Jump to content

LeapFrogging and Container Swapping


gsmX2

Recommended Posts

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

They are being moved around and the CO is encouraging others to replace them when missing. Both of those things would get any other traditional archived by a reviewer.

People frequently replace caches that they don't own without the cache getting archived. Moving around caches isn't such a common phenomenon, but I can't imagine that it would get a 'traditional' traditional cache archived if it happened. A reviewer is free to pop in and explain why my guess is wrong.

 

We had a (Power Trail) cache owner in Brantford, Ontario who started posting notes that they had moved away from the area and would the next cacher please bring a replacement (cache | container | logbook). Each cache that had that note saw a followup note from the local reviewer indicating that it was a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches and to remove the notes. Each cache was later archived.

 

The reviewers certainly do not smile on CO's who let others do their maintenance / throw downs. At least, in THIS part of the world they frown on it.

What you experienced is what happens with all caches. When the cache owner moved away without either adopting out the caches or establishing an acceptable maintenance plan, the caches were found to violate the guidelines and were archived.

 

As I understand it, the situation with the power trail being discussed in this thread is different in that the cache owners are willing and able to promptly respond to the maintenance needs of their caches. The mere fact that they welcome assistance from the community does not in and of itself put the caches in violation.

 

I think the key words there are "it was a CO's responsibility", not, "the cache owner moved away". You don't just delegate responsibility for cache maintenance to the finders, even if you live right next door. At least, that is how I read it.

Link to comment
I don't think that this is where we are. We have guidelines. At the point where the guidelines end, individual cache owners are allowed to make 'rules' as to what must be done to 'find' the cache. For some cache owners, the only answer is 'sign the logbook'. Others will happily accept unsigned logbooks, with good reason. Others allow leapfrogging and three-cache-monty but might not allow someone to armchair log them all.

 

And how exactly are they gonna know this?

Link to comment

How are they not treated like other traditional caches?

They are being moved around and the CO is encouraging others to replace them when missing. Both of those things would get any other traditional archived by a reviewer.

People frequently replace caches that they don't own without the cache getting archived. Moving around caches isn't such a common phenomenon, but I can't imagine that it would get a 'traditional' traditional cache archived if it happened. A reviewer is free to pop in and explain why my guess is wrong.

 

We had a (Power Trail) cache owner in Brantford, Ontario who started posting notes that they had moved away from the area and would the next cacher please bring a replacement (cache | container | logbook). Each cache that had that note saw a followup note from the local reviewer indicating that it was a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches and to remove the notes. Each cache was later archived.

 

The reviewers certainly do not smile on CO's who let others do their maintenance / throw downs. At least, in THIS part of the world they frown on it.

What you experienced is what happens with all caches. When the cache owner moved away without either adopting out the caches or establishing an acceptable maintenance plan, the caches were found to violate the guidelines and were archived.

 

As I understand it, the situation with the power trail being discussed in this thread is different in that the cache owners are willing and able to promptly respond to the maintenance needs of their caches. The mere fact that they welcome assistance from the community does not in and of itself put the caches in violation.

 

I think the key words there are "it was a CO's responsibility", not, "the cache owner moved away". You don't just delegate responsibility for cache maintenance to the finders, even if you live right next door. At least, that is how I read it.

I think that you and I are in agreement on the issue. It is the cache owners responsibility to either be able to perform timely maintenance or have a plan in place that ensures that timely maintenance is done. Asking for help from the community is not an acceptable plan because it doesn't guarantee that the job gets done timely. However, that doesn't mean that accepting commuinity help is verboten. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I don't think that this is where we are. We have guidelines. At the point where the guidelines end, individual cache owners are allowed to make 'rules' as to what must be done to 'find' the cache. For some cache owners, the only answer is 'sign the logbook'. Others will happily accept unsigned logbooks, with good reason. Others allow leapfrogging and three-cache-monty but might not allow someone to armchair log them all.

 

And how exactly are they gonna know this?

I guess that if a cache owner was very concerned about this, he could put a note on the cache page. I don't think it's necessary any more than a note stating that teh logbook must be signed is necessary.

 

Sorry. I misunderstood your point. I suppose that they probably wouldn't know. They could see if you logged any out-of-the-area caches on the same date, I suppose. In this sense, I guess that it's pretty much the same as find verification for any cache that has gone missing. The cache owner pretty much has to trust the finder.

 

(I realize that this is all hypothetical since these cache owners are probably not interested in preforming any find verifications.)

