wanted me to replace it, confirmed the location, and replaced the cache. I did not log a find.

Link to comment

Maintenance is one thing. "Throw down" caches are not a widely accepted practice.

 

I'm not picking a fight when I ask this, I'm genuinely curious...What is your definition of a "throw down" vs the maintenance replacement of a cache by a finder?

A finder may replace a broken container or a wet logsheet. That works in every situation where the cache can be found - even if in pieces. A finder can not replace a missing cache since he doesn't know what the cache owner desires. Who knows, the CO may be waiting to archive the cache the next time it goes missing. Replacing it then wouldn't be doing him a favor.

 

And because he didn't find it, he doesn't know where the original cache was.

 

I said it's not a widely accepted practice, but I was not completely correct. It does seem to be a fairly common practice among "power cachers". It is usually accompanied by their claiming a "find" on their own container.

 

I have had this happen to a few of my caches where individuals couldn't find my cache and stated in their log that they replaced it for me. I went out on one and found theirs hanging right next to my cache. I appreciate the help but if you have not found the cache in the past, nor are you with someone else that had found it, nor have you contacted me to confirm it's location, it is not considered cache maintenance. It is throwing down a cache to give you a smiley so you don't have to come back out to the area to find something you couldn't find the first, second, or whatever time.

 

In the particular incident there was reason to suspect that the missing caches were removed by a representative of the land manager. Specifically employees of the DOT. Is it possible that the information was wrong? Sure. But under the circumstances the throw downs were a bad idea.

Link to comment

IMHO, you should never replace a missing cache that you had not already found. How else would you know exactly where it was supposed to be?

I once replaced a missing cache that I had not already found. From the surroundings at GZ and the hint, it was obvious where it should have been. I knew the owner, who lived 90 minutes away, asked if he wanted me to replace it, confirmed the location, and replaced the cache. I did not log a find.

 

All above board as they say. You contacted the CO and followed his wishes. There were no apparent permission issues. Replacing the cache is not questionable. I'd even say that you could log this with few folks raising an eyebrow.

Link to comment

Cache maintenance is not the same as replacing any number of caches that have been removed by a land manager, even if that land manager was not acting with the appropriate authorization.

 

Not sure I would call a dump truck driver a land manager. It also seems strange that this "land manager" would only remove caches on *one* county, not both counties. Why not both? Lincoln county was not touched, just Nye county.

Link to comment

Not sure I would call a dump truck driver a land manager. It also seems strange that this "land manager" would only remove caches on *one* county, not both counties. Why not both? Lincoln county was not touched, just Nye county.

 

We're working with incomplete information but the CO's post would seem to indicate the issue was with one particular area and wasn't even all of Nye County. But I'm speculating as well when I say that.

Link to comment

This series doesn't sound like much fun. We would feel like lab rats caching in town after town of muggles who are aware of what we were doing. The whole purpose (as we see it) of geocaching would be missing. We just don't get it.

 

There are a lot of ways to Geocache and each cacher has their preferred ways to cache.

 

If you read through the past logs for the series you'll find cachers who had an absolute blast doing the series and are very grateful for the experience. It's not for you, obviously, but many people really enjoy the time in the quiet and beauty of the desert.

 

Thanks for the pics. Worth a thousand. :lol: We were imagining something very different w/ muggles watching our every move :ph34r: and maybe even some anti-geocaching protesters :wacko: . The drive does look fun, but we would probably grab every mile or two.

Link to comment

I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.

 

I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

I carry duct tape in my pack in case I need to fix up a cache but I thought the practice would be to either to try to fix the cache and then let the CO know of this or replace the "BROKEN" containter and then also contact the CO to let them know you did this.

 

How could you tell in a desert where the cache was to replace a cache? I could see if there was a pile of rocks for each and ever geocache to know where to replace the geocaches but thought i'd read that you should log a dnf if you can't find it and if you want to help them out and replace it that you had to contact the CO and get permission "Before" you replaced it which would still be tricky if you didn't know 100% where it was to begin with.

 

Is not being able to find 100 or more caches normal? Wouldn't that in it's self send up some kind of flag saying I'd better contact the CO and notify him that something is going on with his caches? Wouldn't that be common sense?

 

I would think that if you were at that resteraunt and were told that someone official had removed those caches wouldn't you just be looking for trouble by putting them back when it sounds like it was done on purpose. Wouldn't that be yet another flag saying you need to contact the CO and let him know something is going on with the caches?

