Reverse Cache Machine

[+K13]

What are your thoughts about having an event where the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location. Take them to the event location. Make the logs available for signing by the attendees. Then replace the caches once the event is over.

 

I think you should make showers available so0 everyone could wash away the slime and sleaze this entails. Signing the logs of stolen caches does not constitute finding caches in any sense of the game.

Edited June 29, 2012 by K13

[+6NoisyHikers]

Interpreting Groundspeak's guidelines is like interpreting the Bible

 

And because they are "guidelines" as opposed to "rules" (as I have often heard said), there is a whole lot of wiggle room in how they are interpreted and enacted. Especially when there is little confirmation from The Frog.

 

So on rainy days we can come here and wax theoretical and philosophical with all the fervor of a down-South revival

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I think this is good conversation and I am learning a lot. I see a lot of bad form and bad idea posts. But a lot of people think that power tails are bad form and a bad idea. That doesn't mean that they violate any guidelines.

 

I think that the there are someo of us that believe that the guidelines are merely that; guidelines. There are many guidelines which dictate how that game *can* be played. The guidelines do not tell us how the game *should* be played.

 

For example, there was that recent cache in a Walmart parking lot that was placed with permission, had no proxmity issues, or appeared to violate any of the other placement guidelines. The fact that it's placement resulted a visit by the bomb squad, potentially leading to land managers taking a more critical view of the game of geocaching and even adopting bans on playing the game within the city, suggests that perhaps the cache *should not* have been placed at that location.

 

If there is a strong consensus that a certain way of playing the game is a bad idea, perhaps the game shouldn't be played that way, even if it doesn't (and that's arguable) violate any guidelines.

[knowschad]

But a lot of people think that power tails are bad form and a bad idea. That doesn't mean that they violate any guidelines.

They used to be.

[knowschad]

What are your thoughts about having an event where the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location. Take them to the event location. Make the logs available for signing by the attendees. Then replace the caches once the event is over. It's a cache machine where the caches come to you. A reverse cache machine.

 

A debate in another topic get me thinking about this possibility when I reviewed the current finding guidelines. The only requirement appears to be signing the log.

 

One question about this that I don't think has yet been asked or answered... "why?" Just to do something different? Or is there some other reason for it?

[+Ambrosia]

Well, I think it is a little different because it sounds like a "cache machine" is an event where everyone is running around town in small groups, then gets together for dinner to swap stories, and a "group hunt" seems to be 50 cachers tromping down the same trail together at the same time headed for the same cache. The former I would do, the latter I wouldn't. (But no judgement on those who would!)

Interesting. I'd actually prefer the exact opposite, though not in such a large group. I'd thoroughly enjoy getting a dozen or so cachers together to go hiking through the nearby hills to find a bunch of caches (and may actually do that later this summer).

I've done both, and both are enjoyable. I wouldn't want to do it all the time, but it's fun once in a while! I love the camaraderie, even though I probably prefer to cache alone, in general.

[+magicalhelmet]

You know, I thought a reverse cache machine was something totally different. It's a cache you already have in your possession, and you have to take it to specific coordinates in order to get it open. They have a GPS receiver that triggers the lock to open when you get to the right spot.

 

I think that sounds a lot cooler than what's described in this thread. ^^;

[+Glenn]

 

I think this is good conversation and I am learning a lot. I see a lot of bad form and bad idea posts. But a lot of people think that power tails are bad form and a bad idea. That doesn't mean that they violate any guidelines.

 

I think that the there are someo of us that believe that the guidelines are merely that; guidelines. There are many guidelines which dictate how that game *can* be played. The guidelines do not tell us how the game *should* be played.

 

For example, there was that recent cache in a Walmart parking lot that was placed with permission, had no proxmity issues, or appeared to violate any of the other placement guidelines. The fact that it's placement resulted a visit by the bomb squad, potentially leading to land managers taking a more critical view of the game of geocaching and even adopting bans on playing the game within the city, suggests that perhaps the cache *should not* have been placed at that location.