Link to comment
(I realize that this is all hypothetical since these cache owners are probably not interested in preforming any find verifications.)

 

Exactly, which means that they implicitly do allow armchair logging. And this is where knowschad's challenge comes into play again.

Link to comment
(I realize that this is all hypothetical since these cache owners are probably not interested in preforming any find verifications.)

 

Exactly, which means that they implicitly do allow armchair logging. And this is where knowschad's challenge comes into play again.

I think the key difference is explicitely inviting these armchair logs and tacitly accepting them. Many people have stated in the forums that they never match the physical logbooks with the online logs. This admission hasn't resulted in their caches being archived.
Link to comment
I think the key difference is explicitely inviting these armchair logs and tacitly accepting them. Many people have stated in the forums that they never match the physical logbooks with the online logs. This admission hasn't resulted in their caches being archived.

 

Not checking the physical log isn't the same thing as not caring about armchair logging though. If I have reason to believe that a log on one of my caches is bogus or an armchair log, I will contest it and if necessary consult the physical log. Owners of powertrail caches most likely never even look at any single found log on any of their caches, and even more likely won't ever delete one even if obviously bogus. Even if they did, they'd have no way of verifying it because there's no usable log to check.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

I also agree with some earlier posts about these and other practices becoming more and more commonplace. I have seen this mentality already growing. There are more and more throwdowns on the non power trail caches in my area already. Also, as posted in an earlier thread, a power caching group heard a whole stretch of caches had been picked up by a road crew, and what is the 1st thing they did? Throwdown a bunch of replacements. That is another reason a CO shouldn't encourage community maint. The CO, reviewer or Groundspeak will be the most likely people to get informed of any potential problems and should be the ones taking care of the caches.

Edited by M 5
Link to comment
I think the key difference is explicitely inviting these armchair logs and tacitly accepting them. Many people have stated in the forums that they never match the physical logbooks with the online logs. This admission hasn't resulted in their caches being archived.

 

Not checking the physical log isn't the same thing as not caring about armchair logging though. If I have reason to believe that a log on one of my caches is bogus or an armchair log, I will contest it and if necessary consult the physical log. Owners of powertrail caches most likely never even look at any single found log on any of their caches, and even more likely won't ever delete one even if obviously bogus.

True, but many people have stated that they have no interest in checking the logs regardless of whether they suspect armchair logging. As far as I can tell, TPTB have taken no action on physical caches owned by people who take this position.
Link to comment

People frequently replace caches that they don't own without the cache getting archived.

There's a difference there. Someone replacing a cache as an unsolicited good gesture doesn't mean the CO is avoiding maintaining their cache. The CO explicitly asking the next cacher to fix his cache is neglecting his maintenance duties and has gotten a few caches on a power trail archived around here.

 

A bag of film canisters waiting at the start of the trail falls in the second category.

 

Moving around caches isn't such a common phenomenon, but I can't imagine that it would get a 'traditional' traditional cache archived if it happened.

The reason is not common is that it's not allowed anymore. We used to have caches where the finder was supposed to rehide it somewhere else and those were banned. The loophole here is that you're rehiding it in the spot of another existing cache.

Link to comment
True, but many people have stated that they have no interest in checking the logs regardless of whether they suspect armchair logging. As far as I can tell, TPTB have taken no action on physical caches owned by people who take this position.

That's not the point. The point is that even if a CO never even considers checking the log, they still could, because there is a log. Leapfrogging and throwdowns however effectively turn all the caches into log-less containers. Each container does have a log, but the log doesn't reflect the visits to the cache, or anything else relating to the cache. It's just a meaningless piece of paper with some dates and names on it, but it's not a visitor's log.

 

In other words (or in the same words - I've already said that), condoning leapfrogging effectively turns the caches into containers without logs, which actually is against the guidelines.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

However, that doesn't mean that accepting community help is verboten.

Agreed. Geeze... is this a record? :)

Not really. We're in general agreement on this thread's issue. We both believe that leapfrogging and three-cache-monte are unacceptable practices that TPTB should do something about.

 

I'm curious, because your reasons are usually fairly detailed, do you have any suggestions as to how Groundspeak would detect these practices if they aren't being broadcasted by the participants?

Link to comment
True, but many people have stated that they have no interest in checking the logs regardless of whether they suspect armchair logging. As far as I can tell, TPTB have taken no action on physical caches owned by people who take this position.