 

Sounds like either they are stirring things up for the heck of it or to be mean or they don't want to miss out on those numbers cause i'd think if they were just out for fun and scenery then missing out on a 100 wouldn't be a big deal since it's just about having fun, Right?

 

There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?

 

I'm probably not the only newer person to be reading this and hoping they are not learning bad practices and wondering what is the right way and what is the wrong way to geocache.

 

Please go easy on me as i'm still pretty new.

 

Edited for my rotten gramer and changed a few things that didn't make much sense they way I had it...lol

Edited by Cindyj2
Link to comment
I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.
As I've been told, numbers run trails like the ET Highway caches are "a significant variation from standard caching". A lot of "shortcuts" are used allow logging as many "finds" as possible.

 

Elsewhere, replacing a cache you can't find with a "throw-down" film canister and logging a Find is considered inappropriate. On a number run trail, it's accepted.

 

Elsewhere, replacing a cache you found with a container with a log you've already signed is considered inappropriate. On a number run trail, it's accepted.

 

Elsewhere, having two groups each find half the caches and having both groups log all of them is considered inappropriate. On a number run trail, it's accepted.

 

Personally, I think numbers run trails are different enough from normal caching that they should be considered a separate cache type.

Link to comment

This series doesn't sound like much fun. We would feel like lab rats caching in town after town of muggles who are aware of what we were doing. The whole purpose (as we see it) of geocaching would be missing. We just don't get it.

 

There are a lot of ways to Geocache and each cacher has their preferred ways to cache.

 

If you read through the past logs for the series you'll find cachers who had an absolute blast doing the series and are very grateful for the experience. It's not for you, obviously, but many people really enjoy the time in the quiet and beauty of the desert.

 

how can they enjoy the quiet and beauty of the desert racing from one cache to the next in a short distance intent on jumping in and out of the car to grab a micro? a friend of mine that did the route 66 power trail said after a while it seemed more like work than fun. never did mention how beautiful out there it was, no time to look up and see or enjoy.

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.

 

brian, you have said it the best.

Link to comment

Not sure I would call a dump truck driver a land manager. It also seems strange that this "land manager" would only remove caches on *one* county, not both counties. Why not both? Lincoln county was not touched, just Nye county.

 

We're working with incomplete information but the CO's post would seem to indicate the issue was with one particular area and wasn't even all of Nye County. But I'm speculating as well when I say that.

 

I don't know if we're reading the same things but while the evidence is not complete it is pretty compelling.

 

First, a geocacher was told by someone that someone from Nye county was going to remove geocaches along the trail. Whether this was second, third, or fourth hand hardly matters. When that cacher went out the next day their logs indicated that they started to encounter missing containers at the Nye county line and began replacing them until they ran out of containers. Then in post #109 we see that a second geocacher wrote:

 

"We replaced 300 or so missing caches thanks to a whole bucket full of containers left at the Lil AleInn (cool place, excellent food.) Not sure we replaced any until the Nye county line, then a few, then some other cachers ahead of us replaced a 100 plus, then our stock kicked in. About 2/3 of the way before the turn the caches were again in their original locations until Highway 6."

 

That geocacher also discovered that 100 caches had been replaced, beginning at the county line, then started replacing 300 *more* caches before encountering original containers. We don't know exactly how many caches were replaced but it's pretty clear to me that *someone* representing Nye county did not want them there. We don't know how far up the chain of the command it went but, again, it hardly matters. If some of original caches remained it must may mean that after stopping every .1 of a mile and picking up 400 caches the driver ran out of time.

Link to comment

Best simple qoute. Don't hate the players but hate the way we are aloud to play the game.

 

Someone post where in the rules that says you can't cache power trails? Why attack the people for enjoying them. I have seen a few say, how can you enjoy the beauity of the desert jumping in and out of the car every couple of minutes.

It sure is a long drive back to Vegas when you are done. I think they get plenty of windshield time looking at it then. I will post my findings after I do it at the end of the month. I too am one of those people who planned a vacation around doing the E.T. Highway and the Rt66 series.

I am thankful that both groups took the time to place the cache and write up the cache pages. If you think it takes along time to log them just think what it took to write the pages up.

 

Thanks for the hard work guys.

Link to comment
I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.