 

If there is a strong consensus that a certain way of playing the game is a bad idea, perhaps the game shouldn't be played that way, even if it doesn't (and that's arguable) violate any guidelines.

 

Tell that to the people who had their pocket caches locked so that no more logs could be made. At times Groundspeak does put it's foot down. Unfortunately they don't seem consistent and that's where the gray areas come in.

[+Don_J]

If I knew in advance what was going to happen, I wouldn't attend.

If I saw this happening after I was already there, I would leave immediately.

 

I'd probably do the same, and it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth about attending any future events and the local geocaching community as well. I might even give up local caching as well on only cache when I'm traveling.

 

What strikes me about the idea of bringing caches to an event to be logged is that the only motivation that I can think of for doing it would be to provide an incentive for people to attend the event. IMHO, that misses the whole point about geo events, as I think events should be about getting a bunch of geocachers together to meet and socialize, not to increase one's find count. I'd be perfectly happy if Attended logs no longer added to our find count.

 

I'm a little confused by this. If the intent of the event was to log pocket caches, I wouldn't attend, however, if I was at an event and someone started passing around a cache, I'd just shake my head. Getting up and leaving seems a bit silly. I'm not going to allow the actions of a few to effect my ability to have a good time.

[+Glenn]

Notice it says "finding the cache". That's another requirement. I maintain that someone stealing* a cache and handing it to you nowhere near GZ does not constitute you finding the cache. Retrieving it from a spot and handing it to your caching buddies a few feet away from GZ is totally different than relocating it completely away from the GZ area and you know it.

It does say finding the cache but it doesn't specify that the cache needs to be at or even near GZ. I've retrieved caches and moved them 100's of feet for other people to sign then returned them to their original location. I've also heard tell of a cacher that retrieved a cache a little more than a mile up a trail. Then brought it back to the trail head so that a handicapped cacher could sign the log and get credit for a cache that she needed to complete a challenge. A reverse cache machine simply expands this a bit more.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to frequently forget the biggest, all-encompassing guideline there is: common sense. There shouldn't need to be guidelines covering every possible scenario. Some things are obvious enough that a guideline shouldn't need to be written. There's no guideline prohibiting me from dousing every cache I find in gasoline and lighting it on fire, so does that mean it's okay for me to do it?

Except this isn't a rare occurrence or a what if scenario. This is happening all the time just with less people and a shorter distance. Get a little bit organized and you can increase the distance and number of participants.

 

I'd be very happy if this entire thread got completely deleted. I shudder to think what might happen if someone with little integrity stumbles upon this thread and runs with the idea.

 

*and it is, it isn't yours to do with as you please, it's the owner's cache

I think it would be interesting if someone gave this idea a trial run. Owner notification and participation would have to be a key aspect of organizing a Reverse Cache Machine. That was one of the areas of angst when Cache Machines were starting to become a thing.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I think it would be interesting if someone gave this idea a trial run.

 

It's had a "trial run". As I've already posted, this was done in some parts of the US from 2003 to end 2005.

 

Eventually, many of the caches that were being moved to be found at events were archived and locked, "by order of Groundspeak".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I think this is good conversation and I am learning a lot. I see a lot of bad form and bad idea posts. But a lot of people think that power tails are bad form and a bad idea. That doesn't mean that they violate any guidelines.

 

I think that the there are someo of us that believe that the guidelines are merely that; guidelines. There are many guidelines which dictate how that game *can* be played. The guidelines do not tell us how the game *should* be played.

 

For example, there was that recent cache in a Walmart parking lot that was placed with permission, had no proxmity issues, or appeared to violate any of the other placement guidelines. The fact that it's placement resulted a visit by the bomb squad, potentially leading to land managers taking a more critical view of the game of geocaching and even adopting bans on playing the game within the city, suggests that perhaps the cache *should not* have been placed at that location.

 

If there is a strong consensus that a certain way of playing the game is a bad idea, perhaps the game shouldn't be played that way, even if it doesn't (and that's arguable) violate any guidelines.

 

Tell that to the people who had their pocket caches locked so that no more logs could be made. At times Groundspeak does put it's foot down. Unfortunately they don't seem consistent and that's where the gray areas come in.