That's not the point. The point is that even if a CO never even considers checking the log, they still could, because there is a log. Leapfrogging and throwdowns however effectively turn all the caches into log-less containers. Each container does have a log, but the log doesn't reflect the visits to the cache, or anything else relating to the cache. It's just a meaningless piece of paper with some dates and names on it, but it's not a visitor's log.

 

In other words (or in the same words - I've already said that), condoning leapfrogging effectively turns the caches into containers without logs, which actually is against the guidelines.

 

I'd take it a step further and submit they are caches without persistent containers or a unique view, but... baby steps...

Link to comment
True, but many people have stated that they have no interest in checking the logs regardless of whether they suspect armchair logging. As far as I can tell, TPTB have taken no action on physical caches owned by people who take this position.

That's not the point. The point is that even if a CO never even considers checking the log, they still could, because there is a log. Leapfrogging and throwdowns however effectively turn all the caches into log-less containers. Each container does have a log, but the log doesn't reflect the visits to the cache, or anything else relating to the cache. It's just a meaningless piece of paper with some dates and names on it, but it's not a visitor's log.

 

In other words, condoning leapfrogging effectively turns the caches into containers without logs, which actually is against the guidelines.

You're confusing throw downs with three-cache-monty, but I get your point.

 

Throw down - The seeker can't find the cache, so he just leaves a new one where he thinks it belongs.

 

Three-cache-monty - The container with the correct log keeps moving among the various cache sites being replaced with containers holding other cache's logs. Find the queen.

Link to comment

However, that doesn't mean that accepting community help is verboten.

Agreed. Geeze... is this a record? :)

Not really. We're in general agreement on this thread's issue. We both believe that leapfrogging and three-cache-monte are unacceptable practices that TPTB should do something about.

 

I'm curious, because your reasons are usually fairly detailed, do you have any suggestions as to how Groundspeak would detect these practices if they aren't being broadcasted by the participants?

They aren't going to know on the front end, of course. However, they can deal with the ones that they learn about, just like they deal with armchair virt owners.
Link to comment

At the end of the day, this is a game that only involves two people; the cache owner and the cache seeker. In general, if these two people agree that a find is made, then it can be logged online and TPTB will do nothing about it.

You're wrong about that. Virtual caches have been archived when the CO allowed bogus finds to stand. Care to do an experiment and encourage armchair logging on one of your traditionals and see what happens?

I've mentioned armchair logging in a number of my posts on this issue. Suffice it to say that they were covered by the bolded bit.

Oooo! I like that. So I can put the phrase "In general" in front of my statements to make the opposite valid? Let me try: In general, a physical cache has to have a log book. So that means I can hide one with a code word and have people email me. It's just between me and the seekers, right? :anibad:

 

That got out of hand and Groundspeak put a stop to it. I have a feeling the same will happen with Container Swapping and mass throwdowns eventually.

 

It occurs to me that you think that I am pro-three-cache-monty. I'm not sure why you believe this. I've actually taken the position on a number of occasions that a cache owner who allows such practice should have his cache archived. However, my wanting it to happen doesn't make it so. TPTB are the ones to make that decision. At this point, they can either come out and state that this practice is unnacceptable or they can keep quiet on it, thereby giving their tacit approval to the practice.

I wasn't sure if you were playing the Devil's Advocate here. You're right though. People will push the envelope until Groundspeak pushes back. Container Swapping has turned me off large power trails completely and I suspect others as well. When so many say "That's not Geocaching" then something needs to be done sooner or later.

Link to comment

At the end of the day, this is a game that only involves two people; the cache owner and the cache seeker. In general, if these two people agree that a find is made, then it can be logged online and TPTB will do nothing about it.

You're wrong about that. Virtual caches have been archived when the CO allowed bogus finds to stand. Care to do an experiment and encourage armchair logging on one of your traditionals and see what happens?

I've mentioned armchair logging in a number of my posts on this issue. Suffice it to say that they were covered by the bolded bit.

Oooo! I like that. So I can put the phrase "In general" in front of my statements to make the opposite valid? Let me try: In general, a physical cache has to have a log book. So that means I can hide one with a code word and have people email me. It's just between me and the seekers, right? :anibad:

You're putting considerable effort to make it appear that I am taking some other position than I am. I'm not sure why.

That got out of hand and Groundspeak put a stop to it. I have a feeling the same will happen with Container Swapping and mass throwdowns eventually.