 

I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

Your impression is generally correct, it is customary to log a DNF when you don't find a cache. Numbers runs are different. The only custom is that there are no rules. Cache is missing? Throw down your own wherever you think it might have been and log a "find". Signing your initials to the log takes too long? Take the cache with you and deposit it at another cache site. Cache is too far off road? Drive right up to it, the heck with the damage you cause. Anything goes when you are in pursuit of numbers because it's all about you.

 

There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?

 

Because there is no shame as long as you can add a thousand smileys to your count. The smiley is holy. Nothing else matters.

Link to comment
I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

[snip]

 

Please go easy on me as i'm still pretty new.

 

I think you get it better than some veteran cachers. I think the biggest issue a lot of people have with these power trails is that the normal "rules" of Geocaching don't seem to apply.

 

I'm the first to admit there is not a lot of "black or white" in caching -- plenty shades of grey on almost every topic. However, a lot of the practices I hear on these trails border on absurd in my caching book. Leapfrogging containers? Skipping some caches because another member of your group was already there? Throw down containers? You may as well just drive the highway and claim all the Finds since it doesn't seem to matter if you (or the cache) is there or not. It's not like any of the logbooks are going to be around to verify your find or not.

 

Just proves I don't understand the mantality of the numbers cacher.

Link to comment
I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.

 

I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

Your impression is generally correct, it is customary to log a DNF when you don't find a cache. Numbers runs are different. The only custom is that there are no rules. Cache is missing? Throw down your own wherever you think it might have been and log a "find". Signing your initials to the log takes too long? Take the cache with you and deposit it at another cache site. Cache is too far off road? Drive right up to it, the heck with the damage you cause. Anything goes when you are in pursuit of numbers because it's all about you.

 

There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?

 

Because there is no shame as long as you can add a thousand smileys to your count. The smiley is holy. Nothing else matters.

 

Why be like that. Just because others don't cache in your style why do you have to bring them down. You are putting a light on them like they are bad for geocaching.com

 

I wonder how many of the 400 plus cachers that has did the E.T. Highway are PMs? What if they don't like the way at a Moderator is putting the spot light on them as bad for GS and decide not to renew their PM the next time? It is just a game but it isn't really open is it?

Link to comment
I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.

 

I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

Your impression is generally correct, it is customary to log a DNF when you don't find a cache. Numbers runs are different. The only custom is that there are no rules. Cache is missing? Throw down your own wherever you think it might have been and log a "find". Signing your initials to the log takes too long? Take the cache with you and deposit it at another cache site. Cache is too far off road? Drive right up to it, the heck with the damage you cause. Anything goes when you are in pursuit of numbers because it's all about you.

 

There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?

 

Because there is no shame as long as you can add a thousand smileys to your count. The smiley is holy. Nothing else matters.

 

Why be like that. Just because others don't cache in your style why do you have to bring them down. You are putting a light on them like they are bad for geocaching.com

 

I wonder how many of the 400 plus cachers that has did the E.T. Highway are PMs? What if they don't like the way at a Moderator is putting the spot light on them as bad for GS and decide not to renew their PM the next time? It is just a game but it isn't really open is it?

 

How many are premium members? I'd venture to guess 99.9% of them. The median number of finds for a Geocaching account is 34 (reference, a Jeremy Irish Blog post a month or so ago). This is a fringe element of high number, premium members who are running this thing.

 

I don't speak for Snat, but that's come up before, and I'll point out he is the moderator for the "Getting Started" forum only. He's nothing but another poster in this forum.

Link to comment
You are putting a light on them like they are bad for geocaching.com

 

Because I do think they are bad for geocachihg. Not necessarily all numbers hounds, just the ones who think the customs of the sport don't apply to them and have a total disregard for the area around the cache.

Link to comment
I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?
The guidelines state that if the log was signed, then it's a find. In cases where the log wasn't signed, the cache owner is the arbiter of whether a find is appropriate. If the cache owner and seeker agree taht something non-standard is a find, then it is.
I carry duct tape in my pack in case I need to fix up a cache but I thought the practice would be to either to try to fix the cache and then let the CO know of this or replace the "BROKEN" containter and then also contact the CO to let them know you did this.

 

How could you tell in a desert where the cache was to replace a cache? I could see if there was a pile of rocks for each and ever geocache to know where to replace the geocaches but thought i'd read that you should log a dnf if you can't find it and if you want to help them out and replace it that you had to contact the CO and get permission "Before" you replaced it which would still be tricky if you didn't know 100% where it was to begin with.