 

I suspect that those that had their caches locked created the cache specifically as a pocket cache and carried it with them for other to sign. If a cache owner decided to temporarily disable their traditional cache, grabbed the container and brought it "somewhere" where other could sign the log, then returned the container and re-enabled it so that it's just another traditional hide, I can't think of a guideline that the CO or those that logged the cache would be violating.

 

Caches are disabled, removed, replaced, and re-enabled all the time. The only difference is that the CO would be allowing others to sign the log while it's disabled.

 

Once again, I think it's a really cheesy idea and have no idea what purpose it's supposed to serve, but unless someone makes a really big stink about it, I doubt that GS would do anything about it.

[+Don_J]

 

I suspect that those that had their caches locked created the cache specifically as a pocket cache and carried it with them for other to sign. If a cache owner decided to temporarily disable their traditional cache, grabbed the container and brought it "somewhere" where other could sign the log, then returned the container and re-enabled it so that it's just another traditional hide, I can't think of a guideline that the CO or those that logged the cache would be violating.

 

 

Do we really need a guideline to tell us that this wouldn't be right? Do we need a guideline that says that we can't grab all of the local caches, regardless of owner, and bring them to an event? Sometimes common sense has to take effect. Groundspeak shouldn't have to try to regulate and micro manage every single aspect of this activity simply because some of us have too much imagination.

 

This all came about because some guy found an archived cache in the trunk of the used car that he had just bought. I said that he should log it. The OP wants to take that to the nth level by demonstrating that logging that one cache would be equal to moving all of the local caches for the specific reason of logging them at a different location then where they were placed.

[+cache_test_dummies]

What are your thoughts about having an event where the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location. Take them to the event location. Make the logs available for signing by the attendees. Then replace the caches once the event is over.

Just to clarify: when you say "the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location", are you talking about geocaches that are owned by the organizers, or would the collected geocaches be owned by people not associated with the event, or not even aware of the event?

[knowschad]

You know, I thought a reverse cache machine was something totally different. It's a cache you already have in your possession, and you have to take it to specific coordinates in order to get it open. They have a GPS receiver that triggers the lock to open when you get to the right spot.

 

I think that sounds a lot cooler than what's described in this thread. ^^;

 

Yeah, we've had a few posts, some with pictures of the finished product, here. But the difference is with the word, "machine". Those are called "reverse caches". This idea is a play on the term, "cache machine", which is a large group that gets together to mow down find and log a bunch of caches together. Similar names, different concepts.

[knowschad]

What are your thoughts about having an event where the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location. Take them to the event location. Make the logs available for signing by the attendees. Then replace the caches once the event is over.

Just to clarify: when you say "the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location", are you talking about geocaches that are owned by the organizers, or would the collected geocaches be owned by people not associated with the event, or not even aware of the event?

 

And would those caches be disabled during the time they were not at their posted coordinates so that cachers that weren't aware of the event would not be as likely to waste their time looking for them?

[+Ambient_Skater]

Don't bother to do that 5/5 cache. Just wait until the next event and the event planner will "borrow" the cache and bring it to you to sign the log.

That sounds like a good way of attracting attendees to an event. "There will be a 5/5 log present at this event!"

[+Planet]

Maybe you don't see how they violate one specific written guideline, but they would be a slap in the face of all that is good about geocaching. I would think a whole less of cachers who joined in and they would lose some respect.

Cache listing guidelines also affect cache finding. It would be like adding an agenda to a cache after publication.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's considered "Couch Potato Caching". Just because the couch is set up at an event, rather than home, doesn't change anything. There have been several pocket caches listings locked as well.

 

So you are asking a theoretical question of whether an event hosting "Couch Potato Caching" and pocket caches would be listed? And risking having the caches archived and locked?

 

Perhaps it would be easier to debate the leadership of Germany during WW2...

[+Glenn]

Do we really need a guideline to tell us that this wouldn't be right? Do we need a guideline that says that we can't grab all of the local caches, regardless of owner, and bring them to an event? Sometimes common sense has to take effect. Groundspeak shouldn't have to try to regulate and micro manage every single aspect of this activity simply because some of us have too much imagination.