I hope you are right.
It occurs to me that you think that I am pro-three-cache-monty. I'm not sure why you believe this. I've actually taken the position on a number of occasions that a cache owner who allows such practice should have his cache archived. However, my wanting it to happen doesn't make it so. TPTB are the ones to make that decision. At this point, they can either come out and state that this practice is unnacceptable or they can keep quiet on it, thereby giving their tacit approval to the practice.

I wasn't sure if you were playing the Devil's Advocate here. You're right though. People will push the envelope until Groundspeak pushes back. Container Swapping has turned me off large power trails completely and I suspect others as well. When so many say "That's not Geocaching" then something needs to be done sooner or later.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. My position is as follows:

 

Leapfrogging and three-cache-monty are icky. I would not practice either. I further wish TPTB would take a stand against three-cache-monty. In the absence of such a stand, teh cache owners are left to determine whether these practices are acceptable on their caches.

Link to comment

 

Three-cache-monty - The container with the correct log keeps moving among the various cache sites being replaced with containers holding other cache's logs. Find the queen.

 

Hee hee. Or Post a "Log Full" ... CO, find the log.

Too bad the "Needs Maintenance" attribute won't actually follow the cache container around as it travels.

 

Three-cache-monty is only a benefit to those that are going to attempt the entire series in one go. If they come back later, how will they know which ones they have already signed.

 

Wait, I know. All you gotta do is swing by your local camera store, get 1000 film canisters. Now, fire up word, make a 35mm log template with your Team Name printed up top of the log. Visit each cache, don't even bother opening (or searching) and toss down your pre-signed cache container. Your Cut'n'Paste online log should include the words "Performed much needed cache maintenance".

 

Now you can cache without dropping below 20kph, or taking precious time to write your name in the log!

Link to comment
You're confusing throw downs with three-cache-monty, but I get your point.

 

Throw down - The seeker can't find the cache, so he just leaves a new one where he thinks it belongs.

 

It applies to throw-downs as well, at least in the case of those power trails. The CO won't even know that the container and thus the log was replaced, and more specifically won't know when, so again there's no usable log to check. The only log the CO could possibly verify is always only the last one. Again, it turns the caches into containers without a visitor's log.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

You're putting considerable effort to make it appear that I am taking some other position than I am. I'm not sure why.

No I'm not actually. I understand what your position is now. I was just having a little fun at what you wrote there. ;)

 

I'm not playing devil's advocate. My position is as follows:

 

Leapfrogging and three-cache-monty are icky. I would not practice either. I further wish TPTB would take a stand against three-cache-monty. In the absence of such a stand, teh cache owners are left to determine whether these practices are acceptable on their caches.

That's exactly what playing devil's advocate is. You don't agree with it but are presenting valid arguments for the other side.

Link to comment

They really should separate the competition caches, or number caches from the others with a different attribute or icon.

Or even another website? I hear www. mindless.repetition.caching .com is open. Just sayin'... :ph34r:

 

Do people think they still have the moral right to swap a new container for mine, and take mine down the road?

Of course! That's the price you pay for selecting such a crappy container. :P

 

I have a feeling the same will happen with Container Swapping and mass throwdowns eventually.

I wouldn't bet on it. Groundspeak is making good money off of lazy cachers. Actually enforcing their guidelines might bite them in the wallet. :unsure:

Link to comment
I have a feeling the same will happen with Container Swapping and mass throwdowns eventually.

I wouldn't bet on it. Groundspeak is making good money off of lazy cachers. Actually enforcing their guidelines might bite them in the wallet. :unsure:

 

This last quote here by CR might raise a few eyebrows, and get a few heated responses. But I'm going to have to agree. Ain't no causual cachers with freebie accounts running these power trails. All I see is people with 4 or 5 digit found counts after their usernames, all of whom are probably premium members for life. <_<

Link to comment
I have a feeling the same will happen with Container Swapping and mass throwdowns eventually.

I wouldn't bet on it. Groundspeak is making good money off of lazy cachers. Actually enforcing their guidelines might bite them in the wallet. :unsure:

 

This last quote here by CR might raise a few eyebrows, and get a few heated responses. But I'm going to have to agree. Ain't no causual cachers with freebie accounts running these power trails. All I see is people with 4 or 5 digit found counts after their usernames, all of whom are probably premium members for life. <_<

 

Reminds me of the "visiting travel bugs" issue. People used to have angst that people were "dipping" TBs and it was expected that TPTB would ban the activity. Oddly enough when it was realized that dipping sold more TBs, it became a new logging type, not banned ....

 

Same thing will happen with Power Trails - lots of people go for these trails, and it helps bump up that 1.2 million caches published number on the front page so it's not in their interest to start whacking them left and right.

