LeapFrogging and Container Swapping

[+roziecakes]

I'm not against power trails, but I really have a problem with this leapfrogging and container swapping business. I mean, really? I think it's stuff like that which really harms the argument in favor of power trails. It's like one person ruining things for everyone else.

 

Power trails are fine I think when people follow the rules, but when they do things like leapfrogging, driving on sensitive areas (as I've talked about in previous threads on this subject), getting in the way of ranchers and other locals, etc it just shows other cachers and the general public a bad example and it really ruins power trails for those of us who really want to try them through legitimate means.

 

If this sort of thing becomes standard practice on power trails then I'd probably change my thumbs up on power trails to a thumbs down. I know that sounds somewhat pessimistic of me, since I'm usually the voice of optimism and I say, "hey if it doesn't hurt anyone else go ahead and do it, play the game the way you want," but in this case I think it does harm the game for others.

[+roziecakes]

I look at the answers here and I have to think that the answer to your question is never. The overwhelming response has been that both practices are unacceptable for powertrail caching.

 

+1 !!!

[+CanadianRockies]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

[+Sol seaker]

When do caches become part of a power trail, and therefore subject to these new "rules"?

 

I've heard a lot of opinions, but nobody has tried yet to answer what I think may be the most important issue of this whole debate (see above). When does it become OK to swap caches and/or to leapfrog finds?

 

• When the caches were all put out by the same person/group?
• When the caches are all within 0.1 mile of each other?
• When they are all micros?
• When they are in Nevada?
• When you feel like it?
• When the nearby inn has a supply of replacement containers for you?

 

Rabble-Rouser. What? have you got money placed on how long this thread will last or what?

 

 

 

so it seems that there is still some confusion which hasn't been cleared up here.

 

Leap-frogging is when two cars are on the same team. Each car grabs every other cache and signs it for everyone (in both cars). Usually the team uses a "team name" for this run, usually initials of the team, which you can see in the video. The initials are often put on stickers or a stamp for the day. Later they log it in their own geo-accounts and put, "Signed under the team name xyz"

 

Container switching is when you take an extra film can with you.

These generally are all film cans at these power trails.

You grab the first film can, and leave yours there. You sign the one you picked up, then swap it for the next film can at the next cache. When you reach the end you've got one that is supposed to go back to the beginning, but I dont' know if people actually do that.

 

In an earlier thread on this subject, someone said the owner of one power trail actually told him to do this.

At least one owner encourages this, which explains why they intentionally place all identical containers.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Sol seaker

[+WRASTRO]

I personally think leapfrogging and container swapping are both lame concepts and would not do them. If others think these methods are fun and fine then so be it. I can always chuckle and feel superior when I read about cachers who think these methods are fun and fine.

[+ocklawahaboy]

I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

Reading this makes me think I need to make a confession (tongue firmly in cheek). I did once climb a tree, toss the cache down to my partner, let him sign both names and toss it back up. That's about the extent of others signing for me. To me half the fun of it is knowing my name is written on an pieces of paper all over the place. Kind of like when you were a kid and carved "bill was here" on the tree, or was I the only one who did that.

 

Signing as a team just doesn't do anything for me.

Edited February 22, 2011 by ocklawahaboy

[+StarBrand]

doesnt group caching usaully involve all members hunting the cache? this suonds like their should be 2 seperete group stickers and half the finds.

Sure sounds like that should be the case. However, some interesting ideas have come along over the years. Some groups I have read about have split into as many as 8 different subgroups to add the "Team" sticker to separate caches. Somehow all members of the team end up filing "found" logs on all the caches the "Team" touched throughout the day.

 

Taken to the logical extreme, 1000 cacheRs could team up to find a 1000 caches in a matter of minutes for all to log. No need to even meet each other I suppose.

[+northernpenguin]

Hell no. Would not mess with another CO's cache or the placement thereof.

[+narcissa]

Both practices are a shameful black eye on the entire game. Simply appalling.

Edited February 22, 2011 by narcissa

[+Sol seaker]

is it ok to agree with narsista?

 

Yeah, she's a good one to agree with.

 

I agree with her too.

[+narcissa]

It is okay to have your own opinion, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it. It's called having a backbone.

[+Lil Devil]

Both practices are a shameful black eye on the entire game.

Dang. I guess that means getting the record into Guinness is out of the question. Or the Olympics. Dang, and I would have liked a gold medal.

 

[+Klondike Mike]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

[+Klondike Mike]

I don't agree with either practice so I have to say NO.

 

I think the CO's of these numbers trails are missing a golden opportunity. They should be rating all these caches in the 3 to 4 d&t range. If you're going to enable people to "pad" their numbers then you may as well accommmodate a bump to the d/t averages as well.

 

edit: spelling

Edited February 22, 2011 by Klondike Mike

[+dfx]

No for me as well. It's not geocaching.

[7rxc]

I vote NO to both practices... simple.