 

This all came about because some guy found an archived cache in the trunk of the used car that he had just bought. I said that he should log it. The OP wants to take that to the nth level by demonstrating that logging that one cache would be equal to moving all of the local caches for the specific reason of logging them at a different location then where they were placed.

 

Do we need a guideline?

Only if it becomes a problem. I don't think most people have a problem with moving a cache to another location for a short time or allow the other people there to sign the log.

 

There needs to be a common consensus before common sense can be applied.

 

I got the idea for RMCs while discussing that topic but this is a different topic and I'd like them to remain separate topics. That is why I started this one instead of trying add conversation to that topic. If you want to discuss the logging of caches found in the trunks of cars, which I conceded is not against the guidelines, then please do so in that topic and not this one. It's just common sense.

[+Glenn]

Maybe you don't see how they violate one specific written guideline, but they would be a slap in the face of all that is good about geocaching. I would think a whole less of cachers who joined in and they would lose some respect.

Cache listing guidelines also affect cache finding. It would be like adding an agenda to a cache after publication.

Why isn't there even some generic guideline to cover this aspect? While there is no guideline that says no armchair caching it is again the guidelines because there is generic guideline saying that you have to sign the log. So it's covered. I can find nothing specific or generic covering pocket caches. Even tho some pocket caches have been locked in the past there is nothing that says, even in a generic way, that caches, archived or otherwise, that aren't at their listed coordinates can't be logged. This leads me to believe that Groundspeak has left that area open for exploration. This exploration of the rules has happened many times before. Sometimes it even produces a new or different aspect to the game and attracts even more people to the hobby.

[4wheelin_fool]

It isn't open to exploration. Listings have been locked for a reason. Stumbling upon a cache not at the proper coords is much different than having them brought to you. Ask your reviewer if you don't believe us.

[+Don_J]

Do we really need a guideline to tell us that this wouldn't be right? Do we need a guideline that says that we can't grab all of the local caches, regardless of owner, and bring them to an event? Sometimes common sense has to take effect. Groundspeak shouldn't have to try to regulate and micro manage every single aspect of this activity simply because some of us have too much imagination.

 

This all came about because some guy found an archived cache in the trunk of the used car that he had just bought. I said that he should log it. The OP wants to take that to the nth level by demonstrating that logging that one cache would be equal to moving all of the local caches for the specific reason of logging them at a different location then where they were placed.

 

Do we need a guideline?

Only if it becomes a problem. I don't think most people have a problem with moving a cache to another location for a short time or allow the other people there to sign the log.

 

There needs to be a common consensus before common sense can be applied.

 

I got the idea for RMCs while discussing that topic but this is a different topic and I'd like them to remain separate topics. That is why I started this one instead of trying add conversation to that topic. If you want to discuss the logging of caches found in the trunks of cars, which I conceded is not against the guidelines, then please do so in that topic and not this one. It's just common sense.

 

Up thread you mentioned the case of bringing a cache 100' to the trail so that the caching group could sign the log. I think that this is the type of thing that most would not have a problem with. This is much different than taking a cache out of service for a day and relocating it so others that are not even looking for it can sign the log, and claim a find online. As long as there was not a particular physical challenge involved in grabbing a cache, I wouldn't have a problem with a fellow cacher bringing a cache a short distance out of the brush. Our hiking groups are usually pretty large and there is no reason for 20 geocachers to be making crop circles off the trail. Taking that same cache to the local pizza parlor for a Saturday night event is completely different.

[+Don_J]

Maybe you don't see how they violate one specific written guideline, but they would be a slap in the face of all that is good about geocaching. I would think a whole less of cachers who joined in and they would lose some respect.

Cache listing guidelines also affect cache finding. It would be like adding an agenda to a cache after publication.