Link to comment

Reminds me of the "visiting travel bugs" issue. People used to have angst that people were "dipping" TBs and it was expected that TPTB would ban the activity. Oddly enough when it was realized that dipping sold more TBs, it became a new logging type, not banned ....

Oh oh...! :unsure: Finally! We have an "angst". We have an "angst" over here. Do I hear a "puritan" yet? Anyone? OK, maybe not yet. How about an "entitled"? Are we ready for that? :lol:
Link to comment

I personally feel "leapfrogging" is cheating, so I wont travel with a group that follows that practice. I have, and will container swap, but only one container at a time, as it saves valuable time when caching with 2 or more people.

 

That there is some backwards logic.

Link to comment

Knowschad - not only "puritan" but also a typical long Toz post.

 

1. Do These Practices Really Effect You?

 

I wonder why all this concern over a logging practice on a series of caches that most of those complaining have also indicated they have no desire in ever finding. Even among those who might go find them there hasn't been a really good argument about how these practices will effect your caching.

 

Some have concerns that if you sign the log in one of these caches, that log may be moved to a different cache site and the cache owner wouldn't be able to check that you found the cache you said you did. A few have wondered what it might mean, if you return to the trail to find caches you hadn't found before and saw your name in the log.

 

I've had both of these issues happen to me sans power trail or these particular logging practices. Often after I have signed a log, it will get full and someone will replace the log for the cache owner, or the log may get wet and someone may remove the soggy log to make room for a dry one. I haven't worried that a cache owner was going to delete my find just because my name was no longer in the log. (Just as I don't worry that my log will be deleted because I forgot a pencil). Of course you might say that you should keep the wet soggy log and give it to the cache owner so he could still check it to verify names (assuming that ink hadn't run so much that it is not readable). I have also found caches with my name in the log already. This has happened when a cache owner has recycled an old cache container and reused the log sheet. No doubt some of you will say that the cache owner should have put in a new log, Perhaps cache owners who are too lazy to replace logs should have their caches archived? In any case I just signed the log again and logged my find online. Could I have logged online without signing again? I suppose so. But I was simply having too much fun finding caches to think about how I could save a little time or ink and still feel like a puritan because my name was already in the cache log.

 

2. Banned Logging Practices

 

Groundspeak has decided that there are a few logging practices that they view as an abuse of the system. I don't know exactly what TPTB call abuse, but it seems to have to do with making sure that geocaching is a fun, light activity. Trouble makers who take advantage of the internet to log couch potato logs are considered abusers. The point of geocaching is to find caches and those who log finds without ever going out to look for geocachers have been deemed abusers and their logs as bogus. A similar issue was the cause of pocket caches getting quickly archived. If you go to an event, you should log an attended on an event. Someone should not hand you a log book from a cache in Iraq and invite you to log a find on it even though you have never been to Iraq.

 

Other than these few examples, TPTB have allowed all kinds of strange logging practices. They have not stopped logging multiple attends at events, or multiple finds on caches where the cache owner wants to allow "extra credit". They certainly have not required cache owners to delete found logs because the physical log is not signed. Instead, they have simply told cache owner not to delete logs when the log is signed (assuming they are not off-topic or inappropriate). Cache owners have even not been told not to allow a finder to change a DNF to a find when the cache is missing or to allow a find when a missing cache is replaced by the finder. My guess is that TPTB are reluctant to view these practices as abuse because the people writing these logs are still geocaching and the cache hiders are enjoying these find logs on their cache pages.

 

3. Why Do People Do This?

 

The point of geocaching is to have fun, not to score points by finding caches. While it is true that the motivation for the practices discussed in this thread is usually to "find more caches in some period of time", it doesn't seem the reason for the practices is to win a find count competition against those who are not using these practices. In other words, the reason seem to have to do with setting personal goals and making the experience of find a lot of caches on the trail enjoyable. Perhaps those who can't imagine repetitive speed caching as enjoyable, need to project a different motive on these practices. The problem I always have are the people who throw out the word "cheater" quickly in these situations. The teams who have used these practices on power trail have done so with the consent of the cache owners and clearly stating that the purpose was to set some personal record that may or may not be accepted by those who don't like the practice.

 

None of the "questionable" practices are forced on anybody. One of the reasons that all physical caches must have a container and a log, is so that those people who choose to log a find only when they sign the log can do so. No cache owner can force you to log a find you don't want to log, and once you have signed a log, no cache owner can delete your log (with some very specific exceptions).

