Three Cache Monte by any other name

[+TopShelfRob]

I think the people who approve of it simply call it "geocaching". Therein lies the problem.

[+niraD]

I think the people who approve of it simply call it "geocaching". Therein lies the problem.

Well, if they use the technique everywhere, and if it is their normal geocaching technique for all caches regardless of whether the CO approves of it, then yes, therein lies a problem.

 

But I'm assuming that at least some people practice the technique only when the CO approves of it. Certainly those people have some way to refer to the technique, some way to discuss whether or not the CO approves of it, some way to discuss whether or not they're going to use it.

 

When they refer to it, when they discuss it, what do they call it?

[+Roman!]

I think the people who approve of it simply call it "geocaching". Therein lies the problem.

Well, if they use the technique everywhere, and if it is their normal geocaching technique for all caches regardless of whether the CO approves of it, then yes, therein lies a problem.

 

But I'm assuming that at least some people practice the technique only when the CO approves of it. Certainly those people have some way to refer to the technique, some way to discuss whether or not the CO approves of it, some way to discuss whether or not they're going to use it.

 

When they refer to it, when they discuss it, what do they call it?

 

I've done a few PTs and when we planned our trip we really never called it anything, it was just commonly assumed to pick up a bunch of film canisters for our trip, have them ready with pre signed logs and replace any missing caches (out of the maybe 5000 pt caches I've done I think I have replaced 5 that we couldn't find) and use what you call three cache monte to save time/maximize finds.

 

I have done 130 cache bike trails and found/signed/replaced each cache and have had a few 100+ cache driving days without moving or replacing caches and actually logging some DNFs.

 

I have been gifted with a rare trait, common sense, and it helps me determine what is accepable and what is not, makes me feel good about my stats.

 

Regardless, I've had some pretty awesome caching experiences and the bottom line is I'm having fun.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+wmpastor]

Thanks everyone, but "lame", "abomination", "knickers twisting", "cheesy", etc. describe too many other things.

 

I'm looking for a term that is more specific, that refers only to this particular "optimization" used on numbers run trails. Furthermore, I'm looking for a term that practitioners of this "optimization" use when they discuss it among themselves.

 

Unfortunately, the type of people you are trying to get your answer from, generally don't frequent the forums. Even if they did, why wade in just to be insulted? I'm curious for the answer also. Too bad that everyone else here feels compelled to sabotage your thread.

 

My friends who did it on the original ET trail simply called it "cache moving", but that was a year ago before the practice really caught on, so it really didn't have a name.

 

You're friends with people who practice this diabolical abomination???

 

Well, i'll say one thing - you're brave to wade in and admit it! Be prepared for the onslaught on the twisted knickers crowd!

 

[+niraD]

I've done a few PTs and when we planned our trip we really never called it anything, it was just commonly assumed to pick up a bunch of film canisters for our trip, have them ready with pre signed logs and replace any missing caches (out of the maybe 5000 pt caches I've done I think I have replaced 5 that we couldn't find) and use what you call three cache monte to save time/maximize finds.

So if you were planning a big geocaching day, and your route included a couple hundred caches where this technique was approved/encouraged, and a couple hundred caches where the CO had added a big RETURN THIS CACHE TO ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION message to the cache descriptions, how would you describe the difference between the two groups of caches? How would you describe the difference in your technique between one group of caches and the other?