Why isn't there even some generic guideline to cover this aspect? While there is no guideline that says no armchair caching it is again the guidelines because there is generic guideline saying that you have to sign the log. So it's covered. I can find nothing specific or generic covering pocket caches. Even tho some pocket caches have been locked in the past there is nothing that says, even in a generic way, that caches, archived or otherwise, that aren't at their listed coordinates can't be logged. This leads me to believe that Groundspeak has left that area open for exploration. This exploration of the rules has happened many times before. Sometimes it even produces a new or different aspect to the game and attracts even more people to the hobby.

 

I think that Groundspeak leaves these things open so that those who find themselves in unique situation will not be excluded from logging caches. I don't think that they ever intend for people to intentionally create unique situations for the express purpose of logging geocaches online. That crosses the line from exploration to exploitation.

[+Sol seaker]

There's a lot of great replies here, including many guidelines that the tread owner did not seem to take into account when replying.

I think the best though is the common sense guideline, or gasoline dousing guideline.

 

I would also have to add the "fun" guideline.

The fun in geocaching is in finding them.

That would be like being someone who runs marathons for fun, and just walking over the finishline without running the race. Sure its easier, but what fun is it? Where's th sport in it?

 

I also.have to argue that the odds of even half the caches making it back to where.they were originally is very slim.

 

I would delete logs on my caches done at any such event. That is not a find.

I suspect Groundspeak would let my deletions stand. It is not a find.

[+Sol seaker]

Maybe you don't see how they violate one specific written guideline, but they would be a slap in the face of all that is good about geocaching. I would think a whole less of cachers who joined in and they would lose some respect.

Cache listing guidelines also affect cache finding. It would be like adding an agenda to a cache after publication.

Why isn't there even some generic guideline to cover this aspect? While there is no guideline that says no armchair caching it is again the guidelines because there is generic guideline saying that you have to sign the log. So it's covered. I can find nothing specific or generic covering pocket caches. Even tho some pocket caches have been locked in the past there is nothing that says, even in a generic way, that caches, archived or otherwise, that aren't at their listed coordinates can't be logged. This leads me to believe that Groundspeak has left that area open for exploration. This exploration of the rules has happened many times before. Sometimes it even produces a new or different aspect to the game and attracts even more people to the hobby.

 

I think that Groundspeak leaves these things open so that those who find themselves in unique situation will not be excluded from logging caches. I don't think that they ever intend for people to intentionally create unique situations for the express purpose of logging geocaches online. That crosses the line from exploration to exploitation.

 

I think Groundspeak leaves it open because there is no way in...heck they can cover every possible thing.

Just like, as someone suggested, they don't cover dousing every cache you find in gas and igniting it.

 

Some things have got to be left for common sense.

There are many guidelines here people have quoted that are close enough to fill in the blanks with some common sense.

 

If I deleted.your log on my cache for doing that, I think Groundspeak would let it stand.

[+Sol seaker]

Do we really need a guideline to tell us that this wouldn't be right? Do we need a guideline that says that we can't grab all of the local caches, regardless of owner, and bring them to an event? Sometimes common sense has to take effect. Groundspeak shouldn't have to try to regulate and micro manage every single aspect of this activity simply because some of us have too much imagination.

 

This all came about because some guy found an archived cache in the trunk of the used car that he had just bought. I said that he should log it. The OP wants to take that to the nth level by demonstrating that logging that one cache would be equal to moving all of the local caches for the specific reason of logging them at a different location then where they were placed.

 

Do we need a guideline?

Only if it becomes a problem. I don't think most people have a problem with moving a cache to another location for a short time or allow the other people there to sign the log.

 

There needs to be a common consensus before common sense can be applied.

 

I got the idea for RMCs while discussing that topic but this is a different topic and I'd like them to remain separate topics. That is why I started this one instead of trying add conversation to that topic. If you want to discuss the logging of caches found in the trunks of cars, which I conceded is not against the guidelines, then please do so in that topic and not this one. It's just common sense.

 

Up thread you mentioned the case of bringing a cache 100' to the trail so that the caching group could sign the log. I think that this is the type of thing that most would not have a problem with. This is much different than taking a cache out of service for a day and relocating it so others that are not even looking for it can sign the log, and claim a find online. As long as there was not a particular physical challenge involved in grabbing a cache, I wouldn't have a problem with a fellow cacher bringing a cache a short distance out of the brush. Our hiking groups are usually pretty large and there is no reason for 20 geocachers to be making crop circles off the trail. Taking that same cache to the local pizza parlor for a Saturday night event is completely different.