 

4. Container Swapping

 

It seems there is more concern over the cache swapping practice. I suppose this is understandable since under normal circumstances we all know that we should replace the cache as we found it so that the next cacher can enjoy finding it as well. The problem is that is very difficult to write a guideline for cache owners to not allow logs when their cache is moved.

 

I have taken a cache when I was not able to return it to the hiding place because of muggles or because the attachment broke. Of course in each case I informed the cache owner as quickly as possible and offered to return the cache. There have also been case where I removed a damaged cache container and left a new container, sometimes even leaving a new log book. In a few instances these were old caches with inactive cache owners. While my logs say what I did, there was certainly no cache owner permission beforehand. However, I felt that I was helping by keeping an old historic cache going so that others could have the enjoyment of finding it.

 

Now, I realize the motivation of the power trail swappers is different. But I wonder how you could write a guideline that would require/allow cache owners to delete find logs that wouldn't have gotten my finds deleted when I was helping out. In fact, on a power trail, a cache owner may find cache swapping a help in doing maintenance. New logs can be put out as needed and damaged or missing container replaced. The next team on the trail will have caches to find thanks to the cache swapper's maintenace.

Link to comment

Reminds me of the "visiting travel bugs" issue. People used to have angst that people were "dipping" TBs and it was expected that TPTB would ban the activity. Oddly enough when it was realized that dipping sold more TBs, it became a new logging type, not banned ....

Oh oh...! :unsure: Finally! We have an "angst". We have an "angst" over here. Do I hear a "puritan" yet? Anyone? OK, maybe not yet. How about an "entitled"? Are we ready for that? :lol:

 

We had a black eye earlier. Just two more and I get four across.

Link to comment
I'm not playing devil's advocate. My position is as follows:

 

Leapfrogging and three-cache-monty are icky. I would not practice either. I further wish TPTB would take a stand against three-cache-monty. In the absence of such a stand, teh cache owners are left to determine whether these practices are acceptable on their caches.

That's exactly what playing devil's advocate is. You don't agree with it but are presenting valid arguments for the other side.

A devil's advocate argues against a given position. In this case, a devil's advocate would be arguing against the position that 'leapfrogging and three-cache-monty are bad'. I have never argued against that position. In fact, I have championed that position.
Link to comment

Oh oh...! :unsure: Finally! We have an "angst". We have an "angst" over here. Do I hear a "puritan" yet? Anyone? OK, maybe not yet. How about an "entitled"? Are we ready for that? :lol:

 

We had a black eye earlier. Just two more and I get four across.

Get your Bingo cards out...

This sport is getting a black eye due to the angst created by geocaching puritans with entitled attitudes. Power trails. tongue.gif

Seriously though...

 

This thread is absolutely amazing me with the amount of disagreement that has come out of a subject we almost all agree on - Leapfrogging and container swapping shouldn't be done.

Link to comment

A devil's advocate argues against a given position. In this case, a devil's advocate would be arguing against the position that 'leapfrogging and three-cache-monty are bad'. I have never argued against that position. In fact, I have championed that position.

You don't have to argue against it, just take their viewpoint in some way. While you don't agree with what they're doing, you've taken their viewpoint that they're allowed to currently do it.

 

I know you don't agree with what they're doing but you're still defending their ability to do it.

Link to comment
I have a feeling the same will happen with Container Swapping and mass throwdowns eventually.

I wouldn't bet on it. Groundspeak is making good money off of lazy cachers. Actually enforcing their guidelines might bite them in the wallet. :unsure:

 

This last quote here by CR might raise a few eyebrows, and get a few heated responses. But I'm going to have to agree. Ain't no causual cachers with freebie accounts running these power trails. All I see is people with 4 or 5 digit found counts after their usernames, all of whom are probably premium members for life. <_<

 

Not that it matters, but I don't agree. I'd be willing to bet that all those cachers would be PMs anyway, powertrail or not, container swapping or not.

Link to comment

A devil's advocate argues against a given position. In this case, a devil's advocate would be arguing against the position that 'leapfrogging and three-cache-monty are bad'. I have never argued against that position. In fact, I have championed that position.

You don't have to argue against it, just take their viewpoint in some way. While you don't agree with what they're doing, you've taken their viewpoint that they're allowed to currently do it.

 

I know you don't agree with what they're doing but you're still defending their ability to do it.

I don't care for puzzles, but I'm not going to take the position that puzzle caches aren't allowed.