 

On the other hand, swapping would require them to be Travelling Caches would it not since they move around? The container is the cache, not the coordinates. Also since logs and cache containers are supposed (should be) identified by GC# for verification purposes I can see swapping making a huge mess out there. Leapfrogging by a team for a TEAM log doesn't bother me, but they should keep record of any being logged as individual finds separately. The big concern there would be (as discussed) how many team members is practical and how they should be allowed to deploy. Should they be allowed to split up and start in different locations/directions, or should they start at one point and truly leapfrog as a team? Record runs should be properly witnessed as is done by Guinness Records.

And the judges should be provided with lots of Guinness IMHO.

 

So probably, it's best to treat them as normal caches... solo or team.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+jomouse]

Hmmm, I haven't done either and probably won't - but then again, I am not looking to do a power trail anytime soon. Having said that, I think leap-frogging would be a no-no. You should only log caches you find. I would say the container swap is ok IF the CO of the series says it is ok. Otherwise, not ok.

[+fizzymagic]

Without diverting this thread to discuss Ultimate Power Caches, if you were to do one of these series, would you Cache Swap and/or LeapFrog?

No, and the reason has a great deal to do with why I wouldn't do the series in the first place.

 

I don't think it is possible to discuss the logging practices of power-trail cachers without understanding why people do power trails in the first place.

 

It's like asking "without discussing the color of the sky, what would be your favorite color if the sky were green?" The question does not make sense.

[Mr.Yuck]

is it ok to agree with narsista?

 

Of course it is. As a matter of fact, you should use revolving Narsista I mean Narcissa, quotes as your signature.

[+Castle Mischief]

Both practices are a shameful black eye on the entire game. Simply appalling.

 

Is that a canard yet?

[+redsox_mark]

I would not do either myself, but I have more issue with Cache Swapping than

Leapfrogging.

 

With Leapfrogging, it is "only" a matter of cachers claiming finds that they didn't make (or were not participating in the search at GZ when it was found). That is a matter for the individuals, if they want to call it a find (and refer to the team signature in the log), it doesn't harm anything in my view.

 

But cache swapping means the logs no longer match the cache, which impacts others. If I did a trail and found some caches and not others; I want my signature to stay with the ones I found. If the CO doesn't care or check the logs anyway; in reality I guess it doesn't matter, but I don't like it.

[+Kit Fox]

Leap frogging and container swapping are new, and very shameful additions that should be added to The New Numbers Game thread.

 

Both practices are nothing more than a new way for "couch potato cachers" to inflate their find stats, and flood cache pages with those "glorious" cut & paste logs.

[+CanadianRockies]

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples.

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

Perhaps we'd be comparing Granny Smith apples with Golden Delicious apples. Personally, I think comparing a day with cache swapping to a day without cache swapping takes it to apples versus oranges.

 

As far as power trails go, I don't have a problem with the concept. They certainly aren't old-school geocaching, but neither are events, GPS mazes, webcams, virtuals, Earthcaches, etc. I enjoy different kinds of geocaching experiences, so I generally welcome opportunities to try new things.

[+sbell111]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

[+Panther&Pine]

I know I said I'd stay out of this but, I keep hoping that some one will try the trail under their own power- either by bike or on foot.

That would be impressive to me.

[knowschad]

Both practices are a shameful black eye on the entire game. Simply appalling.

 

Is that a canard yet?

As in, "I canardly stand to see that old cliche again"?

[GOF and Bacall]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

[+Ecylram]

[knowschad]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

[GOF and Bacall]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

I was thinking that we had a case of 1000 moving caches.

[+dfx]

I was thinking that we had a case of 1000 moving caches.

 

No, it's only 800. Wrong powertrail.

[GOF and Bacall]

I was thinking that we had a case of 1000 moving caches.

 

No, it's only 800. Wrong powertrail.

 

Well EXCUSE me!

[knowschad]

I was thinking that we had a case of 1000 moving caches.

 

No, it's only 800. Wrong powertrail.

 

Well EXCUSE me!

I thought everybody knew that film cannisters came with 500 to a case. So that would be two cases of moving caches. Of 1.6 cases, if dfx is right (which he generally is).

[+wimseyguy]

Sure are a lot of "t'aints" in this thread. I guess those with the opposite opinions are out powercaching.

 

Hrm, I thought it was called a coffee table?

[knowschad]

Sure are a lot of "t'aints" in this thread. I guess those with the opposite opinions are out powercaching.

 

Hrm, I thought it was called a coffee table?

 

???

 

I don't get it.

[vagabond]

I think the rules that Ventura Kids use when they power cache are the best that I've seen.

 

1 vehicle, they sign and replace the caches as they found them, they start at midnight and go for 24 hours.

Some may disagree with this part A driver, a navigator, and 1 or 2 stickering the logs.

I"ve never power cached with them, but I imagine that they do swap positions.

As to the OP NO & NO

[+Ecylram]

I think the rules that Ventura Kids use when they power cache are the best that I've seen.

 

1 vehicle, they sign and replace the caches as they found them, they start at midnight and go for 24 hours.

Some may disagree with this part A driver, a navigator, and 1 or 2 stickering the logs.

I"ve never power cached with them, but I imagine that they do swap positions.

As to the OP NO & NO

Agreed. If you're going to do them, that is the appropriate method.

[+sbell111]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

I was thinking that we had a case of 1000 moving caches.