As I understand it, these caches are generally hidden exactly the same. Therefore, it is pretty simple for cachers to replace a container with low risk of it being in the wrong spot.
Is not being able to find 100 or more caches normal? Wouldn't that in it's self send up some kind of flag saying I'd better contact the CO and notify him that something is going on with his caches? Wouldn't that be common sense?
I don’t know. Is it possible that the combination of hide method, container, and weather might at times wipe out great numbers of these? Could a finder guess that if a large number of caches went missing, but many were left in place that the caches were not removed by a land manager who would likely remove all of them, but instead were stolen by a cache pirate or one of the devoutly anti-power trail forum residents? Would the fact that a bucket of containers were left for replacements not suggest that one might come across many missing caches? A cacher faced with such a scenario might not contact the cache owner on the front end, since duing so would blow a day off the trip and instead notify him on the back end, in the online log.
I would think that if you were at that resteraunt and were told that someone official had removed those caches wouldn't you just be looking for trouble by putting them back when it sounds like it was done on purpose. Wouldn't that be yet another flag saying you need to contact the CO and let him know something is going on with the caches?
I’m not sure that the same person that documented the restaurant conversation replaced the caches. Either way, it was a third or forth hand communication that could have been taken that some highway worker removed them without directive. Caches are occasionally removed by some low level person who was not in any way a ‘land manager’. In many cases when this happens, the logical thing to do is to replace the cache.
Sounds like either they are stirring things up for the heck of it or to be mean or they don't want to miss out on those numbers cause i'd think if they were just out for fun and scenery then missing out on a 100 wouldn't be a big deal since it's just about having fun, Right?
A number of people have posted something along the lines of these people could have just gone out and enjoyed the desert and the fact that they found 1000 caches must mean that they are ‘bad’. I don’t know where this argument comes from, but it’s kind of sad. It is OK for people to enjoy numbers runs.
There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?
The simple answer is because the practice is OK with the cache owner.
I'm probably not the only newer person to be reading this and hoping they are not learning bad practices and wondering what is the right way and what is the wrong way to geocache.

I think that you have to realize that many of the things that are condemned in the forums are not ‘bad’ per se. Many posters take a very hard line on their personal pet peave issues. That doesn’t mean that their way is right and others are wrong. It just means that there are different ways of looking at things.

 

In general, you should do what you think is right. Don’t relay on a bunch of internet strangers to be your compass.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I hope they get to fix up the power trail for those who already have spent money to reserve their visit to the area.

 

At the last event I attended I heard a couple of different groups that were planning their vacations/hotel/airplane reservations so that they would complete the E.T. highway. A lot of money is spent in that area by cachers.

 

But if the shoulder of the road is being damaged by cachers driving on it... well, I doubt that the money spent by cachers is generating enough tax revenue to cover those repairs.

Link to comment
You are putting a light on them like they are bad for geocaching.com

 

Because I do think they are bad for geocachihg. Not necessarily all numbers hounds, just the ones who think the customs of the sport don't apply to them and have a total disregard for the area around the cache.

First, it is clear that when you say 'the customs of the sport', you really mean the way you think that everyone else should play the game'. Second, many pictures of the area surrounding these caches have been posted. Please show us all the damage that these caches are causing. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I hope they get to fix up the power trail for those who already have spent money to reserve their visit to the area.

 

At the last event I attended I heard a couple of different groups that were planning their vacations/hotel/airplane reservations so that they would complete the E.T. highway. A lot of money is spent in that area by cachers.

 

But if the shoulder of the road is being damaged by cachers driving on it... well, I doubt that the money spent by cachers is generating enough tax revenue to cover those repairs.

We've seen plenty of pics of these shoulders. Where's the damage?
Link to comment

I hope they get to fix up the power trail for those who already have spent money to reserve their visit to the area.

 

At the last event I attended I heard a couple of different groups that were planning their vacations/hotel/airplane reservations so that they would complete the E.T. highway. A lot of money is spent in that area by cachers.

 

But if the shoulder of the road is being damaged by cachers driving on it... well, I doubt that the money spent by cachers is generating enough tax revenue to cover those repairs.

We've seen plenty of pics of these shoulders. Where's the damage?

I haven't seen any pics of these shoulders, I'm going by what is quoted in the thread. It has been said that the dirt tracks along the side of the road are visible in satellite pictures. It was mentioned in a previous post that cachers are driving on the shoulder instead of pulling back onto the road.

 

Driving on the shoulder kills the vegetation. The vegetation prevents erosion. Ergo driving on the shoulder will cause damage.

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