Link to comment

You don't have to argue against it, just take their viewpoint in some way. While you don't agree with what they're doing, you've taken their viewpoint that they're allowed to currently do it.

 

I know you don't agree with what they're doing but you're still defending their ability to do it.

I don't care for puzzles, but I'm not going to take the position that puzzle caches aren't allowed.

With a small amount of guilt I've sat back while sbell111 has done a lot of the heavy lifting on this subject the last few days. (I'm a bit burned out about discussing power trails after the last three or four PT threads.)

 

But I 100% agree with him on about respecting how others cache. There isn't a type of caching out there that somebody doesn't have an issue with. There are types of caching that I just don't enjoy, but I know other people do and I say...more power to them.

 

All types of caching have their 'issues' and bad actors, but I don't agree with banning an entire segment of geocaching as a result. (Baby, bath water, blah, blah.)

Link to comment

 

With a small amount of guilt I've sat back while sbell111 has done a lot of the heavy lifting on this subject the last few days. (I'm a bit burned out about discussing power trails after the last three or four PT threads.)

 

But I 100% agree with him on about respecting how others cache. There isn't a type of caching out there that somebody doesn't have an issue with. There are types of caching that I just don't enjoy, but I know other people do and I say...more power to them.

 

All types of caching have their 'issues' and bad actors, but I don't agree with banning an entire segment of geocaching as a result. (Baby, bath water, blah, blah.)

 

I agree with you on this. At least, until someone decides it's ok to swap out one of my containers because it's something "everyone does".

Link to comment

I agree with you on this. At least, until someone decides it's ok to swap out one of my containers because it's something "everyone does".

 

Agreed. It should not be up to a cacher to decide this in a vacuum. It should be checked with the CO. Ideally if GS wants to support this, an attribute called "swappable" or a cache type called "power trail FC", etc. should be added. That way, non-swappable caches along a route could be filtered out.

 

In lieu of this (since it obviously doesn't exist today) I'd say that people that want to support such activities on their caches band together with their "cache neighbors" for creating a standardized, common graphic or segment of text for all caches along a route letting the finder know that it is allowed.

 

If the common graphic or text passage doesn't exist on a given cache along that route, then the finder should assume that it IS NOT OKAY to swap.

 

Of course, this all assumes that the cachers on such a run would be bothered to either filter out the other caches or read 500-1000 cache descriptions just to make sure that swapping was allowed (yeah, THAT's gonna happen! :laughing: )

Edited by daschpeeg
Link to comment

The E.T. Series (1027 caches spaced about .1 mile apart) and the Route 66 Series (800 similarly spaced caches) have written a new chapter in the Book of Geocaching: Ultimate Power Caching.

 

They have also created two sub-chapters:

 

Cache Swapping

Leapfrogging.

 

Cache Swapping (or Moving) is the practice of picking up a cache, replacing it with one that has a log you or your group has signed, and signing the log as you drive to the next cache, where you will repeat the process.

 

Leapfrogging is the practice of having two or more cars working together and alternating caches, for example one car gets all the even numbered caches and the other car gets all of the odd numbered caches.

 

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?

I would love to do both series...just because I would love to both series...

As for methods...nope...wouldn't use either...

Link to comment

Some geocachers should visit these giant trails, and permanently anchor all the film canisters. This would tick off the Leapsters, and swappers.

Slightly off topic, but worthy of sharing. A few years ago we visited a town and found a lot of LPC caches, most of them camo tape wrapped pill bottles. We wondered about the time and effort to camo them considering the location of the hide. We then wondered if it would be fun to backtrack and replace some of them with snake in a can containers.

Once we got home, one of our crew placed his own cache with the snake in the can. It's still on my watchlist and provides much entertainment.

 

Back OT-I plan on visiting the desert someday soon to run both trails, find other caches, hike a bit, and enjoy some time away from home. I don't plan to leapfrog nor play container monte. Nor will Monte be riding with us. But put it all in perspective-there are fewer than 12 cachers having an active discussion on the topic. How many of you plan to find these caches? How many cachers who plan to find these caches are aware of this thread? How many of them care what is being said in this thread? How many cachers who aren't planning to do these power trails, don't read the forums, and don't care about this discussion? Whose geocaching experience should Groundspeak be concerned about the most?

 

We now return you to your normally scheduled topic of angst, puritans, and entitlement. Did I miss anything?

Link to comment

I don't care for puzzles, but I'm not going to take the position that puzzle caches aren't allowed.