 

Yes taking it to a different location is different than making it easier to sign in the area it was placed. That is common sense.

But I want to add, it is common among everyone I've cached with for them to want to at least see the location of.where it was hidden before they'll put their name.on it.

 

That's very universal among totally different cachers who have never met. I think that's then called common sense.

 

But there's always going to be someone who ignores common sense. There's no logical argument that can be made for common sense. If you don't get it, or don't have it, there's no explaining it.

[+6NoisyHikers]

There is nothing common about common sense.

 

Just to play Devil's advocate, I think if you were allowed to host an event like this, you would have to get permission from all the cache owners whose caches you wanted to line-up on the picnic table to be signed. Only a "yes, that's okay" would be acceptable. Methinks that the number of caches made available would be so small it wouldn't really be worth hosting such an event...

[+Roman!]

What about mail a cache? We can create groups and mail each other caches to sign, would make it easy to pick up souvenirs and maybe we could get someone to mail out the last APE cache.

 

Of course the bulk of the mail out caches probably should be nanos.

[+Roman!]

There is nothing common about common sense.

 

Just to play Devil's advocate, I think if you were allowed to host an event like this, you would have to get permission from all the cache owners whose caches you wanted to line-up on the picnic table to be signed. Only a "yes, that's okay" would be acceptable. Methinks that the number of caches made available would be so small it wouldn't really be worth hosting such an event...

 

Common sense will be a lot less common now that they have done away with the common cent in Canada, no?

[+The_Incredibles_]

There is nothing common about common sense.

 

Just to play Devil's advocate, I think if you were allowed to host an event like this, you would have to get permission from all the cache owners whose caches you wanted to line-up on the picnic table to be signed. Only a "yes, that's okay" would be acceptable. Methinks that the number of caches made available would be so small it wouldn't really be worth hosting such an event...

 

Common sense will be a lot less common now that they have done away with the common cent in Canada, no?

 

[AZcachemeister]

If I knew in advance what was going to happen, I wouldn't attend.

If I saw this happening after I was already there, I would leave immediately.

 

I'd probably do the same, and it would leave a very bad taste in my mouth about attending any future events and the local geocaching community as well. I might even give up local caching as well on only cache when I'm traveling.

 

What strikes me about the idea of bringing caches to an event to be logged is that the only motivation that I can think of for doing it would be to provide an incentive for people to attend the event. IMHO, that misses the whole point about geo events, as I think events should be about getting a bunch of geocachers together to meet and socialize, not to increase one's find count. I'd be perfectly happy if Attended logs no longer added to our find count.

 

I'm a little confused by this. If the intent of the event was to log pocket caches, I wouldn't attend, however, if I was at an event and someone started passing around a cache, I'd just shake my head. Getting up and leaving seems a bit silly. I'm not going to allow the actions of a few to effect my ability to have a good time.

 

Well, no...

But if the event host suddenly announced it was time to log 'a group' of caches from 'around the area', I would suddenly find myself not wanting to be associated with that event.

 

Given that 'cache machines' can be un-published events, I don't think TPTB or even the cache owners could really 'legally' prevent something like this.

 

If you do one though, please make sure there are caches with D/T ratings to fill in my Fizzy grid.

[+Klatch]

What are your thoughts about having an event where the organizers collect geocaches around a specific location. Take them to the event location. Make the logs available for signing by the attendees. Then replace the caches once the event is over. It's a cache machine where the caches come to you. A reverse cache machine.

 

A debate in another topic get me thinking about this possibility when I reviewed the current finding guidelines. The only requirement appears to be signing the log.

I find myself wondering if the OP is just curious about our opinion or is actually considering holding such an event.

[AZcachemeister]

Unfortunately they don't seem consistent and that's where the gray areas come in.

 

AMEN to that.

DRIVE LIKE HELL...until the cops come after you.