That's teh guideline that I would argue.

[+Ike 13]

I think the rules that Ventura Kids use when they power cache are the best that I've seen.

 

1 vehicle, they sign and replace the caches as they found them, they start at midnight and go for 24 hours.

Some may disagree with this part A driver, a navigator, and 1 or 2 stickering the logs.

I"ve never power cached with them, but I imagine that they do swap positions.

As to the OP NO & NO

Agreed. If you're going to do them, that is the appropriate method.

+2 I think most people agree this is a valid method.

[jholly]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

Thanks, needed that chuckle. So, by using this line of thinking if you get a cache muggled and the logbook is missing you delete all the found logs before your archive the cache? I mean, how is the owner going to be able to prove you signed the log.

[+sbell111]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

Thanks, needed that chuckle. So, by using this line of thinking if you get a cache muggled and the logbook is missing you delete all the found logs before your archive the cache? I mean, how is the owner going to be able to prove you signed the log.

There has to be some reason that the logbook is required to be included in all physical caches. Edited February 22, 2011 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

What powertrail cache owner do you know who is checking the physical log and deleting finds if the log is not signed?

[jholly]

Ms. CR and I recently did a 20-cache "power trail" and enjoyed the experience. I'm hoping to do a "real" power trail sometime this year, so I've pondered both of these questions.

 

I wouldn't leapfrog. I've cached with other people and have allowed them sign the log for me, but I've always been within a few feet of them. That's where I draw the line. Others might be satisfied with being within 528 feet when the log is signed (or 1056 feet or 1584 feet).

 

After reading the extensive debates on cache swapping, I decided I don't have a strong preference one way or the other -- as long as the cache owner allows the practice and all the swapped caches are the same size.

 

If Ms. CR and I do a long power trail, then we won't be attempting any world records -- only a personal one-day record. So, I don't think we would swap caches. This would allow us to compare apples with apples. (My previous one-day record is 87 caches, which didn't involve any cache swapping.)

 

If I joined a team of others to do a long power trail, I'd advocate for no cache swapping but would go along with whatever the general consensus was. I couldn't accurately compare the result with my previous best, but I suspect we'd have a blast doing the run.

 

IMO, the whole apples to apples thing goes out the window when you set foot on a power trail.

I disagree. A cache is a cache. One cache that is in a 'power trail' is no different than a similar cache that isn't.

 

As such, I won't log a find on a cache if I wasn't at ground zero when the log was signed. Also, it is not acceptable to me for someone to swap caches around. In my mind, that practice is in violation of the guidelines and if cache owners allow it, the offending cache should be archived.

 

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

Thanks, needed that chuckle. So, by using this line of thinking if you get a cache muggled and the logbook is missing you delete all the found logs before your archive the cache? I mean, how is the owner going to be able to prove you signed the log.

There has to be some reason that the logbook is required to be included in all physical caches.

Sure, to collect the signatures of the ones logging on line, to see if they are valid. Anyone that finds my caches, signs the logbook and then does not log online gets their signature deleted. I had a cache muggled once, I see not I was not remiss in not deleting all the online logs before I archived the cache. I will be more meticulous in the future.

[knowschad]

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

What powertrail cache owner do you know who is checking the physical log and deleting finds if the log is not signed?

Hey... it COULD happen!!

[+GeoGeeBee]

What part of the guidelines does it violate?

 

Why... the guideline that says that you must sign the paper log if you're going to log online, of course. Since the containers are moved and swapped out all the time, there is no way for the cache owner to prove that you signed the log, so of course, the only option would be to delete your online log.

What powertrail cache owner do you know who is checking the physical log and deleting finds if the log is not signed?

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

[vagabond]

We did the first 300 on the ET trail back in Oct, I wonder how far they have traveled since then

[knowschad]

We did the first 300 on the ET trail back in Oct, I wonder how far they have traveled since then

That probably depends on how far away Curtis, the low level dump truck driver lives from the cache site.

[jholly]

We did the first 300 on the ET trail back in Oct, I wonder how far they have traveled since then

I thought traveling caches were no longer allowed.

[+niraD]

When does it become OK to swap caches and/or to leapfrog finds?

 

• When the caches were all put out by the same person/group?
• When the caches are all within 0.1 mile of each other?
• When they are all micros?
• When they are in Nevada?
• When you feel like it?
• When the nearby inn has a supply of replacement containers for you?

How about,

• When the caches in a numbers run trail are listed as a separate cache type that explicitly allows such techniques?

Regarding the original question, in the unlikely event that I were to join a team on a numbers run trail:

 

I might join a team that leapfrogs, but I would log finds only on the fraction of the caches that I actually helped find. I would not log finds for caches found only by those in the other vehicle(s). IMHO, logging finds on caches found only by those in the other vehicle(s) is definitely "bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate".

 

I would not join a team that swaps containers/logs. IMHO, that is not geocaching. One of the basic rules of geocaching is "return the geocache to its original location".

[+narcissa]

If the cache owner is not willing to perform basic maintenance on his caches, they should be archived. Basic maintenance includes deleting bogus logs.

 

+1000000