That a bad analogy. The correct one would be "I don't care for puzzles, but I'm pointing out that others are allowed to place them."

 

When I said you were playing Devil's Advocate, I'm acknowledging that you don't agree with it and are only presenting some aspect of the other sides viewpoint. That's all, nothing more.

Link to comment

Practices like these are why there was a feedback idea to ban or somehow limit powertrails. They just amplify many known geocaching issues and even promote bad practices. As more and more of these pop up, some of these things will become more commonplace. It is already happening and bad practices becoming more commonplace has happend with other issues in the past. I've been predicting these and other issues associated with powertrails and the proliferation of urban png's. Groundspeak needs to be proactive instead of reactive on issues that are heading in the wrong direction. I know they don't want to give a cause for a competing site to grab onto and champion, but I don't think geocaching.com will miss those cachers in the long run. Instead, they leave the idea in "accepted" in the feedback site for over 4 months, then have the brainstorm, that the feedback site isn't the right place for it and said to beat the dead horse in the forums for eternity I guess. Must have been the right place for 4 months. Since then, there has been some sort of issue on the ET trail. That thread was closed and I haven't heard any updates for the Nye County caches and powertrails are continuing to pop up and the issue is only going to get harder to control, not easier.

Link to comment

That thread was closed and I haven't heard any updates for the Nye County caches and powertrails are continuing to pop up and the issue is only going to get harder to control, not easier.

Most of these "issues" have been second-hand "I heard that..." stories and not real issues.

 

This is off-topic as per the OP, but it turns out the Nye county story was overblown as well. The CO's contacted NDOT and found out that NOBODY ordered the removal of the caches from the highway right-of-way. They did decide, from their conversation with NDOT, that any caches on highway markers would be moved further off the road and onto BLM land (which they have approval to do). This is to prevent cachers from just driving next to the marker and trying to grab the container without leaving their car. In some instances this left the car partially in the roadway during the cache retrieval. They are starting the process of moving the caches and NDOT knows and has accepted this will take several weeks to complete.

 

The county and the neighboring businesses are actually quite happy about the E.T. Power Trail. The highway was designated as the "Extraterrestrial Highway" in an attempt to drive some tourist traffic/business out of Las Vegas and into that part of the state. This didn't work and traffic counts for the last available year, 2009, were only 170 cars a day that drive on some portion of that highway. One business (can't recall from memory at the moment), reported they were able to stay fully staffed instead of cutting during their "off-season" due to the business generated by the E.T. Power Trail. (This info comes from an interview the CO's did a couple of weeks ago.)

 

So back on topic...

Boo to leapfrogging and container swapping. Bad geocachers, bad!! tongue.gif

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

That thread was closed and I haven't heard any updates for the Nye County caches and powertrails are continuing to pop up and the issue is only going to get harder to control, not easier.

Most of these "issues" have been second-hand "I heard that..." stories and not real issues.

 

This is off-topic as per the OP, but it turns out the Nye county story was overblown as well. The CO's contacted NDOT and found out that NOBODY ordered the removal of the caches from the highway right-of-way. They did decide, from their conversation with NDOT, that any caches on highway markers would be moved further off the road and onto BLM land (which they have approval to do). This is to prevent cachers from just driving next to the marker and trying to grab the container without leaving their car. In some instances this left the car partially in the roadway during the cache retrieval. They are starting the process of moving the caches and NDOT knows and has accepted this will take several weeks to complete.

 

The county and the neighboring businesses are actually quite happy about the E.T. Power Trail. The highway was designated as the "Extraterrestrial Highway" in an attempt to drive some tourist traffic/business out of Las Vegas and into that part of the state. This didn't work and traffic counts for the last available year, 2009, were only 170 cars a day that drive on some portion of that highway. One business (can't recall from memory at the moment), reported they were able to stay fully staffed instead of cutting during their "off-season" due to the business generated by the E.T. Power Trail. (This info comes from an interview the CO's did a couple of weeks ago.)

 

So back on topic...

Boo to leapfrogging and container swapping. Bad geocachers, bad!! tongue.gif

Would you mind posting this in a new thread? I have been curious about the situation since the other thread was closed down. Hopefully a new thread simply revealing this news will be treated better and not become a hotbed of opinions.

Link to comment

Would you mind posting this in a new thread? I have been curious about the situation since the other thread was closed down. Hopefully a new thread simply revealing this news will be treated better and not become a hotbed of opinions.

Someone will start one, as we seem to get a new one each week. At this point I believe most minds are pretty much made up.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...